beacon hill

Authors Avatar
Beacon Hill

Beacon Hill is a mysterious feature that has baffled experts for many years and still no one has found a true answer. In this piece of coursework I am going to investigate why Beacon Hill was built. Beacon Hill is a man made mound which is situated in Wollaston in Northamptonshire.

There are 4 different theories for what Beacon Hill could be these are; a Bronze Age barrow, a Roman Specula, a 12th century motte and bailey castle and a signalling station of the time of the Spanish Armada. The Bronze Age barrow is a man made mound of stone, wood or earth piled over the remains of the dead. Roman Specula were fortresses used to protect themselves and their allies. A 12th century motte and bailey castle was a simple castle made out of earth and wood. The signalling station was the way that England could warn the rest of the country that the Spanish Armada was coming.

In this piece of coursework I will analyse a series of sources relating to Beacon Hill and what it could be. After analysing the evidence I will reach a conclusion to what I think Beacon Hill is based on the evidence.

Bronze Age barrows are man made mounds of stone, wood, or earth piled up over the remains of the dead, especially important people. Often possessions would also be buried. Bronze Age barrows were built between 2000BC and 1000BC.

There are 3 sources that support the theory of Beacon Hill being a Bronze Age barrow. Source 1 supports this theory, this is a article in a local newspaper entitled "It's your village - Wollaston. Also source 2 supports this theory, this is a history book called "Wollaston" written by a local historian. The last source that supports this theory is source 5, source 5 is a vicars opinion.

These sources both have reasons why they are and aren't reliable. Firstly I am going to discuss why the sources are reliable. Also source 2 shares a similar strength by the fact that it is written by a local historian, so he is likely to evaluate all the evidence and he also knows the area well. Another common factor between source 1 and 2 are that they are local articles, one a history book and the other a newspaper. They are sharing local knowledge, so that they are unlikely to lie. Source 2 is also very reliable because he cross-references with sources 3 and 7, so this shows that they have researched their information and are more likely to be right. Source 5 is very reliable because vicars are honest, he has an expertise in Bronze Age barrows, so he is likely to recognise a Bronze Age barrow and he is a local resident so he is likely to know the area well.

All these sources have weaknesses and one weakness common in all of them is that they have no clear supporting evidence to the theory of Beacon Hill being a Bronze Age barrow. Source 1 and 5 both just want it to be a Bronze Age barrow to make the village more iconic. Source 1 and 2 also have 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 biased towards it being Bronze Age barrow because he is interested in Bronze Age barrows and might just really want one near where he lives.

I think it is very unlikely that Beacon Hill is a Bronze Age barrow because there is no clear evidence supporting this theory e.g. no bones. The sources supporting this theory are very weak sources with an extreme lack of evidence.

Roman Specula's were built between 43AD and 407AD. Roman Specula's were built as fortresses used to protect the Romans and their allies (friendly native tribes) against those tribes who were their enemies.

There are 5 sources that support this theory; source 2 a history book called "Wollaston", source 6 is a book called "The Natural History of Northamptonshire", source 7 which is a extract from a book "The Annals of Wollaston" and lastly source 9 which is an inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Northamptonshire Volume 2 - Archaeological sites in Central Northamptonshire
Join now!


All the sources supporting Beacon Hill being a Roman 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 both antiquarians, which is a person fascinated with the remains of ancient people like the Romans, this is very reliable because they are likely to recognise a Roman Specula. A different strength, but a very similar strength to the one I discussed before is that source 2 and 8 are both written by local historians, this is very reliable because they are likely to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay