 I'd like to first thank the organizers for inviting me to this session. Over the past 40 years, the cultural landscape of pre-Christian Scandinavia has become increasingly accessible for study due to the discovery of unusually large settlements dating to the late Roman and Germanic Iron Ages. For a region of settlement pattern previously consisted of isolated dispersed farmsteads, sites such as Gudme and Upolkra presented the first examples of agglomerated settlement. Characterized by long-distance trade, specialized production, internal organization, large populations, sacred spaces and large hinterlands, many argue that these settlements were the first centers of Iron Age Scandinavia. Yet despite the opportunity which these sites represent, archeological interpretation has remained limited, particularly regarding their centrality and urban definitions. These unusual prehistoric settlements are consistently labeled with the overarching term of central place. This practice, however, has proven problematic. Current arguments for the centrality of these sites display a limited understanding of the central aspects which may have driven them. For example, archeologists such as Morton Axbow, Brigida Hordt and Lottie Hediger emphasized the centrality of these sites, of these settlements in administrative, economic and social aspects. While center need not be limited to one form of centrality, these arguments miss the core drive and purpose behind these settlements. Urban definitions are also an issue, as some scholars argue that these settlements represent the first Scandinavian towns, while many others suggest strictly non-urban definitions. This presentation presents the results of a study which sought to emphasize the issues surrounding research of the Scandinavian central places. By first providing introduction to the central places and then discussing the study itself, a nuanced interpretation of the central places is presented, one which evaluates the nature of their centrality and their complexity. Before beginning, however, it must be noted that due to 15 minutes, this presentation only presents the primary points reached. Those seeking further information may contact me. The Scandinavian central places were a series of 15 settlements dispersed throughout Denmark, Sweden and Norway. These sites emerged and functioned during the late Roman Iron Age and migration period. Physically, the central places were the first instances of sedentary population concentration in prehistoric Scandinavia, representing large sites, some reaching hundreds of hectares, with populations suggested to range from 500 to 1,000 people. These sites were located on or near major routes of communication and possessed thick cultural layers suggesting continuous occupations over long periods of time. The settlements themselves were unfortified and repeatedly built in designated plots, consisting of fenced-in timber farmsteads accompanied by secondary buildings and possessed centralized spatial planning, ranging from managed spaces between farmsteads to designated settlement activity areas, including trading sites, production sites, settlement areas and monumental central spaces. This is a map of the general area and the sites that I examined. And these are the two case studies that I will explain later on in this presentation, just an example of the two settlements. Current arguments suggest these sites were central to irony society based on three functional spheres. Fears. Administrative, economic and social. Administrative functions are emphasized for the focal summits by scholars such as Mornaxbo and Bertil Helgesen based on concentrations of prestige goods found within uncovered monumental elite residences, evidence for centralized settlement-wide organization and their suggested control over larger hint on this. Johann Karl-Martina Thurston suggests economics and trawledy due to their proposed roles of specialized craft centers, many providing evidence for every prehistoric non-agrarian trade and the long-distance trade networks in which they participated. Additionally, Lottie Heidegger and Lars Larsen characterized these settlements as socially central cult centers based on the number of material deposits discovered on site, the proposed specialized cult buildings uncovered and arguments depicting their special organization as purposeful imitations of mythological cosmology. Yet current interpretations and the centrality of these settlements are problematic. While center need not be central in only one way, there's often one defining aspect which drives the central places, emergence and development, one which makes it truly central in the minds of those that represented. Thus the question remains, what function did the establishment and further development of these settlements revolve around? What role allowed them to become such significant points in the cultural landscape of prehistoric Scandinavia? Bi adequately answering these questions, scholars will not only be able to better understand the meaning behind the existence of the central places, but also better understand prehistoric Scandinavian society itself. The urban status of the central places is also an issue. Lars Larsen argues that the central places represented early examples of urbanization in prehistoric Scandinavia due to their physical and functional complexity, especially when viewed in comparison to earlier settlement. Yet scholars such as Helena Hammerow and Heidi Sherman claim that the central places were not complex enough to be considered urban, instead considering the early medieval Emporias the first examples of Scandinavian urban settlement. This debate however also produces certain questions. How should complexity be measured? What makes a settlement urban? In answering such questions, not only will scholars better understand prehistoric Scandinavian society, will also allow for a greater grasp of prehistoric urbanism. I made the Scandinavian central places the subject of my 2017 master's dissertation. I aim to reach a better understanding of their place within the prehistoric cultural landscape, focusing specifically on their centrality and urban complexity. In order to do so, I needed to determine the effects of current trends in academic interpretation on their reception and understanding. What made the Scandinavian central places central to irony's society? Why not urban? How, at theoretical trends, shaped understanding of these prehistoric Scandinavian settlements? By answering these questions, I sought to reach a greater understanding of pre-Christian Scandinavian society itself by reevaluating the interpretations surrounding its first major centers. Using the neutral term, focal settlement, as the central places were the first examples of large population concentration in one place, I first reviewed core theoretical concepts surrounding their study, including central place theory and urbanization theory. Seeking to establish how scholars identify and use these concepts in the archeological record, I strove to understand how current views that shaped interpretation of Scandinavian material. I then examined focal settlements themselves using the sort Muldenupokra settlements as case studies and critically analyzed current interpretation. Afterwards, general comparisons were made with both the late LaTen-Apida and early medieval Empoya. This allowed me to juxtapose the focal settlements with functionally similar sites, permitting a better understanding of their fundamental aspects. I then concluded by drawing together all previously examined material producing nuanced interpretation. I came to two major conclusions. That future research should further emphasize the socio-administrative centrality of focal settlements and that based on their cultural landscape, the focal settlements possessed a distinct level of urban complexity. The modern archeological definition of a central place is a large complex site which plays a multitude of roles for a wider network. This definition has allowed for multiple interpretations of centrality, which, as stated above, has resulted in limited understanding of the central aspects of these sites and vague use of the central place term. Yet several scholars have begun to emphasize central places points within a mental and cultural landscape. They argue that central places promote a social cohesion, self-consciousness and collective identity for the groups they represent, specifically by hosting different activities which work together towards a greater social process of ethnogenesis. Our Charlotte Febeck argues that this process is a critical aspect of a central place, shaping the settlement into a mental center in the landscape and creating a widely shared image for a developing cultural geography. Viewing centrality is how internal and external groups identify with settlement based on the activities taking place within it. I chose to use the ethnogenesis approach for my examination of the focus elements. This resulted in increasing focus on their socio-administrative centrality. Established by Iron Age elite to consolidate an increasingly hierarchical power structure, the focal settlements became points of gravity in the cultural landscape by concentrating society within the monumental halls of the elite, such as those. Whereas earlier Scandinavian society had previously marked out distinct areas in the landscape for different aspects of society, the central halls of the Iron Age focal settlements focused a wide array of activities in twist single spot, including religious ceremonies, markets and imported administrative meetings. This in turn both focused all aspects of Iron Age society under the direct control of the elite and created a symbol which delimited the sacro political space of the surrounding area. As a result, the elite-driven collective identities emerged as the use and maintenance of these sites created collective memories, investing them with powerful social significance. Reflected by an observed decline in regional differentiation of material culture and increasing social cohesion. These collective identities advertised and reinforced the increasing control of the ruling class, presenting powerful individuals in the settlements they administered as the new centers of prehistoric Scandinavia. The focal settlements were thus socially and administratively central to Iron Age Scandinavian society, representing an elite strategy which reinforced and reflected their increasing power through the creation of collective identities and memories. By establishing these settlements and concentrating the Scandinavian world within their halls, the elite created points in a developing cultural landscape which influenced the groups they controlled, encouraging them to act as a single cultural unit. While each of these sites functioned in several ways, administratively, economically, and social, the activities of these settlements functioned towards the central socio-administrative purpose of reinforcing an increasingly hierarchical power structure and placing the controlling elite in the social spotlight. Regarding urban complexity, recent interpretations of archeological urbanism consists of evolutionary checklist where archeologists progressively examined settlements and labeled them urban based on the presence of certain key features, including large size and population, the presence of full-time specialists, taxation, writing, long-distance trade, and monumental public buildings. Yet such checklist approaches are culturally particular in it, no centric. Scholars using checklist approaches such as V. Gordon Child and Bruce Trigger developed them based on the key features of stereotypical urban centers, classical and medieval cities. They assume that these centers represent the only form which urbanism can take, resulting in misleading comparisons with prehistoric societies whose contexts were drastically different and the isolation of settlements from their cultural landscapes. In response, however, scholars such as Jiri Musil and Berserker Gdarska are beginning to examine settlements within their cultural landscapes, believing that an archeological definition of urbanism must be culturally relevant. Following a sociological strand of thought, these scholars argue that the general change from dispersed farmsteads to agglomerated centers and the behaviors which such change brings should define urbanism. In order to better understand the urban complexity of the focal settlements, I chose to use the sociological approach, examining these sites in association with their surrounding cultural landscape. Through comparisons with both the Apida and the Emporia, I found that the focal settlements possessed high levels of physical and functional complexity, particularly for their cultural landscape. These settlements were generally characterized by large sizes, a layout indicative of a central organizing power, strategic locations on major routes of communication, monumental central places, longevity and occupation, and large populations. Functionally, they were centers sitting at the apex of the settlement hierarchy, functioning as the administrative, social, and economic centers of the respective regions. The focal summits were each in control of the long distance inner and inter-regional trade networks of the regions and were inhabited by populations specializing in non-agrarian crafts, communities which may have been supplied by a wider hinterland. Each of the focal summits also played administrative functions, determining development in their respective regions. If scholars were to continue to use current approaches to urbanism based on comparisons to classical medieval cities, then the focal summits would clearly possess the necessary levels of complexity to be considered urban. Yet this should not be how urbanization is examined. Rather than using comparisons to classical medieval cities, Western preconceptions of urbanism, scholars should further emphasize urbanism in a local and cultural context. The Scandinavian focal summits represent the first examples of large-scale permanent population agglomeration in a cultural landscape previously characterized by isolated roaming farmsteads and villages. Following the sociological approach, the focal sites would thus be classified as urban summits for the cultural context based on the change they represent. Yet they have consistently defined as non-urban summits due to their differences to classical and medieval cities. Future scholarships should strive to understand what urbanism means within a specific cultural landscape. By aligning classical and medieval cities to set the standard for urbanism in the archaeological record, the characteristics which make each different society unique are lost in ethnocentric attempts to find the Western idea of the urban form in context which experienced their own particular form of urbanism. Who was to say that the concentrated focal summits do not represent urbanism for prehistoric Scandinavia? Scholars cannot assume that urbanization will take a similar form in every cultural context. Urbanism instead needs to be studied based on the form that would be relevant to its wider cultural context. In closing my study, present the focal summits as socio-administratively central settlements, representing a distinctly Scandinavian form of prehistoric urbanism. Emerging during a period of social change in Scandinavia, these sites represented the concentration of both different aspects of the cultural landscape in previously dispersed populations into single points, resulting in elite-driven collective identities which emphasized these settlements as the new centers in the Scandinavian world. Yet these can only be interpretations of how this settlement type worked generally. There is considerable variation present amongst the sites labeled focal settlement or central place, including settlement form and size, placement in the landscape, and period of occupation, only making general interpretations possible at this time. Future research needs to focus on distinguishing individual sites from this overarching group. How did particular focal summits serve as an elite-driven collective identity compared to others? How do these regional variations reflect the cultures of local societies? In doing so, not only will scholars be able to rid itself of a vague term, it will also be able to observe the cultural landscape of pre-Christian Scandinavia in even greater detail. These are the copyrighted figures, and thank you.