The Loch Urr Crannog. 245 



which still lingers, seems to be reminiscent of such a period. 

 That an intimate connection, for purposes of defence, existed 

 between the earthwork and the lake-dwelling can scarcely be 

 doubted. The two are little more than 300 yards distant from 

 each other, and we know that fortifications on land adjacent to 

 lake-dwellings are a more or less constant feature of such remains 

 elsewhere. 



Such are the details of the investigations at Loch Urr. I 

 am afraid the results, so far at least as relics are concerned, are 

 somewhat disappointing. No relics were found at the earthwork. 

 In lieu thereof I submit two samples of earth which may prove 

 of interest to the members [showing the white deposit of clay 

 and gravel over the black earth]. The relics found during 

 the excavations on the island are as follows: i, a flint flake; 2. 

 fragment of clay pottery; 3, fragment of red pottery; 4, other 

 small fragments of pottery; 5 and 6, two round stone balls. 



Through the kindness of Mr Barbour, all the specimens 

 were submitted to Dr Anderson. He reports that No. i shows 

 slight signs of use. That No. 3, the lip piece of pottery, 

 showing indications of having been made on the wheel, may be 

 of Roman times or later. Nos. 5 and 6 he pronounces 

 " natural." 



Is it possible with such slender data to form an opinion 

 as to the period to which the lake-dwelling at Loch Urr belongs? 

 I am afraid not. Dr Anderson's report favours the view that 

 it is post-Roman, and that is, perhaps, as far as we can go with 

 safety. That the Loch Urr lake-dwelling does not possess the 

 characteristic features of the crannog proper goes without saying. 

 I am disposed to favour the view that it is a natural island 

 artificially strengthened, but Mr Barbour sagely reminds me that 

 our early forefathers did not mind hard work, and it is perfectlv 

 possible that the main island, like the gangways, and in all 

 probability the small island also, are the work of man. 



I would only add that the thanks of the Society are due io 

 Mr William Kennedy Moffat of Craigenvey and Shillingland for 

 his kindness in sanctioning the excavations; to Mr Hepburn, 

 Liverpool, for the use of his boat; and to the Rev. T. Kidd, 

 Moniaive, for the photographs which accompany the report. 



Mr Barbour remarked that the presence of the stone 



