A Place for the Heathlands

This essay's central goal is to apply the perspective of commons thinking, to investigate whether Celtic fields systems could have been managed communally. This essay may be regarded as an elaborate thought experiment that analyses a well-known aspect of prehistoric archaeology – Celtic fields – through the lens of commons scholarship, a theoretical approach that is relatively new to archaeology. Thus, this essay has a dual focus: to explore insights into modern commons scholarship regarding how communities manage collective resources, to develop a methodology that may be applied to archaeological features, and to apply these insights to an archaeological revaluation of the well-preserved Celtic field site, Øster Lem Hede (Figure 1).

Celtic fields' combination of vast distribution, and partially mysterious origins and purposes make them a compelling subject to study. They are known throughout north-western Europe, the oldest known examples dating to the 2nd millennium BCE, whereas Scandinavian examples were prevalent during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.^{1 ( 1 )}
Arnoldussen 2021, 27; Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017 These fields consist of low earthen embankments and lynchets, and form semi-rectangular blocks (Figure 1), which structure vast tracts of land in characteristically ways.^{2 ( 2 )}
Vinter 2012

Paleoenvironmental research indicates that the Celtic fields found in southern Scandinavia were used to cultivate cereals, but that cultivation and manuring practices were probably extensive: large portions of the fields would be covered in low vegetation such as grass, heather and wild vegetation, and only a small portion would be cultivated.^{3 ( 3 )}
Nielsen & Odgaard 2010; Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017; Nielsen et al. 2019; Behre 2008, 115 Additionally, research indicates that Celtic fields were highly dynamic landscape structures,^{4 ( 4 )}
Becker 1971 their embankments repeatedly altered, and settlements, trackways and burial mounds are often found within the fields.^{5 ( 5 )}
Hatt 1949, 105; Becker 1971; Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017, 431 Moreover, there are indications that the restructuration of embankments and movement of settlements happened at the same time.^{6 ( 6 )}
Becker 1971

The irregular yet structured layout of Celtic fields systems has prompted archaeologists to suggest various interpretations of their use and management: some have favoured private governance, and interpreted the embankments as boundaries between households,^{7 ( 7 )}
Hatt 1949; Nielsen et al. 2018 whereas others have been inclined to various forms of communal governance.^{8 ( 8 )}
Fleming 1987; Yates 1999; Johnston 2005 The great divergence between how archaeologists interpret the governance of Celtic fields offers an opportunity to apply new theoretical perspectives to the archaeological material. The significance of commons thinking to a re-examination of Celtic field structures stems from how commons thinking explores the relationship between communities and shared resources, by examining the communities' cooperative practices, rights and rules.^{9 ( 9 )}
Ostrom 1990

The subject of this essay, Øster Lem Hede, is a particularly well-preserved field system, owing to its location within a protected heath.^{10 ( 10 )}
Egeberg 2011 The site is situated in western Jutland (DK), and was extensively examined and documented in the 1950s.^{11 ( 11 )}
The initial documentation was done by Hatt (1949), who also partially excavated the site More recently, additional embankments have been identified through aerial photographs and LiDAR-based terrain models;^{12 ( 12 )}
Egeberg 2011 OSL dating and pollen analysis have been used to investigate the dates and formation of the embankments,^{13 ( 13 )}
Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017, 427 and an algorithm has been employed to study their layout and development.^{14 ( 14 )}
Nielsen et al. 2018 Researchers focusing on this specific site have suggested that the fields were probably private individually managed, building on the idea that the subdivision of fields was related to inheritance practices.^{15 ( 15 )}
It was Hatt's (1939) interpretation that the subdivision of fields was related to inheritance practices. Nielsen et al. (2018) argue for private management of the fields based on this. The site's well-preserved state, along with the attention it has received – consistent with the long-standing interpretation of Celtic fields as privately governed – makes it an intriguing site to explore from new perspectives.

Another point that is relevant to this re-evaluation of Øster Lem Hede is the area in which the site is situated – a heathland. Although Celtic fields are distributed all over Denmark, occur on various soil types and are preserved in various landscape forms,^{16 ( 16 )}
Nielsen, V., Korsgaard, P., & Malmros, C. 2000; Nielsen 2015 Celtic fields are frequently well-preserved in areas that are currently considered 'marginal', such as heathlands or areas with nutrient-poor soil.^{17 ( 17 )}
Vinter 2021, 167-168 This deserves attention, as poor soil types necessitate distinct management strategies, to ensure the stable cultivation of crops such as cereals, which typically demand nutrient-rich soil.^{18 ( 18 )}
Nielsen et al. 2019 Similarly, the lifecycles of the indigenous flora of heathlands, including heather (Ericaceae) and various grasses (Poaceae), are linked to humans and animals through grazing, burning, turf cutting, digging, and so forth – actions that are essential to prevent heathlands from turning into forests.^{19 ( 19 )}
Kalund 2014 Moreover, grasses and heather represent valuable resources for agropastoral societies. This is worth considering, as vast areas of Øster Lem Hede seem to have been a combination of heath and grassland.^{20 ( 20 )}
Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017

To reinvestigate the Øster Lem Hede site, this essay will first explore the research history of Celtic fields in Denmark and England, to present the various interpretations of their management and governance. Next, it will briefly explore the research of professor of medieval archaeology, Susan Oosthuizen, who applied insights from modern commons scholarship to investigate communal management of early medieval agricultural lands.^{21 ( 21 )}
Oosthuizen 2013 This essay draws inspiration from Oosthuizen's on how to identify commons in the archaeological record, proposes a methodology for examining indications of commons in archaeological features^{22 ( 22 )}
The methodology for examining indications of commons in archaeological features draws on Elinor Ostrom's central work (1990), and is complemented by the contributions of Poteete et al. (2010), Baland and Platteau (1996), and Harvey (2012) and employ this methodology to reinvestigate the Øster Lem Hede Site for indications of collective management. Finally, the results of this analysis and the broader applicability of this method will be assessed, and I argue that there are features of the Øster Lem Hede that could be interpreted as indications of collective management. Although this essay concentrates on one specific site, the intent is to offer new insights into the potential contributions of commons thinking, to the study of prehistoric landscape and to resource management in general.

Resource management is linked to fundamental aspects of human life – establishing and ensuring adequate means of subsistence. The right to own and manage resources is crucial to all societies and may take many forms. The management and governance of Celtic fields has been interpreted quite differently by Danish and English archaeologists.

Danish archaeologists tend to approach Celtic fields with some uncertainty. During the 1930s, as Denmark's heathlands rapidly disappeared, the anthropologist and geographer Gudmund Hatt documented a large number of Celtic fields systems within these landscapes.^{23 ( 23 )}
Hatt 1949 He argued that the fields were held as private property: the embankments were boundaries between the field plots of various households. Hatt's work established private ownership as a fundamental principle of the interpretation of the governance of Celtic fields. As the principal investigator of Celtic fields in Denmark, his interpretation of their governance and management has been, and still is, quite influential. Hatt's main argument that the subdivisions reflect inheritance practices has been used to study hierarchies within embankments, and to investigate the development and layout of three examples of Celtic fields, one of them Øster Lem Hede.^{24 ( 24 )}
Nielsen et al. 2018 But key researchers also acknowledge that communal practices had structural, and perhaps even identity-related influences.^{25 ( 25 )}
Nielsen et al. 2018 In a study of Øster Lem Hede done by Nielsen et al., it is argued that the largest and longest embankments are probably the oldest, and that embankments that were established later adhered to this primary structure. It is argued that this may be an expression of 'common principles of regulation', and that the central embankments may have been established and maintained at a communal level. How and to what extent communal management or governance would have influenced the layout, use and development of Celtic field systems is approached only tentatively in this specific study, and it does not explicitly discuss what such an influence might entail.^{26 ( 26 )}
Nielsen et al. 2018 A similar uncertainty is also expressed by archaeologist Viggo Nielsen, another influential scholar on Celtic fields in Denmark. Nielsen cautiously argues that the 'harmonious' layout is probably due to communal-level organisation, perhaps controlled by a person or group with prominent social standing.^{27 ( 27 )}
Nielsen and Clemmensen 2015, 217-220 Thus, Nielsen et al. acknowledges the influence of a community, while not completely abandoning the possibility that the fields were held as private property.

Mette Løvschal is a Danish archaeologist who more directly attributes the influence of communities on the management of Celtic fields. In her 2015 study of linear land demarcations in the Skovbjerg Moraine (DK) and in southern England, Løvschal argues that linear demarcations were established and maintained by communities, who used them to claim the use rights to specific areas.^{28 ( 28 )}
Løvschal 2015, 274 Some of these structures are also found in Celtic fields, which suggests that these macrostructures were, in some way, governed communally.

Although English archaeologists tend to emphasise communal management, there are marked divergences in their interpretations of how field systems were established and governed. In his seminal work on the early Bronze Age field system of Dartmoor Reaves, archaeologist Andrew Fleming argues that fields consisting of stone embankments with numerous smaller embankments attached to them at right angles were governed at the communal level.^{29 ( 29 )}
Fleming 1978; 1983; 1985; 1987 Their scale and regularity, combined with the interdependence of the systems, suggested that the land division occurred because of pressure on communal grazing areas, with embankments that demarcated use rights between groups.^{30 ( 30 )}
Fleming 1987 Another significant British archaeologist, David Yates, similarly argues that linear Bronze Age embankments and coaxial fields found in the Thames Valley (UK) were used by elite pastoralist groups to establish and protect the use rights of valuable areas of land.^{31 ( 31 )}
Yates 1999 This was done to secure fodder for large herds of livestock and prevent overgrazing, thus the fields were essentially formed through central planning. Robert Johnston is a notable British archaeologist who has contributed significantly to landscape archaeology, particularly through his re-examination of Andrew Fleming's findings on the Dartmoor reaves. Johnston argues that the reaves were new expressions of tenure traditions that were practised for many years within the same landscape. The reaves incorporated existing structures, such as houses, trackways and burial monuments, and Johnston effectively argues that the reaves were not the end-product of centralised planning, but instead developed organically as a means of land management amongst those who occupied these areas.^{32 ( 32 )}
Johnston 2005

There is a noticeable contrast in the way in which similar prehistoric phenomena have been approached and interpreted by Danish and English archaeologists, as is apparent from this cursory review of the research history of prehistoric fields. These differences provide an opportunity to re-examine these prehistoric structures from new perspectives, which is the central goal of this essay. In the following section, the perspectives of commons thinking will be further developed to consider whether 'commons' may be a valuable addition to the archaeologist's vocabulary, and how it may be used to re-examine indications of collective management of Celtic fields.

'Commons' is both a historical entity and a modern term used to describe the relationship between communities and collective resources. Historically, commons were known throughout Europe and were specific areas (pastures, forests, arable fields etc.) to which a group of rightsholders, referred to as commoners, had access. Commons were managed through a set of laws that described the commoners' rights and obligations.^{33 ( 33 )}
De Moor, Shaw-Taylor & Warde 2002; Hoff 1997 Studies of these laws offer a wealth of valuable insights into how historical communities managed the commons through systems of rights, rules and cooperative social practices.^{34 ( 34 )}
De Moor et al. 2002; Hoff 1997; Levine 1986; Winchester 2008 Modern commons scholarship was ignited by the now-famous article, 'Tragedy of the commons' by biologist Garrett Hardin.^{35 ( 35 )}
Hardin 1968 Hardin's article was concerned which the effects of overpopulation on shared global resources, and he argued that individuals who act exclusively in their own self-interest will inevitably overuse and deplete shared resources, even if this has negative outcomes for the group as a whole. Without the intervention of government institutions, or the privatisation of the common lands, resources will eventually be depleted, according to Hardin. His article met with substantial criticism, particularly from economists.^{36 ( 36 )}
Banner 2018

Contemporary studies of commons have shifted their emphasise from defining commons as specific resources, to defining them as a set of social practices – the act of commoning. Commoning has been identified as the actions that a group continuously carries out, thus making themselves commoners and turning resources into commons.^{37 ( 37 )}
Linebaugh 2008, 44-45 'Commons' has been defined as 'a malleable, negotiable social relation between a self-defined social group and an existing or created part of their environment that holds value for the group'.^{38 ( 38 )}
Harvey 2012, 73 Thus, commons may be seen as having three interrelated dimensions: commoning, the social practice through which a self-identified group, the commoners, shares and manages a part of their environment, and the commons.^{39 ( 39 )}
The common, commoner, commoning is an approach established by Agrawal (2002, 48-55). Elinor Ostrom was a political scientist and economist known for her pioneering research in economics, political science and environmental studies, specifically in the field of common-pool resource management. She outlined a set of key characteristics – or principles – for successfully managing common-pool resources, which highlights the importance of local control, adaptability and accountability to sustainably managing shared resources.^{40 ( 40 )}
A foundational work by Elinor Ostrom that covers these principles is her 1990 book, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Given its focus on collective resource management, it is unsurprising that modern commons scholarship has been utilised in the archaeological exploration of past land use. Oosthuizen integrates Ostrom's research into her own research into early forms of governance and agropastoral practices in prehistoric and early medieval England. Oosthuizen argues that some of Ostrom's characteristics of commons may be identified in the archaeological features.^{41 ( 41 )}
Oosthuizen 2013 For example, Ostrom writes that common resources are often clearly demarcated by some form of boundary.^{42 ( 42 )}
Ostrom 1990, 90-102 As this is a physical feature that regularly appears in the archaeological landscape in the form of embankments, stone walls and so forth, archaeologists should be able to study some aspects of historic and prehistoric collective management.^{43 ( 43 )}
Oosthuizen 2013, 717 Oosthuizen applies Ostrom's principles to envision how landscape features, such as arable fields or pastures, may have appeared if they were managed as a common resource. When she reviews prehistoric examples of fields and pastures, she argues that studying commons through archaeological remains is not only viable, but also suggests that communal management was a persistent aspect of prehistoric landscape governance.^{44 ( 44 )}
Oosthuizen 2013, 718-725 Oosthuizen argues that archaeologists must identify characteristics of commons that are expressed spatially, in order to study collective management in prehistoric settings, which is specifically relevant to this essay.^{45 ( 45 )}
Oosthuizen 2013, 725 This perspective inspired the methodology I employed in the re-evaluation of Øster Lem Hede, presented in the following section.

To re-evaluate indications of collective management at Øster Lem Hede from the perspective of commons, I have selected nine key characteristics of commons, based on relevant commons studies.^{46 ( 46 )}
This selection is based on a thorough critical review of commons literature, as is more extensively detailed in the thesis (Gregersen 2022). The selected characteristics are mainly based on the works of Ostrom (1990), Poteete et al. (2010), Baland and Platteau (1996), and Harvey (2012). Ostrom (1990) and Poteete et al. (2010) present Ostrom's original work on commons and her later revised work, respectively, whereas Baland and Platteau (1996) present an extensive synthetic review of numerous commons studies. Together, these works present some of the most substantial perspectives on commons. Harvey's (2012, pp. 72-73) perspective on the commons adds both the perspective that the commons are defined as 'a malleable social relation', and that the commons do need not be an ecological feature but may also be something created or adapted by humans. Furthermore, Harvey (2012) argues that the commons do need to have value in a strictly utilitarian sense but may also have social or cultural value. The characteristics of commons used in this analysis are primarily based on the probability or potential of their physical expression, which would make it possible to find indications of them in the archaeological record. To structure the characteristics, and consequently, the analysis, I use the three aspects of commons: commons, commoner, commoning. Through this, I will sort characteristics according to whether they describe the resource, the group or the practices that are involved in establishing the commons. As I present the individual characteristics, I will re-examine whether Øster Lem Hede exhibits characteristics that are similar to those of commons.

I have selected three characteristics of a common resource: 1) it is a well-defined part of the landscape, 2) it has value for the commoners and 3) it is fairly divided within the community. Thereby, the commons is a resource that is spatially defined and has value for the community.^{47 ( 47 )}
Ostrom 1990; Harvey 2012 This resource may be natural or artificial – it may be a field, a communal hall or a burial ground – and it may have value in both a functional and cultural sense. Furthermore, it is frequently observed that commons are divided in a fair manner, meaning that subdivisions exhibit a distribution that is consistent with equalising norms.^{48 ( 48 )}
Baland & Platteau 1996

A noticeable way to spatially define a resource is to mark it with a boundary or other form of demarcation, as suggested by Oosthuizen.^{49 ( 49 )}
Oosthuizen 2013 If we focus on Øster Lem Hede (Figure 3), it becomes apparent that the field system is not entirely preserved, as its edges are interrupted by modern fields and plantations. If a demarcation, such as a boundary, existed during the field system's use, it is no longer observable. However, are there any other noticeable demarcations? The two linear embankments marked in orange are the oldest and longest embankments in the macrostructure^{50 ( 50 )}
According to Nielsen et al. (2018) (Figure 3); however, the central part of the north–south embankment is missing, owing to historic peat cutting and road tracks.^{51 ( 51 )}
Egeberg 2011, 159 Younger embankments respect these principal structures, even though the younger embankments were repeatedly tilled over and altered.^{52 ( 52 )}
Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017, 428-429 Moreover, many smaller embankments seem to generally align with the two directions set by these primary embankments. This alignment suggests that these prominent linear features may have functioned as intentional spatial demarcations that defined an area for communal use. The length of these structures may further indicate that these large embankments were created and maintained through the collective efforts of several households.

Regarding whether the fields could be understood as valuable to the commoners, it is well-attested that in general, Celtic fields were an essential economic resource for the people who utilised them. At Øster Lem Hede, ard marks were found under the foundations of three houses in the north-western part of the fields, indicating that the area had been cultivated, prior to the construction of the houses.^{53 ( 53 )}
Hatt (1949, 96) Pollen- and soil-composition analyses of the embankments revealed that the fields at Øster Lem Hede were extensively cultivated; cereals were cultivated, but, most of the time, a significant portion of the land was covered by low vegetation such as grass and heather.^{54 ( 54 )}
Nielsen & Dalsgaard 2017, 429-430 Additionally, the practice of manuring appeared to have been adopted to some extent, utilising animal manure, household refuse and organic material from heathlands and wetlands. Therefore, I would argue that there are strong indications that the fields at Øster Lem Hede were a significant economic asset to a community with a primary focus on animal husbandry and crop cultivation. The size of the field system, which comprises over 100 hectares, further indicates that it probably sustained more than one household.

Assessing whether the fields at Øster Lem Hede were divided in accordance with egalitarian principles presents some challenges. Owing to tillage, restructuring of numerous embankments and modern disturbances, it is difficult to determine which individual boundaries are contemporary with each other. However, in the northern part of the fields there is a subsection of plots that are all long and narrow. A strong tendency for fields to have similar dimensions could be interpreted as indicating that the fields were divided into equal portions amongst the commoners, for example, in accordance with equalising norms. This could have been a strategy that allowed all associated households to access fields with better soil quality and ease the practicalities of manuring and protecting cultivated fields from livestock. Furthermore, it is important to note that in other examples of Celtic fields, such as at Byrsted and Skørbæk Hede, there are indications of elongated fields having been subdivided into equal-sized segments.^{55 ( 55 )}
Nielsen et al. 2018, 11-16

When focusing on the commoners, I also selected four characteristics: 1) they have a shared identity,^{56 ( 56 )}
Baland & Platteau 1996, 344 2) there is an overlap between the commoner's residences and the resources,^{57 ( 57 )}
Poteete et al. 2010 3) there are adequate opportunities for communication and regular interaction^{58 ( 58 )}
Baland & Platteau 1996 and 4) they are nested in a larger network.^{59 ( 59 )}
Ostrom 1990, 90-102 Thus, the commoners are a group with a shared identity, for example, they see themselves as a group, and it is clear who is part of the group.^{60 ( 60 )}
Baland & Platteau 1996 Furthermore, it is easy for the commoners to interact and communicate regularly, and they live close to, or on, their shared resources.^{61 ( 61 )}
Poteete et al. 2010; Baland & Platteau 1996 Last, the commoners are part of a larger network that acknowledges their rights, and with whom they may occasionally interact or collaborate.^{62 ( 62 )}
Ostrom 1990

The settlement serves as a fitting point of departure for investigating characteristics of shared identity. In the north-western corner of the fields, a modest settlement comprising three houses was unearthed, which dated to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age.^{63 ( 63 )}
Hatt 1949, 95-108 It could not be determined whether the whole settlement had been uncovered, but it was noted that the houses could be contemporary with each other.^{64 ( 64 )}
Hatt 1949; 107 One house, consisting of two phases, was situated a little over 120 meters from the other two. However, after they were abandoned, all three houses were tilled over and partly covered by the same field embankment.^{65 ( 65 )}
Hatt 1949, 107 Whether or not all the houses were abandoned simultaneously, there seems to have been a shared expectation or habit of reincorporating the nutrient-dense soil of deserted house-lots into the field system. This shared practice could be interpreted as an expression of communal identity.

An additional settlement has been identified approximately 1 km to the north-east of the Celtic fields of Øster Lem Hede (Figure 3). This settlement consisted of 17 larger buildings and 10 smaller buildings and had a continuous presence from approximately 200 BCE to 400 CE. It is probable that somewhere between 3 and 6 larger buildings and various smaller buildings were contemporary with each other while the settlement was inhabited, however, the buildings have not been 14C-dated. Fragmented embankments have been identified in the intermediate area between this settlement and Øster Lem Hede, which suggests that both settlements could have been using the fields simultaneously, or one in continuation of the other.^{66 ( 66 )}
Egeberg & Kronvang 2012; Egeberg 2011, 159 Regardless of how the fields were governed, it seems reasonable and practical to situate a settlement close distance to fields, or any other resource that is essential to sustaining an agropastoral community. However, the possible continued presence of a community within the boundaries of this cultivated area could suggest that they deliberately situated their settlements within the macrostructure of the fields, which is one of the characteristics mentioned above. Practically speaking, household refuse may be effectively used as manure on nearby fields, or entire house-lots may be reincorporated, as suggested above. From an organisational perspective, commons studies indicate that residing close to or on a communal asset facilitates the regulation and supervision of the commons,^{67 ( 67 )}
Baland & Platteau 1996 while invoking a collective sense of duty and affiliation among the commoners.^{68 ( 68 )}
Poteete et al. 2010

Another interesting archaeological feature is that several barrows were incorporated into the field embankments, and particularly, that the oldest and most significant of these embankments terminates in a barrow at its southern end (Figure 4). These barrows may have been intentionally incorporated into the field embankments, which might suggest that the community wished to establish a genealogical relationship between the group and the land on which they lived. As these barrows date to the late Neolithic period or the Bronze Age, this does not suggest that the Iron Age habitants considered those who constructed these monuments their direct ancestors. Incorporating these monuments could have supported the establishment of a communal identity among the members of the group, while possibly also physically demarcating their collective assertion of land rights. This perspective is consistent with Johnston's argument related to the incorporation of existing monuments at the Dartmoor Reaves.^{69 ( 69 )}
Johnston 2005

The barrows at Øster Lem are also part of a linear formation of prehistoric barrows that stretches across vast areas of western Jutland in a north-to-south direction (Figure 5). It has been argued that the barrows marked corridors that facilitated movement and access to pastures during the Bronze Age.^{70 ( 70 )}
Holst & Rasmussen 2013, 106-107 The incorporation of barrows may suggest that the commoners wished to integrate themselves into a broader network. If the barrows were still perceived as significant landscape features with connections to cross-regional networks, their deliberate integration may suggest that the commoners sought to facilitate stable contact with long-established passages for inter-regional movement and communication.

To reassess indications of the social practice of commoning, I have selected two of its characteristics: 1) rules that are easy to enforce and may be expressed in a visually clear way, and 2) locally defined rules set by members and local conditions.^{71 ( 71 )}
Both characteristics are drawn from the works of Ostrom (1990, 90-102) Commoners applied these characteristics to establish successful and sustainable management of a communal resource; they underpin many of the actions directly involved in the daily management of common resources.

It may be argued that the embankments may be interpreted as a form of physical representation of existing rules. They are a visually clear representation of divisions of land, and relatively easy to establish and alter. Despite their fragmented state, the fields at Øster Lem Hede do seem to follow certain structural patterns. The fields appear to lie in parallel and run in a somewhat diagonal east–west or north–south direction, thus following the primary alignment demarcated by the oldest and longest embankments (Figure 6). In her analysis of English field systems, Oosthuizen considers fields of similar dimensions and alignment as having been formed in accordance with shared norms.^{72 ( 72 )}
Oosthuizen 2013 If we add this perspective to the characteristics described above, the regularity of the organisation of the fields at Øster Lem Hede may suggest that they were formed in accordance with a set of shared norms.

It is also worth considering is the road situated in the south-eastern section of the fields. The directly surrounding embankments were altered numerous times, but at no point in time seem to overlap the road.^{73 ( 73 )}
Hatt 1949 This may suggest that the road was understood as a communal space that should not be altered. Additionally, the road defined the expected behaviour of those who wished to move across the fields, thus protecting crops or grasslands from being disturbed or squashed.

If we shift focus to the second characteristic – that rules were defined locally – it seems important to observe that two settlements existed within the fields' macrostructure while they were in use. Given that the livelihood of the inhabitants of these settlements depended on the fields, management of the field was probably a key concern. In extension of this, it is interesting to note that all the houses of the smaller settlement appear to have been reintegrated into the field system once they were abandoned. The abandonment of a settlement followed by its re-incorporation into a fresh set of fields is an effective way of utilising a settlement remains as a source of nutrient-dense manure. This could indicate that within the community there was a shared practice of strategically coordinating the abandonment of their dwellings in a manner that was integrated into the overall management of the fields.

This essay set out to investigate whether commons thinking could be used to investigate a well-known aspect of prehistoric archaeology: the governance and management of Celtic fields. A cursory review of the foregoing analysis suggests that it may be possible to transfer insights from commons thinking to spatially-defined characteristics that could be applied to a morphological analysis of empirical archaeological evidence. This analysis may even suggest that there are characteristics of Øster Lem Hede that could be interpreted as indicators of communal management practices.

Developing a methodology for investigating communal resources in archaeology presents challenges, particularly because of the nature of the empirical evidence that archaeologists work with. One drawback of the analysis presented here is that its approach diverges markedly from the techniques commonly employed to study modern examples of commons, which typically involve interviews, observing behaviour or other forms of direct interaction with a community.^{74 ( 74 )}
Agrawal 2002; Rose 2020 Various elements that characterise commons, such as oral negotiations, sanctions of members, and other elements of collaborative activities, lack direct material evidence, and are not readily discernible in prehistoric archaeological remains. As a result, the method employed in this essay may present a somewhat fragmented depiction of the concept of commons. Another concern is the very top-down approach to empirical archaeological evidence that is addressed. It could be argued that the selected characteristics introduce a bias, thereby predisposing certain attitudes towards the archaeological material, or overlooking other possibly essential features. If one looks past the limitations of this analysis and gives some credence to the possibility that collective management was employed to some degree in the management of Celtic fields, what fresh perspectives could emerge?

Celtic fields were unique and dynamic landscape features that yielded immensely important resources, such as cereals, grass and heather, to prehistoric agropastoral communities. All these resources follow distinctly different growth patterns: they all rely on interaction with humans, and in certain cases, animal influences, to develop specific growth patterns. For instance, depending on its age and state, heather may be suitable for grazing, bedding or peat^{75 ( 75 )}
Kalund 2014, 24-28 Tilling, manuring, sowing, grazing and, in some instances, burning, along with the restructuring and movement of fields: all these actions may have been involved in the management of Celtic fields. What underpins humans' ability to continuously perform these actions is the agency to control these areas and protect them from being destroyed or depleted: unregulated grazing, tilling, trampling or burning could significantly disrupt the growth patterns and resources present in these areas, thus seriously threatening the livelihood of those who depend on them. The management of vast, complex areas of cultivated fields, grass- or heathlands, including the regulation of various growth cycles and the ongoing restructuring of fields, is an immense task; collective management, as it is understood in terms of commons thinking, provides a compelling perspective on how a community could meet this challenge in a sustainable manner. Thus, commons thinking seems to offer a promising addition to archaeologists' theoretical vocabularies, particularly when they address prehistoric field systems and resource management.