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 Selleck MK 1775 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, AT13387 order 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 Methamphetamine of the Anthropocene at AD 1780, but to coin a new term and unofficial geological period, the Palaeoanthropocene, marking a more nebulous time interval before the Industrial Revolution when humans transformed local and regional environments 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 huge crescendo 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. One of the most compelling parts of the Anthropocene debate is the attention it has generated among the media and public.