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).
