戰爭紀念性意義之差異性研究－以金門與美國蓋茲堡之役紀念物之設置意涵爲探討

A Study on the Differences between the Significance of War Memorial: Based on the Purpose of Monuments Erected in Kinmen and Gettysburg, U.S.A.

10.6377/JA.200712.0002

林蕙玟(Hui-Wen Lin)；傅朝卿(Chao-Ching Fu)

戰役 ； 紀念性意義 ； 紀念物 ； 蓋茲堡之役 ； 金門 ； Battle ； Monumentality ； Monument ； Battle of Gettysburg ； Kinmen

建築學報

62期（2007 / 12 / 01）

23 - 48

繁體中文

自古以來，紀念性建築在城市空間中一直扮演著超越時間與空間，並具有永恆性的角色，能夠稱爲紀念性建築或紀念物本身都具有「紀念性(monumentality)」意義。此時，藉由此兩個不同文化與時空所發生的戰役，進行紀念性意義差異性的探討則更顯重要。 本研究以分別代表著不同文化與時空之下的國家內戰爲起點，討論在戰爭結束後所設置的紀念物於當下所代表的意涵與紀念價值。本研究比較的是以在歷史上被視爲美國南北戰爭轉戾點的「蓋茲堡之役」爲對象，探究其所象徵的紀念性意義與內涵；再將長期被視爲戰地的金門島所經歷最受矚目的兩次炮戰，以炮戰結束後所設置的紀念物來論述金門戰役的紀念性意義，並與蓋茲堡之役互相進行兩個分屬於不同時代背景之跨時空內戰所形成的紀念性意義差異性比較。此外，研究中也發現，雖然兩者同爲內戰，而兩者結果孰勝孰負卻會因爲紀念的對象與戰役背景不同而形成不同的紀念性意義。

From earliest antiquity to the present day Monumental Architecture perpetually and characteristically transcends both time and space. The phrase ”Monumental Architecture” signifies the buildings themselves in situ together with deeper associations which correspond with the term monumentality which bring into focus the broader definition of architecture in the city which experience many changes over time. Military Government in Kinmen ensued for many years following the conflicts which made for an uneasy relationship between military personnel and civilian life. Furthermore, during the transition from military to civilian existence itself, the very understanding of the monumentality in Kinmen was brought into question. Through this analysis and by understanding the different processes and backdrop involved it is possible to give rise to a singular hypothesis to those monuments erected following battles whether as memorials or monumental sculptures. A comparative study is made of the Battle of Gu Ning Tou in Kinmen and the 823 Bombardment in the Battle for Gettysburg adds further insight into the public ambitions behind war monumentality.

1. Almech, I. F.(1964).The Monument for the Man- Records of the II International Congress of Restoration.ICOMOS, Venezia, IT..
2. Crespi, L.(1964).The Monument for the Man- Records of the II International Congress of Restoration.ICOMOS, Venezia, IT..
3. Fenton, B. C.(2006).Edinburgh University and Monumental Tradition.Art & Text: Inscription,7
4. Friedrich, M.(1964).The Monument for the Man-Records of the II International Congress of Restoration.ICOMOS, Venezia, IT..
5. Giedion, S.(1971).New Architecture and City Planning.NY, USA.:
6. Giedion, S.(1984).Harvard Architecture Review IV.Mass, USA:The MIT Press.
7. Gillis, J. R. (ed.)(1994).Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship.N J, USA:Princeton University Press.
8. Harvard U.(1984).The Harvard Architecture Review IV.MA, USA:The MIT Press.
9. United States Department of National Park Service
10. ICOMOS(1964).Venice Charter, Document Centre.Venice, IT:UNESCO ICOMOS.
11. Kahn, I. L.,Latour A. (ed.)(1944).Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews.NY, USA:Rizzoli International.
12. Maristella, C.(2004).Modern Monumentality- Introduction.The Journal of Architecture,19,151-155.
13. Millon, H. A.(1964).Key Monument of the History of Architecture.NJ, USA:Englewood Cliffs.
14. Mumford, L.(1949).Monumentalism, Symbolism, and Style.Architectural Review,April,173-180.
15. Mumford, L.(1938).The Culture of Cities.NY, USA:Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
16. Pavel, J.(1964).The Monument for the Man- Records of the II International Congress of Restoration.Venezia, IT.:ICOMOS.
17. Petzet, M.(2003).ICOMOS14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium.Zimbabwe:Victoria Falls.
18. Ranger, E. H. a. T.(1983).The Invention of tradition.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
19. Riegl, A.,Kurt Forster (ed.)(1903).Oppositions.NY, USA:Rizzoli.
20. Rossi, A.,Ghirardo D.,Ockman J. Trans.(1966).The Architecture of the City.Cambridge, UK:The MIT Press.
21. Vidler, A.(2005).Monument, Memory, and Modernism, the Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture of the Cooper Union.NY, USA:The Irwin S.
22. Whittick, A.(1974).European Architecture in the Twentieth Century.NY, USA:Arnold Whittick.
23. Winter, J.(1999).Remembrance and Redemption: A Social Interpretation of War Memorials.Harvard Design Magazine,9,71-77.
24. Young, E. J.(1993).The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meanings.New Haven, USA:Yale University Press.
25. Young, E. J.(1999).Memory and Counter Memory.Harvard Design Magazine,9,1-6.
26. 內政部營建署金門國家公園管理處(2006)。北山十三號及古洋樓(含雙落大厝)傳統建築修護工作紀錄報告書。金門:內政部營建署金門國家公園管理處。
27. 江柏煒(2005)。金門戰事記錄及調查研究二。中華民國國家公園學會。
28. 設立沿革
29. 胡燕欽(2005)。畫說世界戰爭史－古代篇。台北:波西米亞文化。
30. 高文閣(1993)。戰爭邊緣四十年。台北:風雲時代。
31. 國防部始政編譯局(1989)。古寧頭大捷四十週年紀念文集。台北:國防部始政編譯局。
32. 張火木(1996)。金門古今戰史。台北:稻田出版有限公司。
33. 黃振良(2003)。金門戰地史蹟。金門:金門縣政府。
34. 楊樹清(1998)。金門社會觀察。台北:稻田。
35. 蜀洪(2004)。我們在金門。台北:八八出版社。

1. 杜正宇(2011)。美國聖地的形塑與歷史保存的困境：蓋茨堡案例。文資學報，6，61-98。
2. 杜正宇(2012)。真相與想像之間：論美國貝茜羅斯故居的歷史保存。成大歷史學報，42，1-54。
3. 黃茱珺(2016)。金門高粱紀念酒瓶圖案之國族想像（1949-1992 年）。島嶼觀光研究，9(4)，1-22。
4. (2019)。金門戰地歷史研究的回顧與省思。止善，27，87-115。