Issue 147
Newsletter – Issue 147, March 2004
Shorewatch
The next Shorewatch survey is planned for Tuesday, 25th May starting at 10.30 am.
Corstorphine and Dalmeny
Planning is starting to move for the resistivity surveys on these two sites. The intention is that the Corstorphine survey will happen mid-summer after most of the work at Cramond is completed and that the Dalmeny survey could be our ‘public’ activity in Archaeology Month (September). Historic Scotland have accepted a grant application from us to cover not only expenses on these two sites but also for the survey work being done east of Cramond House. We record our thanks to Historic Scotland for their continued support of our work.
Penicuik
The first visit of the year has been made after a rather hurried arrangement. We had the use of an EDM for a very limited period and the opportunity to complete (we hope) the topographical survey of the site was too good to miss. We have, unfortunately, not yet been able to set up regular days to work the site. Last year the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland gave a grant towards our expenses at Penicuik and, encouraged by this, we made an application for a further grant for the 2004 season. We were pleased to be informed that this grant application has been successful and record our thanks to the Research and Finance committees of the Society of Antiquaries.
Cramond in March
A number more 20 by 20 metre squares have been completed and our printout, on show at the Council for Scottish Archaeology AGM at Cramond, was commented upon by Mike Middleton of Headland Archaeology who have a contract to pull together all the bits of Cramond that have been surveyed or excavated. Our surveys to date have been incorporated into the Headland plan and Mike has ‘attempted a little interpretation ‘ (his words) of our data.
The recent report ‘Historic Cramond’ by Marta McGlynn Associates for the City of Edinburgh comments under the heading ‘The Early Formal Landscape’ that ‘the survival of any below ground archaeology of an accompanying 17th-18th century formal garden remains to be verified.’ A number of Mikes interpreted lines are parallel with the tree avenue aligned on Berwick Law so we may be starting to see the garden that was later superseded by parkland. But there are a lot of interpreted lines that run NE-SW apparently at right angles to the Roman road leaving the fort!
A lot more work yet to do but I will push my luck and say again – we might just be permitted to dig!
Issue 146
Newsletter – Issue 146, January 2004
Outings
We will be visiting the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh at 2pm on Wednesday, 25th February. It has a wide range of fascinating exhibits illustrating the history of Surgery over the last few hundred years. I have been told that since I am a fellow of a sister college I can take you in as guests. This means that we will not have to pay for admission.
To give ourselves some leeway I suggest that we meet at 1.45pm outside the college. It is the large building on Nicholson Street that looks a bit like the Parthenon – but it has not lost its marbles!
Previous Projects
As a sort of New Year resolution I tried and, as with most New Year resolutions, failed, to get all our outstanding previous projects written up by the end of 2003. (Outstanding as per the dictionary definition of ‘not yet complete’ as opposed to the alternative definition of ’eminent, remarkable’). Copies of the following are now lodged in the EAFS library: –
Cramond Walled Garden, Lauriston, East Bonhard, Hopetoun, Cramond (beside trench H) and the interim Penicuik report.
Newhailes will follow shortly followed by Pittencrieff.
The copies despatched to Historic Scotland have produced the comment ‘Yours is very much the sort of information needed to help understanding of geophysics on Scottish soils’. I am taking that as reasonably complimentary!
Dig at Eddleston
EAFS members joined with the Peeblesshire Archaeological Society to excavate on the cropmark site that we had previously covered in a ground resistance survey.
Trevor Cowie’s report on the results states, ‘Although differences may be due to the former presence of an enclosure bank, definite traces proved decidedly elusive’. This is a good archaeological euphemism for ‘we did not really find anything’ and is in line with my statement on the last EAFS News ‘the printout was not the clearest ever produced’ – well you can’t win them all.
