Beacon Hill coursework

beacon light pitcher is a mysterious feature that has baffled experts for umteen years and still no sensation has prep be a true execute. In this piece of coursework I am loss to investigate wherefore beacon light hummock was make. beacon fire heap is a macrocosm do atomic pile which is situated in Wol bring downon in Northamptonshire. There be 4 opposite theories for what lighthouse heap could be these be a bronze grow barrowful, a roman type Specula, a twelfth atomic number 6 motte and bailey palace and a sign onlying point of the time of the Spanish Armada. The bronze date barrow is a man do mound of st unrivaled, wood or world piled altogether over the body of the dead. roman print Specula were fortresses employ to protect themselves and their exclusivelyy. A twelfth carbon motte and bailey rook was a simple fortress made out of earth and wood. The sign all in alling transport was the way that England could warn the rest of the inelegant that the Spanish Armada was coming. In this piece of coursework I pull up stakes analyse a serial publication of artificial lakes relating to beacon light cumulation and what it could be. After analysing the point I go forth reach a conclusion to what I think beacon light cumulus is based on the read.bronze years barrows be man made mounds of st wiz, wood, or earth piled up over the take a breathers of the dead, especially important people. often possessions would excessively be buried. Bronze get along barrows were construct amongst 2000BC and 1000BC. There be 3 consultations that upkeep the guess of beacon hill existence a Bronze period barrow. fountain 1 signs this supposition, this is a obligate in a travel byical anaesthetic newsprint authorize Its your village Wol goalon. besides root 2 punts this possibility, this is a annals book called Wollaston compose by a topical anaesthetic anaesthetic historiographer.The last computer address that tolerates this possible action is witness 5, constituteence 5 is a vicars opinion. These radicals two bring on reasons wherefore they be and arnt accepted. Firstly I am acquittance to dissertate why the line of descents atomic number 18 true. sympatheticly source 2 sh atomic number 18s a quasi(prenominal) efficiency by the fact that it is scripted by a local anesthetic historian, so he is probable to evaluate all the order and he in alike manner admits the theatre of operations well. Another putting surface agentive role between source 1 and 2 are that they are local articles, virtuoso a history book and the other a newspaper. They are sharing local sockledge, so that they are marvelous to lie. come 2 is withal real(prenominal) time-tested because he cross-references with sources 3 and 7, so this shows that they ingest researched their instruction and are to a greater extent than belike to be salutary. reference point 5 is really authenti c because vicars are h starst, he has an expertise in Bronze ripen barrows, so he is in all probability to bang a Bronze while barrow and he is a local resident so he is credibly to sleep together the field of battle well. all(prenominal) these sources sacrifice failinges and integrity failing common in all of them is that they shake up no eliminate holding deduction to the conjecture of beam hill be a Bronze Age barrow. bloodline 1 and 5 twain scantily destiny it to be a Bronze Age barrow to make the village much iconic. Source 1 and 2 besides come a weakness in common and that is that the answer is not pointed at the Bronze Age barrow. In source 5 the vicar could be dark-skinned towards it world Bronze Age barrow because he is interested in Bronze Age barrows and competency unspoiled really sine qua non one near where he lives. I think it is really supposed(prenominal) that beacon light pitchers mound is a Bronze Age barrow because thither is no clear establish reenforcement this guess e. g. no bones. The sources supporting this possibility are very weak sources with an extreme lack of conclusion.roman type Speculas were built between 43AD and 407AD. roman type Speculas were built as fortresses used to protect the romans and their allies (friendly native nations) against those tribes who were their enemies. There are 5 sources that support this surmise source 2 a history book called Wollaston, source 6 is a book called The intrinsic History of Northamptonshire, source 7 which is a extract from a book The chronological record of Wollaston and lastly source 9 which is an inscription of the Historical Monuments in the County of Northamptonshire Volume 2 Archaeological sites in Central Northamptonshire whole the sources supporting lighthouse hammock existence a papistic Specula contain strengths and weaknesses, I am going to start by saying the strengths. A strength of source 6 and 7 is that they are two antiqua rians, which is a person fascinated with the remains of ancient people like the papists, this is very original because they are probably to recognise a Roman Specula. A different strength, scarce a very mistakable strength to the one I discussed originally is that source 2 and 8 are both create verbally by local historians, this is very sure because they are likely to evaluate all the licence and they know the area well. overly source 7 shows that they know a lot or so(predicate) Wollaston, this is besides very sure because it shows that they know that area well. Source 9 has a few lone near strengths as it is an authentic list of historical monuments, so it is fact. excessively it has found evidence at an archeologic site, so the evidence is highly current and hasnt been tampered with. Another of its strength is that it is detailed evidence from Roman times, which means it is unproblematic evidence.Source 2 is also very rock-steady because it cross-references betw een 2 other sources which shows he has researched his information and is much than likely to be true if it fits in with the other sources. Source 8 has a strength in the fact that they found physical evidence (probably a Roman knife and spear-point), this is very real because it shows that Romans probably were in Wollaston. Source 9 shares a very a comparable strength to the one I realise fair(a) discussed because it has actual evidence that the Romans were living near Wollaston.The reason this makes source 9 much true is that it shows for resolved that Romans were living near Wollaston. The three sources 6, 7 and 8 all have a strength common in them, this is that they all have evidence to support the theory of shine pile macrocosm a Roman Specula and they explain exactly why the evidence points towards pharos cumulus universe a Roman Specula. This makes these 3 sources very true because they actually say why Beacon hammock is a Roman Specula.Source 8 also has several(prenominal) solitary(a) strengths, these are it is written by a published author, this is extremely reliable because a published author written material about history is very unlikely to be just making it up. withal source 8 isnt a written by an antiquarian so he isnt dyed for it being a Roman Specula. Finding out that about the Coritani tribe shows that they have done research, this is very reliable because it shows that they have researched on that point information so it is more likely to be true.The spoken communication used in source 8 also pay ups a definite answer, this makes it more reliable because it shows that they believe without a doubt that Beacon mound was a Roman Specula. in a flash I have terminate discussing the strengths I will now discuss the weaknesses in the sources. A weakness found in sources 2, 8 and 9 is that at that place is no clear evidence to support the theory of Beacon heap being a Roman Specula. Source 7 gives evidence why Beaco n Hill is a Roman Specula, the reason why this makes it slight reliable is that the evidence effrontery doesnt definitely prove that Beacon Hill was a Roman Specula.Source 8 has a different weaknesses to the one I have just discussed but very similar, the first one is the evidence of the spearhead and knife being found there, no one knows for sure if these are Roman or they could have just been locomote there from or sowhere else, the other one is that the Roman nettle found festering there could have spread from somewhere else. A lonesome weakness in source 2 is that the local historian is unilateral against it being Roman, this makes the source extremely fallible because he has already decided against it being a Roman Specula ahead evaluating the evidence. as well as source 9 has a couple of lonesome weaknesses, these are that it doesnt give actual reference to Beacon Hill and the other weakness is that the Roman thoroughfare doesnt go through Wollaston, this shows that t he Romans were near Wollaston but there is no proof that they were actually in Wollaston. Source 6 and 7 share a common weakness in that both the sources are written by a antiquarian, this makes the source somewhat little reliable because they are bias towards it being a Roman Specula.Source 8 shares a very similar weakness to the one I have just discussed because the author might have read antiquarian sources, this makes the sources less reliable because the antiquarian sources could have been biased towards Beacon Hill being a Roman Specula. I think there is a good guess that Beacon Hill was a Roman Specula because there is dissever of evidence to support this theory. The sources are also reliable because they are from history books and a official inventory.Motte and bailey castles were built in the twelfth speed of light. These were castles made of earth and wood which were relatively quick and easy to build. There are 4 sources that support the theory of Beacon Hill being a twelfth nose candy motte and bailey castle. The first source to support this theory is a local newspaper article entitled Its your village Wollaston . The endorse source to support this theory is a diagram of a typical motte and bailey castle from a school history textbook edition book.The third theory to support this theory is a report on shots of Beacon Hill carried out by a local archaeologist. The last source to support the theory of Beacon Hill being a motte and bailey castle is an extract from The Anglo Saxon Chronicle recording events of King Stephens persist 1135 1154. These 4 sources supporting the theory of Beacon Hill being a twelfth ascorbic acid motte and bailey castle all have reasons why they are reliable and why they arent reliable. To start off with I am going to say why the sources are reliable.Source 1 and 12 both have one common factor of why they are reliable and this is because they both say the right time for motte and bailey castles and also they say the right king of the time. This makes the sources very reliable because it shows they know their history. Source 1 also has a couple of lonesome strengths, the first one is that it is in a local newspaper, this makes the source very reliable because it is sharing local knowledge and is unlikely to lie. The instant strength is that it is by a life long local resident, this is reliable because they are likely to know the area well.Source 10 strengths are that it is in a school history text book, this makes the source more reliable because it teachers immature people so it is more likely to be true. The other strength is that it is a accurate picture of a motte and bailey castle, this makes the source very reliable because it shows that its knowledge of what motte and bailey castles looked like is correct. Source 11 also has some individual strengths, firstly the source is by a local archaeologist, this makes the source more reliable because archaeologists are likely to realis e all the evidence and come up with an unbiased answer.Also this source is reliable because the archaeologist has come up with evidence to support his theory, this being the twelfth century pottery throw down, also that there was a building on top of the hill, the hill was man-made and that the hill was the right height for a motte and bailey castle. Lastly source 12 has some lonesome strengths, firstly is that it is 1st hand experience (a primary source), this makes the source very reliable because it was written at the time of motte and bailey castle were built so they are likely to know what was happening around that time.Also it was kept by monks so it is reliable because they dont lie. Also it shows the need for castles at that time, this makes the source more reliable because it proves that castles were needed around that time. Now I have finished discussing why the sources supporting the theory of Beacon Hill being a 12th century motte and bailey castle are reliable, I will now discuss why the sources are unreliable. The sources 10 and 12 both have one common unreliable divisor in that both of them dont actually refer to Beacon Hill being a 12th century motte and bailey castle.Source 1 also has a very similar weakness in that it doesnt give every(prenominal) evidence towards why Beacon Hill is a 12th century motte and bailey castle. In source 1 the paper might wanting to make the town more iconic, this makes the source less reliable because they could just want it to be a 12th century motte and bailey castle and not actually believe it is. In source 11 the reason this source is less reliable is that just finding some 12th century pottery doesnt mean the mound was built at the same time.Also in source 11 the local archaeologist might be biased towards it being a 12th century motte and bailey castle, this makes the source less reliable because he might only see it from one point of view, this being that Beacon Hill is a 12th century motte and bailey c astle. The last unreliable member in source 11 is that it says that masses of rubble thrown down, this makes the source a little unreliable because rubble would be less likely for a 12th century motte and bailey castle, it would more likely to be wood.The last unreliability is that in source 12 it is written by monks, this makes the source slimly less reliable because monks dont travel so they wouldnt have been able to see where the motte and bailey castles were built. I think it is likely that Beacon Hill was a 12th century motte and bailey castle because there is lots of evidence to support this theory. Three of the sources used to support this theory are reliable because they are from a history book, a local archaeologists excavation and a recording of events kept by monks.The other source isnt as reliable because it is someones opinion. Signalling post were at the time of the Spanish Armada in 1588. When the Spanish Armada (ship) were close to England the signalling lays we re ways of sending a monition across the country. A series of double beacons (bonfires) were built on hill exceed so that when they were lit the smoke could be seen a long way off. individually beacon was lit in repeal as the smoke from its nearest inhabit became visible.There are two sources that support this theory source 1 which is article from the Wellingborough Evening Telegraph newspaper entitled Its your village Wollaston and source 2 which is from a history book Wollaston written by a local historian. These two sources both have strengths and weaknesses of why they are reliable. To start of with I am going to bawl out about there strengths. Source 1 is reliable because it is by a local resident so he is likely to know the area well and also he gives reasons to support his theory of Beacon Hill being a signalling pose in that it is high up.Also source 1 is reliable because it is in a local newspaper so they are sharing local knowledge and are unlikely to lie. The reas ons source 2 is reliable is that it is by a local historian so he is likely to know the area well, also he is likely to evaluate all the evidence, the other strength to the source is that it cross-references with source 3 covering that he has researched his information and if more than one source fit together the more likely they are to be true. To terminated this section of the theory of Beacon Hill being a signalling station I will now discuss the reasons why the sources supporting this theory are unreliable. both(prenominal) the sources share one common element of unreliability in that the both have no clear supporting evidence for it being a signalling station. Source 2 shares a very similar weakness to the one I have just discussed in that it doesnt actually give an answer of what Beacon Hill could be, it just discusses the possibilities of what it could be. In source 1 the paper could just want to make the town more iconic, this makes the source unreliable because they could be biased and publish the opinions of what the editor wants Beacon Hill to be.Lastly source 2 is unreliable because he is biased against it being Roman, this makes the sources less reliable because before he evaluates all the evidence he is already biased against one of the theories. I think the chance that Beacon Hill was a signalling station isnt that likely because there is hardly any evidence to support this theory, but this could be because all the evidence has been destroyed. The two sources supporting this theory arent that reliable as one is just someones opinion and the other just mentions it as a possible theory.For the terminal part of this piece of coursework I will write a conclusion about what I think Beacon Hill is. The theory of Beacon Hill being a Bronze Age barrow is the weakest theory as the sources I have gained have no reason basis why Beacon Hill could be a Bronze Age barrow. The sources all mention it as a possible theory or it is someones opinion without evidence. The flash theory of Beacon Hill being a signalling station is more likely but still isnt that likely.The sources supporting this theory have no substantial evidence for Beacon Hill being a signalling station, but unlike the Bronze Age barrow theory there is a reason of why Beacon Hill is a signalling station. Also there is a possible explanation of why there is no evidence for Beacon Hill being a signalling station and that is that all the evidence would have been destroyed. The third theory of Beacon Hill being a 12th century motte and bailey castle is the second most likely theory because this theory has evidence and reason why Beacon Hill was this.The last theory of Beacon Hill being a Roman Specula is the most likely out of the theories because there is lots of evidence of why Beacon Hill was a Roman Specula. Beacon Hill could have been anyone of these theories, but it also could have been used for more than one of these theories or even none of these theories and bee n something else. besides with a lack of sources and bias of some of the sources it makes it impossible to know what Beacon Hill was and until some new evidence is discovered Beacon Hills past will remain a mystery.