JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE (2022) 37(3) 395–399 ISSN 0267-8179. DOI: 10.1002/jqs.

3416

The Anthropocene as an Event, not an Epoch

PHILIP GIBBARD,1* MICHAEL WALKER,2,3 ANDREW BAUER,4 MATTHEW EDGEWORTH,5 LUCY EDWARDS,6
ERLE ELLIS,7 STANLEY FINNEY,8 JACQUELYN L. GILL,9 MARK MASLIN,10,11 DOROTHY MERRITTS12 and
WILLIAM RUDDIMAN13
1
Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
2
Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK
3
Faculty of Humanities and Performing Arts, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, Wales, UK
4
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
5
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
6
U.S. Geological Survey, Florence Bascom Geosciences Center, Reston, VA, USA
7
Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
8
Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA
9
Climate Change Institute and School of Biology and Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA
10
Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK
11
Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark
12
Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, USA
13
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Received 19 October 2021; Revised 20 January 2022; Accepted 22 January 2022

ABSTRACT: Over the course of the last decade the concept of the Anthropocene has become widely established
within and beyond the geoscientific literature but its boundaries remain undefined. Formal definition of the
Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical series and geochronological epoch following the Holocene, at a fixed
horizon and with a precise global start date, has been proposed, but fails to account for the diachronic nature of
human impacts on global environmental systems during the late Quaternary. By contrast, defining the Anthropocene
as an ongoing geological event more closely reflects the reality of both historical and ongoing human–environment
interactions, encapsulating spatial and temporal heterogeneity, as well as diverse social and environmental processes
that characterize anthropogenic global changes. Thus, an Anthropocene Event incorporates a substantially wider
range of anthropogenic environmental and cultural effects, while at the same time applying more readily in different
academic contexts than would be the case with a rigidly defined Anthropocene Series/Epoch.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS: Anthropocene; Epoch; Event; stratigraphy; terminology

Introduction analogous to biotically driven events in deep geological time

which have also had far reaching impacts on global environ-
On 14 September 2021, Bauer et al. (2021) published a mental systems.
preliminary correspondence in Nature which proposed that
the Anthropocene should be defined as an ‘event’ rather than a
geological ‘epoch’. This was followed by a paper in Episodes
The Anthropocene as a geological epoch
(Gibbard et al., 2021) which described in greater detail the
rationale behind the proposal. Defining the Anthropocene as The term ‘Anthropocene’ is now firmly embedded in earth
an event is a significant departure from current thinking, but it science literature, following its introduction by Paul Crutzen to
offers a solution to the long‐standing methodological problem refer to a new geological epoch/period characterized by the
of how to define the multi‐faceted Anthropocene as a increasing human impact on Earth's geological, biological and
stratigraphical unit when the onset of transformative human climatic systems (Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000; Crut-
activities, as reflected in the geological record, is markedly zen, 2002, 2009). The concept of the Anthropocene as a
time‐transgressive. However, we are aware that Episodes new epoch following the Holocene was explored further by
might not be widely read by Quaternary scientists. Conse- the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of
quently, we here take the opportunity to bring this redefinition London (Zalasiewicz et al., 2008) leading, in 2009, to the
of the Anthropocene to the attention of the wider Quaternary establishment of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG)
community. We explain further why defining the Anthro- within the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS)
pocene as a chronostratigraphical unit has proved to be so of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). The
problematic (cf. Edgeworth et al., 2019), and reiterate our AWG is evaluating the Anthropocene as a potential unit of
alternative approach of considering the Anthropocene not in series/epoch status in the International Chronostratigraphic
chronostratigraphical or geochronological terms (series/ Chart upon which the Geological Timescale (GTS) is based
epoch), but rather as an ongoing ‘anthropogenic event’, (Waters et al., 2014). Crutzen's view was that an appropriate
start date for the Anthropocene would be during the mid‐ to
*Correspondence: C. Delaney, as above. late 18th century, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution in
Email: plg1@cam.ac.uk western Europe. However, the AWG increasingly came to
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 10991417, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.3416 by Ufrgs - Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Wiley Online Library on [29/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
396 JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE

favour a later date in the mid‐20th century that coincides with major European biome changes (Fyfe et al., 2015); global‐scale
what has been termed the ‘Great Acceleration’ (Steffen industrial development with associated transformation of
et al., 2015) in human impacts on Earth systems (e.g. waterways (diversion, canalization and damming; Merritts
Zalasiewicz et al., 2015; Syvitski et al., 2020; Figure 1). Since et al., 2011); or extraction of fossil fuels for energy (Smith and
then, the AWG has been working towards a definition of the Zeder, 2013; Lewis and Maslin, 2018). It is also true that in
Anthropocene as a new series/epoch beginning around CE archaeological chronologies, boundaries between major ar-
1950 (Zalasiewicz et al., 2017, 2019), and appears to have chaeological periods (Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, etc.)
reached an internal agreement that this is marked by the Great are not time parallel, for the same reasons. An isochronous and
Acceleration (Head et al., 2021a). meaningful lower boundary for the Anthropocene is similarly
Formally establishing the Anthropocene as a series/epoch1 impractical, since it fails to reflect the evidence. While the
requires that certain protocols must be followed. A proposal series/epoch status of the Anthropocene defined by the CE 1950
from the AWG is submitted to the SQS and, if approved, is radiogenic spike in sedimentary accumulations has the merit
transmitted to the ICS for further consideration. To be of being underpinned by a broadly isochronous and global
accepted, a supermajority (60%) of voting members is stratigraphical record (as required for a GSSP), the time‐
required. If accepted, the proposal is passed to the Interna- transgressive nature of human impacts on Earth systems during
tional Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. the Holocene raises questions about the validity, and indeed
Fundamental to any proposal is the identification of a type or the applicability, of defining the Anthropocene as a new (and
representative stratigraphical section that contains a unique meaningful) chronostratigraphical/geochronological unit in
basal boundary or Global boundary Stratotype Section and the GTS.
Point (GSSP). This is a formally ratified (by the IUGS) point in a
rock, sediment or ice sequence that is characterized by
physical, chemical and biological changes in a continuous
depositional succession (Remane et al., 1996). The boundary
The Anthropocene as a geological stage/age
represents the series base and delineates a horizon that is If the Anthropocene is not to be a stratigraphical unit of series/
representative of the same point worldwide. By definition, the epoch status, how then can it be defined? One possibility is to
boundary is time‐parallel (i.e. it is globally isochronous); it distinguish the Anthropocene as a stage/age, the lowest rank
cannot be diachronous. The AWG has been exploring formal taxonomic unit in the stratigraphical hierarchy (Hed-
potential GSSPs, based principally on radionuclide fall‐out berg, 1976; Salvador, 1994). While designated global stage
from atomic weapons testing in the 1940s and 1950 that left a names are required in the GTS, the conventional practice in
global, broadly isochronous signature in lake sediment and Quaternary science has been to use regional rather than global
other depositional successions (Waters et al., 2018), but no stage divisions, especially in the European Pleistocene.
formal proposal has yet been made. Until it is, then any Accordingly, their subseries (‘Lower’, ‘Middle’ and ‘Upper’)
definition of the Anthropocene must remain informal. How- or, more commonly, subepoch (‘Early’, ‘Middle’ and ‘Late’)
ever, the question might arise as to whether the international equivalents have been favoured (Head et al., 2021b). In this
geological community would welcome a new series/epoch for classification, the Anthropocene would become the fourth
which the lower boundary is based on the radiogenic by‐ (uppermost) stage/age (or subseries/subepoch) of the Holocene
products of weapons of mass destruction. These are significant Series/Epoch following the Greenlandian, Northgrippian and
issues in Late Holocene stratigraphy that will eventually be Meghalayan (Walker et al., 2019). Two difficulties arise with
debated within the SQS and ICS, but it is important that the this proposition, however. The designation of a stage/age
wider Quaternary community contributes to deliberations on requires a GSSP and this, as was discussed above, poses a
any formally submitted proposal, as has happened in the past problem because of the time‐transgressive nature of the
(Finney and Edwards, 2016). evidence. Second, the name itself would have to change, for
However, a further practical problem also remains. The stages/ages are named after the type geographical locality
stratigraphical record is unequivocal in showing that measur- (hence ‘Greenlandian’ to reflect the location of the Early
able human impacts on Earth system functioning extend Holocene GSSP on the Greenland Ice Sheet). As such the term
back several thousand years into the Holocene in many ‘Anthropocene’ could no longer be employed.
parts of the world, and possibly earlier in some regions
(Roberts et al., 2021). Moreover, a range of proxy records
reveals the markedly time‐transgressive nature of human
impact when studied on historical or human timescales.
The Anthropocene as a geological event
Human–environment transformations that affected global An alternative approach, and the one that we propose
processes began in different places at different times and (Gibbard et al., 2021), is that the Anthropocene should not
demonstrably spread geographically at different rates (Fig. 1). be designated as a formal chronostratigraphical/geochronolo-
This is the case irrespective of whether it is ecosystem change gical unit, but rather that it be defined as an ongoing event. In
and mass extinction of large vertebrates at the end of the last contrast to a series/epoch, the definition of a geological event
cold stage (Seersholm et al., 2020); the development of early has no formalization procedures or GSSP requirements. While
farming influencing atmospheric loading of trace gases (Ruddi- this means that the Anthropocene would not become a ratified
man et al., 2016); long‐term patterns of tropical deforestation unit within the international GTS, designation as an event in no
affecting precipitation, temperature, soil stability and the way diminishes its significance in Earth's history. Indeed, it
carbon cycle (Roberts et al., 2021); land clearance in the would define the Anthropocene in a similar way to globally
Americas (Lewis and Maslin, 2015); the extent and impacts of significant transformations that have previously affected the
Earth's biosphere. These include the Palaeoproterozoic Great
Oxidation Event (GOE: c. 2.4–2.0 Ga), the Great Ordovician
1
In stratigraphical nomenclature, ‘series’, ‘subseries’ and ‘stage’ are chronos- Biodiversity Event (GOBE; 485–455 Ma) and the Middle–Late
tratigraphical or ‘time‐rock’ terms that refer exclusively to all rocks/sediments
formed during a specific interval of geological time, whereas ‘epoch’, ‘subepoch’
Devonian forestation of continents (DeFE: c. 390–360 Ma), all
and ‘age’ are geochronological or time terms referring to the timespan of a of which demonstrate that humans are not the first organisms
stratigraphical unit (Salvador, 1994). to transform the global Earth system (Sagan, 2020). Before the
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 37(3) 395–399 (2022)
 10991417, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.3416 by Ufrgs - Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Wiley Online Library on [29/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
THE ANTHROPOCENE AS AN EVENT, NOT AN EPOCH 397

Figure 1. Geological timeline (top) compared with historical timeline (bottom). A number of different starting dates have been proposed for the
Anthropocene that correspond to different environmental and social changes that are evident as markers in the stratigraphical record. The ‘AWG
view’ refers to the Anthropocene Working Group ‘Great Acceleration’ proposal for a start date in the mid‐20th century. Colour densities broadly
indicate the intensity of change; (a) indicates years. Modified after Ellis et al. (2016) and Gibbard et al. (2021). [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

GOE, Earth had a weakly reducing atmosphere in which influence on the planet. Accordingly, the Anthropocene
oxidation was prevented. With the development of cyano- should be defined as: ‘the aggregated effects of human
bacteria and oxygen generation as a product of photosynthesis, activities that have transformed, and continue to transform,
atmospheric oxygen increased and radically changed the the Earth system and influence biodiversity, thereby producing
course of planetary development with the evolution of a substantial, characteristic and unique record in sedimentary
multicellular life (Schirrmeister et al., 2013). During the strata and in human‐modified ground’ (cf. Gibbard et al., 2021).
GOBE, the diversity of life and new communities increased Event stratigraphy was first proposed for the recognition,
exponentially, yet diachronously, through the marine realm study and correlation of the effects of important physical or
(Servais and Harper, 2018). The evolution of forests and their biological events in the broader stratigraphical record
spread across continents during the Devonian produced an (Ager, 1973). Geological events can be time‐transgressive,
even greater transformation. Many biogeomorphic phenomena multi‐temporal and spatially variable, ranging by orders of
that operate in modern terrestrial environments appeared for magnitude from minutes to millions of years, and from local to
the first time (Davies et al., 2021), and the dramatic changes in regional and, ultimately, global (Rawson et al., 2002). The
levels of atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide became a event paradigm has been firmly embedded in Quaternary
driver of Late Devonian mass extinction and latterly of Late science from the mid‐19th century onwards, with the
Devonian–Carboniferous glaciation (Le Hir et al., 2011; Dahl subdivision of Quaternary time being based on the recognition
and Arens, 2020). However, despite their firm basis in the of successive climatic events, principally glacials and inter-
stratigraphical record, (Eriksson and Cheney, 1992; glacials but also stadials and interstadials, their use in
Buick, 2008), neither the GOE nor the GOBE, nor the stratigraphical classification being generally referred to as
Devonian continental forestation event, are employed to ‘climate–stratigraphy’. Highly resolved stratigraphical succes-
define time‐unit boundaries within the GTS. They are, none- sions, such as those from ice cores, provide evidence of
theless, widely regarded as major transformative phases of the millennial‐scale climatic events that are superimposed on
Earth system. Moreover, they are not particular points in time; these broad glacial–interglacial cycles (Björck et al., 1998;
they were significant events that varied spatially and tempo- Rasmussen et al., 2014), while other short‐term episodes, such
rally, as is the case with ongoing anthropogenic transforma- as Dansgaard–Oeschger events and Heinrich events, are
tions. Indeed, in proposing an Anthropocene Crutzen was not evident in ice‐core sequences and deep‐ocean sediment
principally attempting to define a new formal stratigraphical records, respectively (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Hemming, 2004).
unit, but rather was drawing attention to increasing human The hallmark of all these events is that while time intervals are

© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 37(3) 395–399 (2022)
 10991417, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.3416 by Ufrgs - Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Wiley Online Library on [29/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
398 JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE

broadly consistent at a range of spatial scales, the litho‐ or Greenland Ice Core record: a proposal by the INTIMATE group.
biostratigraphical boundaries that mark the onset and termina- Journal of Quaternary Science 13: 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tion of the events in the stratigraphical record may be (SICI)1099-1417(199807/08)13:4%3C283::AID-JQS386%3E3.0.
diachronous; hence time‐transgression is inbuilt within the CO;2-A
event–stratigraphy paradigm. This means that events cannot be Buick R. 2008. When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? Philoso-
phical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
considered as chronostratigraphical or geochronological units,
Biological Sciences 363: 2731–2743. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.
for understanding of Earth systems, but this does not diminish 2008.0041 [PubMed: 18468984].
the value or applicability of the concept, as is evident in the Crutzen P. 2009. Can we survive the ‘Anthropocene period’? Project
widespread use of events in Quaternary science. Syndicate 5.
Crutzen PJ. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415: 23. https://doi.
org/10.1038/415023a [PubMed: 11780095].
Conclusions Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. 2000. The ‘Anthropocene’. IGBP Global
Change Newsletter 41: 17–18.
Recognizing the Anthropocene as an important transformative Dahl TW, Arens SKM. 2020. The impacts of land plant evolution on
chapter of recent Earth history has been a feature in Earth's climate and oxygenation state – an interdisciplinary review.
publications across a wide range of disciplines, yet a formal Chemical Geology 547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.
definition of the Anthropocene has so far proved elusive. 119665
Recent attempts have focused largely on formalizing the Dansgaard W, Johnsen SJ, Clausen HB et al. 1993. Evidence for
general instability of past climate from a 250‐kyr ice‐core record.
Anthropocene as a rigidly constrained chronostratigraphical/
Nature 364: 218–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/364218a0
geochronological division in the international GTS. These Davies NS, Berry CM, Marshall JEA et al. 2021. Devonian Landscape
efforts have been compromised, however, by difficulties in Factory: plant–sediment interactions in the Old Red Sandstone of
determining the onset of the Anthropocene in the global Svalbard and the rise of vegetation as a biogeomorphic agent.
stratigraphical record, and by the fact that human impact has Journal of the Geological Society of London 178: 2020–2225.
been a diachronous, heterogeneous and socially differentiated Edgeworth M, Ellis EC, Gibbard PL et al. 2019. The chronostratigraphic
process. A shift to an event framework for defining the method is unsuitable for determining the start of the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene, as reiterated herein, is a practical solution that Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 43:
overcomes many of these problems. It frees the concept from 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133319831673
the constraints of geological formalization as well as from its Ellis E, Maslin M, Boivin N et al. 2016. Involve social scientists in
defining the Anthropocene. Nature 540: 192–193. https://doi.org/
alignment with established chronostratigraphical and geochro-
10.1038/540192a
nological units within the Holocene Series/Epoch. It also Eriksson PG, Cheney ES. 1992. Evidence for the transition to an
provides a universal term (a common language) that facilitates oxygen‐rich atmosphere during the evolution of red beds in the
communication beyond the geoscience community with the Lower Proterozoic sequences of southern Africa. Precambrian
social sciences and humanities (Gibbard et al., 2021). Above Research 54: 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9268(92)
all, it acknowledges the Anthropocene as a major transforma- 90073-W
tive episode in Earth history, in keeping with similar scale Finney SC, Edwards LE. 2016. The “Anthropocene” epoch: scientific
events in the earlier geological record. decision or political statement? GSA Today 26: 4–10. https://doi.org/
10.1130/GSATG270A.1
Acknowledgements. We thank Professors Angela Coe and Lewis Fyfe RM, Woodbridge J, Roberts N. 2015. From forest to farmland: pollen‐
Owen, and the Editor, Neil Roberts, for their helpful and supportive inferred land cover change across Europe using the pseudobiomization
comments. We also thank Philip Stickler for assistance with the approach. Global Change Biology 21: 1197–1212. https://doi.org/10.
production of Fig. 1. This article has been peer reviewed and approved 1111/gcb.12776 [PubMed: 25345850].
for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices Gibbard PL, Bauer AM, Edgeworth M et al. 2021. A practical solution:
(pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/). the Anthropocene is a geological event, not a formal epoch.
Episodes 44. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2021/021029
Head MJ, Pillans B, Zalasiewicz J et al. 2021b. Formal ratification of
Author contributions—The paper was written and edited
subseries for the Pleistocene Series of the Quaternary System.
by P.G. and M.W., whilst all authors conceived of, reviewed Episodes 44: 241–247.
and interpreted the information presented. The drafting of the Head MJ, Steffen W, Fagerlind D. 2021a. The Great Acceleration is
article and its critical revision for important intellectual real and provides a quantitative basis for the proposed Anthro-
content is the result of equal co‐operation between all the pocene Series/Epoch. Episodes 44. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/
authors. All authors approved the final publication. 2021/021031
Hedberg HD. 1976. International Stratigraphic Guide. Wiley:
New York.
Abbreviations. AWG, Anthropocene Working Group; DeFE, Hemming SR. 2004. Heinrich events: massive Late Pleistocene detritus
Middle–Late Devonian forestation of continents; GOBE, Great layers of the North Atlantic and their global climate imprint.
Ordovician Biodiversity Event; GOE, Great Oxidation Event; GSSP, Reviews of Geophysics 42. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000128
Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point; GTS, Geological Le Hir G, Donnadieu Y, Goddéris Y et al. 2011. The climate change
Timescale; ICS, International Commission on Stratigraphy; IUGS, caused by the land plant invasion in the Devonian. Earth and
International Union of Geological Sciences; SQS, Subcommission on Planetary Science Letters 310: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Quaternary Stratigraphy. epsl.2011.08.042
Lewis SL, Maslin MA. 2015. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519:
References 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258 [PubMed: 25762280].
Lewis SL, Maslin MA. 2018. The Human Planet. How We Created the
Ager DV. 1973. The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record. Wiley: Anthropocene. Penguin Random House: London.
New York. Merritts D, Walter R, Rahnis M et al. 2011. Anthropogenic streams and
Bauer AM, Edgeworth M, Edwards LE et al. 2021. Anthropocene: event base‐level controls from historic dams in the unglaciated mid‐
or epoch? Nature 597: 332. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021- Atlantic region, USA. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
02448-z [PubMed: 34522014]. Society of London 369: 1–34.
Björck S, Walker MJC, Cwynar LC et al. 1998. An event stratigraphy for Rasmussen SO, Bigler M, Blockley SPE et al. 2014. A stratigraphic
the Last Termination in the North Atlantic region based on the framework for abrupt climatic changes during the Last Glacial

© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 37(3) 395–399 (2022)
 10991417, 2022, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.3416 by Ufrgs - Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Wiley Online Library on [29/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
THE ANTHROPOCENE AS AN EVENT, NOT AN EPOCH 399

period based on three synchronized Greenland ice‐core records: Smith BD, Zeder MA. 2013. The onset of the Anthropocene.
refining and extending the INTIMATE event stratigraphy. Quaternary Anthropocene 4: 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.
Science Reviews 106: 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev. 05.001
2014.09.007 Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L et al. 2015. The trajectory of the
Rawson P, Brenchley PJ, Allen PM et al. 2002. Stratigraphical Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration. Anthropocene Review 2:
Procedure. Geological Society of London: London. 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785
Remane J, Bassett MG, Cowie JW et al. 1996. Revised guidelines for Syvitski J, Waters CN, Day J et al. 2020. Extraordinary human energy
the establishment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the consumption and resultant geological impacts beginning around
International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). Episodes 19: 77–81. 1950 CE initiated the proposed Anthropocene Epoch. Communica-
https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/1996/v19i3/007 tions Earth & Environment, 1:32–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Roberts P, Hamilton R, Piperno DR. 2021. Tropical forests as key s43247-020-00029-y
sites of the ‘Anthropocene’: past and present perspectives. Walker M, Head MJ, Lowe J et al. 2019. Subdividing the Holocene
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Series/Epoch: formalization of stages/ages and subseries/subepochs,
States of America 118: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. and designation of GSSPs and auxiliary stratotypes. Journal of
2109243118 [PubMed: 34580229]. Quaternary Science 34: 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3097
Ruddiman WF, Fuller DQ, Kutzbach JE et al. 2016. Late Holocene Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C et al. 2018. Global
climate: natural or anthropogenic? Reviews of Geophysics 54: Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Anthropocene
93–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000503 Series: where and how to look for potential candidates. Earth‐
Sagan D. 2020. Gaia versus the Anthropocene: untimely thoughts on Science Reviews 178: 379–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.
the current ecocatastrophe. Ecocene: Cappadocia Journal of 2017.12.016
Environmental Humanities 1: 137–146. Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Williams M et al. (eds). 2014. A
Salvador A. 1994. International Stratigraphic Guide: A Guide to Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene? Geological Society of
Stratigraphic Classification, Terminology, and Procedure. Interna- London: London.
tional Commission on Stratigraphy. Geologica Society of America: Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Summerhayes CP et al. 2017. The Working
Boulder. Group on the Anthropocene: summary of evidence and interim
Schirrmeister BE, de Vos JM, Antonelli A et al. 2013. Evolution of recommendations. Anthropocene 19: 55–60. https://doi.org/10.
multicellularity coincided with increased diversification of cyano- 1016/j.ancene.2017.09.001
bacteria and the Great Oxidation Event. Proceedings of the National Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Williams M et al. 2015. When did the
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: Anthropocene begin? A mid‐twentieth century boundary level is
1791–1796. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209927110[PubMed: stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International 383: 196–203.
23319632]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045
Seersholm FV, Werndly DJ, Grealy A et al. 2020. Rapid range shifts Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Williams M et al. (eds). 2019. The
and megafaunal extinctions associated with Late Pleistocene climate Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit: A Guide to the Scientific
changes. Nature Communications 11: 2770. https://doi.org/10. Evidence and Current Debate. Cambridge University Press:
1038/s41467-020-16502-3 [PubMed: 32488006]. Cambridge.
Servais T, Harper DAT. 2018. The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Smith A et al. 2008. Are we now living in
Event (GOBE): definition, concept and duration. Lethaia 51: the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18: 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1130/
151–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/let.12259 GSAT01802A.1

© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 37(3) 395–399 (2022)