Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Early Anglo-Saxon Elite Burial: The Origins of Kingship?

The second half of the sixth century and the first half of the seventh century
produced a series of rich graves in Anglo-Saxon England. ‘Elite’ burials such
as these are often interpreted as signs of the emergence of kingship. This
paper challenges this position. Using Frankish mortuary archaeology as a
template, it ranks early Anglo-Saxon graves according to their probability of
royalty. The resulting corpus is analysed in terms of date, geographical
distribution and wider context. From this it is argued that rather than
representing the origins of early Anglo-Saxon kingship, elite burial marks a
period of change in the nature or practice of Anglo-Saxon kingship.

The historical record indicates that kingship was central to Anglo-Saxon society, yet few
have questioned in detail where it came from or how it developed. Studies of early Anglo-
Saxon England, archaeological or historical, have been chiefly concerned with questions of
ethnicity, identity and migration.1 In recent years, a number of works have addressed the
origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, while a few, often highly problematic, works have
addressed kingship itself.2 Despite this, key questions regarding the origins and nature of
early Anglo-Saxon kingship remain unanswered.

1
N. J. Higham, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (London, 1992), pp. 1-15; H. Hamerow, 'Migration Theory
and the Migration Period', in B. Vyner (ed.) Building on the Past: Papers Celebrating 150 Years of the Royal
Archaeological Institute (London, 1994), pp. 164-77; H. Hamerow, 'The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms', in P.
Fouracre (ed.) New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 1 c.500-c.700 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 263-69. See
also, numerous chapters in, H. Hamerow, D. A. Hinton, and S. Crawford (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-
Saxon Archaeology (Oxford, 2010).
2
See papers in, S. Bassett (ed.), The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Leicester, 1989). Bassett proposed two
separate models in the introduction, a conquest model with broad territorial continuity and a societal break-
down model followed my competition and amalgamation of small units into larger territories; it is the latter
which has received the most subsequent attention, for example, B. Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-
Saxon England (London, 1990), pp. 9-15 and 157-62; C. Wickham, Framing the Middle Ages: Europe and the
Mediterranean, 400-800 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 313-14. Also, Hamerow, 'The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms',
pp. 280-87.On kingship specifically, D. A. Binchey, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship: The O’Donnell Lectures
for 1967-8 (Oxford, 1970); J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent:
The Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1970 (Oxford, 1971). More
problematically, W. A. Chaney, The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from Paganism
to Christianity (Manchester, 1970); P. Wormald, 'Kings and Kingship', in P. Fouracre (ed.) The New Cambridge
Medieval History: Volume 1 c.500-c.700 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 571-604; M. J. Enright, The Sutton Hoo
Sceptre and the Roots of Celtic Kingship Theory (Dublin, 2006).

1
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

The later sixth and early seventh centuries saw a change in the burial rites practiced in
England, described for convenience as Anglo-Saxon.3 Greater variation developed in the
level of furnishings in graves. There was also an increasing trend towards above ground
mortuary structures. The most exceptional examples of this phenomenon are often termed
‘elite’ burials; they stand as the epitome of a wider class of generally wealthy burials. This
trend towards greater differentiation, which can also be observed in settlement patterns, is
generally interpreted as a sign of increasing stratification in society; as such, elite burials tend
to be linked to the emergence of kings and kingdoms.4 This paper sets out to examine the
validity of this link and, through this, illuminate early Anglo-Saxon kingship. The paper
principally addresses archaeological information, although the questions that it asks might be
best termed as historical.

As John Michael Wallace-Hadrill pointed out fifty-three years ago it is intensely difficult to
connect even the richest Anglo-Saxon burials from this period to kings.5 Bereft of written
records, the identity and status of those interred must always remain fundamentally
enigmatic. The Frankish archaeological record is, of course, very different. In 1653,
workmen at Tournai discovered a richly furnished grave, most likely originally under a large
burial mound, surrounded by at least three pits containing the remains of at least twenty-one
horses.6 Crucially, there was a seal ring with the inscription Childerici Regis – ‘belonging to
King Childeric’.

In addition, it is possible that two graves discovered in 1655 under Saint-Germain-des-Prés,

Paris are also royal, although the account describing them is confused.7 One was interred in a

3
H. Geake, 'Burial Practice in Seventh- and Eighth-Century England', in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of
Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 85-86; S. J. Lucy, The
Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early England (Stroud, 2000), pp. 4-5.
4
C. J. Arnold, Roman Britain to Saxon England: An Archaeological Study (London, 1984), pp. 139-40; C. J.
Arnold, An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (London, 1988), pp. 154-83; M. Carver, 'Kingship
and Material Culture in Early Anglo-Saxon East Anglia', in S. Bassett (ed.) Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms
(Leicester, 1989), pp. 141-58; Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, pp.8-9; Hamerow, 'The Earliest Anglo-Saxon
Kingdoms', pp. 276-80.
5
J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, 'The Graves of Kings: An Historical Note on some Achaeological Evidence', in J. M.
Wallace-Hadrill (ed.) Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), pp. 39-59.
6
The original report is J. J. Chifflet, Anastasis Childerici I Francorum Regis: Sive Thesaurus Sepulchralis
Tornaci Neruiorum Effossus et Commentario Illustratus (Antwerp, 1655). See also the modern excavations, R.
Brulet (ed.), Les fouilles du quarteir Saint-Brice à Tournai: L’environment funéraire de la sépulture de
Childeric (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1990). The majority of the items from the original grave were sadly stolen in
1831, P. Périn, La datation des tombes merovingiennes: Historique, methodes, applications (Geneva, 1980), pp.
5-8.
7
B. d. Montfaucon, Les Monumens de la monarchie françoise: Qui comprennet l’historire de France avec les
figures de chaque regne que l’injure des tems a epargnées (Paris, 1729), pp. 173-75.

2
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

sarcophagus which bore the inscription Childr Rex – ‘King Childeric’ and based on this it has
been suggested that the individuals were Childeric II and his wife Belechildis who were
murdered in 675. This is called into question, though, by the fact that traditionally Childric II
and Belechildis are thought to have been buried at Saint-Ouen, Rouen.8 It is also possible
that Édouard Salin’s Burial Sixteen under Saint-Denis, Paris is Chlotar III, who is known to
be buried there.9 Other rich burials have also been found under both Cologne Cathedral and
Saint-Denis; royal status has been suggested but not demonstrated.10

Uncertain and problematic as this information is, and despite chronological difficulties,
certain patterns can be extracted from it. The wealth of these burials is their most apparent
unifying feature. It would not be too bold to claim that the wealth of Childeric I’s grave
remains unsurpassed for a burial of this period; the contents of the Saint-Germain-des-Prés
burials when sold, raised sufficient funds to purchase a new organ. Arms, armour, personal
adornment and vessels of various types are all also common to these burials, although these
items were not exclusively royal. Strikingly, two of the graves were associated with sceptres.
In addition, all of these burials might be seen to have some religious association. All are
likely to have been associated with large above-ground structures.

These insights can serve as a broad template of what an early Anglo-Saxon kingly burial
might have looked like. This template can be used to establish the rough probability that a
given early Anglo-Saxon burial was royal and thus create a ranked list of early Anglo-Saxon
elite burials. Such an exercise is of course fraught with difficulties. Not only does the
template come from a different, although related, culture, but determining status from
funerary evidence is itself intensely problematic;11 burials are not passive reflections of the

8
E. James, 'Royal Burials Among the Franks', in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh
Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 250-51.
9
É. Salin, Les tombes Gallo-Romaines at Mérovingiennes de la basilique de Saint-Denis: Fouilles de Janvier-
Février 1957 (Paris, 1968), pp. 25-45.
10
J. Werner, 'Frankish Royal Tombs in the Cathedrals of Cologne and Saint-Denis', Antiquity, 38 (1964), pp.
201-16.
11
I. Hodder, 'Social Structure and Cemeteries: A Critical Appraisal', in P. Rahtz, T. Dickinson, and L. Watts
(eds), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries 1979: The Fourth Anglo-Saxon Symposium at Oxford, 1980), pp. 161-69; M. P.
Pearson, 'Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study', in I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic
and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 99-113; R. Samson, 'Social Structures from Reihengräber:
Mirror or Mirage?', Scottish Archaeological Review, 4 (1987), pp. 116-26; E. James, 'Burial and Status in the
Early Medieval West', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 39 (1989), pp. 23-40. More generally, P. J.
Ucko, 'Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains', World Archaeology, 1 (1969), pp.
262-80.

3
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

status of the dead but active constructs determined by the needs and ambitions of the living.12
Graves do not, therefore, reveal the status and identity of the person interred, but how those
who buried them wished them to be perceived. The study of funerary remains is thus not a
direct study of society, but a study of society’s projection of itself. It is nonetheless possible
to understand society through burial if this complex dynamic of ideal and reality is borne in
mind.

The ranking exercise is also innately subjective. The template established is neither exact nor
objective. To a large degree its application revolves around assessing relative levels of
wealth. This subjectivity, however, can be marshalled to the advantage of the current study;
it is perfectly suited to addressing the relative nature of the evidence, and it allows complex
phenomena to be handled sympathetically while acknowledging the presence of possible
lacunae. Further, it exercise means that while a burial may be misplaced in the relative
hierarchy, the degree of misplacement is unlikely to be severe and so will not distort the
results significantly.

Applying this methodology leads to the conclusion that the early Anglo-Saxon burial most
likely to be royal is Mound One at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk.13 As the richest burial found in
England, where the individual was buried in a twenty-seven metre ship under a burial mound
with a diameter of between twenty-nine and thirty-four metres, this is hardly surprising.
Most closely comparable to this is the Prittlewell chamber burial found at Southend-on-Sea,
Essex.14 This included a similar assemblage, although the quality of the items is often below
those found at Mound One. In addition, the burial mound was only ten metres in diameter.
Next in the hierarchy should come Taplow Barrow, Buckinghamshire, also a chamber
burial.15 Excavated in 1883, the burial was the richest found prior to the excavation of Sutton

12
G. Halsall, 'The Origins of the Reihengräberzivilisation: Forty Years On', in J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton
(eds), Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 205-07; M. O. H. Carver, 'Burial as
Poetry: The Context of Treasure in Anglo-Saxon Graves', in E. M. Tyler (ed.) Treasure in the Medieval West
(Woodbridge, 2000), p. 34. More generally, G. Halsall, 'Archaeology and Historiography', in M. Bentley (ed.)
The Routledge Companion to Historiography (London, 1997), pp. 813-17.
13
M. O. H. Carver (ed.), Sutton Hoo: A Seventh-Century Princely Burial Ground and Its Context (London,
2005). Also, R. Bruce-Mitford (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 1, Excavations, Background, The
Ship, Dating and Inventory (London, 1975); R. Bruce-Mitford (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 2,
Arms, Armour and Regalia (London, 1978); A. C. Evans (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 3, Late
Roman and Byzantine Silver, Hanging Bowls, Drinking Vessels, Cauldrons and Other Containers, Textiles, the
Lyre, Pottery Bottle and Other Items (London, 1983); A. C. Evans, The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (London, 1994).
14
Anon, The Prittlewell Prince: The Discovery of a Rich Anglo-Saxon Burial in Essex (London, 2004).
15
B. Burgess, 'Opening of a Tumulus at Taplow', Records of Buckinghamshire, 5 (1878), pp. 331-35; J. Stevens,
'On the Remains found in an Anglo-Saxon Tumulus at Taplow', Journal of the British Archaeological

4
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Hoo; it lay under a mound of approximately twenty-three meters in diameter. Mound Two at
Sutton Hoo might also be considered probably royal.16 Although the majority of the contents
had been removed, strong indications of a rich assemblage remained. In addition, rivets from
a ship comparable to that found in Mound One were discovered. The mound itself had an
estimated diameter of just over twenty-two meters. The final burial that might be considered
probably royal is the ship burial at Snape, Suffolk.17 It too had been robbed; there are reports
of numerous artefacts being taken from the site. The mound was slightly smaller than Mound
Two, at approximately twenty-one meters in diameter. Most significant was the presence of a
fourteen-and-a-half meter ship; as one of only three ship burials from this time, it is sensible
to group it with the other two found in Mounds One and Two.

Less certain in its royal status is the burial at Benty Grange, Derbyshire.18 The grave goods
were relatively few, leading some to suggest, contrary to the original excavator’s opinion,
that the grave had been previously disturbed.19 Despite this modesty, though, the burial did
include a helmet, one of only three conclusive examples from the period. It makes sense,
therefore, to think of Benty Grange as being possibly royal. Burials at Broomfield, Essex,20
Asthall, Oxfordshire,21 which is notable for being a cremation burial, Caenby, Lincolnshire,22
which may have also included an interred horse, and Wollaston, Northamptonshire,23 which
also contained fragments of a helmet, are all similarly modest or even poorer. They too,
therefore, may only be considered possibly royal.

Association, 40 (1884), pp. 61-71. Summary in, S. Pollington, Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds: Princely Burials in
the 6th and 7th Centuries (Swaffham, 2007), pp. 168-71.
16
See note 14, above.
17
S. Davidson, 'Acount of the Discovery in August, September, and October, 1862, of Antiquities on Snape
Common, Suffolk', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 2 (1863), pp. 177-82; F. Francis,
'Account of Recent Discoveries at Snape near Aldborough in Suffolk', The Archaeological Journal, 20 (1863),
pp. 373-74. Most Importantly, W. Filmer-Sankey and T. Pestell, Snape Anglo-Saxon Cemetery: Excavations
and Surveys 1824-1992 (Ipswich, 2001).
18
T. Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills, in the Counties of Derby, Stafford, and
York, from 1848 to 1858: With Notices of some Former Discoveries, Hitherto Unpublished, and Remarks on the
Crania and Pottery from the Mounds (London, 1861), pp. 28-33.
19
R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford and M. R. Luscombe, 'The Benty Grange Helmet and some Other Supposed Anglo-
Saxon Helmets', in R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford (ed.) Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology: Sutton Hoo and Other
Discoveries (London, 1974), p.229.
20
C. H. Read, 'A Saxon Grave at Broomfield, Essex', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 15
(1893-5), pp. 250-55.
21
E. T. Leeds, 'An Anglo-Saxon Cremation Burial of the Seventh-Century in Asthall Barrow, Oxfordshire', The
Antiquaries Journal, 4 (1924), pp. 113-26. Also, T. M. Dickinson and G. Speake, 'A Seventh-Century
Cremation Burial in Asthall Barrow, Oxfordshire: A Reassessment', in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton
Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 95-130.
22
E. Jarvis, 'Account of the Discovery of Ornaments and Remains Supposed to be of Danish Origin, in the
Parish of Caenby, Lincolnshire', The Archaeological Journal, 7 (1850), pp. 36-44.
23
I. Meadows, 'Wollaston: The 'Pioneer' Burial', Current Archaeology, 13 (1997), pp. 391-95; L. Webster and I.
Meadows, 'Discovery of Anglo-Saxon Helmet with Boar Crest', Minerva, 8 (1997), pp. 3-5.

5
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Many other wealthy burials from the period of course also exist, many of them under burial
mounds and with not inconsequential furnishings.24 It might concievably be argued that
burials such as Rodmead Down, Wiltshire, or Lapwing Hill, Derbyshire, should be added to
the list of probable and possible kingly burials.25 The class of elite burial is not a precisely
definable category with easily policed boundaries; they share a common material language
with all Anglo-Saxon burials. Rodmead Down, Lapwing Hill, and other similar burials,
though, while comparable with Caenby or Wollaston are barely comparable with Mound One
or Prittlewell. The probability that these burials are royal, should, therefore, be seen as
approaching negligible.

The dates of the probable and possible kingly burials are of great significance. Most
precision is possible with Mound One, due to the presence of 37 Merovingian coins. Based
on the estimated debasement of the Merovingian coinage, J. P. C. Kent, part of the original
British Museum team, dated the collection to c. 625-635.26 An earlier terminus post quem of
613 has, however, also been suggested.27 The majority of the burials would seem to be
broadly contemporary with this date. Mound Two would seem to come from a similar
period, although possibly slightly earlier.28 Prittlewell can be dated to the first half of the
seventh century based on the stylistic qualities of the artefacts found there.29 Asthall Barrow
was also regarded by Leeds as dating from the first half of the seventh century;30 this has
been corroborated by subsequent study.31 Likewise, Caenby Barrow was dated to the same
period on stylistic grounds.32 Benty Grange and Broomfield also make most sense within this
broad date range, while due to the similarities in their assemblages Taplow would seem to be
a broad contemporary of Mound One.33 Wollaston meanwhile has been dated slightly later.34

24
See, Pollington, Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds. Dated but still useful is, A. Meaney, A Gazetteer of Early
Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites (London, 1964).
25
R. C. Hoare, The Ancient History of South Wiltshire (London, 1812), pp. 46-47; T. Bateman, Vestiges of the
Antiquities of Derbyshire, and the Sepulchral Usages of Its Inhabitants: From the Most Remote Ages to the
Reformation (London, 1848), p. 27; Bateman, Ten Years' Diggings, pp. 68-70.
26
J. P. C. Kent, 'The Date of the Sutton Hoo Coin Hoard', in R. Bruce-Mitford (ed.) The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial:
Volume 1, Excavations, Background, The Ship, Dating and Inventory (London, 1975), pp. 588-607.
27
A. M. Stahl and W. A Oddy, in (eds.), (Oxford, 1992), pp. , 'The Date of the Sutton Hoo Coins', in R. Farrell
and C. N. de Vegvar (eds), Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After (Oxford, 1992), pp. 129-47.
28
M. O. H. Carver and C. Fern, 'The Seventh-Century Burial Rites and Their Sequence', in M. O. H. Carver
(ed.) Sutton Hoo: A Seventh Century Princely Burial Ground and Its Context (London, 2005), pp. 303-13.
29
Anon, Prittlewell Prince, p. 39.
30
Leeds, 'Cremation Burial in Asthall Barrow', pp. 123-25.
31
Dickinson and Speake, 'Seventh-Century Cremation Burial', pp. 106-07.
32
G. Speake, Anglo-Saxon Animal Art and Its Germanic Background (Oxford, 1980), pp. 39-42.
33
Pollington, Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds, p. 169.

6
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

The Snape ship burial, by contrast, would seem to be the earliest of the burials. Based on the
finger ring and the Evison type 3c claw beaker found in it, it is unlikely to be earlier that c.
550, although it could be much later than this. 35

With the exception of Snape, therefore, it is striking how closely chronologically clustered
these elite burials are. Burial in this style does not seem to have been a long-practiced
tradition; rather it seems to have been the product of a particular period. In this period,
though, other sources seem to indicate that kingship was an established institution. Bede’s
Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is full of the activities of leaders, explicitly given the
title rex. These figures led armies, fought battles, engaged in diplomacy and sponsored
cultural activities, most notably those associated with the Church. Indeed, Bede seems to
have been deliberately precise with the language he used to describe these figures; there is a
whole hierarchy of power evidenced in the Historia ecclesiastica.36 This dichotomy clearly
poses a challenge to the interpretation that elite burial was a sign of the emergence of
kingship in early Anglo-Saxon England. It is hard to maintain both of these arguments
simultaneously. It is also particularly hard to refute the evidence contained in the Historia
ecclesiastica.

The distribution of these sites across the country is also problematic. Three of the burials are
in Suffolk, whilst a fourth is across the county border in Essex. There are also clusters in the
Peak District and the Thames valley. Probable and possible kingly burials, therefore, are
missing from large tracts of Anglo-Saxon England. Many of these areas are known to have
had kings ruling over them. By this analysis, therefore, not all kings would seem to have
adopted the elite burial style found at Sutton Hoo and other sites. Indeed, if one examines the
burial practices of western and northern Britain, a totally different burial tradition is in
evidence.37 Yet here too it seems that there were kings in this period. Indeed, it has even
been suggested, quite convincingly, that the absence of large mortuary structures or furnished
burials in Denmark in this period is a product of a stable society under the authority of

34
Webster and Meadows, 'Helmet with Boar Crest', p. 3.
35
Filmer-Sankey and Pestell, Snape Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, p. 196.
36
J. Campbell, Bede’s Reges and Principes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1979).
37
J. Close-Brooks, 'Pictish and Other Burials', in J. G. P. Friell and W. G. Watson (eds), Pictish Studies:
Settlement, Burial and Art in Dark Age Northern Britain (Oxford, 1984), pp. 87-107; E. Alcock, 'Burials and
Cemeteries in Scotland', in N. Edwards and A. Lane (eds), The Early Church in Wales and the West: Recent
Work in Early Christian Archaeology, History and Place-Names (Oxford, 1992), pp. 125-29; H. James, 'Early
Medieval Cemeteries in Wales', in N. Edwards and A. Lane (eds), The Early Church in Wales and the West:
Recent Work in Early Christian Archaeology, History and Place-Names (Oxford, 1992), pp. 92-94.

7
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

kings.38 It does not seem to be possible, therefore, to maintain a direct connection between
elite burial and kingship.

It could of course be contended that the absence of probable and possible kingly burials from
certain areas merely represents the chance nature of archaeological discovery. However, this
seems unlikely; the distribution of these sites correlates with the much larger regional
patterning of rich burial practices in early Britain. Sussex, the Isle of Wight and most
especially Kent, for example, were dominated by large cemeteries made up entirely of
relatively small barrow burials. Many of these graves contained a few quite exceptional
items, such as the Kingston Brooch.39 East Anglia and Essex seem to have had smaller
numbers of burial mounds associated with large flat grave cemeteries. Burial in the Peak
District, principally in Derbyshire, the Chilterns, and the North Wessex downs was
dominated by isolated barrows of either primary or secondary interments. Yorkshire,
meanwhile, was notable for multiple secondary interments in barrows.40 In western and
northern Britain, furnished burial was not practiced at all in any meaningful sense, although
mortuary structures such as barrows, cist graves and marker stones were all used in various
different areas.41 It is noteworthy that these practices all respect specific geographical areas,
with little overlap. In light of this, local custom or circumstance must be taken as a
determining influence. The instances of probable and possible kingly burials can be seen as
exceptional extensions of this wider practice.

Despite this observation, the explanation behind this uneven distribution remains unclear.
Various explanations have been suggested, none of them entirely satisfactory. It is possible,
for example, that furnished burial was anathema to Romano-British sensibilities, although
recent scholarship would strongly warn against such a simplistic ethnic reading of the
evidence. Adding a degree of subtlety, it is interesting that probable and possible royal
burials, with a few problematic exceptions, are largely absent from those areas – Mercia and
Wessex – which claimed kings with British names in their lineages. They are also absent

38
L. Hedeager, J. Hines (trans.), 'Kingdoms, Ethnicity and Material Culture: Denmark in an European
Perspective', in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe
(Woodbridge, 1992), p. 282-300.
39
L. Webster and J. Backhouse (eds), The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture AD 600-900
(London, 1991), pp. 22-26, 48-51.
40
J. F. Shephard, 'Anglo-Saxon Barrows of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries A.D.', (unpublished Ph.D thesis,
University of Cambridge, 1980), pp. 1.11-1.13, also fig. 1.1 ff, espeially fig. 2.2, 3.1 and 4.1.
41
See note 35, above.

8
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

from those kingdoms – Kent, Bernicia, and Diera – whose names are of British provenance.42
This may, though, be purely coincidental. There are other areas, after all, that have similarly
modest burial traditions and no such British associations.

A more compelling explanation may perhaps be sought by looking further afield. Ian Wood
has famously suggested that much of southern and eastern England was under Frankish
hegemony in this period.43 It is certainly possible to see a great deal of Frankish influence in
the archaeology of east Kent. This might be contrasted with the Scandinavian artefacts and
associations found at Sutton Hoo, although problematically east Kent also has a strong
Scandinavian archaeological connection. Martin Carver has argued that Sutton Hoo should
be seen as statement of Scandinavian, pagan identity and allegiance counter to the Christian
Merovingian kingdom and its Kentish ally.44 This, though, relies on a binary juxtaposition of
paganism and Christianity that is not necessarily helpful and also fails to accommodate the
highly complex cultural associations found in the archaeology of Kent. The argument
becomes even more problematic when one attempts to extend it to cover the wider
distribution issues. It has also been suggested in this context that barrow burials represent
pagan ‘flagships of the unconverted’.45 This, though, fails to account for areas such as
Sussex which remained pagan until the late seventh century and awkwardly does not
evidence any probable or possible kingly burials or indeed any exceptional burials at all.

As a variant on the previous argument it is possible to see these monuments as part of a

nuanced interchange of territorial claim and counter-claim, local influence, and foreign
allegiance. This would clearly have been filtered through the needs and customs of the areas
in question; elite burials would thus be part of a complex and varied dialogue of power in the
landscape. Using the same material language as Anglo-Saxon burials generally, this dialogue

42
This was kindly brought to my attention by Nicholas Higham.
43
I. N. Wood, The Merovingian North Sea (Alingsås, 1983); I. N. Wood, 'Frankish Hegemony in England', in
M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge,
1992), pp. 235-41.
44
M. O. H. Carver, 'Ideology and Allegiance in East Anglia', in R. Farrell and C. N. de Vegvar (eds), Sutton
Hoo: Fifty Years After (Oxford, 1992), pp. 173-82; M. O. H. Carver, 'Why That? Why There? Why Then? The
Politics of Early Medieval Monumentality', in H. Hamerow and A. MacGregor (eds), Image and Power in the
Archaeology of Early Medieval Britain (Oxford, 2001), pp. 5-9; M. O. H. Carver, 'Reflections on the Meanings
of Monumental Barrows in Anglo-Saxon England', in S. J. Lucy and A. J. Reynolds (eds), Burial in Early
Medieval England and Wales (London, 2002), pp. 139-41.
45
The quote is from, Carver, 'Meanings of Monumental Barrows', p. 140.. More generally, R. Van de Noort,
'The Context of Early Medieval Barrows in Western Europe', Antiquity, 67 (1993), pp. 66-73; M. Lutovsky,
'Between Sutton Hoo and Chernaya Mogila: Barrows in Eastern and Western Early Medieval Europe', Antiquity,
70 (1996), pp. 671-76.

9
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

would have been readily understood by contemporaries. The liminal siting of Taplow
barrow, between the subsequent kingdoms of Kent, Mercia, and Wessex would, therefore, be
highly significant.46 So too would the overwhelmingly Kentish nature of its assemblage.
Similar liminal locations can be seen at Asthall, Sutton Hoo and Prittlewell. This too,
though, remains problematic as an explanation. Too little is known about the period in
questions to test fully its validity, although it is nonetheless an appealing proposition.

In this context, it is worth considering certain aspects of the work of Guy Halsall. Growing
out of his research into Frankish mortuary archaeology, Halsall has developed the idea that
lavish furnished burial can be linked to social instability and the difficulty of transferring
power and authority from one generation to another.47 Noting that it is the living who bury
that dead, Halsall has convincingly argued that the act of burial and any associated rituals
would serve to create and maintain social bonds; these bonds would justify and support the
position of those who would replace the dead. It should be noted, though, that it is possible
to have instability at one level of society that is not found at another. It is also probable that
the nature of burial was filtered through local concerns. Further, instability and difficulties in
transferring power from one generation to another were not exclusive to the early seventh
century. One cannot, therefore, directly correlate furnished burial with instability, just as one
cannot directly correlate it with kingship. As with the previous suggestion, though, it does
provide insight into the circumstances behind these monuments.

The instances of elite burial might be further illuminated by the social consequences of death.
The death of an individual forces society to confront its own mortality;48 it is, therefore,
socially disruptive. Mourning rituals such as those associated with burial potentially help to
mitigate this social disruption.49 Indeed, it is even possible to transcend this disruption and

46
L. Webster, 'Death's Diplomacy: Sutton Hoo in the Light of Other Male Princely Burials', in R. Farrell and C.
N. de Vegvar (eds), Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After (Oxford, 1992), pp. 78-80. More generally, Shephard,
'Anglo-Saxon Barrows'; S. Brooks, 'Walking with the Anglo-Saxons: Landscapes of the Dead in Early Anglo-
Saxon Kent', Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 14 (2007), pp. 143-53.
47
Halsall, 'Origins', pp. 205-07; G. Halsall, 'Burial, Ritual and Merovingian Society', in J. Hill and M. Swan
(eds), The Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe (Turnhout, 1998),
pp. 325-38; G. Halsall, 'Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ succession, and the Origins of the Merovingian Kingdom', in
R. W. M. a. D. Shanzer (ed.) Society and Culture in Late Roman Gaul: Revisiting the Sources (Aldershot,
2001), pp. 121-31. Also, G. Halsall, Settlement and Social Organisation: The Merovingian Region of Metz
(Cambridge, 1995).
48
R. Hertz, Death and the Right Hand, (trans.) R. Needham and C. Needham (Abingdon, 2004), pp. 29-86,
particularly pp. 76-86.
49
É. Durkheim, Les formes élémentaries de la vie religieuse: Le système totémique en Australie (Paris, 1960),
pp. 557-75.

10
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

create a positive social effect out of death.50 Of course the social impact of the death of an
individual is not uniform, nor is the sense of loss created by their absence. The death of a
child naturally creates a larger social disruption than the death of an aging adult. The death
of a significant figure, or king, creates a much larger social problem than the death of
someone with few personal connections. Indications of this varying response can
occasionally be glimpsed in the archaeological record, such as the burial of the small boy
under Cologne Cathedral which along with a cot and child’s chair was found buried with
adult arms and armour and other objects typically associated with adult graves;51 given the
previous comments on the projected image of burial this seems particularly poignant. Social
concerns of this nature, varied as they undoubtedly would be, can also, therefore, be expected
to have influenced the nature and distribution of elite burial.

What is emerging through these partial explanations is the idea that the choices surrounding
the act of burial and the creation of a burial monument were capable of creating, conveying,
and responding to complex and varied ideas in a complex society. Elite burial would not
seem to be a sign of the emergence of early Anglo-Saxon kingship. Neither can it be directly
linked to kingship. Various different circumstances and concerns seem to have influenced
how it was adopted or implemented. This, though, does not undermine the probability that
the specific burials under discussion were those of kings. Clearly not all kings were buried in
this style, but some were. The above ideas, of course, are not mutually exclusive. Halsall’s
observations, for example, can be seen as an adaptive social response to death – mortuary
rituals and burial monuments serving to minimise the unstable liminal period between figures
of authority. In the case of the death of a king this would, through necessity, have had both
an internal and an external audience. This can, therefore, be correlated with the previously
mentioned dialogue of power in the landscape and Carver’s idea of elite burial signalling
cultural allegiance. There is thus significant overlap between these various explanations,
although the overall image remains complex and multi-faceted. Elite burial seems to be a
highly nuanced phenomenon actively articulating and communicating ideas of power,
authority and allegiance, mediated through the prism of local circumstances and personal and
social needs.

50
D. Davies, Death, Ritual and Belief: The Rhetoric of Funerary Rites (London, 1997), particularly pp. 40-54.
More generally, M. Bloch, Prey into Hunter: The Politics of Religious Experience (Cambridge, 1992).
51
Werner, 'Frankish Royal Tombs', pp. 205-08.

11
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

In the context of the early seventh century, this is particularly striking. It has been suggested
that the seventh century was a time of dramatic changes in early Anglo-Saxon society.52
There were undoubtedly significant changes in this period associated with kings and
kingship. Prime amongst these was the introduction of Christianity into Anglo-Saxon
England. Kings were initially the prime beneficiaries of its introduction, and it was kings
who sponsored and supported early churchmen. The introduction of Christianity might,
therefore, be seen as an experiment in kingship – one that was ultimately highly successful!

There is in addition to this the royal settlement of Yeavering in Northumbria. This singular
site had a large enclosure of uncertain purpose; a structure of expanding concentric rings,
interpreted as a series of tiered seats; a highly complex series of halls; a possible cultic site;
and latterly a building that has been suggested as a being a church.53 Strikingly, in the great
hall complex, it is possible to see the structures developing and evolving. The structures
become broadly larger and more complex over time. Moreover, the internal spaces of the
structures become increasingly controlled and restricted. In addition, buildings are positioned
to make extensive used of the surrounding landscape, its hillforts and its henges; Yeavering
lies in relationship to them and appropriates their historicity. It is a complex, highly
structured site, built explicitly for kings and actively mediating kingly power. No site from
early Anglo-Saxon England is comparable to Yeavering. It is a one-off. Yeavering too,
therefore, may be seen as an experiment in kingship.

The instances of elite burial should be thought of in this context. Although not a sign of the
emergence of kingship, elite burials were undoubtedly complex and varied phenomena, part
of the dynamic of a complex society, and capable of communicating complex ideas. The
instances of elite burial can most likely be associated with kings, even if not all kings adopted
that particular burial style. Coming out of the wider practice of wealthy burials, they too
might be seen as an experiment in kingship, specific to certain areas. Kingship may have
been established in the period, but that does not mean that it was a static phenomenon.
Rather, the instances of elite burial in the context of other indications would seem to suggest

52
G. Halsall, 'Social Change Around 600 AD: An Austrasian Perspective', in M. O. H. Carver (ed.) The Age of
Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 278; Webster, 'Death's
Diplomacy', p. 79.
53
B. Hope-Taylor, Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria (London, 1977); P. Frodsham and
C. O'Brien (eds), Yeavering: People, Power & Place (Stroud, 2005).

12
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

that kingship was an institution in a state of experimentation and change. These burials were
not a lasting phenomenon, but they are a sign of a powerful and articulate kingly society.

Bibliography

Alcock, E., 'Burials and Cemeteries in Scotland', in Edwards, N. and Lane, A. (eds), The
Early Church in Wales and the West: Recent Work in Early Christian Archaeology,
History and Place-Names (Oxford, 1992), pp. 125-129
Anon, The Prittlewell Prince: The Discovery of a Rich Anglo-Saxon Burial in Essex (London,
2004)
Arnold, C. J., Roman Britain to Saxon England: An Archaeological Study (London, 1984)
Arnold, C. J., An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (London, 1988)
Bassett, S. (ed.), The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Leicester, 1989)
Bateman, T., Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire, and the Sepulchral Usages of Its
Inhabitants: From the Most Remote Ages to the Reformation (London, 1848)
Bateman, T., Ten Years' Diggings in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills, in the Counties of Derby,
Stafford, and York, from 1848 to 1858: With Notices of some Former Discoveries,
Hitherto Unpublished, and Remarks on the Crania and Pottery from the Mounds
(London, 1861)
Binchey, D. A., Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship: The O’Donnell Lectures for 1967-8
(Oxford, 1970)
Bloch, M., Prey into Hunter: The Politics of Religious Experience (Cambridge, 1992)
Brooks, S., 'Walking with the Anglo-Saxons: Landscapes of the Dead in Early Anglo-Saxon
Kent', Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 14 (2007), pp. 143-153
Bruce-Mitford, R. (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 1, Excavations, Background,
The Ship, Dating and Inventory (London, 1975)
Bruce-Mitford, R. (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 2, Arms, Armour and Regalia
(London, 1978)
Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S. and Luscombe, M. R., 'The Benty Grange Helmet and some Other
Supposed Anglo-Saxon Helmets', in Bruce-Mitford, R. L. S. (ed.) Aspects of Anglo-
Saxon Archaeology: Sutton Hoo and Other Discoveries (London, 1974), pp. 223-252
Brulet, R. (ed.), Les fouilles du quarteir Saint-Brice à Tournai: L’environment funéraire de la
sépulture de Childeric, II vols (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1990)

13
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Burgess, B., 'Opening of a Tumulus at Taplow', Records of Buckinghamshire, 5 (1878), pp.

331-335
Campbell, J., Bede’s Reges and Principes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1979)
Carver, M., 'Kingship and Material Culture in Early Anglo-Saxon East Anglia', in Bassett, S.
(ed.) Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Leicester, 1989), pp. 141-158
Carver, M. O. H., 'Ideology and Allegiance in East Anglia', in Farrell, R. and de Vegvar, C.
N. (eds), Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After (Oxford, 1992), pp. 173-182
Carver, M. O. H., 'Burial as Poetry: The Context of Treasure in Anglo-Saxon Graves', in
Tyler, E. M. (ed.) Treasure in the Medieval West (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 25-48
Carver, M. O. H., 'Why That? Why There? Why Then? The Politics of Early Medieval
Monumentality', in Hamerow, H. and MacGregor, A. (eds), Image and Power in the
Archaeology of Early Medieval Britain (Oxford, 2001), pp. 1-22
Carver, M. O. H., 'Reflections on the Meanings of Monumental Barrows in Anglo-Saxon
England', in Lucy, S. J. and Reynolds, A. J. (eds), Burial in Early Medieval England
and Wales (London, 2002), pp. 132-143
Carver, M. O. H. (ed.), Sutton Hoo: A Seventh-Century Princely Burial Ground and Its
Context (London, 2005)
Carver, M. O. H. and Fern, C., 'The Seventh-Century Burial Rites and Their Sequence', in
Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) Sutton Hoo: A Seventh Century Princely Burial Ground and Its
Context (London, 2005), pp. 283-314
Chaney, W. A., The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition from
Paganism to Christianity (Manchester, 1970)
Chifflet, J. J., Anastasis Childerici I Francorum Regis: Sive Thesaurus Sepulchralis Tornaci
Neruiorum Effossus et Commentario Illustratus (Antwerp, 1655)
Close-Brooks, J., 'Pictish and Other Burials', in Friell, J. G. P. and Watson, W. G. (eds),
Pictish Studies: Settlement, Burial and Art in Dark Age Northern Britain (Oxford,
1984), pp. 87-114
Davidson, S., 'Acount of the Discovery in August, September, and October, 1862, of
Antiquities on Snape Common, Suffolk', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
London, 2 (1863), pp. 177-182
Davies, D., Death, Ritual and Belief: The Rhetoric of Funerary Rites (London, 1997)
Dickinson, T. M. and Speake, G., 'A Seventh-Century Cremation Burial in Asthall Barrow,
Oxfordshire: A Reassessment', in Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The
Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 95-130
14
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Durkheim, É., Les formes élémentaries de la vie religieuse: Le système totémique en

Australie (Paris, 1960)
Enright, M. J., The Sutton Hoo Sceptre and the Roots of Celtic Kingship Theory (Dublin,
2006)
Evans, A. C. (ed.), The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 3, Late Roman and Byzantine Silver,
Hanging Bowls, Drinking Vessels, Cauldrons and Other Containers, Textiles, the
Lyre, Pottery Bottle and Other Items (London, 1983)
Evans, A. C., The Sutton Hoo Ship Burial (London, 1994)
Filmer-Sankey, W. and Pestell, T., Snape Anglo-Saxon Cemetery: Excavations and Surveys
1824-1992 (Ipswich, 2001)
Francis, F., 'Account of Recent Discoveries at Snape near Aldborough in Suffolk', The
Archaeological Journal, 20 (1863), pp. 373-374
Frodsham, P. and O'Brien, C. (eds), Yeavering: People, Power & Place (Stroud, 2005)
Geake, H., 'Burial Practice in Seventh- and Eighth-Century England', in Carver, M. O. H.
(ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe
(Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 83-94
Halsall, G., 'The Origins of the Reihengräberzivilisation: Forty Years On', in Drinkwater, J.
F. and Elton, H. (eds), Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity? (Cambridge, 1992),
pp. 196-207
Halsall, G., 'Social Change Around 600 AD: An Austrasian Perspective', in Carver, M. O. H.
(ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe
(Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 265-278
Halsall, G., Settlement and Social Organisation: The Merovingian Region of Metz
(Cambridge, 1995)
Halsall, G., 'Archaeology and Historiography', in Bentley, M. (ed.) The Routledge
Companion to Historiography (London, 1997), pp. 805-827
Halsall, G., 'Burial, Ritual and Merovingian Society', in Hill, J. and Swan, M. (eds), The
Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe
(Turnhout, 1998), pp. 325-338
Halsall, G., 'Childeric’s Grave, Clovis’ succession, and the Origins of the Merovingian
Kingdom', in Shanzer, R. W. M. a. D. (ed.) Society and Culture in Late Roman Gaul:
Revisiting the Sources (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 116-133

15
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Hamerow, H., 'Migration Theory and the Migration Period', in Vyner, B. (ed.) Building on
the Past: Papers Celebrating 150 Years of the Royal Archaeological Institute
(London, 1994), pp. 164-177
Hamerow, H., 'The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms', in Fouracre, P. (ed.) New Cambridge
Medieval History: Volume 1 c.500-c.700 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 263-288
Hamerow, H., Hinton, D. A. and Crawford, S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology (Oxford, 2010)
Hedeager, L., Hines, J. (trans.), 'Kingdoms, Ethnicity and Material Culture: Denmark in an
European Perspective', in Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) The Age of Sutton Hoo: The Seventh
Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 279-300
Hertz, R., Death and the Right Hand, (trans.) Needham, R. and Needham, C. (Abingdon,
2004)
Higham, N. J., Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (London, 1992)
Hoare, R. C., The Ancient History of South Wiltshire (London, 1812)
Hodder, I., 'Social Structure and Cemeteries: A Critical Appraisal', in Rahtz, P., Dickinson, T.
and Watts, L. (eds), Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries 1979: The Fourth Anglo-Saxon
Symposium at Oxford, 1980), pp. 161-169
Hope-Taylor, B., Yeavering: An Anglo-British Centre of Early Northumbria (London, 1977)
James, E., 'Burial and Status in the Early Medieval West', Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society, 39 (1989), pp. 23-40
James, E., 'Royal Burials Among the Franks', in Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) The Age of Sutton
Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 243-
254
James, H., 'Early Medieval Cemeteries in Wales', in Edwards, N. and Lane, A. (eds), The
Early Church in Wales and the West: Recent Work in Early Christian Archaeology,
History and Place-Names (Oxford, 1992), pp. 90-102
Jarvis, E., 'Account of the Discovery of Ornaments and Remains Supposed to be of Danish
Origin, in the Parish of Caenby, Lincolnshire', The Archaeological Journal, 7 (1850),
pp. 36-44
Kent, J. P. C., 'The Date of the Sutton Hoo Coin Hoard', in Bruce-Mitford, R. (ed.) The
Sutton Hoo Ship Burial: Volume 1, Excavations, Background, The Ship, Dating and
Inventory (London, 1975), pp. 588-607
Leeds, E. T., 'An Anglo-Saxon Cremation Burial of the Seventh-Century in Asthall Barrow,
Oxfordshire', The Antiquaries Journal, 4 (1924), pp. 113-126
16
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Lucy, S. J., The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early England (Stroud, 2000)
Lutovsky, M., 'Between Sutton Hoo and Chernaya Mogila: Barrows in Eastern and Western
Early Medieval Europe', Antiquity, 70 (1996), pp. 671-676
Meadows, I., 'Wollaston: The 'Pioneer' Burial', Current Archaeology, 13 (1997), pp. 391-395
Meaney, A., A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites (London, 1964)
Montfaucon, B. d., Les Monumens de la monarchie françoise: Qui comprennet l’historire de
France avec les figures de chaque regne que l’injure des tems a epargnées, V vols
(Paris, 1729)
Pearson, M. P., 'Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study', in
Hodder, I. (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 99-113
Périn, P., La datation des tombes merovingiennes: Historique, methodes, applications
(Geneva, 1980)
Pollington, S., Anglo-Saxon Burial Mounds: Princely Burials in the 6th and 7th Centuries
(Swaffham, 2007)
Read, C. H., 'A Saxon Grave at Broomfield, Essex', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
of London, 15 (1893-5), pp. 250-255
Salin, É., Les tombes Gallo-Romaines at Mérovingiennes de la basilique de Saint-Denis:
Fouilles de Janvier-Février 1957 (Paris, 1968)
Samson, R., 'Social Structures from Reihengräber: Mirror or Mirage?', Scottish
Archaeological Review, 4 (1987), pp. 116-126
Shephard, J. F., 'Anglo-Saxon Barrows of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries A.D.',
(unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Cambridge, 1980)
Speake, G., Anglo-Saxon Animal Art and Its Germanic Background (Oxford, 1980)
Stahl, A. M. and W. A Oddy, in (eds.), (Oxford, 1992), pp. , 'The Date of the Sutton Hoo
Coins', in Farrell, R. and de Vegvar, C. N. (eds), Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After
(Oxford, 1992), pp. 129-147
Stevens, J., 'On the Remains found in an Anglo-Saxon Tumulus at Taplow', Journal of the
British Archaeological Association, 40 (1884), pp. 61-71
Ucko, P. J., 'Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains', World
Archaeology, 1 (1969), pp. 262-280
Van de Noort, R., 'The Context of Early Medieval Barrows in Western Europe', Antiquity, 67
(1993), pp. 66-73
Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent: The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1970 (Oxford, 1971)
17
Peter J W Burch The University of Manchester

Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., 'The Graves of Kings: An Historical Note on some Achaeological

Evidence', in Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (ed.) Early Medieval History (Oxford, 1975), pp.
39-59
Webster, L., 'Death's Diplomacy: Sutton Hoo in the Light of Other Male Princely Burials', in
Farrell, R. and de Vegvar, C. N. (eds), Sutton Hoo: Fifty Years After (Oxford, 1992),
pp. 75-81
Webster, L. and Backhouse, J. (eds), The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture
AD 600-900 (London, 1991)
Webster, L. and Meadows, I., 'Discovery of Anglo-Saxon Helmet with Boar Crest', Minerva,
8 (1997), pp. 3-5
Werner, J., 'Frankish Royal Tombs in the Cathedrals of Cologne and Saint-Denis', Antiquity,
38 (1964), pp. 201-216
Wickham, C., Framing the Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 (Oxford,
2005)
Wood, I. N., The Merovingian North Sea (Alingsås, 1983)
Wood, I. N., 'Frankish Hegemony in England', in Carver, M. O. H. (ed.) The Age of Sutton
Hoo: The Seventh Century in North-Western Europe (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 235-
241
Wormald, P., 'Kings and Kingship', in Fouracre, P. (ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval
History: Volume 1 c.500-c.700 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 571-604
Yorke, B., Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1990)

18