Proc Soc Antiq Scot,(1991)1 12 , 359-368

The fortifications and siege of Leith: a further siege th 156n f ei o 0p ma e studth f yo Stuart Harris*

ABSTRACT The paper presents reviewa understanding our of siege fortificationsthe and of Leithof in siege.the lightof 1560 studyof the map of

e contemporar Th e siegth f Leitf eo o 1560n hp i ma y,archivee kepth n i t f Petwortso h Hous Sussex,n i e s exhibitewa 1 Edinburgn di 1987,n hi 2 more than twenty years d afteha t i r been introduce Scottise th o dt h publi papern ci Franciy b s Stee GordosW d an r n Donaldson.3 Nevertheless it seems to have been largely neglected as a historical record of the siege, and a hint by Mr Steer that it might repay study in relation to the military operations does not appear to have been followed up.4 Yet the map must be ranked among the most immediate of all records of the siege. Althoug t itselhno f dated t purporti , shoo t s siege wth edeploymene workth d san f heavo t y surrendere artillerth f o y thes y a Julda 7 , ye ywerth 1560 considerinn d eo an , g that (according to Pitscottie) both the French and the English armies were gone by 16 July, there can be no doubt thainformatioe th t t recordni preciselo s sucn i hd ydetaian l must have been gathered by 7 July or within days thereafter. Besides being immediate, this information is clearly expert. The map notes three 'approches', correspondin three th eo gt phasesiegee th whicf n i so , maie hth n thrus f attaco t k moved from the east to the south and the west. The artillery is portrayed with evident care, animpressioe dth f accuracno deepenes yi face gunth 7 t 2 y tha b de s showth t'Englishe th n no ' side5 correspond wit Diurnale hnota th n ei f Occurents o 275p ( ) tha siege th t e train landet da Figgate fro Englise mth h fleet comprised 'twelve great singil doubild an l l cannoni fyftend san e small pieces'. r militar fo e sam e 6Th ey ey detail mark drawine s th greae th f tg o bastioe th f no French 'Citadel' at Leith Mount, in which six 'round holes' are shown sunk in the floor of the ditch noted an ,s 'sounds' a d r listenino 7 g point r monitorinsfo approace g th e Englisth f o h h mine wherd an drawine , th e g also show outworn a s whad kan t 'coverappeara e b o tt s way' alon outee gth rditche edgth f e,o protecte glacis.a y db 8 Obviously such expert observation enhances the value of the map as a primary source: but besides being importan uniqus i t i t e among these sources t showi r fo ,s graphically whae th t others (with varying precision) describ wordsn ei . Although these written records undoubtedly assis interpretatioe th t mape th f ,n o the y themselves also examinee neeb o dt d wit helps hit . Indeed e comparativelth , y late discover f meanp thiyo sma s tha l conclusional t s previously drawn from written or traditional sources must be reviewed in the light of it. Doveco3 *2 t Grove, Edinburgh 360 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

But first of all it is necessary to understand the structure of the map, for this is not altogether simple. At first glance, it reads as a wide-angled perspective of the five-mile stretch of country from Restalrig to Muirhouse, rendered with spirit and (but for some misplacement of Kirk Restalrig) with notable accurac a pictoria f o y l sort; t whilbu 9 e e thi th s trui sf o e background, a question arises in the foreground, where the title reads: The plat Lytheof w' th'aproche theof Trenches therevnto alsogreatAnd the Ordyn'nce therein Surrender dayethe The of at thereofplaced was Ivlie of it as day 1560. being7 the e significanth d an t note follows: The Scale thisof Plat eighty>eis paces aneto ynch. Every pace conteyning foots5 geometricall.[H

In other words, althoug backgroune hth certainls di y pictorial foregroune th , r ) partit d(o f so has evidentl t yfro beeou m t nmeasurese d surve inche drawd th fee0 scalo ya an ;t 40 t o f nt e o and in view of this it will be merely a technical matter (including due allowance for discrepancies arising from the improvement of surveying practice over the centuries) to relate these parts of the map to the detail shown on any other map. The first step is to check the Petworth map against other maps which show some vestiges of the fortifications. There are at least half a dozen such maps, ranging from a small sketch on a chart of the Forth published by Capt. Greenvile Collins in 1693, to Kirkwood's map of Edinburgh and Leith in 1817. As might be expected, as time went on there was progressively less to show; and the best map for the purpose is that made by John Naish in 1709," the earliest known detailed survey of Leith, which shows remains of the northern and eastern ramparts almost as fully preserved as they appear on Collins, as well as vestiges of those on the south and west, which are quite missing from Collins but tally with traces shown on later maps (see illu. 1) s Wha t onca s i te apparent fro e mapmth thas si fortificatioe th t n Frence beguth y nb n hi f medievaAuguso t no ts l154 wa wall-and-towe8 ra full typt y bu e fledged example th f o e radically different defensive system which had been only recently evolved in Italy in response to the development of artillery.l2 It was indeed the earliest use of this system to fortify a town

in Britain, by 10 years; and its masterly style is the mark of its designer, the renowned 3

fortress engineer Pier i Strozzi,alsoy d oma 1 havo 1e4wh been responsibl latee th r r featureefo s (of kinds only invented in the 1550s) which were probably added in the course of the further fortification works recorde latn di e 1559. placn I higf eo h masonr stylyw wallsene employee th , d relativel earthew ylo n ramparts, x deep enoug provido ht rooma e y platfor r heavmfo y guns, with their outer faces (usualln yi stone t sometimesbu , e sak th f spee o er r fo economy,d o timbern i , ) steep enoug repeo ht l infantry attac t slopekbu d backward orden i s defleco t r t canno e powene th th shot f d o r an ; defenc s enormouslwa e y increase y organisinb d g these rampart a syste n i s f angulamo r bastions, each a salient platform for guns to deliver not only frontal fire but an intense flank fire that supporte neighbourine dth g bastion eithen so r sidswepd estretchean e th t f ditcso n hi between. Leithn 1 I 5t happened i s a , stonewore th , t lasno t verd soute kdi th yd n longhan i r fo , western ramparts it was deliberately slighted as soon as the siege of 1560 was over, while the rest became a quarry for building stone in about 1700: but the huge earthworks of ditch and rampart took ovecenturieo tw r o disappeart s indeed an , d they left open tract f uneveo s n ground that eventually provide e gread th site r t fo sbypas s road f Constitutioso n Streed an t Great Junction Street. Whe e rampartth n s e Petwortshowe plotteth ar n p o no scalt d ma h e along wite th h HARRIS: THE FORTIFICATIONS AND SIEGE OF LEITH 361

CiSttrn pier

ILLU 1 SSurve e Towth f f Leityno o Johy hb n Naish, 1709 (after origina Publin i l c Record Office)

remains show Naisy nb himmediatels i (illu t i ) s2 y obvious thae 156th t 0 drawing cannoa e b t measured plan of Leith, for even although the overall span of the ramparts from east to west is almost correct, the drawing has been so drastically foreshortened in the north/south direction e reab dn thaca onla picture t s i t ya e t detai mucth Ye .f s manifestl i ho l y authentice th f I . bastion of Ramsay's fort east of the harbour has been almost suppressed by the foreshortening, the detailed formseawars it f so d frontage correspond closely with those show Collinn no d san Naish foreshortenine e effecth Th .f o t drawine less th gi n si Nortf go h Leith sincd an , e p thisma is in fact the only extant portrayal of its defences, it is fortunate indeed that they are shown in such convincing r thosdetailfo f Souts eo A . h Leith e Castellanth , bastio t Anthony'S t na s si shown somewhat out of position, but the most striking thing is that two of the bastions (at John' Bowline s th Lan d ean g Green altogethee ar ) r missing. These bastions certainly existed (witness Nais onle othersd th han y d explanatio)an theif no r omission fro Petworte mth p hma 2 36 SOCIET ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

ILLUS 2 Outline of ramparts as shown on Petworth map, superimposed on Naish's survey of 1709.

seem thae b t playi to st s down other important feature wells towe a s Th . n gate showe sar n ni scant detail,16 and surprisingly there is not the slightest trace of the substantial breach in the southern ramparts which was stormed unsuccessfully on 7 May 1560. It is hard to believe that it could have been made good unde ensuine r th fir n i e g eight week f siege so e inferencTh . s i e surely that the mapmaker was not concerned to show all the features of the town and that he probably worked from a limited set of notes. Nevertheless, by taking all the maps together, and having some regard for the principles bastioe oth f n defence system possibls i t i , 'stretcho et foreshortenee th ' d pictur arrivo t d eean areasonabla t e reconstructio f 'Fortresno s Leith' (illu . Ramsay'ss3) reclaimes fortwa d from ditcho th clean s i e d t seaI .sincd r ha frot tide i an , , eth me it camo Collint p eNaisu d san h (who shows the Signal Tower within it) that it extended over the whole area of the Timber Bush, between Bernard Stree Towed an t rrecordes i Street t i d 157an ,n d i havins 8a g been adaptes da X > 71

I m ~n O H •n O H 5

z o C£ m O m O

ILLU S3 Pla f Fortresno s Leith s reconstructea , d fro e map mphysicath d an s l traces relate d e moderan ,th o dt n street plan. 4 36 SOCIET ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

communal timber a 'bursyard d r exchangeo an s' e otheth e harbourn r th O sid. f o ee th , Sandport, shown as a haven protected by great palisades of vertical timbers, supplies an 17 identifiable general line for the rest of the seaward defence of North Leith, which is also clearly shown as a wooden construction, with huge balks of timber placed horizontally and pegged to a supporting structure, probably tying it to a rear wall of timber, with an earthen rampart

packed in between. At the other end of the North Leith defences, resting on the north bank 8

of the river, the Petwort1 h map shows the French Citadel bastion. Here the drawing has a distinc f beino r scaleo gai t , whict unlikelyno s hi , considerin gtargee thath f s attaca o t y kb underground mine bastioe th , n must have been thoroughly reconnoitre orden di establiso rt h its position and the features of its defences; and if this is accepted the plan fits in very well not only wit slighe hth t traces show Naisn no h (the only other direct recor wester e have th d w f eo n defence t alsbu )o wit e skehth w boundarie propertd ol e th f Leit yo f o s h Mount, still visible today west and north of Leith Town Hall and Library: the huge arrow-head shape of the bastion is still outlined by modern boundaries, but is even more apparent on the Ordnance Survey map of 1852. Taking bearings from this bastion and the Sandport, the St Nicholas kirk and the corner bastion surrounding it are placed on ground which became part of the Cromwellian Citadel a century later but was soon thereafter eroded by the sea and eventually became the western part of the East Old Dock in 1802. In South Leith, the obtuse-angled middle bastio eastere th n ni n defenc shows ei n clearl sete f lateth to Naish n n yi o r d streetsan , , notably John's Bowline Laneth t A . g Gree featura n( e bastioe formeapee th th f xo t n na do some time after 1777 shape defence )th th f eo somewhas ei t obscure 156 n describeI s .i t 0i s da 'the little bulwark', and the maps seem to agree that it was asymmetrical - no doubt because it had to cover the Pale or timber barricade across the river, as well as Leith mills and an outshot trench guarding postera the d man n giving acces theo st m fro towne mth . l thi e lighal t becomeIi s nth f o t s clear that whe e titlnth e speak f featureso s drawo nt scale it must mean chiefly the siege works. This being so, it is possible (subject to the surveying discrepancies already mentioned , e minimisewhicb n hca compariny b d g map relativeln i s y small sections ploo t ) t these entrenchments directl modere th n yo n map. Combining this with illus 3, the outcome is illus 4, a modern map of the siege, certainly not precise, but probably a fair approximation to reality. What is immediately obvious is the scale of the operation. The entrenched front was eventually about a mile long, with open flanks beyond Restalrig Road and Ferry Road covered by field guns at the extremes of the line and by cavalry squadrons based on Restalrig and Newhaven. Among the six mounts or gun sites shown, Mounts Pelham and Somerset19 were large temporary forts, each upward acre3 f sareao n s i thei d an ; r guns, wit advantagn ha n ei height of at least 13 feet over the base of the ramparts, were firing at ranges upwards of 500 yards.20 e 'firsTh t approach s madwa ' e fro e south-easmth e seconth n i td wee f Apriko l 1560, when the English spent several days digging in on the slope below Hawkhill, planting their gun Mounn si t Pelham, whic s evidentlhwa tako t y s siteea advantago ds share th f peo risf eo

ground above Primrose Street and Hermitage Terrace. The 'second approach', beginning at 1

the end of April, included extension of the trenches 2 westwards towards the river and the establishmen a secon f o t d large fort, Mount Somerset e broath n do , ridge betweee th n Broughto rivere n e namth bur d Th . nean Pelrygge figures i d immediatel yforte t easth bu f , o t no building is shown, and the future site of Kirkwood's Pilrig House (built 78 years later) fort'e th t appearsa south-wese b o st t corner. firse secona th y t n 2weeI 2 Ma d f batterko s ywa mounte advancn di e fort th orden i f , eo intensif o t r e bombardmentth y , wit trencha a r hfo 73 58

H I m & •n O 50 H

O

m O m O •n r~ m ILLU SiegSe 4 Plath f eno Works transcribed fro e Petwortrelated mmoderth e an th p o dt hma n street plan e positioTh . f Restalrino g Tower, evidentlt yno H fixe measurey b d d surve mereld yan y sketche originae th n do l map bees ha , n corrected. | SOCIET 6 36 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANDF SO , 1991

scree f 'shotno r harquebusiero ' s still further forward e trenche Th e 'thir. th f do s approach' were evidently pushed forwar meany db f sapso centrd s ol fro e f Bonningtoneo mth , neae th r east end of Graham Street. The original aim may have been to outflank the salient that the French had established east of the river, to protect the mills; but once that salient was destroyed e attacth , k continue e assaulFrencn a th s da n o ht Citadel undergrouny b d mine, starting in the vicinity of Keddie Gardens. Since the map expressly shows the guns as they were deployed when the siege ended, it give indicatioo sn f theino r earlier positions doubo N . t they were originally masse Mounn di t Pelham, but the map shows its armament reduced to three cannon aimed at the town and two field guns covering the seaward flank. An unnamed battery of two heavy guns, shown in the vicinity of Ferrier Street, seems to have been placed to threaten the dangerous flank batteries in the bastions.23 Within Mount Somerset, the 'first battery' of three cannon and as many field guns has one of each deployed to defend the flank or rear, while the other four, like the 'second battery' of nine field guns (in about Tennant Street) are bearing on the town. Further west, the powerful battery of four cannon labelled 'at the Pale' was evidently the Mount wese th southere tn sidth (o f Falconep o u nt parse Soutf o t h Fort Street orden )i haraso rt e sth Shore, afte assaule breachee th rth n o failetd May. 7 sha n e singldo 24Th f Byer'seo fieln dgu Mount (on the future line of Ferry Road, near Dudley Avenue South) commanded the St Nicholas port and the coast road to Newhaven. The 'new mount' (in the vicinity of the east end of Trafalgar Lane havy ma )e been planne supporo dt assauln Citadele a t th n o t bastion after the min beed eha n sprung t sincshows i bu ; t ei n withou thav y gunsma e t i bee, n still under construction when operations were overtaken by the cease-fire. More could be said: but, as remarked earlier, the proper place for a full discussion of the Petworth map is within a general re-examination of all contemporary records of fortifications d siegean . Suc a hrevie s wbeyoni e scopth d f thio e s shopei papert i dt s bu ha tha, t i t demonstrate. it e nee r dth dfo

APPENDIX 1 The following notes amplify or comment on notes attached to named features on the map in Proc Soc Antiq Scot same th vo(reproduce 5 e 4 l referencus d an ) voC de32 l alsnumbersOE n oi .

Commoe Th 3 1 n Mills wer mille eth s belongin Edinburgo gt Watee th n Leitf hi ro h village (now called 'Dean Village'). 14 The Dean (or Dean Village properly so called) stood at the head of Dean Path. Its site is now represente Belgravy db e Mews. 15 Evidently Muirhouse, which is often 'Murrays' in Scots. 19 'Bulwark' was an alternative term for 'bastion'. presene Th 1 t 3 Pilrig House (buil 1638n i t near )o south-wese appearn rth o e b o st t corne site f th eo f ro Mount Somerset. 5 3 'Bonneton' referso Bonnyhaugt t no , he histori th (whic o e rivert th ct eass i hf Bonningto bu )o t n House, which stood at the east end of Graham Street. 40 More likely 'Edenbrogh gate'. 41 Perhaps 'The Castilian', a 16th-century variant of 'castellan'. 51 Certainly not St Ninian's, which is in north Leith. 53 'Mownte Slygo'? 56 Read 'soundes r sounding-holeo ' r detectiofo s approachine th f no gsoune minth f picksy do eb . 59 'Little London' is shown here and also referred to in Hayward's Annals as though it were a place immediately outwith the ramparts; but in 1578 the name is used for some meadow land within the town (bounde Maritimy db e Stree Laned an t , Constitution Stree Bernard an t d Street163n i d t 6i )an HARRIS FORTIFICATIONE TH : SIEGD LEITSF AN EO H 367

is further extended to include the nearby bastion (on the site of Assembly Street). The name is probably Celtic lunndan, gree r marshno y spot, aki thao n t f Lundi o t n which occurs twic Fifen ei , als seasidn oi e locations. APPENDIX 2 authorshie Th Petworte th obscure s i f p o p speculatioy hma .An n abou must ti t take accoun fouf to r salient facts: (1) that the map includes an expert measured survey; (2) that it shows expert observation of the military dispositions, not only as they stood at the end of the siege, but in relation to the three phases of the operation in the course of three months; (3) that it shows accurate local knowledge of the country for three miles around; and (4) that patently its information was recorded on 7 July 1560 or very shortly afterwards. On the first two of these points, it is to be noted that Sir Richard Lee, England's chief military engineer presens wa , sene h t y tdurin 'a Ma plat siegee 5 gLeithf 1 th thad o t n an , o t London o t ' , urgently requesting the Queen's decision on 'works' shown on it (Calendar of Scottish Papers 1545-1603, No 792). There is nothing to indicate what these 'works' were. Possibly they were proposals for the saps and mine on the 'third approach' which was to be made in June; but be that as it may, it is at least certain that an expert plan of part or all of the field of operations was in being at this point, midway through the siege. Although Lee's 'platt' might have been specially made for his immediate purpose, it would be reasonable to assume that it was based upon a working plan maintained throughout the siege. Lee's duty as enginee collaborato t s wa r e wit fiele hth d commande planninn ri encampmene gth e f troopo th t d san development of siege works, and for these purposes the first essential was a reasonably accurate map of the whole position. How such maps were made and used is spelt out in detail in a treatise by the Marshal Vaubane d , Louis XIV's chief engineer (Sebastie Vaubane nd ManualA , f Siegecrafto Fortifications& Rotherick(TrA G ) , Universit f Michigayo n 1968, 25-7). Admittedly writtes thiswa hundrena d years unlikels i t lateri t ybu , that Lee's practice would have been greatly poina differents i f specia t o ti d lan ; relevanc t above criterioou e t th se ,o et ) tha n(3 t besides describin surveyor'e gth s metho f plottindo ga meany b p f transiso ma t lines e Manualth , recommends thaengineee th t r should take along witm hhi someon knowo ewh namd place sth varioupoine an n t eth ca welou td san l feature landmarksd an s . Suc workinha g plan, skille drawa y b p dnu military engineer wit hel e gooa h th f po d local guide, would be marked by accuracy of survey and competent portrayal of both military and local detail; and since it would be kept up to date as the siege went on, it would record its various phases and almost automatically show the position on the final day. In a word, it would be very like the Petworth map in respect of all four of the main characteristics outlined above. While further evidence might be needed to complete the proof, there would seem to be a fair probability that the Petworth map was based upon one prepared for working purposes by Sir stafs hi f d Richarengineersan e dLe f , o wit hele e hth f locaon p o s wel y thae lwa b ma l advice t t i ti d an ; them who made this fair copy of the position on 7 July 1560 as a record of the siege. NOTES 1 The Keeper is the County Archivist, County Records Office, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RN. 2 In the exhibition Mary Queen of Scots in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The Leith Museum Trust and South Leith Parish Kirk have acquired full-sized copies for permanent exhibition in Leith. 3 In Proc Soc Antiq Scot vol 45: Francis W Steer: A Map illustrating the Siege of Leith 1560; and in OEC vol 32: Gordon Donaldson: Map of the Siege of Leith 1560. 4 Prof. Donaldson op cit unfortunately misled himself by giving undue credence to Ye Fortifications of Leith published by D H Robertson: Sculptured Stones of Leith, 1851. This resulted in the impression that the Petworth map was less reliable than Robertson's; whereas in fact the latter is so erroneous as to be quite worthless and grossly misleading. 5 The besiegers were of course an alliance of Scots levies under the Lords of the Congregation with an English army under Lord Grey. If they are referred to in this paper as 'the English', it is partly for brevity t alsbu o becaus Englise eth h supplie gunse dth maie th , n assaul overale t forceth d lan s command. 6 Guns were beginnin standardizee b go t thin di s period greate sieg.Th r o e guns were probably 8-in calibre double or full cannon 6|-id an n single r demi-cannon,o whil heaviee eth r field pieces woul 5i-ie db n culverins 4-id nan demi-culverins. 153n I due 0Guise th e d alread s ewa y advising thabatterieo tw t f so great guns (24 in all) were needed in order to reduce a bastioned fortress, and Grey's dispatches show that by mid-April 1560 he had come to see that he had only half the guns he required. 368 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1991

7 t readSteeci p so r 'foundes' long e clears i th s t .bu , 8 The via coperta and the glacis (a sloping bank in front of it) were invented in the 1550s and were probably added to the Leith defences in the late summer and autumn of 1559. The 'green bulwark close to the walls', mentioned in Hayward's Annals p 60, may have been this glacis in front of the citadee ditcth f ho l bastion. r example Fo r lado 9 em t showservini ,da e lowee sth gth r groutown'e th f po s e Watemillth n f i so r Leith (now the Dean) village and continuing through the gorge (presumably in a wooden aqueduct, as it did in later times) to serve Silvermills and Canonmills. Also at Greenside (the town's field for tourneys and plays) the map shows a square structure which might conceivably be an open-air stage. 10 The 'geometrical pace' is the distance (standardized as 5 ft) travelled by the back foot in the course fula f l o forward stride. 11 Town f Leitho Johy b n Naish 1709: Public Record Office, MPH. H32 12 The first town to be given a bastioned defence was Verona in 1530. 13 While a plan for a bastioned fort at Tynemouth in 1545 came to nothing, another was constructed at Eyemouth in 1547 (H M Colvin: The History of the King's Works vol IV (HMSO 1982) 683-4 and e firs713-7th t t bastionebu ) d defenc a tow f Englann o ei n s plannewa d d beguan d n 155i n t 8a Berwick (ibid 642-3). Although somewhat smalle scalen i r , these bastion t Berwica s k give some impression of what those at Leith were like. dispatcA 14 h date Augus0 d1 t 1548 (Calendar of Scottish Papers 1547-160 313o 3n ) refer Strozzo st s a i the designer, and reports that, recovering from wounds, he was supervising the works from a chair carried by four men. e viviTh 1d5 accoun Hayward'n i t s Annals bears witnes novelte th o t sf thi yo s devastating flank fire, describing the assault on the breached ramparts as over 90 minutes in 'a very hell' of fire and smoke and roaring shot. r exampleFo 16 Edinburge th , h Gat shows ei simpla s na e arched openinramparte reae th f th o rn gi , whil l tha e al shows Musselburge i t th f no h Gatopen a s ei n passag narroo e(s w tha t suggesti t s that posterna t thebu gats ) ewa leadin g throug ramparte bace th hth f ko . 17 The name uses 'port' in its sense of'harbour', in which the sloping beach assisted repair of ships. If it was considered vulnerabl waterdoubtless w lo wa t t ea i , s becaus entrance eth e betwee palisadee nth s dried out. The harbour continued in use until the late 19th century, latterly as a basin in Leith Docks, as shown on the Ordnance Survey 1852. 18 A report of April 1560 (Calendar of Scottish Papers 1547-1603 no 749) describes the shore defence as 'but bourdes with sand cast against it'. 19 'Mr Pelham' and 'Capt. Somerset' were both mentioned in dispatches on 28 April 1560 (ibid no 759). Pelha captais pioneerse mwa th f no f Grey'; o Somerse e on s s leadinwa t g field commanders. repora Apri2 2 n I 2f 0o l t (ibid 746o n ) Grey give towe e rangth th s nf o efro m Mount Somerses a t 'withi skor0 n3 e (?yards)'. spurioue Th 21 s 'tradition' that Lady Fife's Bra Giantd ean s Brae were gunsites durin siege gth e seems furtheo g no o t t r back than Campbell's History f Leitho 1827. Lent authorit RobertsoH D y yb n ni e Ordnancth 185d 0an e Surve theo yt d 1852mle beint i , g spared numeroue whe th e res f nth o t s hillocks in the Links were levelled in the 1880s. The Petworth map shows some features in the Links abou yard0 eastere 12 tfronn th i s f o tn ramparts e read lona On .s a sg straight ditch, perhape sth remains of an entrenchment by Somerset in 1547, while the others, irregular in shape and tinted in exactl same yth e manne Lochens ra d loch, appea pondse b o rt . Possibly they werp ma e e noteth n do because they impeded a frontal attack on the ramparts. 22 Some stonework in the basement of Pilrig house has been taken to suggest an earlier structure, but not conclusively. e Petwort2Th 3 showp hma s flane manth f ky o batteries t bac'retiredse ko s tha r o ' t they were shielded from frontal fire by the 'ear' of the bastion and could not be bombarded except by guns firing along the face of the defences at a very narrow angle. 24 Considering that several written accounts say that Mount Falcon was west of the river (as it would have to be, if its fire were to rake the Shore) it is hard to understand why Robertson and others should attach the name to the mound at the Bowling Green, which was actually part of the town's rampart e rivers th eas f o .t

This paper publishedis granta of from aid with the City Edinburghof District Council