notes on Clifford’s tower. 69 
260-288. It is simply proposed to record here—(1) the general 
conclusions arrived at as the result of observation made 
during the progress of the work, (2) the nature of the work 
undertaken, (3) a few details respecting observations made 
and objects discovered. 
(1) General Conclusions. These may be very briefly 
stated. The mound is an artificial one : cuttings made in the 
sides at a distance of 25ft. from the boundary wall towards the 
centre failed to shew any natural core. A trench 15ft. Gin. 
deep was sunk within the keep, and a boring was made 
1 oft. Gin. from the bottom of this trench. Both trench and 
boring, which together went down to within 10ft. of the ground 
level, revealed nothing but loose made soil. At a depth of 
13ft. in this trench and again at 15ft. Gin. were found remains 
of timber work that point to the existence of a wooden fortifi¬ 
cation preceding the existing shell keep and built on a smaller 
mound. This mound has been increased to its present dimen- 
.sions with great care and with enormous labour. In order to 
give the newer mound stability, an outer crust of firmer and 
more clayey material has been made round the older summit, 
and lighter material has been placed inside this crater to 
bring it up to the necessary level. The occurrence of a con¬ 
siderable quantity of charred wood above the lower series of 
timber remains, indicates that the wooden fortifications have 
suffered from fire. It would scarcely be rash to assume that 
it was the first castle of the Conqueror, burnt in the revolt of 
1069. The existence of a second layer of timber work seems 
to shew that the fortification thus destroyed was rebuilt in 
wood. This is quite consistent with the assertion that the 
second castle was completed in eight days. 
The objects found in the course of excavation help very 
little chronologically, for they were scattered confusedly, and 
most were found in the lateral cuttings. Roman pottery was 
found in fairly considerable quantity. But this does not 
necessarily prove that the mound was used by the Romans. 
The pottery may have been in the soil excavated, and brought 
up by the Norman builders to enlarge the mound. That a 
mound existed in Celtic times is very probable; the oldest 
known name of the city Abcrach or Evrach, “ the mound of the 
