The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Crossing the waterline: Integrating terrestrial and

submerged site investigations in the Aucilla River,
Florida

Jessi J. Halligan

To cite this article: Jessi J. Halligan (2021) Crossing the waterline: Integrating terrestrial and
submerged site investigations in the Aucilla River, Florida, The Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology, 16:1, 46-63, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2020.1782541

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2020.1782541

Published online: 14 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 215

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uica20
THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY
2021, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 46–63
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2020.1782541

Crossing the waterline: Integrating terrestrial and

submerged site investigations in the Aucilla River, Florida
Jessi J. Halligan
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Over the past decade, research in the Aucilla River of northwestern Received 11 December 2019;
Florida, USA, has focused upon understanding the geoarchaeological Accepted 4 June 2020
context of numerous formerly-terrestrial, now-inundated sinkhole
KEYWORDS
spring sites and the landscapes surrounding them. Dozens of ter-
Underwater archaeology;
minal Pleistocene and early Holocene-aged diagnostic artifacts have geoarchaeology; submerged
been recovered from this river, some in association with drowned landscapes; Paleoindian
terrestrial soils and intact dateable stratigraphy. Currently-terrestrial archaeology
sites have thus far proven nearly undateable and are often conflated
and deflated, but they provide evidence of extensive and resilient
lifeways along the Aucilla River basin over thousands of years. The
wealth of paleoenvironmental proxy data recovered from the
drowned landscapes can help to explicate where, why, and how
some sites have preserved while others have not. These data further
suggest how people were adjusting to their changing environments
over the more than 14,000 years they have been occupying the
Aucilla River basin. This paper details the methods utilized to work
on both sides of the waterline to reach a more holistic understand-
ing of geoarchaeological context and human societies in the Aucilla
River basin.

Introduction
Underwater archaeology has long been considered a specialized subfield of archaeology.
In the case of inundated landscape studies, however, working below the modern water-
line has some methodological and logistics challenges, but the research itself is situated
in mainstream archaeological and theoretical problems for the area of investigation
(Bailey et al. 2020; Flemming et al. 2017). Thus, one of the most important aspects of
this research is integrating the archaeological evidence from both sides of the waterline,
especially since the line between terrestrial and inundated has been an ephemeral and
fluid boundary throughout the past. Doing this is not merely a matter of “draining the
water” through various geospatial modeling techniques; one must consider the numer-
ous and shifting geological contexts that have impacted the totality of the study area,
including the various locations of the water’s edge throughout time (Anderson and
Bissett 2015; Anderson, Bissett, and Yerka 2013; Joy 2019). Preferably, this will include
paleoenvironmental reconstructions through numerous proxies (e.g., sedimentological,

CONTACT Jessi J. Halligan jhalligan@fsu.edu Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
FL, USA.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 47

isotopic, palynological, etc.), which can be used to reconstruct the timing and tempo of
environmental changes and may also narrow down attractive locations for past peoples
(Halligan 2013; Hansen 2006; Perrotti 2018; Perrotti et al. 2020).
The Aucilla River drainage of northwestern Florida (Figure 1) is an ideal area to
attempt this type of holistic landscape reconstruction for several reasons. First, 822
recorded archaeological sites span the entire pre-Columbian history of Florida from the
earliest known occupation at Page-Ladson ca. 14,550 years ago (Halligan et al. 2016)
until the arrival of the De Soto expedition in 1539, which purportedly crossed the river
at an unknown location on its way to camp in what is now Tallahassee, Florida
(Hudson 1997). At the same time, much of the drainage basin has remained undevel-
oped or has only been minimally-developed in the modern era, so comparatively few
sites have been destroyed by modern construction, although extensive silviculture has
churned many near-surface sites. There are also enormous tracts of public land, so large
areas are available for systematic survey and numerous localities have been discovered
by avocational archaeologists. Because of public accessibility, however, looting is an
ever-present threat to many of these sites, and public land managers spend a great deal
of time performing damage assessments, which occasionally yield additional temporal
information at the cost of site integrity. Finally, a large percentage of the earliest arch-
aeological sites found within the Aucilla River drainage basin are located within the
modern river channel and represent the remains of formerly-terrestrial localities inun-
dated by rising water levels.
The Aucilla River inundated record contains numerous terminal Pleistocene and early
Holocene sites along with even more diagnostic artifacts discovered ex situ. These
Paleoindian and Early Archaic localities have received most of the professional atten-
tion, being the focus of intensive investigations throughout the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries (Dunbar 2016; Faught 2004a, 2004b, 2006; Faught and Carter
1998; Faught and Donoghue 1997; Halligan et al. 2016; Hemmings 1999; Webb et al.
1984). The recorded Aucilla Basin mid-late Holocene components (Archaic, Woodland,
Mississippian, Historic) are more commonly in terrestrial settings and are monitored
regularly but are known in much less detail. The Florida Master Site File (FMSF) has
822 recorded sites within the Aucilla Basin (Figure 1), 79 (9.6%) of which are recorded
as being partially or completely underwater. Twenty (25% of underwater; 2.4% of all
sites) of these underwater sites had site assessments (coring, systematic collection, or
the equivalent). Ten of these have been investigated via controlled excavation (13% of
underwater, 1.2% of total), with three, Page-Ladson (8JE591), Ryan-Harley (8JE1004),
and Sloth Hole (8JE121), the target of extensive block excavations (Dunbar et al. 2006;
Halligan 2012; Halligan et al. 2016; Hemmings 1999; Smith 2020; Webb 2006). Of the
terrestrial sites, 223 (30%) have had site assessments while fewer than 2% have had
block excavations.
The underwater record has been subject to much more intensive survey and excava-
tion because it is one of the few places in the southeastern US where organic artifacts
have preserved from Paleoindian and Early Archaic contexts (Dunbar and Webb 1996),
occasionally within intact, dateable stratigraphic deposits that have preserved within
mid-channel sinkholes (Halligan 2012; Halligan et al. 2016; Webb 2000). Outside of the
river channels, Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites tend to have poor organic
48 J. J. HALLIGAN

Figure 1. Location of study area showing archaeological sites recorded with the Florida Master Site
File (FMSF) in the Florida portion of the Aucilla-Wacissa drainage basin. FMSF recorded survey areas
of any type are highlighted; yellow areas are compliance-related, while orange are research-related.
Sites discussed in text are numbered: (1) Ryan-Harley; (2) Page-Ladson; (3) Sloth Hole; (4) 8JE2000.
Inset shows location of study basin and sea levels (Joy 2019) at significant cultural intervals (in order:
age of Page-Ladson occupation [ca. 14,500 cal B.P.; Halligan et al. 2016], start of Clovis [ca. 13,025 cal
B.P.; Waters et al. 2015], start of Younger Dryas/end of Clovis [ca. 12,800/12,700 cal B.P.; Broecker
et al. 2010, Walker et al. 2009]; end of Younger Dryas/beginning of Holocene [ca. 11,700 cal B.P.;
Walker et al. 2009]; the end of the Early Archaic period [ca. 9500 cal BP; Pevny, Thulman, and Faught
2018] and at thousand year intervals thereafter for 8000 cal BP, 7000 cal BP, 6000 cal BP., whereafter
curve has too much uncertainty.
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 49

preservation and contain diagnostic artifacts in conflated and undateable contexts

(Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Dunbar 2007; Halligan 2019). The recorded underwater
sites, however, only provide a very small and localized picture of past lifeways, as they
almost universally were far-inland spring-fed sinkhole ponds. The known sites became
infilled with sediments and water as aquifer levels rose in response to approximately
130 m of sea level rise during the terminal Pleistocene-middle Holocene (ca. 21,000-
6000 calibrated years before present [cal BP]) (Joy 2019; Lambeck et al. 2014). The ris-
ing water levels connected these sinkholes into the modern fluvial system sometime
after 8000 cal BP. Dozens of post-8000 year old sites are found on the banks of this flu-
vial system, but few drowned components younger than 8,000 cal BP are discovered
within it, providing clues to local eustasy and human response thereto. Thus, research
on both sides of the waterline is needed to reconstruct the lifeways of pre-contact
Floridians, patterns of site preservation and destruction, and the timing and tempo of
major environmental changes in the southeastern United States.

Materials and methods

Study area
The modern Aucilla River flows southward from its headwaters in southern Georgia
into Apalachee Bay with a channel length of only approximately 125 km, encompassing
a drainage basin of approximately 2,054 km2 (Donoghue 2006) that includes its main
tributary, the Wacissa River (Figure 1). The upper Aucilla runs over the Northern
Highlands, a highly-dissected Miocene delta plain (Yon 1966:9) to the Cody
Escarpment, a probable Sangamon-aged marine terrace with an elevation of 13–15 m
above sea level, which divides the Northern Highlands from the Woodville Karst Plain.
The lower Aucilla, within the Woodville Karst Plain (Yon 1966), runs in a channel shal-
lowly-incised into the Oligocene-aged Suwannee limestone, a chert-bearing formation
that has been heavily karstified by the Floridian Aquifer, resulting in a non-continuous
stream channel typified by shallow bedrock, deep mid-channel sinkholes, and numerous
short surface “runs” interspersed with underground stream sections.
The entire lower Aucilla is tidally-influenced, with a daily tidal bore of less than a
meter. The channel, which is generally exposed limestone, has an approximate depth of
1.5–2 m in main channel portions, periodically interrupted by mid-channel sinkholes,
usually solution dolines (Jennings 1985), which generally reach approximately 8–10
meters in depth. The Aucilla is a tannic river, meaning that the waters are dark, espe-
cially in times of heavy rainfall, due to groundwater flow through the extensive cypress
swamps surrounding the stream. The dark water prevents plant growth within the
stream, leaving the ground surface bare, but also requiring that underwater researchers
have powerful lights to conduct their investigations.
The Wacissa is a spring-dominated braided stream system with many shallow chan-
nels running southward from numerous spring sources to several confluences with the
Aucilla. Water in the Wacissa is hence very clear and weed growth within the stream
channel is rampant. Channel depth varies from 0.5–3 m, and sinkholes are common
but generally shallower than within the Aucilla unless they are spring sources, which
also average ca. 10 m deep.
50 J. J. HALLIGAN

The Aucilla and Wacissa are surrounded by extensive tracts of cypress swamp, which
are frequently flooded due to the low topographic relief and heavy seasonal rainfall of
modern Florida. Much of this swamp is undeveloped public land, leading to a fairly
undisturbed landscape, although there is some agriculture, a large dolomite quarry, a
few private residences, and a few tree plantations. Research has demonstrated that the
now-drowned channel of the Aucilla can still be traced some distance out into
Apalachee Bay, although much of it has been infilled with modern marine sands
(Faught 2004a, 2004b).
In the past, this area was much different. It would have been far inland and far
upland throughout the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (Figure 1 inset), and the
modern fluvial systems did not form until sometime after 8,000 cal BP. Flora and fauna
were also extremely different during the late glacial periods, as temperate, subtropical,
and tropical species were found in associations not observed since the Rancholabrean
extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene (Halligan 2013). This will be discussed more
thoroughly in the results section below, as paleoenvironmental reconstructions have
been key portions of this research.

Study methodology
Research in the Aucilla basin has been ongoing for decades; recently, most has empha-
sized gaining a holistic knowledge of material culture on both sides of the waterline,
even if my main focus and that of my colleagues has been upon the earlier cultural
components in the river basin. Thus, for site discovery, site assessment, and site investi-
gation, there are concordant methods between terrestrial and submerged that provide
data at roughly comparable scales. When utilized together, these can assist in providing
a holistic geoarchaeological understanding of site preservation that aids in reconstruct-
ing as much information as possible about the past peoples of the Aucilla Basin
(Table 1).
Through approximately the middle of the twentieth century, site discovery was largely
unsystematic. Large mounds were recorded on the terrestrial landscape but little else.
Underwater sites had been known from the clear water rivers in Florida, including
nearby Wakulla Springs Lodge, since the early twentieth century, and ivory rods similar
to those at Clovis sites had been reported (Jenks and Simpson 1941). However, no for-
mal underwater investigations occurred in the Aucilla until the early days of SCUBA.
After this, site discoveries were made by visual reconnaissance, and researchers, largely
avocational archaeologists and paleontologists, were focused upon artifact and fossil
recovery, making some significant finds of both (Serbousek 1983). These discoveries led
to C. Vance Haynes coring the Sloth Hole site in the late 1970s and to systematic
underwater survey and excavation of several portions of the river during a joint pale-
ontological and archaeological project during the 1980s and 1990s. This project was
eventually known as the Aucilla River Prehistory Project (Dunbar 2016; Hemmings
1999; Webb 2006) and defined the framework still utilized today. Geoarchaeological
context was not the focus of most of the investigations conducted by these pioneers of
underwater research, but they laid an excellent baseline for our later research by ensur-
ing that dozens of archaeological and fossil localities became known to the scientific
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 51

Table 1. Comparative methodologies utilized for geoarchaeological investigations on both sides of

the waterline in the Aucilla Basin.
Goal Terrestrial methodology Underwater methodology
Site discovery: location of artifacts GIS modeling to find areas favorable GIS modeling to find areas favorable
and initial assessment of for sites based on previous finds for sites based on previous finds
stratigraphic context LiDAR analysis for high ground Bathymetric analysis for sinkholes
visual examination of disturbed areas visual examination of sinkhole
for artifacts bottoms for artifacts and margins
for preserved sediments
shovel test pits n/a
Site assessment: recording spatial ground-penetrating radar (GPR) subbottom profiler; GPR
extent of stratigraphy, potential for shovel test pits sediment cores
intact stratigraphy, site age, auger pits sediment cores
context, density
Site investigation: in-depth analysis 1  1 m test units 1  2 m test units
of cultural components, excavation of block excavation block excavation
features, collection of column samples column samples
paleoenvironmental materials, auger pits sediment cores
geological assessment

community and by conducting precise excavations and extensive radiocarbon dating at

several sites.
For the past decade, my colleagues and I have focused upon understanding the geo-
logical, geoarchaeological, and archaeological context of the Aucilla River drainage. To
do this, our research follows the standard workflow of most archaeology: site discovery,
site assessment, and site investigation. I treat these as separate phases of research below,
though the lines between them can be arbitrary. As is typical for archaeology in most
parts of the world, many sites have been discovered, a few have been formally assessed,
and a small handful have been investigated with large scale excavations.

Site discovery
Site discovery often starts with narrowing search areas. In recent years, we have accom-
plished this by utilizing GIS in various ways. For instance, known site location data has
been input along with soils, elevation, bathymetric, and hydrological data to create
“sensitivity” maps to suggest areas that are likely to contain unrecorded sites. More fre-
quently, however, a single dataset is utilized; for the terrestrial, we look for high land,
and underwater, we look for sinks. On the terrestrial side, Aucilla Wildlife Management
Area resource managers have utilized the submeter resolution LiDAR that is publicly-
available for coastal counties in Florida to locate anomalous rises. In the lower Aucilla,
ground-truthing of these features has demonstrated that they are nearly always cultural,
and recently there has been some success in separating mound features from chert out-
crops and modern disturbances (Burke 2019). In the inundated, bathymetric data are
often used to find sinkholes, which is where the best-preserved sediment sequences
have historically been discovered. Bathymetry data are often obtained via fieldwork;
numerous times we have mounted a fish finder and a GPS unit onto the side of a john-
boat and collected depth information by crisscrossing the channels. We then create rela-
tively fine resolution bathymetric maps by smoothing those points into a raster layer in
GIS. In the past year, Cole (Cole and Halligan 2019) has also had promising results
using green light LiDAR in combination with GIS to discover unrecorded sinkholes in
offshore paleochannels of the Aucilla River.
52 J. J. HALLIGAN

Remote sensing, no matter how well done, must always be verified; site discovery
technically does not occur until cultural material is discovered at a location.
Underwater, we discover artifacts by systematic diver survey, crisscrossing the river
channel looking for exposed artifacts in transects usually no more than two meters apart
due to the dark water. In most places, the channel thalweg contains a sandy lag that is
rich in bones and modern trash; this is carefully investigated for ancient artifacts as
well; often divers employ handfanning to get a more thorough view of the cultural
material. Diagnostic styles are noted and sometimes collected. We also carefully investi-
gate the sinkhole margins for any evidence of preserved sediments which could contain
intact stratigraphy. Divers further note where limestone is exposed and where sediment
has potentially preserved along with approximate water depths (obtained from dive
computers) of these strata.
On land, sites are sometimes located by walkover survey, especially on tracts that
have recently been looted, which is an endemic problem in this area, had undergrowth
removed by controlled burns, or have recently been furrowed for silviculture, but by far
the most common method for systematic site discovery is the shovel test pit (STP) due
to the dense undergrowth in this area. Over the years, different pit spacing has been uti-
lized, as have different STP sizes, but STPs 20-30 meters apart and 50  50 cm in size
have become our default size and spacing for site discovery. STPs are excavated in
10-cm levels or by natural stratigraphy. We always excavate to bedrock, utilizing a 3-
inch (7.62 cm) bucket auger when bedrock is found below the water table or in areas
with root impediments or impenetrable clay. All STPs are screened through 1=4-inch
(0.635 cm) mesh. Materials discovered in walkover survey are recorded in situ and pho-
tographed but are rarely collected. Materials found in STPs are collected, analyzed, and
returned to the landowner. During this phase of research, locating cultural material is
the main goal, but ideally, we gain some idea of potential stratigraphic context to deter-
mine which sites seem most promising for further assessment.

Site assessment
As one would expect, we assess any time we are on a site, but in this case, the term is
used as a heuristic for investigations aimed at determining the spatial extent, density,
stratigraphic context, age, and potential presence of features or preserved organic mate-
rials. Geophysical investigation can be done to help determine the depth, continuity,
and extent of buried sediment bodies, although we rarely use it. Ground-penetrating
radar (GPR) has been successful in recording the subsurface stratigraphy at the Ryan-
Harley site in continuous transects across land and water by putting the receiver in a
kayak (Smith 2020). This was supplemented by soil probes that recorded the depth and
extent of the artifact-bearing sand horizon. Several times, we have utilized various types
of subbottom profilers to determine the depth of sediment deposition at underwater
sites where a distinct shelf of sediment often overlays vuggy and uneven limestone bed-
rock (Figure 2), and we have occasionally employed a GPR for a small area of an
already-known terrestrial site.
Because geophysical data also need to be verified, we often skip that step and proceed
directly to archaeological analysis. On terrestrial sites, this is done by more shovel test-
ing and auger pits. In this case, pits are usually spaced at 10-m intervals in either a grid
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 53

Figure 2. (A) Sediment profile in subbottom profiler from archaeological site 8JE2000 in lower Aucilla
verified by (B) a sediment core showing buried soil profile. Arrow points to target stratum but not
exact location of sediment core, which was collected from approximately 3 m east of shown subbot-
tom track.

or transect pattern. They are always 50  50 centimeters in size if an STP, 3-inch (7.62
centimeters) if an auger pit, screened through 1/4-inch (0.635 centimeter) mesh, and
excavated in 10-centimeter or natural levels to bedrock. In inundated settings, sediment
cores serve as the STP proxy. These cores, 3-inch (7.62 centimeter) aluminum pipes, are
driven through the subsurface sediments as far as possible. We have done this utilizing
a boat as a coring platform and by hand with divers. We have utilized a Livingstone
coring device (Livingstone 1955), a vibracorer, various slide hammers, and kettle bells
to pound the tubes into the sediment. Extraction has usually involved rope, farm jacks,
and/or lift bags. Generally, we try to collect these cores in 10-meter transects across the
sinks to capture cross-stream or downstream changes in sediment bodies (Figure 3).
After collection, core tubes are split by circular saw, sediments are split using wire, and
sediments are photographed and described using the NRCS standards (Schoeneberger
et al. 2012). Profiles are carefully examined for evidence of pedogenesis (structure, tex-
ture, and/or color changes indicative of subaerial exposure) and soils are carefully exam-
ined for any artifact content and for materials suitable for radiocarbon dating.

Site investigation
When soils are encountered in underwater settings or features and preserved organics
are discovered on land, we often open a slightly larger area for investigation. In terres-
trial localities, this is a 1  1 meter test unit. Screening of this unit may be through 1/4-
inch (0.635 centimeter) mesh, but we often utilize 1=8-inch (0.318 centimeter) or finer
mesh as well, especially in features. In underwater settings, we use a 1  2 meter test
unit so that there is room for the diver and the 4-inch (10.16 centimeter) water induc-
tion dredge within the unit. Sediment is pulled by Venturi-effect vacuum from the river
54 J. J. HALLIGAN

Figure 3. Terrestrial testing (STPs) on land and coring and excavation areas underwater at the Page-
Ladson site. Underwater portions were also visually inspected by divers swimming in transects (not
marked on map for clarity). The site is recorded with the FMSF as three separate sites, with the
underwater component separated from each bank. I combined that boundary in Figure 3, which
needs to be enlarged based on the distribution of material culture.

bottom to a floating screen deck, where it is screened through nested 1=4-inch (0.635
centimeter) and 1/16-inch (0.159 centimeter) screens. In both cases, excavation proceeds
in 10-centimeter levels within natural stratigraphy, artifacts are piece-plotted in situ,
and radiocarbon samples are collected when possible. Extant walls are drawn at the end
of excavation. Lithic materials are washed, dried, and analyzed. Faunal materials are
dried slowly to avoid the need for chemical conservation and analyzed. On land,
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 55

provenience may be recorded via total station or tapes and line levels. Underwater, an
excavation frame may be used to provide control points, or control points may be
placed underwater by divers and shot in via a very long stadia rod using a total station
on land or by shooting in surface markers with a centimeter-accuracy GPS.
These excavation units are expanded into larger blocks if significant deposits are dis-
covered (artifact-bearing soils underwater, intact cultural deposits on land), which may
be excavated in smaller 5 cm levels within natural stratigraphy, but otherwise follow the
same procedures. Throughout, geological samples are collected via core, auger, grab
sample, or column sample. In underwater settings, it is important to make sure sedi-
ments are not exposed to the water column to collect uncontaminated samples and to
get accurate sediment descriptions in the lab. Therefore, we regularly use core tubes,
electrical boxes, or gutter sections cut into the walls to collect undisturbed sediments.
Analytical subsamples removed from these columns are not extracted from near the
edges to avoid potential water column exposure. From these materials, we have con-
ducted geochemical, microstratigraphic, micro and macrobotanical, microfaunal, and
isotopic analyses (Halligan et al. 2016; Hollingshead 2019; Perrotti 2018; Perrotti
et al. 2020).
In sum, we go to great effort to maintain comparative data and sampling strategies
on both sides of the waterline (Figure 3). Nevertheless, our research has demonstrated
that the archaeological materials are dissimilar on either side of the waterline due to the
unique geological history of the Aucilla/Wacissa basin.

Results
Figure 1 shows that a relatively large percentage of the drainage basin has been sur-
veyed. This survey has allowed 822 sites to be recorded in the basin. The Florida
Master Site File has digitized survey areas available as GIS files. In May 2020, there
were 91 total surveys recorded for the Aucilla Basin. I was provided with these, clipped
the survey areas to the drainage basin boundary, and used the “calculate geometry”
function in ArcGIS to determine the area of each project within the basin. Then, I uti-
lized the “merge” function in the editor toolbar to remove overlapping survey areas and
recalculated total areas. Fifteen of these projects were categorized as broadly “research”
related, as they were conducted by academic entities or by the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research, rather than by CRM companies. Approximately 956 km2 of
the basin have been surveyed by via remote sensing, walkover survey, or shovel testing.
The FMSF GIS data do not contain information about methodology. Many of these sur-
veys cover overlapping areas, however, so only approximately 237 km2, or approxi-
mately 12% of the basin, have been systematically surveyed. Of this, 101 km2, or 5% of
the basin, has been surveyed for research, rather than compliance-related projects,
which is nearly half (42%) of the survey in the basin. My collaborators and I have sur-
veyed only approximately five square kilometers of the drainage basin to locate sites.
Excavation area for site assessment and site investigation is harder to determine. The
FMSF does not digitize excavation areas, so these data would have to be obtained by
referring to every individual site form. The total area we and the ARPP have excavated
underwater during site assessments is about 25 m2, with approximately 120 square
56 J. J. HALLIGAN

meters excavated on land via shovel tests and a few exploratory 1  1 meter units. The
total area excavated for site assessments during other projects is not readily determin-
able from the FMSF site forms, but it is less than 500 square meters. The GIS data do
not contain information about excavation area, so a National Register evaluation for a
site was considered a site “assessment” for this paper for the 743 terrestrial sites.
Underwater block investigations by us and the ARRP have totaled approximately 220
square meters. We have not done any terrestrial block excavation. FMSF GIS data do
not allow for straightforward differentiation of block versus assessment excavations for
the other terrestrial sites in the drainage basin.
Underwater sites have received a disproportionate amount of archaeological investiga-
tion in the Aucilla Basin, as 10 (13%) of underwater sites have had some controlled
excavation, while 24 or fewer terrestrial sites (approximately 3%) have been excavated
more fully. Site assessment has been roughly concordant on both sides of the waterline,
as 20 of the 79 underwater sites (25%) and 223 (30%) of the 743 terrestrial sites have
been augered, cored, or shovel-tested. These data have enabled us to make some gener-
alizations about the geological history, archaeological site preservation, and human
activities within the Aucilla-Wacissa drainage basin. Tables 2 and 3 present summary
data about these recorded sites from the Florida Master Site File (FMSF). Like all big
data, these summary data show inconsistencies with recording (for instance, the differ-
ences between “campsite” and “habitation” are unclear and some sites are recorded as
both, and there are numerous “mound” categories); time period assignments were
marked very liberally in some cases, and sites were often recorded with multiple func-
tions, so the sum of site types in column 2 is much greater than 822 in both Tables 2
and 3, although percentage of sites of a given type is calculated out of the 822 total
sites. Only 39 sites were not assigned a function. Almost 30% of sites were prehistoric
campsites, with another 12% listed as habitation sites and 19% listed as mounds, mean-
ing that over 60% of sites were inferred to have been places where people lived for
some measurable amount of time. Numerous sites also had multiple time periods
(Table 3). Early sites are rare in this area, with only 24 recorded with the FMSF as
being Paleoindian, while Archaic sites are by far the most common (315), followed by
Woodland (214). Time period assessments were taken directly from the site forms as
marked by the original recorder. Age ranges for these time periods, thus, follow
Florida’s standard cultural chronology (Bullen 1975; Milanich 1994).
Terrestrial investigations have demonstrated that deeply-buried sites will be extremely
rare to non-existent on land in the lower Aucilla. Soils are shallow, with depth to bed-
rock averaging 70 centimeters or less in most areas of the drainage basin (including
within stream channels, where exposed bedrock dominates). On the other hand, terres-
trial site locations can be predicted quite well. Any slight rise (here defined as 25 centi-
meters higher than average for the area) is extremely likely to contain cultural material.
In this humid, subtropical environment, soils within these rises are well-developed, with
a strong Bt horizon overlain by a sandy E horizon and a thin A horizon.
Cultural materials are frequently within the A or E horizons, but these rises are often
the location of earthen middens, mounds, or house floors (sometimes all three), so a
cultural stratum often unconformably overlays the Bt horizon. Most of these cultural
earthworks contain ceramics, so are younger than 3,500 cal BP, but Archaic mounds,
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 57

Table 2. Summary site type data for all sites recorded in the Aucilla-Wacissa Basin from the Florida
Master Site File. Percentages in column 3 are of the 822 total sites.
Site type Count Percentage
Campsite (prehistoric) 230 27.98
Lithic scatter/quarry (prehistoric: no ceramics) 189 22.99
Artifact scatter-low density (< 2 per m2) 279 24.33
Prehistoric mound(s) 153 18.61
Prehistoric quarry 132 16.06
Habitation (prehistoric) 101 12.29
Other 97 11.80
Prehistoric midden(s) 47 5.72
Variable density scatter of artifacts 43 5.23
Prehistoric lithics only, but not quarry 40 4.87
Ceramic scatter 34 4.14
Specialized site for procurement of raw materials 34 4.14
Historic refuse / dump 32 3.89
Prehistoric burial mound(s) 24 2.92
Prehistoric shell midden 21 2.55
Farmstead 16 1.95
Single artifact or isolated find 16 1.95
Cave or rockshelter 12 1.46
Prehistoric burial(s) 12 1.46
Homestead 11 1.34
House 9 1.09
Building remains 6 0.73
Mission of Spanish Colonial heritage 6 0.73
Domiciliary mound–platform for a house 5 0.61
Indeterminate 4 0.49
Log Boat - historic or prehistoric 3 0.36
Bridge Remains 2 0.24
Historic shipwreck 2 0.24
Historic town 2 0.24
Platform mound (prehistoric) 2 0.24
Prehistoric shell mound(s) 2 0.24
Grist mill 1 0.12
Historic burial(s) 1 0.12
Historic fort 1 0.12
Mill of unspecified function 1 0.12
Old field (historic) 1 0.12
Prehistoric earthworks 1 0.12
Still for distilling alcoholic spirits 1 0.12
Underwater disposal midden 1 0.12
Wharf / dock /pier 1 0.12
None 39 4.74

relatively dated to circa 5,000 cal BP (Milanich 1994), are also somewhat common.
Almost every spring outlet is associated with at least one mound, and many have mul-
tiple mounds from multiple periods surrounding them, showing the enduring import-
ance of these spring sources even when living within a lowland swamp riddled with
river channels. In fact, many of these “mound” features are less than a meter high, cir-
cular in shape, with flat tops, and may have served as floors for residences, so perhaps
these were features very functional in a frequently-flooded landscape. Often the organic-
rich middens and mounds have at least some bone and botanical preservation, but no
large scale investigations have yet targeted these sites; instead, most have been exten-
sively looted and a number have served as platforms for early-mid twentieth century
fishing camp structures, themselves now archaeological deposits.
Additionally, many of the rises are chert outcrops, due to the dissolution of the less-
resistant limestone bedrock, which means that many of the rises are also chert quarries.
58 J. J. HALLIGAN

Table 3. Summary temporal data in for major cultural periods

in sequential order for all sites recorded in the Aucilla-Wacissa
Basin from the Florida Master Site File. Percentages in column
3 are of the 822 total sites.
Time period Count Percentage
Paleoindian 49 5.96
Archaic 315 38.32
Transitional 54 6.57
Woodland 214 26.03
Mississippian 58 7.06
Post-Columbian Indigenous 57 6.9
Historic 103 12.53
Prehistoric 220 26.75
Other 18 2.19
none 87 10.58

These sites are extensive, sometimes spreading over multiple kilometers, with varying
densities of quarrying debris scattered on or near the surface. Few of these sites can be
dated by either absolute or relative means, but the lack of ceramics at most indicates
that they are likely pre-ceramic in age, which is why “Archaic” is the most common
time classification for sites in this basin.
Underwater sites occur in two contexts: within shoals in the river channel, wherein
ex situ artifacts are found commingled in crevasses and vugs within the limestone bed-
rock, and within sinkholes. These sinkholes frequently contain springs, and often are
within the current stream channels. Artifacts in these localities are found in lag deposits
within the channel thalweg or the deepest part of the sink and may also be found
within intact sediments preserved on the inundated sinkhole margins. Due to the
extremely irregular bottom topography of both areas, it is unlikely that even the ex situ
artifacts found in lag deposits traveled far downriver, as they would have needed to
move not only downstream but up jagged and steep-sided bedrock exposures. Further,
adjacent sinkholes frequently contain very different artifact assemblages even within the
lag deposits. Thus, many of these lags and shoal deposits likely represent deflation surfa-
ces in which artifacts originally deposited within or on top of sediments in the local
area are winnowed into the nearest “trap” or low area.
Further discussion is warranted of the preserved sediments within sinkhole margins
as the most detailed and informative data have been obtained from these deposits rich
in paleoenvironmental and archaeological materials. Excavations, coring, and extensive
dating in several sinks (Halligan 2012; Halligan et al. 2016; Webb 2000, 2006) have
demonstrated that, while each sinkhole has its own specific geological history, some
regional correlations may be made between them. First, numerous sinkhole sites experi-
enced damp conditions leading to peat formation from ca. 50,000-20,000 cal BP. These
peats are frequently unconformably overlain by colluvial sediments overlain by pond
deposits dating from ca. 16,000-11,300 cal BP. At Page-Ladson, the lower portion of this
sediment package contains the best-accepted pre-Clovis archaeological material in the
southeastern US: a handful of lithic artifacts in association with mastodon and camelid
remains (Halligan et al. 2016) laying in a constantly-wet deposit consisting of colluvium,
sand, and preserved mastodon dung.
Above the pre-Clovis material and at numerous other sites, late Pleistocene pond
deposits are pedogenically-altered into soils and episodically wetted during the Younger
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 59

Dryas (ca. 12,800-11,700 cal BP) (Broecker et al. 2010; Walker et al. 2009). Extensive
archaeological components are found within and on top of these Younger Dryas soils,
which formed in subaerial conditions approximately 5-6 meters below modern water
levels. At all four sinkholes we have excavated, these soils have contained cultural mate-
rials dating to the late Paleoindian and/or Early Archaic periods (Halligan 2012;
Halligan et al. 2016). This soil is unconformably overlain by pond deposits which are
poorly dated, but at Page-Ladson, span until approximately 8,500 cal BP followed by a
gap of several millennia. Peat formation resumed at all four sinks at approximately
5,000 cal BP There are artifacts found at the base of this peat at all four sinks and at the
Ryan-Harley site, a shallowly-submerged Suwannee campsite (Smith 2020). This compo-
nent is approximately 3 meters below the modern water level at all four sinks. The
now-terrestrial portion of Page-Ladson is surrounded by cultural material that relatively
dates from ca. 10,000 cal BP until European contact, demonstrating that people utilized
this important site for many millennia, consistently adapting to fluctuating water levels.
Microfossil analyses of sediments from Page-Ladson have confirmed that, prior to ca.
12,700 cal BP, the sinkhole was generally warm and moist and was surrounded by mesic
hardwood forests; there is ample evidence for megaherbivores in the form of dung fun-
gus, digesta, and bones. During the Younger Dryas, the site experienced drier condi-
tions, indicative of consistent drought and more open herbaceous vegetation, and most
microfossils were degraded. There is no evidence for any megaherbivores in this section
of the cores or excavation units, although there is a dung fungus spike immediately after
the Younger Dryas which may be associated with the return of bison to the area. After
the younger Dryas to at least 8,700 cal BP, microfossils indicate an oak-savannah envir-
onment indicative of increased warming and drying in the early Holocene (Halligan
et al. 2016, Perrotti 2018, Perrotti et al. 2020). Diatoms and sediment deposition rates
associated with these deposits demonstrate that springwater, and later, the Aucilla and
Wacissa rivers, must have kept the sinkhole wet through most of the terminal
Pleistocene and Holocene. The consistent access to water may have been why Page-
Ladson was occupied frequently during the past 14,500 years, including before, during
and after connection of the site to the modern fluvial system and before, during, and
after megamammal extinction in the drainage basin.

Discussion and conclusions

There were 822 recorded sites in the Aucilla River drainage basin as of April 2020, but
Figure 1 illustrates that there are still many portions of the drainage basin for which
there are no recorded sites and in which no surveys have been completed. There are
also many time periods and site types that have had only cursory exploration. Much of
our attention has been upon teasing out the geological, archaeological, and geoarchaeo-
logical context of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene materials in the lower Aucilla.
This research has qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrated that these materials are
best preserved in underwater contexts, and many of us have been working toward
expanding underwater efforts ever further offshore. We want to explore the saltwater
domain because when people were leaving material on the edges of small freshwater
60 J. J. HALLIGAN

ponds, the sites we now know about were far inland and far upland, so they only tell us
about Paleoindian and early Archaic occupation in what may have been the hinterlands.
Most of us, probably partly due to our bias as underwater researchers, have great
interest in exploring if, when, and how the first Floridians were utilizing their coastal
and maritime resources. We hope that the sinkholes revealed within the drowned off-
shore portions of the Aucilla River channel were infilled with terrestrial sediments that
were capped and sealed before marine transgression, so that they contain data equiva-
lent to their freshwater counterparts. Faught (2004a, 2004b) has compellingly demon-
strated that some sites have at least partially survived transgression, and many of us
hope that continued efforts to understand the lifeways of early Floridians more fully
will discover more offshore localities. Therefore, there has been little interest in explor-
ing farther inland as inland will not address our more pressing research questions.
Thus, even though there are still many holes in our research in the Aucilla-Wacissa
basin, this research is well-contextualized within broader Paleoindian and Early Archaic
research of the southeastern US and is aimed at helping explicate the peopling of the
Americas and early Southeastern lifeways.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to John O’Shea for organizing and shepherding this special issue and to Neil Puckett for
helpful suggestions that substantially improved this article. Drainage basin site and survey loca-
tion data were provided by the Florida Master Site File, and many thanks go to Chip Birdsong.
Thank you to J. and B. Ladson and the Ladson family for site access and assistance with the pro-
ject; E. Green, T. and B. Pertierra, J. Simpson, and S. Ellison for fieldwork, equipment, and logis-
tics support; LacCore for core storage, analysis, and assistance; Capital Rubber, Wakulla Dive
Center, the Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation at Texas A&M University; the
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research Underwater Archaeology Division for field equipment
and technical support; and all the crew who have worked in the river.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
Funding was provided by the Elfrieda Frank Foundation, the North Star Archaeological Research
Program and the Chair in First Americans Studies at Texas A&M University, Florida State
University Department of Anthropology, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, the National
Geographic Waitt Foundation, National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement
Grant in the Archaeology Division (grant 1040924), College of Liberal Arts Doctoral Dissertation
Grant, the Women Divers Hall of Fame Scholarship, the Texas A&M Department of
Anthropology research grant, and the Shlemon geoarchaeological fieldwork grant.

ORCID
Jessi J. Halligan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1971-9416
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 61

References
Anderson, D. G., and T. G. Bissett. 2015. The initial colonization of North America: Sea-level
change, shoreline movement, and great migrations. In Mobility and Ancient Society in Asia
and the Americas: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on “Great Migrations, ed.
M. Frachetti and R. Spengler, 59–88. New York: Springer.
Anderson, D. G., T. G. Bissett, and S. J. Yerka. 2013. The Aate-Pleistocene human settlement of
interior North America: The role of physiography and sea level change. In Paleoamerican
Odyssey, ed. K. Graf, C. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 183–203. College Station, TX: Center for
the Study of the First Americans.
Bailey, G., N. Galanidou, H. Peeters, H. J€ ons, and M. Mennenga, eds. 2020. The archaeology of
Europe’s drowned landscapes. Coastal Research Library. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Broecker, W. S., G. H. Denton, R. L. Edwards, H. Cheng, R. B. Alley, and A. E. Putnam. 2010.
Putting the Younger Dryas cold event into context. Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (9-10):
1078–81. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.019
Bullen, R. P. 1975. A guide to the identification of Florida projectile points. Gainesville, FL:
Kendall Books.
Burke, A. 2019. Targeting coastal plains chert in the Wacissa Quarry Cluster, Northwest Florida,
USA: A LIDAR-based geomorphic model for locating chert quarries. SAA 84th Annual
Meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Cole, G., and J. J. Halligan. 2019. Analysis of LiDAR bathymetry for Aucilla/Econfina paleo chan-
nels: Final report for DOS Special Categories Grant 19.h.sm.200.009, Department of State,
Tallahassee, FL.
Daniel, I. R., and M. Wisenbaker. 1987. Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian site. Farmingdale,
NY: Baywood Publishing Co.
Donoghue, J. F. 2006. Geography and geomorphology of the Aucilla River region. In First
Floridians and last mastodons: The Page-Ladson site in the Aucilla River, ed. S. David Webb,
31–49. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Dunbar, J. S. 2007. Temporal problems and alternatives toward the establishment of Paleoindian
site chronologies in Florida and the adjacent coastal Southeast. Florida Anthropologist 60 (1):
5–20.
Dunbar, J. S. 2016. Paleoindian societies of the coastal southeast. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
Dunbar, J. S., C. A. Hemmings, P. K. Vojnovski, S. D. Webb, and W. M. Stanton. 2006. The
Ryan/Harley site 8JE1004: A Suwannee Point site in the Wacissa River, North Florida. In
Paleoamerican origins: Beyond Clovis, ed. R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford and M. R.
Waters, 81–96. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Dunbar, J. S., and D. S. Webb. 1996. Bone and ivory tools from submerged Paleoindian sites in
Florida. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, ed. G. A. David and E. S. Kenneth,
331–53. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Faught, M. K. 2004a. Submerged Paleoindian and Archaic sites of the Big Bend. Journal of Field
Archaeology 29 (3–4):273–90. doi:10.1179/jfa.2004.29.3-4.273
Faught, M. K. 2004b. The underwater archaeology of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida.
American Antiquity 69 (2):275–89. doi:10.2307/4128420
Faught, M. K. 2006. Paleoindian archaeology in Florida and Panama. In Paleoindian archaeology:
A hemispheric perspective, ed. J. E. Morrow and C. Gnecco, 164–83. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida.
Faught, M. K., and B. Carter. 1998. Early human occupation and environmental change in
Northwestern Florida. Quaternary International 49-50:167–76. doi:10.1016/S1040-
6182(97)00061-X
Faught, M. K., and J. F. Donoghue. 1997. Marine innundated archaeological sites and paleofluvial
systems: Examples from a karst-controlled continental shelf setting in Apalachee Bay.
Geoarchaeology 12 (5):417–58. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(199708)12:5<417::AID-GEA1>3.0.
CO;2-2
62 J. J. HALLIGAN

Flemming, N. C., J. Harff, D. Moura, A. Burgess, and G. N. Bailey, eds. 2017. Submerged land-
scapes of the European continental shelf: Quaternary paleoenvironments. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Halligan, J. J. 2013. Reconstructing the Pleistocene environment of the greater Southeast. In In
the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, ed. J. A. M. Gingerich, 58–74. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
Halligan, J. J. 2019. What does the future hold for first Floridian studies?. In New directions in
the search for the first Floridians, ed. D. K. Thulman and E. G. Garrison, 41–56. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
Halligan, J. J., M. R. Waters, A. Perrotti, I. J. Owens, J. M. Feinberg, M. D. Bourne, B. Fenerty,
B. Winsborough, D. Carlson, D. C. Fisher, et al. 2016. Pre-Clovis occupation 14,550 years ago
at the Page-Ladson site, Florida, and the peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2 (5):
e1600375. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1600375
Halligan, J. J. 2012. Geoarchaeological investigations into paleoindian adaptations on the Aucilla
River, Northwest Florida. Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University.
Hansen, B. C. S. 2006. Setting the stage: Fossil pollen, stomata, and charcoal. In First Floridians
and last mastodons: The Page-Ladson site in the Aucilla River, ed. S. David Webb, 159–81.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Hemmings, C. A. 1999. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic tools of Sloth Hole (8JE121): An
inundated site in the Lower Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. M.A. thesis., University
of Florida.
Hollingshead, A. M. 2019. Geoarchaeological investigations at Half Mile Rise Sink (8TA98).
M.Sc. thesis., Florida State University.
Hudson, C. M. 1997. Knights of Spain, Warriors of the sun: Hernando De Soto and the South’s
Ancient Chiefdoms. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Jenks, A. E., and H. H. Simpson Sr. 1941. Beveled artifacts in Florida of the same type as artifacts
found near Clovis, New Mexico. American Antiquity 6 (4):314–9. doi:10.2307/275921
Jennings, J. N. 1985. Karst geomorphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Joy, S. 2019. The trouble with the curve: Reevaluating the Gulf of Mexico sea-level curve.
Quaternary International 525:103–13. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2019.07.023
Lambeck, K., H. Rouby, A. Purcell, Y. Sun, and M. Sambridge. 2014. Sea level and global ice vol-
umes from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 111 (43):15296–303. doi:10.1073/pnas.1411762111
Livingstone, D. A. 1955. A lightweight piston sampler for lake deposits. Ecology 36 (1):137–9. doi:
10.2307/1931439
Milanich, J. T. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of
Florida.
Perrotti, A. G. 2018. Pollen and Sporormiella evidence for Terminal Pleistocene vegetation change
and megafaunal extinction at Page-Ladson, Florida. Quaternary International 466:256–68. doi:
10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.015
Perrotti, A. G., B. Winsborough, J. J. Halligan, and M. R. Waters. 2020. Reconstructing Terminal
Pleistocene-Early Holocene Environmental Change at Page-Ladson. Paleoamerica 6 (2):181–13.
doi:10.1080/20555563.2019.1689010
Pevny, C. D., D. K. Thulman, and M. K. Faught. 2018. Ancestor-descendant relationships in the
Early Holocene. In The Eastern fluted point tradition. Vol. II, ed. J. A. M. Gingerich, 213–39.
Salt Lake: University of Utah Press.
Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, E. C. Benham, and soil survey staff. 2012. Field book for
describing and sampling soils. Version 3.0. Lincoln, NE: Natural Resources Conservation
Service, National Soil Survey Center.
Serbousek, D. 1983. Explorations of a Paleoindian site on the Aucilla River. Florida
Anthropologist 36 (1–2):88–97.
Smith, M. F. 2020. Geoarchaeological investigations at the Ryan-Harley Site, Florida (8JE1004):
Implications for human settlement of the Wacissa River Basin during the Younger Dryas.
Geoarchaeology 35(4):455–6. doi:10.1002/gea.21784.
 THE JOURNAL OF ISLAND AND COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 63

Walker, M., S. Johnsen, S. O. Rasmussen, T. Popp, J.-P. Steffensen, P. Gibbard, W. Hoek, J.

Lowe, J. Andrews, S. Bj€ orck, et al. 2009. Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global
Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice
core, and selected auxiliary records. Journal of Quaternary Science 24 (1):3–17. doi:10.1002/jqs.
1227
Waters, M. R., T. W. Stafford, B. Kooyman, and L. V. Hills. 2015. Late Pleistocene horse and
camel hunting at the southern margin of the ice-free corridor: Reassessing the age of Wally’s
Beach, Canada. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 112 (14):4263–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.1420650112
Webb, S. D., J. T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J. S. Dunbar. 1984. A Bison antiquus kill site,
Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49 (2):384–92. doi:10.2307/
280025
Webb, S. D. 2000. Two cycles of late Pleistocene sinkhole filling in the middle Aucilla River,
Jefferson County, Florida. In Wakulla Springs Woodville Karst Plain Symposium, Wakulla
Springs, FL: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication.
Webb, S. D., ed. 2006. First Floridians and last mastodons: The Page-Ladson site in the Aucilla
River. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Yon, J. W. 1966. Geology of Jefferson County, Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey.