Contents

1. Summaiy

2. Introduction

3 . Method

4. Results

5. Conclusions

6. Acknowledgements

7. Illustrations
7.1. Plan of Cramond showing surveyed areas.
7.2. Satellite Navigation measured positions.
7.3. Resistance Printout Tower Spinney
7.4. Resistance Printout Kirk Cramond
7.5. Survey squares Kirk Cramond and earlier excavations
7.6. Resistance Printout. South of Cramond Tower

8. References
8.1. Archaeological Investigations in the Walled Garden, Cramond, Edinburgh
HMD Jones EAFS Geophysics Occasional Paper No 1
8.2. Geophysical Investigation in the Parkland to the East of Cramond House,
Edinburgh. December 2004. HMD Jones EAFS Occasional Paper No 10
8.3. The Roman Fort at Cramond. A and V Rae.
8.4. Excavation of Roman sites at Cramond, Edinburgh. N. Holmes
8.5.Drifl Geology B.G.S. NT 17 hE 1:10560
8.6. Solid Geology B.G.S. NT 17 NE 1:10560
8.7. Plan of Cramond. Property of the Rt Hon Lady Torphichen
Thomas Bauchop surveyor. 1815
8.8. Historic Cramond Management and Interpretation Plan 2003.
Final Report for City of Edinburgh Council. M. McGlynn Associates.
8.9. A design for the improvement of Cramond, the seat of Sir John Inglis Bart.
Thomas White 1797
8.10. An Archaeological Excavation of a proposed building extension to Cramond
Kirk Hall, Crarnond, City of Edinburgh. Magnar Dalland. Headland Archaeology
 EDINBURGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SOCIETY

Geophvsical Suivey of two sites

in Cramond, Edinburgh

1. Summary

A ground resistance survey to the north of Kirk Cramond road, that extended over the
wall and northern exit from the fort, confirmed that landscaping or stone robbing had
removed all trace of the fort wall. The stone lined gutter on the west side of the Via
Praetoria that ran north out of the fort was still visible at one point and a linear high
resistance detected further to the north, on the same line, suggests that it continues
some 5.Om but not to the edge of the surveyed square. A section of gutter crossing this
road was possibly detected as a high resistance. A linear low resistance, at least 25m
long, runs north on the western side of the surveyed area and appears parallel with a
trench excavated by Holmes in 1975. A low resistance line that cuts across the north-
east corner is on the line of the current footpath. A high resistance strip, over 20m
along on the southern edge, can only be suggested as demolition debris.

The survey in the Cramond Tower spinney shows a low resistance that enters the
property from the east and curves round towards the pond which has previously been
shown to be on the line of a Roman ditch. A low resistance that crosses roughly north-
south across the survey, 35m fi-om the east end, appears to align with the old main
drain that runs downhill from the 1680 Cramond House.

Permission was given in 2001 by Historic Scotland, for the Society to conduct
geophysical surveys in four places within the Scheduled Monument Area at Cramond.
Three of these had previously been completed, two in September 2002 and one in the
autumn of 2004 (Refs. 8.1 and 8.2). The survey of the fourth area was made over the
northern edge of the Roman fort in an area known to have been much disturbed. Rae
and Rae (Ref. 8.3) comment that ground levelling had removed soil down to Roman
levels, this was done in at least two stages, the first by Sir John Inglis in the late 1 8 ~
century and a later demolition in 1826. In addition to the Raes' investigation in the
area other trenches had been dug, the first two by Holmes in 1975 and the others by
the Society (A,B and C Illus.7.5) across the area to the west of the Rae excavation.
The ground surveyed lies to the north of the Kirk Cramond road and its grass verge
and small belt of trees. The survey was limited in area by these, by the considerable
amount of undergrowth and trees adjacent to Glebe Road and by a further belt of trees
running approximately east-west some 20m north of the original position of the
Roman fort wall. The survey comprised four 20 by 20m squares with one corner
curtailed by the tree belt alongside Kirk Cramond. This survey was completed over
the weekend 3 - 4 September 2005 and formed the Society's contribution to Scottish
Archaeology Month; public interest in the equipment and the purpose of the survey
was high. Prior to the survey two days had been spent clearing undergrowth to make
the area accessible. A plan of Cramond, showing the positions of the surveyed squares
in both this area and that beside Cramond Tower is shown in Illus. 7.1.

Cramond Tower lies outwith the Scheduled Monument Area. When a pond was dug
in the garden the owner gave the Society an opportunity to check for archaeological
remains; a short length of ditch and Roman pottery were found. The Roman ditch
section was later confirmed by Holmes (Ref. 8.4). The 2004 geophysical survey made
to the east of Cramond House by the Society (Ref. 8.2) found a low resistance running
east fiom Cramond House along the edge of the Devensian raised beach; resistive
linear array measurements across this line later confirmed the low resistance to have a
ditch-like profile. Three partly curtailed 20 by 20m squares were area resistance
surveyed, in the Cramond Tower spinney, in order to see whether the low resistance
line to the east continued towards the Tower. The survey within the Tower grounds
was made on 20 August. A request was made by the owner that undergrowth should
not be cleared in the Tower grounds. Compliance with this request required dummy
readings to be inserted in those areas that were heavily overgrown. Due to the
cultivated area of garden, trees, shrubs and the pond the most westerly square of the
three surveyed was limited to a strip 4 by 20m.

The drift geology of the area (pef.8.5) indicates that the raised beach is about 50A.
above M.S.L.and, after running in a straight line approximately east-west on the
parkland to the east of Cramond House, curves to the north-west so that Cramond
Tower stands on its northern edge. The raised marine deposits are till and beach
gravels overlying boulder clays. The solid geology (Ref 8.6) to the west of a fault that
runs NNW-SSE some 50m to the east of Cramond House is a belt of Craigleith
sandstone but the indications are that it lies at such a depth that it would not be
detected in the survey.

3. Method

The TR/CIA area ground resistance measuring equipment was used to mqke both of
the surveys described. The equipment is used in the 'twin' configuration in which two
probes are mounted on a portable frame spaced 0.5m apart. They comprise one
current input and one potential measurement probe. Two remote probes, again one for
current input and the other for potential measurement, are inserted approximately
1.Om apart and positioned so that no reading is taken nearer than 15m to them.
Readings were taken at 1.Om intervals in 1.Om wide lanes proceeding zigzag in each
20 by 20m square to record the 400 readings. Where trees, impenetrable undergrowth
or paved areas were encountered dummy readings were inserted which appear as
white areas in the printouts. The unit on the moving frame generates the 137Hz
current that flows through the ground and is detected by the potential measurement
probes. Also within the unit is the display that shows the reading being taken and the
store into which the data is dumped for later analysis. The 0.5m spacing ofthe probes
on the frame results in ground resistance being recorded to a depth of between 0.5 and
0.75m. After the surveys were completed the data was downloaded from the store via
the RS232 interface and printed out using a computer and printer running the TRICIA
programme. The print is in grey scale with black and white limits chosen based upon
the highest and lowest ohms readings recorded. It is normal practice to print high
resistance (paving and wall footings) as black and low resistance (infilled ditches and
damp areas) as white. The programme has a facility to average between adjacent
squares so that the printout shows smoother gradation than would be the case if the
pixel size was not reduced from the 1.Om squares by this process.

The position of the three squares surveyed in the Crgmond Tower spinney are defined
by their relationship to the boundary fence (and thus the squares surveyed in Ref 8.2)
and the most westerly square in its proximity to the Tower House. Due to the
limitation of the width of the site and the dense undergrowth at the eastern end, the
remote probes were inserted outside the spinney area being surveyed. Their position
on the grass verge on the north side of the drive into Cramond House with the
connecting lead trailed over the fence gave, for all readings, the required 15m
minimum distance between remote and moving probes.

The survey beside Kirk Cramond road, over the northern wall of the Roman fort, was
less easy to measure in from fixed points and therefore a number of satellite
navigation readings were taken at the corners of the four 20 by 20m squares. A
Differential Global Positioning system was not available and tree cover was such that
there was some variation in ordinary Sat-Nav readings. The squares were laid out
based upon the grid system used previously by the Society during the excavation of
trenches A to H (report in preparation). The nominal east-west axis of the grid lies
parallel to the north wall of the fort.

Three Sat-Nav position readings were taken at each of the eight corners of the squares
measured, the ninth corner lay within the tree belt beside Kirk Cramond. Easting and
northing figures were taken to five figures and these were averaged for each of the
eight points. The average figures were entered into a computer running the
programme XL with instructions to fit them to a best 20 by 20m grid. This required
the computer to adjust the easting and northing readings and the angles between
points to minimise total error. The centre of the four squares surveyed (position
100/+10 in the grid system used by the Society) was predicted as NGR NT 18982
7691 1 with the side of the grid angled 15.4 degrees east of true north. The plot of
positions is shown in Illus 7.2.

Check measurements were made by projecting the 100 and 120 north-south gridlines
to the points where they intersected the north side of the Kirk Cramond road. The
distance south from point 1001-10 to the road was measured as17.5m and the distance
from this intersect point to the inner face of the stone gatepost on the north side of
Kirk Cramond was 29.5m. The distance south from point 1201+10 to the edge of the
road was 16.5m and the measurement fiom this point to the gatepost was 58.3m.
These measurements gave good agreement with the grid system adopted from the
earlier excavations made by the Society.

The grid square numbers and the data sets to which they belong are recorded in the
data dumped to disc for the areas surveyed; they are as follows:
Cramond Tower spinney from east to west squares G3,4 and 5. The last listed being
only 4 by 20m separated from G4 by 4m rows of dummies. Data Set 4.
Kirk Cramond squares G6,7,8 and 9. Starting at coordinate 1001-10 proceeding east
and thence zig zag clockwise round the four squares. Data Set 4.
Cramond Tower South squares GI and 2. G1 is the square to the north and measures
20m in the north south direction; G2 is curtailed at the south side. Data Set 5.
4. Results
4.1 Cramond Tower Spinnex

Three 20 by 20m squares were laid out with canes at each corner and the ground
resistance survey was started at the eastern end taking readings in those 1.Om squares
that were accessible. The resistance printout (Illus.7.3)is coloured, in this case, to
show features better. Red is low resistance grading through green to high resistance
shown blue. The printout shows an irregular low resistance line that curves to the
north and is on an approximate bearing of 294 degrees T at a point 20m west of its
entry into the spinney area from the east, at this point it is roughly following the curve
taken by the edge of the raised beach and is collinear with the 20m contour. Some
10m firther to the west, in the second square surveyed, it curves quite sharply to the
south onto a bearing of 235 degrees to head towards the pond created in the tower
garden. At the time of creating the pond Roman pottery was recognised in the infill
and later an excavation by Holmes confirmed the Roman ditch section, the ditch is
Area VII in Holmes publication of the excavation (Ref 8.4). The ground slopes gently
to the north and is crossed, in the second square surveyed about 3m from its western
end, by the now unused but still extant drain from the 1680 Cramond House. The low
resistance that runs north-south on the printout is on the line of this drain.

4.2 Kirk Cramond

The ground resistance survey printout, shown in Illus.7.4, comprises four 20 by 20m
squares with curtailment in the south-eastern corner due to the grass verge and tree
belt some 10m wide beside the road. The lack of any clear high resistance line along
the known position of the fort wall confirms a general comment made by A and V
Rae that 'Roman evidence had been destroyed'. The gutter on the west side of the
road that ran northwards out of the fort, is still visible in part, and a high resistance
line that continues north, on the same line, suggests that it continues on for some 5m.
A rather unclear linear low resistance runs on the eastern side of this high resistance.
The positions of the trenches excavated by A and V Rae, Holmes and members of the
Society are shown, in relation to the resistance surveyed area, in Illus.7.5. The trench
excavated by Holmes in 1975 appears to be parallel, but not collinear, with the low
resistance that runs almost due north for 25m on the western side of the printout. The
low resistance crossing the north east square is on the line of the present footpath that
runs down towards the Roman bathhouse. The southern edge of the site shows
generally higher resistance areas with no clear form; this is in contrast to the north of
the site with its diffuse low resistance areas.

5. Conclusions
5.1 Cramond Tower Spinney

The area ground resistance survey was more restricted than had been hoped but the
printout (Illus.7.3) still shows, reasonably clearly, a low resistance strip that connects
from the linear low resistance in Cramond House east parkland and curves towards
the Cramond Tower pond. The rectangle, sketched at the west end of the resistance
printout, is in the position of Holmes trench scaled from Illus. 2 in his report.
The plan of Cramond Estate made by Bauchop (Ref 8.7) is referred to in the
interpretation plan made by McGlynn (Ref. 8.8). In describing the original beech
avenue to the east of Cramond House, it is stated 'the house drops out of view from
beyond this line of the ha-ha or fence evident on Bauch~p'splan'. It is also indicated
that 'there are indications of a possible late 18'h century sunk fence or ha-ha extending
eastwards from the walled garden out into the park' and that 'there may be need for
survey in the park to pick up the associated walk which followed the line of the ha-ha,
as marked on Bauchop's plan'. Part of this feature is termed 'sunk fence'on the 1797
plan of Thomas White (Ref.8.9). The excavation carried out by Holmes (Ref 8.4)
showed that part of a Roman ditch survived; he comments 'it became apparent that
the uppermost levels had been removed during the same 1 8 ~ - 1 C.9 ~land clearance
which had obliterated Roman features at Site 11'. This last named site is in the area of
the Kirk Cramond survey. Holmes also states that 'to the south of the ditch was part
of a roughly cobbled footpath c. lm wide running almost parallel to the ditch. The
surface of the footpath sealed pottery of 1 7 c~type.' The pottery sealed within the
footpath suggests that the feature recorded by Bauchop in 1815, had been created at
about the time that the first part of Cramond House was built in 1680.
The 'roughly cobbled footpath' recorded by Holmes, could be responsible for the
patches of higher resistance that appear on the southern side of the curving low
resistance and the high resistance on the northern side could be remnants of the
Roman defensive bank; a high resistance strip was found on the north side of the ditch
100m to the east. The main drain, from the 1680 Cramond House, now unused, is a
substantial stone lined and capped construction into which some water still appears to
drain naturally. This drain crosses the line of the survey at the western end of the
second square and its dampness is probably responsible for the low resistance on this
north-south line.

The historical record of ha-ha or 'sunk fence' from 1797 and 1815, the ditch section
stretching 120m to the east, coupled with this low resistance that curves in the
direction of the known Roman remains in the pond all add to the likelihood that this
180m line is the northern defence of the eastern Roman vicus. Holmes (Personal
Communication) has stated that the ditch length excavated was so short that its
alignment is uncertain.

A small additional survey was made on the grass verge that lies to the south of
Cramond Tower and is bordered by the fence to the west of Cramond House. The
purpose of the survey was to attempt to follow the line of the outer Roman ditch(es)
on the east side of the fort. The ditch, that is depicted in the Holmes plan as running
north and passing Cramond Tower on its eastern side, is shown as joining the ditch
from the east (the pond ditch) at a T junction. The curvature of the low resistance
suggests that, rather than join as a T junction, the ditch may turn to the south and
becomes one of the outer ditches. The report by Dalland (Ref 8.10) of the excavation,
made at the time of the extension to Cramond Kirk Hall, states 'The major new
discovery made during this excavation was evidence of a third defensive ditch around
the Antonine fort'. It was therefore thought equally possible that the Holmes
interpretation was correct and that the pond ditch curved to join the third, outermost,
ditch found by Dalland. The innermost ditch is known to lie on the western side of the
driveway into the church hall. The resistance survey was made on 21 January 2006
and varied between 10 and 15m wide in its east-west direction over a north-south
distance of 30m. A considerable number of dummy readings were required to be input
due to the curvature of the tarmac drive into the church hall car park on the west side
of the surveyed area and the fence to the east. The resistance printout, lllus.7.6,does
not give a clear picture of ditches running approximately north-south and thus does
not resolve the question of how the Cramond Tower pond ditch fits into the defensive
system. The low resistance, that runs alongside the approach to the church hall car
park for about 10m, could be on the line of the middle of the three ditches. The lack of
low resistance continuing south towards the eastern exit from the fort raises doubt on
this interpretation. The two low resistances that run north-east and north-west from
the eastern side of the printout align reasonably with a path from the old stable to the
north side of the house and from the house towards the exit onto Glebe Road
respectively. These paths are shown on the 1893 O.S. map; the survey Ref 8.1 also
found evidence of paths from this period. The outer ditch recorded by Dalland could
lie on the extreme east edge of the surveyed area.

5.2 Kirk Cramond

The interpretation of the four 20 by 20m squares surveyed has done little more than
confirm that the comment made by A and V Rae that 'search for the northern gate was
unsuccessfUl because all Roman evidence in its area had been destroyed except the
actual Via Praetoria and its drain by prolonged occupation and ultimate destruction of
the medieval and later village'. Their plan of the fort shows twelve positions where
they stated they probed or trenched across the wall. They record that, using a hollow
steel probe, they showed the line of the clay rampart on the east and south sides.
Three of the twelve probings appear, in their report Fig.3, on the line of the north wall
but are not commented upon and must be presumed to have produced no results.

In the resistive printout the dummied area 3 by 3m with a hrther single metre square
on the north east corner, lies alongside the gutter and road that exited the fort to the
north. The section of drain, still in existence on the west side of the road, is shown by
the high resistance to the south of this unsurveyed patch. The line of the drain can be
seen as a high resistance running to the north but extends for only about 5m and as it
does not continue to the end of the surveyed square it is presumed as robbed out.
To the east of the gutter line the low resistance area is on the line of the road and
could represent the clay bedding of the Via Praetoria which the Raes' record as '20 ft
wide including drains'; they also state that the drain on the east side of the road
'remained in use until half way between the inter-vallum road and the rampart bank.
Beyond this point it was destroyed - a drain of the new type taking its drainage
diagonally to join the new west drain'. The angled high resistance that crosses to join
the higher resistance of the existing remains of the west drain is in the correct position
to be this modification. The circular high resistance, about Im in diameter, with a
surrounding low resistance, that lies about 8m south west of the existing drain seems
to be just outside any excavation trenches and to lie at the corner where the back edge
of the rampart clay bank would have met the road. One interpretation is that it is a
post hole or pillar associated with the inner part of the gateway but as there is no
record of where spoil was dumped this is tentative.

The major low resistance line that runs almost due north for nearly 30m on the
western side of the survey is near but not on the recorded line of the Holmes trench
excavated in 1975. It may represent upcast from the line of a pathway or the remains
of spoil heaps. Most excavated trenches were properly backfilled and are not
detectable. The long trench, that was put in by Rae at the start of his investigation and
whch ran north through the gateway, was well backfilled but may have been detected
as a slight low resistance line running between two highs to the east of the main high
resistance of the still open drain. The featureless high resistance area that stretches
along the whole of the southern edge of the survey can only be interpreted as
demolition debris. It is possible that, on demolition of the late medieval village, debris
could have been moved southwards t o support the embankment on which the Kirk
Cramond road runs; later augmentation with excavated spoil is also likely. The diffuse
low resistance areas to the north of the site probably reflect the known high water
table together with low resistance top soil spoil material.

The only late feature that appears to have been recorded is the outline of a rectangular
building that is shown on the Bauchop plan of 1815 (Ref.8.7); it lies about 1Om to the
west of the high resistance of the gutter with a low resistance round its eastern end.
The outline recorded by Baucbop, however appears to be of a building approximately
12 by 6m whereas the resistive printout shows a high resistance that is only 3 by 2m
surrounded by a lower resistance rectangle that does not exceed 7 by 4m. The
majority of the building must be assumed to have been robbed out or excavated.

6. Acknowledgements

We are pleased to record our thanks to the following for their assistance, in various
ways, to the success ofthe surveys:-
To Historic Scotland for grant aid towards the expenses of the Society in insurance,
travel, administration, research activities and report preparation and printing.
To Mr Eric Jamieson for permission t o survey the grounds of Cramond Tower.
To Mr John Lawson, City of Edinburgh archaeologist, for permission to survey the
Kirk Cramond area, the property of the City.
The Society members involved in the surveys were:-
Kathleen Allanach, Kyle Armstrong, Alan Calder, Patrick Cave-Browne, Charles
Conner, Valerie Dean, Hugh Dinwoodie, Ian Hawkins, David Jones, Bill MacLennan,
Bob Marks, Don Matthews, Tom Sharp, Denis Smith and Jill Strobridge.
A total of 50 member working days were recorded.

Further contributions to the completion of the surveys and report were made by Ian
Hawkins in processing the ground resistance measurements and providing the
printouts and by Don Matthews in taking the G.P.S.readings and computing the
results.
Copies of the Cramond maps were supplied by Val Dean; these were marked up to
show the surveyed areas in Illustrations 7.1 and 7.5. Thanks also go to Val Dean for
proof reading the text and making valuable comments which resulted in a number of
corrections relating t o the earlier work on the sites.