5. _Subsidence of Crannog._--In discussing the question regarding the Lochlee crannog I had to contend with an element of very great uncertainty, viz., the impossibility of ascertaining how much of the apparent sinking of the crannog was due to the rising of the level of the lake in consequence of the filling up of the bed of the outlet. This doubtful element is, however, entirely eliminated from the problem as it is presented to us at Lochspouts. Whatever alterations may have taken place in the position of the outlet, one thing is certain, that the tendency could never be to raise the level of the lake. Hence, if we can fix on the position of the natural outlet when the artificial cutting was made, the minimum amount of subsidence of the crannog resolves itself into simply measuring the height of this point above the present surface of the log pavement. I use the word _minimum_, because, to determine the actual amount, other two elements have to be considered, both of which tend to magnify the amount of subsidence, viz. (1) How much the surface of the crannog was originally above water; and (2) the amount of lowering of the lake, due to frictional erosion of the water at the outlet, during the interval between the founding of the crannog and the date of the artificial cutting of the rock. For the present I entirely exclude both these elements; so that the solution of the problem depends on the practicability of ascertaining the height of the lowest natural outlet above the level of the log pavement. I believe the primary outlet was at the extreme east end of the barrier, where it disappears into the hillside. Here is to be seen a large deep opening, naturally scooped out of the rock; the lowest portion of which is only 16-1/2 feet above the present level of the lake. It was, however, found, on measurement, that a lower natural outlet was just in the site of the present artificial cutting. The upper portion of the latter is wide, but about 14 feet from the running water it contracts into a narrow channel with perpendicular sides, and the sole difficulty is to determine where nature ended and art began. If we suppose that the whole of this narrow channel was artificially cut, then the lake must have been lowered to a corresponding extent. This, however, may be beyond the mark, as in the course of time the water itself would make a similar channel. After repeated and most careful inspections of this spot, I am inclined to fix the minimum amount of cutting at 10 or 12 feet. Based, therefore, on the lowest estimate, the original surface of the crannog must have subsided over 10 feet, as it is now just on a level with the lake water. RELICS.