Loch Awe crannog numbers
Why do people change numbering? Because it fits in with the classification they are doing at the time.
We (Mcs/NACSAC) just numbered up one side of the loch and down the other, starting from where we'd seen the first crannog.
In Ian's case, he, a geographer/geomorphologist by training, was seeing the loch as a tilting waterway for crannog users. Crannog numbers should run in parallel either side of the loch, he felt, as that was how they best illustrated his idea that the absolute crannog heights along the loch showed the effect of post-glacial isostatic recovery.
The RCAHMS was doing its survey of monuments by regions. Loch Awe falls into more than one region. The region they were doing at the time included, I think, eight crannogs, so they got numbered as a unit. Then when the next region appeared, those crannogs got their numbers as another unit – but still keeping a total of 20 crannogs in the entire loch.
It's probably best for the future to stick with the RCAHMS's numbers, as their Inventories are classic reference works. But as all our records refer to our own numbers, we just didn't get round to changing them. Besides, we feel that we have first call!