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

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

The fate of the East Anglian sources

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