I do feel stupid for asking this but I cannot think of another place.
When historians refer to the certain time periods in centuries/decades/milleniums, they often use "early" or "late". So like the 1820's were the early nineteenth century, and the 1880s would be the late.
My confusion comes from when we discuss times in the BCE/BC era of human history. Would 220 BCE, for example, be considered early or late 3rd century?
I know it may seem like a strange question but whenever I tutor students I often stumble over such an issue because such a thing has never been brought up in my classes.
Edit: I hope everyone understands my confusion but in case it isn't clear, since BCE runs from higher-lower numbers in regards to dates, it would be easy to say from some points of view that 280 BCE would be considered early and 210 BCE would be considered late, or vice versa.
BC and AD are indeed inverted. I agree that it's confusing as all get out, and even though I work with it every day, I still have to sit and think about it. Not a stupid question at all.
"Early" and "Late" are used in relation to today. So "early" would be further in the past than "Late" from this moment. Another confusing part of it is the century terminology. As in, 5th century BC, which is actually 400-499 BC. This is because the word "century" refers to a period of 100 years, and the first century are the first 100 numbers, all of which technically have a 0 in the 100s place of the number (000-099), whereas the second century and on have one lower number, but it is the second group of 100 numbers.
So yes, 280 BC would be considered "early 3rd century BC", since it is the further away part of the third 100 year group BC.
Does this make sense, and do you have any other questions? I can try to elaborate if need be.