Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got a question about the building material difference between Asia(East) and Europe. Why in East
Asia such as China, Japan and Korea, etc, all the ancient temples and palaces were built with timber
instead of masonry/stone like in Europe? Even I did some homework online myself, the answers still
cannot convince me at all. I am wondering whether in ancient Asia, no capacity such as transportation
and craftsmanship to build their temples and palaces with stone since stone is much heavier and harder
to craft????
For Japan and many parts of China, simple one word answer: earthquakes.
Large buildings whose main construction is with timber can flex and move somewhat in a big earthquake. Those buildings can be damaged in an earthquake, but there is a chance they won't collapse and there is a chance to survive if you are in one of those buildings.
Buildings made of massive heavy masonry that don't have some kind of steel reinforcement can topple and collapse in a big earthquake, and chance of survival underneath the rubble is not good.
For Japan and many parts of China, simple one word answer: earthquakes.
Large buildings whose main construction is with timber can flex and move somewhat in a big earthquake. Those buildings can be damaged in an earthquake, but there is a chance they won't collapse and there is a chance to survive if you are in one of those buildings.
Buildings made of massive heavy masonry that don't have some kind of steel reinforcement can topple and collapse in a big earthquake, and chance of survival underneath the rubble is not good.
************************************************** ****************************
Thank you for your answer. I would like to ask you to think twice before drawing your conclusion.
For example, Chile, a country on the Pacific rim, is also an earthquake-prone country where used to be Spanish colony. BUT the churches and palaces were built with stone/masonry too; Another example is Italy, also had earthquakes in history, why no timber structures for their buildings??? List of earthquakes in Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Google images 'Earthquakes in Italy' you will see tons of earthquake damages stone structures in Italy.
All I can say is, it was and is not very bright to build with unreinforced stones and bricks in earthquake-prone areas. I live close to one of the oldest Spanish missions in California, San Juan Capistrano. It was built of stone and was mostly destroyed in an earthquake in 1812, killing dozens of people. Why didn't they build it from timber? Because a stone building was more impressive and seemed more permanent, and they just weren't thinking.
The Japanese built primarily with wood from a very early period. It was intelligent and foresighted of them, knowing how prone their country was to earthquakes. It's too bad that people in other earthquake-prone countries were so slow to realize the risk of stone/brick buildings.
By the way, in 1987 I was living only a few miles from the epicenter of the Whittier Narrows quake in Southern California. Several old, historic brick buildings in the uptown area were badly damaged and had to be demolished. Of course no one builds unreinforced brick buildings in SoCal any more.
It's much more comfortable to live in a wood house than in a stone house. Winter is bitterly code in much of China (especially Chinese civlization originated in North China). Of course timber is cheaper to make too.
East Asians are not very religious so there is no need to make grand buildings that last forever. However, some huge Buddha statues in China were made by stone/boulder.
According to what I've read from another website, in Japan, buildings are traditionally built in wood because of the abundance of timber and its relatively good resistance to earthquakes.
All I can say is, it was and is not very bright to build with unreinforced stones and bricks in earthquake-prone areas. I live close to one of the oldest Spanish missions in California, San Juan Capistrano. It was built of stone and was mostly destroyed in an earthquake in 1812, killing dozens of people. Why didn't they build it from timber? Because a stone building was more impressive and seemed more permanent, and they just weren't thinking.
The Japanese built primarily with wood from a very early period. It was intelligent and foresighted of them, knowing how prone their country was to earthquakes. It's too bad that people in other earthquake-prone countries were so slow to realize the risk of stone/brick buildings.
By the way, in 1987 I was living only a few miles from the epicenter of the Whittier Narrows quake in Southern California. Several old, historic brick buildings in the uptown area were badly damaged and had to be demolished. Of course no one builds unreinforced brick buildings in SoCal any more.
It's not like Asia doesn't have stone structures. The Great Wall of China is made of stone after all. Japanese Castles also use a lot of stone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
