braje & erlandson - looking forward, looking back

8/18/2019 Braje & Erlandson - Looking Forward, Looking Back

1/6

Looking forward,

looking back:

Humans,

anthropogenic

change,and

the

Anthropocene

Todd J. Braje a,*, Jon M. Erlandson b

a San Diego State University, Department of Anthropology, San Diego, CA 92182-6040, United StatesbMuseum of Natural and Cultural History and Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, United States

Introduction

The proposal to formally designate an Anthropocene Epoch has

become a hot issue over the last several years, championed or

contested by the public, media, and scientists. The response has

been powerful enough to garner the cover story on the May 26,

2011, edition of The Economist , numerous articles in top-tier

academic journals such as Science (e.g., Balter, 2013; Cooper et al.,

2012), Nature (e.g., Crutzen, 2002, 2010; Jones, 2011), and

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (e.g., Beerling

et al., 2011; Smol et al., 2005), and the founding of this journal

dedicated to the topic. The designation of an Anthropocene could

be a milestone in the geological and social sciences, an idea that has

been building for 140 years since Italian geologist Antonio

Stoppani first proposed an ‘‘anthropozoic era’’ in AD 1873 (see

Crutzen, 2002; Goudie, 2000: 4–5).

Witha world population of more than 7.2 billion, it is difficult to

argue that we are not currently living in an ‘‘age of humans.’’ The

acceleration of CO2, CH4, and N2O in atmospheric records (Crutzen

and Steffen, 2003), the explosion in global human populations

(McNeill, 2000), anthropogenic land surface clearance (Ellis, 2011;

Ellis et al., 2013; Vitousek et al., 1997), the crisis of our world’s oceans

from overfishing, ocean acidification, and pollution ( Jackson et al.,

2001; Pauly et al., 1998), the appearance of radio-nucleotides from

atomic detonations (Crutzen and Steffen, 2003), and much more all

provide ample evidence that human alterations of Earth’s natural

systems have become pervasive and ubiquitous.

The major point of contention, at least among the geoscien-

tists, has been the starting date for the Anthropocene (for an

alternate view see Crist, 2013). Most have proposed to either

divide the Holocene – already the shortest geologic epoch

beginning just 11,700 calendar years ago – into a smaller

temporal unit or do away with it altogether (Doughtry et al.,

2010; see Foley et al., 2014 for a brief summary). For some, the

compression of the Holocene follows a sensible trend because

more recent data on global climatic patterns and stratigraphic

records are of higher resolution, but others consider such short

geologic epochs to be out of synch with geological timelines

( Jones, 2011). In our view, the Holocene has always been

something of an anomaly, one of several interglacial cycles

within the Pleistocene, none of the earlier examples of which

warrantedsimilar designations (Smith andZeder, 2014), if not for

the actions of humans (Erlandson, 2014).

After the submission of a proposal to formally designate the

Anthropocene by the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological

Anthropocene 4 (2013) 116–121

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 10 June 2013Received in revised form 7 March 2014

Accepted 20 May 2014

Available online 29 May 2014

Keywords:

Anthropocene

Archaeological perspectives

Human impacts

A B S T R A C T

As acceptance of the Anthropocene grows among scientists and the public, decisions must be made on

whetherand howto define thisgeologicepoch.Designatinga startingpointfor theAnthropocenemaybe

less important than understanding the cultural processes that contributed to human domination of

Earth’s natural systems. Just as climate changes and their consequences often occur over centuries,

millennia, or more, archaeological records show thathumans havebeenactive agents of environmental

change for thousands of years. Their effects, often dramatic and cumulative, have grown from local, to

regional, and now global phenomena. We discuss five options for defining the Anthropocene, most of

which recognize a deeper history of widespread and measurable effects of human activities on the

Earth’s surficial biological and physical systems. A primary goal of debating and defining the

Anthropocene should be to educate thepublic about theeffectshumanshave hadon natural systemsfor

millennia, the compounding nature of such impacts, and the pressing need to reverse current trends.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 619 594 4175; fax: +1 619 594 1150.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.J. Braje),

[email protected] (J.M. Erlandson).

Contents

lists

available

at

ScienceDirect

Anthropocene

journ al hom epage: ww w.els evier .com/locat e/an c en e

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002

2213-3054/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/aip/22133054http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ancenehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/aip/22133054mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002&domain=pdfhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.002&domain=pdf


2/6

Society of London (Zalasiewicz et al., 2008), an Anthropocene

Working Group was created to evaluate its merits. Posted on the

Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy’s 2009 Working Group

on the ‘Anthropocene’ webpage, the outline of activities detailed

that the group was to be:

ideally. . .composed of Earth scientists with worldwide repre-

sentation and familiar with deep time stratigraphy history

(Cenozoic and older), with Quaternary (including Holocene)

stratigraphy, and with relevant aspects of contemporaryenvironmental change (including its projection by modeling

into the future). It should critically compare the current degree

and rate of environmental change, caused by anthropogenic

processes, with the environmental perturbations of the geologi-

cal past. Factors to be considered here include the suggested pre-

industrial modification of climate by early human agrarian

activity (Outline of Working Group Activities, 2009).

This 22-person working group is dominated by geoscientists

and paleoclimatologists, but included an environmental historian

and a journalist. Despite the specific call to deal with the

environmental impacts of pre-industrial societies, archaeologists

trained to investigate the complex dynamics of human–environ-

mental interactions and evaluate when humans first significantly

shaped local, regional, and global climatic regimes, were notincluded. As a result of our symposium at the April 2013 Society for

American Archaeology annual meetings in Honolulu, however,

archaeologist Bruce Smith was added to the working group. Since

designations of geologic timescales and a potential Anthropocene

boundary, determined by physical stratigraphic markers (Global

Stratigraphic Section and Point, often called a ‘‘golden spike’’) or a

numerical age (Global Standard Stratigraphic Age), are the domain

of geoscientists, perhaps this is not surprising. What makes this

designation different from all previous geologic time markers is

that it is directly tied to human influences. Logically, therefore, it

should involve collaboration with archaeologists, anthropologists,

and other social scientists.

Archaeological perspectives on the Anthropocene

The papers in this special issue are the result of discussions,

debates, and dialogue from a 2013 Society for American

Archaeology symposium centred around archaeological perspec-

tives on the Anthropocene. We brought together a diverse group of

archaeologists to explore how and when humans began to have

significant and measurable impacts on Earth’s ecosystems (Fig. 1).

In this special issue, the symposium participants explored the

processes that contributed to a human domination of the Earth

that has unfolded over millennia.

This special issue demonstrates that archaeologists have much

to offer in defining the Anthropocene and understanding the

complex cultural and ecological processes that have contributed to

it. Just as natural climatic changes and their consequences often

occur over centuries or millennia, humans have actively shaped

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems for millennia. Their effects,

often dramatic, are cumulative and compounding. While archae-

ologists work at local or regional scales, the activities of a global

community of humans, taken together, can result in human action

that is planetary in scope. Human induced extinctions, the creation

of shell middens, agricultural fields, and other anthropic soils,

constructions of mines, harbours, canals, and earthworks, the

diversion of rivers and filling of estuaries, the transportation of plants, animals, and raw materials, and more all began thousands

of years ago (Fig. 2). Taken together, anthropogenic changes at a

global scale began well before the Industrial Revolution.

Since the Anthropocene is explicitly defined by the effects of

human activity on natural ecosystems, it is worth considering that

hominins have been part of those natural landscapes for several

million years. This includes our own omnivorous species, Homo

sapiens sapiens, a keystone predator, broad-based herbivore, and

active shaper of ecosystems and landscapes for millennia. Whether

people are defined as part of the natural world or not, the

appearance of anatomically modern humans (AMH) and their

rapid spread around the world – from Africa to Eurasia, Australia,

Fig. 1. Timeline illustrating a variety of significant cultural events, which have had clear and lasting impacts on Earth’s ecosystems.

T.J. Braje, J.M. Erlandson / Anthropocene 4 (2013) 116–121 117


3/6

the Americas, and hundreds of remote oceanic islands – can be

identified in the form of human skeletal remains found in

archaeological sites. The physical presence of AMH around the

world could, in fact, be seen as a definitive and broad-based faunal

marker for the inception of the Anthropocene. It would blur any

definition of the inception of the Anthropocene, however, because

AMH appeared in Africa at least 200,000 years ago, but did not

reach many remote islands until roughly 1000 years ago or less.

Specific human constructed stratigraphic markers of theAnthropocene also have been proposed as a ‘‘golden spike.’’

Through the lens of a hypothetical geologist living a 100 million

years from now, Zalasiewicz (2008) proposed that the buried urban

landscapes and artefacts coinciding with the Industrial Revolution

would designate the Anthropocene. Edgeworth (2013) argued that

significant human impacts on Earth’s surface consist of a wider

range of anthropogenic features, including ‘‘Neolithic tells, plaggen

soils, sediment built up behind early dams, Roman occupation

debris, mediaeval castle earthworks. . .together with later indus-

trial age deposits.’’ Erlandson (2014) points to shell midden soils as

another globally distinctive marker of the Anthropocene, for which

an 8000–10,000 year old genesis may be most appropriate.

Roosevelt (2014) and others have noted the anthropic terra preta

(dark

earth)

soils

of

the

Amazon

as

another

pedogenic

marker

of widespread human modification of Earth’s natural ecosystems.

Archaeological evidence for such ancient landscape modifications

is also mounting, increasing the pressure on those who claim that

prehistoric peoples had only limited effects on the Earth’s surface.

Beginning 500–1000 years ago, the effects of European

exploration, economic expansion, and globalization also resulted

in the rapid spread of a distinctive group of domesticated animals

(dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, etc.) and plants

(wheat, corn, potatoes, rice, etc.), creating a global faunal and floral

horizon that will be unmistakable to future scientists as markers of

the Anthropocene (Lightfoot et al., 2014). This was not a one-way

Eurocentric phenomena, moreover, as the spread of domesticates

moved from the Old World to the New World and vice versa. These

cultural

contacts

also

spread

deadly

infectious

diseases

that

had

disastrous consequences for human populations and cultures. Such

disease epidemics caused millions of deaths and dramatic cultural

changes worldwide, all in a period of four to five centuries. Today,

the consequences of this ‘‘Columbian exchange’’ are clearly evident

in archaeological records worldwide and will continue to be visible

to future archaeologists and geoscientists. If it is decided that the

Holocene should continue to be recognized, such global changes

could also be used as a boundary marker between the end of the

Holocene and the beginning of the Anthropocene.What the papers in this special issue illustrate is that specific

thresholds, tipping points, or developmental indicators used to

define the start of the Anthropocene are often directly influenced

by the research agenda of the author. This is not a case of self-

reflexivity, but a consequence of the inherent challenges of

defining ‘‘human domination.’’ Foley et al. (2014) proposed to

define the beginning of the Anthropocene at AD 1780, but to coin a

new term and unofficial geological period, the Palaeoanthropo-

cene, marking a more nebulous time interval before the Industrial

Revolution when humans transformed local and regional environ-

ments with effects that varied across time and space. As a

transitional time period, the Palaeoanthropocene would not

compete as a geologic epoch, but cover the ancient impacts of

humans

prior

to

when

‘‘the

burning

of

fossil

fuels

produced

a

hugecrescendo

in anthropogenic effects’’ (Foley et al., 2014). This idea

may have merit as a compromise, if the only thing at stake is the

composition of our geologic timescales.

What

is

at

stake?

One of the most compelling parts of the Anthropocene debate is

the attention it has generated among the media and public. The

International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) working group

will evaluate the proposal to designate the Anthropocene in the

same way used to define all preceding geological epochs from the

Cambrian onwards – on the basis of ‘‘golden spikes’’ or a date of

inception – then make a recommendation that will be ratified or

rejected

by

the

ICS

(Gradstein

et

al.,

2004).

For

most

scientists

who

Fig. 2. Photographs depicting the impacts of ancient humans on Earth’s ecosystems: (A) a woolly mammoth, which was driven to extinction, likely in part by humans, during

the Late Pleistocene; (B) ruins of the ancient city of Tikal, where Mayan farmers slashed and burned vast sections of native forest to support growing populations and a state-

level socio-political system; (C) terraced agricultural fields in Sa Pa, Vietnam; (D) the Roman Colosseum remains a landmark of the first city to reach one million residents

more than 2000 years ago.

T.J. Braje, J.M. Erlandson / Anthropocene 4 (2013) 116–121118


4/6

consult deep historical data, their research agenda, results, and

interpretations will be affected minimally or not at all. The

designation of the Anthropocene, however, has the potential to

influence public opinions and policies related to critical issues such

as climate change, extinctions, modern human–environmental

interactions, population growth, and sustainability.

One of the growing theoretical and methodological trends in

archaeology over the last decade is towards a historical ecological

approach, an interdisciplinary field that focuses on documenting

long-term relationships between natural environments and

humans (Crumley, 1994). Historical ecologists view the formation

of modern ecosystems as the result of lengthy processes of natural

environmental change and human influence (see Balée and

Erikson, 2006; Jackson et al., 2001). Archaeological datasets (i.e.,

faunal and floral remains, artifacts, chronometric dates, geochem-

istry, and stratigraphic analysis) provide deep time perspectives

(spanning decades, centuries, and millennia) on the evolution of

ecosystems, the place of people within them, and the effects

(positive and negative) humans have had on such ecosystems

through time (e.g., Balée and Erikson, 2006; Braje and Rick, 2013;

Lotze and Worm, 2009; Rick and Erlandson, 2008; Rick and

Lockwood, 2013; Swetnam et al., 1999).

Historicalecologicaldataalso havean applied componentthat

can provide important insights on the relative abundances of flora and fauna, changes in biogeography, alterations in

foodwebs, landscape evolution, and much more. One of the

significant advantages of utilizing a historical ecological

approach to the study of physical and biological environments

is that it provides a historic dimension that helps answer the

question ‘‘How did we get where we are today?’’ (e.g., Lepofsky,

2009; Redman, 1999; Swetnam et al., 1999). Understanding

environmental change over multiple chronological and spatial

scales is essential to assessing the condition of current

ecosystemsandunderstanding how and whyhealthyor damaged

ecosystems have evolved to their current states. Only with such

long-termdata can we develop baselines andprotocols for future

policy and effective actions in environmental management,

conservation, and restoration.The designation of an Anthropocene Epoch at the dawn of the

Industrial Revolution, AD 1950 (Barnosky, 2013), or any other very

recent date may reinforce the faulty premise that pre-industrial

humans lived in harmony with nature. The study of human

impacts on the environment is vast and extends back to at least the

19th century. Over the last several decades, however, it has

become increasingly apparent that ancient human populations

significantly influenced local and regional environments, including

impacts to a wide array of plant and animal communities (e.g.,

Grayson, 2001; Redman, 1999; Rick and Erlandson, 2008).

Whether prehistoric peoples acted as the original conservationists

(see Alcorn, 1993) or with no regard for preservation and

sustainability (see Kay and Simmons, 2002; Smith and Wishnie,

2000)

–

or

some

combination

of

the

two

(Erlandson

and

Rick,

2010)– is still hotly contested. One thing the papers in this issue clearly

illustrate, however, is that as Europeans expanded around the

globe, the landscapes, plant and animal species, and ecosystems

they encountered had already been shaped and altered by humans

for millennia.

There is a growing recognition of these facts among a broad

array of scientists, as attested to by the serious consideration

being given to defining an Anthropocene epoch or an earlier and

transitional Palaeoanthropocene. If theAnthropocene concept is

accepted, as we believe it should be, its real power may lie in its

potential to shape public opinion and policy. The Anthropocene

can help provide powerful scientific legitimacy among thepublic

for anthropogenic climate change and environmental degrada-

tion

andact

as

a

call

for increasedconservation

efforts

andglobal

awareness. Austin and Holbrook (2012: 61) argued much the

same in a recent issue of The Geological Society of America Today:

The most important assertion unfolding among these groups is

that Anthropocene creates public awareness and formalizes the

concept of human-induced environmental change. Although

we acknowledge a distinct allure for the term Anthropocene

and recognize merit in the concept, pop culture does not have

an interest in the stratigraphic implications of this debate. If

there is an underlying desire to make social comment about theimplications of human-induced environmental change, Anthro-

pocene clearly is effective. However, being provocative may

have greater implications in pop culture than to serious

scientific research.

The use of the Anthropocene as a public communication tool

should not, we believe, be seen as a negative. In many ways, this is

its most important attribute. The scientific community can find

countless examples of our inability to effectively communicate,

explain, and package important scientific ideas to the public and

the packaging of contrarian views by naysayers and pseudoscien-

tists often seems to have greater impact. For geologists and

biologists, the Intelligent Design debates might be the best

example (see Behe, 2001; Gilbert, 2003); for archaeologists and

anthropologists, the ancient astronauts phenomenon (see vonDäniken, 1999; Wilson, 1972) may be most prominent. The

esoteric debate over ‘‘stratigraphic nomenclature’’ (Austin and

Holbrook, 2012: 61), then, may be less important than the message

it conveys to our global community and the future of human–

environmental interactions.

It is critical for scientists to consider how their designation of an

Anthropocene starting point will be interpreted by the public, and

to some degree, by other scientists. A post-Industrial Revolution

starting date may suggest, to the uninitiated at least, that

everything that came before was ‘natural.’ Restoration ecology

and conservation biology, then, may not need to consider the

deeper history of human impacts that predate the start of the

Anthropocene. This would be a giant step backward at a critical

time, one that ignores decades of work and progress by ecologists,geologists, paleobiologists, environmental historians, archaeolo-

gists, and many other scientists who have demonstrated the vast

array of pre-industrial human impacts on local, regional, and global

environments. Now that the ‘shifting baselines’ concept has been

widely accepted (Pauly, 1995; Jackson et al., 2011) and is being

translated into public policy, we should not risk going backwards.

Historical data are crucial to future management, conservation,

and restoration efforts.

Options for an Anthropocene

Ultimately, as the papers in this volume demonstrate, the

definition of an Anthropocene epoch marked by the human

domination

of

Earth’s

ecosystems

should

explicitly

recognize

thedeep historical processes that contributed to such domination.

There is little question that a variety of geological and archaeolog-

ical evidence will clearly illustrate that domination to future

scientists. If the value of historical records now seems obvious,

defining a starting date for the Anthropocene is a trickier business,

depending on the specific criteria (e.g., atmospheric composition,

faunal and floral changes, geochemical records, or specific ‘marker’

fossils such as AMH and domesticated dogs, cattle, horses, sheep,

pigs) utilized. Although we favour a starting date of 10,000 cal BP

and the merging of the Anthropocene and Holocene, any inception

date is bound to be at least somewhat arbitrary. Consequently, a

beginning date of AD 1950 or AD 2000 could be acceptable if the

long process that led to human domination of the Earth is explicitly

recognized.



5/6

As a lightning rod for galvanizing future environmental

management and a call-to-arms for public involvement in helping

solve our world’s environmental crises, the Anthropocene should

help focus attention on better understanding the deep, complex,

and ongoing history of human impacts on local, regional, and

global scales. Here we offer several options for consideration by the

ICS and the growing and global community of scientists interested

in the definition of an Anthropocene epoch.

1. Follow the suggestion of Smith and Zeder (2014) by merging the

Holocene and Anthropocene into one geologic epoch. The

Holocene is defined relatively arbitrarily, tenuously in our

opinion, as it was not clearly differentiated from previous

interglacial periods within the Pleistocene prior to anthropo-

genic global warming. There is also only limited evidence of

lasting human impacts on local, regional, or global scales prior to

domestication, agriculture, and the more pervasive niche

construction that began roughly 10,000 years ago. If adopted,

scientists and the public will have to confront the long, complex

processes of human–environmental interactions that have

shaped the modern world.2.

Similar to option 1, completely replace the Holocene with the

Anthropocene. The Holocene is a loaded term that may never

have been officially recognized if not for the effects of pervasivehuman actions and historical events (e.g., the widespread shift

from hunting and gathering to agricultural economies, the rise

of state level societies, pervasive changes in landscapes due to

human manipulation) that coincided with an interglacial period.

The Anthropocene is a more explicit term for a similar concept.3.

Define the Anthropocene as beginning in AD 1500, approximating

the beginning of the Columbian Exchange (Crosby, 1972, 1986;

Thomas, 1989, 1990), which created vast faunal, floral, ecological,

and cultural changes globally (Lightfoot et al., 2014). This option

has the advantage of having a clear and worldwide paleontologi-

cal, stratigraphic, and chronological delineation – with the rapid

spread of domesticated plants and animals and major ecological

changes around the world, including in many remote islands that

are hotspots of biodiversity. It might also be seen by many as areasonable compromise between claims for a very recent or much

more ancient inception for the Anthropocene.4.

Define the Anthropocene as beginning in AD 2000, when the

effects of humans were first widely recognized by the

geosciences community (Crutzen, 2002; Crutzen and Steffen,

2003; Vitousek et al., 1997). Such an approach does not define

when past human societies began to influence Earth systems,

but focuses on our attempts to better understand and mitigate

the effects of humans on global systems. This would establish

the Anthropocene as a critical area of inquiry, relevant for

academics and the public.

5. Reject the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch, but retain

it as an informal and purely heuristic device. Since the term will

continue

to

carry

an

increasing

amount

of

political

baggage

inthe court of public opinion, the ICS and GSA could still recognize

the deep historical process of human–environmental interac-

tions that have resulted in human domination of the Earth.

When the Anthropocene began would depend on a variety of

shifting baselines, including complex spatial, scalar, and

criteria-specific factors. The Anthropocene began for Hawaiian

terrestrial flora and fauna, for example, a thousand years ago,

when Polynesians first landed and began dramatically trans-

forming terrestrial ecosystems (see Rick et al., 2014). It

accelerated and intensified in Hawai’i, however, after European

contact and the American takeover of the islands.

Of these five options, we prefer the first or the second. These

recognize

the

deep

history

of

widespread

human

impacts

and

send

a powerful message to the scientific community and public about

the role humans have played in creating our modern environmen-

tal crises. They also are broad-based with clear stratigraphic and

chronological resolution in global environmental records, and

established connections to human-induced changes that seem

appropriate for an Anthropocene epoch.

Ultimately, however the Anthropocene is defined, it is

important to recognize the deep historical processes that underlie

it. Likewise, an important practical goal should be to use the

Anthropocene to educate the public and policy makers about the

effects humans have had on natural systems for millennia, the

compounding nature of these impacts, and the pressing need to

reverse the dangerous trends and trajectories we have created.

Acknowledgements

We thank all the contributors to this volume, the many

anonymous reviewers who helped strengthen the papers in it, and

the editorial staff of Anthropocene – Rashika Venkataraman,

Timothy Horscroft, and especially editor Anne Chin – for their

help in shepherding the papers and volume through the

submission, review, revision, and production process. We dedicate

the volume to Paul Crutzen, who has done more than anyone to

bring the Anthropocene and human domination of Earth’s systems

to the attention of both scholars and the general public.

References

Alcorn, J.B., 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conserv. Biol. 7, 424–426.Austin, W.J., Holbrook, J.M., 2012. Is the Anthropocene an issue of stratigraphy or

pop culture? GSA Today 22, 60–61.Balée,

W., Erikson,

C.L.

(Eds.),

2006.

Time

and

Complexity

in

Historical

Ecology:Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands. Columbia University Press, New York.

Balter, M., 2013. Archaeologists say the ‘Anthropocene’ is here – but it began longago. Science 340, 261–262.

Barnosky, A.D., 2013. Palaeontological Evidence for Defining the Anthropocene.Geological Society, Long, Special publications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6.

Beerling, D.J., Fox, A., Stevenson, D.S., Valdes, P.J., 2011. Enhanced chemistry-climate

feedbacks

in

past

greenhouse

worlds.

Proc.

Natl.

Acad.

Sci.

U.S.A.

108,

9770–9775.

Behe, M.J., 2001. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.Touchstone, New York, NY .

Braje, T.J., Rick, T.C., 2013. From forest fires to fisheries management: Anthropology,conservation biology, and historical ecology. Evol. Anthropol. 22, 303–311.

Cooper, T.F., O’Leary, R.A., Lough, J.M., 2012. Growth of Western Australian corals inthe Anthropocene. Science 335, 593–596.

Crist, E., 2013. On the poverty of our nomenclature. Environ. Humanit. 3, 129–147.Crosby, A.W., 1972. Columbian Exchange: The Biological and Cultural Consequences

of 1492. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.Crosby, A.W., 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe

900–1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Crumley, C.L. (Ed.), 1994. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing

Landscapes. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.Crutzen,

P.J.,

2002.

Geology

of

mankind.

Nature

415,

23.Crutzen, P.J., 2010. Anthropocene man. Nature 467, s10.Crutzen, P.J., Steffen, W., 2003. How long have we been in the Anthropocene Era?

Clim. Change 61, 251–257.

Doughtry, C.E., Wolf, A., Field, C.B., 2010. Biophysical feedbacks between thePleistocene

megafauna

extinction

and

climate:

the

first

human-induced

globalwarming? Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, 1–5.

Edgeworth, M., 2013. The Relationship between Archaeological Stratigraphy andArtificial Ground and Its Significance in the Anthropocene. Geological Society,London, Special Publications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.3.

Ellis, E.C., 2011. Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Proc. R.Soc. A: Math. Phys. 369, 1010–1035.

Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., Fuller, D.Q., Vavrus, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., Verburg, P.H.,2013. Used plant: a global history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 7978–7985.

Erlandson, J.M., 2014. Shell middens and other anthropogenic soils as globalstratigraphic signatures of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001

(in

press).Erlandson, J.M., Rick, T.C., 2010. Archaeology meets marine ecology: the antiquity of

maritime cultures and human impacts on marine fisheries and ecosystems.Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 165–185.

Foley, S.F., Gronenborn, D., Andreae, M.O., Kadereit, J.W., Esper, J., Scholz, D., Pöschl,U.,

Jacob,

D.E.,

Schöne,

B.R.,

Schreg,

R.,

Vött,

A.,

Jordan,

D.,

Lelieveld,

J.,

Weller,

C.G.,

Alt,

K.W.,

Gaudzinski-Windheuser,

S.,

Bruhn,

K.,

Tost,

H.,

Sirocko,

F.,

T.J. Braje, J.M. Erlandson / Anthropocene 4 (2013) 116–121120

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0110http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.12.001http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0095http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0030http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP395.6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0005


6/6

Crutzen, P.J., 2014. The Palaeoanthropocene—the beginnings of anthropogenicenvironmental change. Anthropocene, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002 (in press).

Gilbert, S.F., 2003. Opening Darwin’s black box: teaching evolution through devel-opmental genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 735–741.

Goudie, A., 2000. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment, 5th ed. The MITPress, Cambridge, MA.

Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G. (Eds.), 2004. A Geological Time Scale.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Grayson, D.K., 2001. The archaeological record of human impacts on animalpopulations. J. World Prehistory 15, 1–68.

Jackson,

J.B.C.,

Alexander,

K.E.,

Sala,

E.,

2011.

Shifting

Baselines:

The

Past

and

theFuture of Ocean Fisheries. Island Press, Washington, DC. Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W., Bjorndal, K., Botsford, L., Bourque, B., Brad-

bury, R., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J., Hughes, T., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.,Lenihan, H., Pandolfi, J., Peterson, C., Steneck, R., Tegner, M., Warner, R., 2001.Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science293, 629–638.

Jones,

N.,

2011.

Human

influence

come

of

age.

Nature

473,

133.Kay, C.E., Simmons, R.T. (Eds.), 2002. Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal

Influences and the Original State of Nature. The University of Utah Press, SaltLake City.

Lepofsky, D., 2009. The past, present, and future of traditional resource andenvironmental

management.

J.

Ethnobiol.

29,

161–166.Lightfoot, K.G., Panich, L.M., Schneider, T.D., Gonzalez, S.L., 2014. European

colonialism and the Anthropocene: a view from the Pacific Coast of NorthAmerica. Anthropocene (in press).

Lotze, H.K., Worm, B., 2009. Historical baselines for large marine animals. TrendsEcol. Evol. 24, 254–262.

McNeill, J.R., 2000. Something New under the Sun. W.H. Norton and Company, New

York.Outline of Working Group Activities, 2009. Anthropocene Working Group of

the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commissionon Stratigraphy), http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthro-pocene/.

Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. TrendsEcol. Evol. 10, 430.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres Jr., F., 1998. Fishing downmarine food webs. Science 279, 860–863.

Redman,

C.L.,

1999.

Human

Impact

on

Ancient

Environments.

University

of

ArizonaPress, Tucson.

Rick, T.C., Erlandson, J.M. (Eds.), 2008. Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosys-tems: A Global Perspective. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Rick, T.C., Kirch, P.V., Erlandson, J.M., Fitzpatrick, S.M., 2014. Archaeology, deephistory, and the human transformation of island ecosystems. Anthropocene,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.08.002 (in press).

Rick, T.C., Lockwood, R., 2013. Integrating paleobiology, archaeology, and history toinform biological conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27, 45–54.

Roosevelt, A.C., 2014. The Amazon and the Anthropocene: 13000 years of humaninfluence in a tropical rainforest. Anthropocene (in press).

Smith, E.A., Wishnie, M., 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale socie-ties. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29, 493–524.

Smith,

B.D.,

Zeder,

M.A.,

2014.

The

onset

of

the

Anthropocene.

Anthropocene, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2013.05.001 (in press).Smol,J.P., Wolfe, A.P., Birks, H.J.B., Douglas, M.S.V., Jones, V.J., Korhola, A., Pienitz,

R., Rühland, K., Sorvari, S., Laing, T.E., Michelutti, N., Nazarova, L., Nyman, M.,Paterson, A.M.,Perren, B., Quinlan,R., Rautio, M., Saulnier-Talbot, E., Siitonen,S., Solovieva, N., Weckström, J., 2005. Climate-driven regime shifts inthe biological communities of arctic lakes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. U.S.A. 102,4397–4402.

Swetnam, T.W., Allen, C.D., Betancourt, J.L., 1999. Applied historical ecology: usingthe past to manage for the future. Ecol. Appl. 9, 1189–1206.

Thomas, D.H. (Ed.), 1989. Columbian Consequences, Volume 1: Archaeological andHistorical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West. Smithsonian Institu-tion

Press,

Washington,

DC.Thomas, D.H. (Ed.), 1990. Columbian Consequences, Volume 2: Archaeological and

Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East. Smithsonian Institu-tion Press, Washington, DC.

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J.M., 1997. Human dominationof earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499.

von Däniken, E., 1999. Chariots of the Gods: Unsolved Mysteries of the Past, 4th ed.

The

Berkeley

Publishing

Group,

New

York,

NY .Wilson, C.A., 1972. Crash Go the Chariots! An Alternative to ‘‘Chariots of the Gods’’

Word of Truth Productions, Mt. Waverley, VIC.Zalasiewicz, J., 2008. The Earth After Us: What Legacy will Humans Leave in the

Rocks?

Oxford

University

Press,

Oxford.Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown, P.R., Brench-

ley, P., Cantrill, D., Gale, A., Gibbard, P.,Gregory, F.J. , Hounslow, M.W., Kerr,A.C., Pearson, P., Knox, R., Powell, J ., Waters, C., Marshall, J ., Oates, M.,Rawson, P., Stone, P., 2008. Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSAToday

18,

4–8.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.%3C?re%203j?%3E2013.11.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.%3C?re%203j?%3E2013.11.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.%3C?re%203j?%3E2013.11.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.%3C?re%203j?%3E2013.11.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.%3C?re%203j?%3E2013.11.002http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2213-3054(14)00025-3/sbref

braje & erlandson - looking forward, looking back

Documents