Colonization of the Americas, 'Little Ice Age' climate, and bomb-produced carbon: Their role in defining the Anthropocene. (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zalasiewicz, Jan; Waters, Colin N; Barnosky, Anthony D; Cearreta, Alejandro; Edgeworth, Matt; Ellis, Erle C; Gałuszka, Agnieszka; Gibbard, Philip L; Grinevald, Jacques; Hajdas, Irka; Ivar do Sul, Juliana; Jeandel, Catherine; Leinfelder, Reinhold; McNeill, JR; Poirier, Clément; Revkin, Andrew; deB Richter, Daniel; Steffen, Will; Summerhayes, Colin; Syvitski, James PM; Vidas, Davor; Wagreich, Michael; Williams, Mark; Wolfe, Alexander P
• Is Part Of: Anthropocene review. Volume 2:Number 2(2015)
• Page Start: 117
• Page End: 127
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: Anthropocene -- 'Little Ice Age' -- radiocarbon fallout -- stratigraphy; Nature -- Effect of human beings on -- Periodicals; Global environmental change -- Periodicals; Human ecology -- Periodicals; 304.2
• DOI: 10.1177/2053019615587056
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2053-0196

Abstract

A recently published analysis by Lewis and Maslin (Lewis SL and Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519: 171–180) has identified two new potential horizons for the Holocene−Anthropocene boundary: 1610 (associated with European colonization of the Americas), or 1964 (the peak of the excess radiocarbon signal arising from atom bomb tests). We discuss both of these novel suggestions, and consider that there is insufficient stratigraphic basis for the former, whereas placing the latter at the peak of the signal rather than at its inception does not follow normal stratigraphical practice. Wherever the boundary is eventually placed, it should be optimized to reflect stratigraphical evidence with the least possible ambiguity.