I think in this context "more correct" can be taken to mean, "more in keeping with currently accepted practice." It's a style thing, whether or not it really makes any difference or sense. In official capacities, most present historians use BCE/CE.
As to whether we should, that's another question entirely. If anything, I'd say it makes more sense to call the breaking point around the time of the first evident monumental architecture circa 10,000-12,000 years ago if we really cared about secularizing the dating system, but that's expecting a lot of change. I can see the impetus to do so, given the ever diminishing role of Christianity in a global and generally less religious society, as well as a desire to re-frame history away from Eurocentric terms, but things like a dating system have tremendous cultural inertia to overcome, so we end up with half measures that satisfy nobody, but we use them anyway because that's the style.
Unnamed_Bystander t1_j0fjyc9 wrote
Reply to comment by Trovadordelrei in The Garamantes: Rome's neighbours in the Sahara. by AugustWolf22
I think in this context "more correct" can be taken to mean, "more in keeping with currently accepted practice." It's a style thing, whether or not it really makes any difference or sense. In official capacities, most present historians use BCE/CE.
As to whether we should, that's another question entirely. If anything, I'd say it makes more sense to call the breaking point around the time of the first evident monumental architecture circa 10,000-12,000 years ago if we really cared about secularizing the dating system, but that's expecting a lot of change. I can see the impetus to do so, given the ever diminishing role of Christianity in a global and generally less religious society, as well as a desire to re-frame history away from Eurocentric terms, but things like a dating system have tremendous cultural inertia to overcome, so we end up with half measures that satisfy nobody, but we use them anyway because that's the style.