All of the mountain is made up of large stones, from we began walking (1200 m above sealevel) and all the way up to the top cat 1887 m above sealevel.

Such a big group of stones/rock can impossible have been built up by something else than by an eruption. No icecaps, flows or whatsoever. They have to come through a volcano. As I've tried to show on the drawing above, the right side of the ridge is not steep, only about 60-70 degrees.But on the back-side, it goes almost vertical down. To me it looked like left sector of the ridge on the back was curved (arc), looking like half of a crater (cone). In the bottom of this 'crater', there were a collection of rock which looked much alike basalt(?) - at least something like the picture below, which comes from a place abroad. Only difference was that the color of those here were greyish, like the rock/stones around.

Next picture show the ridge, and that side the rest of the 'crater' ought to be.
Find it difficult not to compare with the Bachelor volcano on your side of the Atlantic.....

Don't tell me its from the Ice-age some ten thousand years ago. So why doesnt anybody say that the mountain called 'Gaustatoppen' is an old volcano, that some time had an eruption, so that part of the summit dissapeared as with Mt.St.Helens, and the rest fall down into the vent. Half of the cone was left, and that explains the sharp edge of the ridge. All this consists solely of big or small rock/stones, and nowhere on the way up and down I could see naked mountainrock up in the daylight. So why???

Who has the answer? Any of the volcanologs or geologs out there having some sparetime to look into the matter, and whom will try to explain to an 'amateur' what he doesn't know?

View from half way up, here also only stones/boulder rocks