the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Sep 2025
Re-enacting memory: an exploration of ritual in art and science in the context of a proposal for the burial of radioactive waste in Sardinia
Abstract. This paper discusses the role of ritual in art and science concerning the transmission of memory in nuclear heritage practices. The concept of ritual is analyzed following its use in religious studies, science, and artistic research: as a means of transmitting memory about nuclear waste, as well as in relation to the concept of “nuclear mundane”, here intended following Pannekoek’s definition as “contemporary techno-political mechanisms through which the unthinkable timescales of nuclear energy become banalized and figured as regular industrial risk” (Pannekoek, 2020). The paper focuses specifically on the territory of Sardinia, Italy, to address a proposal to build a nuclear waste repository, through artistic research and the artwork “Canticle of the nuclear sun”. The artwork explores the ancient practice of “Canto a tenore”, a form of polyphonic singing for four voices, via a ritual created to transmit knowledge about nuclear waste. In the artwork, the re-enacted ritual is conceived as a repetition of forgotten instructions, which overlaps with the remnants of an ancient prayer, thus failing to transmit a clear message. Through an analysis of this research, the paper intends to make the point that “scientific rituals” function in the same way as religious rituals in that they can confer sense to the ungraspable and the overwhelming of nuclear heritage practices, by filling the gaps of human knowledge. The nuclear mundane, encompassing what is overlooked in nuclear politics, becomes, through ritual, an expression of those institutional practices that claim to master the unknow.
- Preprint
(11752 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on sand-2025-4', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Anonymous Referee #2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2025
Summary
This manuscript presents an imaginative and rigorous exploration of ritual as a vehicle for transmitting memory about nuclear waste across deep time. Drawing from religious studies, science and technology studies (STS), and artistic research, the author examines how both scientific protocols and performative art practices can function as rituals that confer meaning, continuity, and care in the face of the immense temporal scales of radioactive decay. The paper centers on the author’s own work, Canticle of the Nuclear Sun, which reinterprets the Sardinian Canto a tenore as a speculative ritual of future remembrance.
Evaluation
Originality and Contribution
This is a deeply original contribution that situates artistic research within the politics and poetics of nuclear memory. The concept of “scientific rituals” as counterparts to artistic and religious forms of ritual is provocative, and the juxtaposition of Sardinia’s proposed burial site with the performance of Canticle of the Nuclear Sun offers a compelling synthesis of place, materiality, and speculation.
From the perspective of landscape and memorial design, the work resonates with efforts to imagine how cultural forms might persist when human languages and institutions fail. However, the manuscript could more clearly articulate its disciplinary position: is it advancing a framework for artistic research, a critique of technoscientific epistemologies, or a hybrid methodology for communicating nuclear legacies? Clarifying this orientation would help situate the paper within the journal’s interdisciplinary audience.
Structure and Clarity
- The manuscript is well written and intellectually rich, but the structure could be refined to support its argument more clearly.
- The description of Canticle of the Nuclear Sun might be introduced early, then returned to after the theoretical framing of ritual, so that readers understand the work’s conceptual grounding before its detailed discussion.
- The section titled “Research Context” currently reads more as geopolitical background. Retitling it (e.g., “Context: Nuclear Politics and Cultural Landscape in Sardinia”) and referencing key Italian nuclear scholarship would strengthen its relevance
Theoretical Rigor
The engagement with Connerton, Gusterson, Pannekoek, and Grimes is thoughtful, but the notion of “scientific ritual” would benefit from further dialogue with STS and sociology of science literature. For instance, distinguishing science as epistemic method from science as institutional ritual could sharpen the analysis. References such as Randall Collins’s Interaction Ritual Chains or Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory could deepen this discussion.
Additionally, while the manuscript situates art as commentary on ritual, it could go further to frame art-making itself as a form of ritual enactment — an act of material translation and world-making that mirrors the continuity it seeks to preserve.
Relevance to the Journal
The submission aligns well with the journal’s aim to address the cultural and ethical dimensions of nuclear waste disposal. Its speculative and artistic approach, though unconventional, offers crucial insights into how ritual, symbolism, and embodied practice might inform long-term stewardship and public engagement. For those of us working on memorial design and deep-time communication, the paper’s attention to performativity and cultural continuity is especially resonant.
Suggestions for Improvement
- Clarify the manuscript’s primary disciplinary contribution and intended readership.
- Refine the structure to improve narrative flow and to position the artwork more effectively within the argument.
- Deepen the discussion of scientific ritual through STS frameworks and include references to realized nuclear semiotic projects (e.g., Keating and Storm’s Key Information File).
- Expand the interpretation of Canticle of the Nuclear Sun to reference Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Sun, traditions of solar worship, and the ecological dimensions of the work’s imagery.
- Reconsider the assertion that “art does not aim to provide solutions to societal matters” (line 348), which overlooks how artistic research can act as a mode of speculative problem framing rather than problem solving.
Recommendation
The manuscript is a striking and original contribution that brings artistic, ritual, and scientific modes of knowing into conversation around nuclear waste and long-term memory. With stronger structural organization and deeper theoretical contextualization, it could become a significant piece of interdisciplinary scholarship that bridges art, landscape, and nuclear communication.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-4-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Aurora Del Rio, 15 Dec 2025
Thank you for your very relevant and helpful comments and insights on my paper; I have addressed them carefully. Specifically, following your comments:
-Originality and contribution
The manuscript’s disciplinary position is now clearly articulated in the introduction.
-Structure and clarity
I have refined the structure: after being introduced, the description of the artwork Canticle of the Nuclear Sun is now in Chapter 4.
Thank you for your suggestion regarding the title. The section formerly called “Research Context” is now “Context for the development of the artwork”. This is currently the title for the whole chapter. The first subsection is now “Nuclear politics and cultural landscape in Sardinia”, and it includes references to key Italian nuclear scholarship as suggested.
-Theoretical rigor
I have expanded the literature review for the notion of “scientific rituals”, including references to Randall Collins’s Interaction Ritual Chains and Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory. I have added a paragraph that highlights the difference between science as an epistemic method and science as an institutional ritual, as suggested. I have now included a paragraph that references art-making as a form of ritual.
-Suggestions for improvement
The primary disciplinary contribution and intended readership are now clearly stated at the beginning of the introduction.
The structure has been refined.
The discussion on scientific rituals has been deepened, with the suggested literature included.
The interpretation of the artwork in a dialogue with Saint Francis’s poem is now addressed in the conclusion.
The assertion that “art does not aim to provide solutions to societal matters” (line 348), has been eliminated and rewritten.
In the revised version of the paper, all additions are written in pink. To ensure reading clarity, the parts I have moved or rewritten have been completely eliminated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-4-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Aurora Del Rio, 15 Dec 2025
Thank you for your accurate and thoughtful revision of my paper and for the relevant feedback, which I have found very helpful. I have dedicated time to further develop this research and hope to have addressed all of your points in the revised version. More in detail:
-Chapter 1
Thank you for your relevant suggestions. I have now clearly stated the intended contribution of this research in the introduction. I have also added a paragraph on the temporal aspects of nuclear waste management at the beginning of this chapter.
-Chapter 2 (now chapter 3)
I have moved the former Chapter 2 as advised, and added some references to my text regarding the history of nuclear waste management in Italy. I have also changed the title of this section as suggested.
-Chapter 3.1 and 3.2 (now 2.2 and 2.3)
I have clarified my definition of “scientific rituals” in the chapter, following the important suggestions, and added new STS references, including Collins and Latour. I have also made explicit how I intend artistic practices as a ritual.
I have addressed your point concerning questions regarding reflection in relation to ritual in research/science, and art. I hope I understood this comment correctly.
The artwork description has been moved to Chapter 4.
I have now added a reference to the Key Information File as suggested.
-Chapter 3.3 (now 2.4)
I find your comment on my sentence relevant, and the statement mentioned has been removed. I have now argued my point differently.
-Chapter 4 and conclusion
I have included references to the pre-history of the sun worship as suggested and added a footnote referencing the temporalities involved in the artwork itself.
I have moved the paragraph discussing Saint Francis to the conclusion, and deepened the reflection on the relationship between the poem and the artwork in that section. This includes a discussion of the relevance of his position in relation to radioactive waste production. I have included the interesting reference to Doyle (1974) in a footnote.
-The structure has been reorganized, and the references have been checked.
In the revised version of the paper, all additions are written in pink. To ensure reading clarity, the parts I have moved or rewritten have been completely eliminated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2025-4-AC1
-
RC2: 'Anonymous Referee #2 Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Oct 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 242 | 163 | 24 | 429 | 33 | 59 |
- HTML: 242
- PDF: 163
- XML: 24
- Total: 429
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 59
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article manuscript. It is an interesting and valuable contribution to artistic research and speculative future communication in the context of nuclear waste management. The text is easy to follow and the language is generally understandable. The research is clearly contextualised against existing research and art on ritual(isation)s, but it remains somewhat unclear what the biggest contribution of the research is and in which field its results should mainly be felt, in (artistic) research on rituals, in research on future communication, or in nuclear waste management studies. Perhaps this could be more clearly signalled in the introduction and conclusion.
The text will benefit from some restructuring, as well as more careful referencing. More substantial revision is needed in chapters dealing with scientific ritual and the presentation of the (pre)historical inspiration for the artwork, most importantly on the points of connection between Francis of Assisi’s canticle of the nuclear sun, the author’s artwork, and considerations of nuclearity as a temporal question.
Chapter 1
I am sure most readers of SaND know much more about nuclear waste than I do, but it would be good to have some understanding of the time frames of nuclear waste challenges by this point. It would help the reader to align the temporalities of the artwork with those of nuclear waste management.
Chapter 2
I understand that the text is not about the history of nuclear power and nuclear politics in Italy, but I am left wanting some references to relevant research. Also, as it stands, this chapter does not deal with the research context, but rather the nuclear/geopolitical history and present state of the area. I understand research context to mean previous research on the subject matter of the contribution; ritualisation and artistic research practise (which are addressed in chapter 3). Perhaps consider a different, more informative title for this chapter.
Chapters 3.1 and 3.2
My impression is that the meaning of “scientific ritual”, as it is used in the text, refers not to research and science, but to forms of legitimisation and myth-making in nuclear politics and nuclear semiotics. Surely, many of the practices of the nuclear industry can be characterised as myth-building and ritualistic (take for example the rituals involved in entering a nuclear facility and the establishment of safety and security through those rituals), but I wonder if a clearer distinction should be made between “science/research as ritual” and research on nuclear rituals (political, semiotic).
In this sense, chapter 3.1 muddies the waters a bit by lacking a clear definition of science. Would it be simpler to concentrate on research and art on rituals? This is important because, even if the habits of research/science – and again I am not exactly sure how the author distinguishes between the two – might seem repetitive and ritualistic, i.e. repeating tasks without much reflection (the cemented conventions of publishing certainly obscure the thought processes that go into research), it does not mean that scientific “rituals” and religious rituals share an ontological and epistemological common ground. Whereas religious rituals are aimed at preserving a practice, research – ideally at least – includes creation of new concepts and identification of pursuit-worthy hypotheses that could lead to new discoveries, formation of new knowledge, or imagining possible futures. What I mean is that research and science appear in the text as a bit too monolithic and simplistic.
If the author wants to make a case for research as ritual, I would like to see a much more detailed contextualisation within relevant sociological/anthropological/STS research (e.g., Collins, R. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press) and examples of what the relevant ritualistic components of scientific work or research are. And if the author wants to build a case for research as ritual, wouldn’t the same hold for much of art practice, too? Presently, the text does not address art-making as ritual, only artworks as commentaries or research on rituals and ritualisation.
Perhaps even more importantly, the identification of research/science – and art for that matter – with ritual raises questions regarding reflexion. I am not saying that all research and art is reflexive – some practices are very habitual – but certainly we must aim to become more reflexive in terms of the researcher’s situatedness, and perhaps precisely for this reason it would be interesting to know what – in epistemological terms – the author means with the ritual component in science as that which provides a sense of “certainty in the absence of evidence” (r. 458).
Note regarding structure: Perhaps a signalling of the intention of the artwork in question and examples of how art has been used to communicate the location and nature of nuclear waste repositories with the distant future should be provided before presenting the author’s own artwork in more detail (in chapter 4). I also wonder whether, in addition to the provided examples of speculative semiotics, it would make sense to consider concrete realised work by researchers to ensure the passing of information about existing nuclear waste repositories. One important work is the so-called Key Information File, created by Keating and Storm (https://doi.org/10.3384/9789181181036).
Chapter 3.3
r. 348: “Contrary to science, art as a discipline does not claim to provide solutions to societal matters” is a highly controversial and sweeping statement, especially in the context of artistic research. On the contrary, it can similarly be argued that a lot of contemporary art addresses societal matters and also presents solutions to problems therein. Perhaps this would make more sense with a clearer definition of science, research, and art(istic research) from the author.
Chapter 4
It would be interesting to know more about the (pre)history of sun worship as that could intensify the deep time perspective of establishing a future-oriented artistic ritual devoted to the sun deity. Some hints are given in chapter 2.1, but the deep roots of sun worship might provide some insight into the variety of the rituals connected to sun worship (archaeologists must have some idea of what these were like), the meaning of the canticle of the nuclear sun as a continuation of those traditions, and perhaps even some reflection as to what the deep future of the artwork is imagined to look like.
On a related note, I wonder if the readers might benefit from a clearer exploration of the connection between Francis of Assisi’s canticle of the sun and the author’s canticle of the nuclear sun. These exist(ed) in two very different technological realities – and I understand the sun connection (sun as a source of energy, vitality, and so forth), but what is it exactly in the canticle of the nuclear sun that communicates the location and nature of the imagined nuclear waste repository in Sardinia, rather than simply commemorating the importance of the sun to human existence (or its divinity, as in the canticle of the sun)? Is there something particularly nuclear in the lyrics of the canticle of the nuclear sun that communicates “humanity’s longing for nuclear energy” rather than energy (myths) in general (e.g., Weart, S. 2012. The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Cambridge: Harvard University Press)? If not, was this a conscious choice to highlight the disappearance of information through time, and if so, would it be possible to explain how and why the artist/author imagines certain elements in the canticle of the nuclear sun to disappear and become replaced by new myths, and how it would still be possible to identify the song as a message about the waste repository in the future? Or is the communicative capacity of the artwork ultimately limited to the present era?
Would this chapter also be an opportunity to discuss the connection between Francis of Assisi and ecology in more detail. What is it about his teachings that still resonates in environmental thinking, and environmental humanities for that matter? Why was the canticle of the sun chosen as an inspiration, beyond the obvious connection to Italy? As I understand the meaning of the canticle of the sun, it is in praise of God and the divinity of God’s creation, whereas the canticle of the nuclear sun is intended as a warning song (r. 440–443). In what ways, if any, can the canticle of the sun be considered a warning song? And finally, if the roots of the ecological crisis are in Christianity and humans dominion over nature, how do the teachings of Francis of Assisi challenge this view? Was he a heretic (e.g., Doyle, E. 1974. Ecology and the Canticle of Brother Sun. New Blackfriars 55(652), 392–402), and if the author views him as such, what is the similarly politically disruptive power of the canticle of the nuclear sun in the context of contemporary ecological thinking?
Note regarding structure: I would move chapter 2.1 and all previous discussions of the author’s artwork here. It would streamline the text to introduce the artwork briefly in the introduction and then present it in more detail in this chapter when the reader already has all the information on rituals, art, ecology, etc.
References
I did not check whether the references and citations match, but there was at least one missing reference (e.g., Mazzucchelli & Paglianti, 2022), perhaps there are others, as well as references listed, but not cited.