Is ‘Anthropocene’ a Suitable Chronostratigraphic Term?

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.