Abstract A 15-year time-series of data on benthic community response to rapid climate change at a biomass ‘hotspot’ in the northern Bering Sea, Alaska, provides an exceptional opportunity to evaluate naturally occurring molluscan dead-shell assemblages as ecological archives. We find that, at five middle-shelf stations censused annually from 2000 to 2014, dead-shell assemblages collected in 2014 are dominated by obligate deposit-feeding Nuculanidae bivalves as opposed to the other families in that guild or the facultative deposit-feeding Tellinidae that dominate the most recent living bivalve assemblages, thus correctly detecting the location and direction of known ecological changes. However, live–dead contrast is significant where the bivalve biomass and abundance has declined over time, and muted where bivalve abundances, and therefore shell input, increased, underscoring the general danger of assuming constant shell input. We also find that proportional abundance-based measures are best suited for detecting benthic response to climate change. Combined with preliminary results from shell age-dating, these results indicate that dead-shell assemblages provide a short-lived but compositionally faithful ecological memory well-suited for detecting recent site- and habitat-level ecological change under cold-water conditions. With marine regime change suspected to now be underway throughout the Arctic, molluscan dead-shell assemblages should become an integral part of efforts to detect transitioning regions.

Abstract Recognition of intimate feedback mechanisms linking changes across the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere and hydrosphere demonstrates the pervasive nature of humankind’s influence, perhaps to the point that we have fashioned a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. To what extent will these changes be evident as long-lasting signatures in the geological record? To establish the Anthropocene as a formal chronostratigraphical unit it is necessary to consider a spectrum of indicators of anthropogenically induced environmental change, and to determine how these show as stratigraphic signals that can be used to characterize an Anthropocene unit and to recognize its base. It is important to consider these signals against a context of Holocene and earlier stratigraphic patterns. Here we review the parameters used by stratigraphers to identify chronostratigraphical units and how these could apply to the definition of the Anthropocene. The onset of the range of signatures is diachronous, although many show maximum signatures which post-date 1945, leading to the suggestion that this date may be a suitable age for the start of the Anthropocene.

Abstract We consider the Anthropocene as a physical, chronostratigraphic unit across terrestrial and marine sedimentary facies, from both a present and a far future perspective, provisionally using an approximately 1950 CE base that approximates with the ‘Great Acceleration’, worldwide sedimentary incorporation of A-bomb-derived radionuclides and light nitrogen isotopes linked to the growth in fertilizer use, and other markers. More or less effective recognition of such a unit today (with annual/decadal resolution) is facies-dependent and variably compromised by the disturbance of stratigraphic superposition that commonly occurs at geologically brief temporal scales, and that particularly affects soils, deep marine deposits and the pre-1950 parts of current urban areas. The Anthropocene, thus, more than any other geological time unit, is locally affected by such blurring of its chronostratigraphic boundary with Holocene strata. Nevertheless, clearly separable representatives of an Anthropocene Series may be found in lakes, land ice, certain river/delta systems, in the widespread dredged parts of shallow-marine systems on continental shelves and slopes, and in those parts of deep-water systems where human-rafted debris is common. From a far future perspective, the boundary is likely to appear geologically instantaneous and stratigraphically significant.

Abstract The Earth has shown a systematic increase in mineral species through its history, with three ‘eras’ comprising ten ‘stages’ identified by Robert Hazen and his colleagues (Hazen et al. 2008), the eras being associated with planetary accretion, crust and mantle reworking and the influence of life, successively. We suggest that a further level in this form of evolution has now taken place of at least ‘stage’ level, where humans have engineered a large and extensive suite of novel, albeit not formally recognized minerals, some of which will leave a geologically significant signal in strata forming today. These include the great majority of metals (that are not found natively), tungsten carbide, boron nitride, novel garnets and many others. A further stratigraphic signal is of minerals that are rare in pre-industrial geology, but are now common at the surface, including mullite (in fired bricks and ceramics), ettringite, hillebrandite and portlandite (in cement and concrete) and ‘mineraloids’ (novel in detail) such as anthropogenic glass. These have become much more common at the Earth’s surface since the mid-twentieth century. However, the scale and extent of this new phase of mineral evolution, which represents part of the widespread changes associated with the proposed Anthropocene Epoch, remains uncharted. The International Mineralogical Association (IMA) list of officially accepted minerals explicitly excludes synthetic minerals, and no general inventory of these exists. We propose that the growing geological and societal significance of this phenomenon is now great enough for human-made minerals to be formally listed and catalogued by the IMA, perhaps in conjunction with materials science societies. Such an inventory would enable this phenomenon to be placed more effectively within the context of the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth, and would help characterize the strata of the Anthropocene.

Abstract The base of the Cambrian System is recognized by a characteristic (marine) trace fossil suite assigned to the Treptichnus pedum Biozone, which signals increasing complexity of animal behaviour and demarcates the Cambrian from the (older) Ediacaran System (Proterozoic Eonathem). Ichnotaxa of the T. pedum Biozone are not the earliest trace fossils, and are preceded in the latest Proterozoic by a progressive increase in the diversity of trace-producing organisms and the communities they comprised, the structural and behavioural complexity of the trace fossils, and even the depth of burrowing in sediments. Parallels can be drawn with the increasing complexity of subsurface structures associated with human cities, which also reflect evolution of an increasingly complex community. Before the nineteenth century, these structures were limited and simple, but beginning with the development of London in the mid-nineteenth century as the world’s first megacity, subsurface structures have become increasingly complex, reflecting the technology-driven behaviour of twentieth- and twenty-first-century humans.

Abstract The proposal that the ‘Anthropocene’ should be ratified as a unit of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geological Time Scale deserves serious consideration by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). The ‘Anthropocene’ task group within the ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy is responsible for producing a recommendation to be evaluated and considered for approval at high levels in the ICS organization. It must consider the rank and extent of the unit as well as a GSSP or GSSA that defines its lower boundary or beginning. Furthermore, the task group must address several questions related to the proposed unit and the nature of the ICS chart/timescale that are unique to it. Is the ‘Anthropocene’ a concept in search of a distinct stratigraphic record? Should it be defined on a stratigraphic signal or on a date in human history? Is the ‘Anthropocene’ a unit of Earth history or human history or primarily a future projection? Is the ‘Anthropocene’ useful as a chronostratigraphic unit on geological maps? Has the perceived change to a human-dominated Earth system overwhelmed the natural Earth system? What is the conceptual basis of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart/Geologic Time Scale? Will the term ‘Anthropocene’ have value even if not ratified as a formal unit?

Abstract In recent years, ‘Anthropocene’ has been proposed as an informal stratigraphic term to denote the current interval of anthropogenic global environmental change. A case has also been made to formalize it as a series/epoch, based on the recognition of a suitable marker event, such as the start of the Industrial Revolution in northern Europe. For the Anthropocene to merit formal definition, a global signature distinct from that of the Holocene is required that is marked by novel biotic, sedimentary and geochemical change. Although there is clear evidence of anthropogenic effects in geological sequences, it is uncertain whether these trends are sufficiently distinct, consistent and dated for the proposal for a Holocene/Anthropocene boundary to be substantiated. The current view of the Earth-Science community is that it should remain informal. For formal definition a Global Stratigraphic Section and Point (GSSP) is required. Adoption of the term ‘Anthropocene’ will ultimately depend on recognition of a global event horizon. Without this, there is no justification for decoupling the Anthropocene from the Holocene. If the Anthropocene is deemed to have utility, it should be as an informal historical designation rather than a formally defined stratigraphic unit (of whatever status) within the geological timescale.

Abstract The deliberate anthropogenic movement of reworked natural and novel manufactured materials represents a novel sedimentary environment associated with mining, waste disposal, construction and urbanization. Anthropogenic deposits display distinctive engineering and environmental properties, and can be of archaeological importance. This paper shows that temporal changes in the scale and lithological character of anthropogenic deposits may be indicative of the Anthropocene. However, the stratigraphy of such deposits is not readily described by existing classification schemes, which do not differentiate separate phases or lithologically distinct deposits beyond a local scale. Lithostratigraphy is a scalable, hierarchical classification used to distinguish successive and lithologically distinct natural deposits. Many natural and anthropogenic deposits exhibit common characteristics; they typically conform to the Law (or Principle) of Superposition and exhibit lithological distinction. The lithostratigraphical classification of surficial anthropogenic deposits may be effective, although defined units may be significantly thinner and far less continuous than those defined for natural deposits. Further challenges include the designation of stratotypes, accommodating the highly diachronous nature of anthropogenic deposits and the common presence of disconformities. International lithostratigraphical guidelines would require significant modification before being effective for the classification of anthropogenic deposits. A practical alternative may be to establish an ‘anthrostratigraphical’ approach, or ‘anthrostratigraphy’.

Abstract This paper investigates the relationship between archaeological stratigraphy (in archaeology) and artificial ground (in geology) and considers their wider application to the investigation and characterization of the Anthropocene. Evidence from two archaeological case studies is used to illuminate key points. The first case study examines stratigraphic sequences from beneath the city of Leicester, UK; the second looks at stratified deposits within the prehistoric settlement mound of Abu Hureyra, Syria. Earthworks, riverworks and cultivation soils are also considered. Archaeological and geological perspectives are combined to develop a unified view of anthropogenic deposits that cover large parts of the surface of the Earth.