Archaeologists Excavate Ancient Roman Capital in Macedonia

Popular Archaeology ^ | Thursday, July 25, 2013

[SunkenCiv]

Historical references and archaeological excavations have indicated continuous occupation in Stobi from the 6th century BC to the 6th century AD. Investigations have yielded remains of the Archaic (6th century BC) and Classical periods (5th-4th century BC), evidencing the earliest periods of Stobi's history. The Roman historian Titus Livy writes that in 197 BC the Macedonian king Philip V defeated the Dardanians in the vicinity of Stobi and, also according to Livy, during the Roman conquests in Macedonia, Stobi became an important center for salt trading. But it wasn't until AD 69 when Emperor Vespasian granted Stobi the rank of municipium and the right to mint its own coins, becoming a city of significance within the Roman Empire. Because of its salt trading and its strategic position between two rivers, located near the ancient road along the Vardar valley and branches of the Via Diagonalis and Via Egnatia, the city became a center of prosperity beginning in the 1st century AD. In the 4th century, Stobi became an important Christian center and a seat of bishops, and in the 5th and 6th centuries it was the capital city of the Roman province of Macedonia Secunda. The city finally saw its end when it was destroyed by an earthquake in 518 AD.

[SunkenCiv]

Roman city ruins of Stobi, Macedonia. D. Proffer, Wikimedia Commons

[SunkenCiv]

[Hostage]

Sorry to get political here but I was relieved to find the historically true usage of ‘BC’ here versus the historical revision of ‘BCE’.

[SunkenCiv]

BCE isn’t revisionist, it’s what’s used in the non-Christian parts of the world, iow, most of the world.

[Hostage]

> “BCE isn’t revisionist,...”

Pure unadulterated B*LLSH*T.

[Prospero]

I don't know if I would classify the BCE terminology precisely as true revisionism, as I've understood it's usage first in archeological circles beginning perhaps fifty years ago. Because it is still a reference to the Gregorian calendar's focus on what was for many years thought to be the time of the birth of Christ, they are interchangeable.

It is, therefore, certainly unnecessary.

For many years I followed after this convention, out of sensitivity for those to whom the name of Christ is like the proverbial cross before a vampire. About a decade ago, however, I returned gradually to the original Latin conventions because "the Common Era" is a clumsy device. Archeology and history remain seated in the Gregorian calendar, and because the preponderance of historical evidence favors the reliability of the witnesses to Christ's resurrection. This unique event in the record makes that birth an excellent frame of reference.

[Hostage]

> “About a decade ago, however, I returned gradually to the original Latin conventions because “the Common Era” is a clumsy device.”

Well good for you.

Revisionist historians can adopt their own reference point without infringement, say year 2000 AD as the zero CE/BCE marker.

But changing the historical usage of AD/BC is similar in motive to taking Crosses down from public view or arguing that the Ten Commandments be taken out of courthouses.