Contents

Summary

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusions

Fi,uu res
6.1 Map: O.S. Edinburghshire 1. 13. 1893. Scale 1:2500
6.2 Plan of Wallcd Garden. Surveyed squares and linear array lines. Scale 1: 1250
6.3 Cramond 1
6.3.1 Resistive Plot. Acea Survey squares C 3 and C X
6.3.2 Linear Array PIol
6.4 Cramond 2
6.4.rResistive Plot. t b e a Survey squares G7 - (314
6.4.2 Linear A m y Plot

References
7.1 J.Terry Crarnond Kirk Hall Archaeological Assessn~cnl
Iliscovery and Excava~ionin Scotland, 1998

7.2 J.Tel1-y An Archaeological Evalunlion Reporl for a proposed building extension to

Cra~nondKirk I-IaII. Cramond, City 01' Edinburgh, October 1098.
Headland i 4 ~ c h ~ o l 0 gLld
y

7.3 M,T)alland An ArchaeologicaI Excavation nf a proposed building extension 10

Cramond Kirk I-Iall, Cramond. City 01' Edimburgh, March 2001,
I-leadImd ArchaeoIogy L L ~

AcknowIedgemen ts
8.1 Historic Scorlancl for permission Lo conduct the survey over part of Lhe Scheduled
~Mo~li~menlarea and for grant aid lowards expenses

8.2 City of Edinburgh Council ,JI~haeologicalService for permission to survey over the
ground owncd by the City

8.3 Headland Archaeology (Mr. Magnar Dnlland) for a copy of the Excavation Repon for
200 1

8.4 Dr. B n ~ c eHobbs. Universily of Edinburgh Depl of Geology 2nd Geophysics for
carrying out the linear m a y r~leasiu-ementsand supplying prinlours

8.5 Mr. KR bIu~-dochfor editing and preparing this report for publication

Printed I>!, Trunscolour (Scotland) Lid, South Gylc, Edinburgh

 EDINBURGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SOCIETY
f'

Archaeolo~icalInvestigalion in the Walled Garden -

at Clramond.
- - Fdinhurph

Two area ground resismce surveys were canietl out to the east of the lioman for1 at Crarnond. The
first abutted the oulside of Lhc north wall oc he walled garden and comprised a m a l l grassed area
with the Church hall car park on Ilic north side, [he second was within the north walled garden. The
prime purpose was to see whether cvidence cc)uld be found of the vicus which reputedly lies to the
east of the fort.

The inilia1 survey. using a twin probe system, showctl paths and features that could be related to
those shown on the O.S. (25 inch lo I mile) map of the garden. see Fig. 6.1. Within the walled
earden some higher resistance areas d ~ not
L
d appear to relatc to the Victorian garden paths but equally
did not interpret as obviously Kornan liatuseh.

As it was thought possible that Kormn lealures were deeper than the asen ground resistance equip-
ment could detect, i l was arrangcd h a t a limited linear array resista~~ce
survcy be carried out lo a
greaterdepth, Two transects wcrc made. the first was angled northwest from thc area 011 the north of
the garden and this appears to h a w crossed the ditches and fort wall confirming their detectability
and depth. The second was within the garden on its northwest side and shows no archaeological
fealures except a topsoil that becomes deeper to the east over a slop in^ subsoil.

With the completion, in Decernber 2001 of the archaeological dig by thc Society between thc Ro-
nian fort and bnlhhouse Lo the north. it was kIt that knowledge o f the extent of Ronlari activities
around the fort might bc provided by geophysical survey in accessible areas. A I-equest to Historic
Scollantl Ibs permission to conduct suweys in fous arcas within the scheduled monument was granted
as was permission li-om the Cily of Edinburgh Council the owners of ihe garden. The area within the
North Walled Garden and the small area lo its north are the first two of the four lo be surveyed.

Both of h e areas surveyed were part of the formally laid out garden of Cramond House as depiclcd
iri [he 1893 map (Fig.6.1). The gardens were cultivated until at least 1948 as shown in the CUCAP
aerial photograph of thal date. Part of the area was ncquircd by the City of Edinburgh Council who-
~ ~ c e n t conslrucled
ly a childrcns playground in the riorthern cnd of the walled garden. h'losl of the
remaining area of' ihe garden is now grassed but 1111'ecclerclict buildings stand against its southern
wall within an eleven metre: wide strip of tall uncut weeds.

The walled garden lies to the cast of Cramond Church a1 NC;R N T 1901 7682.
GeoIogically it is wilhin the Lower. Oil Shale Group o f ~ h Carboniferous
c Series and stands on the
eastern edge oCn band of Ravelston Sandstone that n ~ n :~pproximalely
s north-south and can be seen
outcropping beside the road to the north of the Cramond Inn. From excawlion carried out by the
Society between the Roman fort and the bathlioi~se[lie solid gcology is known to be oves1;lid by
fluvio-glacial deposits of clay and till. The walled garden was culrivateci for a considerable period
arid may have been levelled by the addition of topsoil. No recent excavation has been conducted in
this area but the resistive linear array nieasi~~.e~ilents
suggest t h a ~the lopsoil depth is sonie 1.51~1.
becoming shallower on the western side. P

3. Method
m

The arcu ground I-esistance rneasurenierits were carried oul using a TlUCIA Resistauce h M e r and
~iiobileprobe frame with lhe data slored within the nieler and later down loaded via [he RS 232
interface to a cornpuler running [he TR/CIA iritedacc sot'lware.

Probe spacing on the mobile frame is 0.51ii a i d rexlings were ~ a k e nat 1 .On1 i~i~ervals.
The renioce
probes were located 20.0111 from [he arcas being surveyed but of necessi~yrequired to be moved
during the course of tlie rnain set ot'nicasuremenls wilhin lhc walled garden. Adjus~mentwas made
to the spacing of the reposilionerl remote probcs LO give a conlparable resistance reading on [he
~nelerto [ha[ taken at their previous position with uiy minor errors being laken out by the computer
'edge-rnalching' prograrn.

The plan of the walled garden wilh the positions of Ihe 20 by 20ni survey squares and linear irrray
lines with au outline ol' the Roman fort. \vaIl and tlilches is shown i n Fig. 6.2. The baselinc Eroni
GS and G b were laid out is the csterjor north face oE the wall of the walled zarden.
tvhich scl~~ares
The baseline for lhe squares within the walledgnrden was a line I lmfrom the face ofthe south wall;
this was clone so [hat all measuremenis were mirife over the grassed area clear of the uncur strip
including the derelict buildings. Fortuitously the base line a1 this point is horn in length.

The first linear array survey was laid out with its star[ point (0.0)at the mid point o f ~ h north
e side of
sq~lai-eG5. The gap between the end ot'the u:all (ha1 abuls G5 on the wesl and the tarnlac car park
is narrow and thz array line was laid nu1 a1 an angle of 43 dcgsees to the north faces of G5 and G6
to go ~hroughthe middle of this gap. Twenty-five probes were inserted ar nielre iiitervals with a
coniputer controlling a1 which probes current was injected and from which probcs voltage readings
were taken fbr conversion into ground resistance rnensurerncnts. The cornp~~tei- progranunt. arranged
thal 92 readings were taken using different probe combinations and spacing in order to obtain a
scction ground sesistance plot lo a depth of 4ni along he line of the tnlnsect. The line u7asextended
in lwo 7111secrions and the readings collated by the conipules to give an el'feclivc section line Iengrh
of 38111.

The second linear array nieasurelnenl was laken along the norlliern edge of squares G I0 and part of
GI1; this consisted o f a single sel o f 9 2 rexlings belween the 25 probes.

4 1 1 ot'the linear array readings were Laken and lhe computer printo~itss ~ ~ p p l i by
c d L)r Bruce Hobbs
oC tlie University of Edinburgh Ikparlnient of Geology and Geophysics.

4. Results

G5 and C;6 is sllown in Fig. 6.3.1. for squares C;7 lo G14 in Fig. 6.4.1
The I-esisrive plot ol'sq~~nres
and the two linear array rneasu~-ernentsare Fig. 6.3.2 and Fig 6.4.2 respeclively.

The cquare G6 was incomple~edue to encroach~nenlof thc tarmac car park and part of tbc area
being used by a sculptor. The low resistance on Ihe weslcrri side of G5 represents [he line of thc 31n
wide \valkway lint is the currcnl foolpath Ihrnugh thc gardcn and which is shown on thc IS93 O.S.
map. Its in-egular. curve lo the east and its bifurcation is diffic-ult lo esplain in terms of indicated
paths. The section that appears to make a right-angled lurn lo the wesl is also inexplicable in relalion
to the featil~won the map. The higher resistance thal runs wcst\vards across GG and curves north in
G5 fits well with a footpalh shoiv11on lhc map but, the reason for $is smaller path appearing as a
high resistance whik thc main walkway is lower resistance than average caniio~_bere'rrdily ex-
plained.
s

Presence of apparently only Victorian Sealul-es in the a m surveys raised a question on the depth of
the Ro~uanvicus remains, if any, and indeed whether they would be delected by linearal.ray rneas-
~~rements. The 'Cramond 1' linear array line was laid out lo see whether any remains would appear
a1 a depth greater than 0.7Sni on the north side of C;5 and to estend north-westerly over where i t was
espected [hat the easlcrn ditches and wall of the Roman fort should be found. No fearures appear
in~n~ediately on the north side of GS but it was confirmed that fealures did appear where the dilches
and wall were to be expected.

The surveyed squarcs within the uialIed garden show lhc continuation of ihe low resistance on the
western side representing the line of the walkway and a high resistance line up the middle on the line
of the footpath 011 thc 1893 map. The part of the garden that abuts the eastern wall appears in part to
show the path that runs beside i l un the 1893 map bul is more confused with two low resistance areas
between the path and wall at the southern end and vaguely higher resistance rectangles further north.
The 'Craniond 2' Iincar array nleasurernenl that was taken a10113the northern border of G I 0 and
pmt of GI1 shows only gcologica1 fealul-es;this confirms the lack ol'archaeological-feati~resin thc
area survey.

11should be noted that the colour scales ~ q m s e n t i n gdiferenl levels of' ground resistance in the I-wo
linear array printouts arc not identical. No grouncl resistances measured within the garden are as high
as that which aligns wit11 the espected position of the wall in 'Cramond 1'.

The detection of the 1893 paths both within and to the norlh of thc walled garden is to be espected
in the area survey as thc wcstern path still esisls; the higher resistance lines representing the smallcr
paths presumably indicating paving still esisling below the turf. Thc hct thal the Innin west side
walkway is of lower resistance on both printouts may indicate a robbed out path that was bedded
into clay and is thus slill water retentive. The apparent turn ~hroupha right angle westwards at its
northern end may indicatk that, priur to 1893, there was a pathway along the no~thernside of the area
marked "Marise" on the map. The rough sandstone wall un the westcrn side of squaw G5 could have
been extended to block this access.

The eastern turning par1 of the low resistance walkway could possibly be relaled to the Roman road
leading out ofthe east gateway that Terry (Ref. 1 ) comments "did not appear on the eastern side of
l i and could thus have turned shaspIy right under the church hall". From his Fig. 1 in
the c h ~ ~ r chall
Ref. 2 it would seem that the tiirll was not overJy acule and the eastern turn could. nwl-e likely, be
associated with a drive or walkway from the stables of Cramond House? which were on the site of
the church hall. This too is problematic since the main stable esil appears to have been 011 the north
side. The north-soulh ditch that hc records on the east side of the hall is angled si~chthal. even if it
continued southwards. the area survey (square GG) would not intersect it.
Beween the high resistance path and the low resistance walkway within the garden no featu~xs
appear i n either the area survey or the 'Cramond 2' linear array measurement.
'The latter shows a subsoil sloping to the east thal is of lower resistance than the topsoil, presumably
indicating greater water reledon at lhis dcplh. This compares with thc Trench H excavation. made
by the Society 250m lo the noslh ivhcre running ivater was lbund in a beach sand level over glacial
clays and below all topsoil and archacoiogical levels.
P
Lack orarchaeologica1 fealurcs may indicale lhal no vicus building was permitted u:lth!n Son?of the
rort or that wooden vicus buildings wcrc no1 detected.
s

To the east ofthe central foolpalh i n the wallcd garden the m a l l areas of highes resistance do no1 all
relate lo [he footpath that is shown running close to the wall in the O.S. map. Whether these were
garden I'eat~~res or ivhethes they date from an earlier-pesiod is unknown. The reason Car the low
resistance areas betweer1 thecastern path arid the wall is similarly unknowr~but could represent the
position of lean-10 greenhouses against (his cast wall.

The only cleasly Roman I'ealurcs appeiir in the lincar array rneasilreIncnt 'Cramoud 1' Fig 6.3.2;
his gives the view 01' an observer standing lo thc NE lo view the scction.

The outer ditch lies between tlic 5 and 91n poinls fro111Ihc 0.0 start point. The infill of the dirch
appears in the middle range ol' resistivily in 0hm.m will1 quite a sharp cut into the lower resistivity
subsoil r t l the 9m mark: this presumably rcprcsents high water relention i n the subsoil into which [he
ditch was cut. The dirch deplh below prcscnt ground lcvcl is just ovcr U r n . Cornnienl is made by
Dalland (Ref:.?) of the high wakr table found i r ~Ihc cscavalion of a trench to a depth of' I .4m. east
of the church liall.

The inner ditch lies betwecn thc 17 and 21m poinls and has bccn d u to ~ ~ h lcu l l depth or deeper than
the survey ctetecled (4.01n).Between thc IWO dilchcs the walcr rctcntivc subsoil rises to wilhin about
1.51~1or the presenl ground surface; abovc this thc lopsoil rcsistancc incrcascs with some higher
resistance material ( ?demolition debris) in ils uppcr layers.

A large high resismce area between the 24 and 301npoinls fils witti the expccled position ol'the fort
wall and must represent wall footings and dcr~iolitiondebris i'ro~ntlic presumed post-Roman rob-
bing of the wall. The v c ~ ysmall high rcsis~anccreco~clcdal [he edge of thc plot a1 the 36m poinl
could indicate building remains wilhin lhe fort 211 a dcpth of about Im bclow present ground level.
The Roman featuses ol'dilchcs. wiill arid possible building within thc fort wcrc delcctcd well hy the
linear array mensu~.ernentsarid would appear to co11Ti1-rn[ha[ had anything similar cx~slcdto the easl
oC [lie rorl w i t h i n Lhe wallccl gnrdcn il would have been detcctcd.

Par1 of the outer ditch would bc cxpected lo 1*u11under the norhwcst corncr of the square GS ot'the
area survey but it was not c1etectccl. The for1 drawing indicates a morc southerly exit from the fort on
the erisr side which could mean that the ditches were bridged at this poi111in the cor~ierof squarc G5.
The linear array rneasurcmerlt. in showing that this ditch was dug to a depth of jusl over 2 . 5 ~and1
infilled with material ol'average ~*esis!a~ice. probably indicates why il was not detected i n the arca
survey which can only word to n ~naximurndepth 01' 0.75111.
These conclusions arc ol' necessit y tentative as they are Ii~ni~edby the t ~ cthal
l the invesiigatiorl was
non-intrusive and reslricled Lo gi-ound resistonce measurements. Confirmation of the conclusions is
only likely lo be obtained by excavation.