Pre Christian Children Burials in Anglo Saxon England

The concept of Childhood in Anglo-Saxon Culture:A Case Study

Megan KrausUstinov CollegeMarch 12, 2012

The study of Anglo-Saxon history has been dominated by

mortuary archaeology. In a unique time period that saw a

regression of historical documents as a result of Roman

abandonment on the island, emphasis has shifted to focus on the

material culture as a means of interpreting the critical and

changing environment that defined the following decades. With

the arrival of settlers from the Continent, evidence suggests an

expansive farming community followed the initial migration period

(Myres, 1986). The temporary and changing settlements of the

agrarian Anglo-Saxons have tilted the archaeological record to

favour cemeteries. While cemeteries are able to offer many

valuable insights into a long-extinct culture, it is worth a

reminder that these deposits have been deliberately placed into

the archaeological record, presenting a unique opportunity to

understand the social construct and traditions of the culture

(Williams, 2005: 256). The examination of the mortuary traditions

reveals recognizable patterns of behaviour regarding artefacts,

burial rites, and remains within the archaeological record

(Childe, 1956: 9-10). Recent work has attempted to relate these

cultural patters with biological age (Lucy, 1994; Härke, 1989,

1

1992b, 1997; Stoodley, 1998, 2000) to better understand the

living lifecycle of Anglo-Saxons and particularly, children’s

placement within that lifecycle. Examination of modern-day

interpretations of the concept of childhood, historical documents

and law codes from the Anglo-Saxon period, and archaeological

evidence, have shown a marked transition as the individual Anglo-

Saxon advances through life. Analysis applied to a personal case

study of fourteen pagan cemeteries across Britain will show the

transitional periods of maturation within the Anglo-Saxon

lifecycle.

In order to interpret children in the Anglo-Saxon period, we

must first clearly set out the parameters that define a child.

Ariès (1960) was among the first to offer an interpretation of

what it meant to be a child in the medieval period. He boldly

made a claim that the idea of childhood did not exist. Evidence

indicates medieval society was certainly affectionate towards

children. He argues, however, that they lacked an awareness of

the distinguishing nature that separated a child from an adult.

Ariès asserted the notion that once a child was able to live

without constant care from its mother, it became a functional

member of adult society; yet the ‘infant who was too fragile as

yet to take part in the life of adults simply ‘did not exist’

2

(Ariès 1960, cited in Crawford, 1999: 2). De Mause (1974) adopted

the idea that children did not exist in the medieval period but

was able to define the progression of childhood by outlining

period-specific attitudes towards children that were the result

of ‘generational pressure’ to improve upon parenting methods.

Following the ‘Infanticidal Mode’ (Antiquity to 4th century), de

Mause placed the Anglo-Saxons comfortably within the ‘Abandonment

Mode’ that governed the 4th to 13th centuries. The onset of

Christianity brought a conscious awareness of a child’s soul,

which turned practice away from infanticide to favor the

relinquishment of unwanted children to monasteries, nunneries,

foster families, and homes of nobles (de Mause, 1974: 5). The

development of an education system that accompanied Christianity

has been suggested as a pivotal transition for Anglo-Saxons to

understand the concept of childhood (Ariès, 1960; Lucy, 1994: 22;

Stone, 1977). Regardless of the education brought forward in the

late 6th and 7th centuries, arguments still persist regarding the

emotional attachment to children in a period with high infant

mortality rates. (Stone, 1977: 56; see Pollock, 1983:59 and

McLaughlin, 1974 for arguments opposing emotional detachment from

children).

3

Building on the initial understanding of childhood, the

interaction between adults and children has shaped unique

cultural ideas around childhood. A clear understanding of the

cyclical nature of this interaction has been presented by

Archard: ‘it seems self-evident that the character of adult

society will derive from the ways in which its children are

brought up, and that, in turn, the nature of childrearing will

reflect the values and priorities of adult society’ (Archard,

1993: 161). Using current themes in Anglo-Saxon interpretation

such as class, gender, and ethnicity, James and Prout (1990) have

shown that cultural variations defined unique childhoods, rather

than a ‘universal phenomenon’ of what it means to be a child

(James and Prout, 1990: 8).

To contextualize the Anglo-Saxon ideals regarding childhood,

evidence can be drawn from post-conversion written laws where

twenty-five of the surviving law codes deal specifically with

children (Crawford, 1999: xiv). The earliest evidence regarding

the age of adults is from the 7th century Kentish Kings Hlothhere

and Eadric. According to their law codes, if a father died, the

mother was to raise the child with the help of one of the

father’s relatives (whom became a guardian) until the age of ten,

when he was considered old enough to manage his own lands

4

(Whitelock, 1979: 394). Ine, a West Saxon King, also marked ten

as an age to understand the consequences of theft (Whitelock,

1979: 400). According to modern standards, this is a very young

age for one to be considered as an adult; however, the average

life expectancy at the time was around 30 years (Crawford, 1999:

110).

By the early 10th century, Aethelstan introduced a novel

idea to change the legal status for adults from twelve to

fifteen, stating the cruelty of killing one as young as twelve,

“unless he tried to defend himself” (Whitelock, 1979: 423).

However, by the 11th century, Cnut had once again lowered the age

to twelve for full rights as an adult (Whitelock, 1979: 681).

With this evidence of adulthood beginning between ten and twelve

years in the post-conversion period, examination of the pre-

Christian archaeological record should reveal a change in the

mortuary ritual during the transition from child to adult. Based

on the assumption put forward by Tainter (1978) that the value

and effort of each grave signifies the individual’s social

standing, Stoodley (2000) was able to examine multiple inhumation

cemeteries and define particular thresholds pagan Anglo-Saxons

reached on their path to adulthood.

5

Beginning with the youngest group, infants (neonatal to two

years of age), there is evidence of minimal energy spent on the

burials, where they existed at all. There seems to be a

significant lack of skeletal evidence in the mortuary record

considering the high mortality rate that existed in the period

(Lucy, 1994: 27). Comparative demographic studies indicate 10% of

children are stillborn, and a further 10% were likely to die in

the first four years of life, which should account for 35% of the

cemetery population (Crawford, 1999; 75). These statistical

values do not correspond with the archaeological evidence.

Several theories have been brought forward to explain this

discrepancy. The first explanation stems from the delicate nature

and degradation associated with infant skeletal material (Lucy,

1994: 26). While this argument does have some merit, both the

Romano-British and post-conversion Anglo-Saxon cemeteries do not

indicate the same discrepancy (Crawford, 1999: 76). The second

explanation suggests infant deposition outside the cemetery

boundaries (Lucy, 1999: 27). A known burial custom of the Romano-

British of the 4th century was to bury infants within the

settlement; however, we do not see this custom continued in the

following periods. This has led to Evison’s (1987) widely

accepted notion that most infants were likely buried in shallow

6

graves in the topsoil (Evison, 1987: 1146; Crawford, 1999: 76;

Lucy, 1994: 26). This interpretation is not only credible in a

practical sense by (it is very difficult to dig a deep, small

grave), but also suggests that infants were conceptualized in a

different category from the rest of society (Crawford, 1993: 85).

This statement is reiterated by the low correlation between

infant burials and grave goods (Stoodley, 2000: 458). If the

presence of grave goods within the burial indicates the

individual’s status in life, the assemblages associated with

infants show they had ‘little value to society, and certainly no

status in death’ based on a small assemblage that generally

consisted of a few beads (Crawford, 1999: 78).

After reaching two years of age, the child passes the first

threshold in the lifecycle. This advancement is evident in the

archaeological record, with the burial assemblages showing a

slight increase of typical adult characteristics. At this stage

there is an increase in the number and type of grave good

associated with the burial, as well as a decrease in the number

of burials without grave goods (Stoodley, 2000: 22-23). The

lifecycle path then divides according to sex. Females around five

years old are first to reach the next threshold, which is

characterised by the onset of feminine identity, particularly in

7

wearing traditional women’s clothing. (Stoodley, 2000: 463). The

key stage in the feminine life cycle was reached between ten and

twelve, which was marked with a dramatic increase in dress

fittings, and multiple brooches associated with each burial. It

is interesting to note that there is a strong likelihood of this

threshold being marked by the biological change of puberty, which

allowed women to become child-bearers within the society

(Stoodley, 2000: 462-3). Interestingly, Crawford (1999) points

out the wergild, an individual’s life value, reaches it’s peak for

women once they are able to successfully reproduce (Crawford,

1999: 30); however, the gradual decline of the wergild that occurs

prior to the menopausal stage of life contrasts the wealth of

assemblages seen in the archaeological record of mature females

(Stoodley, 2000: 465).

Like the females, the males also reach a threshold between

ten and fourteen years. The historical records mentioned earlier

show clear evidence of this transition, along with the

archaeological record that see’s a dramatic increase in weaponry

(Stoodley, 2000:461). Härke (1990) has clearly demonstrated

weaponry included in the burial rite is an indication of social

status rather than evidence of a warrior or fighting class

(Härke, 1990: 42). Combining the historical evidence with the

8

archaeological assemblage, it becomes clear that despite a very

diverse and varied burial rite, the transition that occurred

around ten years indicates a positive correlation between age and

wealth of grave goods associated with an individual as they enter

the adult stage of life (Crawford, 1999:27).

While there is clear evidence of progression within a

society that created clear distinctions between status and social

groupings associated with age, the concept of a childhood is

still unclear. If children were recognized as a separate group

from adults, the mortuary ritual should indicate it with unique

characteristics; however, the only group that shows clear

differentiation is the infant group (Crawford, 1999:20). A key

opportunity available with the funeral ritual is the ability to

reassert and reclassify social roles on a public scale (Lucy,

1994: 24). Rather than seeing a rigid child-adult distinction

with a burial rite designed specifically to accommodate children,

we see gradual changes in the quality and quantity of grave goods

as the individual progresses along the lifecycle (Lucy, 1994:

29). Due to the lack of evidence of a culturally practiced

‘childhood’, the archaeological record tends to favour Ariès

initial statement that the Anglo-Saxon culture did not

differentiate between childhood and adulthood, but rather saw

9

children simply as younger adults within the society that ‘were

viewed by adults as engaged in a process of transition’ (Kuefler,

1991: 823; Stoodley, 2000: 469).

10

11

Case Study:

In order to better understand childhood on a cultural scale,

I compiled a database of 5th to 7th century children burials from

inhumation, cremation, and mixed-rite cemeteries across Eastern,

South Central, and Western Britain (Figure 1). By breaking down

each cemetery according to burial rite (Figure 2), I was able to

determine most cemeteries included in the case study preferred

the long practiced method favouring inhumation, except for the

three most Eastern cemeteries which preferred the newly

established Anglian cremation rite introduced to Britain in the

5th century (Lucy, 2000: 4).

12

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

13

By looking at the prevalence of children (fifteen years and

younger) recorded at each site (Figure 3), there was also

preferentialism towards inhumation. This information does pull

value towards Evison’s (1987) theory that most infants were

placed in burials that no longer remain in the archaeological

record. It is worth noting that typical excavation practices

carried out at Caistor-by-Norwich by J.N.L. Myres in 1936 did not

find value in the cremains. As a result, most skeletal evidence

associated with the cremations was lost; however, Myres had a

particular interest in children remains. This interest has skewed

the data collected at the site to favour children (Myres, et.al,

1973: 119; Crawford, 1999: 76). Though Illington did share some

of the same issues regarding collection, modern reanalysis of the

cremated material does provide necessary merit to the recent

publication (Davison, et. al, 1993: 100).

Site

Percentage ofChild

CremationQuarrington n/aNassington 0.00%Illington 32.69%Caistor-by-Norwich 8.51%

Great Chesterford 9.68%Springfield Lyons 0.00%Orpington 0.00%Mount Pleasant Road 24.14%Snell's Corner n/a

14

Ports Down n/aLaunceston Down n/aMarket Lavington n/aButler's Field 41.38%Henley Wood n/a

Table 1.

Site

Percentage ofChild

InhumationQuarrington 29.41%Nassington 12.70%Illington 0.00%Caistor-by- 3.23%

NorwichGreat Chesterford 47.95%Springfield Lyons 13.16%Orpington 20.69%Mount Pleasant Road 28.00%Snell's Corner 9.09%Ports Down 12.00%Launceston Down 40.00%Market Lavington 26.83%Butler's Field 36.07%Henley Wood 20.00%

Table 2

Regarding the infant mortality rate, Table 1 and Table 2 do

show several sites with a higher indication of children remains;

however, these numbers are based on remains of individuals up to

fifteen years of age, and as mentioned above, statistics should

show 35% of remains to be under five. Table 3 shows the combined

child burials by each cemetery.

ChildPopulati

on

TotalPopulati

on% Children inPopulation

Quarrington 5 17 29.41%Nassington 8 66 12.12%Illington 34 108 31.48%Caistor-by-Norwich 34 438 7.76%Great Chesterford 85 202 42.08%Springfield Lyons 15 257 5.84%Orpington 6 45 13.33%Mount Pleasant Road 21 79 26.58%Snell's Corner 3 33 9.09%Ports Down 3 25 12.00%Launceston Down 2 5 40.00%Market Lavington 11 41 26.83%Butler's Field 91 248 36.69%Henley Wood 15 75 20.00%

Table 3.

15

A recognizable problem associated with the compilation of

previously excavated and published material is the practice of

general terms used to define groups, particularly age groups

(Lucy, 1994:22-23). While many excavation reports distinguish

between adults, juveniles, children, and infants, there are no

clear parameters indicating the specific biological age

associated with each group. In response to this issue, I have

established three periods to distinguish biological children:

1. Neonatal to two years old. This group can be described as

infants but also includes those described as foetal and

newborn individuals.

2. Two to ten years old. By spanning the age to ten, this group

encompasses all children until they reach the adult stage.

Children, juveniles, and adolescents were all assigned to

this group.

3. Ten to fifteen years (or older). According to Stoodley,

children after the age of ten have entered the adult stage

of the lifecycle. This group contains those described as

sub-adults and young adults.

Each child burial within the database has been assigned to

one of these categories. To ensure quality while comparing age

16

groups to assemblages, only individuals that were assigned a

biological age were used in the statistics. A complete list of

these individuals with the associated grave goods will be

attached in the appendix. The sites have been grouped to draw

attention on a regional scale, rather than individual. The

East group consists of: Quarrington, Nassington, Illington,

Caistor-by-Norwich, Great Chesterford, Springfield Lyons, and

Orpington. The South Central group includes: Mount Pleasant

Road, Snell’s Corner, and Ports Down. This leaves the

remaining sites, Launceston Down, Market Lavington, Henley

Wood, and Butler’s Field, to comprise the Western group.

Finally, the sites were all combined to examine evidence on a

national level. Within each of these groups, statistics were

applied separately for inhumation and cremation rites;

however, the limiting nature of cremations, particularly

regarding biological age, has resulted in a gross

underrepresentation in this analysis. It should be noted that

the number associated with each type of grave good does not

represent the number of artefacts within a grave, but rather

the number of graves that had evidence for each type. For

example, Eastern child inhumations show 8 beads, which

indicates 8 graves were found with beads in them.

17

According to Tables 4-11, infants do seem to be heavily

neglected in the burial rites with only 40-50% of individuals

showing the inclusion of an artefact. While there is evidence

of various types of artefact associated with both inhumation

and cremations of this age, there is prevalence towards beads

in particular. This trend is observed at both the regional and

national level.

The children age group shows a drastic increase in the value

and effort of the internment of the dead, with at least an 85%

escalation in artefact use. The artefact that shows the most

dramatic increase is the knife, which correlates with the

first threshold in the lifecycle. Interestingly, it has been

suggested that children were weaned at two to three years, as

it was the surest form of nutrition (Crawford, 1999:73).

Dental ware of studied remains suggests children switched

directly from milk to solid food, which would require the use

of a knife (Crawford: 1999, 71). There is also a significant

increase in brooches, pins, and beads, which corresponds with

increasing feminine identity, and spearheads with masculinity.

The third and final threshold again shows an increase in the

investment of the burial rite. Occurrences of knives, beads,

18

brooches, and spearheads continue to rise, though not as

prominently as before.

EASTERN CHILDREN INHUMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years

Knife 1 1.61% 7 35.00% 2 20.00%Spearhead 1 1.61% 2 10.00% 0 0.00%Bead 8 12.90% 4 20.00% 3 30.00%Buckle 2 3.23% 2 10.00% 1 10.00%Belt Fitting 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Brooch 0 0.00% 2 10.00% 4 40.00%Sleeve Clasp 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 10.00%Pin 1 1.61% 1 5.00% 1 10.00%Comb 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Ring 3 4.84% 1 5.00% 0 0.00%Necklace Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pottery Vessel 6 9.68% 4 20.00% 2 20.00%Animal Bone 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Roman Coin 3 4.84% 1 5.00% 1 10.00%

TOTAL25 40.32%

24 120.00%

15 150.00%

Population62

20

10

EASTERN CHILDREN CREMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years


19

TOTAL 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 0 0.00%Population 3 7 2

Table 5.

SOUTH CENTRAL CHILDREN INHUMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years

Knife 0 0.00% 4 44.44% 1 50.00%Spearhead 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Bead 0 0.00% 3 33.33% 1 50.00%Buckle 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00%Belt Fitting 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Brooch 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Sleeve Clasp 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Comb 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Ring 0 0.00% 2 22.22% 0 0.00%Necklace Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pottery Vessel 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Animal Bone 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Roman Coin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%TOTAL 0 0.00% 9 100.00% 3 150.00%Population 2 9 2

Table 6.

SOUTH CENTRAL CHILDREN CREMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years

Knife 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Spearhead 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Bead 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Buckle 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Belt Fitting 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Brooch 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Sleeve Clasp 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Comb 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Necklace Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pottery Vessel 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Animal Bone 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

20

Roman Coin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%TOTAL 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Population 0 0 0

Table 7.

WEST CHILDREN INHUMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years


Table 8.

WEST CHILDREN CREMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years


21

TOTAL 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Population 0 2 0

Table 9

.

TOTAL CHILDREN INHUMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years


Table 10.

TOTAL CHILDREN CREMATION0-2 years 2-10 years 10-15 years

Knife 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 0 0.00%Spearhead 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Bead 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 0 0.00%Buckle 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Belt Fitting 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Brooch 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 0 0.00%Sleeve Clasp 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Pin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Comb 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Necklace Ring 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

22

Pottery Vessel 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Animal Bone 0 0.00% 1 11.11% 0 0.00%Roman Coin 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%TOTAL 0 0.00% 4 44.44% 0 0.00%Population 3 9 2

Table 11.

The construct of childhood within the medieval context has

produced many different ideas and interpretations within the

last fifty years. Ariès (1960) initial presentation suggesting

the incomprehensible notion of childhood within the Anglo-

Saxon period sparked fervor in academic publications, both

supporting and protesting his daring statements. By combining

the interpretation of contemporary historical documents with

visible patterns in archaeological evidence, measurable stages

of a lifecycle have been defined. Examination of the funerary

record, a unique situation that allows the society to

purposely reinforce social distinctions, has produced

noteworthy results in regards to children. High levels of

expected infant mortality has shown diminutive investment

within these burials; however, this is the only stage in

Anglo-Saxon life that shows a clear distinction from the rest.

Once individuals reached an age of probable survival,

particular investments in the burials become evident. These

23

investments show a discernable increase through time; however,

they do not show any indication of variation or individuality

that could specifically define a group such as children. Apart

from biological age, archaeological evidence supports Ariès

notion that the concept of childhood did not actually exist,

but rather that children were regarded simply as not full

adults.

Bibliography

Archard, D. 1993. Children: Rights and Childhood, London, Routledge.

Ariès, P. 1960. L’enfant et la Vie Famille sous l’ancièn Regime, Paris, Plon. (trans, Baldick, R. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: a Social History of Family Life, London, Penguin.

Boyle, A., Jennings, D., Miles, D., and Palmer, S. 1998. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Butler’s Field, Lechlade, Gloucestershire. Volume 1.

24

Prehistoric and Roman Activity and the Grave Catalogue. (Oxford Archaeological Unit Thames Valley Landscapes: Volume 10).

Childe, G.V. 1956. Piecing Together the Past, London, Routledge.

Corney, A., Ashbee, P., Evison, V.I., and Brothwell, D. 1967. A Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon Burial Ground, Ports Down, Portsmouth, in Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 24: 20-41.

Crawford, S. 1991. When do Anglo-Saxon Children Count? in Journal of Theoretical Archaeology 2:17-24.

Crawford, S. 1993. Children, death and the afterlife in Anglo-Saxon England, in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 6: 83-91.

Crawford, S. 1999. Childhood in Anglo-Saxon England. Sutton Publishing, Stroud.

Davison, A., Green, B., and Milligan, B. 1993. Illington: A Study of a Breckland Parish and its Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. (East Anglian Archaeology No. 63).

de Mause, L. 1974. The Evolution of Parent-Child Relationshipsas a Factor in History, in de Mause (ed.) The History of Childhood, 1-71.

Dickinson, T. 2004. An Early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Quarrington, near Sleaford, Lincolnshire: Report on Excavations, 2000-2001, in Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 39: 24-45.

Evison, V. I. 1987. Dover: the Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery. London, Historic Building Monuments Commission for England, Report 3.

Evison, V.I. 1988. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Alton, Hampshire. (Hampshire Field Club Monograph 4).

Evison, V.I. 1994. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Great Chesterford, Essex. (CBA Research Report 91).

25

Green, C., Lynch, F., and White, H., 1983. The Excavation of Two Round Barrows on Launceston Down (Long Crichel 5 and 7), in Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Proceedings 104: 39-58.

Härke, H. 1989. Early Saxon Weapon Burials: Frequencies, Distributions and Weapon Combinations. In S. C. Hawkes, (ed.).Anglo-Saxon weapons and warfare. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: Monographs, 21, 49-62.

Härke, H. 1990. “Warrior Graves”? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite, Past & Present 126, 22-43.

Härke, H. 1992b. Changing symbols in a changing society: the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite in the seventh century, in The Age of Sutton Hoo (ed. M. Carver). Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 149-65.

Härke, H. 1997. Early Anglo-Saxon social structure, in The Anglo-Saxons: From the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: an Ethnography (ed. J. Hines). Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 125-70.

James, A. and Prout, A. (eds). 1990. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, London, Falmer.

Knocker, G.M. 1956. Early Burials and an Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Snell’s Corner near Horndean, Hampshire in Papers and Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 19:2: 117-170.

Kuefler, M. S. 1991. A Wryed Existence - Attitudes Towards Children in Anglo-Saxon England, in Journal of Social History 24:4:823-834.

Leeds, E.T., F.S.A., and Atkinson, R.J.C. 1944. An Anglo-SaxonCemetery at Nassington, Northamptonshire, in The Antiquaries Journal24: 100-128.

Lucy, S. 1994. Children in Early Medieval Cemeteries, in Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13:2:21-34.

Lucy, S. 2000. The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death: Burial Rites in Early England. Gloucestershire, Sutton Publishing Limited.

26

Meaney, A. 1964. A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

McLaughlin, M.M. 1974. Survivors and Surrogates; Children and Parents from the 9th to the 13th Centuries, in de Mause (ed.) The History of Childhood, 101-182.

Myres, J.N.L. and Green, B. 1973. The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk. (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 30)

Myres, J.N.L. 1986. The English Settlements, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Pader, E.J. 1982. Symbolism, Social Relations, and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains (British Archaeological Reports British Series 130, Oxford).

Pollock, L. 1983. Forgotten Children: Parent/Child Relations from 1500-1900,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Saxe, A.A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, microfilm. University Microfilms International, Michigan.

Stoodley, N. 1998. Post-migration age structures and age-related grave goods in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in England, in Studien zur Sachsenforschung, 11:187-97

Stoodley, N. 2000. From the Cradle to the Grave: Age Organization and the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite, in World Archaeology 31:3:456-472.

Stone, L. 1977. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Tainter, J. 1978. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1:105-141.

Tester, F.S.A. 1968. An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Orpington, in Archaeologia Cantiana: Being Contributions to the History and Archaeology of Kent 83: 125-150.

27

Tyler, S. and Major, H. 2005. The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery and Later Saxon Settlement at Springfield Lyons, Essex (East Anglian Archaeology 111, Essex County Council).

Watts, L., and Leach, P., 1996. Henley Wood, Temples and Cemetery: Excavations 1962-69 by the late Ernest Greenfield & others. (CBA Research Report 99).

Whitelock, D. (ed.) 1979. English Historical Documents I c500-1042, 2nd edn., London, Eyre Methuen.

Williams, H. 2005. Keeping the dead at arm’s length: Memory, Weaponry, and Early Medieval mortuary Technologies, in Journal of Social Archaeology 5, 253-275.

Williams, P. and Newman, R. 2006. Market Lavington, Wiltshire, An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery and Settlement: Excavations at Grove Farm, 1986-90. (Wessex Archaeological Report No. 19).

28