DONINGTON LE HEATH by ANN DORNIER with contributions by S. MOORHOUSE and G. C. DUNNING Donington le Heath is situated in north-west Leicestershire (fig. 8). The medieval house under discussion, probably the manor house, is on the north­ east fringe of the modern settlement, where it merges with Hugglescote and Coalville (N.G:R.: SK420126). It lies on the 450 ft. contour. The ground slopes gently away to the south. The subsoil is clay. (plate 5) Loug~bo,:o 111 Fig. 8 Map 22 PLATE 5 Aerial View PLATE 6 South Face PLATE 7 Trench 2: A Blocked Wall PLATE 8 Trench r DONINGTON LE HEATH 23 The standing buildings comprise a house and a barn (fig. 9). The present plan of the house is that of a half-H-a main east-west block with two wings projecting northward-with an additional wing added to the north-east corner of the north-west wing (fig. ro). There is a first-floor hall running the length of the main block. 1 It has been dated c. 1280, on the basis of the timber roof-frames which have survived. 2 In the late-sixteenth or seventeenth century modifications took place: the ceiling of the ground-floor was raised, and new windows, fireplaces and ground-floor doorways were inserted (plate 6). The barn is probably medieval in origin, although subsequent refurbishing has masked much of its original appearance. A small-scale excavation .of five weeks duration was undertaken by the writer in June/July 1970, on. behalf of the Leicestershire County Council who purchased the property in 1966, and subsequently have carried out an extensive renovation programme with financial assistance from the Depart­ ment of the Environment.3 The archaeological work was carried out to a DONINGTON LE HEATH 1970 o Location of borings 1 0 18 36 u::m::a:a f t Fig. 9 Site 24 LEICESTERSHIRE ARCHJE.OLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY specific brief from the Leicestershire Records Committee.4 The courtyard (trench I, fig. II). was excavated to see if there were any medieval remains before a new surface was laid down. Trenches 2-4 were dug in order to investigate certain features of the existing building: the reason for the blocked walling in the east wall of the north-east wing at first-floor level (trench 2, plate 7, fig. 12); the purpose of the external blocked doorway at the eastern end of the south face at first-floor level and the reason for the absence of any buttresses at the south-east corner (trench 3, and plate 6), and the type of external staircase leading up to the first-floor door at the west­ ern end of the south face (trench 4, fig. 14, and plate 6). Owing to lack of time and money, it was not possible to finish trench 3 (fig. 13). This report also includes observations made during the installation of sanitary facilities (Room 5 and drain trenches to west of Room 5) (fig. 10) and the results of augur borings taken at various points on the site (fig. 9).s In all the trenches there was modem disturbance down to the top of the natural subsoil and in some instances below it. There was much evidence of modern underpinning of the standing walls, probably necessitated by slight subsidence caused by mine shafts which riddle the Coalville area. Consequently, any stratified layers associated with the medieval building, which might have existed, have been destroyed. As the excavations were all outside the existing building, there was no opportunity to investigate any possible occupation levels which, potentially, may have been preserved inside the house, When the writer was approached about the proposed excavation, the renovation of the existing building was well advanced....;....a stone flagged floor had already been laid down over most of the ground floor, and internally the walls had already been replastered-thus obscuring any features such as butt joints.6 DOCUMENTATION There appears to be no direct reference in the documentary sources to any actual manorial buildings at Dorrington le Heath. Moreover, there is no indication of the approximate location of the manor house, and it is assumed, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that it was located elsewhere, that the site under discussion is in fact the manor house. Dortington le Heath is recorded as the seat of William de Sees, whose daughter married Alexander Villers of Brokesby during the reign of Henry III (1216-1272).7 It is, recorded as a vill in the Domesday Survey, and it is possible that it had become a manor or sub-manor before the thirteenth century.8 There are periodic references to landholdings, tenements in the complex subinfeudation of the vill, but there are only two subsequent references to the actual manor: in 1483, when Edward IV granted the manor and lordship to William, Lord Hastings, and in 1801 when the lord of the manor was the earl of Moira,9 DON I NG T O N L E H EAT H 1 9 7 0 PLANS r I I I I I I I I I I ft I ~ i ll 11: l 3 lI 'I i; 10 ii 11 !I 9 8 ; 11 I1i1 ,' doorway ? doorway 1L1 i Fig. 10 Plans 11 II 26 LEICESTERSHIRE ARCHJE.OLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY for example the south wall of Rooms 2 and 3. For reasons already stated ( see above, p. 24), it was not possible to carry out any internal investigation, for example, to see whether or not a wall ran south from the point where the projecting courses along the north wall of Room 2 ends abruptly. If this interpretation is correct, the c .1280 builders utilized in part an existing ground plan. A culvert drained northward out of the courtyard. Two parallel rows of stones were set vertically into a gully, and on these rested horizontal cap­ ping stones, the tops of which were below the level of the ground surface. It was not possible to date the construction or period of use of this culvert, so that, although it is probably medieval, there is no evidence against its being later. The only area within the courtyard where modern disturbance did not penetrate below the surface of the clay subsoil was to the north-west of the culvert. Here there was a patchy layer of clayish soil and pebbles, with a rainwashed appearance, immediately overlying the subsoil. It petered out before it reached the edge of the culvert, so that the relationship between the two could not be established. It may have been a surface of the medieval courtyard, though, alternatively, any medieval surface may have been removed, and this layer may be merely the original topsoil surface. Trench 2 (fig. 12, plate 7) Drawings by Nichols10 and Gresley" show the jagged west ends of two parallel walls, running eastwards from the east wall of the north-east wing, extending the total height of the building. It is still possible to see traces of these walls on either side of the blocked-up walling at first-floor level, and their appearance suggests that they were bonded in to the east wall. All traces below first-floor level have now disappeared, but the surface has been extensively patched with cement over the vital areas. At first-floor level the width of the opening into the north-east wing was originally the actual width between the walls, that is to say this structure formed an L-shape with the north-east wing. Subsequently the southern half was blocked up leaving a doorway. At some stage this was also blocked up, possibly when the structure was demolished, but the doorway recess is still visible inside Room 12 (fig. 10). At ground-floor level there was no access to the north-east wing (cf. main block and north-west wing). Excavation uncovered the stubs of the lowest courses of these two walls, A and B, and established that they were indeed bonded in to the external face of the north-east wing, and that they are therefore contemporary with the c.1280 building. The walls did not extend more than 2 ft. eastwards, but, as the foundation courses were laid directly on the ground surface, no traces would remain after subsequent demolition and removal of any masonry. There was no evidence of any surfacing or occupation levels of any kind. Modem disturbance penetrated to the top of the subsoil over the entire trench. The four small pits dug into the subsoil were filled with loose topsoil and modem debris, and were probably intended for shrubs or bushes. II) z 0 .... u w ...II) < u .... ~ w > 28 LEICESTERSHIRE ARCHJ\'.OLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCI·ETY Trench 3 (fig. 13, plate 6) There is a break in the south wall of the standing building where another feature, A, (?wall) was bonded in. It is probably, therefore, contemporary with the c.1280 house although, as it occurs at foundation level, it is just possible it belongs to a pre-c.1280 phase if the c.1280 south wall incorporates an earlier sill wall. It may have extended as far south as the northern limit of the cobbling where a line of large stones may indicate a. return wall running westwards. Feature B projected southwards beyond the south-east corner of the existing building for approximately 2 ft. 6 in. It is on the same alignment as the east wall of the main block and runs out from underneath it. The facing stones at its southern end indicate that this is its true termination.