Krypteia, your use of "s as opposed to quote tags is a little confusing. Nevertheless, the reference to Pattison more or less supports my argument.
I think, however, that you are using the term Briton with hindsight. You view the population of the British Isles as a genetically identical group prior to the invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. It is true that the term Briton in 500 AD did not apply to Anglo-Saxons, but it did apply to all the original inhabitants of the isles, who were not necessarily Celtic. The inhabitants prior to the Celtic invasions are all included in the term, regardless of race, except if you use the term Brythonic, but in that case you are also excluding the Gaels. It is certainly a complicated matter, but it is only logical to reassess the meaning of words over time, and as 'Briton' is a name based on the British Isles and was used to refer to the inhabitants of the Isles, it is only logical that the English are Britons too. Especially as, as I said and Patterson supports, a majority of the population of England are not Anglo-Saxons but closely related to pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants. In other words, the distinctions propagated by modern day national borders do not necessarily translate to medieval politics and certainly not to genetic differences or race, as everything's mixed: there were no clear cut lines or distinct borders.
But this is really off-topic and if you want to carry on the debate it would be best to take it to the History forum.
Kor |
The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.