Several years ago now, my colleague N.S. Gill (guide to Ancient History here) started a discussion about whether archaeologists and historians should use the abbreviations of BC and AD when referring to calendar dates. Nemy's discussion was spurred by Adrian Murdoch of Bread and Circuses, who admits the issue is a 'bugbear' with him.
Dedication plaque on Kildarton Hall. Should this be CE 1900? Photo by Henry Clark
The argument has to do with the underlying religious connotations of BC and AD, which refer explicitly to the reputed birth date of Jesus Christ. We researchers, struggling for some objectivity, wonder from time to time if using the Judeo-Christian calendar is really appropriate for all of the cultures that we study. Perhaps we should start using the more neutral CE (or Common Era) or BCE (Before the Common Era).
For Archaeology at About.com, I ended up deciding to stick with AD/BC, on the grounds that by using AD/BC I didn't have to explain myself all the time; and, further, the CE/BCE start date still refers to Christ's reputed birthdate. The blog I posted in 2006 still gets comments even after all this time. Recently, an editor pal of mine, Holly Carver, wrote and asked if archaeologists in general had come to some sort of conclusion about this thorny issue. The only way I could think of to figure that out, shy of polling every archaeologist I know, was to find out if archaeological journal style guides had an opinion.
AD vs CE: Polling the Journals
Interestingly, some archaeological journals do express an opinion; others refer to standard style guides (Chicago Manual of Style is most cited, but archaeological journals in North America cite American Antiquity); still others don't express an opinion about the issue at all, apparently leaving it up to the author. Below is a list of some journals who (assuming it is an editor who does the opining) do express an opinion about this interesting issue.
To find these, I looked at over 80 journals in archaeology, anthropology, geology and history (English language journals that often or occasionally publish articles on archaeological topics), and these are the only ones I could find with an opinion. I may have missed a few, or more than a few: it was surprisingly difficult to tease out this data, so leave a note if you know of one I missed.
| Journal Title and Link to Guide | Stated Preference |
| American Anthropologist | C.E./B.C.E. |
| American Antiquity | A.D./B.C. |
| Antiquity | AD/BC |
| Archaeological Review from Cambridge | AD/BC |
| Cambridge Archaeological Journal | ad/bc |
| Current Anthropology | AD/BC |
| European Journal of Archaeology | AD/BC |
| Environment and History | AD/BC |
| Ethnohistory | AD/BC |
| European Journal of Archaeology | AD/BC |
| Geoarchaeology | AD/BC |
| Historical Archaeology | A.D./B.C. |
| Homo | CE/BCE |
| Journal of African History | CE/BCE |
| Journal of Anthropological Archaeology | AD/BC |
| Journal of Pacific Archaeology | AD/BC |
| Near Eastern Archaeology | CE/BCE |
| Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology | AD/ but use BP rather than BC |
General Resources
| Associated Press Stylebook | A.D./B.C. |
| Chicago Manual of Style | AD/BC |
Interesting, isn't it? Thanks, Holly!
Comments
The point, for me at least, is that “BC” and especially “AD” do not merely “refer explicitly to the reputed birth date of Jesus Christ”; they incorporate in their very terms explicit religious claims: that Jesus of Nazareth is “Christ” (BC) and “Our Lord” (AD). The advantage in BCE/CE, understood as “[Before the] Christian Era” (where “era” has the sense of “system of chronology”), is that (1) it explicitly acknowledges the historical origins of the dating system in use, while (2) not incorporating the explicit religious claims in “BC” and “AD”. I don’t object to the choice of others to continue using “BC” and “AD” if they wish, but I don’t use them for the reasons given, and it seems to me that journals really ought to allow authors a choice in the matter.
In defense of the journals–I contacted none of them, and they may be more elastic than their “guidelines” indicate.
But, your comment definitely cuts to the heart of the matter.
That’s what I’d hope: that a journal might have a default style, but specific authorial preference (either way) would override it. I see also that my comment sounded perhaps too dogmatic: my personal preference is for BCE/CE; however, I will still use BC/AD in a context where not to do so is likely to cause unnecessary confusion or require explanations there is not time or space to give.
Just more political correctness in academia run amok, is what this all boils down to.
I have a problem with simply stamping the debate about AD/CE with being “politically correct”: the issue is part of a honest struggle in academics to “do the right thing” for the people we serve, not simply a matter of politics.
It’s also historically inaccurate to label the use of “Christian Era” and “Common Era” a modern innovation or “politically correct”. That’s because the terms are in fact almost four centuries old, and have throughout that time been used (even by Christian writers) as less common variants in date indication.
The old Catholic Encyclopaedia‘s article shows that these terms (along with “Vulgar Era” and “Aera Vulgaris”) are the accepted ones for the chronological system embodied by the Julian and Gregorian calendars. As a date indicator, the OED has citations for “Christian Era” from 1657 (“The year 1657, current of the Christian Aera”, George Wharton, The Works of Sir George Warton, collected by J. Gadbury [London 1683]), 1777 (“About six hundred and four years before the Christian aera”, William Robertson, The history of America [Cork 1778]), 1796 (“The computing of time by the Christian aera is introduced by Dionysius the monk”, Jedidiah Morse, The American universal geography. New edition [1796]), and 1871 (“In the first centuries of the Christian era”, Benjamin Jowett, in the second volume of his translations of Plato) – all cases where “BC” or “AD” could be substitured. For “Vulgar [=Common] Era” in a similar usage, there’s a citation from 1716 (“The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation”, Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament connected: in the history of the Jews and neighbouring nations [London 1716–1718]). The Wikipedia “Common Era” article lists more 17th and 18th century cases.
Indeed some actually oppose these terms on the grounds that they falsely assert to be “common” a specifically Christian-derived (and imposed) system. That seems to me mistaken, since the “Common” (“Vulgar”) surely refers to the simple fact that these are dates currently in common use across boundaries of territory and religious (or non-religious) affiliation.
thats why I use RCBP
BCE/CE are more neutral and really should be used within the scientific enterprise… however if someone has a problem with these, BP or “before present” is handy, neutral, and accurate – we just have to get in the habit of “converting” the number by subtracting 2,000 years!
I still prefer before present.
Despite being a very committed atheist, I intend to continue to use BC/AD. Partly it’s because I have a high regard for tradition, and that is the stronger one. But it’s also because I really resent being told how to think, which the requirement to use one or the other strikes me as. I would be strongly inclined to withdraw a paper if an editor insisted I used BCE/CE.
Changing from BC and AD to BCE and CE denies the origin of our dating system, effectively trying to rewrite or cover-up history – going against the very principles of Archaeology.
BC – AD is so widely used that to change would only lead to confusion. BCE – CE is the same thing but simply adds confusion. BP on the other hand while simple is only accurate if it is accepted as based on 1950 and not the “present” year.
However, its a bit like trying to halt time zone confusion by asking people to use UTC instead of EST. Try explaining UTC to someone …… grrrr….another exercise in frustration.