563840

research-article2014
ANR0010.1177/2053019614563840The Anthropocene ReviewCertini and Scalenghe

Perspectives and controversies

The Anthropocene Review

Is the Anthropocene really

2015, Vol. 2(1) 77­–80
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
worthy of a formal geologic sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2053019614563840
definition? anr.sagepub.com

Giacomo Certini1 and Riccardo Scalenghe2

Abstract
Scientists are actively debating whether the Anthropocene, the geologic time span (GTS) we are
now living in, should be considered a period, epoch, or age in the geologic timescale. The solution
is not easy, because the beginning of this GTS is undefined and the end unknown. In fact, there is
no agreement on when the Anthropocene began, the proposed dates ranging from the Second
World War, when radioactive fallout branded soils and sediments all over the world, to little after
the end of the last glacial period, i.e. 11.7 thousand years ago, therefore coinciding with the onset
of the Holocene. We are in favour of a concurrence of the Anthropocene with the Holocene,
although a major impact of people on the environment began diachronically in different parts of
the world. This single GTS should be named Anthropocene because it is chiefly characterized by
a peculiar process of change for the planet: human impact. Nevertheless, a pivotal hindrance for
the Anthropocene to be worthy of a formal geologic definition remains. The Anthropocene is
open ended, therefore its real duration is unknown.

Keywords
early-Anthropocene, NGRIP ice core, Neolithic revolution, Permian–Triassic transition,
Pleistocene

It is a fact that we are living through a time when humanity joined with other environmental forces
in shaping the planet, which is the reason why the term Anthropocene (from Greek: anthropo-
meaning ‘human’ and -cene meaning ‘new’) is already part of both popular (959,000 scores in
English and even 61,300,000 scores in Chinese by November 2014 on Google Search) and scien-
tific lexicons (e.g. Ellis et al., 2013; Vince, 2011). An obvious consequence is that many authors
are interested in finding the most meaningful onset of the Anthropocene and in choosing a suitable
marker. What is now actively being debated in the scientific arena is whether the Anthropocene is

1Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy Corresponding author:

2Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy Riccardo Scalenghe, Università degli Studi di Palermo, 13,
Viale delle Scienze, Palermo, 90128, Italy.
Email: riccardo.scalenghe@unipa.it

Downloaded from anr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on March 14, 2015

78 The Anthropocene Review 2(1)

really worthy of a formal geologic definition and, if so, whether it should be considered a period,
epoch or age in the geologic timescale (Gibbard and Walker, 2014; Sample, 2014; Waters et al.,
2014). The question is not easy to resolve for at least a couple of reasons: we have not yet found
agreement on when the Anthropocene really began and we do not know (and, hopefully, we will
not know for a long time) when the Anthropocene will end.
Concerning the first point, the best starting date for the Anthropocene and the best marker for it
(i.e. a body of evidences that reflects an incipient substantial global impact by humans on the total
environment), many proposals have been advanced; the main ones are outlined in Smith and Zeder
(2013). Paul Crutzen, who gave popularity to the term Anthropocene, placed great weight on
atmospheric composition and considered the origin of this new geologic time span (GTS) to be
synchronous with the appearance of the steam engine in the late 18th century. However, many oth-
ers argue that by then, the Earth’s surface had been already profoundly modified by human activi-
ties (e.g. Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011) and, consequently, advance an early-Anthropocene
hypothesis and related markers that may testify to it (Certini and Scalenghe, 2011; Fuller et al.,
2011; Ruddiman, 2013). But, whatever the marker, for some, the Anthropocene cannot meet the
basic requirements of stratigraphy (Autin and Holbrook, 2014), so a stratigraphic definition of this
GTS may be unnecessary, constraining and arbitrary (Gale and Hoare, 2012). Ruddiman (2013)
states that defining the start of the Anthropocene in a formal way with some kind of globally trace-
able golden spike is impossible and thus suggests an informal use of the term Anthropocene.
Beyond the need for a marker, the point is that there is not a substantial difference on a geologic
timescale, between the various proposed dates for the dawn of the Anthropocene. In fact, if one
takes into account how long and approximate the transitions between the previous GTS are, the
barely 12,000 years over which the onset of the Anthropocene must be differentiated from the
Holocene, is a ridiculous range of time. For example, the Permian–Triassic transition, when two-
thirds of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct, lasted 61±48 thousand years (Burgess et al.,
2014). On these bases, we support the proposal by Smith and Zeder (2013) to consider the
Anthropocene and the Holocene to be the same or coeval GTS. The end of the last glacial period
is actually the sine qua non for the onset of a rapid expansion of human populations worldwide
from c. 6 million at the end of Pleistocene to 100 million at the end of Neolithic revolution (Biraben,
2003). If we regard the Anthropocene and Holocene as coeval, based on the consideration that the
origins of agriculture approximately coincide with the beginning of the Holocene (Balter, 2013),
no new golden spike is required, since the Holocene already has an official golden spike, i.e. the
Greenland ice core from North GRIP (NGRIP). NGRIP contains a proxy climate record across the
Pleistocene–Holocene boundary which constitutes the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP)
for the base of the Holocene Series/Epoch (Quaternary System/Period); it has been ratified by the
International Union of Geological Sciences and officially accepted (Walker et al., 2009). We sup-
port the view that the post-Pleistocene GTS should not be subdivided and feel that it deserves the
name Anthropocene because human activities became a major process of change for the planet.
Although the process began diachronically (Dean et al., 2014; Gale and Hoare, 2012), we believe
that the name of the ongoing GTS should reflect this unique process. On the other hand, the asyn-
chronous nature of the beginnings of human impact does not compromise the proposed coinci-
dence of the Holocene and Anthropocene, because, as underlined by Watson and Wright (1980),
the environmental changes differentiating the Holocene type of environment from the Pleistocene
type did not arise ubiquitously and simultaneously; on the contrary, they occurred in different
places at different rates, resulting in diachronous boundaries in the records. Furthermore, the term
Anthropocene is more durable than Holocene, because while a major new ice period would close
the Holocene, it is hard to imagine that the same ice period could entirely eliminate humanity and

Downloaded from anr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on March 14, 2015

Certini and Scalenghe 79

its impact on the Earth (Biraben, 2003). The end of the last glacial period is the onset of Holocene
by definition, but also the sine qua non for the onset of the Anthropocene; there was some initial
inertia, since in order for humanity to be a major environmental force, it had to increase in numbers
and make some advantageous inventions to achieve its dramatic impacts. On the other hand, should
the Anthropocene not coincide with the Holocene, and a formal, post-Holocene geologic definition
be agreed, what a brief epoch the Holocene would become?
As well as the NGRIP ice core, five auxiliary stratotypes for the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary
were recognised by Walker et al. (2009) through pollen signals at Eifelmaar Lakes in Germany, Splan
Pond in Canada, Lake Suigetsu in Japan, and Lake Maratoto in New Zealand; a clay strata that ends
abruptly at Splan Pond; a tephrochronological record at Lake Maratoto; a foraminiferal signal at
Cariaco Basin in Venezuela; and an insect signal at Splan Pond and Lake Maratoto. In our opinion,
anthropogenic soils, those soils markedly affected by human activities, such as repeated ploughing,
the addition of organic matter or fertilizers, contamination, sealing or enrichment with artefacts,
could be worthy of providing an additional auxiliary stratotype. In many parts of the world there are
several anthropogenic soils dating close to the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary (e.g. Chiarantini
et al., 2009; Erlandson, 2013; Lombardo et al., 2013) that could testify to the onset of the Anthropocene.
Apart from its onset, we feel that another crucial point prevents the Anthropocene or the syn-
chronized Anthropocene–Holocene from being worthy of formal geologic definition. It is more
obvious than any technical reason dealing with the rules of stratigraphy (Autin and Holbrook,
2014). The fact is that we do not know when the current GTS, Holocene or Anthropocene, will end.
In this regard, the attempt to breakdown such open ended GTS into subperiods (Vane et al., 2011;
Walker et al., 2012) is paradoxical.
It is difficult to think that the impact of mankind on the planet may reduce or even disappear in
the future, because it is highly probable that world population will increase to beyond 10 billion in
2100 (Gerland et al., 2014). Theoretically and hopefully, the human connection with Earth may last
5 billion years, i.e. until the unavoidable engulfment of the planet by the dying Sun. In this case,
the Anthropocene would emerge as an era or eon. Conversely, our unsustainable, exploitative inter-
action with Earth could compel humankind to migrate to other habitable planets. Before such a
migration, however, the history of humanity could end because of relatively sudden extinction
(Various Authors, 2009). In both cases, Earth would surely be able to continue without us, chang-
ing to a new state no longer impacted by ongoing human intervention (Weisman, 2008), and pos-
sibly experiencing the flourishing of a whole gamut of new forms of life otherwise prevented by
the presence of the dominant evolutionary force Homo sapiens (Palumbi, 2001). Under this sce-
nario, however, there will be no need to rack our brains to solve the problem as to whether the
Anthropocene is really worthy of a formal geologic definition.

Acknowledgements
We thank Drs Frank Oldfield, Peter Hooda, Fiorenzo C Ugolini and two anonymous reviewers for their con-
structive criticism on the manuscript.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

References
Autin WJ and Holbrook JM (2014) Is the Anthropocene an issue of stratigraphy or pop culture? GSA Today
22: 60–61.

Downloaded from anr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on March 14, 2015

80 The Anthropocene Review 2(1)

Balter M (2013) Archaeologists say the ‘Anthropocene’ is here – But it began long ago. Science 340: 261–262.
Biraben JN (2003) L’évolution du nombre des hommes. Population et Sociétés 394. Available at: www.ined.
fr/fichier/s_rubrique/18827/pop_et_soc_francais_394.fr.pdf (accessed November 2014).
Burgess SD, Bowring S and Shen S-z (2014) High-precision timeline for Earth’s most severe extinction.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 3316–3321.
Certini G and Scalenghe R (2011) Anthropogenic soils are the golden spikes for the Anthropocene. The
Holocene 21: 1269–1274.
Chiarantini L, Benvenuti M, Costagliola P et al. (2009) Copper production at Baratti (Populonia, southern
Tuscany) in the early Etruscan period (9th–8th centuries bc). Journal of Archaeological Science 36:
1626–1636.
Dean JD, Leng MJ and Mackay AW (2014) Is there an isotopic signature of the Anthropocene? The
Anthropocene Review 1: 276–287.
Ellis EC, Kaplan JO, Fuller DQ et al. (2013) Used planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110: 7978–7985.
Erlandson JM (2013) Shell middens and other anthropogenic soils as global stratigraphic signatures of the
Anthropocene. Anthropocene 4: 24–32.
Fuller D, van Etten J, Manning K et al. (2011) The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism
to prehistoric methane levels: An archaeological assessment. The Holocene 21: 743–759.
Gale SJ and Hoare PG (2012) The stratigraphic status of the Anthropocene. The Holocene 22: 1491–1494.
Gerland P, Raftery AE, Ševčíková H et al. (2014) World population stabilization unlikely this century.
Science 346: 234–237.
Gibbard PL and Walker MJC (2014) The term ‘Anthropocene’ in the context of formal geological classifica-
tion. Geological Society London, Special Publications 395: 29–37.
Klein Goldewijk K, Beusen A, van Drecht G et al. (2011) The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of
human induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Global Ecology and Biogeography
20: 73–86.
Lombardo U, Szabo K, Capriles JM et al. (2013) Early and Middle Holocene hunter-gatherer occupations in
Western Amazonia: The hidden shell middens. PLoS ONE 8: e72746.
Palumbi SR (2001) Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science 293: 1786–1790.
Ruddiman WF (2013) The Anthropocene. The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 41: 45–68.
Sample I (2014) Anthropocene: Is this the new epoch of humans? The Guardian, 16 October. Available at:
www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/16/-sp-scientists-gather-talks-rename-human-age-anthropocene-
holocene (accessed November 2014).
Smith BD and Zeder MA (2013) The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 4: 8–13.
Vane CH, Chenery SR, Harrison I et al. (2011) Chemical signatures of the Anthropocene in the Clyde estu-
ary, UK: Sediment-hosted Pb, 207/206Pb, total petroleum hydrocarbon, polyaromatic hydrocarbon and
polychlorinated biphenyl pollution records. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:
1085–1111.
Various Authors (2009) The human extinction issue. Futures 41: 673–774.
Vince G (2011) An epoch debate. Science 334: 32–37.
Walker M, Johnsen S, Rasmussen SO et al. (2009) Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global
Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and
selected auxiliary records. Journal of Quaternary Science 24: 3–17.
Walker MJC, Berkelhammer M, Björck S et al. (2012) Formal subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch:
A discussion paper by a Working Group of INTIMATE (Integration of ice-core, marine and terrestrial
records) and the subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy).
Journal of Quaternary Science 27: 649–659.
Waters CN, Zalasiewicz JA, Williams M et al. (2014) A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene? GSL
Special Publication SP395. London: The Geological Society, 321 pp.
Watson RA and Wright HE Jr (1980) The end of the Pleistocene: A general critique of chronostratigraphic
classification. Boreas 9: 153–162.
Weisman A (2008) The World Without Us. London: Picador, 432 pp.

Downloaded from anr.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on March 14, 2015