GELIBOLU YARIMADASIGALLIPOLIPENINSULA

http

://p

eopl

eus.

blog

spot

.co.

nz/2

011/

07/w

orld

-war

-i-ga

llipo

li-ca

mpa

ign.

htm

l

REMEMBERING GALLIPOLI:

Commemorating the centenary of the Allied landings on the

Gallipoli Peninsula, April 1915

Istanbul Technical University, Turkey and Unitec Institute of Technology, New Zealand

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture 2012 Semester One

LAND 7227 Studio

Group Four: Anna Bish, Rebecca Cray, Heather Docherty, Hailey Gill

REMEMBERING GALLIPOLI:

Front Cover Image Sources:http://5601-newswatch.voxcdn.com/files/2011/05/1_Turkish_company1.jpg

http://www.anzacsite.gov.au/1landing/images/large/ch4_1-2lc.jpg

CONTENTS

PART ONE: SUMMARY OF GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGNTurkish perspective

Allies perspectiveDifferences and similarities

PART TWO: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF GALLIPOLI PENINSULAIntroduction

Land,Social Structure

HeritageEconomy

EcologyClimate

Issues

PART THREE: 20th CENTURY WAR MEMORIALSSummary

TypologiesExisting Anzac/ Gallipoli memorials

Case Studies

PART FOUR: PROPOSITIONIssues and problems

What is appropriate for the design of a war memorial in the 21st-Century? Strategies for design in next part of project

PART FIVE: REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

PART ONE: GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN

The Gallipoli Campaign covers the Canakkale naval battles and Gallipoli land battles that occurred during World War One. While many countries fought in this war, it has become particularly significant to Australians, New Zealanders and the Turkish people.New Zealand and Australia refer to their landing point at Gallipoli as ANZAC cove. Whilst amongst the Turkish it is known as the Battle of Canakkale. For these three countries the Gallipoli Campaign is considered as “a significant event in the self –development of their individual nations.” (Fewster, et al, 2003, page 23)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF WW1

The Gallipoli Campaign stemmed from events that occurred in the year before 1915. The catalyst to the progressions in conflict came on the 28th of June, 1914 when “the heir to the throne of Austria - Hungary was assassinated by a Bosnian student” in Sarajevo, present day Yugoslavia. (Taylor & Cupper, 1989, p. 27) Following the assassination in June 1914 two opposing sides were formed. On one side was Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria, the ‘Axis’. Whilst the other side consisted of British Empire, French, Russia – the ‘Allies’. Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire, which at that time consisted of, but was not limited to, Iraq, western Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, western Libya, Sudan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and parts of Egypt. New Zealand and Australia were part of the British Empire, who also at that time consisted of, but was not limited to; Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, India, Nepal, Greece, Japan, Portugal, Belgium, Romania, Serbia, and Italy. The collaborations on both sides led to the four years of battle in World War One (from now on referred to as WW1).

EARLY WW1

The beginning of WW1 saw months of trench warfare throughout Europe, until “the age-old question of forcing a passage through the Dardanelles was reopened”, (Taylor & Cupper, 1989, p. 28), in August 1914. This was the beginning of what would become the Gallipoli campaign.

THE GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN

The apparent stalemates in Europe trench warfare later led Winston Churchill to organise troops to the Dardanelles and onwards to Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) to either layout peace terms, or take control. He estimated that this would take one month.

Strategic and Political Objectives of the Campaign:

- To capture Constantinople and therefore gain control of the Bosphorus. This would re-open the British supply route to Russia and allow exports to recommence.- To divert the Ottoman Empire and Germany’s attention and supplies away from the Suez Canal and Persian Gulf by creating a new battlefront at the Dardanelles.- To encourage the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire. This would allow control of the Middle East oil fields and Suez Canal.

Organisation and planning by the London War Council led to a naval attack in the Aegean Sea on the 15th of January 1915. Allied fleet fired at the Turkish defence, but were too inaccurate and out of range to be successful. A month later on the 25th of February the Allies had more success in penetrating the Dardanelles. British and French forces landed on the southern side of the Dardanelles at Kumkale, and planned to capture Istanbul in 14 days. The War Council also planned for an Allied assault of the Turkish fort at the Narrows, but failed due to the lack of back up, well armed Turkish soldiers, and well-implemented sea mines. At the time the Allies were unaware that their Turkish opponents were nearly out of ammunition and had many destroyed batteries.

Following these attempts, on March 16, 1915 Allied battleships attempted to enter the Dardanelle Straight, and came under heavy fire from Turkish soldiers on either side. The Allies successfully fired back, until they reached some 13km, down stream. It was here that under water mines caused severe damage and sunk three Allied battleships. By nightfall the Allied navy had admitted defeat, quickly leading the War Council to develop another plan as part of the Gallipoli Campaign. It was decided that if they could not gain control through the Dardanelles Straight they would land ground troops and seize control of Ottoman forts on both sides of the Gallipoli Peninsula from above the Narrows. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, p.g. 46-47).

THE LANDINGS AT GALLIPOLI

Under British command a 75,000-78,000 strong army, mainly comprising of “British, French, Zouaves (Africa), Gurkas and Sheiks (India/Nepal), eastern Jews (Zion Muled Corps), Greeks, Australians and New Zealanders”, set up on the island of Lemnos (some 50km west of the Dardanelles) before initiating their attack. The Turkish troops, who had been deployed by the Ottoman Empire to defend Gallipoli, became aware of the Allied plans and improved their defences along the Gallipoli Peninsula. Mustafa Kemal, a notable Turkish figure and commander of the 19th

SUMMARY OF THE GALLIPOLI CAMPAIGN

Division initiated these preparations which were stationed at Bigali.The Allies had “planned to land simultaneously along the coast in three places” places, Kabatepe – Ariburnu (ANZACS), Ilyasbaba Burnu (Helles) – Seddulbahir (British Forces) and Kumkale (French). (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, p.g. 47). The French were instructed to land on the opposite side of the Dardanelles in order to distract the Turkish. Due to poor British planning, inaccurate maps, and the underestimation of the Turkish defence, these landings did not go to plan.

ANZAC DAY

Before dawn on April 25th 1915, the Allied fleets headed towards Gallipoli under the cover of darkness. Unknown to them, the Turkish had scouted the Allied ships on the horizon and alerted their soldiers. By the time the ANZACS, French and British forces were near land the Turks were well and truly prepared. The ANZACS landed before dawn, 1-2km north of their anticipated destination. Upon nearing the shore, the Turks exposed the ANZAC boats with spotlights and fired. ANZAC guns and ammunition were on separate ships, proving to be a deadly set back. Many ANZAC soldiers were hit on their way to shore, with some drowning due to the water depth and weight of their packs. Those who made it ashore found that they had landed at the foot of treacherous cliffs instead of gentle terrain they expected and they attempted to push the Turks back. The ANZACS were unsuccessful at this being “beaten back by topography and the overpowering position of the Turks.”

At the same time other British troops attempted to land at five different beaches, but were opposed by Turkish fire from the clifftops above. They eventually managed to land at Seddulbahir but were in trouble. The French troops landed successfully at Kumkale, capturing it, but within 24hrs were forced to withdraw to support the British at Helles/ Seddulbahir.

The disconnection of Allied troops spread over several beaches caused huge losses.

Back on the ridges above Anzac Cove, Mustafa Kemal realised the importance of protecting Chunuk Bair (Conkbaiyiri) and Çimen Tepe (Hill 971) and ordered reinforcements there, while maintaining the line at what would become known as Anzac Cove. Over the next three days the ANZACS fought on minimal water and food under unclear instructions and leadership. An evacuation on troops was proposed and rejected with hopes that the British would send reinforcements from Helles. ANZAC soldiers were ordered to dig in and create trenches similar to the Turkish ones which already ringed the upper ridges.

Massive counter-attacks from the Turks and strong defence from the Allies earlier in May caused heavy losses on the Turkish side, leaving thousands dead in what was unclaimed land. The stench of decaying bodies was causing soldiers on both sides to vomit. The battles continued until a ceasefire was called for nine hours on the 24th of May. During the nine hours both sides buried their dead, with respectful relationships and acts of kindness being recorded between the Turks and Anzacs.

Near the end of May a deadlock arose, a repeat of the European trench warfare months earlier. The Turkish side were being steadily reinforced through supply lines between Germany and the Gallipoli Peninsula. However the ANZACS, were not, and throughout June and July the British front at Helles was also seeing no change. The Allies new focus became Anzac Cove. The ANZACS planned to head north and surround the Turks from behind, seizing Chunuk Bair simultaneously, whilst the British were to land at Suvla Bay to reinforce the attack.

The Anzacs managed to make progress and gain control of Turkish outposts, however Kemal foresaw these attacks and managed to successfully defend against the invasions. Thousands on both sides were subsequently killed.A series of attacks and counter-attacks continued until the 10th August, when Kemal successfully forced the Allies to retreat from Chunuk Bair back down the slopes. Kemal himself was hit in the chest, but was lucky to be saved by his pocket watch. The Turks now commemorate this battle as ‘Anafartalar Victory Day’

On the 21 August the Allies made their last effort to capture from Suvla but failedAnd later in November severe blizzards and snow further increased both sides’ casualties.

On the 7th of December 1915 the London War Committee made the call to evacuate all the Allied soldiers from the Gallipoli Peninsula. By the 19th of December the ANZACS had left their posts and later the Southern Peninsula (Helles) was abandoned by British and French troops on the 9th of January 1916, marking the official end of the Gallipoli Campaign. Some 35,000 c. men were successfully evacuated as the Turks failed to recognise their retreat.

The Gallipoli Campaign has since become known for its contradictions. A short 8-month period, global involvement within a small battle-zone, and yet the casualties reached 500,000. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, p.g. 46). Among the dead were 2721 young New Zealanders, about a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula and over 8500 Australians. (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2011).

The end of WW1 later led to unrest and the Turkish War of Independence 1919-1923. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, p.g. 46).

(Top Left) Highlighting key Allied landing points and Turkish set up points(Bottom Middle & Right) Showing the Naval points of interest. Sea mines, fortresses etc.

TURKISH PERSPECTIVE

During the Battle of Canakkale (the Gallipoli Campaign) the Turkish were part of a multinational Ottoman Empire, which was full of internal conflict. The starting of the ‘Young Turk’ movement in 1908 fuelled political and economic for several years. On top of internal unrest, the Ottoman Empire had also fought in three other wars in the three years before they entering WW1 in 1914. (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2010). The crumbling Ottoman Empire entered World War One in need of German support to enable them to fight alongside Germany and Austro- Hungary.

MUSTAFA KEMAL

Kemal was appointed to organize the 19th Division in Tekirdag during the Gallipoli Campaign, and it was here that he rose to “prominence as a military leader.” (Turkish Cultural Center Manhattan, n.d.)

After the successful defence of British and French troops from the Dardanelles, Kemal realised Allied troops would soon attempt to land on the shores of Gallipoli. He ordered his troops to spread alongside the Gallipoli coastline and called in reinforcements. Kemal and his men were positioned at Ariburnu now known as Anzak Koyu (Anzac Cove). The success of his strategy promptly promoted him to colonel.

During his time in Gallipoli Mustafa Kemal was hit by a bullet in the chest as he stood up between the Turk and ANZAC lines. His pocket watch deflected it, saving his life, and he carried on walking to the British line. Kemal was forthright in his instructions and famously told his soldiers “I do not order you to attack, I order you to die”, (TurkishPress.com, 2009) This mindset changed the way the Gallipoli Campaign was fought. The Turkish successfully defended their country in the Battle of Canakkale, however a high price was paid with approximately 253,000 Turkish soldiers dead. (TurkishPress.com, 2009).

Immediately after WW1 the Ottoman Empire’s internal conflict came to a head, with Mustafa Kemal at the forefront. The Turkish nation wanted to be free of the Ottoman Empire. In May 1919 Mustafa Kemal, who had become known by the Turks as Ataturk (the father of Turks), and friends launched the War of Independence. This began Turkey another four years of war between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. In 1923 Ataturk’s campaign was successful and a new government emerged under his leadership. Ataturk died on November 10th 1938 at 9.05am. His passing is commemorated every year and holds a significant place in the Turkish heart. (Turkish Cultural Center Manhattan, n.d.).

TURKISH COMMEMORATIONS

Essentially the Battle of Canakkale was in the middle of a decade of fighting for the Turks, and at the time the most important and celebrated event that had happened in Gallipoli was the emergence of Mustafa Kemal. The events that happened after the World War One held more significance to the Turks in the following years, however more recently it seems that the Turks now commemorate the Battle of Canakkale for reasons similar to our own – loss. The Turkish War of Independence was at the time more culturally important, and it is not until recently that the Battle of Canakkale has been commemorated.

However immediately after the war, and even whilst the war was still occurring, the Turkish, were open and welcoming of ANZAC cemeteries and memorials.

The Turkish president, Abdullah Gul has said “the Battle of Canakkale was the first and sole example that nations who came across each other in battle fields could establish friendship in the future,” and that this was largely down to “a relationship based on respect”. (TurkishPress.com, 2009).

The Turkish have embraced the ANZAC memorials and the thousands of New Zealanders and Australians that come every year to commemorate the April 25th landing. They have shared their land with us, and maintained the land rather than developing it. Where erosion is occurring they have taken measures to slow and stop damage, a thoughtful act in protecting ANZAC history as well as their own. Turkish and New Zealand memorial sites are sharedand it is this openness which demonstrates a common past; our soldiers were all their to protect their families, friends and their land.

THE PREPARATIONS

Shortly after Britain declared war on Germany, New Zealand troops were called to prepare, bringing excitement and honour to the males who enlisted, and envy to those unable to join (Scott, 2009, p.15). After brief military training the main body of men left New Zealand on October 16th, 1914. By the end of 1914 approximately “207,000 men between the ages of 20 and 40 in New Zealand... excluding the Maori population”(Scott, 2009, p.15) had left New Zealand to join the war. Initially there were strict regulations to enlist, these included (but were not limited to) - age, height (between 5’6 and 6’), and condition of teeth. These regulations gradually softened over the period of war, as more men were needed. Due to the age and sheer amount of men that enlisted and went off to war, the gap left in society throughout New Zealand was huge. Friends and family left together, neighbours and teammates. Such a wide generation of boys enlisted that entire rugby and cricket teams left. Very quickly WW1 started to “define the … social and economic character,” of New Zealand. (Scott, 2009, p.11)

Large events were held to send off the soldiers, as well as to raise money for the war and to promote others to enlist. There was an “expansive spirit of generosity and openness,” (Scott, 2009, p.27), displayed in communities all over New Zealand. Towns throughout New Zealand pulled together with people donating money, horses and produce. In Otago it was said, “the war had brought the wider community together, even from the outset, as the patriotic committees show, local differences did not break down because of it. But some rifts were healed.” (Scott, 2009, p.24)

THE REALITIES OF WAR

When the time arose for New Zealand soldiers to depart New Zealand there were plenty if emotional goodbyes. Family and friends crowded the ports at this tense and emotional time. Many were anxious to locate and catch the eye of their loved ones and wave good-bye. For too many this good-bye would be the last.

For the New Zealand soldiers who had left, the feelings of excitement quickly turned to numbness upon reaching their destination. One New Zealand soldier wrote as they approached and landed at ANZAC Cove, he could not “recall any sense of feeling at this stage, like the majority of troops new to action we just felt numb. There were many wounded lying in rows on the beach waiting to be taken off while there were other clusters of still forms sometimes covered by a blanket that told their own story.” (John Stuart Skinner op.cit/Scott, 2009, p.67). It soon became clear to the Anzac soldiers that the planning behind the attack was poor and many mistakes had been made. Soldiers were soon writing “For those who plan attacks one would think that a word with those who had to carry them out, plus a view of the actual ground to be covered would be a distinct advantage, instead of doing their planning from a map.” (Scott, 2009, p.70). Another specifically blamed the British, “…the British often forget that there are two sides to every conflict and have the particular habit of assuming that the actions of their generals are somehow the prime factor in deciding the outcome of any campaign or battle; that the overall situation, tactics and qualities of their enemies are all but irrelevant.’ (Gallipoli (2011) Pg57, pgh2.)

Back in New Zealand, the citizens were given a “false sense of comfort”, (Scott, 2009, p.112), when the first report back gave people reason to believe that the landing had been successful. New Zealand was kept in the dark for at least 3 months after the initial landing of Anzacs at Gallipoli, until eventually the truth started to emerge. Reports of the “special and peculiar dangers which... [were] met,” the “extraordinary difficulties in the way of landing,” and then finally “they suffered severely”. (Scott, 2009, p.109).

During the war the women were described as “the heroines of the home front”, (Scott, 2009, p.117), even children helped out knitting socks for soldiers and donating prize money etc. Women did most of the work, whilst men dug into their pockets to support the war committees. Men who did not enlist but were healthy enough too, were termed a ‘shirker’ and in main cities were often made to wear a white feather. Later in November 1916 conscription was introduced, meaning men were forced to enlist.

HOMEWARD BOUND

Nearing the end of the war, many New Zealand soldiers returned home. Spaces in society were refilled, though far too many gaps remained. Memorials started emerging over the country as well as overseas. Since the Gallipoli Campaign the landing day, April 25th, has always been commemorated. More recently a growing number of people are attending ANZAC services throughout New Zealand. For both New Zealand and Australia the Gallipoli Campaign was the “first major battle undertaken by a joint military formation, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC)” (Turkish Cultural Center Manhattan, n.d.). It is one of the most significant days within New Zealand, commemorating military casualties and veterans in Australia and New Zealand, surpassing Armistice or Remembrance Day. (Turkish Cultural Center Manhattan, n.d.)

WW1 is often considered to mark the birth of national consciousness in both Turkish and New Zealand countries and following the war it was suggested that the idea of being a New Zealander was created out of the war. This was in part due to New Zealand’s gradual separation from Great Britain and it’s Empire following WW1. Others have argued that the concept of a New Zealander existed before the war, and that the pride and honour of being a New Zealander already existed prior to the enlisting of New Zealand soldiers.

ALLIED PERSPECTIVE

HISTORY AND CULTURE

Age is a major difference that exists between the nations of Turkey and New Zealand. Turkish occupation and archaeological evidence dates back to some 12,000 years ago, while in comparison New Zealand’s history is only nearing 1000 years. The Gallipoli Campaign was New Zealand’s first major overseas battle, whilst Turkey had taken part in hundreds of battles, and been controlled under numerous empires. In the 1,584 years since the Byzantine Period from 330 AD to 1914AD fourteen large wars or uprisings occurred, changing empires. It is for these reasons that the Gallipoli Campaign is less significant to the Turkish history as it is for New Zealanders. Even following WW1 Turkey was thrown into the Turkish War of Independence, which continued for four years and was extremely culturally significant.

After the war the impact on both New Zealand and Turkey would have varied. The New Zealand soldiers were free to go home and begin their lives again, but the Turks were lead straight into the war of independence from the Ottoman Empire.

MILITARY BACKGROUNDS

Due to the long history of battles under and for the Ottoman Empire, Turkish soldiers were recruited and trained from a young age so that they were prepared for any war outbreaks. The New Zealand compulsory military training system was set up after the 1909 Defence Act. This meant 14-year-old boys were obligated to join the senior cadets and start a type of military training then. However these systems were not set up to properly cover the entire country, meaning comparatively New Zealand soldiers were incredibly unprepared for the realities of war. (Taylor & Cupper, 1989).

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Very close similarities can be drawn between the Turks and ANZACS in the gaping holes they left in their respective societies. They were both fighting to protect their homeland; the Turks more directly than the ANZACS and were fighting for larger empires. The “loyalty to it [the Empire] was not in question and they [the Anzacs] accepted that it was their duty to defend it,” (Scott, 2009, p.21). The Turks were in exactly the same mindset.

FRIENDSHIP

During the 9hours of Ceasefire on May 4th, 1915, interactions between the Turks and ANZACS have been recorded. These relationships show that both nations were similar in many ways. Had they been there under different circumstances, the soldiers could have grown to be friends – as the countries as a whole have since done.At the time of the ceasefire many friendly meetings were recorded in soldiers diaries. “Anzacs and the Turks met each other face to face. Some shook hands, some exchanged gifts, others brought out photographs of wives and loved ones.” (Scott, 2009, p.71). There were some conflicting reports but these were outweighed by the friendly encounters.

MATESHIP

‘Mateship’ between fellow soldiers “was one of the strongest emotions they [soldiers] felt” (Scott, 2009, p.20). Mateship is the main theme that can be drawn from the diaries of the New Zealand soldiers as it encompassed “the importance to the men of being together” (Scott, 2009, p.20). This no doubt would have been the same for the Turkish soldiers. If we consider that both the ANZACS and Turks were on foreign land it is easy to reflect that both parties would have felt displaced and homesick. It was the concept of mateship, of being with fellow soldiers and looking out for one another that was really important in keeping the men going.

‘A veritable human tragedy, these battles created their share of heroes whose qualities and conduct kindled national consciousness and pride, and spurred respect, understanding and admiration across nationalities.’ (P1/9, The Book)

“They lived similar lives in similar holes in the ground...it can only be to the disparagement of all to suggest that any one of them suffered more than or fought harder than the other. The modern story would be stronger and to the greater credit of all if it suggested neither.” ( Steel, N.2007, p18)

DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

HISTORY AND CULTURE

Age is a major difference that exists between the nations of Turkey and New Zealand. Turkish occupation and archaeological evidence dates back to some 12,000 years ago, while in comparison New Zealand’s history is only nearing 1000 years. The Gallipoli Campaign was New Zealand’s first major overseas battle, whilst Turkey had taken part in hundreds of battles, and been controlled under numerous empires. In the 1,584 years since the Byzantine Period from 330 AD to 1914AD fourteen large wars or uprisings occurred, changing empires. It is for these reasons that the Gallipoli Campaign is less significant to the Turkish history as it is for New Zealanders. Even following WW1 Turkey was thrown into the Turkish War of Independence, which continued for four years and was extremely culturally significant.

After the war the impact on both New Zealand and Turkey would have varied. The New Zealand soldiers were free to go home and begin their lives again, but the Turks were lead straight into the war of independence from the Ottoman Empire.

MILITARY BACKGROUNDS

Due to the long history of battles under and for the Ottoman Empire, Turkish soldiers were recruited and trained from a young age so that they were prepared for any war outbreaks. The New Zealand compulsory military training system was set up after the 1909 Defence Act. This meant 14-year-old boys were obligated to join the senior cadets and start a type of military training then. However these systems were not set up to properly cover the entire country, meaning comparatively New Zealand soldiers were incredibly unprepared for the realities of war. (Taylor & Cupper, 1989).

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Very close similarities can be drawn between the Turks and ANZACS in the gaping holes they left in their respective societies. They were both fighting to protect their homeland; the Turks more directly than the ANZACS and were fighting for larger empires. The “loyalty to it [the Empire] was not in question and they [the Anzacs] accepted that it was their duty to defend it,” (Scott, 2009, p.21). The Turks were in exactly the same mindset.

FRIENDSHIP

During the 9hours of Ceasefire on May 4th, 1915, interactions between the Turks and ANZACS have been recorded. These relationships show that both nations were similar in many ways. Had they been there under different circumstances, the soldiers could have grown to be friends – as the countries as a whole have since done.At the time of the ceasefire many friendly meetings were recorded in soldiers diaries. “Anzacs and the Turks met each other face to face. Some shook hands, some exchanged gifts, others brought out photographs of wives and loved ones.” (Scott, 2009, p.71). There were some conflicting reports but these were outweighed by the friendly encounters.

MATESHIP

‘Mateship’ between fellow soldiers “was one of the strongest emotions they [soldiers] felt” (Scott, 2009, p.20). Mateship is the main theme that can be drawn from the diaries of the New Zealand soldiers as it encompassed “the importance to the men of being together” (Scott, 2009, p.20). This no doubt would have been the same for the Turkish soldiers. If we consider that both the ANZACS and Turks were on foreign land it is easy to reflect that both parties would have felt displaced and homesick. It was the concept of mateship, of being with fellow soldiers and looking out for one another that was really important in keeping the men going.

‘A veritable human tragedy, these battles created their share of heroes whose qualities and conduct kindled national consciousness and pride, and spurred respect, understanding and admiration across nationalities.’ (P1/9, The Book)

“They lived similar lives in similar holes in the ground...it can only be to the disparagement of all to suggest that any one of them suffered more than or fought harder than the other. The modern story would be stronger and to the greater credit of all if it suggested neither.” ( Steel, N.2007, p18)

By the time the campaign ended, over 130,000 men had died: more than 80,000 Turkish soldiers and 44,000 British and French soldiers, including over 8500 Australians.

Amongst the dead were 2721 young New Zealanders, about a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula.

Gallipoli Casualties: Dead Wounded Total

Total Allies 44,092 96,937 141,029 - United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485 - France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000 - Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150 - New Zealand 2,721 4,752 7,473 - British India 1,358 3,421 4,779 - Newfoundland 49 93 142Ottoman empire (estimated) 86,692 164,617 251,309

Total (both sides) 130,784 261,554 392,338 Source: Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs,

15,000 tourists at Anzac Day 90th anniversary commemorations at Anzac Cove, 2005

Source :Gallipoli Centenary Research Project at Macquarie University

MEN DEAD 130,784 WOUNDED 261,554

35,000 Allied troops evacuated, ending the Gallipoli Campaign on 9 January 1916

Source: Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs,

By the time the campaign ended, over 130,000 men had died: more than 80,000 Turkish soldiers and 44,000 British and French soldiers, including over 8500 Australians.

Amongst the dead were 2721 young New Zealanders, about a quarter of those who had landed on the peninsula.

15,000 tourists at Anzac Day 90th anniversary commemorations at Anzac Cove, 2005

Source :Gallipoli Centenary Research Project at Macquarie University

PART TWO: PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION

Geographically, the Gallipoli Peninsula is 5km wide at its narrowest and 80 kilometre strip of land located to the west of Istanbul. To the east lies the adjacent channel – The Dardanelles which connects the Aegean Sea with the Sea of Marmara, and subsequently the Black Sea, via the Bosphorus (the strait that divides the city of Istanbul). These bodies of water are extremely strategic, connecting the major interior seas of Europe and Central Asia, allowing maritime trade flows, economic migration and military control. Istanbul is the dominant influence on the Peninsula, with a population of 10 million and the major economic centre of both the region and country. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, section 1, page 1). The Gallipoli Peninsula Historical National Park is a 33,000 ha (33 square kilometres) area lying at the southwest tip of Gallipoli Peninsula, established as a National Historical Park 1973. It is also on the United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas in recognition of its status as a culturally significant area. “The Gallipoli Peninsula is located at the intersection of three distinct cultures and ecological zones: Southeast Europe (Balkans), Aegean and Anatolia. This implies that it is distant and isolated from the heartland of each cultural formation, and therefore marginal to all. As such, the Peninsula stands as a frontier or a barrier of cultures. During periods of political and economic integration of these cultural and ecological zones however, the Peninsula stands as a meeting place or three – way cultural bridge-head on a major maritime route.” (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997 S1, pg. 4).

LAND

The terrain of the Gallipoli Peninsula covers a huge variation of forms such as beaches, ravines, salt lakes and geomorphic formations. The rugged coastlines and undulating terrain of rolling hills, and small deep valleys are what give this landscape its character and make it distinct both nationally and internationally. It was this hilly terrain that proved to be a defining characteristic of the Gallipoli Campaign, contributing to the failure of the Allies to overcome the Turks at their superior vantage points. In terms of permanent human habitation, this landscape lends itself to construction on constricted alluvial flood plains only. Its position on the North Anatolian fault line also makes this landscape a vulnerable site for occupation. The North Anatolian fault line is still very active and in the past has produced many devastating earthquakes. The trend is for earthquakes to strike west along the fault from the last earthquake site, and it is therefore thought the next earthquake could be centred near Istanbul, north east of the Gallipoli Peninsula. Therefore it must be kept in mind that the Gallipoli landscape and its forms are particularly vulnerable to such natural disasters. Natural erosion due to topography, high wind exposure, and the sea is a particular problem, especially combined with erosion caused by human practices, which adds more pressure to the land suitable for development. Natural environment zones include delicate features such as the salt lake and Gallipoli’s shores, beaches and valleys. The sandy beach at Anzac Cove and the sand dune ecosystems are regularly disturbed. Since November last year the shore front at Anzac Cove has been mitigated to reduce natural erosion, through the installation of concrete retaining walls (pictured left). The implementation of such measures brings up the conflicts at the heart of this issue – leave the shore to naturally erode, taking with it important archaeological and cultural features, or prevent such erosion by sacrificing small parts of land already known to be significant. The Gallipoli Peninsula will always be fighting the effects of weather and time in order to retain its cultural and historical significance.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Towns in the Gallipoli Peninsula region are comparatively small in terms of population numbers:• Gelibolu 20,000 • Canakkale 55,000• Tekirdag 80,000 • Edirne 100,000 • Bursa 1,000,000

(ABOVE) Anzac Cove sea wall to prevent erosion. O’Brien, B. and Bryan Littlely, B (2011).

PHYSICAL CONTEXT

Typical coastal environment conditions Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997,).

Towns within the Gallipoli Peninsula National Historical Park boundary are very small, increasing over the summer months by 1,500 from June-September. Eceabat, with a population of 5,000 is the largest of these small towns, with another eight villages comprising 5,000 people. To provide a stark contrast, this is equivalent to 2% of the number of lives lost in battles during the 8-month Campaign in 1915. Comparatively the national Turkish population is approximately 73,000,000 million (World Bank, 2012, www.google.co.nz/publicdata), illustrating that the Gallipoli National Park holds a very small percentage of the national population, and therefore social resources. From a social perspective, these small towns are not fully integrated within the tourist service industry that supports Anzac Day commemorations. An opportunity exists to appropriately develop this area to bolster the local community and build on what could be a very fundamental relationship for the cultural and social sustainability of this landscape. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S3, pg. 59).

HERITAGE

Events of the Gallipoli Campaign are just one part of the rich ‘cultural mosaic’ that has formed over thousands of years of human settlement in the area. Evidence has been found on the Peninsula that indicates it has been inhabited since BC 12,000. Harbour colonies have existed from 4000BC, with maritime activity a key feature of these settlements. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3 p29 The Peninsula also lies in close proximity to Hellenistic settlement of Troia (Troy). Waves of occupation under the control of empires dating back to the Hellenistic, through to Roman, Byzantine and most recently Ottoman Empires (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.1 p2-3). The comparatively recent battles at Gallipoli have further added cultural and historical importance. This rich cultural layering adds further complexity to developing the Park, especially because archeological surveys to examine the full extent of what lies beneath the soil is an ongoing project. During the war, Allied soldiers noted digging up antiquities whilst constructing trenches and many were taken as souvenirs. Ironically, war memorabilia collectors are now taking objects from the Gallipoli battlefields, further degrading the cultural integrity of the area. Added to preservation concerns are the plantation forests and crops that coexist on the Peninsula, covering artefacts and places of significance for the war, yet the use of the land itself now is already well established and essential to support the local populations.

ECONOMY

The main sources of income regionally are from small-scale subsidence level agriculture and the fishing industry. The staple crops grown in the region are wheat, barley, peas, sunflower/sesame oil, tomatoes, aubergines and olives. These crops are all dependent on rainfall, stream diversion or ground water bores, due to the lack of water infrastructure in the region. Ground water levels have been radically altered in some places due to the alteration of the water table or water courses. Due to land and water constraints there are no large livestock farms however farms that do exist on the Peninsula includes goats, cattle and sheep in small numbers.(Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S 3, p 61.

Tourism is a seasonally fluctuating source of income for the region, with both overseas and local visitors. In 1995 of the 14,000 overseas tourists visiting the Park comprised: • 80% Australian/New Zealand• 7% British• 4% USA• 2% Canada (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p 63). More recently, as well as Antipodeans and Europeans, more Turkish visitors now attend Anzac Day ceremonies at Gallipoli each year. It is estimated that 1.5 million Turkish visitors come to the area annually, an number that is rising due to renewed government attention to the area through the construction of new monuments and the implementation of educational curricula in schools. (Broadbent, 2011).

ECOLOGY

The Gallipoli Peninsula Historical National Park is important as a site because of its diverse natural values and ecology, largely undisturbed by low, sparse population. It is classified a ‘very special natural area of the Mediterranean’, and is administered by the Ministry of Culture and Natural Heritage. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p15).

The location of this landscape is also important to many migratory bird species that use the Dardanelles as a major rest stop as they move along the Western Palearctic flyway. The amount of data and studies on endemic wildlife is minimal. A basic survey indicated the presence of:• 7mammals–bats,wolves,jackalsandfoxes• 4biggamebirds–storks,egret,flamingoandpelicans(migratory)• 45fish• 14shellfish• Lizardsandturtles(Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p 13).

In a survey completed from 1984 – 1986, there were 520 plant species noted, fitting in with the typical Mediterranean plant biodiversity of the region. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p 13). There are 6 main vegetation cover types:• High maquis• Low maquis,• Rich herbaceous vegetation and grasslands

Typical endemic flora and fauna Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997

“Within a fortnight of the landing the first two Battles of Krithia swept across it, destroying all the fragile, natural beauty.”

(Steel, N. 2007. pg73)

• Salt marsh vegetation• Sand dune vegetation• Shore vegetation (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p 13).

Before the war the landscape was described by foreign soldiers as a ‘beautiful and fertile garden’ with its scrub hedges, aromatic herb smells, dark and light green and bright yellow colours The coarse grass, trees, scattered ferns sat amongst olives, Turkey oaks, witch elms, apricots, almonds, Scottish firs and small tamarisks. Small vineyards also dotted this landscape. The cliffs were interspersed with “flowers [that]abound in a reckless and beautiful profusion.” (Steel, N. 2007. p70 ). Such as yellow plantagenesta, yellow poppies, white orchids, rock roses, mauve stock and iris. There were also fields of poppies, white marguerites, blue borage, purple vetches, brick red pea, yellow clover, white campions and asphodel. In contrast, the landscape is now described as having ‘rich and hard’ colours. Agricultural use of the land has increased to mainly include corn, melons, wheat and sunflowers. Bands of trees still exist but vegetation is less prolific than before the war and subsequent fires within the area. (Steel, N. 2007. p70 -73).There is potential to create memorials tree groves, boulevards or planting activities using plants with culturally symbolic properties in to represent aspects of commemoration. Endemic species with potent symbolism exist in the following genera: • Olive –peace • Sandalwood –immortality • Laurel- success/power • Oak –resistance, endurance and fertility • Myrtle –death (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p 13).

CLIMATE

It has been well established that constricted alluvial flood plains are the only areas suitable for habitation due to the water supply and availability of flat land suitable for farming/ crops. The scarcity of fresh water places a lot of restrictions on horticulture, however there are intricate hydrological systems of both fresh and salt water. The marine ecology of the surrounding Gallipoli Peninsula area is affected by fluctuations and differences in salinity between the Mediterranean and Black Seas. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S1,p2,;S.3, p3).

The Gallipoli Peninsula National Historical Park has a typical Mediterranean or Black Sea Climate, with long spring and autumn seasons and relatively mild winters.

Key climate data includes:

• Moderately humid, with the average being 72%• Average rainfall 608.3mm per year• Summers are relatively hot, reaching extremes of 39 degrees • Long days in summer 12.6 hours of sunlight (on average) per day. • Average monthly rainfall for the summer season is between 7-11mm.• Cold winter months with extreme lows of -11.5 degrees, inducing occasional

snowfall and very rarely frosts. • Typical winter average temperature sits at 14.6 degrees• Average winter rainfall of 100 – 105mm per month • Very short days in winter average daylight of 3.4 hours a day.

Wind is a dominant feature on the Gallipoli Peninsula, typically coming from the northeast and blows 180 days in the year. Although the annual average speed is 18km/hr, gusts can sometimes reach 90km/hr, with occasional Southerly gusts of 130 km/hr. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S.3, p11-12). The cooling effects of this practically constant wind mean that the affect of wind on coastal or sea-based development would need to be considered, but the potential for wind energy could be also be explored.

ISSUES

The Park lies in overlapping jurisdictions and lacks a single authority to oversee planning processes, and combined with inadequate financial resources had lead to leading to short term, uncoordinated development. Indiscriminate deforestation, passive conservation, fires, erosion, unauthorised development on the coast, water diversions, agricultural chemicals and over fishing are just some of the major problems affecting the integrity of the area. The settlements and roads have created fragmentation of the habitat and the expansion of agriculture has meant water is diverted. (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997, S3, pp 26, 56).

In summary, key issues from a landscape architecture perspective that need attention include:

• Impactoftourismanddevelopmentonarcheologicalandhistoricalsites• Controlofpropertyspeculationandunauthorizedsettlement• Lossofhabitatthroughdeforestation,erosion,forestfires• Landuseandmanagement-Agriculture,heritage,ecologicalareas

Some key resolutions could include:

• a park management plan to coordinate and limit development and control process• Creation of habitat corridors• Limit access to natural heritage areas• Conserve and protect beaches and ecologically sensitive areas where erosion os a problem. • Protect and maintain integrity of battlefields, which are monuments in and of themselves• Create employment opportunities and economic activities for local people • Use existing infrastructure e.g. fishing industry to support tourism

It is noted that way that the Gallipoli Peninsula is developing is in need or urgent focus, given the pressure of the upcoming centenary commemorations, particularly at Anzac Cove. Although a more expansive commemorative site was built in 1999 at North Beach to replace the ceremony at the Anzac South Beach Cemetery, which had been overwhelmed by the visitor numbers in the preceding years, new road widening and access to accommodate this increase was not built until 2005. It was reported that human remains were dug up and sites of historical significance destroyed. Natural erosion processes were also exacerbated when spoil from the excavations were dumped at the nearby coast, reducing the beach to almost half its width. Trench remains at Lone Pine and Quinn’s Post were also damaged during this process. Resurgence of Turkish interst has also meant the constructiuon of many new memorials in the area, placing further pressure on the already struggling system. As noted by Harvey Broadbent, Director of the Gallipoli Centenary Research Project at Macquarie University

“Destruction and over-monumentalising will benefit no one, certainly not the unfound dead of all combatant sides lying in unmapped graves and those who wish to honour their memory. The Anzac Day services should be moved away immediately to a nearby but more manageable area. Then, without hosting mass commemorations, the Anzac area can be restored to relative peace.” (Source: http://theconversation.edu.au/loving-gallipoli-to-distraction-or-destruction-813 (2011)).

This is illustrated in the map of memorial site around Anzac Cove (right). This sentiment may sound controversial, but to ensure that future generations of Turks and Allies alike can continue to live, travel and experience the landscape and heritage of the Peninsula, a radical change is required.

Extent of memorial sites in existence around Anzac Cove in 1997 (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997)

Drainage Catchments

Elevation Cadastral

Geology

Vegetation Type

GIS maps of Gallipoli Peninsula (Turkey Ministry of Forestry et al., 1997

Sensitive Habitat Zones

Natural Heritage Areas

Density of Vegetation Cover

PART THREE: 20th CENTURY MEMORIALS

A memorial celebrates a war or victory, commemorates those who died (or were injured), or symbolises peace between previous enemies. They attempt to preserve memories that are worth remembering – such as the memory of the soldiers that perished (The History of Memorials, December, 2003; War Memorial, March, 2012). Memorials have longevity and power, and impose meaning on the land they are placed. It is the landscape and experiences surrounding the memorial that work towards this.

Social and historical experiences, and the social and physical arrangement of the space around the memorial come together to create ‘meaning’ (Mayo, 1988; Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997). Ultimately, it is the observer that dictates this (subjective) meaning and identity. The observer becomes the interpreter. Different people and cultures perceive things differently, and often give varied meanings to the same thing (Mayo, 1988).The commonalities are that memorials as a whole (in the 21st Century) are crossroads of cultures that try to create mutual understanding and interactions (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997).

Types

A memorial can be almost anything, from a physical object, to a gathering or event. Common permanent memorials of relevance to landscape architecture include (but are not limited to):

• Gardens• Buildings–e.g.museums,communityhalls• Publicspaces–e.g.swimmingpools,plazas,squares• Architecturalelements–e.g.gates,arches,obelisks,bridges• Plaquesandinscriptions• Sculpture• Roadsandwalkways

History of Memorials

Historically, many memorials only commemorate great victories. It was more important to celebrate victory than to remember the dead. Nearing the end of the 19th Century, British Army regiments would erect memorials that listed the names of their fellow soldiers who had died in small Imperial Wars. In the early 20th Century, some towns in the United Kingdom commemorated the men who had died in the Second Anglo-Boer War (ended 1902) (War Memorial, March, 2012).

During WWI, the Commonwealth War Grave Commission was established in 1916, on the Allied side. The French and British constructed governmentally designed cemeteries during this time. The soldiers who had died in the war had their names on military headstones, often against the will of the families involved. Their names would also be identified in smaller memorials in the villages they were from. The British had memorials commemorating thousands of soldiers with no name or identifiable grave (War Memorial, March, 2012).

In WWI, the scale of conflict and the fact that most of the soldiers were volunteer armies (labour workers, miners, farmers and shopkeepers etc), caused the shift from celebrating victories to remembering those who had died. This became a common characteristic in memorials. Before the war ended, English architect Edwin Lutyens designed the infamous Cenotaph (picture right) on Whitehall in London. This structure was recreated all over the world (Origins of War Memorials, 2010; War Memorial, March, 2012).

After the war ended in 1918, there was a demand for memorials. They became community affairs and sources of community pride. Commemoration became the most important thing, with many community memorials including lists of those who were lost at war (Origins of War Memorials, 2010; War Memorials, n.d.).

Some towns in France began constructing pacifist war memorials symbolising peace. The memorials were often figures of grieving widows and children. These memorials would usually provoke anger from the veterans. The UK also constructed memorials with references to peace during this time (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997; War Memorial, 2012).

During and after WW2 (1939-1945), WWI memorials were often extended to include the names of those who had died in WW2.

MEMORIALS

Memorials now have different roles and symbolisms in the 21st Century. They do not celebrate war, but honour people who have died. In recent times, war memorials aim to create understanding between previous enemies (Scott, 2009). The names of the dead may no longer recognisable as people from our community that we know personally, yet it is now socially acceptable to have a public outpouring of emotion acted out in public places. Not a recent concept, but definitely more common in modern times, is the ‘spontaneous’ memorial. They are the first reactions to the unexpected, and often violent, loss of life. This fast public response creates shrine-like collections at the site within hours of the tragic event. It is common to see flowers, letters, photos, candles and soft toys. They are usually temporary, but can become the site of a permanent memorial (Death and Dying, 2006).

Memorials on Gallipoli Peninsula

Around the Gallipoli Peninsula there are many cemeteries and memorials dedicated to the contributions of many nations during World War 1, including the Turkish, English, French, New Zealand and Australian troops who perished. These dedications have diverse meanings and sub-identities, due to the different nations and cultures.

There are a total of 45 Turkish Cemeteries and 34 Allied Cemeteries that exist on the Peninsula, with many more memorials.(Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997).

Generally, memorials developed on the Peninsula in a haphazard way:

• 1918 Commonwealth War Commission started work on 29 cemeteries at Anzac (4,300 graves), 7 at Helles (5,900), 4 at Suvla (4,300 graves)

• 1923 Lausanne Treaty signed. Conditions formally allow and ensure access to Commonwealth War Graves Commission to establish and maintain graves

• By 1924 Helles and Chunuk Bair Monuments are constructed• 1926 French cemetery (3236 graves) and monument• Turkish cemeteries and monuments are sporadic, and dispersed throughout the Gallipoli Peninsula Park• 1944 Design competition for memorial• 1960 Canakkale memorial completed• 1973 Gallipoli Peninsula Park established through Forestry Law as a National Park• 1980 Ministry of Culture declares the Gallipoli Peninsula Park a ‘Historical, Archaeological, Cultural & National Heritage Site’• 1992 Decision to define and separate management of Historical, Archaeological, Cultural Heritage aspects of the Park

rather than as a whole with no overall masterplan. A suspension bridge over the Dardanelles suggested during this time to facilitate urban expansion from the Turkish mainland.

• 1999 Construction of new memorial at Anzac Cove to accommodate April 25 ceremonies

Some individual examples of war memorials are discussed briefly in the following pages.

“These battles created their share of heroes whose qualities and conduct kindled national consciousness and pride, and spurred respect, understanding and admiration across nationalities.” (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, p.g.9).

(Opposite- clockwise from top-left)Space for spontaneous memorialisation deliberately left in design for Oaklahoma bombing memorial

Example of the Cenotaph memorial structure that has been repeated around the worldA spontaneous memorial for the 9/11 Twin Towers.

EXAMPLES OF GALLIPOLI MEMORIALS

Dur Yolcu Memorial (Turkish Memorial)

This memorial is located on the eastern slope of the Gallipoli Peninsula, above the Degirmen Burnu Rampart. It is visible to boats passing through, and also to those at across the Strait in Canakkale. The memorial is commemorating the struggle for Gallipoli. Beside a silhouette of a soldier, an inscription from a Turkish poet reads; “Traveller, halt! The soil you tread once witnessed the end of an era.” (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, Page 5).

Canakkale Martyrs’ Memorial (Turkish Memorial)

Officially open to the public in August 1960, this memorial is situated at the southern end of Gallipoli Peninsula. At 41.7 metres high, this stone mass is also visible when going through the Dardanelles. Turkish poet Mehmet Akif Ersoy wrote the inscription; “Do not ignore the ground on which you have walked, it is no ordinary soil. Reflect on the thousands of people, who lie beneath, without a shroud. You are the son of a martyr – Do not hurt your ancestor, do not give away this beautiful homeland, even if you have the whole world” (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, Page 22)

Kabatepe Tanitma Merkezi Memorial (Turkish Memorial)

The Kabatepe Tanitma Merkezi Memorial was opened to the public in November 1983, an designed by Architect Ahmet Gulgonen. It is more like a public space – Kabatepe Tanitma Merkezi Information Centre, museum, smaller memorials, restored trenches, car park and toilet facilities. Two sculptures depict wounded Turkish soldiers. One is trying to hold up the Turkish flag, and the other a branch of an olive tree (Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife, 1997, Page 8).

GLOBAL EXAMPLES OF NEW ZEALAND MEMORIALS

New Zealand Memorial – Canberra

Located in Canberra, Australia, this memorial was opened to the public in April 2001. It consists of two bronze arches that resemble the handles of a flax basket. There are two different types of paving beneath the bronze arches. One side represents Australia – Aboriginal design and motif, and buried soil from Lone Pine (Gallipoli). The other side represents New Zealand – Maori design, stone from the Coromandel, Golden bay and Canterbury (Places in New Zealand), and buried soil from Chunuk Bair (Gallipoli). The memorial communicates the co-operation, unity and bond that Australia and New Zealand share (New Zealand Memorial in Canberra, May 2011).

New Zealand Memorial – Korea

The New Zealand Memorial in Korea is located in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery, and was opened to the public in November 2005. The granite panels from the Coromandel (in New Zealand) were designed by Warren and Mahoney architects. The 45 cuts in the sides of the panels represent each New Zealand soldier that was lost.It is dedicated to represent New Zealand’s contribution to the Korean War. The pattern is based on a Maori woman’s chin tattoo (Moko). It signifies pain, adulthood and responsibility (New Zealand Memorial in Korea, May 2011).

New Zealand Memorial – London

New Zealand’s Memorial in London is located in Hyde Park, and consists of 16 bronze sculptures at different heights. Opened to the public in November 2006, it encourages people to stop and explore.It is a commemoration of both the first and second World Wars, particularly the bonds between New Zealand and the UK. “Shared sacrifice, during times of war… [A] Symbol of both of our common heritage and of New Zealand distinct identity” (New Zealand Memorial in London, May 2011).

PART FOUR: GROUP PROPOSITION

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

“Culture and tourism are often promoted as a potent balm to heal the wounds of the past, while providing economic

fuel for post-conflict recovery.” (Walkowitz, D.J. and Knauv, L.M., 2004, p13)

How can we address the contradictions that arise

when commercial objectives such as - increasing tourist numbers, & economic sustainability

of the Park, run against other needs such as - preservation of archaeology, ecological conservation or the desire to maintain a more

reverential atmosphere?

The Gallipoli Peninsula is a significant place for various countries around the world, none more so than New Zealand and Australia, due to the archeological sites that are spread throughout. New Zealanders and Australians, as well as other tourists flock to Gallipoli - in particular Anzac Cove every year on ANZAC Day, the 25th of April. The sheer amount of people arriving at one time causes a series of problems, which we think need to be addressed in the 2015 commemorations.

Other issues are:

• Increase in tourist numbers, both local and overseas visitors.• Lack of tourist infrastructure e.g. car parking, toilet facilities etc.• Services are provided non- locally• Disturbance of heritage areas, including battlefields.• Park lies in overlapping jurisdictions with lack of single authority. Planning

rules/legal processes are unclear. • Inadequate financial resources. • Lack of vegetative cover, deforestation, fires, and insensitive development on

the coast,.• Lowering of fish stock due to run-off from agricultural chemicals and over

fishing.• Human settlements and infrastructure have created fragmentation of the

habitat –consequently there are fewer habitat corridors and an afforestation program is necessary.

• The water table is lowing and fresh water is being diverted due to agricultural expansion.

We seek to address some of these above issues using principles such as renewable energy, and low-impact urban design principles.

(Right) Map showing existing marine

infrastructure nodes that could be developed to accommodate

the increase in tourism

DEVELOP A MARINE MEMORIAL THAT IS TEMPORARY AND EMOTIONALLY EVOKING

using existing infrastructure and low-impact urban design principles

There are numerous memorial markers already on the Gallipoli Peninsula, so we propose that any new memorial should be focused on the Aegean Sea and coastline. The sea has played a crucial role in the conquest and control of the Gallipoli Peninsula throughout Turkey’s long history. It was not only the means of Allied travel to Gallipoli - the major component in their vast journey, but the sea was a fundamental part to the Allied Gallipoli Campaign. It was also a place that thousands of men from the Allied forces died. Many were shot upon approach to the beach whilst many others drowned in the water in the processes of landing. The sea and coastline also play an important role in the contemporary Turkish and New Zealand culture, and could be used as the basis of activity to bring people together with a medium of mutual significance.

We suggest that the significance of the sea is highlighted and used as a driver in the centennial commemorations. Our proposal could be supported with sustainable land-based strategies of our colleagues, such as memorial walkways, memorial tree planting or low-impact infrastructure development.

OUR STANCE

Rather than a strategy of strict preservation, we aim to implement some water based structures, which will divert foot traffic off archeological sites and we suggest the growing interest and supply of tourists be tapped in to, engaging cultures and creating understanding through experience.

We feel that the 20th century notion of memorials no longer hold the relevance that they once did in the 21st century.

This is because we find that the traditional notion of embodying a memorial in stone often possesses a sense of austere solemnity and stoicism, it can also represent a one-sided narrative of historic events. It often does not acknowledge the vernacular, individual narrative of a lived experience. Classic monuments encourage passiveness in the observer. People are brought together at a marked place to be part of a (typically) formalized civic or military ritual of remembrance, to pay respect to those that lost their lives for the greater good. “Public have been trained to view monuments and historical markers, whether massive obelisks, towering representative statues, or modest plaques, as carrying an aura of unity, universality, and timelessness.” (Walkowitz & Knauv, 2004, pg. 5) . Spontaneous memorialisation is a growing phenomenon in which tragic events are publicly marked. People often make a more direct emotional connection by acting on that emotion placing flowers, notes or objects around the memorial. (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011, pg. 40). However this can encourage celebration of individuals.

We do not propose that the ceremony or ritual be replaced to celebrate the individual (as with some contemporary and spontaneous memorials do). But what we do suggest is that the place that this ceremony takes place be one that fosters engagement, recognition of other and stimulates memory beyond the occasion. It is the action of engagement that becomes the memorial.

Protecting the archeological remains and preserving the sacredness of the site is key.The number of younger generation tourists coming to Gallipoli for Anzac Day celebrations, specifically at Anzac Cove is increasing, and has become part of a backpackers ‘must-do’ list. Congregating in masses in a sense takes away from the sacredness of the land, and causes damage to the site. Our design strategy seeks to reduce archeological damage and to ensure that the atmosphere and sacredness of the site is not hindered.

Using principles such as LIUDD (Low-Impact Urban Design and Development) as well as renewable energy and water collection we aim to better amenitites.

We want to create connections on an emotional level beyond the temporary affect of visiting static markers that tell us what to think or feel. We propose that a memorial for the 21st century should not represent one way of thinking; rather a memorial should attempt to embody multiple world views, cultural attitudes and histories. “Who has the right (or power, or authority) to decide what happens at a particular site?...If all of a city and nation’s commemorative and reconstructive energies are focused on a single location, will other sites be ignored and other histories left out or obliterated.” (Walkowitz & Knauv, 2004, pg. 2).

The 21st century memorial should be a place for sharing an experience from the past, not just an obligatory moment. The memorial becomes part of the cultural fabric that weaves back thousands of years, whilst looking towards the future with the hope of ongoing peace. “Commemorative sites are not automatically sacred or otherwise historically important simply because a disastrous event occurred; they are spaces that are continuously negotiated, constructed and reconstructed into meaningful places through ongoing human interaction.” (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011, pg. 20).

Efforts could be made to commemorate the end of the Gallipoli Campaign and World War One - December 1915 to January 1916, which are currently not commemorated, in order to help disperse tourist numbers that arrive on the 25th of April for ANZAC commemorations.

GROUP POSITION ON WAR MEMORIAL DESIGN IN THE 21ST CENTURY

using existing infrastructure and low-impact urban design principles

A balance is required in acknowledging but not emphasising the differences between the many nations involved in the Gallipoli Campaign, but to instead highlight the similarities. From our research the follwoing themes have arisen.

LOSS and the absence this leaves behind • Lost - youth • Loss of life• Loss of innocence, comfort, of friends, of family

Through the creation of a multinational, multicultural and multimedia centre, where artifacts and events can be housed for any country involved in the Gallipoli battles, we propose that the memorial covers this aspect of loss and identifies those countries that had a loss at Gallipoli. “Memory and place, via landscape (including seascape) can be seen as crucial transducers whereby the local, national and global are brought into mutual alignment; or as providing sites where conflicts between these influences are played out.” (Stewart & Strathern, 2003, p.g. 2).

This non-nationalistic approach to memorial design pivots on collaboration between all countries brought together in battle during the Gallipoli Campaign – not unlike the process we are engaging with as members of this studio project.

We must remember that this is not our land; it is by the grace of local people that we are part of this landscape still and their continued acceptance of us is crucial to the longevity of any memorial in the area. “Historical commemorative places are not “made” as important sites simply because of the events that may physically mark them as distinct places through bloodshed or the destruction of buildings or landscapes…like all sites that make up our lived and perceived sociocultural realities, these places are made through ongoing human practices in time, across multiple spaces and places.” (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011, p.g. 47).

MEMORIAL CASE STUDY ONE Hadiqat As-Samah

- glass platforms protecting site

- layers of history

- identity

- interpretation

- replica features

Hadiqat As-Samah (The Garden of Forgiveness) in Beirut by Kathryn Gustafson is one such example of a landscape

intervention that acknowledges the layers of history at a site that has been occupied by numerous cultures over thousands of years. Located in the heart of a city still troubled by conflict, the memorial aims to contribute to the

sense of common heritage and identity of the Lebanese. This is done by focusing on the archeological heritage of the site that has been destroyed and rebuilt many times in its 5,000-year history. Artifacts from numerous eras have been incorporated within the garden through the insertion of walkways, glass panels, interpretation centres and replication of archeological features, overlaying historical and contemporary meanings.

The atmosphere of traditional war memorial sites – solemnity, respect, reflection, and introspection – can be created through the combination of sheer scale and ceremony. Combination of materials and space, such as reflective ponds, confined and open spaces, communal and individual spaces are a more modern approach to memorial design.

The Oklahoma bombing memorial, by Butzer Design Partnership is an effective example. This memorial was dedicated in April 2000 to the victims, rescuers and survivors of the Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19, 2005). The memorial spans 3.3 acres and consists of many features, including: The Gates of Time, Reflecting Pool, Field of Empty Chairs, Rescuers Orchard, Children’s Area, Statue of Jesus, Journal Record Building and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Plaza.

• Loss of comfort• Loss of friends• Loss of family

MEMORIAL CASE STUDY TWO Oklahoma Memorial

- lighting (the effect of)

- reflections

- tranquility

- absence and loss

- evoking emotion

The Field of Chairs exudes absence, loss and grief. The 168 chairs made of glass; bronze and stone light up at night and are placed to represent the lives lost and where they were taken. The empty chairs are to symbolise “empty chairs at the dinner tables of victims’ families” (Oklahoma City National Memorial, March 2012). Materials such as water and light, amplify the weight of the past events, evoking a feeling, and allowing individuals to pay their respects just as they would if they were part taking in communal commemorations.

An example of a memorial using moving water is a competition entry for the Twin Towers memorial in New York. “Suspending Memory” by Joseph Karadin with Hsin-Yi Wu, uses two floating memorial gardens rising from where the Twin Towers stood, although we suggest something more translocatable, such as Robert Smithson’s Floating Garden.

MEMORIAL CASE STUDY THREE Suspending Memory

- water

- movement

- floating

- permanent

- vegetation

A memorial that is physically, emotionally and culturally experiential will be become increasingly relevant in the 21st Century. We agree with French historian, Pierre Nora’s, suggestion that the experience of being at Gallipoli is one that should challenge or provoke a response from the observer – otherwise it risks becoming un-memorable. “The power of memory, both individual and collective, does not always depend on a physical marker…sometimes the creation of a marker lulls people into complacency; if the marker does the memory work for us…we are less vigilant and can allow ourselves the luxury of forgetting.” (Walkowitz & Knauv, 2004, p.g. 6). Creating an educational memorial that engaging at all times of

the year highlights reinforces the importance adaptability of the memorial to different

http://inhabitat.com/nyc/the-seven-na-tional-911-memorial-designs-that-will-never-be/suspending-memory/

occasions, and over a longer period of time as well , to change with society. We consider sustainability to be social as well as environmental, for without the active engagement of local people, care and attention to the state environment is not sustainable. It goes without saying that sustainable development practices, such as LIUDD (Low-Impact Urban Design and Development) principles, are paramount for any development of infrastructure of facilities designed. This is with particular respect to the lack of fresh water supply in the area, which we propose are addressed with the use of rainwater collection from impermeable surfaces created by the new memorial design. A self-sustaining renewable energy supply, such as wind turbines or solar panels, and water sensistive design features, such as rain water harvesting, are also vital so as to not place more pressure on local systems.

PROPOSAL

We propose a region-wide environmental and heritage management plan that treats the landscape as a sacred place , left largely undisturbed in areas of intense battle where the remains of countless men still remain or re-vegetated in interstitial areas to control erosion and create more habitat for wildlife in this sparsely unpopulated area. As part of this strategy, a

design focus on the Anzac Cove area to facilitate tourist activity while rehabilitating and conserving the landscape. For this reason, our key response is to develop water-based design interventions that can fluctuate, move or respond. Utilising existing marine infrastructure nodes, such as the Kapatepe Ferry terminal 5km south of Anzac Cove and the fishing industry could be developed to take stress away from sensitive sites. This has the added benefit of boosting the local economy, and has potential to utilise traditional local industry such as boat-building. Permanent as well as nonpermanent (i.e. relocatable) structures are proposed, such as barge, reminiscent of the transporters so crucial in the landing of Allied troops on beaches all around the Peninsula, are used as platforms for tourists to take part in Anzac Day celebrations. These barges could be moved from beach to beach at different times of the year, clustered together or arranged into an aquatic amphitheatre, depending on the commemoration. This may also include multimedia elements that expand on the cultural and historical narrative of the particular location. “Narratives in public sites, then, can take many forms…presented in images and displayed, condensed and congealed into monuments, represented in physical spaces or projected through storytelling. But they can also be animated as public spectacle, in performances and parades, or translated and transcribed into popular music and song.” (Walkowitz, D.J. and Knauv, L.M. (2004) Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public Space. Duke University Press. p9). On a final note, as a mark of respect, we propose that the Dardanelles shipping lanes be closed during the time of ceremonial occasions.

Main themes that emerged through our research:• Youth - the parallel between the younger generation of men that were lost in the battle and the resurgent

interest of younger people in taking part in Gallipolli commemorations• Absence - using presence and absence as a tool to reinforce the sense of loss from the war• Floating - the importance of water/ sea, and the sense of emotional and physical disconnectedness

experienced through war• Multiplicity/ connection - acknowledging the ‘cultural mosaic’ of many different people through time and

space that have a connection with the area

Design Strategies• Floating, moveable structures, such a barges and pavilions to house cultural events or exhibitions• Coastal erosion prevention through planting and construction of sea wall• Floating gardens that contain plants that are symbolic or representative of nations involved in the Gallipoli

Campaign• Recreation of coastal heritage elements such as wharfs to facilitate water-based access to fragile sites• Underwater sculptural elements to signify loss of life or mark to shipwreck sites, whilst creating an artificial

reef to rehabilitate marine ecology• Creation of water-based tourist facilities to establish hydro-tourism e.g. scuba diving shipwreck tours

Management Strategies• Conserve and preserve sensitive ecological, archeological and cultural heritage areas through the creation and

implementation of a sustainable park management plan• Protect beaches and coastline from erosion through sensitive design• Ensure appropriate development of underwater sites with multidisciplinary teamwork, such as liaising with

research teams e.g ‘Project Beneath Gallipoli’ a joint Australian/ Turkish Marine archeological survey• Develop existing marine nodes• Close Dardanelles shipping lanes during memorial ceremonies

INDICATIVE SITES WHERE MEMORIAL COULD BE SHIFTED TO DEPENDING ON THE MEMORIAL OCCASION

MARINE HERITAGE SITES - potential memorial locations or stop-off points for memorial flotilla

LAND HERITAGE SITES - numerous coastal memorials could be viewed from sea

‘ The faces in the photographs... are not world weary. They are the handsome,

fresh faces of youth.’(Scott, 2009, p.8)

‘ The faces in the photographs... are not world weary. They are the handsome,

fresh faces of youth.’(Scott, 2009, p.8)

http

://s

choo

ls.n

atlib

.gov

t.nz/

site

s/sc

hool

s.na

tlib.

govt

.nz/

files

/im

agec

ache

/ps_

galle

ry_i

mag

e_la

rge/

ANZA

C8.jp

gGENÇLIK YOUTH

http

://f

arm

4.st

aticf

lickr

.com

/343

7/34

0566

1655

_481

71f0

196.

jpg

‘[Gallipoli was] not just about guts and glory,

it was, and it always will be, about loss.’ (Scott, 2009, p.110)

‘[Gallipoli was] not just about guts and glory,

it was, and it always will be, about loss.’ (Scott, 2009, p.110)

YOKLUK ABSENCE

http

://w

ww

.glo

beat

war

.com

/site

s/gl

obea

twar

.dru

palg

arde

ns.c

om/f

iles/

styl

es/l

arge

/pub

lic/n

ull/

V_Be

ach_

Cape

_Hel

les_

Galli

poli_

6_M

ay_1

915_

From

_Col

lier_

SS_R

iver

_Cly

de..j

pg

‘The water by this time all along the shore and especially around the boats

was red with blood.’ (Steel, N.2007, p29)

‘The water by this time all along the shore and especially around the boats

was red with blood.’ (Steel, N.2007, p29)

YÜZEN FLOATING

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is

to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours.... your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land

ÇOKLUK MULTIPLICITYno difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets they have become our sons as well.’ - Ataturk

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is

to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours.... your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land

ÇOKLUK MULTIPLICITYno difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets they have become our sons as well.’ - Ataturk

2015 Centennial Commemorations at

Anzac Cove

EGE DENIZIAEGEAN SEA

2015 Centennial Commemorations at

Anzac Cove

EGE DENIZIAEGEAN SEA

historical, social and ecological connectionw

ww

.dai

lyte

legr

aph.

com

.au/

lifes

tyle

/aus

tral

ian-

geog

raph

ic-pi

ctur

es-r

evea

l-si

lent

-und

erw

ater

-anz

ac-b

attle

field

/sto

ry-

e6fr

f00i

-122

6028

2079

94

reconstruction of historic wharfs

historical, social and ecological connection

recreational cultural tourism

Project Beneath Gallipoli

coastal erosion prevention

cultural connection: a moving memorial

multicultural multinational multimedia pavillion

floating memorial gardens

USS Arizona Memorial, Pearl Harbour, Hawaii

www.robertsmithson.com/sculpture/floating_island.htm

Robert Smithson Floating Island Travelling Around Manhattan Island

cultural connection: a moving memorial

multicultural multinational multimedia pavillion

sustainable spontaneous memorials

underwater memorials

Jason de Caires Taylor

Bon Odori festival -Toro Nagashi (the floating of the lanterns)

REFERENCES

Mayo, J.M. (January, 1988). War Memorials as Political Memory. Geographical Review Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 62-75 Published by: American Geographical Society

Sather-Wagstaff, J. (2011) Heritage that Hurts: Tourists in Memoryscapes of September 11. Left Coast Press, U.S.A.

Scott, K. (2009). Before ANZAC Beyond Armistice: The Central Otago Soldiers of World War One and the Home they Left Behind Activity Press : Auckland, New Zealand

Steel, N. (1999,2007) Gallipoli, Battleground Europe. Pen and Sword Books Limited : South Yorkshire.

Stewart, P.J. and Strathern, A. (Eds.) (2003) Landscape, Memory and History: Anthroplogical Pespectives. Pluto Press : London

Taylor, P. & Cupper, P. (1989). Gallipoli : A Battlefield Guide Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd : Kenthurst, Australia

Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife. (1997) Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park International Ideas and Design Competition: Catalogue. Publisher: Turkey Ministry of Forestry & National Parks and General Directorate of Wildlife.

Walkowitz, D.J. and Knauv, L.m. (2004) Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public Space. Duke University Press

War Memorial Act 1992 http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1992/0020/latest/DLM260627.html

NZ Government Anzac sitehttp://www.anzac.govt.nz/gallipoliguide/index.html

Australian Governmenthttp://www.anzaccentenary.gov.au/publications.htm

NZ Historyhttp://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/the-gallipoli-campaign/background

NZ soldier’s perspective (published 1921)http://www.archive.org/details/newzealandersatg00waituoft

The Gallipoli Association (has good overview)http://www.gallipoli-association.org/http://www.gallipoli-association.org/content/campaign-overview/the-landings

UK National Inventory of War Memorialshttp://ukniwm.wordpress.com/

History of Anzac day plants symbolism http://tomahplanttalk.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/anzac-day-plants/

Hundreds of Undiscovered Artifacts Found at Gallipoli Battlefield h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n c e d a i l y . c o m /releases/2011/10/111005110748.htm

The History of Memorials. (December, 2003). Retrieved 04 March 2012, fromhttp://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/motchan/motchan11.html

War Memorial. (March, 2012). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04 March 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_memorial War Memorial 03 march 2012

Origins of War Memorials. (February, 2010). BBC; Phil Carridice. Retrieved 04 March 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/waleshistory/2010/02/origins_of_war_memorials.html

War Memorials. (n.d.). Open Learn. Retrieved 04 March 2012, from http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/war-memorials

Death and Dying. (2006). About.com. Retrieved 04 March 2012, from dying.about.com/od/glossary/g/spontaneous_mem.htm-About.com-Death&Dying-Sep2006

Oklahoma City National Memorial. (March 2012). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia: Oklahoma City National Memorial. Retrieved March 4 2012, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_National_Memorial

New Zealand Memorial in Canberra. (May 2011). Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved March 4 2012, from w w w . m c h . g o v t . n z / n z - i d e n t i t y - h e r i t a g e / n a t i o n a l -monuments-war-graves/new-zealand-memorial-canberra

New Zealand Memorial in Korea. (May 2011). Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved March 4 2012, from w w w . m c h . g o v t . n z / n z - i d e n t i t y - h e r i t a g e / n a t i o n a l -monuments-war-graves/ new-zealand-memorial-korea

New Zealand Memorial in London. (May 2011). Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved March 4 2012, from w w w . m c h . g o v t . n z / n z - i d e n t i t y - h e r i t a g e / n a t i o n a l -monuments-war-graves/ new-zealand-memorial-london

TurkishPress.com. (2009). Turkish President Defines Battle Of Canakkale As An Example Retrieved 1 March, 2012, from,http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=339777

Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2010). The Ottoman Empire. Retrieved 1 March, 2012, from,http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/ottoman-empire

Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2011). The Gallipoli Campaign. Retrieved 1 March, 2012, from,http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/the-gallipoli-campaign/introduction

Turkish Cultural Center Manhattan, (n.d.). November 10, Ataturk Day. Retrieved 1 March, 2012, from,http://www.turkishculturalcenter.org/ny-community-services/544-november-10-ataturk-memorial-day.html