Science makes my artistic brain uneasy — including the methods involved in calculating geographic centres. Methods, plural, because there are numerous ways to do it and thus no definitive answers. That at least makes sense as I further ponder the question: just how would you establish the centre of a country? And where to first place the borders when island speckled coastlines or, more problematically, overseas territories are concerned?
The most popular measure involves representing the specified area as a two-dimensional shape and using that to work out the ‘centroid’ position — in layman’s terms, the point wherein a cardboard cut-out of the country will perfectly balance on a fine tip. Offshore isles are usually included, but not far-flung territories. In America’s case, the 1918 centroid models which defined a ten or 20-mile radius around Lebanon were completely undone four decades later when Hawaii and Alaska joined the Union. Include it, and we’re not in Kansas anymore; Belle Fourche, South Dakota — 430 miles northwest — is now the midpoint; insist on a mainland US centre, however, and Lebanon retains its title.
As if all that isn’t ambiguity enough, there are other concerns — ought topography to be reflected in that two-dimensional shape? Should bodies of water be weightless holes or filled in? — and alternative methods. Perhaps the centre of a country should simply be the point furthest from the sea? Or from high-tide marks? Maybe it occurs at the intersection of the longest-possible north-south axis? Every approach produces wildly different results (another supposed centre for Great Britain lies in fields northeast of Northcote, near Whalley), and that’s before one considers shifting boundaries due to erosion.