Talk:Hume and Hovell expedition
|WikiProject Australia / History of exploration / Riverina||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hume and Hovell expedition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
I will write a longer account of the expedition when I get time. AC
I just put a note here but a vandal deleted it, that the account on the article page is wrong. I also put the map is wrong. I just looked at the map more closely. It is actually correct but has a bit chopped out of it, near the 1824 note. Anyone looking at this map if you check, will see that it shows the southern route, then return journeys. An area at the start of the southern journey has been erased.
Also, the rivers are marked wrongly if anyone tallies them from the Tumut River, south. The mountain range to the south west of the Tumut R is the Muniong Range that contains Mt Yaven.
Lots of times maps were made by peopel in Sydney/Melb who had no idea of the country inland especially in 1824, so easy to get lost.
NSWNP acknowledge that they have marked H and Hs route incorrectly. The journals are correct just everyone reads them incorrectly, then decides themselves where the places are. Adam , if you check with NP at Tumut they will verify this. Thanks for the map. I had seen it previously but not enlarged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) .
This will make the Ovens on the map, todays Murray. Charles Sturt in his 1838 expedition identified the Hume as a rive rthat comes off the Murrumbidgee. On this map it looks like Yaven Ck but I suspect its the creek near Humula and have someone there sussign that out for me. There was a marked (with Hovells initials) tree on Humula Station (now gone).
What we call creeks these days ran like rivers in the 1820s because of the snow melt and no dams. Online somewhere is a naming protocol for whether streams are streams, brooks, rivers, rivlets, etc from UK geo placenmaes trad from the 1700/1800s. Puts stuf fin context especially re aussie explorers. Creek is an American Indian word. It might not be online. It might be on database. Makes a person wonder where the Tumut (Dumot R) was as it has other names including well known as The Medway, (from Medway in UK and migration from that Shire by Lucas' et all re Norfolk Is, then to VDL then across to SE Oz). Above Humula is Umbutee (Dumot) the songman. I wonder also if its anything to do with Dumut D'Urville[sic] given the area is Terre Napoleon. Who'd know. That area was full of slaves so hidden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) .
Whatever, the Hume River is not the previous name of the Murray River. 'They' moved a thing or two to hide stuff but also re the carve up just where the NSW/Vic border actually wa sin 1851. NSW wanted the riverina. The UK decreed the border had to be on south bank of the Murrumbidgee, so guess what the NSW aussies did. (They moved where things were so they fitted stuff into how the UK demanded.) Murrum/murray/murri means path so easy to say it or just call it, The River. Beeja that bidgee came from is an Indigenous Elder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) .
Good clue when reading the journals is some of the vegetation. Bog oaks neve rgrew along the Murray. I know the route though so easy to find it in the journals. Likewise with Sturt which is wrong on the map. Sturt went by land along the north side of the river well away from the river, from Gundagai to Narrandera,(cutting out that bend in the river), where he then put his boat into the river. No one would tow a really heavy boat carriage along the river bank between Gundagai and Narrandera as they would bog. This is verifed in Sturts 1838 journal where he notes 1838 was the first time he had travelled along the actual river to the immediate south of Gundagai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) .
I know Maribyrnong River and Jacksons Creek really well. They didnt go that way. I know Westernport very well. I think Hovell was correct. Hume and Hovell had a grand row. Stuff had to be moved to hide other stuff. Would make a book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) .
- I was just reading copies of the original documents of when the four towns (Gundgaai, Albury, Wangaratta and Seymour) were proposed to be established, and were. Only four rivers are noted by the Gov to match the four towns.
In order I'd presume: The Murray, The Ovens, Violet Creek and The Goulburn. (State Reocrds of NSW, Colonial Secretary's Letters Received, 4/2476.1. Signed by GG, (George Gipps) June 28, 1838. Two pages over it gives the desirded number of mounted police at these places/new towns to be. Murray 12 (3 mounted, 9 infantry), Ovens 5 (5,0), Violet Creek 5 (5,0), Goulburn 12 (3, 9). Given that order it might be assumed that the two places with 12 were at either end and the two with les spolice, in the middle to be supplemented by the next towns as required?.
'Broken River' is referred to a lot. The only one of all of them I know that broke in that sense, is the one I am on and it did that big time.
Humula Stn is on Umbango Creek so the carved tree was in the middle of that creek. (The is a photo of a tree with H and H initals on it, in Vic Archives). It doesnt matter if the former name we call the murray by these days wasnt the hume, or if the murri is the murrim.beeja. What matters is that stuff has obviously been moved. Easy to read stuff wrong if 100 others did it previously either deliberately or by accident. Emporers new clothes stuff.
- Ms Anon, please don't refer to other good faith editors as vandals. This is easily interpreted as a personal attack and will lead to your being blocked again. This is the last warning I am going to give you about calling other editors names. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am avoiding discussion with ^^^^^ poster as they seem to want to start fights, attack me, revert and carry on with othe really inappropriate stuff for reasons best known tot hemselves but not backed up by fact, so this is the last time I will make comment on this discussion page the same as I have had to exit the gundagai discussion page because of the same reason. Such harassment as above is how people probably get pushed out of contributing to wik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) .
Types of vandalism
"Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit."
What is the authority for the maps with the dates on them that give the progression og H and H's journey?
That has not been given.
The maps are very very wrong.
The dates may be correct, but the dates have then been applied to geographic freatures so its that match up I am querying.
I notice that Alan Andrews has been cited below the article. I have only read two of Alans books, (one I have here) and he is one very confused puppy. If he knew what I knew (cited fully and the core document from which a lot of incorrect stuff has been incorrectly misinterpreted), and whispered it to him, he'd rewrite all his books.
H & H followed the usual path down the Murrumbidgee crossing below Gundagai. I have that documented. However, they didnt cross the Murrumbidgee just once. Sturt crossed it twice near Gundagai. So did H and H. There was no track possible going the way that is noted on the article page, dated maps for the commencement of the journey for very very good reasons. Remember also that H and H "left Mr Hume's Station" <<<< at Yass, after the went on a side trip of one day to look at lake George. They went back to Yas safter the trip to Lake George though. Well, to do that they also didnt go the way its claimed as they needed to leaves from Humes place on the main part of the expedition, not Appin though they began at Appin. They then left the river at somewhere (NP arch has marked it as Gundagai but it would be Gunnong Juguawh- I think Andrews misnamed that same place too thinking it was Gunning - there was no Gundagai in 1824). There was also no Gunning. Andrews named it that in 1838 though re Strez. Everywhere in oz that starts with G on a hard to read archived filmed historical document, is Gundagai? No it isnt. That is the same route that Sturt took in company with one of Humes men, five years later and it still wasnt Gundagai then. It wasnt Gundgaai till 1838. Better to know the old trackways then to get confused by names of towns that didnt even exist in those days. Whatever, I know I am right and NP know it too so I guess everyone else can not know it until another Alan Andrews writes the correct version. Its always been common knowledge in Gundagai that H and H crossed south of Gundagai no matter what is in the books, but then evidence of where the (initially deliberate I reckon) error came from, was found. We are only 182 years post 1824. That isnt that long in a small town with many of the same families here from that era, and their recollections. Its core contact stuff so as long as some know, in 1000 years it may still be known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) .
Humes journal is online. So is Sturts to check where they left the Murrumbeeja pre Gundgaai, (meaning they were on the right hand bank and headed inland away from the river, (at Gunnong Juguawh at Jugiong). Called 'Underliga' by Sturt. That property is still owned by the same family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) .
My dates from Hovells journal are 23rd Oct to 16th Nov. Note the Warbys Range near to the Mitta Mitta. Warby was near Coolac, not down there. If Warbys Range isnt relevant to the year 1824, why did Andrews include the warby name? I will get Andrews book and read it. He is totally lost in any of the books of his that I have read though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) .
Hav eordered Andrews book so should have it by Tues. Humes journal is online at Project Gutenberg. I have most of Hovells journal.
I would not use Andrews book as a cite. He got lost in it as he did in the Kosciuszko book also.
Also, Hume and Hovel passed through 'Camden Forest' about 20 mile s before crossing over the Hume River. Camden Forest is marked on some of the old maps. Its well east of Holbrook. I need to go find my camden forest maps and have a look.
H and H were at Gundagai on 28th Oct. and a few days either side. They note unique geo features here that Sturt also noted. That feature was then given a name from classical Greece/Rome or somewhere, that is still in use today. They seem to have done what Sturt later did, (which is not suprising given Sturt went partly where H and H had, guided by Henry Angel who was on both trips). There was a particular reason for that bit of a winding path that both H and H, then later, Sturt, took.
(The only place Warby moved to later also was VDL. He didnt move to Vic re the Whaby Range. He stole some of Humes cattle it was claimed so got a boat ride south.) This Warby was the g.g.uncle or something, of Ken Warby/Whaby the land/water speed ace.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
Was talking to the gov arch re this today so gave them my info. that matched more or less their 'crossed south of Gundagai' info though they were a bit out, (by a week). People misread H and Hs journal because they have no idea what is what in it. Those who decide Andrews 1977 or whenever version is the way it was are probably way, way off beam, but I havent read Andrews book yet but will. I have read bits of Andrews in the Kosciuszko book. I have only read Hovells original journal and Humes original journal, i.e. the core documents. Page 39 in Andrews Kosciuszko book re the Bogongs, has them in the wrong place for starters. Seems he has read Jo Floods book re that. Andrews must not work of core documents (primary sources). He then went east, not west, totally contrary to what Hume and Hovells journals say. In other words, where Andrews first runs into the word 'Dumot' he decides they are at Dumot, (Tumut). That means the Mummumbidgee is at Kangaroo Island, which is correct - but then again it isnt as Gundagai is in Murrumbidgee, as is Darlington Point, (Murrumbidgee Council). Duh! Hume may have the Dumot misplaced also as he was heading up Yacki Yacki Creek when he gave it the name 'Dumot' thogh he was heading towards Umbutee. This is the old road up into the mountains. Roads go where they do these days for engineering reasons. In the 1820s they went where mobs cattle could cross easiest. These days mobs cattle journey down mainly straight line highways in B-doubles, not on the hoof. In the 1830s Europeans who came through southern nsw did so mainly in Oct-Jan for a certain reason. The XPT goes slow in summer and has it sown summer timetable for another reason.
Anyone writing up H and Hs journey has to role play, and turn into a bovine to go the right route. Imagine putting a mob of cattle across the Murrumbidgee where they cross that river these days but the steaks not being in a truck. There would be total mayhem, many dead cattle and probably a couple of dead horses and humans and the rest of the cattle, stampdeing south. Imagine trying to drive a mob of cattle through the MCG when the cricket is on. Chaos.
The Hume Highway hides the earlier roads that had all these lovely twists and turns in it around really interesting things.
I thought H and H misidentified where they ended up, because of an island, drawn by Grimes in 1803?
It is very possible u know that Grimes was lost, not drawing what he thought he was drawing or what it is claimed he drew. I have noticed a discrepency in the Oz maps and the French ones. They locked Flinders up also didnt they. Bill Buckley was certainly lost, or was he. Oh there was a grande ol' time happenin in south oz (Terre Napoleon) for a few years.
I got th ehume and Hovell book. It is not what i thought. I will have to buy it to read it thoriughly as its 388 pages. Whatever, they certainly came through Gundgaai so that bit is right. Andrews gets totally lost re the Tumtu River an dother stuff near there.
Something happened re their destination (as claimed). I wonder if ther ewasnt another reason. Also I wonde rif they ende dup at The Entrnce rather than Port Phillip or Westernport, but havent read that apr tof t it thorughly and maybe wont a smor eintereste din here, and the Hume River location as Sturt (1838) says its elsewhere in his 'Origin of the Hume Where It Issues From the Hilly Districts' paper. I have given the Riverina Archives that cite so they may get the paper from the UK. I also wonde rif their instruments werent out. The explorers all seem to say they broke their instruments at Gundagai. Maybe they did but maybe they went into other time. There are also a couple of large lodes of lead aroudn here so that affected bearings. I'd nead to learn colonial surveying better to understand it though as only have basic skills in it.
I'd leave it for Victorians to work out where H and H went down there but the next couple of years will sort this other out. Am talking to a couple of academics re some stuff re it so not immediately.
The creek that is referred to as the main route to the Lachlan and as flowing storongly from the NW to Murrumbidgee, is Hoolihans Ck. Its on the old maps. Not sure what it is called these days. Maybe Billabong Creek.
Exams then a holiday so am disappearing and will buy my own copy of this book while away. Its not an easy one to write a short account off but there are a couple of abridged versions that were published in the Gazette, in it one Humes and then another is Hovells abridged account published somewhere. The maps in the book are useless. So are most of the pics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
OK, before I go I worked out what this H and H stuf fis about but wont be putting it here. Its pretty simple Adam but people get used to acdcxepting garbage other shave claimed previously, so it gets perpetuated. that sort of of error suits wik though.
There is a bit of a hint in an artcle The Age have online (somewhere re their 150th birthday celebrations re Port Phillip), but more than that also. i got some content from NL yesterday that established what I realised last week. I dont give info away, and not this stuff as prefer to hand it on to the relevant unis plus gov depts who work with this stuff rather than posting it on this looney place. This core aussie historical info is worth better than beign treated with the disrespect so rampant among many dipsticks here. As an australin historian though it is easy to find so you should be able to if I can, but you need to get over this believing other versions of the story and go back to the core sources. If you are a uni grad surely they taught you that. Also, dont go drawing maps. You werent on that expedition so there is nil to back your map up. You have left off all the really important stuff that verifies what is what anyway. This stuff re H and H has ended up as more of my stuff I whisper to selected somes.
If you locate The Age article, (it isnt hard to find I just found The Age 150 celebration thing, then put in Port Phillip), you will realise there is more to the south of oz at contact then is openly known. There is a heap more than what is in that Age article though,and its this stuff I do. Tips over a lot of the comic book stuff re Oz history but the comic book stuff can stay on wik as that is what suits wik and lets fill the heads of the Thatchers of this world with more waffle to keep them thinking they are the ants pants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) .
I thought I had better find The Age article as I have realised how inept some are who claim they are so clever. I am sure you arent but others are. Dont mind my ironic paradoxs. This is Oz and its best way to do Oz history. I use them often. See below.
http://150.theage.com.au/view_bestofarticle.asp?straction=update&inttype=1&intid=1210 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
Cite the refences you use as there is stuff all over, not cited. people with uni quals know better than most that isnt on.
Also, get rid of the map on the article page. Its all wrong. Where is 35.00E and 148.00S? You need to work off the orignal map for the expedition done by Hume, not on versions that you or others make up that are nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) .
These maps are inaccurate, so far as the Tatong/Fern Hills camping place is depicted, November 27th 1824. The monument, and the diary, puts them South of Tatong on the Hollands Branch - yet the map here (map 3) shows them in Molyullah on the 27th and Whitegate, North of Tatong, on the 28th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiJoan (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)