The thing about the whole AD vs CE vs whether it's all just cosmetic discourse is that it totally ignores where this numbering system comes from. We should just call it what it is: Bede notation.
It was invented by one person for a specific purpose - to have a universalizable way of establishing historical dates, rather than having to deal with dynastically based date systems. And it was a really good idea. This is not surprising, since Bede is basically the father of Historiography. He also is the guy who gave us the notion of Primary Sources. Bede is amazing.
When a guy revolutionizes the entire way calendaring is done, he has the right to set his zero point wherever he pleases.
People have pointed out that one problem with CE notation is that it presents itself as neutral when it is exactly the same system as AD. What exactly is "common" about this era? The zero point doesn't become neutral just by effacing its source.
(Also BCE is nonsense. Just use negative numbers)
It makes sense for scholarly tradition to not want to be tied to a specific religion. But scholarly tradition is very enthusiastic about being tied to earlier scholarly tradition. The convention of AD was established by a scholar for a scholarly purpose. We know his name. We know what he was doing, and why, and how. And he was doing it better than anybody else. That is worth honoring.
Rather than pretending that it's a neutral system, acknowledge that it's not. It's not some naturally occurring "common era," it's the system developed by Bede, centered around dates that were important to him personally (but which he intended to be universally applicable).
Like we should be honest about the facts that (a) an awful lot of people have been measuring dates this way for nearly 1400 years and changing it in a non-cosmetic way would involve a lot of seriously obnoxious bookkeeping, and (b) the zero is where it is because that's where the guy who invented the system decided to put it. "Anno Domini" is meaningless to people who aren't into that particular Dominus, and "Common Era" is meaningless period (and imparts a false appearance of neutrality). Pinning it to its creator, though, is already scholarly convention and is objective. It may or may not be the year of Our Lord, and it certainly isn't Common (whatever that means) but it is unarguably the schema developed by Bede, for better or for worse. So unless we're actually going to rebuild it from scratch, we may as well call it that. And even if we do rebuild it from scratch, we should still call it that. Because that is what it is.
Reblogging in honor of the feast of St. Bede today.
I have been informed that Bede notation may in fact have been first devised by Dionysus the Humble of Scythia to calculate the date of Easter more accurately. But my broader point stands.
Bede, yo.
Add to the list of medieval accomplishments that need to have an (*in europe) tacked on to every other word.
Bede was great, but universal calendar eras were common in other places at the time (The Buddhist Era predated Bede by several centuries, and the Seleucid Era was still in use by his time, just to name a couple), and many are still in common use today.
So why should Bede's accomplishment alone be honored when there are so many other similarly "universal" ways of counting years? The answer, of course, is imperialism. Many people do not use Anno Domini today, and if they want to communicate globally, they have to do that "seriously obnoxious" bookkeeping.
So yeah, whatever, calling it Anno Bede or something might be a nice nod, but it's still not any more honest about why and how it came to be used globally.
My proposal is that we just adopt the Unix Time epoch
