Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T23:15:26.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Romano-British Dovecots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Extract

Roman writers on Agriculture attached considerable importance to the keeping of pigeons, not merely as an article of food but on account of the valuable manure they yielded. Their statements are borne out by numerous references in the Papyri. Pigeon-keeping in Egypt must have been exceedingly profitable. The price of a dead bird was an obol, a pair rears sixteen or more young ones per annum, and a pigeon-house might contain a thousand nests. The valuable manure, used especially for vineyards, would probably pay, or more than pay, for such food as the pigeons did not pick up for themselves. It is therefore not surprising that in Ptolemaic times a 33⅓% tax was imposed on profits, for which the Romans substituted a tax estimated according to the size of the dovecot.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Charles D. Chambers 1920. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 189 note 1 Details in Dar. and Saglio, s.v. columbarium.

page 189 note 2 P. Oxyrh. iv, 736.

page 189 note 3 Plin., H. Nat. x, 53Google Scholar.

page 189 note 4 P. Teht. 84, 9.

page 189 note 5 P. Oxyrh. iv, 729; x, 1278.

page 189 note 6 Grenfell, and Hunt, on P. Oxyrh. vi, 917, 981Google Scholar.

page 189 note 7 de R.R. iii, 7.

page 189 note 8 Foulis, London, 1920.

page 189 note 9 Woodcut in D. and S. loc. cit.

page 190 note 1 e.g. Cleeve Prior, 4 ft. 6 in. Cooke, p. 87.

page 190 note 2 1300 at Wick, nr. Pershore. Cooke, loc. cit.

page 190 note 3 P. Oxyrh. viii, 1127, σὺν τῇ τούτου κλείμακι ξυλίνῃ.

page 190 note 4 Cooke, p. 88.

page 190 note 5 ib. p. 189.

page 190 note 6 Cumont, Comment la Belgique fut romanisée, p. 42.

page 190 note 7 Jullian, , Histoire de la Gaule, v, 229Google Scholar.

page 190 note 8 Archaeologia, lviii, pp. 24, 417. Wroxeter Report, i, p. 11.

page 190 note 9 de R.R., iii, 7.

page 190 note 10 P. Teht. 84, 9.

page 191 note 1 Roman Hayling by Ely, T., London, 1908, plan p. 30Google Scholar.

page 191 note 2 Cooke, p. 166.

page 191 note 3 Corbridge Report of 1909 Excavations, p. 28. Arch. Aeliana, 3rd ser. vol. vi.

page 191 note 4 Archaeologia, lvii, p. 242.

page 191 note 5 Archaeologia, xix, pp. 178–182, with plan.

page 192 note 1 In Arch. Journal, 2nd ser. vol. xvi, p. 51. Mr. Moray Williams says ‘Here (i.e. at Great Witcombe) a very similar octagonal building was built out from a corridor in the “living” portion of the house. This must have been an exedra, the conservatory of modern times.’ A visit to the site would prove this view to be untenable. There is no corridor, nor is the octagon in the ‘living’ portion of the house, nor are conservatories built with a north aspect towards steeply rising ground.

page 192 note 2 See plan and photograph in Arch. Jour. loc. cit.

page 192 note 3 ib, p. 51.

page 192 note 4 External buttresses are found at Hurley (Cooke, p. 167) and elsewhere.

page 192 note 5 Varro loc. cit. Columella viii. 8.

page 192 note 6 Archaeologia, xix, p. 182.

page 192 note 7 ib. lix, p. 337; lx, p. 154.

page 193 note 1 ib. lxii, p. 446.

page 193 note 2 ib. lviii, p. 139.

page 193 note 3 Archaeologia, lix, p. 303.

page 193 note 4 Cooke, op. cit. p. 137.

page 193 note 5 The importance of excluding mice, weasels, and lizards is recognised by Varro and Columella loc. cit.

page 193 note 6 Cooke, op. cit. p. 132.