North British Warrior

[Medicus matt]

We were trying to avoid that name. :oops:

Historians tend to call that period sub-Roman Britain, though I'm not sure why they don't call it post-Roman Britain. :wink:

Archaeologists tend to call it sub-roman; they first coined the term to refer to the material culture of the period, implying that it was essentially a crappy, debased attempt at roman culture.

Post Roman can only mean 'after Rome' and, as no one can agree on when Britain stopped being Roman, it's not a very useful term. It was easier when people agreed that Honorius' letter was to the Britains as that meant we could use 410 as a convenient end date but even then was that the end of 'Roman Britain'? Archaeological evidence tells otherwise.

Historians are (as much as we are) very divided on the subject, depending on where there passions lie.

Classicists like 'Late Antiquity'
Medievalists like 'Early Medieval'
Celtophiles like 'Arthurian'
Barbarian types like 'Migration Period'.
Those who know no better sit in their grubby SFBs and cling to 'Dark Age'.
:wink:

[Ron Andrea]

Dare I ask what an SFB is? :roll:

[Medicus matt]

Dare I ask what an SFB is? :roll:

I don't know, dare you?

:wink:

SFB = Sunken Featured Building, grubenhaus, grubhut etc. The stereotypical pitched roofed 'Anglo-Saxon' building built over a pit.

Until it was realised that there were probably floorboards over said pit (and that some, if not all, of them were used as workshops and storage buildings rather than dwellings), some archaeologists thought that the early English basicaly lived in muddy holes in the ground with a roof over them. Fitted in nicely with the concept of 'The Dark Ages'.

[Robert Vermaat]

I just love terminology evolution.

Wasn't this period called 'post-Roman Britain' during the 1970s and 80s?

SFB = Sunken Featured Building, grubenhaus, grubhut etc. The stereotypical pitched roofed 'Anglo-Saxon' building built over a pit.
Until it was realised that there were probably floorboards over said pit (and that some, if not all, of them were used as workshops and storage buildings rather than dwellings), some archaeologists thought that the early English basicaly lived in muddy holes in the ground with a roof over them. Fitted in nicely with the concept of 'The Dark Ages'.

I think the first meaning of SFB was really 'Sunken-Floored Building', with archaeologists indeed believing that the early Anglo-Saxons lived in a pit with walls and a roof..

I read somewhere that the modern interpretation of the SFB pictured a well-aired building which may have been more comfortable than the common British dwelling.

[Ron Andrea]

Works for me. Of course, well-ventilated works better in some weather and seasons than others.

At the risk of starting something, the same might apply to common (modern) British food. That's not fair, I'm sure things have improved a lot since I lived in Oxfordshire in the 1980s.

[Alanus]

Oops! You could end up swallowing your tope without the chips. :lol:

[Salvianus]

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

[Alanus]

Good points. Especially the notice that we are talking about a period that encompasses only two centuries.

In China, they would have called it the "warring states period," ie. the "warring tyrants period" as pointed out by Gildas. :lol:

[Ron Andrea]

Or the twilight of Britannia, to borrow Winston Churchill's phrase.

[Salvianus]

Or the twilight of Britannia, to borrow Winston Churchill's phrase.

He could turn quite a phrase couldn't he?

[Alanus]

Yup. "Never have so few Britons been harassed by so many Saxons." :lol:

[Salvianus]

:lol:

[Ron Andrea]

Excellent! Especially the children.

But wasn't everyone a wee bit too clean? :lol:

[Alanus]

Well, I suppose it was Churchill's perspective, still 19th century. As I recall he once remarked that if our unnamed Briton hero didn't exist, then "he should have." lol:

[Ron Andrea]

Especially if that soft southern dux bellorum had any name other than Vortigen, right? :wink: