AD vs CE Battle Rages On
Saturday May 27, 2006
N.S. Gill, About's guide to Ancient History, wrote a blog recently, remarking on a post of a post of an article in the Spectator discussing the use of AD (Anno Domine) vs. CE (Common Era) when referring to dates of the past, the history of the usage, and the current preferences. This is a continuing debate in some circles; and in fact the original article in the Spectator reported that more recent textbooks in the UK are switching away from AD to CE. Nemy's blog has generated quite a lively discussion. So, in a true metablog fashion, this is my post about her post about comments to her original post on a post by Adrian Murdoch (who has a blog on Roman history called 'Bread and Circuses') on an article in the Spectator.
0 1 CE. I guess if I was going to reduce the number of people who could be offended, I should probably pick 'CE/BCE'; but.... as I say, AD/BC makes sense to more people who commonly read this website. However, I am willing to be swayed by public opinion, and perhaps the time has come to get with the program. If you have a strong opinion one way or another, please feel free to comment here or on Nemy's post. Maybe I'll even try another poll.
Speaking as an archaeologist, I think we should consider starting all over again, and use 1945 as the '0' year, since that's the year of the first atomic bomb blast. BAA for 'Before the Atomic Age' and AA for 'Atomic Age'. That would make this year 61 AA. (Okay, okay, I'm mostly kidding).
- The article in the Spectator is, sad to say, no longer available to non-subscribers
- Bread and Circuses | CE vs AD again, blogger Adrian Murdoch's post
- About Ancient History | A.D. or C.E., N.S. Gill's first post (with comments)
- About Ancient History | More about AD, N.S. Gill's most recent post
Speaking as an archaeologist, I think we should consider starting all over again, and use 1945 as the '0' year, since that's the year of the first atomic bomb blast. BAA for 'Before the Atomic Age' and AA for 'Atomic Age'. That would make this year 61 AA. (Okay, okay, I'm mostly kidding).
Comments
to be politicaly correct in archaeology is the oxymoron of oxymoron. BC and AD are just fine. I am so sick and tired of this argument with people who have too much time on their hands. 2000 years from now will not be the common era of today but it will be 4000 years AD
Now that is a long time to propose the current civilization will last. You are a clearly an optimistic if somewhat cranky person, AwenDawn!
Sorry did not mean to sound so cranky.Maybe I am just to old to have an unbiased opinion on this issue. Only this issue mind you.
Awen
No, no, certainly don’t apologise for having a strong opinion! After all, that’s what I asked for. I was just twitting you a little, to keep the temperature of the discussion a little cool.
My problem is, I really don’t have a strong opinion, so every little bit I hear about is good! Thanks for posting!
Kris
A.D. stands for in the year of our Lord, so “domini” is in the genitive. Have you ever read Tom Holt? His mother is a mystery writer but he writes fun time jumping historical fiction. The prologue to his Olympiad begins
History as we know it began in 776 BC, near the Greek city of Elis, when some men we know next to nothing about ran from one pile of stones to another…. the third part of the formula rells us how many years have passed since a man called Jesus Bar-Josepf was reckoned to have been born, at Bethlehem in the Roman province of Judaea. We know the date of his birth because the Romans were good at dates and figures… and they used a chronology based on the date of the foundation of the city of Rome (753BC, by our reckoning). If asked how they knew when their city was founded, the Romans would have put it into the context of the Olympiads — the tradition of holding athletic competitions every four years at Olympia, near Elis, on which the Greeks based their chronology.
I still vote for 753 B.C.
All dates on About’s European History site are now give in BCE/CE, which I think is a clear indication of my opinion!
IMHO it is dumb to try and change a thousand years of the term AD just because it was originally a christian term. If we were to switch the gregorian calender with a new one then it would make sense to use whatever terms that it used but as long as we use the gregorian calender… we should use it’s terms. I think all this fuss over changing the terms is just a bunch of angry athiests with too much time on their hands. Its just all so silly… IMHO.
The BCE/CE system is still based around the birth of Jesus Christ! Does it really matter what it is called when the underlying meaning is still the same?
If I were to be offended by BC/AD, then I would sure be equally offended by BCE/CE! By the way, I take no offence at either, in fact I’m more offended at the half-hearted and lazy attempt to “adjust” a centuries-old system just to “seem” more tolerant.
If we really wanted to make it “less offensive” or religiously tolerant than we would change it to a large event that the whole world can agree on. Such as the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Of course, then a non-Italian group will be offended we dind’t use a large natural event from their region.
Why is it that we as a species have become so supersensitive, so fragile in ourselves that we are offended by the most trivial and innocuous things. AD and BC are labels. They carry no malice or intent. The show no disrespect. Just as the zero point is arbitrary. It could very well have been the first time some goat herder first lost a sheep for all it matters. The reality is a zero point was chosen, labels were established, and we should all move on to changing the things that matter in the world.
The tradition in all aspects that we as Americans have lived with for centuries is being hijacked left and right by the stupid whiners who demand THEIR own designations for whatever reason. The problem, aside from being so demanding, is that their little game won’t last as IT will be replace in not too long after their success by some other stupid people in the future. Once you weaken tradition, it fails. Keep tradition, and everyone not only feels more comfortable, but they’re more productive in their lives because they aren’t wasting time defending or attacking stupid proposals to change things. i.e. Look at the bubonic plague and its name change from one scientific term to yersenia pestis. Was THAT really necessary? No. Just some dreamers who are now probably long dead who demanded, and got, their way.
Well, Jesus the Christ was born sometime between 4 and 6 BC, now that we have better info than some 4th century monk. So for BCE/CE users to set the calendar to the zero year between BC and AD is nonsensical. I propose we redo the calendar to covert 2008 to 63AA as in after atomic – 1945 being the first nuclear explosion. That obviates everything. I think Abs Urbe Condita or the Aztec (or is it Mayan?) calendar year would be equally valid. But BCE/CE users are trying to avoid references to religion so AA solves all those problems.
Who initiated the change and for what reason. Did people really have trouble understanding B.C. or A.D.? Please! The answer is obvious to anyone honest enough to admit it. But I have found lots of scientists intellectually dishonest especially paleontologists.
You know, I don’t know who initiated it, but … I do have a feeling about the reason for it. My guess, call it an educated guess if you want, is that–archaeology, the study of the past in general in fact, is driven mostly by the west. Using AD/BC assumes Christianity as the preeminent philosophical underpinning. Full stop. We in the west need to recognize that there are other ways of looking at the past, and (I’m guessing) whoever came up with this idea of BCE/CE thought it might be a good way to remind us of that.
The west can’t control everything, even though maybe we’re used to that. To really understand the past–I mean really understand it, not just put a good face on it–we need to be aware that there are other sides to the study, sides that don’t put Christianity at the forefront. I think that’s interesting. I don’t care about the political correctness of it, frankly. But, if somebody says “here’s another way to think about the past”, I get excited.
That’s intellectual honesty. Can you deal with that?
In all intellectual honesty, this new way of
dating is just a holdover from the pc days of
archaeology. Days that are now, thankfully,
over. Remember those days, when the books and
magazines were written mostly by anthropologists? Nothing but long lectures on the evils of looting, excavations, pot hunters, museums and arrowhead collectors.
Very little for serious study was written.
What’s this about a Year 0? The Gregorian calendar goes directly from 1 BC to 1 AD (or for the politically correct, from 1 BCE to 1 CE).
Well, heck. Who knew? Thanks Phil…
Language leads the way in intellectual and the evolution of culture just like any newfounded scientific discovery. I do see a problem with AD as in ‘the year of our lord’ because as Kris said, it’s a new way of looking at the world. Once you change a term or a name for something, the way you look at it changes, even if it’s every so slightly. It enlightens us and brings a new consciousness to us.
Not necessarily Jambikat.
Pol Pot brought something new in his dating process also. He changed everything to the year zero.
Now go on, tell me you dont know who he was.
Pol Pot AD - or should that be Pol Pot C.E?
Neither - it should be:
Saloth Sar 0. Or, as we in ‘the west’ should make quite clear our belief systems a priori and in connection;
Pol Pot 0 Manchester United 3.
(I would hereby like to make a formal apology now for not being duly sensitive in neglecting to mention those fine ladies of the Luton FC, or all other sporting denominations, creeds or political and religious denominations.)
I prefer the AD/BC system because it has been in use for so long, and it seems that the only reason to suddenly change it is to be politically correct.
I’m not totally against the change though; we aren’t sure about exactly when Jesus was born, and there are several dates that would work over a period of a few years. If history is measured against the birth of Christ, then we would have to shift the whole system if it turned out that we were wrong in dating Jesus’ birth. Also, it would be nice to have a year “0″.
Couldn’t the Christians just call BCE Before Christian Era and CE Christian Era? BC/AD and BCE/CE have the same underlying meaning, they designate time. If we’re going to remove all traces of religion from time keeping, then let’s rename all the days of the week. While we’re at it, let’s change the months of the year. Or is it only imperitive to stamp out Christianity’s influence? Should we ignore all the pagan influences? BC/AD holds no religious meaning to Christians. It seems it only means something to certain atheists, who are probably just a little bitter that all the knowledge of the ancient world (math, sciences, literature,etc.) was saved for us to study and expound upon by Christian monks. BC/AD is nothing more than a reminent of how those monks decided to number the years since they needed a place to start that they had record of. Who care’s what the letters BC/AD stand for? They’re just letters.
Being “religiously correct” about things like this can be just as mindless as being “politically correct”,not to mention narcissistic, self absorbed and incredibly insular as if the whole universe (14 billion years of it) revolves around the transitory beliefs of one faith on one small planet in the midst of a time-space context,which is almost beyond human comprehension. Typical small-minded hubris though of religious fundamentalists, especially the American types.