Introduction Material and Methods Results Discussion This research assesses the population age distribution at time-of-death via dental analysis of the Stirling-Burger collection of skeletal remains from Safety Harbor (8PI2), located on the SW coast of the Florida (Map 1). The Safety Harbor period of habitation is generally accepted as occurring around the late prehistoric and post-contact times (ca. A.D ) (11). After assessing the age distribution, a discussion is provided concerning the factors potentially responsible for the high percentage of juvenile remains in the Stirling-Burger collection. The Stirling-Burger collection contains 38 mandibular and maxillary samples available for inclusion in this study. Juvenile age was determined by gross assessment of dental eruption and x-ray assessment to analyze unerupted dentition (14). Adult dentition is assessed by analysis of dentine exposure of the first, second, and third molars following Brothwell (1981) and Miles (1963). With a sample size of 38 individuals, 13 of the individuals are juvenile (34.2%), and 25 are adult (66.8%). Figure 2 displays the age distribution of the sample. Acknowledgements Juvenile remains are thinner and smaller than adult remains, and this quality makes them considerably more susceptible to erosion. The sand and shell mound compositions are a contributing factor to this preservation issue as well- due to their corrosive nature, sand and shell mound compositions easily scratch away at skeletal fragments (8). This is typically the reason for under numeration of juveniles in collections, however, this does not seem to be the case in this collection. If anything, the juvenile population may be even larger; this would be particularly true in the youngest age groups in light of number found at Windover and the excellent preservation at that site. Therefore, it appears preservation is good at Safety Harbor, especially considering the 51 crania at the Smithsonian. Issues Related to Aging Why So Many Juveniles? Preservation There are three issues related to aging in the Stirling-Burger Collection that warrant mentioning. 1) In the adult samples, three individuals have lost M1, M2, and M3 and their gums have closed over their alveoli. In accordance with previous work by A.E.W. Miles (12), this indicates that the individual was likely over the age of 60 at time-of- death. 2) Two of the samples (one mandibular, one maxillary) have over-exposed M1 and M2 when compared with their corresponding M3. This occurrence suggests that some sort of M1/M2 tool usage occurred; however, more research is required to determine the specific details of such tool usage. 3) Two of the adult samples are missing M3 completely; radiographs reveal that this is not due to old age, but appears to be developmental. All of these factors limited the refinement of the adult age ranges. Population The collection suggests that the Safety Harbor population may have been abundant with juveniles and had a high rate of juvenile mortality. The pattern appears similar to populations who are in close geographical or temporal proximity of Safety Harbor (Map 1 and Figure 3). Although it would appear juveniles survived longer than in other populations, dying between 10 and 19. When the collection housed at the Smithsonian (51 adult crania) is included in this analysis, the juvenile percentage decreases, suggesting a low rate of juvenile mortality. However, the number of juveniles is still relatively high in comparison. Collection Strategies In explaining the prominence of juvenile samples, collection strategies may play a role. With the unique taphonomy, composure, variety, and novelty of juvenile samples, a complete juvenile collection would play a vital role in paleodemographic and paleopathological analysis. Collection strategies of Ales Hrdlicka seem to reflect this sentiment. Hrdlicka is noted as collecting every possible fragment, and went so far as to publish a complete work on the proper and optimal collection, packaging, and storage of human remains from various contexts(Hrdlicka 1904). However, the collection strategies of M.W. Stirling do not reflect this sentiment- as mentioned, remains were left at the site and others were given away or separated from the parent collection. Although Stirling was supposedly working under the jurisdiction of Hrdlicka, Hrdlicka's thorough and inclusive collection strategies do not appear to have influenced Stirlings. Conclusions This collection is believed to have been excavated from the Safety Harbor site in Pinellas County, Florida. Excavations began in 1929, with Matthew W. Stirling (Chief of the Bureau of American Ethnologies) as the chief excavator, working under the jurisdiction of Ales Hrdlicka (Curator of what is now the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History). Approximately 100 burials were excavated and the majority of the collection was deposited at the Smithsonian (at least 51 crania), however, not all of it made it there. It has been noted that M.W. Stirling presented some skeletal remains "to local farmers to be ground up and used for fertilizer." (4) and as the Figure 1 demonstrates many were left in a pile near the excavation site. The Stirling-Burger collection appears to be a sub-set of the original excavation collection that was kept by Gene Stirling, Matthews brother, and held in his private control until his death. Collection History Demographic Profile Collection, Preservation, or Population: Examination of the Factors Influencing Demographic Analysis Hadley A. Fuller and Maranda A. Kles, Ph.D, University of Louisiana at Lafayette 1.Brothwell, Don R. Digging up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment, and Study of Human Skeletal Remains. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, Print. 2.Dickel, Dave Descriptive Analaysis of the Skeletal Collection from the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cememtery, Sarasota County, Florida (8SO1292). Florida Archaeological Reports Bureau of Archaeological Research Doran, Glenn Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University of Florida Press Firschein, Warren, and Laura Kepner. "The Tocobaga People of Safety Harbor." A Brief History of Safety Harbor, Florida. Charleston: History, Print. 5.Griffin, J.W. and Bullen, R.P The Safety Harbor Site: Pinellas County, Florida. Gainesville, Florida: Pepper Printing Company. 6.Hrdlicka, Ales. Directions for Collecting Information and Specimens for Physical Anthropology. Washington: G.P.O., Print. 7.Luer, George, and Marion Almy. "The Florida Anthropologist." Florida Anthropologist Web. 09 Nov Hutchinson, Dale L. Postcontact Native American Health and Adaptation: Assessing the Impact of Introduced Diseases in Sixteenth Century Gulf Coast Florida. Diss. U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Print. 9.Hutchinson, Dale Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University of Florida Press Mitchem, Jeffrey M. Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Diss. U of Florida, Web. 4 Oct Miles, A.e.w. "Dentition in the Estimation of Age." Journal of Dental Research 42.1 (1963): Web. 12.Snow, Charles E. Indian Burials from St. Petersburg, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences 8. Florida State Museum, Gainesville Ubelaker, D.H., Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC. The demographic profile of this collection indicates a large number of juveniles in relation to adults. This is particularly evident when the age ranges are compared to the Palmer Mound (8SO2), Manasota Cemetery (8SO1292), and Windover (8BR246) populations (Table 1). AgeStirling-BurgerS-B and Smithsonian PalmerManasotaWindover 0-95%2%11%29%27% %13%11%9%12% 20+67%85%78%62%61% Table 1 Safety Harbor Windover Bayshore Homes Tierra Verde Palmer Manasota When excavations were complete these assorted Indian bones were left in a pile at the grave site From a local paper at the time of the excavation. Figure 2 Figure 3 In determining potential factors contributing to the age demographics of the Stirling- Burger collection, all three factors appear to play a role: preservation, population and collection strategies. When considering both collections together, it appears that preservation was good, however collection strategies were different. Gene Stirling may have preferentially selected juvenile remains in his collection of remains from the original excavation. M.W. Stirling's collection strategies are unclear as a large number of remains are discarded and the demographic profile of the individuals housed at the Smithsonian is unknown, but appears be skewed towards adults. Overall, the key factor contributing to the demographic profile found is the population itself. These results appear to suggest that infant mortality was low, mid to late juvenile mortality was elevated, but overall health was good with a large percentage of the population surviving into adulthood. In summary, before analyzing paleodemography or paleopathology, it is important to consider collection history, including taphonomy/preservation issues and excavation and collection strategy. If these are not considered, one might mistakenly assume that there was a high rate of juvenile mortality based on the Stirling-Burger collection or that juveniles were preferentially buried in another location based on the Smithsonian collection. The two halves of the Safety Harbor collection as currently known provide two very different pictures of the population and only together can they give us a better understanding of what the Safety Harbor peoples may have looked like. Work Cited We would like to thank Bill Burger for lending this collection for study. Also the University of Louisiana at Lafayette New Iberia Research Center for allowing us the use of their radiograph equipment. Map 1 Figure 1