In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

struction stages and number of burials (r = .90, p = .0001). Assuming that all households experienced approximately the same death rate among their members and were interring the same proportion of their deceased in square structures, we may infer that some structures were used as residences for a longer time than others. Larger structures also were generally occupied longer than were smaller ones (Kelly 1988). This inference is supported by correlations between the size of square structures and the number of interments (r = .59, p = .003) and between the size of square structures and the number of construction stages (r = .47, p = .02). Sullivan (1987) reports a similar correlation in the Mouse Creek phase between the size of domestic structures and the number of burials contained within them. She attributes the relationship to differences in household size, reasoning that more populous households can be expected to experience more deaths among their members on average. We concur with Sullivan that the number of people residing in a square structure probably has an effect on the number of individuals who are ultimately interred in it. However , we do not believe that this is the primary cause of the relationship between structure size and number of burials because it does not account for the correlation of construction stage number with burial number and structure size. Why should smaller square structures have been utilized for shorter periods of time? We can think of no reason they should have been abandoned sooner than larger structures built at the same time. On the other hand, there is indirect evidence that some small square structures were erected later in the site’s life span than larger structures. Small structures tend to be situated in more marginal locations within the domestic habitation zone. Three of the ¤ve smallest primary structures (Structures 3, 4, and 20) are located very close to the palisade and, in the case of Structures 3 and 4, in rather cramped settings. The other two of the smallest structures (Structures 18 and 24) are located on the edge of the plaza. If the King site population grew through time, vacant space in the domestic habitation zone would have become increasingly limited. To accommodate this growth, structures erected late in the site’s occupancy may have had to have been built smaller and placed either on the edge of the plaza where they would encroach on public space or next to the palisade in what may have been less desirable locations . Towns in Georgia: King Site 59 Some square structures may have been added to the King settlement as a result of the arrival of new residents. It is also likely that the addition of some structures re®ects the growth of resident households. Three of the four tentatively identi¤ed multistructure households in the eastern portion of the site contain both large multistage and smaller single-stage square structures (Figure 3.7). The former may represent the residences of the families that founded the households at the time the King site was ¤rst occupied. The latter may represent the residences of children who grew up, married, and remained in the extended family household (Kelly 1988). Interpreting Rebuilt Structures What prompted the rebuilding of square structures? Decay of wooden wall and roof support posts is a possibility. However, the fact that the plaza structures, Structures 16 and 17, and the palisade have only one construction stage suggests that decay was not a factor. Accidental ¤res almost certainly took their toll of residences. That most of the nine square structures with multiple stages are of larger size, however, suggests that random house¤res were also not a major factor. We propose that square structures were destroyed and rebuilt most often as a result of the death of a signi¤cant household member, perhaps the genealogically senior member and household head. This could account for the correlation between number of burials and number of construction stages, since the longer the structure was occupied, the greater the chance that one or more of its signi¤cant residents would die. If some households at King began with a single large square structure and added smaller square structures as their membership grew, we should also expect a correlation between number of burials and size of structure. The small number of structures with multiple construction stages, furthermore, follows from the likelihood that “signi¤cant” individuals resided in the household’s ¤rst-built square structure. There are several ethnohistorical accounts for the southeastern United...

Share