This paper assesses the use of ‘plastic age’ and ‘glass age’ terms, using a bibliometric approach to identify their proponents, purposes, and connections to debates in Anthropocene and heritage studies. This study explores how glass and plastic have been portrayed as age-defining materials and how this concept relates with what is expected to be preserved for future generations. Are these materials so ubiquitous that they become invisible? If visible, are they considered waste or heritage? Both materials appear in the Anthropocene discussion as stratigraphic indicators. The term ‘glass age’ is related with the marketing of glass (not only new glass formulations and new products, but also as an alternative to other more polluting materials), and the term ‘plastic age’ appears to be related to the multitude of plastics in our everyday lives and all the problems associated with their disposal. Although there are few examples of bibliometric research on glass and plastic as heritage, there is currently great investment in the study of glass and plastic from the perspective of conservation viability; this perspective needs to be promoted so that these materials can be included in heritage policies and museum collections as a reflection of today’s society.
Borges et al. (Tue,) studied this question.