The use of the Christian construct “BC” or “AD” to denote periods in time has two inherent problems; It is neither accurate nor politic.

Its inaccuracy stems from several factors, notably that it purports to measure time from a specific date - the year of birth of the Christian god-figure, Jesus Christ. Of course no actual date can be assigned to the birth of this figure as no one is sure when he was born, or indeed, if he was ever born at all. Even his widely celebrated birthday on December 25th is merely a date assigned to the event by a church several centuries after his (alleged) life. It was picked to replace existing popular religious festivities in various cultures eg Saturnalia in Roman Europe.

The use of this entirely invented date, assigned to a year chosen by guesswork, can hardly be defended against replacement by a phrase that more accurately defines the situation. BCE or Before Common Era indicates the acceptance that we are talking in broad strokes, of a relatively short period of common modernity set against a much longer period of antiquity.

It also reflects the reality that Christianity including its pantheon of god-figures, and mythology of heaven and hell, belongs to only one sector of this planet’s population. It exists in competition with many other religions; some like Christianity are established and organized while others like Paganism are umbrella terms for a wide variety of indigenous philosophies and spiritual paths. To use a member of only one pantheon to denote something as important as the history of mankind makes no sense. One may as well arbitrarily divide the history of mankind into “pre Isis” and “post Isis” - the arrival of Christianity had a major effect only on one part of the world, and civilisations existed long before its invention. Therefore no great import should be attached to it other than that western academia has left us with a legacy of its traditional usage.

It would be hard now to arrange for that tradition - division of 2000 years of relative modernity from the rest of man’s existence - to disappear completely but it is merely a tradition. To reform its usage not only gives a more accurate shorthand for discussing time periods it also redresses some of the damage done by an inherently arrogant attirude fostered in pervious centuries by Academics overly hidebound in western prejudices. The same unthinking arrogance that stole artifacts from other countries, imposed narrow western criteria to the classification of tribal societies, destroyed indigenous people’s and justified it in racist polemics, also assumed that Christians had the right to view the entire history of the world in reference only to themselves and thier own beliefs.

The assumption of a humbler, more conciliatory reckoning of civilisation as expressed by the newer phraseology BCE/CE signals to those whose cultures we need to study, whose traditions we wish to understand, that we no longer harbour those attitudes. It also expresses the nuetrality of intellect in a world polarised by religious conflict and cultural warfare. The disciplines affected by the change - History, Archaeology, Anthropology - should be concerned with the commonality of man and the telling of the story of man’s evolution not the protection of a divisive and pointless expression. Intellegent people can surely adopt a phrase that enables us to view mankind as a whole rather than insist on empty privilege for an outmoded tradition.

I believe, looking at trends in Universities and schools in Europe at least, the phrase BCE/CE will soon become the norm and I for one will welcome that step forward.