Britannus/Britto: Roman Ethnographies, Native Identities, Labels, and Folk Devils

Abstract

Classical and antique writers used two words to describe the inhabitants of Britain: Britannus and Britto. Did these two terms mean anything to the people they labelled, or were they imposed by outsiders? Is there any significance in the difference between the two terms? Use of either term, both by "proper authors" and colloquially, suggests that Britons were looked down upon. As late as the end of the fourth century, Ausonius was able to claim that "no Brito can link himself with Bonus". Ethnic names convey all sorts of meanings, as with any name used by outsiders. Names have power, as many cultures have recognised. If we look at the archaeology of the Romano-Britons, it is difficult to understand how they can have shared a common identity at the time of the conquest Rather, I will argue, that common identity arose from the treatment of the locals by the Roman administration but was, at best, fragile. By focusing on the classical ethnonyms Britannus and Britto, I will argue that the terms were coined by non-Britons and belong to a classi