08-21-2009, 08:56 PM
I'm quite interested in the terminology debate: this is a great forum where such issues benefit from such a wide range of perspectives 
'An Age of Tyrants' by Christopher Snyder has already been mentioned, and Snyder suggests 'the Brittonic period' specifically to cover 400-600 AD. If I recall correctly he draws that largely from the 'native' language which I see spelled 'Brythonic' and it does seem both to reflect the terminology of our few period sources, such as Zozimus, the Gallic Chronicles, Gildas, Procopius as well as nod to the importance of Roman culture in setting the name of the province in stone. The main disadvantages of this name are that some might feel it ignores the 'arrival of the Anglo-Saxons' and it's relative obscurity. However, this latter might also be its strength, because as Matt has mapped out, popular terms are already associated with particular perspectives or approaches which divide people.
Personally, my second favourite is right back to 'Sub-Roman' because it suggests clearly that Roman culture was a continuing influence and the associated implication that Britain in the period was a shadow of it's former self is actually pretty hard to refute: whilst I am a serious subscriber to the persistence of elements of Roman organisation, culture and learning in the 5th and even 6th century even I have to admit that these are important exceptions in the overall picture of a massive reduction in the quality and quantity of material, epigraphic and literary evidence which seem attendant on the political, demographic and social changes that take place before Augustine's mission of 597, when it seems to me the area of modern England is more characteristically 'Anglo-Saxon'.
Interesting stuff, cheers
'An Age of Tyrants' by Christopher Snyder has already been mentioned, and Snyder suggests 'the Brittonic period' specifically to cover 400-600 AD. If I recall correctly he draws that largely from the 'native' language which I see spelled 'Brythonic' and it does seem both to reflect the terminology of our few period sources, such as Zozimus, the Gallic Chronicles, Gildas, Procopius as well as nod to the importance of Roman culture in setting the name of the province in stone. The main disadvantages of this name are that some might feel it ignores the 'arrival of the Anglo-Saxons' and it's relative obscurity. However, this latter might also be its strength, because as Matt has mapped out, popular terms are already associated with particular perspectives or approaches which divide people.
Personally, my second favourite is right back to 'Sub-Roman' because it suggests clearly that Roman culture was a continuing influence and the associated implication that Britain in the period was a shadow of it's former self is actually pretty hard to refute: whilst I am a serious subscriber to the persistence of elements of Roman organisation, culture and learning in the 5th and even 6th century even I have to admit that these are important exceptions in the overall picture of a massive reduction in the quality and quantity of material, epigraphic and literary evidence which seem attendant on the political, demographic and social changes that take place before Augustine's mission of 597, when it seems to me the area of modern England is more characteristically 'Anglo-Saxon'.
Interesting stuff, cheers
Salvianus: Ste Kenwright
A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group
My Re-enactment Journal
~ antiquum obtinens ~
A member of Comitatus Late Roman Historical Re-enactment Group
My Re-enactment Journal
~ antiquum obtinens ~
