In fact archeologists have adapted to writing "CE" and "BCE" these days, but despite that flexibility I've never seen somebody write a date range like "the 1200s BCE". But they should.
In fact archeologists have adapted to writing "CE" and "BCE" these days, but despite that flexibility I've never seen somebody write a date range like "the 1200s BCE". But they should.
For earlier dates "n years ago" is usually easier, e.g. "The first humans migrated to Australia approximately 50,000 years ago".
From comparing some online answers (see links), I'd conclude that even though the numbers are ordered backward, "first"/"last"/"early"/"late" would more commonly be understood to reference the years' relative position in a timeline. That is, "2000 to about minus 1750" would be the first quarter of the second millennium BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century_BC (the "last century BC") https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1akt4zm/this... https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-first-half-of-the-1st-cent... https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-the-2nd-half-of-the-5... etc
I often get excited by some discovery sounding a lot older than it actually is, for reasons like this.