We’ll never know why the thirteen people whose corpses were discovered in Pompeii’s Garden of the Fugitives hadn’t fled the city with the majority of the population when Vesuvius turned deadly in AD79. But surely, thanks to 21st century technology, we know just about everything there is to know about the experiences of the people who went through the Canterbury Earthquakes. Or has the ubiquity of digital technology, combined with seemingly massive online information flows and archives, created a false sense that Canterbury’s earthquake stories, images and media are being secured for posterity? In this paper Paul Millar makes reference to issues experienced while creating the CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive (www.ceismic.org.nz) to argue that rather than having preserved all the information needed to fully inform recovery, the record of the Canterbury earthquakes’ impacts, and the subsequent response, is incomplete and unrepresentative. While CEISMIC has collected and curated over a quarter of a million earthquake-related items, Millar is deeply concerned about the material being lost. Like Pompeii, this disaster has its nameless, faceless, silenced victims; people whose stories must be heard, and whose issues must be addressed, if recovery is to be meaningful.
When a tragedy occurs of local or national scale throughout the world a memorial is often built to remember the victims, and to keep the tragedy fresh in the minds of generations with the conviction that this must not be repeated. Memorials to commemorate natural disasters very to the objective of a human induced tragedy in that future catastrophic events that affect the lives and livelihood of many citizens are sure to reoccur in countries that are geographically pre-disposed to the ravages of nature. This thesis examines memorial sites as case studies in New Zealand and Japan to explore the differences in how these two countries memorialise earthquakes, and tsunamis in the case of Japan, and whether there are lessons that each could learn from each other. In so doing, it draws largely on scholarly literature written about memorials commemorating war as little is written on memorials that respond to natural disasters. Visited case sites in both countries are analysed through multiple qualitative research methods with a broad view of what constitutes a memorial when the landscape is changed by the devastation of a natural disaster. How communities prepare for future events through changes in planning legislation, large scale infrastructure, tourism and preparedness for personal safety are issues addressed from the perspective of landscape architecture through spatial commemorative places. The intentions and meanings of memorials may differ but in the case of a memorial of natural disaster there is a clear message that is common to all. To reduce the severity of the number of deaths and level of destruction, education and preparedness for future events is a key aim of memorials and museums.
