Bede’s account of the arrival of Germanic migrants provides the clearest evidence for Jutish settlement in Britain during the early Anglo-Saxon period. He tells how the Jutes settled in Kent, the Isle of Wight and that part of the mainland opposite Wight (Bede HEi.15). Archaeological evidence for the Jutes is however not as extensive as it is for the Angles and Saxons.1 Indeed, if it were not for Bede, scholars may never have held the Jutes responsible for the appearance of artefacts of South Scandinavian derivation in East Kent. It is not surprising therefore that in recent years the idea of a Jutish migration has come under critical scrutiny, especially from scholars who are wary of relying too heavily on the written sources.2 Further away from East Kent, archaeological evidence for Jutish settlement is weaker. The Isle of Wight has a modest collection of finds linking it to East Kent and Jutland, while southern Hampshire has produced very few such artefacts.
This essay will re-examine the question of Jutish settlement in Hampshire, but rather than focusing on individual artefacts it places the emphasis on female dress. Folk costume provided an important way to mark out group identity in early medieval society and it will be argued that variations in costume in Hampshire have the potential to reveal a group that claimed Jutish ethnicity. This identity was deliberately created in the later 5th and 6th century; the motive behind this ethnogenesis coming from an external force.
Costume in North West Europe and Southern Scandinavia during the Migration Period
Gregory of Tours provides a useful starting point with his claim that Queen Fredegund ordered the Saxons who were settled around Bayeux not only to dress as Bretons but also to adopt their hairstyles in order to fight alongside the Bretons against the Frankish duke Beppolen.3 This tactic gave the impression of a large but also unified Breton resistance—costume was understood as a way in which similarity and difference was articulated and here it created the sense of a common identity. However, it is with female dress that the remainder of this essay is concerned. Women were very much the purveyors of cultural identity, as one sees in the clear regional differences that existed throughout migration-period Europe. The evidence from Lombardic graves reveal that women wore a long-sleeved single-piece undergarment secured at the neck by a brooch of disc or ‘S’ form, while an outer dress was fastened by a pair of bow-brooches at the waist and a single brooch over the chest.4 In addition, stockings were secured at the knees, a bead necklace was often worn, and the costume was finished off by a variety of metal implements suspended from the girdle.5 In both Alemannic and Frankish territories garters were also used to cover the lower legs,6 although the actual dress itself demonstrates subtle differences. In the former, a pair of bow brooches was positioned one above the other over the upper body,7 while in Francia, a robe was commonly donned that employed a pair of brooches in the area of the neck and another around the waist to clasp it. Likewise, women living under Visigothic control in the Iberian Peninsula in the later 5th and earlier 6th centuries had adopted a standard type of costume: a pair of brooches, often bow-brooches (Bügelfibeln), fastened a cloak at the shoulder or chest level, while various types of buckles secured belts.8
Analysis of 4th- and 5th-century graves in the Elbe-Weser triangle have shown that women in the Saxon homelands wore a peplos dress that was fastened at each shoulder by a brooch and in many cases a bead necklace was
The dominant burial rite in the region occupied by the Angles was cremation and consequently very little is known about their costume. The general burial practice in the area traditionally believed to have been occupied by the Jutes (northern Jutland) was inhumation and the evidence from two cemeteries reveals that the majority of graves contained single brooches and/or pins, though a small number also had evidence for a peplos (see below).
Costume Groups in England in the Late 5th and 6th Centuries
Costume evidence from South East England during the later 5th and 6th centuries provides the background against which Hampshire will be evaluated. The presence of two distinct styles as signalled by the number and positions of brooches that roughly equated with Anglian and Saxon areas of culture was recognised by Leeds.12 It was not until Vierck’s study, however, that these were broken down into smaller regional groups and their boundaries mapped.13 Gale Owen-Crocker’s study of Anglo-Saxon dress identified that although the peplos was a universal garment worn throughout much of England, regionalisation was an important factor with a tripartite division between Saxon, Anglian and Kentish regions.14 In Anglian and Saxon areas a peplos was the standard item, but in the former it was more likely to have had a cloak worn over the
On the whole these regional groups have stood the test of time; the publication of studies of new, and not so new, cemetery excavations only serving to reinforce, not dismantle them. Recent research has demonstrated that within each region a more complex state of affairs existed, however. Fisher found that the frequency of graves with annular brooches, swastika brooches and pins varied between Middle Anglia, East Anglia and the Lark River area, and although she did not examine the character of the costumes, the differences probably resulted from the wearing of subtly different costumes that demonstrate the presence of subgroups.15 Hines analysed the evidence for Edix Hill and surrounding burial grounds and a correspondence analysis revealed four different ‘costume groups’ as indicated by variations in the types of dress fasteners.16 It is likely that the differences resulted from the wearing of subtly different costumes that reflect variation within local communities.
In the Upper Thames Valley most women of adult age were laid to rest in a peplos secured by a pair of brooches and embellished with a bead necklace. At Abingdon the majority of women also had a pin, whereas in the neighbouring cemetery of Berinsfield they were uncommon. Different styles both between and within individual cemeteries were recorded by Karen Brush. A particularly intriguing site is that of Wasperton (Warwickshire), where separate Anglian and Saxon traditions both prevailed, interestingly alongside hybrid examples that combined elements of both.17
Research in East Kent has cast light on the complexities of costume in the region.18 It was found that Anglian and Saxon styles are rare, and that Kentish, continental and hybrid Kentish-continental styles that utilised multiple brooches are more common. There is, however, a notable degree of variation in terms of the actual types and numbers of brooches that were combined.
During the later 5th and 6th centuries costume style in Anglo-Saxon England was characterised by regionally-specific styles, yet underneath this tripartite
Early Saxon Costume in Hampshire
Introduction
Location of the early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries used in the study
Pernille Kruse’s (née Sørensen) contextual and multi-disciplinary study of Jutish settlement in England demonstrated that there is little if any direct evidence for a large-scale migration from Jutland to England in the 5th or 6th centuries. No burials from East Kent, the Isle of Wight or southern Hampshire have produced assemblages of Jutish objects. In most cases single artefacts (hand-made pottery, D-bracteates, cruciform and relief brooches) had been interred in richly-furnished graves of the 6th century.19 Moreover, there are few similarities between the form of the grave and the nature of the wider burial rite when comparing Jutland with evidence from East Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire. The typical rite in the Jutlandic cemeteries of Hjemsted and Sejlflod included a coffin, with the burial orientated west-east and placed supine or on one side and accompanied by objects that included one or more pots, a knife, comb and dress accessories, such as a buckle, brooch, clasp or pin.20 Evidence from England differs, especially in East Kent, where some graves were associated with structural features and the deposition of weapons was common.
At the time she was writing, Kruse was unable to identify any Jutlandic artefacts in southern Hampshire,21 but in recent years metal-detectorists have recovered examples of Martin’s Group i cruciform brooches from sites in the southern half of the county (see below). Such brooches date to the 5th century, the earliest to the first half, but they are not specific to Jutland; rather, they are paralleled at sites along the North Sea from Frisia to Norway.22 Nevertheless, the brooches suggest that Scandinavian, if not Jutlandic, dress fashions were present in southern Hampshire in the early migration period. This topic will now be expanded by an examination of the styles of female costume worn in early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in Hampshire (Fig. 4.1) and a consideration of
All burials over the age of 12 with evidence for female dress have been studied. Costume was age-related and younger individuals tended not to have dress fasteners or produce evidence for a different style of costume to that worn by adult women.24 The position of the brooches is taken from the grave plans, but there is a risk that the body and artefacts may have shifted due to taphonomic processes. There is, however, a general consistency to the position of the artefacts demonstrating a level of accuracy across the board and the evidence can be relied upon to provide a solid foundation from which the form of the costume can be reconstructed. More problematic is the fact that metal fasteners only provide limited information about costume. The linen or cloth could have been folded in certain ways or secured by organic fasteners, such as wooden toggles, that no longer survive; the length of the hemline and for that matter that of the sleeves (if present) may have varied. In addition, elements that did not require securing, such as certain under- or overgarments, usually leave no evidence whatsoever but may have been invested with important socio-cultural information that is now irretrievable.
Early Saxon settlement in Hampshire was restricted to the chalklands of the county: no funerary or settlement evidence has so far been discovered on the clays of the Hampshire Basin. For the purpose of this study southern Hampshire is defined as a band extending from the Hampshire basin to just north of Winchester and includes the upper Itchen, while everything above can be considered north Hampshire.
North Hampshire
Position of brooches in graves at Alton (women/brooches not to scale) (For key, see Fig. 4.3)
Alton (Mount Pleasant) and Andover (Portway East) (Table 4.1) were investigated under scientific conditions and produced large numbers of graves. Both are mixed-rite cemeteries but only the inhumation burials are suitable for analysis.
The former was investigated by Vera Evison, although a small group of graves was excavated when the site was threatened by development in the early 1990s
At Alton, the peplos was worn throughout the 5th and 6th centuries: it was present in the earliest phase of the cemetery as the interment in grave 102 with a quoit and disc brooch demonstrates. Grave 104 potentially contained one of the earliest burials and is particularly intriguing because an old woman had been accompanied by a range of Roman artefacts: a necklace of blue glass beads, a knife, a bow brooch and two buckles. Both the buckles were found at the shoulders and look to all intents and purposes to have been acting as dress fasteners. Perhaps she was a native who, without access to the latest Germanic brooches, was forced to make do with substitutes.
At Portway East, 18 burials had brooches: 13 (42 per cent) were fastening a peplos-style costume (Fig. 4.3); in addition, the female in grave 42 had a single disc brooch on the right shoulder.26 Several burials had a single brooch over the upper body, which indicates Dress Style ii, while 42 per cent had no clear evidence for costume. The fasteners are mainly pairs of disc or saucer brooches,
Position of brooches in graves at Andover (women/brooches not to scale)
A very similar situation is found in other Saxon areas. At Pewsey (Blacknall Field, Wiltshire), just over two-thirds of the female burials with costume accessories had a pair of brooches at the shoulder.27 The same pattern is observed in
South Hampshire
Position of brooches in graves at Droxford (top) and Worthy Park (centre and bottom) (women/brooches not to scale)
The analysis of the southern part of the county focuses on the burial grounds of Droxford and Worthy Park (Table 4.1). The only other cemeteries to have been investigated under modern conditions are the long-lasting site at Meonstoke and a recently excavated one at West Meon that contained later 6th- and 7th-century burials.30 Neither has produced costume evidence. The West Sussex cemetery of Apple Down i (at Marden, West Sussex) lies to the north-west of Chichester, about 13 miles east of the Meon valley, but because of its proximity to the Hampshire/West Sussex border and the style of its costumes, it is also included in the area.31
At Droxford (Fig. 4.4) out of 21 females, only one was wearing a peplos: a pair of disc brooches were discovered over the shoulders of the burial in grave 36.32 Grave 13 contained a burial beside which a pair of saucer brooches had been placed, while a penannular brooch was at the neck. This female appears to have been interred in an example of Dress Style ii, while a peplos may have been laid alongside the body. The emphasis on adorning the female body at Droxford was through the use of chatelaines and necklaces, such as graves 13 and 30. The cemetery was only partially investigated and many graves had been destroyed during the construction of the Meon Valley Railway. Yet the excavated evidence appears to come from the main part of the cemetery and is probably representative of the burial practices of the community.
Worthy Park (Fig. 4.4) lies to the north of Winchester and only one of the 41 female burials had evidence for a peplos: grave 63, which contained two iron annular/penannular brooches, although in grave 77 a single quoit brooch was on the left shoulder.33 There is one example each of Dress Style ii (grave 30)
The examination of dress at Apple Down 1 (Fig. 4.5) revealed a now familiar pattern: one (grave 10) out of a total of 42 female burials had a pair of brooches and they were fastening an example of Dress Style iii (similar to Worthy Park grave 80). Over the chest of the female in grave 14 was a fine silver gilt Jutlandic square-headed brooch that was combined with a pair of six spiral saucer brooches at the waist. Although it is reminiscent of continental dress fashions, i.e. Walton-Rogers Dress Style iv, it differs by having a pair of circular brooches at the waist.
Position of brooches in graves at Apple Down (women/brooches not to scale)
Discussion of Hampshire’s costume
The costume evidence from south Hampshire clearly differs to that found in the north of the county. Only a handful of burials had a pair of brooches and in most cases they were not securing a peplos. Proportionally more examples of Dress Styles ii and iii are present, i.e. fashions that are common in East Kent. Some burials had a pin over the chest, which may have been performing the same function as a brooch, thus the quantity of Dress Style ii may be higher (a similar situation was also found at Andover and Alton). Yet the costume worn by the majority of the burials could not be identified and it is possible
That not all women had brooches is unsurprising since their conferment appears to have been dependent on an individual’s age and status within the household.35 The cemeteries of Andover and Alton were organised around individual plots and each contained burials of both sexes and all ages. These plots probably belonged to a household and were used throughout the duration that the cemetery was in use. It is significant that each plot contained women with and without the peplos—the decision as to what costume to inter an individual in was decided at the household level.
Yet compared to north Hampshire the scarcity of the peplos in the south of the county is significant and must have resulted from factors other than those decided by the community. Owen-Crocker also noted that the position of the brooches in graves in Hampshire (and Kent) differs to the usual arrangement
Neither can the difference between northern and southern Hampshire be explained chronologically, i.e. the burials without a peplos are part and parcel of the changes that occurred to female costume in the 7th century.38 The brooches from the south Hampshire cemeteries are from the late 5th and 6th century. Moreover, all three cemeteries produced weapon burials of the late 5th and 6th century and contemporary female burials would have been present. The fact that a significant number of the male population were interred with weapons in the traditional Anglo-Saxon manner demonstrates that these were communities that had fully embraced the practice of accompanied inhumation. The age and sex profile of these cemeteries makes it clear that they served local communities; they are directly comparable to their counterparts in the north of the county. Some of the female burials were granted assemblages that, despite the difference in costume, had many similarities to other early Anglo-Saxon burials, such as the presence of vessels and collections of small objects collected together in bags. Despite the lack of paired brooches,
A Shared Identity? Costume in South Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and East Kent
Although it is difficult to know exactly what types of costume were being worn in south Hampshire, the lack of the peplos is significant. Did south Hampshire perceive itself as different to the north of the county and expressed this by shunning the style of costume traditionally linked to the Saxons, but adopted styles that were worn in the areas traditionally associated with the Jutes?
East Kent is notable for its elaborate female costumes, which included Frankish and hybrid Kentish-continental styles and employed multiple brooches of various types.39 There are however much simpler costumes, i.e. Walton-Rogers’ Dress Styles ii and iii, which as noted above find good parallels in Hampshire. Examples of Dress Style ii were found in 6th-century graves excavated at Dover Buckland (graves 23, 219, 221 and 290),40 Bifrons (grave 63),41 Lyminge (grave 33),42 Mill Hill, Deal (graves 18, 33, 64 and 94),43 and Finglesham (grave C2).44 And costumes conforming to Dress Style iii were found in graves at Dover Buckland (graves 48, 92, 366, 428 and 440), Bifrons (grave 89) and Lyminge (possibly grave 16). Examples of the peplos are present but relatively rare, for example at Lyminge and Bifrons, and this also strengthens evidence for a link between East Kent and southern Hampshire.
Connections between south Hampshire and the other two regions were also examined through a study of brooch types. Compared to the north of the
Metal detecting has increased the number of known brooch types from southern Hampshire (Table 4.3). Of note are the nine fragments of early types of cruciform brooch and the five supporting-arm brooches that indicate settlement taking place by at least the mid-5th century and involving migrants from both south Scandinavia and the Saxon homelands. Although these finds are unstratified, excavated 5th-century evidence is provided by a weapon burial
The majority of the Isle of Wight’s early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries were excavated by antiquarians and very few graves were properly recorded. An exception is the richly furnished grave at Chessell Down (grave 45); the drawing reveals a costume very similar to the more elaborate East Kent examples. Less wealthy burials were not recorded with such enthusiasm, but it is possible to infer the character of the dress for several at Chessell Down. Hillier comments that the costume consisted of ‘a long dress, open partly down the front, or a tunic, which, being confined round the waist by a belt of leather or some other substance, was closed at the breast and neck by the fibulae, i.e. probable evidence of Dress Style iii.48 At Bowcombe Down a single button brooch was over the centre of the chest of the individual in grave 18 indicating Dress Style ii.49
The results from metal detecting on Wight generally supports the evidence from excavated graves (Table 4.4), but as on the mainland increases the number of known brooch types. In particular, early types of cruciform brooches are represented, including one from Martin’s sub-group 1.1 (from Shorewell), which strengthens evidence for the connection between the island and south Scandinavia and could push the date of the earliest phase back to the mid-5th century, or even earlier.
Discussion: Costume and the Creation of a Jutish South Hampshire
Place names and written sources distinguish southern Hampshire from its northern counterpart. Bede understood that southern Hampshire had once been an independent Jutish province and he also mentions the Meonware, a probable Jutish territory based on the Meon valley.50 Frustratingly, Bede does not say where the Jutes (Iutae) originated from, although he placed the Angles between the Saxons and the Jutes,51 implying that the Jutes occupied land to the north of the Angles. The Jutes have also been linked linguistically to Jutland, but there is uncertainty about the meaning of the term Jutland.52 In England Iutae went through a series of developments resulting in Yte, of which several place-names in southern Hampshire derive from.53Ytedene, ‘valley of the Jutes’ near East Meon, supports the view that the Meon valley had been home to a group of Jutes settled within the wider Jutish province of southern Hampshire.54 Several place and administrative names also indicate that south Hampshire was Jutish. John of Worcester refers to the New Forest as “Ytene” (‘of the Jutes’), while on the River Itchen the Old English name for Bishopstoke is ‘Ytingstoc’ (‘the settlement of the Jutes’).55 Yet as Bartholomew points out, this says nothing about the location of the Jutish homelands.56 Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Kruse’s study has demonstrated that there are few archaeological links between northern Jutland and East Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire.57 At this point it is instructive to compare costume evidence from northern Jutland. The cemeteries of Hjemsted and Sejlflod, which were excavated and published to modern standards, figure in Kruse’s study but she did not attempt to reconstruct the style of costumes—probably because of the poor preservation of the skeletal material. However, it is still possible to get a rough idea of dress style from the number and general position
The evidence from metal-detecting is now starting to show connections between East Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire and an area of northern Europe that includes Jutland.60 The earliest types of cruciform brooch from south Hampshire do indicate a link between the area and southern Scandinavia in the early to mid-5th century, but these connections had ceased by the end of the century. From this time the area displays a Saxon character, in fact there are only a handful of artefacts that demonstrate links with East Kent or the Isle of Wight. Rather it was a style of female dress that was used to create and maintain cultural associations with East Kent, Wight and perhaps Jutland.
Studies have shown that style articulates social relations because it becomes associated with groups of individuals within a geographical area over a given span of time and is usually considered a marker of historically and ethnically, or culturally, bounded social units.61 Style operates as a form of communication
Only certain elements of material culture become active in signifying ethnicity, however: distinctive forms and styles may be actively maintained, whilst other forms and styles may cut across ethnic boundaries.65 Material culture practices become objectified as symbols of group identity and as ethnic markers become naturalised through repeated social use.66A relationship often existed between culture and ethnicity, but it is not fixed; rather it resulted from specific circumstances in particular social and historical contexts.
The lack of the peplos in south Hampshire was deliberate and indicates that its people considered themselves different to the folk in the north of the county, but it also served as a method to create and maintain links with Wight, East Kent and perhaps even northern Jutland. Was dress a symbol of a new ethnic identity in south Hampshire? Rather than costume reflecting the presence of a pre-existing ethnic group, which had settled in the area in the earlier 5th century, it may have symbolised a new identity; one created in the later 5th century to bring together disparate groups of people as they encountered new situations. A burial that is especially pertinent, and which may show this
Costume was an appropriate medium because an ethnic group selects the cultural attributes that it considers important enough to define itself; these were based on pre-existing forms of cultural identity and methods of social differentiation, such as gender and status.67 In early Anglo-Saxon England gender distinctions were symbolised through costume and because this was an established, highly visible and portable method of display, it was the ideal medium through which ethnic identities were expressed. Although Pohl shows that costume was more likely to have expressed social rather than ethnic distinctions, he states that there is documentary evidence demonstrating its use as a sign of ethnic identity.68 Women were not passive carriers of badges of ethnic identity, however. Rather they assumed an active role in the creation and maintenance of this identity because of their role within society as reproducers of the group. Evidence to support this notion can be found in the fact that costume evidence is mainly found in the burials of biologically mature women.69 Moreover, male burials in Hampshire show no discernible differences: there was no attempt to distinguish ritually between the males of north and south Hampshire. Importantly, artefacts were not ethnic symbols, this identity was expressed through a female-specific costume. Symbols of ethnic identity also occur in collective rituals intended to mobilise groups and a public affair,70 such as an early Anglo-Saxon funeral in which the corpse was laid out fully dressed, presented the ideal opportunity to reinforce these messages.
That Apple Down followed the same dress styles as Droxford and Worthy Park implies that the south Hampshire dress province can be extended eastwards. Welch believed that the Apple Down community represented a South Saxon settlement, perhaps one of several small bands of colonists from the primary South Saxon settlements of eastern Sussex.71 On the costume evidence
An analysis of the textiles from Hampshire was undertaken by Sue Harrington.73 The evidence does not permit the southern Hampshire and northern Hampshire sites to be distinguished as separate areas. Although two of the rare types of weave, the twill mixed spin and plain mixed spin, were only found in the cemeteries of Apple Down, Droxford and Worthy Park, the other rare types did not group together in any meaningful way. It is notable that cloth types were identified that are unusual for Hampshire in all the five sites and these do record a higher frequency in East Kent although this could be explained by biases in the dataset. It seems that it was the actual style rather than the cloth itself that carried symbolic meaning.
As has been mentioned above, the creation of ethnic groups is often dependent upon cultural changes provoked through, for example, the interaction of competing groups.74 According to Barbara Yorke, the three coastal regions of southern England formed a political confederation during the 6th century that was aimed at combating a threat posed by Saxon pirates operating in the Channel which threatened the trade on which the prosperity of East Kent and Wight depended.75 It is argued that in 6th-century southern Hampshire the pressure from Saxon piracy brought together what had hitherto been a mix of different peoples as evidenced in the earlier 5th century by the brooches from south Scandinavia and north-west Germany, and probably also a group of (archaeologically invisible) natives. In a similar way Yorke has also claimed that the population would have been more ethnically mixed.76 That it was a threat by the Saxons explains why this identity was shunned in favour of one with links
Conclusion
Hampshire has provided evidence for differentiation in costume in the late 5th and 6th centuries, suggesting essentially two distinct costume groups. In the north of the county a group of local communities followed a style typical of the surrounding Saxon groups—the peplos was the costume of choice. In the south a different situation prevailed and styles not dissimilar to those from East Kent and the Isle of Wight are identified. This is the archaeological evidence for a new identity, one that linked the areas. Previously, archaeological connections between southern Hampshire and the other two kingdoms were considered very weak, if non-existent. It can be claimed that all three south coast territories shared a common identity in the later 5th and 6th centuries, although for southern Hampshire this may have been more of a created identity to serve certain political objectives rather than deriving from an actual influx of Jutish settlers. Finally, this essay has attempted to demonstrate that it is not only the types of artefacts that are important in the identification of cultural and ethnic groups in the early Anglo-Saxon period, rather it was the way that they were used, which after all was their primary function.
Acknowledgements
The motivation behind this essay came from Barbara Yorke’s excellent 1989 article, “The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex,” plus
Andrew Richardson, The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Kent, bar Brit. Ser. 391 (Oxford, 2005), p. 250.
Pernille Sørensen, “‘Jutes in Kent?’ Considerations on the Problem of Ethnicity in Southern Scandinavia and Kent in the Migration Period,” in Method and Theory in Medieval Archaeology: Death and Burial in Medieval Europe—Papers of the ‘Medieval Europe Brugge 1997’ Conference, 10, ed. Guy De Boe and Frans Verhaeghe (Brugge, 1997), pp. 165–73; Pernille Kruze, “Jutes in Kent? On the Nature of Jutish Kent, Southern Hampshire and the Isle of Wight,” Probleme der Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 31 (Oldenburg, 2007), pp. 243–376.
Edward James, The Franks (Oxford, 1988), p. 101.
Neil Christie, The Lombards (Oxford, 1995), pp. 43–44.
Christie, The Lombards.
Gale Owen-Crocker, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, rev. ed. (Woodbridge, 2004), p. 50.
Rainer Christlein, Die Alamannen (Stuttgart, 1978), p. 78, Fig. 54.
Gisela Ripoll López, “Symbolic Life and Signs of Identity in Visigothic Times,” in The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century, ed. Peter Heather (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 403–31.
Hayo Vierck, “Von Der Trachtprovinz Zur Bevölkerungs-Geschichtlichen,” in Sachsen Und Angelsachsen, ed. Claus Ahrens (Hamburg, 1978), pp. 285–93.
Horst Wolfgang Böhme, Germanische Grabfunde Des 4. Bis 5. Jahrhunderts Zwischen Untorer Elbe Und Loire (Munich, 1974), Fig. 53.
Hans-Jürgen Hässler, Das Sächsische Gräberfeld Von Issendorf, Ldkr, Stade, Nierdersachsen. Die Körpergräber, Studien Zur Sachsenforschung, 9:4 (Oldenburg, 2002), pp. 146–62.
Edward T. Leeds, The Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlement (Oxford, 1913), pp. 75–76.
Vierck, “Von Der Trachtprovinz Zur Bevölkerungs-Geschichtlichen.”
Owen-Crocker, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 35–103.
Genevieve Fisher, “Style and Sociopolitical Organisation: A Preliminary Study from Early Anglo-Saxon England,” in Power and Politics in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland, ed. Stephen Driscoll and Margaret Nieke (Trowbridge, 1988), pp. 136–41.
Tim Malim and John Hines, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Edix Hill (Barrington A), Cambridgeshire, cba Research Report, 112 (York, 1998), pp. 313–17.
Karen Brush, Adorning the Dead: The Social Significance of Early Anglo-Saxon Funerary Dress in England (Fifth to Seventh Centuries ad) (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1993), p. 110.
Birte Brugmann and Keith Parfitt, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent, The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph, 14 (Leeds, 1997), pp. 113–16.
Kruse, “Jutes in Kent?” (2007), pp. 345–46.
Kruse, “Jutes in Kent?” (2007), p. 299.
Kruse, “Jutes in Kent?” (2007), p. 334.
Toby F. Martin, The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge 2015), p. 175.
Penelope Walton-Rogers, “Part 5: Costumes and Textiles,” in Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Dover: Excavations 1994, ed. Trevor Anderson and Keith Parfitt (Canterbury, 2012), pp. 182–91.
Nick Stoodley, “From the Cradle to the Grave: Age Organisation and the Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Rite,” World Archaeology 31:3 (2000), 456–72.
Vera I. Evison, An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Alton, Hampshire, Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society Monograph 4 (Gloucester, 1988); Nicholas Riall, “An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mount Pleasant, Alton, Hampshire,” Farnham and District Museum Society News 1:2 (1996), 8–13.
Alison Cook and Max Dacre, Excavations at Portway, Andover 1973–1975, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 4 (Oxford, 1985).
Nick Stoodley, “The Social Structure,” in The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Blacknall Field, Pewsey, Wiltshire, ed. Bruce Eagles, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Monograph 4 (Trowbridge, 2010), pp. 90–92.
Nick Stoodley, “Metalwork,” in The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Collingbourne Ducis, ed. Kirsten Egging Dinwiddy and Nick Stoodley, Wessex Archaeological Report 37 (Salisbury, 2016), pp. 120–22.
A. F Griffith, “An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Alfriston, Sussex,” Sussex Archaeological Collections 57 (1915), 197–208; A.F. Griffith and L.F. Salzmann, “An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Alfriston, Sussex,” Sussex Arch. Coll. 56 (1914), 16–51; Christopher Greatorex, “The Archaeological Excavation of a Late Iron Age Site and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at St Anne’s Road Eastbourne, East Sussex” (forthcoming).
Nick Stoodley and Mark Stedman, “Excavations at Shavards Farm, Meonstoke: The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery,” phfcas 56 (2001), 129–69.
Alec Down and Martin Welch, Chichester Excavations 7. Apple Down and the Mardens (Chichester, 1990).
Fred Aldsworth, “The Droxford Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, Soberton, Hampshire,” phfcas 35 (1978), 93–182.
Sonia Chadwick Hawkes and Guy Grainger, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, near Winchester, Hampshire, Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 59 (Kings Lynn, 2003).
Down and Welch, Chichester Excavations 7. Apple Down and the Mardens, pp. 95–96.
Stoodley, “From the Cradle to the Grave"; Stephen Sherlock and Martin Welch, An Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Norton, Cleveland, Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 82 (Oxford, 1992), p. 102.
Owen-Crocker, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 54–55.
Sonia Chadwick Hawkes and Calvin Wells, “The Inhumed Skeletal Material from an Early Anglo-Saxon Cemetery in Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, Hampshire, South England,” Paleobios, 1:1–2 (1983), 3–36.
Helen Geake, “Burial Practices in Seventh- and Eighth-Century England,” in The Age of Sutton Hoo, ed. Martin Carver (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 83–94.
Birte Brugmann, “Britons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Franks,” in The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent, The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph Series 14 (Leeds, 1997), pp. 110–18.
K. Parfitt and T. Anderson, Buckland Anglo–Saxon Cemetery, Dover. Excavations 1994, The Archaeology of Canterbury, New Ser., 4 (Canterbury, 2012); Vera I. Evison, Dover, the Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery (London, 1987).
Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, “The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery of Bifrons, in the Parish of Patrixbourne, East Kent,” assah 11 (2000), 1–94.
Alan Warhurst, “The Jutish Cemetery at Lyminge,” Arch. Cant. 69 (1956 for 1955), 1–40.
Brugmann and Parfitt, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery on Mill Hill, Deal, Kent.
Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, “The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Finglesham, Kent: A Reconsideration,” Medieval Archaeology 2 (1958), 1–71.
Down and Welch, Chichester Excavations 7. Apple Down and the Mardens, pp. 95–96; Aldsworth, “Droxford Anglo-Saxon Cemetery,” p. 170.
Aldsworth, “Droxford Anglo-Saxon Cemetery,” p. 171; Hawkes and Grainger, The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Worthy Park, Kingsworthy, near Winchester, Hampshire, p. 76; Christopher. J. Arnold, The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of the Isle of Wight (London, 1982), p. 107.
Nick Stoodley, “A Fifth-Century Female from Weston Colley, Micheldever, Hampshire,” in Studies in Early Anglo-Saxon Art and Archaeology: Papers in Honour of Martin G. Welch, ed. Stuart Brookes, Sue Harrington, and Andrew Reynolds, bar British Ser. 527 (Oxford, 2011), pp. 49–54.
George Hillier, The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Wight (London, 1855), pp. 28–29.
Arnold, The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of the Isle of Wight, Fig. 68.
B.A.E. Yorke, “The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex,” in The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. Steven Bassett (Leicester, 1989), pp. 84–107, at pp. 89–90.
Bede, HE, i.15.
Philip Bartholomew, “Continental Connections: Angles, Saxons and Others in Bede and Procopius,” assah 13 (2005), 19–30; Kruse, “Jutes in Kent?” (2007), p. 252.
William Henry Stevenson, Asser’s Life of King Alfred (Oxford, 1904), pp. 166–70.
Yorke, “Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex,” p. 90.
Yorke, “Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex,” p. 91.
Bartholomew, “Continental connections: Angles, Saxons and Others in Bede and Procopius,” p. 23. Note also John Baker and Jayne Carroll’s reservations, in “The Afterlives of Bede’s Tribal Names in English Place-names,” below, p. 135–37.
Kruse, "Jutes in Kent?" (2007).
Per Ethelberg, Hjemsted: En Gravplads Fra 4. Og 5. Årh. E.Kr, Skrifter Fra Museumsrådet for Sonderjyllands Amt (Haderslev, 1986).
Jens N. Neilsen, Sejlflod – Ein Eisenzeitliches Dorf in Nordjütland. Katalog Der Grabfunde, Nordiske Fortidsminder, Series B, Vol. 20 (Copenhagen, 2000).
Martin, The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England, p. 175.
Margaret Conkey, “Experimenting with Style in Archaeology,” in The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 1–17; James Sackett, “Style, Ethnicity, and Stone Tools,” in Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Reconstructions, ed. Marc Thompson, Maria Garcia, and Francois Kense (Calgary, 1985), pp. 277–82.
Polly Wiessner, “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points,” American Antiquity 48 (1983), 253–76; “Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study from the Kalahari San,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3 (1984), 190–243.
Joanne Eicher, “Introduction: Dress as Expression on Ethnic Identity,” in Dress and Ethnicity. Change across Space and Time, ed. Joanne Eicher (Bridgend, 1999), pp. 1–5.
Ian Hodder, Symbols in Action, Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge, 1982).
Siân Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity (London, 1997), p. 120.
Florin Curta, “Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity: Where Are We?” History Compass, 9:7 (2011), 537–48, at pp. 539–40.
Florin Curta, “Some Remarks on Ethnicity in Medieval Archaeology,” eme 15:2 (2007), 159–85, at pp. 169–70; Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, p. 125.
Walter Pohl, “Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity,” in From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, ed. Thomas Noble (Abingdon, 2006), pp. 120–67.
Stoodley, “From the Cradle to the Grave.”
Curta, “Medieval Archaeology and Ethnicity,” p. 538.
Down and Welch, Chichester Excavations 7. Apple Down and the Mardens, p. 109.
Elizabeth O’Brien, Late Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Burial Practices Reviewed, bar British Ser. 289 (Oxford, 1999), map 39.
Sue Harrington, Report on Investigations into the Textile Remains from Five Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries in Hampshire (Unpublished report, 2003).
Pohl, “Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity,” pp. 122–23.
B.A.E. Yorke, “Gregory of Tours and Sixth-Century Anglo-Saxon England,” in The World of Gregory of Tours, ed. Kathleen Mitchell and Ian Wood (Leiden, 2002), pp. 113–30.
Yorke, “ Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex,” pp. 91–92.
Kruse, "Jutes in Kent?" (2007), p. 348.