Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T08:38:18.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time, agency and the Anthropocene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2016

Asa Randall
Asa Randall*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma, 455 Lindsey Street, Dale Hall Tower 521, Norman, OK 73019, USA (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Anthropocene is here, but do we need the Anthropocene, and if so, when do we want it to start? My responses are ‘no’ and ‘never’ if the answers to those questions require a discrete definition of the Anthropocene and a specific start date. In that regard, I agree generally with Braje's arguments. Particularly unsettling in Anthropocene discourse (in archaeology or geology) has been the search for discernable origins in the form of golden spikes, and I am suspicious of even setting the Holocene as an Anthropocene equivalent. That stated, archaeology can and should continue to contribute to interdisciplinary Anthropocene dialogues.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 90 , Issue 350 , April 2016 , pp. 516 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gamble, C. 2007. Origins and revolutions: human identity in earliest prehistory. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618598 Google Scholar
Sassaman, K.E. 2012. Futurologists look back. Archaeologies 8: 250–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11759-012-9205-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 2015. The future of archaeological theory. Antiquity 89: 1287–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.183 Google Scholar