When Did the Anthropocene Begin?

Environmental Humanities

In March 2024 a subcommittee of the International Union of Geological Sciences rejected a proposal to officially acknowledge the Anthropocene as an era of our geological history.1 This proposal was based on a specific research project that looked for the point where the growing impact of human activities on the global environment became visible throughout the geological record in certain ways.2 Such activities included creating radioactive materials and burning fossil fuels. If the results of this project, as they found their way into the proposal, had been accepted then the beginning of this new era would have been established around the midway point of the previous century, roughly coinciding with the advent of the so-called atomic age.3 This does not necessarily mean that we can now just ditch the idea of the Anthropocene altogether, though. There is arguably still a place for this term in science, scholarship, and our common parlance.4

It is therefore no surprise that, after its rejection, many people took to the pen or the keyboard to debate the arguments for and against the proposal for a geological Anthropocene. Can a geological era be this short, for example? And are the last seventy-odd years not too recent to say anything meaningful in this regard? But the discussions that caught my attention, were the ones wherein the assumed starting point of the Anthropocene was disputed. Because it might as well be asserted that the Anthropocene began way earlier than was proposed here. And that is the question we will look at in today’s blog: when did the Anthropocene actually begin?

This blog is also available in Dutch.

Defining the Anthropocene

If we want to pinpoint its beginnings, it is imperative to first understand what the Anthropocene is. And here we run into the first problem that makes this matter so contentious: The term ‘Anthropocene’ is used within a large number of scientific and scholarly disciplines. And those working therein have attributed almost as many meanings to it.5 The word itself was originally thought up independently by two scientists, Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer.6 These two subsequently joined forces and in 2000 CE they announced their proposition for a new geological era.7 This would mean that the Holocene or “new whole”, which is the geological era that followed the last Ice Age and has lasted to this day, has come to an end somewhere in the past or should be renamed entirely.8 Since then there has been a lot of debate about which human activities and their consequences have had enough of an impact to herald this new human era.

Because, that is the question: when could one justifiably speak of an era named after the Greek words for ‘human’ (ἄνθρωπος) and ‘recent’ or ‘new’ (καινός)?9 That is to say, what would be the human impact we are looking for and how or where can we measure it? The suggested answers to this question appear to be a very eclectic bunch! In the first place there are those persons that follow the lead of the two scientists who invented the term and look for human-made changes in the geological record. Such highlighted changes vary from the traces left by the tests that were done when atomic weapons were first developed to the remains created by the manufacture of tungsten carbide, an ingredient of ballpoint pens.10 Others focus on the influence humans can be said to have had on the climate.11 And within this focus, there are those who find local changes sufficient – such as the deforestation during the Neolithic period – and those that take to the onset of human made climate change as their benchmark. How one defines the Anthropocene is therefore often dependent on which human activity one accepts as the relevant measure and therewith the supposed starting point of this new era.

Proposed Beginnings for the Anthropocene

As it has now become clear that the Anthropocene is at least partly defined by when one thinks it began, it is beyond time that we take a closer look at the possible beginnings. There are roughly three periods that are often suggested in this regard. We will first discuss the most recent one and work our way backwards from there, before we take our DeLorean and go back to the future.

The Atomic Age

The advent of the atomic age is often considered as the beginning of the Anthropocene. This became clear in our discussion regarding the rejected proposal for a new geological age that would have begun in the middle of the previous century. But the traces of radioactivity that have since found their way in our soils are not the only marker that would place the starting point of the Anthropocene somewhere in that time period. Microplastics as a geological marker have also been considered, for instance.12 And then there is the so-called sixth extinction wave – a great dying out of all kinds of species that we are able to connect to human activities.13 All of these can be attributed to an increasing human impact on the planet.

Sadly, parts of the research into the suggested geological markers for the Anthropocene are inhibited by measurement issues. If we return to the example of microplastics, it has been observed that such particles are able to migrate through sediment layers.14 To offset such difficulties, scientists and scholars might turn to one or more chosen reference points, which are then studied in-depth. Like the radioactively contaminated sediments in Crawford Lake in Canada.15 And then there are inevitably those that look at their chosen measures and assert that these suggest a beginning of the Anthropocene that takes us further back into the past.

The Industrial Revolution

Another period that is suggested as the beginning of the Anthropocene is the span of time that is associated with the imperial expansion of the European colonial powers.16 Some place their selected starting point for the Anthropocene fairly early in this period. In 1492 CE, for instance, with the second arrival of Europeans in the Americas.17 Because this event marked the beginning of a continuing series of worldwide ecological changes – not to mention the “decline of human populations across the Americas.”18 But more often, the Industrial Revolution, that began on the European continent in the 18th century CE, is proposed as the point where human activities and their impact on the global environment can truly be said to herald the new human era.19

During the Industrial Revolution, humanity began its fundamental shift from primarily using organic energy sources – fuels such as wood and charcoal – to fossil fuels, like coal and oil.20 As a result, humans began to pump more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than had previously been done or even been possible – with some of them contributing way more than others, such as those living in countries in the global North.21 But this is not the only occurrence during this time span that would justify placing the onset of a new human age therein. The historian Greg Gushman has brought up mining, for instance. Especially such activities from the 1830’s CE onwards, among other indicators that can be discerned during that period, can be said to have had a significant impact on the planet.22 But humans did not began mining in the 19th century CE, did they? Though the scales are perhaps not comparable, it may nonetheless be expedient to look some further back still for the Anthropocene.23

The Ancient Anthropocene

Believe it or not, the case for an Anthropocene that started in antiquity or even earlier has already been made. Most often the genesis of systematic agriculture and the adjacent technological innovations from around 10.000 BCE onwards and the development of proto-urbanism around 5000 BCE in lower Mesopotamia are suggested as relevant beginnings.24 Relevant benchmarks that have been suggested in addition to the agricultural ones are the relatively largescale deforestation that happened back then and, perhaps surprisingly, the anomalous trends with regard to greenhouse gases like Carbon dioxide and Methane.25

Having said that, we must agree with Christopher Schliephake that “from a geological vantage point, it is clear that antiquity clearly falls outside the chronological markers of the Anthropocene.”26 However, if we set the geological record aside for a moment and look at human impact on a smaller scale, then there are some indications that we may have to involve the lives and perspectives of ancient peoples in our contemporary debates on the Anthropocene. Because many of these debates harken back to ancient examples and often the views espoused can be found to have predecessors from that era.27 In the Gilgamesh Epic, for example, one can already discern lessons on the pitfalls of certain uses of the earth’s resources.28 But more than that, the deep past can help us examine our current ideas and prejudices, and may assist us in meeting the many challenges of the Anthropocene both thoughtfully and effectively.29

Conclusion: Surpassing the Anthropocene

The Anthropocene is an interesting and useful concept for anyone who wants to know more about the impact of humanity on global conditions. As it spurs the realization of the massive scale of our influence, especially on the global climate, and can give an impetus to all those that want to assess or mitigate its effects.30 But the concept has one central flaw when it comes to truly understanding our place in it all: it again centers us!31 Furthermore, using one broad term might obscure certain aspects of a described phenomenon, such as the Anthropocene. Like the aforementioned fact that some persons have contributed more to the emission of greenhouse gases then others or that many of the changes brought by the Anthropocene are difficult to assess on a scale from ‘good’ to ‘bad’, even if one looks merely at the effects on humankind.32

It is therefore maybe not clear cut what our tasks are regarding everything, both inspiring and terrifying, that the Anthropocene has to offer – whenever one thinks it began. We have to make choices regarding what global temperature we need to aspire to, for example. And whether it would be wise to bring back, if we are able to do that, those species that have already died out due to human influence on their habitats and the global ecosystem.33 As such, a broader approach to those human activities that change our environments – both worldwide and local – would not only consider our impact on our natural surroundings, but also the impact of those surroundings on our own perspectives and actions.34 This is arguably also necessary if we want to tackle living sustainably in a world that we keep changing – for better and for worse – because this requires insights surpassing the mere technical aspects of our new human era.35 It may even entail a new historical and sociocultural framework.36 A veritable new story for humankind.

This is where a field such as the ecological humanities comes in, which we discussed last week. To truly grasp all the meanings that can be attributed to the Anthropocene and understand the implications of the changes humanity wrought in that era, we need tales and art to aid us in critically evaluating our predispositions.37 And this might include reconsidering those ways of thinking that were hitherto discerned in the classics of human literature. Coincidentally, this is what I will attempt in next week’s blog, wherein we examine the divide between culture and nature that is often observed within the previously mentioned Gilgamesh Epic.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

References

  1. Marcel aan den Brugh, “Geologische Controverse over Mensentijdperk”, NRC Handelsblad 23 March 2024, Wetenschap, p. 16.
  2. Robert S. Emmett & David E. Nye, The Environmental Humanities: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge: The MIT Press 2017), p. 16.
  3. Ibidem, p. 96-97; Aan den Brugh, “Geologische Controverse over Mensentijdperk”, p. 16.
  4. Nature Editorial Board, “Are We in the Anthropocene Yet?”, Nature 2024, 627 (8004), p. 466.
  5. Christopher Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World: Questions and Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), p. 2; Aan den Brugh, “Geologische Controverse over Mensentijdperk”, p. 16.
  6. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 95.
  7. Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, “The ‘Anthropocene’”, IGBP Newsletter 2000, 4 (41), p. 18. Though there have been a number of precursors, which failed to have the same impact, see: Jan Zalasiewicz et al, “The New World of the Anthropocene” Environmental Science & Technology Viewpoint 2010, 44 (7), p. 2228–2231.
  8. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 96. The Holocene began ca. 11.600 years ago, see: Chris Scarre: “Introduction: The Study of the Human Past”, in: Chris Scarre (ed.), The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies (London: Thames & Hudson, 2018), p. 40-41.
  9. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 2.
  10. Jan Zalasiewicz, “Our Brave New World”, New Scientist 2014, 224 (2994), p. 26-27.
  11. Emmett & Nye 2020, p. 96-97.
  12. Nature Editorial Board, “Are We in the Anthropocene Yet?”, p. 466.
  13. Ron Wagler, “The Anthropocene Mass Extinction: An Emerging Curriculum Theme for Science Educators”, The American Biology Teacher, 73 (2), p. 78-80. See also: Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2014).
  14. Inta Dimante-Deimantovica et al, “Downward Migrating Microplastics in Lake Sediments Are a Tricky Indicator for the Onset of the Anthropocene”, Science Advances 2024, 10 (8), p. 10:2-4.
  15. Alexandra Witze, “This Quiet Lake Could Mark the Start of a New Anthropocene Epoch”, Nature 2023, 619 (7970), p. 441-442.
  16. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 98; Jonathan Pugh & David Chandler, Anthropocene Islands: Entangled Worlds (London: University of Westminster Press, 2021), p. 185; Amitav Ghosh, The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016), p. 87.
  17. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 4, note 1. After the Scandinavians, see: Else Roesdahl, The Vikings (Third Edition) (London: Penguin Books, 2016), p. 272, 284-287.
  18. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 98; Charles C. Mann, 1493: How Europe’s Discovery of the Americas Revolutionized Trade, Ecology and Life on Earth (London: Granta, 2012), p. xix-xxvi, 251-254.
  19. For the Industrial Revolution in general, see: Norman Davies, Europe: A History (London: The Bodley Head, 2014), p. 679-682.
  20. John H. Perkins, Changing Energy: The Transition to a Sustainable Future (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), p. 51.
  21. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 97.
  22. Ibidem, p. 98.
  23. Lloyd Weeks, “Metallurgy”, in: Daniel Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archeology of the Ancient Near East (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), p. 298-300.
  24. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 4, note 1.
  25. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 97; William Ruddiman, “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago”, Climatic Change 2003, 61 (3), p. 261.
  26. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 4.
  27. Ibidem, p. 5; Steven Hartman, Astrid E.J. Ogilvie & Reinhard Hennig, “Viking’ Ecologies: Icelandic Sagas, Local Knowledge and Environmental Memory” in: John Parham & Louise Westling (eds.), A Global History of Literature and the Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 125.
  28. Stephanie Dalley, “The Natural World in Ancient Mesopotamian Literature”, in: John Parham & Louise Westling (eds.), A Global History of Literature and the Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), p. 23-32.
  29. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 5.
  30. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 166; Will Steffen et al, “The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 2011, 369 (1938), p. 842.
  31. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 2; Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 16.
  32. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 2-3.
  33. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 96.
  34. Ursula Heise, “Introduction: Planet, Species, Justice – and the Stories We Tell about Them”, in: Ursula Heise, Jon Christensen & Michelle Niemann (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities (London: Routledge, 2017) p. 2.
  35. Emmett & Nye, The Environmental Humanities, p. 94.
  36. Heise, “Introduction”, p. 2.
  37. Schliephake, The Environmental Humanities and the Ancient World, p. 5.