Memorial design in the West has been explored in depth (Stevens and Franck, 2016; Williams, 2007), and for landscape architects it presents opportunities and challenges. However, there is little in the English language literature about memorial design in China. How have Chinese designers responded to the commemorative settings of war and disaster? This study will adopt the method of case study to analyse two of the most representative memorials in China: Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall (war) and Tangshan Earthquake Memorial Hall (disaster). Both landscapes have undergone three or four renovations and extensions in the last four decades, demonstrating the practical effects of the Chinese landscape theory. These examples of responses to trauma through memorial landscape interventions are testimonies to the witnesses, victims, abusers, ordinary people, youth and the place where the tragedy took place. This study will explore the reconstruction and expansion of the two memorials under the background of China's policies on memorial landscapes in different periods, as well as their functions of each stage. The research will examine how existing Chinese memorial theories exhibit unique responses at different times in response to the sadness and needs experienced by different users.
Key Words：memorial landscape; memorial language; victims; descriptive; architecture; experence; disaster; memorial hall; landscape development; Chinese memorial; war.
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.
On 22 February 2011，a magnitude Mw 6.3 earthquake occurred with an epicenter located near Lyttelton at about 10km from Christchurch in Canterbury region on the South Island of New Zealand (Figure 1). Since this earthquake occurred in the midst of the aftershock activity which had continued since the 4 September 2010 Darfield Earthquake occurrence, it was considered to be an aftershock of the initial earthquake. Because of the short distance to the city and the shallower depth of the epicenter, this earthquake caused more significant damage to pipelines, traffic facilities, residential houses/properties and multi-story buildings in the central business district than the September 2010 Darfield Earthquake in spite of its smaller earthquake magnitude. Unfortunately, this earthquake resulted in significant number of casualties due to the collapse of multi-story buildings and unreinforced masonry structures in the city center of Christchurch. As of 4 April, 172 casualties were reported and the final death toll is expected to be 181. While it is extremely regrettable that Christchurch suffered a terrible number of victims, civil and geotechnical engineers have this hard-to-find opportunity to learn the response of real ground from two gigantic earthquakes which occurred in less than six months from each other. From geotechnical engineering point of view, it is interesting to discuss the widespread liquefaction in natural sediments, repeated liquefaction within short period and further damage to earth structures which have been damaged in the previous earthquake. Following the earthquake, an intensive geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to capture evidence and perishable data from this event. The team included the following members: Misko Cubrinovski (University of Canterbury, NZ, Team Leader), Susumu Yasuda (Tokyo Denki University, Japan, JGS Team Leader), Rolando Orense (University of Auckland, NZ), Kohji Tokimatsu (Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan), Ryosuke Uzuoka (Tokushima University, Japan), Takashi Kiyota (University of Tokyo, Japan), Yasuyo Hosono (Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan) and Suguru Yamada (University of Tokyo, Japan).
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.
