erm... IDK... AFAIK, YBP is used commonly in articles talking about this period. I guess having a 0 point 2018 years in the past is clunkier, and we're used to marking years with an acronym.

We use a lot more acronyms these days, generally. The better ones can be guessed from context. I personally don't mind the BC/AD, for iron age and later. It's actually convenient that year 0 corresponds roughly to the beginning of Rome's height.

>YBP is used commonly in articles talking about this period.

OK, I'd never it before (had to google it).

Slightly related good man/woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czgOWmtGVGs

I can see some value in it, BC dates are confusing but it's also just another year chosen as 0 based on a particular historical occurrence. The video makes a big deal of supposed inclusivity benefits of this change which is wearying

What would your preference be? Ybp is out. Holocene era is too hippy.. Personally, I would go with years before me but otherwise I'll take any convenient dating method including the year of some lord if it does the job.

AD/BC does the job ok for classical history and onwards. Now that "history" is extending back before the bronze age and even to these really early dates...we obviously need a new stamp.

Why is including values of our time bad, while honouring some 2018ya lord good?

>Why is including values of our time bad, while honouring some 2018ya lord good?

I didn't say that was bad, I just figured if you wanted to say 15k years ago you could say 15k years ago instead of making up another acronym, ago isn't a long word. Also I don't necessarily think you have to date from the supposed birthdate of the Jesus Christ. But since we have, why not leave it as is? Why are we being subjected to CE and BCE? It would be quite a message-laden decision if some institutions had a policy of NOT referring to our numbers as Arabic numerals, for instance.