[This Place is Not a Place of Honor] History Repeats Itself: Archeological Models for Nuclear Markers

  One of the greatest challenges in designing warning markers for a future so distant as (at least) 10 millennia is that it is impossible to run an accurate simulation to determine how a message will be received through years of cultural, political and societal change. Yet there are already plenty of experimental results which display the survival of meaning in a structure over thousands of years; we only need to look in the past. When considering their marker designs, the Human Interference Task Force, and later the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant team, used lessons learned from monuments throughout history to model their requirements. 

    Serving as the foremost archeology consultant for the HITF was Maureen Kaplan, who later contributed to the design panel of the WIPP project as well. The first distinction she used in her research was that historical markers were composed of 3 communication elements: Language, pictures, and symbols. Outlined in her report were 6 different historical examples of ancient markers surviving at least 1,000 years, including information on their location, history, material composition, intended purpose, state of preservation, and relevance to repository marker construction. 

    The first and likely most famous of the archeological examples are the Pyramids of Giza. One of the most impressive features of the already breathtakingly enormous structures is how long they’ve lasted, 5,000 years, which is half of the nuclear semiotic time frame, and for the most part they’ve remained both physically intact and recognizable in purpose: tombs for the rulers who constructed them. If records of Egyptian culture in historical documents, like the writings of Herodotus, Pliny the Elder, and Abd el Latif weren’t available to designate the intent of the great pyramids, the same intent could be gleaned from the numerous markers and writings inside the tombs themselves, displaying the efficacy of redundant linguistic and pictorial markers used in tandem with physical and symbolic ones. The structure of the pyramids has remained untarnished for a number of reasons, but mainly their immense bulk, which dampens the effects of erosion and discourages the quarrying of its materials or removal under new governments. 

    Utilizing size works for the pyramids, as they’re built to designate a certain spot, however, a nuclear repository would have to cover an area at least 14 times the size of a pyramid, and the devotion of resources to a pyramid of that size is impossible, or at the very least impossibly uneconomic. Additionally, over the centuries the tombs have been entered through under the pyramids and looted, aided by the fact that the written tradition around the pyramids informed people of the treasures inside. Hopefully any writing about nuclear waste repositories will avoid conveying the impression of having valuable contents, though this presents the possible benefit of adding buried markers to the system to discourage digging under the site (we’ll get back to this later in the post). Though nuclear waste markers with a pyramid’s shape and size would be inefficient, the pyramids are a testament to the longevity of a structure’s purpose through surrounding information. 

    The next archeological marker Kaplan examined are the Stonehenge megaliths in England. Out of the 6 archeological examples, these are the most similar in shape to the eventual waste marker proposals, and for good reason; a pattern of numerous standing stones around 13 feet high is physically imposing whilst still requiring less building resources as the pyramids, and even though around a third of the stones have been lost in the roughly 3500 years since the monument was finished, you can still tell each one is part of a greater formation due to their redundancy and proximity to each other. Stone seems to be a favorable material choice for markers, as proven by this example, which has survived both an unfavorably moist climate and an unfavorable political climate, standing strong amidst multiple invasions, the wars of the roses, and the two world wars. The glaring downside to Stonehenge’s success (for our purposes) is that despite its physical longevity, historians are still unclear about its original function due to a lack of inscriptions or records regarding the monument.

    Inverting the pros and cons of Stonehenge would give you the Acropolis of Athens, Greece. Its religious significance, and the specific purposes of several structures within the Acropolis, is apparent throughout the building’s sculptures, art and reliefs, as well as through extensive documentation, through which we know extremely specific information such as the architects and sculptors who contributed to the project, and even how the money was raised to build it. It may prove to be a useful model for archiving nuclear information on the site, a relevance recognized later by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant team. 

    There’s been a great deal of structural damage to the Acropolis, for the most part due to human interference. In Maureen Kaplan’s words, “The Acropolis is an excellent example of ancient monuments that have suffered far more from the hands of man than from the ravages of nature.” Over the years the structures have been corroded by acid rain and pollution, the caryatids on the Porch of the Maidens have had to be replaced by casts, and the old iron bolts holding up the building were replaced by steel ones, which then expanded causing fractures in the surrounding marble. Some of this damage is attributed to its political proximity, such as the Venetian bombardment in the 17th century which triggered gunpowder explosions from inside the Acropolis and caused a great deal of structural damage, though if not for constant upkeep and restoration it is doubtful the Acropolis would still be standing.

    There are other historical structures which have survived due to consistent maintenance, though, perhaps implying that a nuclear waste warning structure could see a similar treatment from future civilizations. For instance, the Great Wall of China, another monument lasting over 2,000 years. Throughout its history it’s been breached in battle numerous times, then repaired with new materials, giving it a patchwork construction that remains structurally sound. The defensive purpose it serves, as well as oral and literary tradition remarking on its impressive creation and duty have incentivized its restoration. This may be a good indicator that nuclear waste repository markers will be maintained, as both structures are designed to protect the people surrounding them. 

    Damages to these monuments seem to occur most often when they are built close to civilization, as apparent by the continued survival of the Nazca Lines in Southern Peru, built around 100 BCE. The Nazca Lines are a series of immense pictures of animals and geometric shapes on the ground, drawn by removing the dark-colored rocky “pavement” that was formed naturally over thousands of years by erosion and rock decomposition in the desert. Due to its remote location, the lines had remained unbothered for some time, though in the recent few decades they’ve seen a good deal of degradation from tourist activity, and the patterns have been found to be quite fragile. Nuclear waste markers are to be much more durable, though the Nazca Lines prove that a sufficiently unpopulated location greatly increases the survivability of a marker, and that nature itself is not as likely to damage a marker as human interference. 

    The last structure Kaplan examined was mostly an example of what not to do: The Serpent Mound in Peebles, Ohio. The structure is a large line of gathered earth with a stone and clay core which forms the shape of an uncoiling serpent, assumed to be built by either the Adena or Fort Ancient Native Americans. This is about all that is known for certain about The Serpent Mound. There are many theories about when the structure was built, ranging from 3rd century BCE to 11th century CE, and without any existing oral tradition or written records about the site, historians are puzzled as to what the snake symbol means, or what the structure could have been used for. This loss of record is not the fault of the mound’s creators, but the structure is completely unique in the US, and without any point of reference from any signs or additional symbols on the site it’s impossible to firmly interpret. The serpent mound might be another convincing piece of argument against the use of the trefoil symbol in a marker, as though it may mean something to modern civilizations, a unique symbol alone is difficult to glean significance from without cultural context in the future. Additionally, the mound is very low to the ground, making it difficult to see the shape from eye level, a problem it shares with the Nazca lines. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the significance of the designs in both have been lost over time, implying there may be a correlation between symbolic memory and visibility. 

    In addition to the six examples here, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant team expanded on a few other archeological examples as models for more specific functions of the repository, such as the Vatican’s archives as a model for onsite long-term records storage. There are more than enough extra examples to include here, many of which are redundant with Kaplan’s research in the 80’s, though one of the more interesting references is to using a general feature of archeological digs to mark the site, that is, burying shards of ceramic pottery printed with pictographs and information which will convey that there was civilization on the site. Distributing these shards randomly may ensure that even if some pieces are removed for future archeological digs, there will be some left over for intruders to encounter as they dig or build on the site. These would certainly be in addition to larger physical markers, as sort of a backup plan, the kind of repetitive message delivery that is everywhere within the field of nuclear semiotics. It’s debatable whether buried pottery might inspire civilizations to excavate the repository for museums or archaeological purposes, spurring unnecessary activity on the site, though the reference to buried pottery has influenced many other ideas on underground nuclear markers, such as burying small bits of radioactive material on the outskirts of the repository almost as a “sample” of the contents deeper within.

    All in all, there are a few clear trends within these structures. The most survivable designs are made of stone, such as basalt or granite rather than marble or limestone, and have redundant patterns that can function even if part of the whole is removed. Kaplan’s 6 examples are all constructed from natural materials, which contributes to their lifespan, as metals have a tendency to be looted, recycled, or corroded (as is the case with the Acropolis). Additionally, it seems the longevity of the meaning behind these structures is dependent on written and pictorial markers, both on and off the site itself, and that structures serving a specific purpose to the civilization or community are more likely to be renewed, though also more likely to be damaged. Building the markers so that the entire system can be seen at once at eye level, rather than relying on an aerial perspective for the message’s reception, may play a part in reinforcing its cultural and symbolic memory. 

    Using archeology as a reference for deep-time structural design is an intriguing inversion of the study to me. Rather than examining a physical structure to design the narrative of the past, Nuclear Semiotics is examining the past (and potential futures) to design the narrative of a physical structure. 



References:

Trauth, Kathleen, et al. United States, Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories. Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Albuquerque, New Mexico, Government Printing Office, 1993. https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/1992/921382.pdf

United States, Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Reducing the Likelihood of Future Human Activities That Could Affect Geologic High-level Waste Repositories. Columbus, Ohio, Government Printing Office, 1984. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6799619

Trauth, Kathleen, et al. United States, Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories. Effectiveness of Passive Institutional Controls in Reducing Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for Use in Performance Assessments. Columbus, Ohio, Government Printing Office,1996. https://www.wipp.energy.gov/library/cra/baselinetool/documents/Appendices/EPIC%20Revison%201.PDF 

[This paper was published as part of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant project. It discusses the requirements of passive institutional controls, and lists a number of historical examples of long-term information preservation, assessing what we can learn from the past in order to create effective future markers.]

Joyce, Rosemary A. The Future of Nuclear Waste: What Art and Archaeology Can Tell Us About Securing the World’s Most Hazardous Material. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2020. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=R8XLDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=art+in+nuclear+waste+warning+messages&ots=Xj5VaDwT9W&sig=yZVml2hgfFBG-rBRLCNV1nLggqE#v=onepage&q=art%20in%20nuclear%20waste%20warning%20messages&f=false 
Anderson, Kelli. Designing for Deep Time: How Art History is Used to Mark Nuclear Waste. Pratt Institute, Master’s Thesis, 2005. http://www.kellianderson.com/MSthesis.pdf 

Kaplan, Maureen F and Adams, Mel. “Using the Past to Protect the Future.” Archeology, vol. 39, no. 5, Sept 1986, pp. 51-54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41731805 

Kaplan, Maureen. United States, Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation. Archeological Data as a Basis For Repository Marker Design. Columbus, Ohio, Government Printing Office, 1982. https://books.google.com/books?id=RxMCF4ncI-8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false  

Engler, Miriam. “Post-nuclear Monuments, Museums, and Gardens.” Landscape Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 2005, pp. 45-58. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38935797.pdf