CEOPtlYSICAL INVESTIGATION O N THE SITE OF

THE FORMAL GARDEN A T

NEWHALES HOUSE

MUSSELBURGH, EAST LOTHIAN

H.M.O.JOHES and D.N.SMITH

EAFS GEOPHYSICS
OCCASIONAL PAPER No.$

DISPLAY COPY ONLY

DO NOT REMOVE
 EDINBURGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SOCIETY

Geophysical investigatio~lon the site of

the formal garden at
Newhailes House
Musselbur.qh.
-- East Lothian

Contents

2. Introduction

3. Method

4. Results

6 Figures
6.1 Design for a flower garden by John Hay I8 1S
6.2 Plan of Newhailes by Robert Bauchop 1798
. 6.3 Photograph of garden showing greenhouse. Circa 1909.
6.4 Plan of areas subject to ground resistance survey
6.5 Ground resistance plots.
6.5.1 Slip Garden (Areas A, B and J)
6 5.2. Main Garden Centre (Areas C, F and H2)
6 5.3. Main Garden East (Areas D, E2 and HI)
6.5.4 Main Garden West (Areas El and G)

7. Acknowledgements
 EDIiYBlJRGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SOCIETY

Geophysical investigation on the site of the formal garden at

Newhailes Mouse Musselburslh
East Lothian

A ground resistance survey was conducted over most of the area that was previously
occupied by the fonnal garden of Newhailes House. The garden had become very
overgrown and had been subject to a number of other uses over a period of about fifty
years. The area that was not surveyed had either concrete plinths, standing buildings
or was so overgrown to make access for survey nol possible. In some areas mature
self-seeded trees precluded resistance measurement in individual metre squares; these
appear as blanks in the ground resistance plots (Figs 6.5.1. to 6.5.4.).

Areas of high resistance are apparent in front of where "Fruit Houses" are shown in
the northwest corner of the "Slip" garden in the John Hay design (Fig 6. I .), in front of
the Grecnhouse and towards the centre of the garden where a sundial is reputed to
have stood. TRere is also a high resistance area beside the south-eastern wall in the
Slip garden and another where the path entered the garden fiom the house by a route
curving down the bank and thence across the fi-ont of the "Fruit Store"; the position of
this building is shown in the John Hay design. An area of high resistance at the rear of
the Greerdiouse (conservatory) appears to confirm the foundations of a small building
that is shown on the Robert Bauchop plan (Fig.6.2.). A low resistarm area about in
the centre of the Slip garden is approximately in the position shown in the John Hay
plan as a round bed. A similar sized area near the gate at the sou t h-west end of the
curving wall and another adjacent to it on the centre line of the garden may not
represent features as here the ground tended to be water logged.

Newhailes House stands at NGR NT 327 725 on a low plateau at about 75 A. above
sea level. It is bounded on the west side by the valley of the Brunstane Burn and on
the south-east by the Newhailes Road. To the north the ground drops down within a
mile to the old A1 road, the shore of the Firth of Forth and Fisherrow Harbour.

Newhailes House was commenced in 1686 and was built by the archtect James Smith
as his own residence; he originally called it Whitehill. In 1707 it was purchased by
the politician and lawyer, Sis David Dalrymple, who renamed the house Newhailes.
Sir David arid his son James were responsible for the construction of the new wings,
completed in 1730, to the north-west and south-easl of the original house. The latter
contained a library of over 7000 books which was much visited by the literati and
cognoscenti of the Scottish Enlightenment period.

The house was surrounded by a modest parkland of some 80 acres laid out in the 18'.
Century as a designed landscape much of which has reverted lo nature. This was
particularly tnre at the time oft he survey of the formal flower garden. It is not known
how much of the John Hay design of 1 8 18 was implemented to supersede that
recorded by Robert Bauchop. The photograph, taken circa 1909 (Fig6.3) apparently
fi-om an upper window of the house, shows a layout of paths and flower beds that. in
the foreground at least, differs from the plan. It is also clear from the still standing
plain rear wall of the greenhouse that it was not rebuilt to the more curvaceous Hay
design. The house stands on the south-east side oft he garden at about 1 5 ft. above
garden level. It is not known how much levelling was carried out on the sites of house
and garden but if the garden level was lowered topsoil was undoubtedly brought in
after lowering.

The solid geology oft he Newhailes area indicates that it lies within the Carboniferous
Middle Coal lMeasures comprising white, grey and brown sandstones and siltstones,
dark grey niudstones, coals and seatclays. The Clayknowes coal seam runs NNE-SSW
and surfaces just to the east of the house and a quartz-dolerite intrusion ~ u n sESE-
WNW just to the north of the house. No excavation was carried out but to the
southwest of the garden an exploratory drainage trench showed about 0.5m. of topsoil
underlain by sand. The garden was generally well drained except at the south-west
end, adjacent to the artificially created rectangular pond, shown on the Hay and
Bauchop plans (Figs 6.1. and 6.2.). The pond was very overgrown but possibly still
water retentive, all or part had been infilled arid used as a car- park.

3. Method

The equipment used in the survey was the Geoscan Research Resistance Meter RM4
with the PA1 twin electrode array. The system operatcs with two probes located
remotely, one of these is a current input and the other a potential measurement probe.
The two probes on the PA1 are also one input and one measurement. The potential
measurements made are converted to ground resistance values which are displayed on
the RM4 and then mamrally recorded.
The probe spacing on the PA1 array is 0.5m. which gives a detection depth for
archaeological targets of between 0 5 and 0.75111.No probing was carried out to
determine the depths of paths, paving etc and it is possible that gravel paths with
limited bottoming would not show a very different resistance from conipacted lawn
areas. The overall length of the surveyed area oft he ~ a r d e nis about 100m. from the
nor-th-east walled Slip garden to the metal gate at the south-west end and its width is
just over 40m. at its widest point The eastern corner of the garden contains the
remains of the Fnrit Store and Ice House; it was very overgrown and no survey was
attempted in this corner. To the south-west of the metal gate lies the long pond; the
area outside the gate was also excludcd fi-on1the survcy.
The survey was completed in nine separate sessions with all readings beirlg taken in
metre squares. The photograph of the garden (Fig.6.3) shows beds that could be less
than 1 .Om. across; readings taken at metre intervals are unlikely to show this detail.
Tlie face of the south-east wall of the Slip garden was taken as the baseline fi-om
which all measurements were made. The first readings were taken in a line at right-
angles to the wall starting 10.9m. from the face of the north-east wall due to concrete
plinths of old buildings. The base line was extended to the south-west over the top of
a modern earth and debris bank that lies between the back wall of the greenhouse and
the face of the south-east wall of the slip zarden. This gave a single baseline to which
all measurements in the garden relate.

Due to varying soil moisture conditions and the fact that soiled animal bedding
material was dumped and sometimes burned in the area, resistance measurements
varied between visits. In order to relate new readings to those taken on previous visits
one row of readings was always repeated in a line adjacent to that about to be
surveyed. Initially a correction function was derived from the ratio of the earlier to the
later readings taken along the line to scale the new area to those readings taken
previously. The areas surveyed and the dates of the sessions are given in Fig.6.4.
Resistance plots were originally made using Microsol? EXCEL in the absence of any
other available programme; this programme was far from suitable and the readings
have now been entered into the Geoscan Research Geoplot programme to
produce the Figs. 6.5. Where possible the "edge-matching" facility oft his programme
has replaced the scale factoring used with the original EXCEL printouts.

4. Results
7--

It is clear fiom the photograph (Fig.6.3) that the John Hay plan was not fully
implemented to modifL the layout shown in the Bauchop plan (Fig.6.2); it is also
possible that later changes were made. It is believed that a plan dating to around 1889
exists that does show a different layout but this was not available at the time of
survey. The greenhouse rear wall as depicted on the Hay plan has already been
mentioned and the existing dimensions, (8.02m. wide by 4.31n.deep)and its position,
appear to show that no change was made to it. The garden outline today appears very
similar to the Bauchop plan and whether any of the Hay plan was inlplemented is
questionable.

In the 0.S. map of i 863 the 36m. sou th-east wall of the slip garden is shown as a
continuous line with the 100m. extension that was made for the purpose of the survey.
The sutvey found substantial wire straining posts at either end of this extension
indicating that the map had not differentiated between wall and fence. Along the line
of the extension were found bases for four cast iron posts broken off at ground level
where they entered concrete blocks and three other metal supports; these substantiate
the conclusion that this section was wire fence and not walling. Two of these cast iron
posts 16m. fiom the wall end and spaced 2.3m. apart could have been gate posts
aligned with the path across the garden that is visible in the photograph (Fig.6.3). A
wire fence can be seen in Fig 6.3. to run along the top of the bank between the house
and garden, in it was a gate that gave access to the path leading down into the garden.
The fence is shown as a solid line on the plan. Nso shown as a solid line is the wall
that curves round the northern side of the south-west garden and continues past the
Tool House and into the Slip garden.
The curving wall does not continue on into the Slip garden but a brick spur of walling,
1.Om. long and S 13m. from the north-east corner of the garden, was found butting,
roughly at right angles, to the wall of the Slip garden. The resistance plot of the Slip
garden is shown in Fig.6.5.1 and a curving line on this could indicate that a wall did,
at some time, exist Due to the size of the concrete plinth against the end wall of the
Slip garden the survey started 2.77m. from this spur and thus the curving line on the
resistance plot cannot be confirmed as aligning with the spur.
The interpretation of the resistivity readings in the absence of other methods of survey
or of excavation was necessarily tentative but the clues given by maps, estate plans
and the photogaph have helped considerably. An early draft copy of this report was
however given to Addynian and Kay aid their excavation has confirmed that the high
resistance recorded at the rear of the greenhouse is, in fact, the entrance to the stoke
hole for the coal fired system that originally heated the greenhouse and possibly other
ancillary buildings.

The ground resistance measurements are plotted in Figs. 6.5.1. to 6.5.4. In Figs. 6.5.1.
and 6.5.2. the results have been successfully edge-matched. Figs. 6.5.3. shows areas
D, E2 and HI and Fig. 6.5.4. sl~owsareas E l and G. These have been printed together
as adjacent areas but have not been edge-matched. The areas that have not been
successfully edge-matched are printed out to give, hopefi~lly,comparable print density
for similar features. All the ground resistance plots in Fig.6.5. are printed to the same
scale. It should be noted that the dividing lines across prints are a function of printing
in 20 metre square blocks and do not relate to Area borders.

5. Conclusions

The hope of finding clear paths crossing the garden that were sufficiently different in
resistance from lawns and flower-beds has not been realised. It is possible that gravel
paths could be so difise as to show no significant ground resistance difference from
lawn but it is equally possible that the width of a path was s~nallin comparison with
the survey measurement spacings of I metre.
The garden plan made by Robert Bauchop (Fig.6.2) gives the outline of the garden as
it existed before the redesign proposals made by John Hay. The positions in which the
greenhouse and the wall to its west are shown on the Bauchop plan conform to the
remains on the ground and indicate that, if the Hay plan was implemented at all, it
was not in this area. Comment has already been made of the high resistance at the rear
of the greenhouse being identified as the heating plant as shown by a small building
on the Bauchop plan. Ventilation slots on the rear of the greenhouse suggest that some
building, other than the entrance to the heating plant, may have existed on that rear
face.
The large high resistance area in fiont of the greenhouse (Fig. 6.5.2. Area C) must
represent the paving that links with the path down the bank from Newhailes House.
This is the path that crosses in front of the Fruit Store and is shown on the O.S. Sheet
IV 10 1:2500 of 1895. Later map editions show the area of paving apparently reduced.
The high resistance continues across Area El (Fig. 6.5.4) suggesting that the path
went on to the Tool House as shown on the Hay plan (F on Fig. 6.1.).
The detail of the garden given in the John Hay plan may record what was in existence
in 18 18 that he did not propose to change mixed with the changes (such as the
repositioned greenhouse) that he did propose; no other plan gives this degree of detail
but this detail should thus be treated with caution. However the tow resistance area in
the centre of the Slip garden aligns reasonably well with the rou~ldflower bed shown
in the Hay plan.
In the northern corner of the Slip garden Hay shows peach and vine houses. Whether
this is a new proposal or whether he is recording existing buildings is not known; a
dilfUse high resistance area does however point to probable building foundations in
this corner (Fig. 6.5.1. Area B). Recesses in both the PIE and NW walls of the Slip
garden are of unknown use (possibly bee-hive boles) but the fact that some appear to
have been bricked up in antiquity nlay point to lean-to buildings against both walls
predating the later horse stalls.
An area of high resistance runs for over 10m. down the main NE-SW wall fiom the
point of the start of the survey (Fig. 6.5.1. Area A). This is of higher resistance than
some of the pr-esrrmed paved areas and thus could represent a special feature.
In the middle of the main garden a high resistance area (Fig. 6.5.2. Area F) would
again appear to show paving that could be that which surrounds the sundial depicted
in the Hay plan.
If the curving high resistance line across the Slip garden (Fig. 6.5.1.Area B)
represents wall footings, continuing the line of the wall adjoining Area G (Fig. 6.5.4.),
it would seem that the wall would not be built to the hll height as othe~wisethere
would have been a very narrow enclosed section of garden beside the Tool House. It
is possible that the curve marks the line of a fence but the fence in the main garden
does not show a similar. high resistance line.
Assuming that there were a number of stages of garden development (up to four)
traces could remain of previous layouts. If old paths were covered over, rather than
completely removed, this could account for the confbsed resistive picture in parts of
the garden.

6. F b -
- res
See overleaf

7. Acknowledgements

The Society wishes to record its thanks to the following.

The National Trust for Scotland for permission to survey the area and especially to the
Warden, Paul Chandler, for his cooperation and that of the volunteers who cleared
large areas of undergrowth to make the survey possible. We also record our thanks to
the Trust for making available plans and the garden photograph.

The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for the grant to purcflase the Geoplot software
that enabled us to reprocess thc 2500 n~anuallyrecorded readings and produce the
resistive plots that are the basis of this report.