Abstract
Over the past two decades, the term ‘Anthropocene’ has ignited widespread academic and public interest. Since 2009, the term has been considered on stratigraphic grounds by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG). The AWG has been championing a chronostratigraphic definition of the Anthropocene by advancing a proposal to formally recognize the unit as a post-Holocene epoch/series on the Geologic Time Scale and International Chronostratigraphic Chart. The proposal (i.e., the Anthropocene Hypothesis) has ignited debates among human, social, and natural scientists alike. One line of critique against the proposal concerns the chronostratigraphic suitability of the term ‘Anthropocene.’ This type of criticism holds that the term is inconsistent with the standard naming practices of the chronostratigraphic series; that it is inconsistent with other epochs of the Cenozoic era; that its etymology is faulty in several respects; and/or that its informal nature should be emphasized stylistically (e.g., with quotation marks or by writing the term with a lower case initial). The present contribution reviews this criticism and discusses it in the context of (chrono)stratigraphic classification and nomenclature to assess whether ‘Anthropocene’ is a suitable chronostratigraphic term. To do so, the analysis comments on and discusses guidelines, recommendations, and suggestions drafted by the International Stratigraphic Guide, which represents an international framework of reference for stratigraphic classification and nomenclature. Based on the underlying philosophy and recommendation of the Guide, there seem to be reasons to consider the ‘Anthropocene’ a suitable term in the context of chronostratigraphic nomenclature.
Highlights
Research on the Anthropocene Hypothesis—namely, the scientific proposal of formally ratifying a post-Holocene Anthropocene Series/Epoch on the International Chronostratigraphic Chart and Geologic Time Scale (Zalasiewicz et al 2019)—has been the center of gravity of recent debates on humans’ geological agency and footprint on the Earth
The hypothesis is currently being championed by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), which was formed in 2009 under the recommendation of the Subcommission of Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS)
Criticism could be distinguished between two kinds: criticism related to the stratigraphic nature of the proposed unit, and criticism related to the social, ethical, and political significance of the hypothesis
Summary
Research on the Anthropocene Hypothesis—namely, the scientific proposal of formally ratifying a post-Holocene Anthropocene Series/Epoch on the International Chronostratigraphic Chart and Geologic Time Scale (Zalasiewicz et al 2019)—has been the center of gravity of recent debates on humans’ geological agency and footprint on the Earth. A line of critique against the hypothesis converging natural, social, and human scientists concerns the terminological choice—namely, the use of the ‘Anthropocene’ term for the proposed epoch. At its core, this criticism holds that the term is unsuitable for its purpose, especially in the context of chronostratigraphy. The third section outlines the major points of criticism against the term ‘Anthropocene.’ The fourth section addresses the ‘Anthropocene’ in the context of chronostratigraphic classification and nomenclature, emphasizing the nature, purpose, and importance of the International Stratigraphic Guide, the naming of chronostratigraphic units, and the preservation of traditional and well-established terms in geological classification and nomenclature.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
