Agricultural History Review, Volume 58 Part 2 (2010), pp. 153–171

Recent research into the field systems of medieval England has revealed much about their layout, variety and likely origins. This article surveys the state of that research, and contends that too little attention has been paid to the function and evolution of fields, while too much attention continues to be lavished upon the Midland system at the expense of other types of common field systems. It also argues that there is insufficient direct analysis of how common rights actually developed over the arable. The last point is addressed in two ways: by deploying the work of Campbell and De Moor to categorize the various types of common rights; and by exploring the ways in which individual variables determined both the ability of a community to enforce common rights, and also the value that it placed upon the utilization of the fallow arable. The classic model of Thirsk and Dahlman, which regards demography as the key determinant of common rights, and the Midland system as the ultimate formulation of a common field system, does not provide a sufficient explanation. The article advocates a shift in perspective beyond the Midland field system, and away from the origins of fields to their dynamics. 

Complete Volume PDF