Transactions. 39 



deep, at others over 3 feet. If it were a mere foundation, why 

 should it slope consistently outwards and downwards 1 



2. If a retaining wall, may it not as well have protected 

 something within as have been intended to keep the overlying clay 

 from rolling 1 Clay, of all natural substances, is self-supporting 

 enough. 



3. The huge mass of clay thins away so evenly into a rounded 

 summit that I cannot think — even allowing for ploughing, &c., &c. 

 ■ — it could have afforded space enough for the occupants of a fort. 



4. The absence of the boulder wall on the river-side and all 

 round the outer scarp surely denote that the intention of the 

 builders of this mound was not warlike or defensive. If not a 

 fort, I think the evidence leans towards the conclusion that this 

 was a grave-mound. Stress must be laid ui^on the nature and 

 position of the wall of granite boulders together with the depth of 

 the trench. The latter, when probed along the centre of the N. 

 side, showed that there was a mass of forced soil 4 ft. 6 in. deej) 

 above its original level and 6 feet deep at the due E. centre of 

 trench. The tide, no do^^bt, once easily filled this trench, and 

 was used, possibly, to lave the tomb of some hardy Norseman who 

 had pointed his prows up the CJrr eight hundred years ago — 

 who knows? 



Of Norse occupation there is ample evidence, and the form 

 and nature of this mound are extremely similar to those of one 

 figured in Du Chaillu's " Viking Age." 



The notion that the boulder wall may have been thus a sort 

 of breakwater is shared with me by others well able to judge of 

 stone work — one of them a practical mason. 



Take it all in all — size, form, contours, composition, site, and 

 peculiarities — this Mound at Little liichorn may, on comj^lete 

 excavation, prove to be what I have suggested, a Norse Grave- 

 Mound. 



6th Fehruanj, 1892. 



Mr James Barbour, V.-P., in the chair. 



New Member. — Dr Matthias, Nunholm. 



Donations. — Seven numbers in Botany of the Transactions of 

 the Linnjean Society for 1891, and two numbers in Zoology, j)re- 



