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.
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.