Funerary evidence has more to offer than just the study of individual burial rites. While the foundation of missionary stations introduced a new type of site to the Middle Saxon landscape, in contrast the burial of the dead in archaeologically visible cemeteries occurred before, during and after the conversion. As is explored below, the conversion can be seen not just in burial rites but also in the changing landscape context of the cemeteries themselves. The locations chosen for the burial of the dead were not arbitrary and, although it may be difficult for us to identify all of the relevant criteria in the decision-making process, we are able to say something about the reasoning behind the siting of cemeteries. The contrasting types of site used for Early and Middle Saxon cemeteries and the differing relationships between cemeteries and settlements of those periods both suggest that the changes which occurred during the conversion period affected where the dead were placed in the landscape.

Whereas pre-Christian settlements and cemeteries remained separate landscape entities, under the influence of Christianity settlements and cemeteries converged to become a unified whole, providing us with a vivid material indication of the progress of the conversion. This chapter explores the ideological explanations for this convergence and examines the archaeological evidence from the period's execution cemeteries, which provide a material indication that several recognisable tenets of Christian doctrine were being enforced in the seventh century, including the notion of consecrated ground and the exclusion of criminals therefrom.

The integration of settlements and cemeteries was not the only seventhcentury development in the choice of burial location. The central section of this chapter returns to the theme of the ‘Final Phase’ and examines the distinctive class of cemeteries that was established in tandem with the changing approach to the use of grave-goods discussed in the previous chapter. These cemeteries, of which there are a handful of excavated examples in the East Anglian region, were short-lived, and many had fallen out of use by the early eighth century, by which time, it would appear, the vast majority of burials were taking place in cemeteries located within settlements.

Timothy Insoll has recently described the relationship between archaeology and religion as having been ‘predominantly one of neglect’. As is explored in this chapter, archaeologists have generally considered religion and religious conversion to lie at the limits of archaeological knowledge. Although the processualist movement went some way towards challenging this assumption, in the end its efforts had very little effect, while the post-processualist movement has also done little to address the archaeological study of religion. Greater hope is offered by ‘cognitive archaeology’, an amalgamation of the more successful aspects of both schools of thought, although this approach too has yet to achieve its full potential and is not without its own flaws.

This chapter also examines religious conversion as a process and considers the different approaches which might be taken to its study. As is discussed below, the archaeological record is particularly well suited to the study of conversion as the material traces of changing religious practices are made manifest in a number of different ways and on a number of different scales, ranging from individual artefacts to entire landscapes. Comparative studies demonstrate that the highly adaptive nature of Christianity means that any given conversion episode can only really be understood and appreciated within its own, highly regionalised, terms. To this end, the chapter concludes with a consideration of how we might attempt to recognise conversion in the archaeological record of Anglo-Saxon East Anglia.

Archaeological approaches to religion

Religion is an abstract concept, concerning individual experience, faith and spirituality, and existing only in the minds of its subscribers; it cannot in itself be preserved in the archaeological record or accessed materially. Sometimes dubbed ‘the numinous’, this abstract element is only one aspect of religion, and, fortunately, there are many other aspects, such as the rituals enacted as a part of religious observance, which can and do leave strong material traces. Archaeologists study the material traces of religious acts: the artefacts created for and used in them, the places in which they were enacted and the deposits which resulted from them. From such evidence we may attempt to reconstruct something of the religiously motivated practices which produced it, although this is by no means an easy task to accomplish.

Any attempt to study the history of Anglo-Saxon East Anglia is hindered by the very poor survival of documentary material and the incomplete and unreliable coverage provided by the few extant sources. This lack of documentary material only serves to emphasise the importance of the region's rich archaeological record, which is explored in the following chapters. This chapter presents the surviving historical sources and examines their provenance before placing them within their wider context. The majority of what follows is drawn from Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (HE), so the first part of this chapter examines Bede's motivation for writing this work and the sources which he used. The HE emphasises the important role that the East Anglian kings played in the Christianisation of the region, so the pertinent events which occurred during their reigns are also examined here. The few other surviving sources are introduced here where they are relevant.

The most important step towards the Christianisation of the East Anglian kingdom was the establishment of the episcopal see, at Dommoc in the first instance, although the see was later divided and a second bishopric established at Elmham. Debates have raged for a number of years about the locations of both Dommoc and Elmham; these arguments are considered here, and assessments made of the historical and archaeological evidence. The place of historically attested missionaries in the conversion process — Fursa, founder of the unidentified monastery of Cnobheresburg, and Botolph, founder of the monastery of Icanho — is also addressed. The chapter concludes by summarising the chronological framework of the East Anglian conversion as it can be inferred from the surviving historical sources.

The fate of the East Anglian sources

The dearth of East Anglian Anglo-Saxon documentary sources is made abundantly clear when the relatively large quantities of extant documentary evidence — charters, genealogies, regnal lists, administrative records and chronicles — from the other major Anglo-Saxon kingdoms are considered. There is no reason to assume that the East Anglian paucity is the result of the kingdom having been any less literate than other kingdoms; indeed, there is strong evidence to the contrary.

One of the conclusions which can be drawn from the detailed analysis of the historical evidence for the conversion of East Anglia is the important role played by the bishops and missionaries in the establishment and maintenance of the region's episcopal structure, a pattern repeated in the conversions of other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Building on the framework presented by the historical evidence, this chapter examines the archaeological evidence from a series of East Anglian sites, all of which can be demonstrated to have been instrumental in the conversion effort.

Any analysis of the Middle Saxon ecclesiastical landscape is inevitably dominated by discussion of minster churches. The term ‘minster’ is derived from the Old English translation of the Latin monasterium and appears to have been used by the Anglo-Saxons to describe a wide range of early ecclesiastical foundations ranging from a small isolated community, perhaps with a timber church, to a large enclosed establishment focused around a stone church. Following their Anglo- Saxon subjects, modern scholars use minster in a similarly broad sense and it is the generally preferred term because it carries none of the later medieval connotations of the Anglicised ‘monastery’.

The development of the ecclesiastical system throughout the Anglo-Saxon period and the eventual emergence of the parochial system have frequently been the subject of often quite heated debate. Differences of interpretation aside, one thing on which all parties agree is that the first religious sites to be founded during the conversion period were different from those founded later and by definition must have housed ecclesiastics who combined a traditional life of monastic devotion with proactive missionary and pastoral work within the local lay community. John Blair goes so far as to specifically, but subtly, separate his discussion of those minsters which were founded as a part of the conversion effort from that of those which were founded later, as the newly established Church was consolidated. This book is concerned only with the former class of sites, but the traditional usage of minster is felt to be too general to be helpfully employed here, so, following the example of Stuart Rigold, the term ‘missionary station’ is instead used to describe those ecclesiastical sites which were founded during the initial wave of the conversion.

Burial evidence has often been employed in discussions of Anglo-Saxon religion, although there is a distinct bias towards the better-preserved and archaeologically more visible burials of the Early Saxon period. At the same time, the widespread reliance on historical sources in studying the conversion has given rise to the belief that burial evidence has little to contribute to the debate. As we have seen, the historical evidence for conversion-period East Anglia is particularly sparse, but even on a national scale the historical record has little to say about the early Church's attitude towards burial. However, although the historical record is quiet on the subject, the burial record itself is very rich and we are fortunate in that we are able to study funerary material from before, during and after the conversion period. John Blair is firmly of the opinion that ‘burial practice offers our best hope of glimpsing religious attitudes among ordinary laity in the “age of conversion”’, and the East Anglian archaeological record clearly demonstrates that significant changes in burial practice occurred at the time of the conversion. These changes require explanation. In particular, inhumation was practised alongside cremation during the Early Saxon period, but by the mid-seventh century inhumation had become the sole burial rite. Furthermore, it is clear that the details of the inhumation rite changed considerably over time, particularly regarding the nature, quality and quantity of grave-goods deposited with the corpse.

Excavated Christian burials have demonstrated that unfurnished, supine, west–east burial was, and continues to be, the norm for Christian burial practice. With regard to recognising the conversion in the burial record, a simple model has developed in which Christianity was introduced and burial rites were immediately transformed from those of the Early Saxon period — characterised by the use of cremation and the deposition of Germanic grave-goods — to those in the Christian mould of the medieval period. In particular, studies have focused on the transition from furnished to unfurnished burial and the increasingly regular adoption of a west–east orientation, both criteria recently described in print as being among ‘the earliest tangible signs of the new religion in the archaeological record’.

The Christianisation of the Anglo-Saxons was one of the most significant events in this country's history, the effects of which continue to shape society to this day. When Pope Gregory's emissary Augustine and his entourage landed in Kent in AD 597 — the event traditionally taken to mark the beginning of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons — he was not entering a unified country. In the late sixth century the country's political geography comprised a number of kingdoms of varying size and political allegiance, of which Kent was then among the most powerful. During the first half of the seventh century Christianity began to spread from kingdom to kingdom, radiating from its Kentish bridgehead and percolating from the north as members of the Irish church also became engaged in the conversion process. The people of each kingdom responded to the new religion in different ways, with some readily accepting the new faith and others remaining steadfastly opposed to it, but by c. AD 700 the first stage of the conversion had effectively been completed across all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. This book is the first to use both the surviving historical sources and the eastern region's rich and varied archaeological record to examine the mechanisms by which Christianity was introduced into the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of East Anglia and to assess the rate at which and extent to which it spread throughout society.

Anglo-Saxon East Anglia

The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of East Anglia, which comprised most of modern-day Norfolk and Suffolk and perhaps the eastern part of the fen basin (Fig. 1), appears to have emerged as a political entity in the second half of the sixth century and by the early seventh century the Wuffing kings of south-eastern Suffolk had risen to prominence. Some of the boundaries of the kingdom are relatively easy to identify, others less so. To the north-west, north and east the kingdom was bordered by the North Sea, at once both a natural boundary and a thriving maritime link to Scandinavia and the northern reaches of Germany. The processes of coastal erosion and deposition have greatly altered the shape of the coastline since the Anglo-Saxon period, with deposits having accrued along the central northern coast while at the same time the east coast has suffered erosion, most famously around Dunwich.