The construction of monumental landscapes in low-density societies: New evidence from the Early Neolithic of Southern Scandinavia (4000–3300 BC) in comparative perspective (November 5, 2015) Magnus Artursson a,⇑ , Timothy Earle b , James Brown b a Swedish National Historical Museums, Lund, Sweden b Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA article info Article history: Received 20 January 2015 Revision received 11 November 2015 Keywords: Monumental landscape Low-density society Comparative perspective Political economy Early Neolithic Southern Scandinavia Megalith Eastern North America Hopewell Earthwork abstract The article presents new evidence from two recent, rescue excavations of Early Neolithic gathering and burial sites at Almhov and Döserygg in Scania, southern Sweden. Along with previous excavations of the Danish enclosures at Sarup, these central sites provide a sequence witnessing substantial development of monumental landscapes during a period of relatively low population density in Southern Scandinavia. An explanation for this rather surprising development is placed within a political economy approach: In situations of low-density populations, resource circumscription is thought to be ineffective as a means of political control. Rather, ceremonial monuments were built to create a strong and permanent allure of ritual spaces and ceremonies associated with mortuary practice, inheritance rights, and emergent lead- ers. Although inherently unstable, positive feedback apparently existed between the collection of food for feasts, labor to build ritual landscapes, and some central power based on authority. The construction of permanent monumental places helped create, we argue, overarching ownership rights represented in the engineered landscape. To demonstrate the generality of these hypothetical relations, the Southern Scandinavian sequence is compared to similar patterns of monumental construction associated with low-density populations during the prehistory of eastern North America. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Relatively low-density societies frequently, but not regularly, constructed impressive monumental landscapes in Asia (Rosner, 1959), Europe (Bradley, 1998; Sherratt, 1990), Africa (Hildebrand, 2013), and the Americas (Burger and Rosenswig, 2012; Gillespie, 2013; Roosevelt et al., 2012). Such engineered landscapes were linked neither to intensive agriculture nor to explicit displays of social inequality in personal possessions. Constructions of ‘perma- nent’ landscapes were, however, particular and provocative events that appear to have reordered society (Beck et al., 2007; Earle, 2004). Mound constructions for the Early Neolithic long barrows, megaliths, and enclosures along Europe’s Atlantic fringe and for the famous Hopewell earthworks in the American Midwest are but two independent archaeological examples of monumental landscapes in relatively low-density societies. Such monumental constructions, we argue, required substantial coordination of feast- ing, logistical scheduling, engineering solutions, measurement of formal plans, and other skills well beyond those involved in domes- tic housing or communal structures characterizing egalitarian soci- eties (Adler and Wilshusen, 1990; Sherwood and Kidder, 2011: 71). The ability to coordinate labor in megalithic and mound construc- tions fits comfortably with simple chiefdoms (a.k.a. transegalitarian or intermediate level societies) as described ethnographically (Adams, 2007; Earle and Spriggs, 2015; Hayden, 2014). Our jumping off point is Blanton et al.’s (1996) observation that human societies, across a spectrum of scales, varied according to the political strategies employed. One strategy of chiefly societies emphasized corporate ownership, defining the group through collaborative practice, ceremonial cycles, and constructed monu- ments. These include what Renfrew (1974) called group-oriented chiefdoms. They produced monumental landscapes that required substantial labor for constructions and produced new property relationships (Earle, 1991). Renfrew (2001) has called such monu- mental places ‘‘locations of high devotional expression” that held strong symbolic meaning and emotional effect. Earle (2004) and Brown (2012) have emphasized that these monuments gave per- manence and regional scale to sacred places, thus creating an ideal medium to express larger scale political institutions. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.11.005 0278-4165/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41 (2016) 1–18 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa