Subsequent to the first, another interment was made nearer the southwest side of the mound. Charred material was heaped over the body and an urn was placed amongst, but not covered with, the black deposit of charred wood. The tumulus was heaped up further till this second burial was covered with a foot of sand, then a causeyed pavement, 3 feet square, was laid right above it. From the inner edge of this pavement rows of pebbles were laid across the mound to where a third interment was made in circumstances similar to the last. The cairn was then further augmented by the addition of more sandy clay, till this deposit was covered with 16 inches and the pavement with 2 feet of soil. No osseous remains were seen in the deposits connected with the last two urns, but the probability is that both were associated with human interments like the primary burial. Although the two deposits were only about 2 feet in diameter, which may seem rather small a space in which to place a body unless that of a child, remains of skeletons, not cremated, accompanied by drinking-cup urns, have been found in cists of smaller area. The soil of the mound is free and open, and, as the two deposits were quite near the surface, it is not surprising that the bodies should decay and entirely disappear. Even of the primary interment, which was covered with 6 feet of soil, there was only a small handful of broken bones left. Also, the two urns were placed in the same relative positions to their accompanying deposits as the urn with the first burial. We are therefore, I think, justified in saying that there had been a body deposited with each urn.

It has not been demonstrated when the first-discovered and larger pavement was made, whether at the same time as the smaller one or after. No lines of stratification were observed in the mound, by which it might have been possible to say if the deposits were contemporary. The fact of there being only 6 inches of soil over the larger pavement and 2 feet over the smaller, does not point to different times for the construction of them, as soil heaped up in a mound is necessarily higher near the centre and thinner towards the edge, and the larger pavement was quite near the edge. However, as the stones used in the con

struction of both pavements are of the same kind, it is very likely that they were both laid at the one time.

It was conclusively shown that the mound had been increased after each burial. The tumulus had not been raised to its greatest height immediately after the first interment and before the other two, and openings afterwards made in it to receive the latter deposits. Had this been so, the sides of such excavations would have been clearly marked by the black material of the deposits, but there was no discoloration of the yellow sandy clay which immediately covered them.

We are unable to say whether the three burials were contemporary or not, but if it be the case that the material of the mound was brought from some distance-and there is no difference between the soil at the foundation and at the top-it would seem not improbable that all three were nearly contemporary, or at least belonged to one generation, as the persons who completed the mound must have been in touch with those who began it. But, if the first interment were made some time previous to the other two, it is almost certain that they took place about the same time. There can be little doubt that the smaller pavement was laid in connection with the second interment, and as the rows of pebbles connected it with the third burial, we may consider them to have been made about the same time and by the same persons.

It has been remarked that the six inches of soil covering the larger pavement was black, like leaf-mould, while at the other parts of the cairn the yellow material came practically to the surface; but we are unable to say whether this pavement was laid on the surface, or whether it had been sunk into the surface and left exposed for some special purpose. If laid on the surface it would point to the mound having increased by some inches all over, by the accumulation of decayed vegetation. The operations of burrowing animals would account for the difference in colour of the soil above the pavement and on the other parts of the surface of the mound; at all parts except above the pavement the decayed vegetation would be mixed with the underlying yellow sand. If the pavement had originally been

VOL. XL.

19

sunk slightly and the stones left bare, falling leaves would have lodged in the hollow, and as they decayed would have filled it up gradually while they were blown away from the rest of the mound.

It is not known what was the purpose of the pavements or of the rows of pebbles, and the occurrence of them in the Forglen mound in connection with Bronze Age burials seems to be unique so far as Great Britain is concerned. The only example which bears a slight resemblance to it, so far as I can ascertain, is mentioned in Mr John Smith's Prehistoric Man in Ayrshire, p. 29, fig. 35, where he says that, according to the New Statistical Account of Ayrshire, under a sand mound at Dubbs, in the parish of Stevenston, in 1832, a causeway, 18 feet in length and 2 feet in breadth, was discovered; at one end of the causeway was a large stone about a ton in weight, and at the other end a stone coffin, 3 feet long and 2 feet broad, which contained two urns and five jet buttons.

The Society is indebted to Mr Abercromby for kindly allowing the urns and other relics to be exhibited.

II.

NOTICES OF STANDING STONES, CISTS, AND HITHERTO UNRECORDED CUP-AND RING-MARKS IN VARIOUS LOCALITIES. BY F. R. COLES, ASSISTANT-KEEPER OF THE MUSEUM.

No. 1. Standing Stones at North Glassmount, Kinghorn. This site, which was visited in June 1903 in company with Mr W. C. Dymond, is nearly a quarter of a mile south-west from the residence of the Rev. W. Jardine Dobie, at North Glassmount. The

Fig. 1. Standing Stones, North Glassmount; ground-plan.

Stones stand on the flattish summit of a gently rising old pasture; and the ground immediately surrounding their bases is slightly suggestive of an artificially-made higher level. This difference in level, however, is so faintly discernible that no demarcation of the nature of a circumference can be observed, and at a few yards' distance from the Stones the summit (if artificial) merges imperceptibly into the natural incline of the ground. The height above sea-level is over 500 feet.

A space 19 feet 2 inches in width separates the two Stones, this measurement being taken at about the middle of each Stone vertically, and from the north angle of Stone A to a point on the inner face of B exactly east by compass, from the point on A. Both Stones are vertical, this uprightness having been ensured by a packing of small stones, several of which are still in situ at the base of the East Stone.

Several others lie in proximity to the Stones, evidently loosened out of their original positions by the feet of cattle.

The West Stone (A on ground-plan, fig. 1) is a well-set-up, rather smooth-sided block of a very quartziferous rock; indeed the greater portion of it seems to be white quartz. It rests upon a rhomboidal base which girths 10 feet 8 inches. The outer side is almost truly vertical, and a line extended parallel with this side points 23° west of polar north. Its height above the general level of the ground in the area is 6 feet 2 inches; and its greatest girth (see the view, fig. 2) is 12 feet

Fig. 2. Standing Stones, North Glassmount.

8 inches. Close beside it, to the south, lies a heavy block of the same quartzitic stone, about 2 feet 6 inches square and 1 foot 4 inches above ground.

The East Stone has also its smoothest and most vertical side facing the outside. Its basal girth is 12 feet 8 inches, and at 21 inches up, where it seems broader, the girth is only wider by 1 inch. In height this Stone is 5 feet 7 inches. We had considerable doubt as to its mineralogical character, its rough and reddish exterior at first suggesting a sandstone; but on afterwards seeing blocks in situ near the Stonyhall Hill exactly resembling it, but indubitably much-weathered whinstone, I am convinced this Standing Stone is of the same material. Several sharply defined small circular hollows can be observed on all its