High resolution sea-level history for the Gulf of Mexico since the last glacial maximum

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Colleen M. Castille, Secretary

DIVISION OF RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Edwin J. Conklin, Director

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Walter Schmidt, State Geologist and Chief

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

HIGH RESOLUTION SEA-LEVEL HISTORY FOR THE
GULF OF MEXICO SINCE THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM

by

James H. Balsillie and Joseph F. Donoghue

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Tallahassee, Florida
2004

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Colleen M. Castille, Secretary

DIVISION OF RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Edwin J. Conklin, Director

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Walter Schmidt, State Geologist and Chief

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

HIGH RESOLUTION SEA-LEVEL HISTORY FOR THE
GULF OF MEXICO SINCE THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM

by

James H. Balsillie and Joseph F. Donoghue

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Tallahassee, Florida
2004

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Printed for the
Florida Geological Survey
Tallahassee, Florida
2004

ISSN 0160-0931

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

PREFACE

tLOGIc

In recent decades, much media attention has been directed at sea-level change and the
possible future implications. Clearly any modest increase in sea-level would have a devastating
impact on human coastal development throughout the world, especially here in Florida where
our state is low in elevation and our population/infrastructure is very near the coast. There is a
great deal of disagreement on the causes of sea-level change, and on the direction and
magnitude of potential change that could be expected in the coming century. The most
important clue we have in predicting the various Earth systems responses in the future, is to
understand similar events that have occurred on Earth in the past.

There have been numerous studies conducted on the sea-level history of the Gulf of
Mexico. These have been individual studies for specific sites using relatively small data sets.
There has not, however, been a comprehensive analysis to compile and assess all available
data to produce a regional sea-level history for the entire region. This report provides such a
compilation and a quantitative analysis. It will be a valuable reference for coastal geoscientists
and engineers as they try to better understand the dynamics of our coastal zone and predict
system response to future events.

Walt Schmidt, Ph.D, P.G.
State Geologist and Chief
Florida Geological Survey

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mark Siddall (Physics Institute, Climate and Environmental Physics, University
of Bern, Bern, Switzerland) for the Red Sea 5180 data set (calibrated to absolute 14C years BP).
We thank Paula J. Reimer (University of Washington Quaternary Isotope Laboratory, Seattle,
WA) for her advice as to the proper application of the transformation program CALIB Rev 4.4.2.
The review suggestions of Alan Niedoroda (URS Corp., Tallahassee, FL) for detailed plots and
analyses of the younger data sets are acknowledged with thanks. L. James Ladner (Florida
Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL) brought to our attention the work of Cullen et al. (2000).

We thank our Florida Geological Survey colleagues Rick Copeland, Thomas
Greenhalgh, Ron Hoenstine, L. James Ladner, G. Harley Means, Frank Rupert, Walter Schmidt,
and Thomas M. Scott for their peer review of the manuscript.

This project benefited from work resulting from an Office of Naval Research
EuroStrataform project (N00014-03-C-0134). This manuscript is a contribution of IGCP Project
437, "Coastal Environmental Change During Sea-level Highstands".

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W LE D G E M E N T S ......... .... .......... ............................................................................ iv

A B S T R A C T ............. .... ............ ................ ........................................... ix

INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1

RADIOCARBON DATING AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RADIOCARBON,
CALENDAR, AND ABSO LUTE DATES .................................... ..................................... 3

A NEW G LO BAL SEA-LEVEL RECO RD............................................................... ................. 5

GULF OF MEXICO SEA-LEVEL CURVE ................................. ......... .. ............ 5
Identifying Spurious Data ............................... ........ ..... ......... .. ... .. ... 6
O ld e r D a ta S e t ................................................................................................................ 1 2
Y younger D ata S ets ............... ......................................... ..... . ........... ... 12
Combined Data Sets ...................... ....... .............. .......... ................ 16

YO UNG ER DRYAS ........................ .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ................. 16

A CLOSER LOOK AT SEA-LEVEL FOR THE PAST 6,000 YEARS ....................................... 19

DISCUSSION..................................................................21

CO NC LUSIO NS ............... ..... ... ..... .............. ..................................22

R E FER E N C ES .......... ................ .............................. ................................. 23

TABLES

Table 1. Sea-level 14C data sets used in this study. .......... ............................. ................... 6

Table 2. Some average characteristics of the Gulf of Mexico sea-level data sets................... 12

Table 3. Some delimiting dates for the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas................. 19

FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship between 14C years BP (present = 1950 AD), calendar years, and
absolute years BP using the lntCal98 data set for terrestrial material (Stuiver et
al., 1998a) and the Marine98 data set for marine material (Stuiver et al., 1998b). .........

Figure 2. Global ("eustatic") sea-level data, including the Red Sea data of Siddall et al.
(2003), augmented with coral reef data of Fairbanks (1989, 1990) from
Barbados, Bard et al. (1996) from Tahiti, and Edwards et al., (1993) from New
Guinea. A 7-point floating average has been fitted to the data sets............................ 7

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Figure 3. nth-order polynomial editing reference curves fited to 7-point floating average
curves of Figure 2, for data with ages less than approximately 6,000 years and
greater than approximately 6,000 years ..... ................... ................... 8

Figure 4. Gulf of Mexico 14C sea-level data. Upper panel illustrates the Gulf of Mexico
data set, with the global (eustatic) reference curve from Figure 3 superimposed.
Also shown is an acceptance envelope containing 96.43% of data (3.6% of data
lie outside the envelope). Only some of younger data (less that 6,000 14C years
BP are plotted) in the upper panel in order to provide greater clarity, although all
those data sets that are affected by the editing process do appear. Lower panel
shows 7-point floating average curve fitted to all Gulf of Mexico data sets; 12
points were rejected from analytical consideration (3.4% of total data). .........................

Figure 5. Gulf of Mexico 14C sea-level data. Upper panel illustrates the Gulf of Mexico
data set, with the global (eustatic) reference curve from Figure 3 superimposed.
Also shown is an acceptance envelope containing 96.85% of data (3.2% of data
lie outside the envelope). Only some of younger data (less that 6,000 14C years
BP are plotted) in the upper panel in order to provide greater clarity, although all
those data sets that are affected by the editing process do appear. Lower panel
shows 7-point floating average curve fitted to all Gulf of Mexico data sets; 12
points were rejected from analytical consideration (3.4% of total data)....................... 10

Figure 6. Gulf of Mexico younger data set A for dated sample sets collected offshore
from the present shoreline. 7-point floating average curves have been fitted to
the 14C and absolute age data sets ........................................ ........................... 13

Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico younger data set B for data sample sets collected onshore from
the present shoreline. 7-point floating average curves have been fitted to the 14C
and absolute age data sets. ................................................ ................................ 14

Figure 8. Final combined sea-level curves for the Gulf of Mexico. ........................................ 17

Figure 9. Final combined Gulf of Mexico sea-level curves compared to the Siddall et al.
(2003) global (eustatic) sea-level curve of Fig. 2. ............................... ..... ........ .... 18

Figure 10. Comparison of Gulf of Mexico younger data sets with the global Siddall et al.
(2003) sea-level curve. See text for discussion................. ............... ................ 20

Figure 11. Comparison of Tanner's (1990a, 1991a, 1993) kurtosis as a surrogate
indicator of sea-level stands and the Siddall et al. (2003) global (eustatic) sea-
level curve. See text for discussion. LIA = Little Ice Age ............................................ 20

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I. Dated sea-level data sets used in this study. .......................... ................. 33

APPENDIX II. Gulf of Mexico total data set: 7-point floating average sea-level curve.............. 47

APPENDIX II. Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set A: 7-Point Floating Average Sea-level
C urve................ ...... ............. ......... ...... ......................... .................. 57

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

APPENDIX IV. Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set B: 7-Point Floating Average Sea-level
C u rve ....................... ........... ........ .. .. ....... ................... ................... 6 1

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

ABSTRACT

Comprehensive, high-resolution, composite sea-level curves for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
since the last glacial maximum have been developed based on all available radiocarbon and
calibrated absolute age-data. They are based on sea-level elevation indicators that, on the
average, were measured once every 60 years for the past 20,000 years. The data sets consist
primarily of geological sea-level indicators (some are archaeological). Published sea-level
histories of the Gulf of Mexico exhibit significant variability. While there is error associated with
the 14C age dating methodology, the bulk of error is undoubtedly associated with the indicator
material chosen to represent sea-level elevation. It is the latter that must be judicially treated.
Such error has, perhaps, been inflated to such an argumentative and defeatist extent among
researchers that comprehensive compilation and analysis of sea-level data for the Gulf, until
now, has been avoided.

The objective of this investigation was to analyze all of the available sea-level data for the
northern Gulf of Mexico, and to assess associated error and select data using three data editing
procedures (one geological, the other two statistical) in order to identify a sea-level curve
attaining an accuracy of least equivocal status. (1) We selected data for the Gulf of Mexico
exhibiting tectonic and/or crustal stability, which yielded 353 radiocarbon-dated sea-level
indicator data points. (2) We addressed the problem of identifying "spurious" sea-level data
outliers that can be justifiably excused from inclusion in analytical procedures. This is not, in
fact, a problem isolated to Gulf of Mexico data, but is normally the case for most data sets as
can be easily verified by inspecting the comprehensive world-wide national and regional sea-
level compilation of Pirazzoli (1991). Utilizing the eustatic data of Siddall et al, (2003), a
statistically-based method has been proposed that might be considered by other researchers as
a useful tool for post-initial editing of sea-level data. We found that only a few spurious data
points can significantly affect analytical outcomes (only 12 spurious outliers were identified, or
but 3.4% of the Gulf of Mexico sea-level indicators). (3) Once spurious "error" was eliminated,
a sufficient amount of data remained (341 dated sea-level indicators) for which there was some
considerable associated variability. We treated these remaining assembled data using a seven-
point floating averaging method. By smoothing some of the noise, the moving average method
mitigated the degree of probable associated variability, while allowing longer-term probable
trends to remain; on the average seven dated points encompassed a period of 400 years with
each floating point average representing a 60-year period.

In addition, we investigated the controversial subject of sea-level history younger than
about 6,000 years (mid- to late-Holocene), and identified two "younger data sets" based on
sampling location bias. One younger data set can be defined by sea-level indicators collected
seaward of the present shoreline (younger data set A), the other by sea-level indicators
collected landward of the present shoreline (younger data set B). Location relative to current
sea level was assessed based on physical location in conjunction with elevation of sampling.
By definition, sea-level indicators sampled seaward of current sea-level do not define high-
stands. In addition, a detailed treatment of littoral processes associated with physiographic
features (beach ridges, cheniers, and storm ridges) has been presented, indicating favor in the
case of younger data set B. Both younger data sets are presented for scientific scrutiny.

As a consequence, the comprehensive compilation of northern Gulf of Mexico sea-level
analytical results has significance beyond the local region. Gulf of Mexico data compare
favorably with a recent late Quaternary sea-level data set from the Red Sea (Siddall et al.,
2003), a high-resolution index of eustatic sea-level. Given its geologic stability throughout the
late Quaternary (in terms of data selected) and its relatively low-energy environments, the

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

northern Gulf of Mexico might be expected to have experienced near-eustatic sea-level
conditions, and therefore offers a detailed record of global sea-level. In particular, the persistent
evidence of mid- to late-Holocene high-stands in the Gulf of Mexico may be among the best
global verifications of such events.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

HIGH RESOLUTION SEA-LEVEL HISTORY FOR THE
GULF OF MEXICO SINCE THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM

by

James H. Balsillie' P. G. No. 167 and Joseph F. Donoghue2 P. G. No. 846

'Geologic Investigations Section, Florida Geological Survey,
903 W. Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
2Department of Geological Sciences, Florida State University,

Tallahassee, FL

32306

INTRODUCTION

In a recent study of an archaeological
site located near Florida's northeastern Gulf
of Mexico, Big Bend coast (Ryan-Harley Site
8JE-1004; Balsillie et al., in press, in review),
it became necessary to make an accurate
determination as to how far the approximately
10,700 14C year BP (Younger Dryas) site was
from the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the time
of occupation. Upon reviewing the available
literature on regional historic sea-level
curves, it was found that the range of
estimates for sea-level at the time of site
occupation could be from 10 to 70 m below
present mean sea-level (MSL). Given the
regional gradient, these values yielded an
unsatisfactory range of distances. Hence, the
problem provided the impetus to find a
numerical consensus as to the most probable
sea-level elevation for a given date for the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

Earliest reported sea-level
measurements were begun in 1682 at
Amsterdam (van Veen, 1954), in 1732 at
Venice (Zendrini, 1802; Pirazzoli, 1974), and
in 1774 at Stockholm (Ekman, 1988). The
earliest known examples of Holocene sea-
level histories were published by Granlund
(1932) and Liden (1938) in Great Britain
using pollen analyses and archaeological
data.

Early in the 20th century, one popular
explanation for beach erosion along the U. S.

northeastern Atlantic coast was sea-level
rise, much in the same manner as it has
received renewed attention in recent years.
For example, the State of New Jersey which,
because of coastal development pressure
accruing during the first two decades of the
century, developed a strong interest in finding
solutions to coastal erosion problems. Saville
(1942) recounts "... the first really large scale
attempt to study the underlying factors
concerning the causes of coastal erosion,
and means for controlling it..." was
undertaken by the State of New Jersey
between 1922 and 1930. By 1920, such
beach resort communities as Atlantic City,
Long Branch, Beach Haven, Asbury Park,
Sea Isle City, Wildwood, and others had been
developed as a consequence of their
nearness to the urban centers of New York
and Philadelphia. A shift in America from a
rural agrarian to a metropolitan industrial
population allowed more leisure time while
rail lines facilitated transportation for ever-
increasing numbers of people seeking beach
recreation (Cunningham, 1958; State of New
Jersey, 1922; Anonymous, 1960). After
about 1910, affordable automobiles further
facilitated the ease of transportation and
Cunningham (1958) commented "... the
automobile democratized Barnegat
Peninsula." It can be observed that it was not
the forces of nature acting on the beach and
coast which had undergone a dramatic
change. Rather, due to increased occupation
of the coastal zone, mankind's perception of
nature's forces had changed. The beaches

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

and coasts were now more than merely a
natural accumulation of sand. They were
viewed as a source of recreation and profit,
and coastal New Jersey properties became a
valuable asset. From 1922 to 1932 New
Jersey's coastal property increased in value
from $2.3 million to $4.2 million per mile of
beach, an increase of a factor of 1.83
(Cunningham, 1958).

Coastal residents along the 130-mile
New Jersey shore quickly became more than
casually concerned with beach and coast
erosion due to storm and hurricane impact
and other general shifts in shoreline position.
The popular and technical literature of the
time brought even greater attention to the
problem. The increasing numbers of coastal
residents began to seek solutions to coastal
erosion. Highlighting the paucity of basic
knowledge of coastal processes, Sharp
(1927) stated:
Conditions vary so widely from place to
place that rule-of-thumb methods are
sure to give a large percentage of
failures, and a structure successful at one
place may be a dismal failure at another.
On the other hand, the engineer who
wishes to attack his problem scientifically
finds that science has done very little to
help him. He is almost without
trustworthy facts, and must work up his
data from hasty studies of his own.

Even so, individuals began to seek
explanations for erosion problems which
freed them from having to answer for their
unwise coastal development decisions,
allowing them to be the "innocent victims" of
the "caprices" of nature. One popular
explanation of erosion at the time was sea-
level rise by way of land subsidence. The
topic became one of considerable
controversy (e.g., Johnson and Smith, 1913),
much as it is today. In 1922, the New Jersey
Board of Commerce and Navigation (State of
New Jersey, 1922) opined that evidence was
insufficient to suggest that sea-level was "...
a definite and permanent transition from one
state to another, traceable to some clearly
defined cause."

The Uniformitarian Principle proposed
by James Hutton in 1785 states that the
present is the key to the past. The corollary
that "the past is the key to the present and to
the future" must also hold true. And so it
was, that scientists began seeking evidence
about past sea-levels in order to gain insight
as to how sea-level could behave in the
future.

Concerted study of late Quaternary
sea-level behavior did not come of age until
the advent of the radiocarbon dating
technique in the 1950's. By the early 1960's,
it became clear that late Quaternary global
and/or Gulf of Mexico sea-level histories
could be variously classified according to four
general modes of behavior. (1) Fairbridge
(1961) assembled an oscillating eustatic
curve, also described in terms of crescendo
events (Fairbridge, 1989), as pulses (Tanner,
1992b, 1993), and as cycles (Finkl, 1995;
Fairbridge, 1995, Sanders and Fairbridge,
1995). This oscillating curve rose rapidly
from the early Holocene to about 6,000 years
before present (BP), after which it has
oscillated about the current mean sea-level
(MSL) position. (2) Shepard (1963, 1964)
published a smooth curve that rose at a
continuously diminishing rate arriving at the
present MSL in very recent times. (3) A third
geometry (e.g., Fisk, 1956; Godwin et al.
1958; McFarlan, 1961) is defined by a
smooth, continuously rising curve from the
early Holocene to about 5,500 years ago,
followed by sea-level stability at or near the
current MSL position. (4) A "stair-step"
pattern has been proffered (Curray, 1960;
Frazier, 1974; Penland et al., 1991, etc.) that
attained approximately current sea-level
stability in more recent times. Other early
investigators (Gould and McFarlan, 1959;
Mclntire and Morgan, 1964; Redfield and
Rubin, 1962) were not so certain about the
time of attainment of current sea-level,
suggesting it occurred somewhere between
2,000 and 5,000 years BP. Coleman and
Smith (1964) were more definitive suggesting
it occurred at about 3,650 years BP;
Rodriguez (1999) suggested occurred about
3,000 years BP. Blum et al. (2002) provide a
"traditional" overview of Holocene sea level

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

history. More recently, Gehrels (1999, p.
350) has stated that the "... debate between
the wigglerss" and the "smoothers" persists,
but the nature of the argument has changed.
It is now clear that oscillations of postglacial
sea-level on time scales of 101 to 102 yr have
occurred ...".

Above earlier considerations and
other differences led the International Union
of Geological Sciences (IUGS) to form in
1974, the IUGS International Geological
Correlation Programme (IGCP), Project 61.
Entitled Sea-level Changes During the Last
Hemicycle (c. 15,000 Years), Project 61 had
as its goal of defining the eustatic (global)
sea-level curve. Eustatic, in this sense,
refers to a sea-level curve that represents
global sea-level conditions (e.g., Bloom,
1971, p. 356). In 1976, it was concluded that
late Holocene sea-level histories can vary
significantly from region to region, and that
"...the determination of a single sea-level
curve of applicability was an illusory task..."
(Pirazzoli, 1991, p. 4). In 1977, A. L. Bloom
who headed Project 61 published the Atlas of
Sea-Level Curves (Bloom, 1977). In 1983,
IGCP Project 200 entitled Sea-Level
Correlation and Applications (P. Pirazzoli,
project manager) was initiated to
determine local sea-level histories as
precisely as possible ..." (Pirazzoli, 1991, p.
5). A successor project was begun in 1988,
IGCP Project 274 (Sea-level changes during
the Late Quaternary, headed by Orson Van
de Plassche. Both of the latter projects
served to further confirm the thesis that sea-
level history varies significantly from region to
region, depending on the geologic character
and history of the coast. A summary of
Project 274 (Pirazzoli, 1991) entitled World
Atlas of Holocene Sea-Level Changes
documented the wide range of regional sea-
level histories from around the globe. This
comprehensive work contains 905 local
Holocene sea-level curves for 77 global
regions forthcoming from over 750 referenced
contributions. Pirazzoli (1996) has
subsequently published a new edition entitled
Sea-Level Changes: The Last 20000 Years.

Published data for the northern Gulf of
Mexico represents a subset of the above data
sets, plus results from studies carried out
since the earlier compilations. In analyzing
the published data, it was assumed that
investigators involved in radiocarbon dating
work have responsibly reported their findings.
Beyond that, any numerical treatment of
results should be straightforward.

For the present project, late
Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level data for
the northern and eastern Gulf of Mexico coast
- both published and unpublished were
collected and examined. The purpose of this
investigation was twofold: 1) to define the
regional sea-level history of the northern Gulf
of Mexico, using all of the available
chronological data on sea-level history; and
2) to provide evidence that, for stable coastal
regions of the Gulf of Mexico coastline, sea-
level history approximates global (i.e.,
eustatic) sea-level.

RADIOCARBON DATING AND
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
RADIOCARBON, CALENDAR,
AND ABSOLUTE DATES

All pertinent Gulf of Mexico sea-level
data in the present data sets are based on
radiocarbon dating of shoreline indicators. A
variety of analytical problems can affect
radiocarbon age determinations. Radiocarbon
ages are given in years BP (referenced to
1950 A.D.) with a plus-and-minus error. This
error, by definition, is the standard deviation.
One of the assumptions made in radiocarbon
dating is that no change in 14C content other
that radioactive decay occurs in a sample
after the death of the organism. This
assumption is often unrealistic as
documented by Mook and van de Plassche
(1986). An additional source of radiocarbon
dating error concerns the 14C half life. By
long-term convention the 14C half-life used in
age determinations is 5,568 years; this value
is actually in error by three percent and
should be 5,730 years. Whether or not older
data sets have been corrected for this
discrepancy may not be apparent. Assuming
that, in published results, such problems as

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

100,000

10,000

a-

0
m

1,000

<

100

10

I
BC
-8050
-3050

-50
950

1450

AD

1850

1900

II IOI

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
14C Years BP

Figure 1. Relationship between 14C years BP (present = 1950
AD), calendar years, and absolute (sidereal) years BP using
the lntCal98 data set for terrestrial material (Stuiver et al.,

1998a), and the Marine98 data
et al., 1998b).

those above have been corrected to the
maximum extent possible, 14C dates still do
not represent true calendar years.
Radiocarbon years would be equivalent to
calendar years only if the 14C concentration in
the atmosphere were constant over time.
This has been shown not to be the case.
Atmospheric 14C concentration has fluctuated
due to variation in cosmic radiation intensity,
fossil fuel burning, and nuclear testing
(Faure, 1986; Suess, 1986). In order to
understand sea-level change in terms of
absolute or sidereal time, radiocarbon dates
for the current data set can be converted
using a calibration scheme. Radiocarbon
calibration methods are based on comparing
radiocarbon dates with actual ages for
samples whose absolute age has been
determined independently, such as via tree
rings or lake varves.

One of the standard calibration
schemes incorporating dendrochronologically

set for marine material (Stuiver

dated wood samples is the CALIB program
developed by the Quaternary Isotope
Laboratory of the University of Washington
(Stuiver and Kra, 1986; Stuiver and Reimer,
1993; Stuiver et al. 1998a, 1998b;
McCormac et al. 2002). Several calibration
data sets are available. For terrestrial
materials, the IntCa198 decadal data set
(1998 atmospheric delta 14C; Stuiver et al.,
1998a) can be applied to data from the Gulf
of Mexico region. For marine material, the
Marine98 data set (1998 marine delta 14C;
Stuiver et al., 1998b) can be used where
regional offsets can be applied (e.g., Stuiver
and Braziunas, 1993; Stuiver et al., 1998b).
As far as can be ascertained, this application
along with any regional offsets provides the
best calibration available. Using CALIB (Rev
4.4.2), the current data set have been
converted to absolute or sidereal years.
Decadal data sets lntCal98 and Marine98
have been plotted in Figure 1 to illustrate the

I

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

relationship between calendar years and
absolute years versus 14C age.

A NEW GLOBAL
SEA-LEVEL RECORD

We begin our analysis by considering
a recent effort in determining the "eustatic"
sea-level record for the late Quaternary.
Siddall et al. (2003) presented an original
method for determining global sea-level
changes for the last glacial cycle, using 5180
analyses of foraminifera from Red Sea
sediment core KL11. The new method has
been met with considerable interest as a new
approach to defining eustatic sea-level
change (e.g., Sirocko, 2003; Rohling et al.,
2003).

Geomorphology and hydrology of the
Red Sea Basin combined with effects
occurring at low latitudes renders sensitive
Red Sea 518O results. Low latitudes equate
to high evaporation rates leading to higher
salinities for ocean water bodies and, hence,
enriched 180 levels. For the Red Sea the
only significant link with oceanic waters is the
southern entrance (Bab el Mandab) which is
but 18 km wide. Furthermore, there is at the
entrance a sill restricting water flow. At
present sea-level, the top of the sill lies at
about -137 m MSL. At the last glacial
maximum it lay at a depth of only about -15 m
MSL. At lower sea-level stands, evaporation
and increased salinity resulted in stronger
5180 signatures. In short, the Red Sea KL11
core results provided a greatly amplified (180
record for progressively lower sea-level
stands. All that remained was to compile a
simple numerical model for attenuating (180
results for higher sea-level stands, and to tie
the results to five 14C age markers.

The "... broader significance ..."
(Sirocko, 2003) of this work lies in how it
might relate to the 5180 record from polar ice
cores. Ice cores Byrd and Vostok from
Antarctica and GISP2 from Greenland have
been correlated. The KL11 record shows
"...for the first time that the temperature
variations documented for the Antarctic were

probably paralleled by changes in sea-level
..." and that the "... beauty of Siddall and
colleagues' approach compared with ... other
methods is that it can be applied to very high-
resolution records as well as very long
records" (Sirocko, 2003).

In addition to Red Sea foraminifera
518O data, Siddall et al. (2003) also included
14C coral data results from Barbados
(Fairbanks, 1989, 1990; Bard et al, 1990),
Tahiti (Bard et al., 1996), and New Guinea
(Edwards et al., 1993) to augment their
global (eustatic) sea-level curve status (Table
1). Data sources are listed in Appendix I.
These global sea-level data are plotted in
Figure 2. Absolute and 14C dates for these
data have been calculated using CALIB Rev.
4.4.2, described earlier. We present these
global sea-level curve data because they are
important as a reference that can be used to
identify spurious outliers in regional data such
as our Gulf of Mexico data sets.
Representative transcendental equations
were fitted to the global sea-level data (7-
point floating average curve of Figure 2).
Equations and plotted results are shown in
Figure 3.

GULF OF MEXICO
SEA-LEVEL CURVE

Twenty-three data sources or subsets
(Table 1) were examined, resulting in 353
dated sea-level stand indicators for
assessment of sea-level history of the Gulf of
Mexico. The data cover the past
approximately 20,000 years of geologic time.
The data are plotted in Figures 4 (14C dates)
and 5 (absolute ages). Not all data subsets
are plotted in the figures (see figures for
clarification). There are data younger than
about 6,000 14C years BP that, if plotted at
small scale, would render the figures illegible
due to the high concentration of data points.
Therefore, the data are divided into two age
ranges: 1) ages between 18,000 14C years
BP and 6,000 14C years BP, and 2) ages
younger than 6,000 14C years BP.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Table 1. Sea-level 14C data sets used in this study (see Appendices for
additional details).

Investigators
Data Pertinent to the Gu

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Location
If of Mexico
Texas Gulf Coast
Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast
Louisiana Gulf Coast
Eustatic
SW Florida Gulf Coast
Mexican Gulf Coast
SW Florida Gulf Coast
NE Florida Gulf Coast
SW Florida Gulf Coast
SW Florida Gulf Coast
Texas Gulf Coast
Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast
St. Vincent Island, Florida

Curray (1960)
Shepard (1960)
McFarlan (1961)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Spackman et al. (1966)
Behrens (1966)
Scholl and Stuvler (1967)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Shier (1969)
Smith (1969)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier (1974)
Stapor and Tanner (1977); Tanner et al. (1989);
Tanner (1991a, 1991b, 1992a, 1993)'
Davies (1980)
Kuehn (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
McBride (1997)
Morton et al. (2000)
Blum etal. (2001)
Stapor and Stone (2004); Stapor et al.
(1991); Walker etal. (1995)'

Texas Gulf Coast
Texas Gulf Coast
Louisiana and SW Florida
Gulf Coast

Total = 353
Other Data Considered
24 Edwards et al. (1993) New Guinea 13
25 Bard et al. (1996) Tahiti 34
26 Siddall et a. (2003) Red Sea 87
Total= 134
n = number of dated sea level stands
Data were extracted from published sea level curves whose time-lines were based on
age control points.

Identifying Spurious Data

It is a singular mandate of the
responsible scientist that he or she consider
and assess all of the available evidence
toward solving a particular problem. At the
outset it is highly important to note that we
scrupulously deliberated (from the obvious
perspective) as to whether or not available
Gulf of Mexico data represented, as nearly as
possibly could be determined, stable vertical
sea-level indicators. For instance, we

rejected the majority of McFarlan's (1961)
Mississippi delta data where subsidence
influences were obviously a problem,
selecting only his younger beach and chenier
data (< 3,500 absolute years BP) which
would more nearly represent sea-level
stands, and where subsidence influences
would be minimal. The studies of Gould and
McFarlan (1959) and Coleman and Smith
(1964) examined post-glacial sea-level
histories in the Mississippi delta region.
While their data addressed regional

Florida
SW Florida Gulf Coast
Florida Keys
Barbados
NE Gulf of Mexico
NE Gulf of Mexico

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

13
11
12
51
2
3
12
11
3
1
11

8
25
56

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

* Siddall et al. (2003) Red Sea Forams I -
So Fairbanks (1989, 1990) Barbados Corals
A Bard et al. (1996) Tahiti Corals
o Edwards et al. (1993) New Guinea Corals
- 7-point floating average

W

20,000

15,000

10,000

14C Years BP

-I I-U-I-I-I-I-I-I-I -I-I-

* Siddall et al. (2003) Red Sea Forams -
1o Fairbanks (1989, 1990) Barbados Corals 8- AT _
A Bard etal. (1996) -Tahiti Corals -
o Edwards et al. (1993) New Guinea Corals
- 7-point floating average

AP'

0o

20,000

15,000

10,000

Absolute Years BP

Figure 2. Global ("eustatic") sea-level data, including Red Sea data of Siddall
et al. (2003), augmented with coral reef data of Fairbanks (1989, 1990) from
Barbados, Bard et al. (1996) from Tahiti, and Edwards et al. (1993) from New
Guinea. A 7-point floating average has been fitted to the data sets.

25,000

5,000

25,000

5,000

20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70 E
-80
-90
-100 W
c,
-110
-120
-130 0
0
0

20 0
10 .2
0 >
-10 w
-20 >
.J
-30
-40 C0
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

7-Pt Floating Average Global Curve from Fig. 2
Reference Transcendental Data Editing Curve

00 y -123(tanh 0.65[(e0.o00ox)- 1.0] 3.6
.__ r = 0.9915 (JHB-Aug. 5, 2004)
/NO

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

14C Years BP

7-Pt Floating Average Global Curve from Fig. 2
- Reference Transcendental Data Editing Curve -

y= -123(tanh 0.45[(eooooix)- 1.0]}27
r= 0.9898 (JHB-Aug. 8, 2004)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Absolute Years BP

Figure 3. Representative transcendental equations and curves fitted to 7-
point floating average global sea level curves of Figure 2. Transcendental
curves are meant for data editing purposes only.

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50 E
-60
-70
-80 w
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

25,000

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50 E
-60 >
_
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130

25,000

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

_ _~~~ 99~_ _ _

25,000

w,

___

~ 7-Point Floating Average
12 points eliminated from analysis -
* 12 points eliminated from analysis -
I I I I l I I I I

20,000

15,000

10,000

10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-130
-140

5,000

14C Years BP

Figure 4. Gulf of Mexico 14C age sea-level data. Upper panel illustrates
the Gulf of Mexico data set, with the global (eustatic) reference curve
from Fig. 3 superimposed. Also shown is an acceptance envelope
statistically containing 96.43% of data (3.6% of data lie outside the
envelope). Only some of the younger data (less than 6,000 14C years BP)
are plotted in the upper panel in order to provide greater clarity, although
all those data sets that are affected by the editing process do appear.
Lower panel shows 7-point floating average curve fitted to all of the Gulf
of Mexico data sets considered in this work; 12 points were rejected
from analytical consideration (3.4% of the actual total data).

_

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

10
A10

----------- ---- -10
S-20
d -30
S, -40
&A 0 -I -50
_ -60
Curray (1960) -70
Acceptance -- Shepard (1960)
Envelope V- A Fairbridge (1961, 1974) -80
A-- O Frazier(1974)
__- ._O Robbin (1984) -100
A Fairbanks (1989, 1990) -110
---- O Schroeder et al. (1995)
Faughtand Donoghue(1997) -120
--Z *0 McBride (1997) -130
Reference Equation from Fig. 3
-140
10

0
*-10
-20
__ -30
--40

-50
oil_ "-60
-70
S-80
0 -90
-- -100
__ 7-Point Floating Average -110
12 points eliminated from analysis 1
-120
-130
-140

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Absolute Years BP
Figure 5. Gulf of Mexico absolute age sea-level data. Upper panel
illustrates the Gulf of Mexico data set, with the global (eustatic) reference
curve from Fig. 3 superimposed. Also shown is an acceptance envelope
statistically containing 96.85% of data (3.2% of data lie outside the
envelope). Only some of the younger data (less than 6,000 14C years BP)
are plotted in the upper panel in order to provide greater clarity, although
all those data sets that are affected by the editing process do appear.
Lower panel shows 7-point floating average curve fitted to all Gulf of
Mexico data sets considered in this work; 12 points were rejected from
analytical consideration (3.4% of the actual total data).

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

subsidence, the lack of certainty in such
calculations led us to exclude them from our
data set. These data represents results early
in the effort to identify sea-level stands, when
technological advances are not what they are
today. A very recent study, however, poses
concerns. Tornqvist et al. (2004) have
reported on sea-level indicators from the
Mississippi delta taken at depth in cores (i.e.,
may not represent sub-aerial sea-level
evidence), and apply unclear subsidence
corrections. Moreover, they have not
considered other available sea-level history
data sets in their investigations, and have
then posited conclusions based on a limited
amount of information for a limited area of the
Gulf of Mexico. Following our data selection
criteria, their data have not been included in
our compiled data set.

Upper panels of Figures 4 and 5
demonstrate the degree of variability of Gulf
of Mexico sea-level data. Analytical problems
associated with 14C sea-level determinations
(e.g., Pirazzoli, 1991) include those
associated with tectonic activity and crustal
stability, selection of features that actually
represent sea-level stands, sample material
contamination and reworking, and accurate
determination of elevations relative to a
professionally determined sea-level datum. It
is not surprising, therefore, that such
variability occurs. Gulf of Mexico data do not
constitute a special case. All one has to do is
inspect the regional data of Pirazzoli (1991,
1996) to see that such variability exists for the
great bulk of regional data sets. Our
approach was to apply the results of the new
global (eustatic) sea-level curve (Figure 2)
similar to that presented by Siddall et al.
(2003) as a tool for assessing the quality of
the Gulf of Mexico data. Two representative
transcendental equations were developed for
the Siddall et al. (2003; including Atlantic
Ocean coral data of Fairbanks, 1989, 1990;
and Pacific Ocean coral data of Edwards et
al., 1993; and Bard et al., 1996) data one
for the 14C data and one for absolute year BP
data as shown in Figure 3. The resulting
reference curves from these equations were
superimposed on the Gulf of Mexico data.

From the preceding discussion it
should be evident that while error is
associated with dating methodologies, it is
statistically manageable. Error associated
with sea-level indicator material, however, is
not known and this leads to the more
egregious uncertainty about past sea-level
behavior. One can, however, utilize certain
innovative statistical applications to
approximate internal variability of sea-level
indicators. In this work the standard deviation
of Gulf of Mexico sea-level elevation data
(OSLE) was used as the assessment statistic.
EXCEL computer applications were compiled
to automatically identify outliers that can be
justifiably eliminated from further analysis
using statistical constraints. Programmed
applications determine the centroid of the
selected data distribution and OSLE, applying
them to the representative transcendental
global data editing curves of Figure 3. An
essential characteristic of the analysis was
that ordinate and absicca values were
equivalently scaled and rendered
dimensionless by dividing 14C and absolute
years by 100 years and dividing sea-level
values by -1.0 m. There were several ways
in which to statistically assess variability
internal to sea-level indicator information. In
this work, the normal (i.e., perpendicular)
distance from the reference editing curves
resulted in precisely parallel curves defining
the acceptance envelope which initially
compute and encompass 68% of the data
(i.e., 1.0 OSLE), assuming the data conformed
to a Gaussian Probability Density Distribution
(GPDD). Similarly defined but refined
acceptance envelopes were then investigated
to finalize the acceptance envelope. This
was accomplished by selecting values for two
input variables: 1) the number of standard
deviations, c, which was assessed as c OSLE,
and 2) the time period for which the
attendant internal sea-level variability was to
be assessed. These input variables were
then modified relative to each other until the
actual number of outliers and the theoretical
(i.e., GPDD statistical) number of outliers,
converged in magnitude. It should be
understood that there are many possible
outcomes depending on specified input
variables. Two conditions, however, were

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

applied in order to attain final results:
1) the use of common sense and
inspection for cohesiveness of data,
and 2) generally, the elimination of
as few spurious points as possible.
For the Gulf of Mexico data,
resulting outcomes were as follows.
For the 14C age data (Figure 4), 2.1
OSLE resulted in the theoretical
Gaussian statistical outcome of 13
justifiably eliminated spurious data
points (3.6% of the data), and an
actual count of 12 spurious data
points (3.4% of the data) that can be
justifiably eliminated from further
analysis. For the absolute age data
(Figure 5), 2.15 OSLE resulted in the
theoretical Gaussian statistical
outcome of justifiably eliminated
spurious data points (3.2% of the
data), and an actual count of 12
spurious data points (3.4% of the
data) that can be justifiably
eliminated from further analysis.

We
identification
level data

emphasize that
of unacceptable
was critical to

the
sea-
our

analysis. We found that only a few spurious
data pairs can significantly affect analytical
outcomes. Only 12 points were identified
based on the applied analyses, or 3.4% of
the total number of data points considered for
the Gulf of Mexico.

Older Data Set

Variability of the remaining data
comprising the older data set is such that only
the most straightforward of statistical
smoothing applications is warranted. For the
data at hand, an nth order floating point
average application is appropriate. For any
sequence of numerical data the larger the
number of data points involved in a
sequential floating point average, the
smoother the resulting curve. The question
arises, therefore, as to the number of data
points to be included in each mean
calculation. The present data set contains a
significant amount of variability, as can be
observed in Figures 4 and 5. Moving

Table 2. Some average characteristics of the Gulf
of Mexico sea-level data sets.

Average
Average Deviation
Age Age Sample Number from
Type Range Size of Years 7-Point
(Years BP) n per Average
Measurement Fitted
Line
OLDER DATA SET
14C 6,000-18,200 156 79 +6.58 m
Absolute 6,000-21,000 171 93 6.66 m
14C 6,000-12,000 129 46 6.75 m
Absolute 6,000-12,000 120 48 5.74 m
14C 12,000-18,200 27 230 +5.76 m
Absolute 12,000-22,000 51 197 8.81 m
YOUNGER DATA SET A
14C < 6,000 77 71 +1.09 m
Absolute < 6,000 69 82 +1.02 m
YOUNGER DATA SET B
14C < 6,000 108 55 +1.30 m
Absolute < 6,000 101 59 +1.14 m
ALL DATA
14C < 18,200 341 53 +3.74 m
Absolute < 22,000 341 65 3.97 m

average windows of 5 or less were found to
retain a significant amount of noise. It was
found that a 7-point floating average removes
much of the noise. At the same time, a 7-
point window retains much useful information,
because 7 points typically represent less than
400 years of sea-level history. Moreover, if
one is concerned about such variation, they
are free to apply smoothing procedures such
as nth order polynomial applications. Results
for the 7-point floating average application
are illustrated in Figure 4 (lower panel) for 14C
data, and in Figure 5 (lower panel) for
absolute age data. Some average
characteristics of the Gulf of Mexico data set
are listed in Table 2. Older data set Gulf of
Mexico sea-level curve data are listed in
Appendix II.

Younger Data Sets

Sea-level information younger than
about 6,000 14C years BP poses more
intriguing questions. The younger data can

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

be divided into two subsets, based on
sampling location. Samples collected
offshore of the present shoreline, by
definition, do not include evidence of high-
stands. These samples comprise younger
data set A, or "offshore" samples. Ages
obtained from shoreline indicators collected
landward from the current shoreline do
include potential high-stand indicators.
Examples include beach ridge plains. These
samples comprise younger data set B, or
"onshore" samples. The result is two
distinctly different sea-level curves, based on
sampling bias. The two data sets are plotted
in Figures 6 (younger data set A) and 7
(younger data set B).

The data subset plotted in the upper

panel of Figure 7 is of much interest. The
data indicate episodic high-stands of sea-
level during the mid- to late-Holocene. Some
investigators hold that beach ridges are the
result of high-energy events, such as storms
(e.g., Psuty, 1965, 1966; Reineck and Singh,
1980; Bird, 1984). Arguing against this
thesis is the fact that subsequent high-
energy, short-term events can easily destroy
storm ridges, so that very few survive (e.g.,
Tanner, 1995; Balsillie, 1995). This
distinction is important enough that further
discussion is warranted.

Present existence of coastal beach
ridge plains (several to over a dozen ridges)
is testimony to the abundant supply of sand-
sized sediment comprising a local to sub-

-I *Shepard (1960)
H Spackman et al. (1966)
l ,A Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
O *Shier (1969); Smith (1969)
SNelson and Bray (1970); Frazier (1974)
Davies (1980)
Key Continued in Lower Panel -
I I I I I I I I I I I
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
14C Years BP

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Absolute Years BP

Figure 6. Gulf of Mexico younger data set A for dated sample sets collected
offshore from the present shoreline. 7-point floating average curves have
been fitted to the 14C and absolute age data sets.

13

2

0

-2
E
-4 Z

-6
e
C,
-8
-
-10

-12
0a
,m

2 o

0 0

-2

-4 S
Cf

0

7,000

- _- A Kuehn (1980)
Robbin (1984)
O H Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
A Faught and Donoghue (1997)
McBride (1997)
7-Point Floating Average
I I I II I I I I I I

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

*McFarlan (1961)
* Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
A Behrens (1966)
OSchnable and Goodell (1968)
- Key Continued in Lower Panel -
I I I I I I I I II I I I

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
14C Years BP

4
2
0
-2 u)
-4
-6
j0
-8 a
C,
0)
-10
-12
0 a

4
2 *

-2 w

-4 >
.J
-6 !
C',
-8
-10
J -12

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
Absolute Years BP

Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico younger data set B for dated sample sets
collected onshore from the present shoreline. 7-point floating average
curves have been fitted to the 14C and absolute age data sets.

regional littoral drift regime. Because beach
ridges are deposited by the combined effects
of tidal elevation changes and shore-breaking
wave induced run-up transport processes,
each ridge in the seaward direction
represents a relative change in sea-level. A
beach ridge plain may be comprised of beach
ridge sets each representing a chapter in
sea-level history as gleaned from dating,
elevation determinations, and sedimentologic
character. There is, however, one process
concerning the preservation of upland coastal
features such as beach ridge plains that has
long been ignored that of nature's own
"seawalls" which afford protection to natural
coasts. These "seawalls" are nearshore
submerged longshore bars that, unlike the
anthropically engineered designs are not
fixed but are dynamically mobile.

During shore-incident storm activity,
waves shore-propagating upon the rising
storm tide induce longshore bar formation
(e.g., Bruun, 1963; Hayes, 1972; Dette, 1980;
Balsillie, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1999;
Birkemeier, 1984; Sallenger et al., 1985;
Howd and Birkemeier, 1987). Longshore bar
formation is largely dependent on the type of
shore-breaking wave geometry (e.g., spilling,
plunging, surging waves), since wave
geometry dictates the direction that sediment
will be transported (e.g., Dolan, 1983; Dally,
1987). The relationship between breaker
type and sediment characteristics is logically
synergistic, resulting in bar size directly
proportional to breaker height (Balsillie,
1984a), and can move offshore at rates of
over two meters per hour (Howd and
Birkemeier, 1987; Sunamura and Maruyama,
1987). Longshore bars, then, cause waves to

7,000

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

break further offshore thereby inducing waves
to expend the greatest amount of destructive
energy they possess. Even when offshore
bar-breaking waves reform, their energy is so
reduced that by the time they reach shore
their erosive capability is greatly diminished
(Carter and Balsillie, 1983; Balsillie, 1984b,
1985, 1999). In this way, upland coastal
physiography is protected, but only if
sufficient sand-sized sediment is available in
the littoral zone for longshore bar formation.
Coasts with well-developed beach ridge
plains would appear to epitomize such
sedimentologically abundant characteristics.

The same is not true for storm ridges.
They are formed by fast moving storms or
hurricanes whose associated storm tide and
shore-incident breaking wave activity
progressively erodes beach material,
transporting it onshore to reside as a
washover type deposit (e.g., Schwartz, 1975).
This occurs because nearshore slopes are
steep enough that breaking wave activity
encroaches close enough to shore to cause
washover processes to occur (e.g., Hayes,
1972). At the same time, the relatively steep
nearshore slope and inadequate sediment
supplies disallow the formation of adequate
longshore bars to provide coastal protection.
In addition, littoral sediment volumes are not
sufficient to provide a succession of storm
ridge features. Hence, storm deposits are
subject to erosion and redistribution when
another extreme event impact occurs and few
survive to be found in the geologic record.

Moreover, normal beach ridge
deposits and storm deposits can be
differentiated based on granulometry (e.g.,
Tanner, 1991a; Balsillie, 1995). In contrast
with storm deposits, well-developed low
beach ridge plains (0.2 to 0.3 m of ridge
relief) represent long-term, ongoing littoral
processes during fair-weather conditions.
Beach ridges are preserved only when sea-
level falls or remains stable. Such sea-level
lowering needs to be on the order of only 0.2
m or so to encourage beach ridge formation.
(Stapor, 1973, 1975; Stapor and Tanner,
1977; Tanner et al. 1989; Tanner, 1989,

1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1992a, 1992b,
1993, 1995; Balsillie, 1995).

For the most part, beach ridge plains
of the Gulf of Mexico are quite young, ranging
in age from several hundred years to about
6,000 14C years BP. The idea of such plains
as indicators of sea-level has an early
historical source (LeBlanc and Bernard,
1954). More recently, many of them have
been investigated as they relate to indicators
of sea-level high-stands. Stapor and Tanner
(1977), Tanner et al. (1989), Tanner (1988,
1991a, 1991b ,1992a, 1992b, 1993), and
Donoghue and White (1995) studied high-
stand evidence from the extensive St. Vincent
Island beach ridge plain (western panhandle
Gulf coast of Florida). Stapor et al. (1988,
1991) investigated high-stand indicators from
beach ridge plains of the southwest Florida
Gulf coast (Sanibel Island, Cayo Costa, etc.);
Walker et al. (1995) investigated high-stand
archaeological data for the southwest Florida
Gulf Coast. Blum et al. (2001, 2002)
investigated a central Texas coastal beach
ridge sequence which yielded significantly
older sea-level elevations and dates
(corrected here to MSL rather than mean high
water, MHW). Stapor and Stone (2004)
studied high-stand Louisiana coastal barriers.
About beach ridge plains Tanner et al.
(1989, p. 555) stated "... the sequence, in a
well-organized beach ridge plain (such as on
St. Vincent Island, Florida) is unmistakable,
and permits relative dates from one ridge to
the next to be determined fairly closely,
typically to better than 50 yrs. Only a few
historical or radiometric dates are needed to
construct a well-controlled history, because a
simple beach ridge system as this one is itself
a calendar."

As with the older data set, the two
younger data sets have been subjected to a
7-point floating average analyses, for
consistency with the older data set. Moving
point average curves are given in the lower
panel of Figure 6 for younger data set A and
in the lower panel of Figure 7 for younger
data set B. Some average characteristics of
the Gulf of Mexico younger data sets are
listed in Table 2. Gulf of Mexico sea-level

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

curve data are listed in Appendix III for
younger data set A, and in Appendix IV for
younger data set B.

Combined Data Sets

Older and younger data sets are
combined and presented in Figure 8 to
quantify Gulf of Mexico sea-level 14C (upper
panel) and absolute age (lower panel)
histories since the last glacial maximum. In
addition, the global (eustatic) sea-level curve
from Figure 2 (Siddall et al., 2003) is plotted
with the Gulf of Mexico regional sea-level
history in Figure 9. While there are
differences, they are small enough that the
Gulf of Mexico data can be said to represent
global (eustatic) history for the period since
the last glacial maximum. The correlation (r
being the correlation coefficient) between the
Siddall et al., (2003) global and the Gulf of
Mexico data sets are very high at r > 0.99 for
both 14C and absolute data plots (Figure 9).
Average elevation differences between the
global and Gulf of Mexico sea-level curves
are 5.14 m for the 14C age data curve, and
5.38 m for the absolute age data curve.

YOUNGER DRYAS

North American Laurentide ice
sheet reached maximum ice accumulation by
about 18,000 14C years BP (22,000 absolute
years BP), at which time sea level was some
120 m below present mean sea level ( Bloom,
1971; Fairbanks, 1989, 1990). The period
11,000 to 10,000 14C years BP also has been
recognized as a signature event during the
deglacial era, termed the Younger Dryas. It
was, at least in part, a cold period of
significant proportions. Three deglacial
models (Ruddiman, 1987a, 1987b) have
been proposed: 1) a smooth deglaciation
scenario with the most rapid melting centered
at 11,000 14C years BP; 2) a two-step
model with maximum melting rates from
14,000 to 12,000 14C years BP and from
10,000 to 7,000 14C years BP separated by
a period with little or no ice volume loss; and
3) a Younger Dryas model involving a period
of significant ice growth in the midst of the
deglaciation, from approximately 11,000 to

10,000 14C years BP. Ruddiman (1987a,
1987b) favored the smooth deglaciation
model, while Fairbanks (1989) supported the
two-step model. While deglaciation scenarios
during the time-period involved are at odds,
two of the three models suggest a dry period
occurring between about 10,900 and 10,500
14C years BP.

Deep-sea 6180 records corroborate a
two-stage melting scenario. Marine sediment
records identify a significant melt-water pulse,
MWP-IA, occurring from 14,500 to 11,500
years BP (Duplessy et al., 1981, 1986; Bard
et al., 1987). From 14C records of Barbados
cores, Fairbanks (1989) found the rate of sea
level rise to be a minimum at 11,000 14C
years BP, marking the beginning of the
Younger Dryas event which persisted until
10,000 14C years years BP. The more recent
half of the Younger Dryas from 10,500 to
10,000 14C years BP was characterized by
increasing rates of melt-water discharge,
culminating in a second melt-water pulse,
MWP-IB, at about 9,500 14C years BP
(Fairbanks, 1989). Marine 6180 records
(Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975) indicate
that during the older half of the Younger
Dryas (11,000 to 10,500 14C years BP), melt-
water discharge rates were less than during
MWP-IA by a factor of five, and at least a
factor of three less than rates during the
MWP-IB melt-water event (Fairbanks, 1989).

A review of the literature (Table 3)
from 24 studies provides a consensus of the
age of the Younger Dryas at from 11,000 to
10,000 radiocarbon years or 12,800 to
11,400 absolute years BP, the end of which
is the approximate Pleistocene Holocene
boundary. Since our representation of the
sea level curve is a floating average of
existing sea-level data indicators, it is subject
to the variability of the available data.
Nonetheless, the Younger Dryas appears to
be represented in the Gulf of Mexico data
(Figs. 8 and 9), as a millennium characterized
by a slowing in the rate of sea-level rise. It is
also of interest to note in Figure 9 that the
greatest deviation between the Gulf of Mexico
and the "global" curve occurs during the
period of the Younger Dryas, although this

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

- I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

------------ ^^

18,000 years BP, maximum _----
accumulation of North American
Wisconsin Laurentide Ice Sheet Younger
SDryas

__ Younger Data Set A
OYounger Data Set B
SOlder Data Set

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

14C Years BP

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Absolute Years BP

Figure 8. Final combined sea-level curves for the Gulf Mexico.

25,000

*

C

------ -----
r -

22,000 years BP, maximum
accumulation of North American Younger
Wisconsin Laurentide Ice Sheet Dryas

I Younger Data Set A
SYounger Data Set B
--" OOlder Data Set

25,000

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70 E

-80

-90 -
ca
-100 c

-110 e

-120

-130 2

10 -
0
0 '

-10

-20

-30 .

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

*

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

- Younger Data Set A
Younger Data Set B
- Older Data Set
Siddall et al. Global Sea Level Curve of Fig. 2

SElevation Statistical Analysis
18,000 years BP, maximum Average Deviation = 5.14 m
accumulation of North American Std Dev of Avg Dev = 4.58 m
r= 0.9931
Wisconsin Laurentide Ice Sheet (Performed using Older Data
I ISet and Younger Data Set B
versus Global Sea Level Curve
of Fig. 2)
A Tl-

I I I I

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

14C Years BP

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Absolute Years BP

Figure 9. Final combined Gulf of Mexico sea-level curves compared to the
Siddall et al. (2003) global (eustatic) sea-level curve of Fig. 2.

0

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60 j
c,
-70 2
E
-80

-90 >
_1
-100 cr

-110

-120 |
-130 0

o
10 w
",-

0 .

-10 >
wi
-20

-30
.J
-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

iYounger Data Set A
Younger Data Set B -- f -
Older Data Set-
Siddall et al. Global Sea Level Curve of Fig. 2

__- Elevation Statistical Analysis
22,000 years BP, maximum Average Deviation = 5.38 m
accumulation of North American S -td Dev of Avg Dev = 5.05 m
r= 0.9925
SWisconsin Laurentide Ice Sheet (Performeusing Older Data
_Set and Younger Data Set B
Sversus Global Sea Level Curve
/- of Fig. 2)

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

Table 3. Some delimiting dates for the beginning and end of the
Younger Dryas.

Investigator

Becker and Kromer. (1986)
Hammer et al. (1986)
Fairbanks (1990)
Flower and Kennett (1990)
Bard et al. (1992)
Bjorck et al. (1992)
Johnsen (1992)
Kromer and Becker (1992)
Rozanski et al. (1992)
Zolitschka at al. (1992)
Alley et al. (1993)
Edwards et al. (1993)
Marchitto and Wei (1995)
Bjorck et al. (1996)
Hughen et al. (1996)
de Vernal et al. (1996)
Smith et al. (1997)
Bennett et al. (2000)
Muscheler et al. (2000)
Goslar et al. (2000)
Renssen (2001)
Dyke et al. (2002)
Polyak et al. (2004)
Means

14C Years BP
Beainnina Termination

11,000
11,000

11,000
11,300

10,800

11,000

10,000
10,000

10,250
10,100
9,950

10,300

9,600

Absolute Years BP
Beginning Termination
11,300
10,720
13,000 11,700

12,940
13,000

12,600
12,500

13,000
13,000

12,700

12,800

11,350
10,650
11,550
11,300
11,350
10,630
11,640
11,600

11,425
11,000

11,700
11,200
11,550
11,500
11,500

11,640

11.017 10.029 12.780 11.370

Calibration Check1 11,017 10,029 12,840 11,450
1 14
Calibration check tests 1C year BP means to assure they closely represent absolute
year BP means from other studies.
NOTE: All 14C data calibrated to absolute years in this work were calculated using
CALIB Rev 4.4.2 using a 390-year reservoir age, a marine AR correction of 0 years +
50 years, and the Marine98 and lntCal98 data sets (references provided in the text).

may be an artifact of the spread of the data
available in the older data set within that time
period. Note, that when the mean
radiocarbon ages for the beginning (11,017
14C years BP) and the end (10,029 14C years
BP) of the Younger Dryas are calibrated
using CALIB 4.4.2, the results, in absolute
years, are virtually the same (12,840 years
BP and 11,450 years BP) as the means
shown in Table 3.

A CLOSER LOOK AT SEA-LEVEL
HISTORY FOR THE PAST 6,000 YEARS

Due to its scale, Figure 8 does not
reveal fine details for mid- and late-Holocene
sea-level behavior. The Gulf of Mexico
younger data sets A and B are, therefore,
plotted in Figure 10 along with the Siddall et
al. (2003) global (eustatic) sea-level data for

the same period, from Figure 2. The
amplitudes in the Siddall et al. (2003) curve
are potentially exaggerated, with a 6180
uncertainty of +12 m in sea-level elevation as
reported by the authors, but the timing may
be compared with that of the Gulf of Mexico
data sets.

There is no discernable correlation
between the Gulf of Mexico younger data set
A ("offshore" samples) and the Siddall et al.
(2003) global curve (Figure 10, upper panel).
There are, however, high-stand phase
correlations between the Siddall et al. (2003)
global and the Gulf of Mexico younger data
set B ("onshore" samples). These are
identified in the lower panel (absolute age
data) of Figure 10. There are five sea-level
high stands reflected by the Gulf of Mexico
data (labeled a, c, e, g and i). Four of these

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-

14C Years BP

* *ii~

I -

gh

a I I~b

- I 00'1 1 1iJI rts8fN r I

5,000

4,000

3,000

- Siddall et al. (2003) Data Set
-Younger Data Set B
Younger Data Set A
I I

2,000

1,000

"O--l 4k A- 7 V-

- -Siddall et al. (2003) Data Set
-Younger Data Set B
Younger Data Set -- Younger Data Set A
;- - I-- I I I i I I |I II I

Absolute Years BP

Figure 10. Comparison of Gulf of Mexico younger data sets with the
Siddall et al. (2003) global (eustatic) sea-level curve. Horizontal bars
indicate sea-level high stands. See text for discussion.

0 8
6 M
5 4 4 U
2 'F
10 0 2

S15 4 -4 >|
00 2_% I.W
-6
20 i i Siddall et al. (2003) Data Set LI -8 "
- -Tanner Jerup Kurtosis Analysis
25 St. Vincent Island, Florida -10
25 I I I -12
7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
Absolute Years BP

Figure 11. Comparison of Tanner's (1990a, 1991a, 1993) kurtosis as a
surrogate indicator of sea-level stands and the Siddall et al (2003) global
(eustatic) sea-level curve. Horizontal bars indicate sea-level high stands.
See text for discussion. LIA = Little Ice Age.

7,000

6,000

8
6
4

-10
-2
-4

-4
-6 e
-8
-10
-12
0

8
6

2
0 w
-2 S
-4 _j
-6 w
-8
-10
-12
I

7,000

6,000

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

events (labeled a, e, g, and i) correlate with
periods of high-stand or rapid rise in sea level
reflected in the Red Sea record of Siddall et
al. (2003). The correlation between the Gulf
of Mexico and Red Sea data for event c
(4,500 to 4,000 absolute years BP) is less
clear, but both records are associated with
the initiation of a period of sea-level rise
(4,600 to 4,400 absolute years BP).

Gulf of Mexico sea-level data of
Stapor and Tanner (1977), Tanner et al.
(1989), Tanner (1991a, 1991b, 1992a, 1993),
Blum et al. (2001, 2002), and Stapor and
Stone (2004) suggest a continuous high-
stand from 6,400 to 4,000 absolute years BP.
Data of Fairbridge (1961, 1974), Schnable
and Goodell (1968), and Morton et al. (2000)
indicate a sea-level low from about 5,000 to
3,700 absolute years BP.

The Siddall et al. (2003) data by
comparison could indicate a continuous sea-
level low-stand from 5,000e to 3,700 absolute
years BP. Tanner (1990a, 1991a, 1993, etc.)
found a correlation between transpo-
depositional shore-breaking wave energy and
the kurtosis moment measure, K, of
sediments which are deposited by runup
processes, resulting from shore-breaking
wave activity. When applied to the Jerup,
Denmark, beach ridge plane (-150 ridges)
sediments, K becomes a surrogate indicator
of sea-level low or high-stands. Tanner's
Jerup findings are plotted with the Siddall et
al. (2003) results in Figure 11 showing
remarkable agreement, including agreement
indicating a European Middle Eastern low-
stand from 5,000 to 3,700 absolute years BP.
There is, however, evidence that in
Mesopotamia there was a very abrupt arid
period beginning at 4,025 absolute years BP
(Cullen et al., 2000) consistent with
conditions in Turkey (Lemcke and Sturm,
1997), Israel (Bar-Matthews et al., 1997), the
Dead Sea (Frumkin, 1991), Yemen
(Wilkinson, 1997), north and east Africa
(Gasse and Van Campo, 1994; Halfman and
Johnson, 1988), and Morocco (Cheddadi et
al., 1998). Claussen et al. (1999) suggest
this may have been the result of large-scale
changes in ocean-atmosphere-vegetation

boundary conditions. Cullen et al. (2000)
noted that the "... event was of uncommonly
large amplitude compared to the rest of the
Holocene, and it nearly matched the
mineralogic and geochemical amplitudes
associated with the Younger Dryas
aridification." This might suggest the onset of
a cooler period that was preceded by a higher
sea-level stand.

Hence, four major Gulf of Mexico sea-
level high-stands appear to be confirmed
relative to the global curve of Siddall et al.
(2003) with, perhaps, a fifth though less clear
high-stand occurring 4,500 to 4,000 absolute
years BP.

DISCUSSION

The outcome of this investigation is a
new and well-defined sea-level curve for the
northern Gulf of Mexico based on a large
database of radiocarbon-dated sea-level
indicators. The data set appears to be
sufficiently dense to accurately define a
detailed sea-level history of the Gulf region.
On the average, a sea-level elevation
measurement occurs once every 53 14C
years for the Gulf of Mexico data (see Table
2). There is, in fact, a sufficient amount of
data to clearly illustrate that the most
significant issue in this type of investigation is
the degree of variability. In smoothing some
of the noise, the moving average method
might lower the level of detail by removing
variability, but enables longer-term trends to
be observed.

Future data sets will certainly improve
our understanding of late Quaternary sea-
level history for the Gulf of Mexico or any
other region. Future sampling can be refined
by taking into account the possibility of sea-
level stands higher than present during the
Holocene. Typical sea-level data sets have
been strongly biased in favor of low-stand
indicators by restricting the sampling to
elevations below present sea-level. The
difference between Figures 6 and 7 is that the
investigations that produced the data sets of
Figure 7 sampled beach ridges and other
potential high sea- level stand indicators

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

along with low-stand deposits. The possibility
of Holocene high- stands of sea-level has
generally been dismissed due to the sparsity
of data. In recent years, however, new data
sets have strengthened the case for
Holocene high-stands. An unusual number of
such data sets are from the Gulf of Mexico
(e.g., Stapor, 1973, 1975; Stapor and Tanner,
1977; Tanner et al. 1989; Tanner, 1989,
1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1992a, 1992b,
1993, 1995; Stapor et al., 1988, 1991; Blum
et al., 2001, 2002; Walker et al., 1995;
Stapor and Stone, 2004), but evidence also
comes from other regions (e.g., Tanner,
1990a, 1990b, 1991a, 1993) implying that
high-stand events were global in their extent.

By their very nature, sea-level
histories will always possess some inherent
variability. And so, whether one analyzes the
data now or later would appear to make little
difference, and the type of analysis
conducted in this investigation remains
justified. One obvious solution is the
discovery and application of new
methodologies for assessing the sea-level
data, a condition we have introduced here.
Necessary data includes details on the dating
method and the accuracy of selecting
geologically distinguishable stratigraphic
horizons that can be identified as
representing a verifiable sea-level stand.
Errors associated with the 14C dating method
have been discussed previously, and need to
be quantified to the most detailed extent
possible. By comparison, selection of
dateable stratigraphic horizons is much less
quantifiable, perhaps even qualitative. Given
the difference, the scientist must conclude
that it is the latter which introduces the bulk of
the error and, therefore, the major part of the
variability in the data. A case in point
involves consideration of younger data sets A
and B for ages less than about 6,000
absolute years BP. Just why datable beach
ridge plain data (younger data set B) has not
been recognized as the more definitive
representation of sea-level history, remains
enigmatic. It also calls attention as to
whether an eustatic sea-level curve might
have credence. Note that the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans on either side of the Panama

Canal have mean sea-levels differing by but
0.2 m, implying that global sea-level
assessments may be applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

Objectives of this work were: 1) to
determine a single, comprehensive sea-level
curve for the Gulf of Mexico, and 2) to provide
evidence that, for stable coastal regions such
as the northern Gulf of Mexico, sea-level
history approximates global (i.e., eustatic)
sea-level, and 3) to present evidence for the
occurrence of high-stands of sea-level during
the mid- and late-Holocene. Twenty-three
data subsets for the Gulf of Mexico from
various investigators were employed to
determine sea-level changes from about
18,000 to about 400 14C years BP (i.e.,
21,000 to 0 absolute years BP).

Data were divided into three sets -
one older than about 6,000 years BP, and
two data sets younger than about 6,000
years BP. The two younger data sets
distinguished themselves from the older data
set because of sampling location. One
younger data set was comprised of shoreline
indicators collected seaward of the current
shoreline that, by definition, do not provide
evidence of higher sea-level stands. The
other younger data set, comprising sea-level
indicators landward of the current shoreline,
however, do offer evidence of high sea-level
stands. The oldest of these high-stands were
older than 6,000 absolute years BP. For all
of these data sets it was determined that a
relatively simple nth order floating point
averaging statistical approach is a proper
approach, given the variability of the data.
For any sequence of numerical data, the
larger the number of data points involved in a
sequential floating point average, the
smoother the resulting curve. Based on
testing, it was found that a 7-point floating
average was optimum in that it removes
much of the natural noise in the data while
retaining enough detail to depict long term
sea-level history. Comparison of the resulting
composite Gulf of Mexico sea-level curve
resulting from this work with the global curve
of Siddall et al. (2003) indicates sufficient

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

similarity that it can be concluded that the
Gulf of Mexico data represents a global or
eustatic sea-level history. This also applies
to the existence of Holocene high-stand
evidence in both data sets. The Gulf of
Mexico appears to be one the most reliable
sources of evidence for high-stand events
during the latter half of the Holocene.

Finally, during the course of this
investigation, we faced the problem of
identifying Gulf of Mexico sea-level data
outliers that can be justifiably excused from
inclusion in analytical procedures. This is
not, in fact, a problem isolated to Gulf of
Mexico data alone, but is normally the case
for most data sets as can be easily verified by
inspecting the comprehensive world-wide
national and regional sea-level compilation of
Pirazzoli (1991). Utilizing the eustatic data of
Siddall et al. (2003), a method has been
proposed that might be considered by other
researchers as a useful tool for editing of sea-
level data.

REFERENCES

Alley, R. B., Meese, D. A., Shuman, C. A.,
Gow, A. J., Taylor, K. C., Grootes, P.
M., White J. W. C., Ram M.,
Waddington, E. D., Mayewski, P. A.,
and Zielinski, G. A., 1993, Abrupt
increase in Greenland snow
accumulation at the end of the Younger
Dryas event: Nature, v. 362, p. 527-
529.

Anonymous, 1960, Historical statistics of the
United States, colonial times to 1957:
U. S. Bureau of the Census and Social
Science Research Record, Washington,
D. C., p. A1-A16.

Balsillie, J. H., 1984a, Attenuation of wave
characteristics following shore-breaking
on longshore sand bars: Florida
Department of Natural Resources,
Beaches and Shores Technical and
Design Memorandum No. 84-1, 17 p.

1984b, A multiple shore-
breaking wave transformation computer
model: Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Beaches and Shores
Technical and Design Memorandum
No. 84-3, 62 p.

1985, Verification of the
MSBWT numerical model: coastal
erosion from four climatological events
and littoral wave activity from three
storm damaged piers: Florida
Department of Natural Resources,
Beaches and Shores Technical and
Design Memorandum No. 85-3, 33 p.

1995, William F. Tanner on
environmental plastic granulometry:
Florida Geological Survey, Special
Publication No. 40, 144 p.

1999, Volumetric beach and
coast erosion due to storm and
hurricane impact: Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, Florida
Geological Survey, Open File Report
No. 78, 37 p.

Balsillie, J. H., Dunbar, J. S., Means, G. H.,
and Means, R., in press,
Geoarchaeological consideration of the
Ryan-Harley site (8JE-1004) in the
Wacissa River northern Florida: Annals
of the Florida Museum of Natural
History.

Balsillie, J. H., Means, G. H., and Dunbar, J.
S., in review, Fluvial sedimentological
character of the Florida Ryan-Harley
site with evidence of no post-
depositional reworking: Geo-
archaeology.

Bard, E., Arnold, M., Maurice, P., Duprat, J.,
Moyes, J., and Duplessy, J. C., 1987,
Retreat velocity of the North Atlantic
polar front during the last deglaciation
determined by 14C accelerator mass
spectrometry: Nature, v. 328, p. 791-
794.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Bard, E., Fairbanks, R. G., Arnold, M., and
Hamelin, B., 1992, 230Th/234U and 14C
ages obtained by mass spectrometry on
corals from Barbados (West Indies),
Isabela (Galapagos) and Mururoa
(French Polynesia): In (Bard, E., and
Broecker, W. S., eds.,), The Last
Deglaciation: Absolute and Radio-
carbon Chronologies, Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, p. 103-112.

Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Arnold, M.,
Montaggioni, L., Cabioch, G., Faure, G.,
and Rougerie, F., 1996, Deglacial sea-
level record from Tahiti corals with the
timing of global meltwater discharge:
Nature, v. 382, p. 241-244.

Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., and Kaufman,
A., 1997, Late Quaternary paleoclimate
in the eastern Mediterranean region
from stable isotope analysis of
speleothems at Soreq Cave, Israel:
Quaternary Research, v. 47, p. 155-
168.

Baumgartner, A., and Reichel, E., 1975, The
World Water Balance: New York, NY:
Elsevier, 179 p.

Becker, B., and Kromer, B., 1986, Extension
of the Holocene dendrochronology by
the Preboral pine series, 8800 to 10,000
BP: Radiocarbon, v. 28, p. 961-967.

Behrens, E. W., 1966, Recent emergent
beach in eastern Mexico: Nature, v.
1952, p. 642-643.

Bennett, K. D., Haberle, S. G., and Lumley,
S. H., 2000, The last glacial Holocene
transition in southern Chile: Science, v.
290, p. 325-328.

Bird, E. C. F., 1984, Coasts An Introduction
to Coastal Geomorphology, New York:
Basil Blackwell Inc., 320 p.

Birkemeier, W. A., 1984, Time scales of
nearshore profile changes:
Proceedings of the 19th Coastal
Engineering Conference, p. 1149-1167.

Bjorck, S., Cato, I., Brunnberg, I., and
Stromberg, B., 1992, The clay-varve
based Swedish time scale and its
relation to the Late Weichselian
radiocarbon chronology: In: (Bard, E.,
and Broecker, W. S., eds.), The Last
Deglaciation: Absolute and
Radiocarbon Chronologies, NATO ASI
Series, Berlin: Springer, p. 25-44.

Bjorck, S., Kromer, B., Johnsen, S., Bennike,
O., Hammarlund, D., Lemdahl, G.,
Possnert, G., Rasmussen, T. L.,
Wohlfarth, B., Hammer, C. U., and
Spurk, M., 1996, Synchronized
terrestrial-atmospheric deglacial records
around the north Pacific: Science, p.
274, p. 1155-1160.

Bloom, A. L., 1971, Glacial-eustatic and
isostatic controls of sea-level since the
last glaciation: In: (Turekian, K. K., ed.),
The Late Cenozoic Glacial Stages,
New Haven: Yale University Press, p.
355-379.

1977, Atlas of Sea-Level
Curves, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,
103 p.

Blum, M. D., Carter, A. E., Zayac, T., and
Goble, R., 2002, Middle Holocene sea-
level and evolution of the Gulf of Mexico
coast (USA): Journal of Coastal
Research, Special Issue 36, p. 65-80.

Blum, M. D., Misner, T. J., Collins, E. S.,
Scott, D. B., Morton, R. A., and Asian,
A., 2001, Middle Holocene sea-level
rise and highstand at +2m, center
Texas coast: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 71, no. 4, p. 581-588.

Bruun, P., 1963, Longshore currents and
longshore troughs: Journal of
Geophysical Research, v. 68, p. 1065-
1078.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

Carter, R. W. G., and Balsillie, J. H., 1983, A
note on the amount of wave energy
transmitted over nearshore sand bars:
Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, v. 8, p. 213-222.

Cheddadi, R., Lamb, H. F., Guiot, J., and van
der Kaars, S., 1998, Holocene climatic
change in Morocco: a quantitative
reconstruction from pollen data:
Climate Dynamics, v. 14, p. 883-890.

Claussen, M., Kubatzki, C., Brovkin, V.,
Ganopolski, A. Hoelzmann, P., and
Pachur, H. J., 1999, Simulation of an
abrupt change in Saharan vegetation in
the mid-Holocene: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 26, p. 2037-2030.

Coleman, J. M., and Smith, W. G., 1964, Late
Recent rise of sea-level: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 75, p.
833-840.

Cullen, H. M., deMenocal, P. B., Hemming,
S., Hemming, G., Brown, F. H.,
Guilderson, T, and Cirocko, F., 2000,
Climate change and the collapse of the
Akkadian empire: evidence from the
deep sea: Geology, v. 28, p. 379-382.

Cunningham, J. T., 1958, The New Jersey
Shore, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.

Curray, J. R., 1960, Sediments and history of
Holocene transgression, continental
shelf, northwest Gulf of Mexico: In: (F.
P. Shepard et al., eds), Recent
Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico,
American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, p. 221-226.

Dally, W. R., 1987, Longshore bar formation
surf beat or undertow? Coastal
Sediments '87, v. 1, p. 71-86.

Davies, T. D, 1980, Peat formation in Florida
Bay and its significance in interpreting
the recent vegetation history of the bay
area, Ph.D. Dissertation, College
Station: Penn. State University, PA,
338 p.

Dette, H. H., 1980, Migration of longshore
bars: Proceedings of the 17th Coastal
Engineering Conference, chap. 89, p.
1476-1492.

de Verna, A., Hillare-Marcel, G., and
Bilodeau, G., 1996, Reduced meltwater
outflow from the Laurentide ice mare
during the Younger Dryas: Nature, v.
381, p. 774-777.

Dolan, T. J., 1983, Wave mechanisms for the
formation multiple longshore bars with
emphasis on the Chesapeake Bay: Ms.
Thesis, Newark: University of
Delaware, 208 p.

Donoghue, J. F., and White, N. M., 1995,
Late Holocene sea-level change and
delta migration, Apalachicola River
region, northwest Florida, USA: Journal
of Coastal Research, v. 11, p. 651-663.

Duplessy, J. C., Delibrias, G., Turon, J. L.,
Pujol, C., and Duprat, J., 1981,
Deglacial warming of the northeastern
Atlantic Ocean; correlation with the
paleoclimatic evolution of the European
continent: Paleogeography,
Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology, v. 35,
p. 121-144.

Duplessy, J. C., Arnold, M., Maurice, P.,
Bard, E., Duprat, J., and Moyes, J.,
1986, Direct dating of the oxygen-
isotope record of the last deglaciation
by 14C accelerator spectrometry:
Nature, v. 320, p. 350-352.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dyke, A. S., St-Onge, D. A., and Savelle, J.
M., 2002, Younger Dryas and Preboreal
end moraines, readvances, and
recession rates, western Canadian
Arctic: [Abs] Geological Society of
America, Denver Annual Meeting,
Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, p. 406.

Edwards, R. L., Beck, J. W., Gurr, G. S.,
Donahue, D. J., Chappell, J. M. A.,
Bloom, A. L., Druffel, E. R. M., and
Taylor, F. W., 1993, A large drop in
atmospheric 14C and reduced melting in
the Younger Dryas documented 236Th
ages of corals: Science, v. 260, p. 962-
968.

Ekman, M., 1988, The world's longest
continued series of sea-level
observations: Pure Applied
Geophysics, v. 127, no. 1, p. 73-77.

Fairbanks, R. G., 1989, A 17,000-year glacio-
eustatic sea-level record: influence of
glacial melting rates on the Younger
Dryas event and deep-ocean
circulation: Nature, v. 342, p. 637-642.

1990, The age and origin of the
"Younger Dryas climate event" in
Greenland ice cores: Paleo-
ceanography, v. 5, no. 6, p. 937-948.

Fairbridge, R. W., 1961, Eustatic change in
sea-level: In: (L. H. Ahrens et al., ed.),
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, v.
4, New York: Pergamon Press, p. 99-
185.

1974, The Holocene sea-level
record in south Florida: In: (P. J.
Gleason, ed.), Environments of South
Florida: Present and Past, Miami
Geological Survey, Memoir No. 2, p.
223-232.

1989, Crescendo events in sea-
level changes: Journal of Coastal
Research, v. 5, no. 1, p. ii-vi.

1995, Foreword: Some
personal reminiscences of the idea of
cycles, especially in the Holocene:
Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue No. 17, p. 5-10.

Faught, M. K., and Donoghue, J. F., 1997,
Marine inundated archaeological sites
and paleofluvial systems: examples
from a karst-controlled continental shelf
setting in Apalachee Bay, northeastern
Gulf of Mexico: Geoarchaeology, v. 12,
p. 416-458.

Faure, G., 1986, Principles of Isotope
Geology, New York: Wiley and sons,
589 p.

Finkl, C. W., Jr., 1995, Introduction of
Holocene cycles: Journal of Coastal
Research Special Issue No. 17, p. 1-4.

Fisk, H. N., 1956, Nearshore sediments of the
continental shelf off Louisiana: Eighth
Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, p. 1.

Flower, B. P., and Kennett, J. P., 1990, The
Younger Dryas cool episode in the Gulf
of Mexico: Paleoceanography, v. 5, p.
949-961.

Frazier, D. E., 1974, Depositional episodes:
their relationship to the Quaternary
framework in the northwestern portion
of the Gulf Basin: Texas Bureau of
Economic Geology, Geological Circular
74-1, 28 p.

Frumkin, A., 1991, The Holocene climatic
record of the salt carves of Mount
Sedom, Israel: The Holocene, v. 1, p.
191-200.

Gasse, F., and Van Campo, E., 1994, Abrupt
post-glacial climate events in west Asia
and north Africa monsoon domains:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.
126, p. 435-456.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

Gehrels, W. R., 1999, Middle and late
Holocene sea-level changes in eastern
saltmarsh stratigraphy and AMS 14C
dates on basal peat: Quaternary
Research, v. 52, p. 350-359.

Godwin, H., Suggate, R. P., and Willis, E. H.,
1958, Radiocarbon dating of the
eustatic rise in ocean-level: Nature, v.
181, p. 1518-1519.

Goslar, T., Arnold, M., Tisnerat-Laborde, N.,
Czernik, J., and Wleckowski, K., 2000,
Variations of Younger Dryas
atmospheric radiocarbon explicable
without ocean circulation changes:
Nature, v. 403, p. 877-880.

Gould, H. R., and McFarlan, E., Jr., 1959,
Geologic history of the chenier plain,
southwestern Louisiana: Transactions
of Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies, v. 9, p. 261-270.

Granlund, E., 1932, De svenska
hogmossarnas geologi: Sveriges
Geologiska Underskning., Series C, v.
373, 193 p.

Halfman, J. D., and Johnson, T. C., 1988,
High-resolution record of cyclic climatic
change during the past 4 ka from Lake
Turkana, Kenya: Geology, v. 16, p.
496-500.

Hammer, C. U., Clausen, H. B., and Tauber,
H., 1986, Ice-core dating of the
Pleistocene/Holocene boundary applied
to a calibration of the 14C time scale:
Radiocarbon, v. 28, p. 284-291.

Hayes, M. O., 1972, Forms of sediment
accumulation in the beach zone: In:
(Meyer, R. E., ed.), Wave on Beaches
and Resulting Sediment Transport,
London: Academic Press, p. 297-356.

Howd, P. A., and Birkemeier, W. A., 1987,
Storm-induced morphology changes
during DUCK85: Coastal Sediments
'87, v. 1, p. 834-847.

Hughen, K. A., Overpeck, J. T., Peterson, L.
C., and Trumbore, S., 1996, Rapid
climate changes in the tropical Atlantic
region during the last deglaciation:
Nature, v. 380, p. 51-54.

Johnsen, S. J., Clausen, H. B., Dansgaard,
W., Fuhrer, K., Gundestrup, N. S.,
Hammerr, C. U., Iversen, PI, Jouzel, J.,
Stauffer, B., and Steffensen, J. P.,
1992, Irregular glacial interstadials
recorded in a new Greenland ice core:
Nature, v. 359, p. 311-313.

Johnson, D. W., and Smith, W. S., 1913,
Recent storm effects on the northern
New Jersey shoreline, and their
supposed relation to coastal
subsidence: Annual Administrative
Report of the State Geologist for the
Year 1913, Bulletin 12, Geological
Survey of New Jersey, p. 27-44.

Kromer, B., and Becker, B., 1992, Tree-ring
14C calibration at 10,000 BP: In: (Bard,
E., and Broecker, W. S., eds.), The Last
Deglaciation: Absolute and
Radiocarbon Chronologies, NATO ASI
Series, Berlin: Springer, p. 3-11.

Kuehn, D. W.,1980, Offshore transgressive
peat deposits of southwest Florida:
Evidence for a late Holocene rise of
sea-level: M. S. Thesis, Department of
Geology, Pennsylvania University, 104
p.

LeBlanc, R. J., and Bernard, H.
Resume of late Recent
history of the Gulf Coast:
Mijnb., N. S. 16, p. 129-158.

A., 1954,
geological
Geol. En

Lemcke, G., and Sturm, M., 1997, 6180 and
trace element measurements as proxy
for the reconstruction of climate
changes at Lake Van (Turkey):
preliminary results: In: (Dalfes, H. N.,
et al., eds.), Third Millennium B. C.
Climate Change and Old World
Collapse, v. 49: Berlin, Springer, p.
178-196.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Liden, R., 1938, Den senkvartara
strandforskjutningens fotlopp och
kronologi I Angermanland: Geologiska
Foreningens Forhandlingar Stockholm,
v. 60, p. 397-404.

Marchitto, T. M., and Wei, K. Y., 1995,
History of Laurentide meltwater flow to
the Gulf of Mexico during the last
deglaciation, as revealed by reworked
calcareous nonnofossils: Geology, v.
23, p. 779-782.

McBride, R. A., 1997, Seafloor morphology,
geologic framework, and sedimentary
processes of a sand-rich shelf offshore
Alabama and northwest Florida,
northeastern Gulf of Mexico: Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of
Oceanography and Coastal Sciences,
Louisiana State University, 509 p.

McCormac, F. G., Reimer, P. J., Hogg, A. G.,
Higham, T. F. G., Baillie, M. G. L.,
Palmer, J., Stuiver, M., 2002,
Calibration of the radiocarbon time
scale for the southern hemisphere: AD
1850-950: Radiocarbon, v. 44, p. 641-
651.

McFarlan, E., Jr., 1961, Radiocarbon dating
of late Quaternary deposits, South
Louisiana: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 72, p. 129-158.

Mclntire, W. G., and Morgan, J. P., 1964,
Recent geomorphic history of Plum
Island, Massachusetts and adjacent
coasts: Coastal Studies Series No. 8,
Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State
University Press, p. 21-41.

Mook, W. G., and van de Plassche, 0., 1986,
Radiocarbon dating: In: (van de
Plassche, O., ed.), Sea-Level Research:
a Manual for the Collection and
Evaluation of Data, Norwich, England:
Geobooks, p. 525-560.

Morton, R. A., Paine, J. G., and Blum, M. D.,
2000, Responses of stable bay-margin
and barrier-island systems to Holocene
sea-level highstands, western Gulf of
Mexico: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, p. 478-490.

Muscheler, R., Beer, J., Wagner, G., and
Finkel, R. C., 2000, Changes in deep-
water formation during the Younger
Dryas event inferred from 10Be and 14C
records: Nature, v. 408, p. 567-570.

Nelson, H. R., and Bray, E. E., 1970,
Stratigraphy and history of the
Holocene sediments in the Sabine-High
Island area, Gulf of Mexico: In:
(Morgan, J. P., ed.), Deltaic
Sedimentation, Modern and Ancient,
Society of Economic Paleontologists
and Mineralogists Special Publication
15, p. 48-77.

Penland, S., McBride, R. A., Williams, S. J.,
Boyd, R., and Suter, J. R., 1991, Effects
of sea level rise on the Mississippi River
delta plane: Coastal Sediments '91,
American Society of Civil Engineers, p.
1248-1264.

Pirazzoli, P. A., 1974, Dati storici sul medio
mare a Venezia: Atti Accad. Sci. Inst.
Bologna, v. 13, p. 125-148.

1991, World Atlas of Holocene
Sea-level Changes, Elsevier
Oceanography Series 58, Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 300 p.

1996, Sea-Level Changes: The
Last 20000 Years, New York: John
Wiley, 211 p.

Polyak, V. J., Rasmussen, J. B. T., and
Asmerom, Y., 2004, Prolonged wet
period in southwestern United States
through the Younger Dryas: Geology,
v.32, p. 5-8.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

Psuty, N. P., 1965, Beach-ridge development
in Tabasco, Mexico: Annals of the
Association of American Geographers,
v. 55, p. 112-124.

1966, The geomorphology of
beach ridges in Tabasco, Mexico:
Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State
University, Coastal Studies Institute,
Technical Report 30, 51 p.

Redfield, A. C., and Rubin, M., 1962, The age
of salt marsh peat and its relation to
Recent change in sea level at
Barnstable, Massachusetts:
Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, v. 45, p. 414-430.

Reineck, H. E., and Singh, J. B., 1980,
Depositional Sedimentary Environ-
ments, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 549 p.

Renssen, H., 2001, The climate in The
Netherlands during the Younger Dryas
and Preboreal: means and extremes
obtained with an atmospheric general
circulation model: Netherlands Journal
of Geosciences, v. 80, p. 19-30.

Robbin, D. M., 1984, A new Holocene sea-
level curve for the upper Florida Keys
and Florida reef tract: Miami Geological
Society Memoir No. 2, p. 437-458.

Rodriguez, A. B., 1999, Sedimentary facies
and evolution of Late Pleistocene to
Recent coastal lithosomes on the east
Texas shelf: Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Houston, TX: Rice
University, 203 p.

Rohling, E. J., Siddall, M., Smeed, D. A., and
Hemleben, C., 2003, Holocene climate
variability a sea-level perspective:
IMAGES/HOLOCENE Work Group
Workshop: Hafslo, Norway, 27-29
August, 2003.

Rozanski, K., Goslar, R., Dulinski, M., Kuc,
R., Pazdur, M. F., and Walanus, A.,
1992, The late glacial Holocene
transition in central Europe derived from
isotope studies of laminated sediments
from Lake Gosciaz (Poland): In: (Bard,
E., and Broecker, W. S., eds.), The Last
Deglaciation: Absolute and
Radiocarbon Chronologies, NATO ASI
Series, Berlin: Springer, p. 69-80.

Ruddiman, W. F., 1987a, Northern oceans:
In (Ruddiman, W. F., and Wright, H. E.,
Jr., eds.), North America and Adjacent
Oceans During the Last Deglaciation,
Boulder, CO: Geological Society of
America, v. K-3, p. 137-478.

1987b, Synthesis; the ocean
ice/sheet record: In (Ruddiman, W. F.,
and Wright, H. E., Jr., eds.), North
America and Adjacent Oceans Durinig
the Last Deglaciation, Boulder, CO:
Geological Society of America, v. K-3,
p. 463-478.

Sallenger, A. H., Holman, R. A., and
Birkemeier, W. A., 1985, Storm induced
response of a nearshore-bar system:
Marine Geology, v. 64, p. 237-257.

Sanders, J. E., and Fairbridge, R. W., 1995,
Selected bibliography of short-term
cycles: Journal of Coastal Research
Special Issue No. 17, p. 11-19.

Savillie, T., 1942, Coastal erosion problems
and planning: Shore and Beach, v. 10,
p. 36.

Schnable, J. E., and Goodell, H. G., 1968,
Pleistocene-Recent stratigraphy, evolu-
tion, and development of the
Apalachicola coast, Florida: Geological
Society of America Special Paper No.
112, 72 p.

Scholl, D. W., and Stuiver, M., 1967, Recent
submergence of southern Florida: A
comparison with adjacent coasts and
other eustatic data: Geological Society
of America Bulletiln, v. 78, p.437-454.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Schroeder, W. W., Shultz, A. W., and Pilkey,
O. H., 1995, Late Quaternary oyster
shells and sea-level history, inner shelf,
northeast Gulf of Mexico: Journal of
Coastal Research, v. 11, no. 3, p. 664-
674.

Schwartz, R. K., 1975, Nature and genesis of
some washover deposits: Coastal
Engineering Research Center,
Technical Memorandum No. 61, 69 p.

Sharp, H. S., 1927, Artificial beach
construction in the vicinity of New York:
The Scientific Monthly, v. 25, p. 34-39.

Shepard, F. P., 1960, Rise of sea-level along
northwest Gulf of Mexico: In: (F. P.
Shepard et ak,, eds), Recent
Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico,
American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, p. 338-344.

1963, Thirty-five thousand
years of sea-level: Essays in Marine
Geology in Honor of K. O. Emery, Los
Angeles, CA: University of South
California, p. 1-10.

1964, Sea-level changes in the
past 6000 years, possible
archaeological significance: Science, v.
143, no. 3606, p. 574-576.

Shier, D. E., 1969, Vermetid reefs and
coastal development in the Ten
Thousand Islands, southwest Florida:
Geological Society of America Bulletin,
v. 80, p. 485-508.

Siddall, M., Rohling, E. J., Almogi-Labin, A.,
Hemleben, Ch., Meischner, D.,
Schmetzer, I., and Smeed, D. A., 2003,
Sea-level fluctuations during the last
glacial cycle: Nature, v. 423, p. 853-
858.

Sirocko, F., 2003, Ups and downs in the Red
Sea: Nature, v. 423, p. 813-814.

Smith, W. G., 1969, Sedimentary environ-
ments and environmental change in the
peat-forming area of south Florida:
Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, 426 p.

Smith, J. E., Risk, M. J., Schwarcz, H. P., and
McConnaughey, T. A., 1997, Rapid
climate change in the North Atlantic
during the Younger Dryas recorded by
deep-sea corals: Nature, v. 386, p.
818-820.

Spackman, W., Dolsen, C. P. and Riegel, W.,
1966, Phytogenic organic sediments
and sedimentary environments in the
Everglades-mangrove-complex. Part I.
Evidence of a transgressing sea and its
effect on environments of the Shark
River area of southwest Florida:
Palaeontographica, v. B117, p. 135-
152.

Stapor, F. W., Jr., 1973, Coastal sand
budgets and Holocene beach ridge
plain developments, northwest Florida:
Ph.D. Dissertation, Tallahassee, FL:
Florida State University, Geology
Department, 221 p.

Stapor, F. W., 1975, Holocene beach ridge
plain development, northwest Florida:
Zestschrift Geomorphalogie, v. 22, p.
116-144.

Stapor, F. W., Mathews, T. D., and Lindfors-
Kearns, F. E., 1988, Episodic barrier
island growth in southwest Florida: a
response to fluctuating Holocene sea-
level? Miami Geological Society
Memoir No. 3, p. 149-202.

Stapor, F. W., Mathews, T. D., and Lindfors-
Kearns, F. E., 1991, Barrier-island
progradation and Holocene sea-level
history in southwest Florida: Journal of
Coastal Research, v. 7, p. 815-838.

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

Stapor, F. W., and Stone, G. W., 2004, A new
depositional model for the buried 4000
BP New Orleans Barrier: implications
for sea-level fluctuations and onshore
transport from a nearshore shelf source:
Marine Geology, v. 204, p. 215-234.

Stapor, F. W., and Tanner, W. F., 1977, Late
Holocene mean sea-level data from St.
Vincent Island, and the shape of the
late Holocene sea-level curve: In: (W.
F. Tanner, ed.), Coastal Sedimentology,
Tallahassee, FL: Department of
Geology, Florida State University, p.
35-68.

State of New Jersey, 1922, Report on the
erosion and protection of the New
Jersey beaches: New Jersey Board of
Commerce and Navigation, (no
pagination available).

Stuiver, M., and Braziunas, T. F., 1993, Sun,
ocean, climate and atmospheric 14CO2:
an evaluation of causal and spectral
relationships: The Holocene, v. 3, p.
289-305.

Stuiver, M., and Kra, R., (eds.), 1986,
Radiocarbon calibration issue:
Proceedings of the 12th International
Radiocarbon Conference, Trondheim,
24-28 June 1985: Radiocarbon, v. 28,
p. 805-1030.

Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J., 1993,
Extended 14C database and revised
CALIB radiocarbon calibration program:
Radiocarbon, v. 35, p. 215-230.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck,
J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer,
B., McCormac, F.G., v. d. Plicht, J., and
Spurk, M., 1998a. INTCAL98
Radiocarbon age calibration 24,000 0
cal BP. Radiocarbon, v. 40, no. 3, p.
1041-1083.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., and Braziunas, T.
F. 1998b. High-precision radiocarbon
age calibration for terrestrial and marine
samples. Radiocarbon, v. 40, no. 3, p.
1127-1151.

Suess, H. E., 1986, Secular variations of
cosmic 14C on earth: Their discovery
and interpretation: Radiocarbon, v. 28
(2A), p. 259-265.

Sunamura, T., and Maruyama, K., 1987,
Wave-induced geomorphic response of
eroding beaches with special reference
to seaward migrating bars: Coastal
Sediments '87, v. 1, p. 788-801.

Tanner, W. F., 1988, Beach ridge data and
sea-level history from the Americas:
Journal of Coastal Research, v. 4, no.
1, p. 81-91.

1989, Johnson Shoal: clues to
beach ridge plain origin and history:
Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on
Coastal Sedimentology, Tallahassee,
FL: Geology Department, Florida State
University, p. 97-106.

1990a, Mean sea-level change
vs isostacy near Jerup, Denmark: In:
(W. F. Tanner, ed.), Modern Coastal
Sediments and Processes,
Tallahassee, FL: Department of
Geology, Florida State University, p. 31-
39.

1990b, Origin of barrier islands
on sandy coasts: Transactions of the
Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies, v. 40, p. 819-823.

1991a, Application of suite
statistics to stratigraphy and sea-level
changes: In: (J. P. M. Syvitski, ed.),
Principles, Methods and Application of
Particle Size Analysis, Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, p. 283-
292.

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1991b, The "Gulf of Mexico"
late Holocene sea leve curve and river
data history: Transactions of the Gulf
Coast Association of Geological
Societies, v. 41, p. 583-589.

1992a, 3000 years of sea-level
change: Bulletin of the American
Meteorology Society, v. 7, no. 3, p. 297-
303.

1992b, Late Holocene sea-level
changes from grain-size data: evidence
from the Gulf of Mexico: The Holocene,
v. 2, no. 3, p. 249-254.

1993, An 8000-year record of
sea-level change from grain-size
parameters: data from beach ridges in
Denmark: The Holocene, v. 3, no. 3, p.
220-231.

1995, Origin of beach ridges
and swales: Marine Geology, v. 129, p.
149-161.

Tanner, W. F., Demirpolat, S., Stapor, F. W.,
and Alvarez, L., 1989, The "Gulf of
Mexico" late Holocene sea-level curve:
Transactions of the Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, v.
39, p. 553-562.

Tornqvist, T. E., Gonzalez, J. L., Newsom, L.
A., van der Borg, K., de Jong, A. F. M.,
and Kurnik, C. W., 2004, Deciphering
Holocene sea-level history on the U. S.
Gulf Coast: a high-resolution record
from the Mississippi Delta: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 116, p.
1026-1039.

van Veen, J., 1954, Tide gauges,
subsidence-gauges and flood-stones in
the Netherlands: Geol. Mijnb, v. 16, p.
214-219.

Walker, K. J., Stapor, F. W., Jr., and
Marquardt, W. H., 1995, Archaeological
evidence for a 1750-1450 BP higher-
than present sea-level along Florida's
Gulf Coast: Journal of Coastal
Research Special Issue No. 17, p. 205-
218.

Wilkinson, T.
environments
Yemen,
investigations:
p. 833-864.

J., 1997, Holocene
of the high plateau,
recent geological
Geoarchaeology, v. 12,

Zendrini, A., 1802, Sull'alzamento del levelio
del mare: Giornale dell'ltaliana
Letteratura (Padova), v. 2, p. 3-37.

Zolitschka, B., Haverkamp, B., and
Negendark, J. F. W., 1992, Younger
Dryas oscillation varve dated
microstratigraphic palynological and
paleomagnetic records from Lake
Holzmaar, Germany: In: (Bard, E., and
Broecker, W. S., eds.), The Last
Deglaciation: Absolute and
Radiocarbon Chronologies, NATO ASI
Series, Berlin: Springer, p. 81-101.

APPENDIX I

Dated Sea-Level Data Sets Used in This Study

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Marine shell material 8,030 220 8,902 -11.89
Marine shell material 8,680 270 9,659 -16.46
Marine shell material 8,740 260 9,737 -26.52
Marine shell material 9,460 310 10,645 -49.38
Marine shell material 9,530 270 10,716 -30.48
Marine shell material 10,000 400 11,474 -36.60 n = 13
Texas Gulf Marine shell material 11,900 340 13,845 -55.78 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Curray (1960)
of Mexico Marine shell material 12,420a 420 14,617 -42.06 Rev 4.4.2
Marine shell material 12,820a 390 15,063 -57.61 spurious data
Marine shell material 12,900 400 15,174 -71.32
Marine shell material 12,960a 470 15,257 -57.61
Marine shell material 15,400a 510 18,282 -69.49
Marine shell material 16,940a 680 20,053 -87.78

Shepard960
" Shepard (1960)

Texas Bays/
Shelf and
Louisiana
Cheniers

Oyster shells (TX bay)
Oyster shells (LA chenier)
Oyster shells (LA chenier)
Oyster shells (TX bay)
Oyster shells (LA chenier)
Oyster shells (TX shelf)
Oyster shells (TX bay)
Oyster shells (TX bay)
Oyster shells (TX shelf)
Oyster shells (TX bay)
Oyster shells (TX shelf)

2,050 200
3,200 100
4,900 100
5,200 450
5,600 100
8,600 200
8,950 1,000
9,350 300
9,400 250
9,800 200
9,950 300

2,086 -3.66
3,486 -0.91
5,611 -2.74
5,969 -5.79
6,408 -3.66
9,547 -21.95
10,143 -16.15
10,514 -22.86
10,572 -45.42
11,093 -27.43
11,369 -41.15

n =11
Abs age calculated using CALIB
Rev 4.4.2

Mulinia shells 520 100 517 0.30
Mulinia shells 1,220 100 1,155 -0.61
Mercenaria shells 1,250 105 1,184 0.15
Melongena shells 1,350 105 1,290 0.30
Louisiana Gulf Busycon shells 1,450 105 1,394 -0.30
McFarlan (1961 Coast beaches Dinocardium shells 1,600 120 1,554 -0.91 n = 12
and cheniers Busycon shells 1,600 105 1,552 0.30 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Dinocardium shells 1,600 110 1,552 -0.61 Rev 4.4.2
Mulinia shells 2,520 110 2,646 -1.22
Mulinia shells 2,750 110 2,941 0.30
Crassostrea shells 2,775 110 2,969 0.46
Crassostrea shells 3,150 120 3,426 0.15

Fairbridge (1961,
1974)

Eustatic
Sea Level
Curve

Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials

0 n/a
364 n/a
691 n/a
876 n/a
1,109 n/a
1,538 n/a
1,737 n/a
1,833 n/a

0 0.00
439 0.00
657 -0.75
780 0.00
1,011 -0.85
1,432 0.95
1,647 -0.15
1,765 -0.15

n =51

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)

Fairbridge (1961,
1974)

Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials
Various materials

2,019
2,154
2,286
2,539
2,622
2,703
2,903
3,100
3,333
3,488
3,604
3,720
4,033
4,112
4,271
4,513
4,760
4,844
5,141
5,315
5,624
5,714
5,988
6,219
6,360
6,502
6,837
7,274
7,470
7,716
7,814
8,012
8,110
8,307
8,455
8,504
9,040
9,136
9,842
10,293
11,363
11,660
11.941

1,974
2,148
2,264
2,584
2,735
2,823
3,049
3,297
3,571
3,760
3,913
4,073
4,522
4,624
4,830
5,157
5,475
5,574
5,895
6,086
6,423
6,520
6,838
7,089
7,241
7,383
7,690
8,084
8,269
8,560
8,682
8,898
9,019
9,250
9,442
9,512
10,166
10,308
11,346
12,044
13,386
13,703
14.044

-0.90
0.00
-0.70
1.00
0.00
0.70
-1.80
-0.95
-1.40
2.00
1.00
2.40
-2.00
-2.00
-3.00
1.30
1.00
2.20
0.00
2.20
-5.40
-4.80
-11.85
-9.00
-10.10
-9.90
-19.00
-15.10
-22.20
-20.10
-21.00
-13.00
-16.00
-15.00
-19.50
-19.00
-30.00
-29.00
-40.00
-31.50
-48.00
-46.00
-51.00

Eustatic
Sea Level
Curve

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Spackman et al. SW Florida Rhizophora 2,830 170 3,039 -1.71 n = 2; Abs age calculated
(1966) Gulf Coast Basal Freshwater 4,080 180 4,574 -4.04 using CALIB Rev 4.4.2
Eastern Mulinia sp. 1,930 80 1,936 2.60 n = 3
Behrens (1966) Mexico Gulf Mulinia sp. 1,940 60 1,947 2.60 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Coast Mercenaria sp. 2,340 100 2,457 2.60 Rev 4.4.2
Marine shells 1,698 220 1,674 -0.48
Marine shells 2,466 168 2,581 -0.97
Marine shells 2,565 190 2,763 -0.82
Calcitic mud 2,724 288 2,911 -1.53
Mangrove and fresh-water peat 2,894 273 3,053 -1.19 n = 12
Scholl and SW Florida Marine shells 2,905 275 3,127 -1.21 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Stuvier (1967) Gulf Coast Mangrove peat 2,985 169 3,215 -1.46 Rev 4.4.2
Mangrove peat 3,344 245 3,674 -1.49
Fresh-water peat 3,408 271 3,685 -0.91
Fresh-water peat 3,650 125 3,978 -1.70
Fresh-water peat 3,930 265 4,365 -1.92
Fresh-water peat 4,000 125 4,473 -1.86
Wood stump 350 120 377 0.00
Wood stump 560 110 569 0.00
Wood in sandy peat 1,390 175 1,298 0.15
Sandy peat 1,400 105 1,311 -0.30
Schnable and Florida Sandy peat 1,400 105 1,311 -0.15 n = 11
Goodell (1968) Apalachicola Sandy peat 1,475 105 1,385 -0.15 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Gulf Coast Wood in sandy peat 3,780 330 4,173 1.52 Rev 4.4.2
Crassostrea virginica 4,100 110 4,614 -5.49
Crassostrea virginica 4,370 420 4,943 -3.81
Wood in sandy peat 4,610 625 5,201 0.15
Rangia cuneata 9,950 180 11,502 -22.10
Florida Ten Fibrous mangrove peat 380 150 393 -0.08 n = 3
Shier (1969) Thousand Fibrous mangrove peat 2,285 150 2,382 -1.35 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Islands Fibrous mangrove peat 3,800 150 4,261 -3.85 Rev 4.4.2

Smith (1969) SW Florida Rhizophora 4,950 120 5,710 -3.20 n = 1; Abs age calculated
Gulf Coast using CALIB Rev 4.4.2
Peat 3,475 3,739 -1.52
Peat 4,900 5,646 -3.05
Peat 5,650 6,450 -5.18
Peat 6,635 200 7,508 -22.02
Nelson and Bray Texas Gulf Peat 7,840 250 8,715 -22.17 n = 11
(1970) Coast Peat 7,975 200 8,850 -21.64 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Wood 8,660 230 9,728 -19.66 Rev 4.4.2
Peat 8,880 350 9,981 -19.66
Peat 9,370 300 10,630 22.33
Peat 10,207 347 11,919 -35.66
Peat 10.320 298 12.085 -21.95

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Brackish-marsh peat 900 125 838 -0.73
Bay pelecypods 1,400 350 1,368 -3.76
Brackish-marsh peat 2,550 110 2,691 -2.44
Bay pelecypods 3,500 115 3,859 -8.23
Brackish-marsh peat 3,650 120 4,060 -2.77
Brackish-marsh peat 4,600 125 5,316 -3.05
Bay pelecypods 4,800 140 5,542 -6.86
Bay pelecypods 5,600 140 6,412 -7.01
Brackish-marsh peat 5,650 140 6,465 -5.47
Brackish-marsh peat 7,025 160 7,867 -7.54
Bay pelecypods 7,150 160 7,993 -15.09
Brackish-marsh peat 7,240 160 8,083 -12.19
Frazier (1974) NW Gulf of Bay pelecypods 8,150 180 9,052 -20.18 n = 27
Mexico Inner-neritic pelecypods 8,400 150 9,328 -35.17 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Inner-neritic pelecypods 8,700 200 9,685 -22.25 Rev 4.4.2
Inner-neritic pelecypods 8,800 180 9,841 -28.96 spurious data
Wood and brackish-marsh peat 9,250 210 10,388 -16.15
Wood and brackish-marsh peat 10,525 215 12,269 -35.05
Brackish-marsh peat 10,700 150 12,525 -42.67
Inner-neritic pelecypods 10,700 220 12,481 -53.19
Inner-neritic pelecypods 11,050 300 12,933 -65.53
Inner-neritic pelecypods 11,900 250 13,816 -69.80
Bay pelecypods 12,960a 450 15,259 -57.61
Inner-neritic pelecypods 15,575 500 18,483 -106.47
Inner-neritic pelecypods 16,600 420 19,661 -100.86
Inner-neritic pelecypods 16,940a 680 20,053 -87.78
Bay pelecypods 19,400a 510 22,837 -49.38
0 0 0 0.00 n =11
405 3 450 -0.15 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Stapor and 841 18 800 0.10 Rev 4.4.2
Tanner (1977); 1,342 26 1,250 -2.00 Data were extracted from a
Tanner et al. St. Vincent See Notes 1,835 33 1,750 1.00 published sea level curve based
(1989); Tanner Island, Florida 2,320 36 2,300 -0.75 on granulometric data of Tanner
(1991a, 1991b, 2,566 2,600 0.30 (1992, fig. 4; 1993, fig. 6). Age
1992a, 1993) 2,802 48 2,900 -1.50 control points were based on
3,482 56 3,800 -1.50 archaeological evidence and
3,781 4,200 1.50 marine 1C dates.
5,054 5,800 1.50

Florida Gulf
Coast

Avicennia
Rhizophora Avicennia
Rhizophora
Avicennia
Basal Freshwater
Basal Freshwater

285
1,015
1,065
1,230
2,575
3,155

332 -0.71
926 -3.94
987 -3.42
1,147 -2.67
2,616 -2.74
3,369 -2.90

n =15
Abs age calculated using CALIB
Rev 4.4.2

Davies (1980)

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Transitional Conocarpus 3,965 70 4,417 -3.63
Freshwater 4,015 100 4,497 -2.34
Basal Freshwater 4,310 100 4,897 -0.79
Florida Gulf Basal Freshwater 4,695 105 5,417 -0.70
avies Coast Basal Freshwater 4,770 100 5,494 -0.44
Basal Freshwater 5,190 100 5,952 -3.45
Basal Freshwater 6,850 80 9,646 -3.25
Organics 7,400 115 8,205 -0.79
Rhizophora Avicennia 7,450 165 8,243 -4.90
Rhizophora 2,775 200 2,916 -2.74
Rhizophora 3,260 65 3,490 -3.91
Marine Marl contact 3,399 (102)1 3,649 -2.74 n = 8
Kuehn(1980) SW Florida Brackish 3,660 85 3,986 -2.83 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Gulf Coast Basal Freshwater 4,015 80 4,495 -2.32 Rev 4.4.2
Rhizophora 4,095 75 4,615 -2.77 1 14C error calculated as
Basal Untyped 4,420 200 5,048 -1.77 0.03 14C age
Basal Freshwater 5,370 80 6,136 -2.10
Peat 360 60 405 0.00
Peat 1,740 60 1,652 -0.50
Peat 2,090 90 2,068 -1.00
Peat 2,460 (74)2 2,541 -1.50
Peat 2,530 80 2,579 -1.00
Peat 2,580 70 2,626 -1.50
Peat 2,650 90 2,765 -1.50
Peat 2,850 60 2,967 -2.00
Peat 3,170 70 3,392 -2.50
Peat 3,710 70 4,050 -3.00 n = 25
Peat 3,970 100 4,425 -3.50 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Peat 3,980 80 4,440 -2.00 Rev 4.4.2
Robbin (1984) Florida Keys Peat 4,050 90 4,550 -4.00 1 14C error calculated as
Peat 4,080 90 4,595 -2.50 0.03 14C age
Peat 4,150 150 4,662 -4.50 aspurious date
Peat 4,160 140 4,673 -2.90
Peat 4,220 80 4,728 -4.80
Peat 4,800 100 5,519 -4.90
Peat 5,550 (167)1 6,340 -4.30
Peat 6,060 60 6,903 -6.70
Crust 7,280 130 8,090 -7.20
Peat 7,595 85 8,384 -7.20
Peat 8,010 165 8,882 -7.40
Crust 13,740a 140 16,493 -9.20
Crust 14,700a 400 17,603 -9.20

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)

Fairbanks (1989,
1990)

Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals
Corals

5,735
6,400
6,840
7,500
7,630
7,780
8,010
8,080
8,160
8,195
8,200
8,338
8,700
9,050
9,080
9,400
9,730
9,760
9,800
10,100
10,300
10,500
10,900
10,900
11,100
11,400
11,500
11,640
11,720
11,800
11,800
11,850
12,000
12,200
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,500
14,280
14,340
14,700
14,815
14,930

Barbados

6,550 -10.40
7,307 -19.99 7,457
7,689 -13.00
8,341 -28.20 9,249
8,483 -29.69
8,655 -21.15 8,449
8,891 -24.34
8,959 -28.20
9,041 -28.20
9,094 -25.07
9,091 -28.20 9,285
9,260 -29.69
9,691 -33.19
10,090 -33.09 9,734
10,118 -40.84
10,563 -43.90 11,094
10,978 -57.92
11,016 -56.42
11,087 -57.92 11,526
11,479 -56.42 11,587
11,911 -61.21 12,263
12,299 -63.99
12,795 -65.96
12,855 -69.19 13,226
13,013 -86.00
13,276 -72.95
13,326 -72.95
13,499 -69.19
13,592 -73.85
13,637 -73.85 13,804
13,664 -92.61 14,234
13,677 -73.41 13,703
13,928 -98.06
14,134 -96.64
14,214 -93.71
14,214 -94.96
14,308 -93.69
14,308 -96.80
14,733 -98.06 14,656
16,992 -106.90
17,061 -110.83
17,476 -111.19 18,241
17,609 -112.36
17,741 -111.19

n =56
Abs age calculated using CALIB
Rev 4.4.2

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Corals 15,100 160 17,937 -114.28
Corals 15,200 200 18,053 -119.13
Corals 15,390 200 18,271 -111.19
Corals 15,400 200 18,283 -114.60 18,895 46
Corals 15,630 170 18,548 -108.40
Fairbanks (1989, Barbados Corals 15,851 127 18,801 -119.13
1990) Corals 16,020 210 18,996 -114.60
Corals 16,145 131 19,139 -119.48
Corals 16,260 210 19,271 -119.48 19,035 46
Corals 16,700 300 19,776 -125.44 20,807 60
Corals 17,085 260 20,218 -119.48 18,985 46
Corals 18,200 200 22,080 -130.57 21,933 74
Corals 7,550 140 8,403 -9.20 8,363 71
Corals 7,750 270 8,611 -15.90 8,760 51
Corals 8,730 120 9,740 -24.90 9,642 72
Corals 9,300 140 10,463 -33.70 10,490 77
Corals 9,530 120 10,696 -37.30 10,673 25
Edwards et al. NewGuinea Corals 9,790 120 11,070 -40.50 10,955 54 n = 13
(1993) Corals 9,990 90 11,334 -42.40 11,045 57 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Corals 10,090 80 11,456 -42.00 10,912 27 Rev 4.4.2
Corals 10,200 130 11,700 -46.50 12,332 39
Corals 10,410 120 12,127 -47.00 12,155 56
Corals 10,430 140 12,158 -42.90 12,084 70
Corals 10,970 110 12,920 -57.50 13,129 84
Corals 10,980 110 12,928 -54.80 12,837 68
Oyster shells 8,480 90 9,407 -26.80
Oyster shells 8,980 800 10,129 -25.30
Oyster shells 9,040 90 10,079 -25.45
Oyster shells 9,360 80 10,509 -31.20 n = 10
Schroeder et NE Gulf of Oyster shells 9,650 110 10,824 -30.20 Abs age calculated using CALIB
al. (1995) Mexico Oyster shells 10,100 120 11,491 -35.05 Rev 4.4.2
Oyster shells 10,290 130 11,889 -33.55 spurious date
Oyster shells 10,820 150 12,715 -40.45
Oyster shells 10,860 120 12,801 -40.45
Oyster shells 15,240a 90 18,099 -40.40
Corals 2,830 90 3,032 -0.50
Corals 5,040 90 5,795 -2.00
Corals 5,770 100 6,588 -7.10
Bard et al. (1996) Tahiti Corals 6,035 100 6,904 -8.00
Corals 6,360 100 7,269 -9.50
Corals 6,410 120 7,313 -12.00
Corals 6,820 120 7,676 -15.80 n = 34
Corals 6,910 120 7,758 -17.30 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Corals 7,830 140 8,695 -26.50 Rev 4.4.2

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (vrs BP)
Corals 7,830 200 8,688 -26.00 8,520 40
Corals 8,170 180 9,082 -35.00 9,263 45
Corals 8,410 140 9,334 -37.00 9,572 37
Corals 8,730 140 9,738 -41.00
Corals 8,790 120 9,838 -40.00 9,830 45
Corals 8,800 120 9,855 -42.50 9,920 40
Corals 8,970 140 10,029 -47.10 10,250 40
Corals 8,990 120 10,044 -46.90 10,193 45
Corals 9,070 120 10,109 -49.00 10,120 50
Corals 9,080 200 10,137 -49.00 10,120 50
Corals 9,330 140 10,494 -50.00 10,575 50
Bard et al. (1996) Tahiti Corals 9,550 140 10,714 -56.00 10,850 50
Corals 9,580 140 10,741 -56.00 10,850 50
Corals 9,800 140 11,086 -59.20 11,280 30
Corals 9,980 140 11,345 -65.00 11,495 30
Corals 10,280 140 11,870 -65.50 11,930 50
Corals 10,800 160 12,679 -72.20 12,800 30
Corals 10,830 140 12,735 -72.10 12,875 40
Corals 11,010 160 12,942 -73.60 12,695 60
Corals 11,030 160 12,958 -75.60 12,865 50
Corals 11,090 160 13,005 -74.40 12,710 50
Corals 11,090 160 13,005 -76.50 12,905 50
Corals 11,430 200 13,303 -77.30 13,065 30
Corals 11,630 220 13,502 -80.60 13,473 55
Corals 11,790 220 13,660 -83.70 13,740 53
Wood in marine sand 5,140 100 5,882 -1.80
Wood in marine sand 6,100 60 6,958 -3.70
Crassostrea shell (marine) 6,135 80 7,026 -4.30
Crassostrea shell (marine) 6,375 80 7,288 -4.60
Faught and NE Gulf of Wood in sandy clay (terrestrial) 6,755 60 7,611 -7.60 n =11
Donoghue (1997) Mexico Wood in silty clay (brackish) 6,785 80 7,613 -5.50 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Wood in silty clay (brackish) 6,825 120 7,681 -6.70 Rev 4.4.2
Wood in sandy clay (terrestrial) 7,010 80 7,827 -7.30
Wood in sandy clay (terrestrial) 7,130 75 7,939 -6.40
Wood in sandy clay (terrestrial) 7,160 95 7,969 -7.00
Quercus stump (terrestrial) 7,240 100 8,051 -4.30
Mercenaria sp. 5,450 80 6,248 -7.56
Chione canellata 6,070 60 6,944 -7.56
Oliva sayana 8,610 60 9,584 -35.04 n = 8
McBride (1997) NE Gulf of Chione canellata 10,040 50 11,371 -31.57 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Mexico Chione canellata 10,040 60 11,382 -31.78 Rev 4.4.2
Chione canellata 10,070 60 11,422 -31.78 spurious date
Chione canellata 10,200 60 11,681 -31.78
Nuculana concentrica 12,600a 60 14,779 -25.91

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)
Peat 290 50 375 -1.50
Rangia 1,220 50 1,142 1.10
Morton a Texas Gulf Crassostrea 1,740 60 1,652 2.80 n = 25
oton ea., Coast Crassostrea 1,860 60 1,790 2.30 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Crassostrea 2,340 60 2,368 2.80 Rev 4.4.2
Mulinia, Anadara 3,220 80 3,445 -1.20
Anadara, Mulinia 3,550 90 3,837 0.80
Crassostrea 3,580 70 3,876 -5.20
Mulinia, Anadara 3,630 60 3,943 -2.30
Peat 3,760 60 4,124 -2.60
Organic clay and peat 4,030 90 4,519 -2.00
Mixed shells 4,280 50 4,846 -0.20
Organic clay 4,390 70 4,986 -4.20
Mulinia, Crassostrea 4,910 60 5,647 -7.10
Morn ( ) Texas Gulf Mixed shells 5,050 90 5,794 -0.30
Coast Mulinia, Crassostrea 5,200 70 5,965 -6.60
Anadara, Mulinia 5,340 120 6,111 -0.70
Crassostrea 6,030 70 6,868 -10.40
Rangia 6,510 90 7,413 -6.10
Peat 6,730 80 7,590 -8.10
Wood and organic clay 6,980 160 7,808 -13.90
Peat 7,020 80 7,835 -8.30
Rangia 8,250 160 9,214 -24.10
Peat 8,740 60 9,737 -20.50
Wood 8,970 170 10,071 -20.80
Foraminifera 4,560 95 5,271 1.50
Foraminifera 4,656 75 5,499 1.20
Foraminifera 5,125 55 5,890 1.60 n= 8
Blum et al. (2001) Texas Gulf Foraminifera 5,285 55 6,070 1.70 Abs age calculated using CALIB
Coast Foraminifera 5,870 95 6,633 1.50 Rev 4.4.2
Foraminifera 6,345 55 7,263 0.70
Carbonized plant fragments 6,970 65 7,789 -8.80
Carbonized plant fragments 7,010 60 7,828 -8.80
Foraminifera n/a 96 -9.70 0
Foraminifera n/a 193 -1.01 0
Foraminifera n/a 289 9.66 0
Siddall etal. Red Sea and Foraminifera n/a 386 0.89 0 n = 87
(2003) Global Sea Foraminifera n/a 482 2.99 40 14C ACP = AMS radiocarbon age
Level Curve Foraminifera n/a 578 3.34 175 control points.
Foraminifera n/a 675 1.23 290
Foraminifera n/a 771 0.18 391
Foraminifera n/a 868 7.19 483
Foraminifera n/a 964 7.54 567
Foraminifera n/a 1,060 5.08 648

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)

Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera (14C ACP)
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,720 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

1,157 11.75
1,253 -0.11
1,350 -1.33
1,446 -2.82
1,542 -1.66
1,639 -0.12
1,735 -0.49
1,832 2.26
1,928 0.50
2,024 0.85
2,121 0.15
2,217 -1.99
2,313 -5.26
2,410 9.62
n/a n/a
2,506 3.30
2,603 3.30
2,699 14.53
2,854 1.19
3,008 2.24
3,162 0.83
3,317 -4.12
3,471 -1.70
3,626 -2.43
3,780 -1.70
3,935 -2.87
4,089 -10.17
4,244 -19.61
4,398 -2.45
4,553 -8.69
4,707 -5.30
4,861 2.90
5,016 -14.12
5,170 -2.46
5,325 -11.00
5,479 1.84
5,634 -2.47
5,788 -0.94
5,943 -11.78
6,097 -8.38
6,252 -3.76
6,406 2.52
6,515 0.76
6,624 -10.62

728
810
893
980
1,071
1,167
1,267
1,371
1,479
1,590
1,704
1,820
1,938
2,056
n/a
2,837
2,884
2,933
3,014
3,099
3,190
3,284
3,383
3,487
3,595
3,706
3,822
3,942
4,065
4,192
4,323
4,457
4,593
4,733
4,875
5,020
5,167
5,316
5,467
5,620
5,774
5,930
6,040
6,151

Siddall et al
(2003)

Red Sea and
Global Sea
Level Curve

Investigators) Location Material Dated

Siddall et al
(2003)

Stapor and Stone
(2004), Stapor
et al. (1991), and
Walker et al.
(1995)

Red Sea and
Global Sea
Level Curve

Louisiana and
SW Florida
Gulf Coast

Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera (14C ACP)
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera (14C ACP)
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera
Foraminifera (14C ACP)
Foraminifera
Foraminifera (14C ACP)
Foraminifera
Shell material
Shell material
Shell material
Shell material
Shell material
Shell material
Shell material

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 23Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)
n/a 6,734 -22.58 6,263
n/a 6,843 -26.57 6,374
6,420 n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a 6,952 -23.68 6,486
n/a 7,061 -15.85 6,598
n/a 7,170 -8.74 6,710
n/a 7,280 -26.58 6,823
n/a 7,389 -27.64 6,935
n/a 7,498 -2.51 7,047
n/a 7,607 -3.79 7,159
n/a 7,716 -25.47 7,270
n/a 7,825 -21.89 7,382
n/a 7,935 -15.87 7,493
n/a 8,044 -24.46 7,604
n/a 8,153 -22.30 7,714
n/a 8,262 -10.65 7,824
n/a 8,371 -24.78 7,933
n/a 8,481 -14.49 8,042
n/a 8,590 -14.19 8,150
n/a 8,699 -6.21 8,257
n/a 8,808 -20.19 8,364
n/a 8,917 -26.92 8,470
n/a 9,026 -19.71 8,575
n/a 9,136 -13.16 8,679
n/a 9,245 -24.79 8,783
n/a 9,354 -11.85 8,886
n/a 9,782 -52.86 9,278

9,390 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12,790 n/a
n/a
14,630 n/a
n/a
186 21
725 34
1,083 43
1,250 48
1,481 55
1,581 58
1,611 59

n/a n/a
10,209 -39.59
10,637 -61.76
11,065 -75.52
11,492 -71.32
11,920 -73.87
n/a n/a
15,000 -85.64
n/a n/a
19,500 -120.00
300 -0.50
700 0.40
1,000 0.00
1,150 -0.85
1,370 -0.90
1,470 0.00
1,500 1.00

Notes

n/a
9,656
10,019
10,366
10,697
11,016
n/a
13,111
n/a
16,928
n =19
Data were extracted from sea
level curve of Stapor and Stone
(in press, fig. 11). 14C dates > 2000
abs years BP are from transform-
ation equiation determined from
date scale of Stapor and Stone

Depth Abs Age
14C 14C Absolute Relative to 230Th/234U 23Th/234U based on
Investigators) Location Material Dated Age Error Age Current Age Error OIS Notes
(yrs BP) (yrs BP) MSL (yrs BP) Boundaries
(m) (yrs BP)
Shell material 1,708 61 1,600 1.60 (in press, fig. 8). 14C dates < 2000
Shell material 1,848 65 1,750 1.00 abs years BP are from transform-
Shell material 1,984 69 1,900 0.00 ation equiation from data from
Shell material 2,072 71 2,000 -1.00 CALIB Rev 4.4..2
Shell material 2,488 n/a 2,500 -1.50 14C error assessed as 0.03 14C
Shell material 2,876 n/a 3,000 -1.50 years.

Shell material 3,252 n/a 3,500 -1.50
Stapor and Stone Shell material 3,440 n/a 3,750 -1.30
(2004), Stapor Louisiana and Shell material 3,591 n/a 3,950 0.00
etal. (1991), and SW Florida Shell material 3,781 n/a 4,200 1.70
Walker et al. Gulf Coast Shell material 4,013 n/a 4,500 1.80
(1995) Shell material 4,412 n/a 5,000 1.80
OIS = Oxygen Isotope Stage

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

APPENDIX II

Gulf of Mexico Total Data Set:
7-Point Floating Average Sea-Level Curve

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than ~6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Davies (1980)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shier (1969)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Frazier (1974)
Davies(1980)
Davies(1980)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
McFarlan (1961)
Morton et al. (2000)
Davies(1980)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Frazier (1974)
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Robbin (1984)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Behrens(1966)
Behrens(1966)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shepard(1960)
Stapor and Stone (2004)

0
0
186
285
290
350
360
364
380
405
520
560
691
725
841
876
900
1,015
1,065
1,083
1,109
1,220
1,220
1,230
1,250
1,250
1,342
1,350
1,390
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,450
1,475
1,481
1,538
1,581
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,611
1,698
1,708
1,737
1,740
1,740
1,833
1,835
1,848
1,860
1,930
1,940
1,984
2,019
2,050
2,072

0.00
0.00
-0.50
-0.71
-1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.08
-0.15
0.30
0.00
-0.75
0.40
0.10
0.00
-0.73
-3.94
-3.42
0.00
-0.85
-0.61
1.10
-2.67
0.15
-0.85
-2.00
0.30
0.15
-0.30
-0.15
-3.76
-0.30
-0.15
-0.90
0.95
0.00
-0.91
0.30
-0.61
1.00
-0.48
1.60
-0.15
-0.50
2.80
-0.15
1.00
1.00
2.30
2.60
2.60
0.00
-0.90
-3.66
-1.00

0.00
0.00
-0.5
-0.39
-0.39
-0.40
-0.35
-0.20
0.01
-0.10
-0.04
-0.02
-0.01
-0.10
-0.70
-1.19
-1.08
-1.26
-1.36
-1.21
-1.48
-0.90
-0.53
-0.82
-0.65
-0.54
-0.75
-0.39
-0.94
-0.87
-0.60
-0.78
-0.66
-0.62
-0.73
-0.15
-0.19
-0.02
0.04
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.52
0.59
0.59
0.80
0.90
1.29
1.74
1.34
1.23
0.56
0.28
-0.19
-0.57
-1.13

Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Davies (1980)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Shier (1969)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Frazier (1974)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Davies (1980)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Frazier (1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
McFarlan (1961)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Stapor and Stone (in press)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Robbin (1984)
Morton et al. (2000)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Behrens(1966)
Behrens(1966)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Robbin (1984)

0
0
300
332
375
377
393
405
439
450
517
569
657
700
780
800
838
926
987
1,000
1,011
1,142
1,147
1,150
1,155
1,184
1,250
1,290
1,298
1,311
1,311
1,368
1,370
1,385
1,394
1,432
1,470
1,500
1,552
1,552
1,554
1,600
1,647
1,652
1,652
1,674
1,750
1,750
1,765
1,790
1,900
1,936
1,947
1,974
2,000
2,068

0.00
0.00
-0.50
-0.71
-1.50
0.00
-0.08
0.00
0.00
-0.15
0.30
0.00
-0.75
0.40
0.00
0.10
-0.73
-3.94
-3.42
0.00
-0.85
1.10
-2.67
-0.85
-0.61
0.15
-2.00
0.30
0.15
-0.30
-0.15
-3.76
-0.90
-0.15
-0.30
0.95
0.00
1.00
0.30
-0.61
-0.91
1.60
-0.15
-0.50
2.80
-0.48
1.00
1.00
-0.15
2.30
0.00
2.60
2.60
-0.90
-1.00
-1.00

0.00
0.00
-0.5
-0.40
-0.40
-0.40
-0.35
-0.20
0.01
-0.10
-0.03
-0.03
-0.01
-0.10
-0.70
-1.19
-1.08
-1.26
-1.11
-1.50
-1.52
-1.04
-0.53
-0.82
-0.65
-0.79
-0.45
-0.35
-0.80
-0.95
-0.69
-0.77
-0.66
-0.62
-0.45
0.13
0.17
0.06
0.33
0.18
0.10
0.36
0.25
0.48
0.75
0.50
0.85
0.92
0.90
1.34
1.06
0.78
0.66
-0.19
-0.19
-0.67

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Shier (1969)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Behrens (1966)
Morton et al. (2000)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Frazier (1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
McFarlan (1961)
Kuehn(1980)
McFarlan (1961)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Spackman et al. (1966)
Robbin (1984)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
McFarlan (1961)
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Kuehn(1980)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Kuehn(1980)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Frazier (1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961,1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Frazier (1974)

2,090 -1.00 -1.23 Shepard (1960)
2,154 0.00 -1.21 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
2,285 -1.35 -0.31 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
2,286 -0.70 0.23 St. Vincent Island, FL1
2,320 -0.75 0.16 Morton et al. (2000)
2,340 2.60 0.02 Shier (1969)
2,340 2.80 0.00 Behrens (1966)
2,460 -1.50 -0.08 Stapor and Stone (2004)
2,466 -0.97 -0.11 Robbin (1984)
2,488 -1.50 -0.34 Robbin (1984)
2,520 -1.22 -1.09 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
2,530 -1.00 -0.99 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
2,539 1.00 -0.81 St. Vincent Island, FL1
2,550 -2.44 -0.99 Davies (1980)
2,565 -0.82 -1.03 Robbin (1984)
2,566 0.30 -0.89 McFarlan (1961)
2,575 -2.74 -1.24 Frazier (1974)
2,580 -1.50 -0.79 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
2,622 0.00 -0.90 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
2,650 -1.50 -0.89 Robbin (1984)
2,703 0.70 -0.90 St. Vincent Island, FL1
2,724 -1.53 -0.62 St. Vincent Island, FL1
2,750 0.30 -0.83 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
2,775 -2.74 -0.86 Kuehn (1980)
2,775 0.46 -1.25 McFarlan (1961)
2,802 -1.50 -1.24 Robbin (1984)
2,830 -1.71 -1.46 McFarlan (1961)
2,850 -2.00 -1.32 Stapor and Stone (2004)
2,876 -1.50 -1.56 Spackman et al. (1966)
2,894 -1.19 -1.55 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
2,903 -1.80 -1.44 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
2,905 -1.21 -1.14 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
2,985 -1.46 -1.34 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
3,100 -0.95 -1.52 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
3,150 0.15 -1.40 Davies (1980)
3,155 -2.90 -1.40 Robbin (1984)
3,170 -2.50 -1.40 McFarlan (1961)
3,200 -0.91 -1.82 Morton et al. (2000)
3,220 -1.20 -2.05 Shepard (1960)
3,252 -1.50 -1.84 Kuehn (1980)
3,260 -3.91 -1.88 Stapor and Stone (2004)
3,333 -1.40 -1.88 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
3,344 -1.49 -1.89 Kuehn (1980)
3,399 -2.74 -1.90 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
3,408 -0.91 -1.55 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
3,440 -1.30 -1.07 Nelson and Bray (1970)
3,475 -1.52 -2.03 Stapor and Stone (2004)
3,482 -1.50 -1.52 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
3,488 2.00 -2.14 St. Vincent Island, FL1
3,500 -8.23 -1.95 Morton et al. (2000)
3,550 0.80 -1.59 Frazier (1974)
3,580 -5.20 -1.70 Morton et al. (2000)
3,591 0.00 -2.39 Fairbridge (1961,1974)
3,604 1.00 -1.45 Morton et al. (2000)
3,630 -2.30 -1.97 Stapor and Stone (2004)
3,650 -2.77 -1.66 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)

2,086 -3.66 -1.14
2,148 0.00 -0.62
2,264 -0.70 -0.67
2,300 -0.75 -0.15
2,368 2.80 0.16
2,382 -1.35 -0.06
2,457 2.60 -0.10
2,500 -1.50 -0.13
2,541 -1.50 -0.39
2,579 -1.00 -0.15
2,581 -0.97 -0.92
2,584 1.00 -0.92
2,600 0.30 -0.88
2,616 -2.74 -1.08
2,626 -1.50 -0.94
2,646 -1.22 -1.20
2,691 -2.44 -1.46
2,735 0.00 -0.97
2,763 -0.82 -0.97
2,765 -1.50 -1.01
2,823 0.70 -1.06
2,900 -1.50 -1.01
2,911 -1.53 -1.18
2,916 -2.74 -0.90
2,941 0.30 -1.22
2,967 -2.00 -1.25
2,969 0.46 -1.28
3,000 -1.50 -1.06
3,039 -1.71 -1.28
3,049 -1.80 -1.20
3,053 -1.19 -1.40
3,127 -1.21 -1.60
3,215 -1.46 -1.72
3,297 -0.95 -1.44
3,369 -2.90 -1.44
3,392 -2.50 -1.40
3,426 0.15 -1.75
3,445 -1.20 -1.82
3,486 -0.91 -1.61
3,490 -3.91 -1.64
3,500 -1.50 -1.88
3,571 -1.40 -1.84
3,649 -2.74 -1.92
3,674 -1.49 -1.55
3,685 -0.91 -1.05
3,745 -1.52 -1.07
3,750 -1.30 -0.56
3,760 2.00 -1.52
3,800 -1.50 -2.14
3,837 0.80 -1.78
3,859 -8.23 -1.92
3,876 -5.20 -2.20
3,913 1.00 -2.23
3,943 -2.30 -2.75
3,950 0.00 -2.00
3,978 -1.70 -1.66

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Kuehn(1980)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnauble and Goodell (1968)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Shier (1969)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Davies (1980)
Kuehn(1980)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Spackman et al. (1966)
Kuehn(1980)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Davies (1980)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Kuehn(1980)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Frazier (1974)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Blum et al. (2001)
Davies (1980)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Davies (1980)
Frazier (1974)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Shepard (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Smith (1969)
Morton et al. (2000)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Blum et al. (2001)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Davies (1980)

3,650 -1.70 -1.32 Kuehn (1980)
3,660 -2.83 -1.83 Robbin (1984)
3,710 -3.00 -1.28 Frazier (1974)
3,720 2.40 -0.64 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
3,760 -2.60 -0.19 Morton et al. (2000)
3,780 1.52 -0.33 Schnable and Goodell (1968)
3,781 1.70 -0.18 St. Vincent Island, FL1
3,781 1.50 -1.04 Stapor and Stone (2004)
3,800 -3.85 -1.17 Shier (1969)
3,930 -1.92 -1.67 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
3,965 -3.63 -2.18 Davies (1980)
3,970 -3.50 -2.14 Robbin (1984)
3,980 -2.00 -1.92 Robbin (1984)
4,000 -1.86 -1.98 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
4,013 1.80 -1.75 Kuehn (1980)
4,015 -2.34 -1.53 Davies (1980)
4,015 -2.32 -1.82 Stapor and Stone (2004)
4,030 -2.00 -1.91 Morton et al. (2000)
4,033 -2.00 -2.74 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,050 -4.00 -2.80 Robbin (1984)
4,080 -2.50 -3.26 Spackman et al. (1966)
4,080 -4.04 -3.26 Robbin (1984)
4,095 -2.77 -3.61 Schnable and Goodell (1968)
4,100 -5.49 -3.46 Kuehn (1980)
4,112 -2.00 -3.79 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,150 -4.50 -3.64 Robbin (1984)
4,160 -2.90 -3.27 Robbin (1984)
4,220 -4.80 -2.60 Robbin (1984)
4,271 -3.00 -2.86 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,280 -0.20 -2.81 Morton et al. (2000)
4,310 -0.79 -2.14 Davies (1980)
4,370 -3.81 -1.71 Schnable and Goodell (1968)
4,390 -4.20 -1.10 Morton et al. (2000)
4,412 1.80 -0.85 Stapor and Stone (2004)
4,420 -1.77 -1.17 Kuehn(1980)
4,513 1.30 -0.61 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,560 1.50 0.16 Schnable and Goodell (1968)
4,600 -3.05 -0.19 Blum et al. (2001)
4,610 0.15 0.20 Frazier (1974)
4,656 1.20 -0.05 Davies (1980)
4,695 -0.70 -1.24 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,760 1.00 -1.51 Davies (1980)
4,770 -0.44 -1.21 Blum et al. (2001)
4,800 -6.86 -1.82 Robbin (1984)
4,800 -4.90 -2.11 Frazier (1974)
4,844 2.20 -3.27 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
4,900 -3.05 -3.66 Shepard (1960)
4,900 -2.74 -2.73 Nelson and Bray (1970)
4,910 -7.10 -1.81 Morton et al. (2000)
4,950 -3.20 -1.90 Smith (1969)
5,050 -0.30 -1.72 Morton et al. (2000)
5,054 1.50 -1.33 St. Vincent Island, FL1
5,125 1.60 -0.81 Faught and Donoghue (1997)
5,140 -1.80 -1.18 Blum et al. (2001, 2002)
5,141 0.00 -2.08 Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
5,190 -3.45 -2.05 Davies (1980)

51

3,986 -2.83
4,050 -3.00
4,060 -2.77
4,073 2.40
4,124 -2.60
4,173 1.52
4,200 1.50
4,200 1.70
4,261 -3.85
4,365 -1.92
4,417 -3.63
4,425 -3.50
4,440 -2.00
4,473 -1.86
4,495 -2.32
4,497 -2.34
4,500 1.80
4,519 -2.00
4,522 -2.00
4,550 -4.00
4,574 -4.04
4,595 -2.50
4,614 -5.49
4,615 -2.77
4,624 -2.00
4,662 -4.50
4,673 -2.90
4,728 -4.80
4,830 -3.00
4,846 -0.20
4,897 -0.79
4,943 -3.81
4,986 -4.20
5,000 1.80
5,048 -1.77
5,157 1.30
5,201 0.15
5,271 1.50
5,316 -3.05
5,417 -0.70
5,475 1.00
5,494 -0.44
5,499 1.20
5,519 -4.90
5,542 -6.86
5,574 2.20
5,611 -2.74
5,646 -3.05
5,647 -7.10
5,710 -3.20
5,794 -0.30
5,800 1.50
5,882 -1.80
5,890 1.60
5,895 0.00
5,952 -3.45

-1.46
-1.50
-1.28
-0.83
-0.18
-0.30
-0.18
-1.04
-1.17
-1.67
-2.15
-2.73
-2.51
-1.98
-1.75
-1.53
-1.82
-2.13
-2.15
-2.60
-3.26
-3.26
-3.61
-3.46
-3.57
-3.64
-2.88
-2.60
-2.86
-2.81
-2.14
-1.71
-1.10
-1.04
-0.72
-0.61
-0.11
-0.22
-0.03
-0.05
-0.77
-1.96
-1.21
-1.51
-2.08
-3.04
-3.66
-3.01
-1.81
-2.38
-1.76
-1.33
-0.81
-1.29
-2.08
-2.39

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Shepard (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Kuehn(1980)
McBride (1997)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridae (1961. 1974)

Morton et al. (2000UUU)
Robbin (1984)
McBride (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Morton et al. (2000)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Davies (1980)
Blum et al. (2001)
Morton et al. (2000)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Blum et al. (2001)
Morton et al. (2000)
Frazier (1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Robbin (1984)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)

5,200
5,200
5,285
5,315
5,340
5,370
5,450
5,550
5,600
5,600
5,624
5,650
5,650
5,714
5,735
5,870
5.988

6,030
6,060
6,070
6,100
6,135
6,219
6,345
6,360
6,375
6,400
6,502
6,510
6,635
6,730
6,755
6,785
6,825
6,837
6,840
6,850
6,970
6,980
7,010
7,010
7,020
7,025
7,130
7,150
7,160
7,240
7,240
7,274
7,280
7,400
7,450
7,470
7,500
7,595
7,630

-5.79
-6.60
1.70
2.20
-0.70
-2.10
-7.56
-4.30
-3.66
-7.01
-5.40
-5.18
-5.47
-4.80
-10.40
1.50
-11.85

-10.40
-6.70
-7.56
-3.70
-4.30
-9.00
0.70
-10.10
-0.46
-19.99
-9.90
-6.10
-22.02
-8.10
-7.60
-5.50
-6.70
-19.00
-13.00
-3.25
-8.80
-13.90
-7.30
-8.80
-8.30
-7.54
-6.40
-15.09
-7.00
-12.19
-4.30
-15.10
-7.20
-0.79
-4.90
-22.20
-28.20
-7.20
-29.69

-1.96
-1.81
-2.11
-2.69
-2.48
-2.06
-3.30
-4.39
-5.03
-5.51
-5.12
-5.99
-5.25
-5.94
-6.66
-6.87
-7.17

-7.02
-6.14
-7.64
-5.85
-5.81
-4.92
-6.69
-7.58
-7.84
-9.70
-10.95
-10.60
-11.32
-9.42
-10.72
-11.70
-9.02
-9.12
-10.02
-10.28
-10.58
-9.05
-8.27
-8.72
-9.62
-8.63
-9.33
-8.69
-9.66
-9.61
-8.81
-7.35
-9.53
-11.81
-12.23
-14.31
-16.15
-19.06
-21.36

Morton et al. (2000)
Shepard (1960)

Morton et al. (2000)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Kuehn(1980)
McBride (1997)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Robbin (1984)
McBride (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Morton et al. (2000)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Morton et al. (2000)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Blum et al. (2001)
Morton et al. (2000)
Frazier (1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Robbin (1984)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)

5,965 -6.60 -1.89
5,969 -5.79 -1.81

6,111
6,070
6,086
6,136
6,248
6,340
6,408
6,412
6,423
6,450
6,465
6,520
6,550
6,633
6,838
6,868
6,903
6,944
6,958
7,026
7,089
7,241
7,263
7,288
7,307
7,383
7,413
7,508
7,590
7,611
7,613
7,681
7,689
7,690
7,789
7,808
7,827
7,828
7,835
7,867
7,939
7,969
7,993
8,051
8,083
8,084
8,090
8,205
8,243
8,269
8,341
8,384
8,483
8,560

-0.70
1.70
2.20
-2.10
-7.56
-4.30
-3.66
-7.01
-5.40
-5.18
-5.47
-4.80
-10.40
1.50
-11.85
-10.40
-6.70
-7.56
-3.70
-4.30
-9.00
-10.10
0.70
-0.46
-19.99
-9.90
-6.10
-22.02
-8.10
-7.60
-5.50
-6.70
-13.00
-19.00
-8.80
-13.90
-7.30
-8.80
-8.30
-7.54
-6.40
-7.00
-15.09
-4.30
-12.19
-15.10
-7.20
-0.79
-4.90
-22.20
-28.20
-7.20
-29.69
-20.10

-2.11
-2.69
-2.36
-2.06
-2.96
-3.98
-5.03
-5.51
-5.12
-5.99
-5.25
-5.94
-6.66
-6.87
-7.17
-7.02
-6.14
-7.64
-7.39
-5.81
-4.92
-6.69
-7.58
-7.84
-9.70
-9.41
-10.60
-11.32
-9.42
-9.86
-11.70
-9.81
-10.64
-10.60
-11.07
-11.30
-10.52
-8.72
-8.46
-8.63
-8.20
-8.69
-9.66
-9.61
-8.81
-8.51
-9.53
-12.94
-12.23
-14.31
-16.15
-19.06
-21.36
-21.36

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shepard (1960)
McBride (1997)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Curray (1960)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Curray (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Frazier (1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Shepard (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Frazier (1974)
Shepard (1960)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Shepard (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Curray (1960)
Curray (1960)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Shepard (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shepard (1960)
Schnauble and Goodell (1968)

7,716
7,780
7,814
7,840
7,975
8,010
8,010
8,012
8,030
8,080
8,110
8,150
8,160
8,195
8,200
8,250
8,307
8,338
8,400
8,455
8,480
8,504
8,600
8,610
8,660
8,680
8,700
8,700
8,740
8,740
8,800
8,880
8,950
8,970
8,980
9,040
9,040
9,050
9,080
9,136
9,250
9,350
9,360
9,370
9,400
9,400
9,460
9,530
9,650
9,730
9,760
9,800
9,800
9,842
9,950
9,950

-20.10
-21.15
-21.00
-22.17
-21.64
-7.40
-24.34
-13.00
-11.89
-28.20
-16.00
-20.18
-28.20
-25.07
-28.20
-24.10
-15.00
-29.69
-35.17
-19.50
-26.80
-19.00
-21.95
-35.04
-19.66
-16.46
-22.25
-33.19
-26.52
-20.50
-28.96
-19.66
-16.15
-20.80
-25.30
-30.00
-25.45
-33.09
-40.84
-29.00
-16.15
-22.86
-31.20
-22.33
-45.42
-43.90
-49.38
-30.48
-30.20
-57.92
-56.42
-27.43
-57.92
-40.00
-41.15
-22.10

-21.36
-20.42
-20.45
-19.69
-18.67
-17.35
-18.38
-17.50
-17.29
-20.26
-20.36
-22.53
-24.28
-22.39
-24.35
-26.49
-25.25
-25.49
-24.18
-23.87
-26.74
-25.30
-22.63
-23.02
-23.94
-25.01
-24.80
-23.93
-23.93
-23.89
-23.68
-22.56
-23.05
-23.76
-24.35
-27.38
-29.21
-28.55
-28.20
-28.37
-27.92
-29.69
-30.12
-33.03
-35.08
-36.13
-39.95
-44.82
-42.25
-44.25
-42.91
-44.43
-43.28
-40.23
-36.68
-37.30

Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shepard (1960)
McBride (1997)
Davies (1980)
Curray (1960)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Curray (1960)
Morton et al. (2000)
Frazier (1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Shepard (1960)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Frazier (1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Shepard (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Shepard (1960)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Curray (1960)
Curray (1960)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Shepard (1960)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Shepard (1960)
McBride (1997)

8,655
8,682
8,715
8,850
8,882
8,891
8,898
8,902
8,959
9,019
9,041
9,052
9,091
9,094
9,214
9,250
9,260
9,328
9,407
9,442
9,512
9,547
9,584
9,646
9,659
9,685
9,691
9,728
9,737
9,737
9,841
9,981
10,071
10,079
10,090
10,118
10,129
10,143
10,166
10,308
10,388
10,509
10,514
10,563
10,572
10,630
10,645
10,716
10,824
10,978
11,016
11,087
11,093
11,346
11,369
11,371

-21.15
-21.00
-22.17
-21.64
-7.40
-24.34
-13.00
-11.89
-28.20
-16.00
-28.20
-20.18
-28.20
-25.07
-24.10
-15.00
-29.69
-35.17
-26.80
-19.50
-19.00
-21.95
-35.04
-3.25
-16.46
-22.25
-33.19
-19.66
-26.52
-20.50
-28.96
-19.66
-20.80
-25.45
-33.09
-40.84
-25.30
-16.15
-30.00
-29.00
-16.15
-31.20
-22.86
-43.90
-45.42
-22.33
-49.38
-30.48
-30.20
-57.92
-56.42
-57.92
-27.43
-40.00
-41.15
-31.57

-20.42
-20.45
-19.69
-18.67
-17.35
-18.38
-17.50
-18.43
-20.26
-20.81
-22.53
-24.28
-22.39
-24.35
-25.34
-26.29
-25.05
-24.18
-23.87
-26.74
-22.96
-20.28
-19.64
-21.59
-21.69
-22.34
-20.26
-23.93
-24.39
-24.18
-23.08
-25.00
-27.04
-27.73
-25.90
-27.38
-28.55
-27.22
-26.95
-24.38
-27.04
-31.22
-30.12
-33.03
-35.08
-34.94
-39.95
-41.74
-43.52
-44.25
-42.91
-44.43
-44.63
-40.90
-37.38
-34.33

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Curray (1960)
McBride (1997)
McBride (1997)
McBride (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
McBride (1997)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier(1974)
Frazier (1974)
Frazier (1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Curray (1960)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)

10,000
10,040
10,040
10,070
10,100
10,100
10,200
10,207
10,290
10,293
10,300
10,320
10,500
10,525
10,700
10,700
10,820
10,860
10,900
10,900
11,050
11,100
11,363
11,400
11,500
11,640
11,660
11,720
11,800
11,800
11,850
11,900
11,900
11,941
12,000
12,200
12,250
12,250
12,300
12,300
12,500
12,900
14,280
14,340
14,700
14,815
14,930
15,100
15,200
15,390
15,400
15,575
15,630
15,851
16,020
16,145

-36.60
-31.57
-31.78
-31.78
-56.42
-35.05
-31.78
-35.66
-33.55
-31.50
-61.21
-21.95
-63.99
-35.05
-42.67
-53.19
-40.45
-40.45
-65.96
-69.19
-65.53
-86.00
-48.00
-72.95
-72.95
-69.19
-46.00
-73.85
-73.85
-92.61
-73.41
-55.78
-69.80
-51.00
-98.06
-96.64
-93.71
-94.96
-93.69
-96.80
-98.06
-71.32
-106.90
-110.83
-111.19
-112.36
-111.19
-114.28
-119.13
-111.19
-114.60
-106.47
-108.40
-119.13
-114.60
-119.48

-33.57
-35.91
-35.04
-36.43
-36.29
-36.57
-36.53
-40.74
-35.81
-39.95
-40.42
-41.42
-44.22
-45.50
-42.54
-48.82
-49.57
-53.92
-60.11
-59.37
-64.01
-68.65
-69.12
-65.80
-66.99
-65.26
-71.63
-71.69
-69.24
-69.33
-70.04
-73.50
-76.76
-76.91
-79.99
-85.41
-89.27
-95.99
-92.17
-93.63
-96.08
-98.40
-101.07
-103.12
-105.44
-112.27
-112.88
-113.42
-112.75
-112.18
-113.31
-113.36
-113.41
-114.59
-112.63
-115.34

McBride (1997)
McBride (1997)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Schnauble and Goodell (1968)
McBride (1997)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier(1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Frazier (1974)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Schroeder et al. (1995)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Frazier (1974)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Curray (1960)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)

11,382
11,422
11,474
11,479
11,491
11,502
11,681
11,889
11,911
11,919
12,044
12,085
12,269
12,299
12,481
12,525
12,715
12,795
12,801
12,855
12,933
13,013
13,276
13,326
13,386
13,499
13,592
13,637
13,664
13,677
13,703
13,816
13,845
13,928
14,044
14,134
14,214
14,214
14,308
14,308
14,733
15,174
16,992
17,061
17,476
17,609
17,741
17,937
18,053
18,271
18,283
18,483
18,548
18,801
18,996
19,139

-31.78
-31.78
-36.60
-56.42
-35.05
-22.10
-31.78
-33.55
-61.21
-35.66
-31.50
-21.95
-35.05
-63.99
-53.19
-42.67
-40.45
-65.96
-40.45
-69.19
-65.53
-86.00
-72.95
-72.95
-48.00
-69.19
-73.85
-73.85
-92.61
-73.41
-46.00
-69.80
-55.78
-98.06
-51.00
-96.64
-93.71
-94.96
-93.69
-96.80
-98.06
-71.32
-106.90
-110.83
-111.19
-112.36
-111.19
-114.28
-119.13
-111.19
-114.60
-106.47
-108.40
-119.13
-114.60
-119.48

-38.47
-37.76
-35.04
-35.07
-35.33
-39.53
-39.40
-35.84
-33.96
-35.81
-40.42
-43.22
-40.57
-41.26
-46.18
-48.82
-53.70
-53.92
-58.61
-62.93
-67.58
-65.01
-69.12
-69.78
-70.97
-71.91
-71.98
-68.13
-71.24
-69.33
-72.79
-69.52
-70.10
-73.00
-79.99
-83.41
-89.27
-89.27
-92.17
-93.63
-96.08
-98.40
-101.07
-103.12
-105.44
-112.27
-112.88
-113.42
-112.75
-112.18
-113.31
-113.36
-113.41
-114.59
-112.63
-115.34

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO TOTAL DATA SET: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Data younger than ~6,000 yrs BP: combined younger data set.)
(Data older than -6,000 yrs BP: older data set.)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 16,260 -119.48 -116.92 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 19,271 -119.48 -116.92
Frazier (1974) 16,600 -100.86 -118.56 Frazier (1974) 19,661 -100.86 -118.56
Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 16,700 -125.44 -119.00 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 19,776 -125.44 -119.00
Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 17,085 -119.48 -121.00 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 20,218 -119.48 -121.00
Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 18,200 -130.57 -125.00 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 22,080 -130.57 -125.00
Data of Stapor et al, (1977); Tanner et al. (1989); Tanner (1991a, 1992a, 1993).

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

APPENDIX III

Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set A:
7-Point Floating Average Sea-Level Curve

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO YOUNGER DATA SET A: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Sea level indicators seaward of current sea level)
C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Shier (1969)
Frazier (1974)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Frazier (1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Robbin (1984)
Shier (1969)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Robbin (1984)
Frazier (1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Kuehn (1980)
Spackman et al. (1966)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Kuehn (1980)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Kuehn (1980)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier (1974)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Frazier (1974)
Kuehn(1980)
Robbin (1984)
Shier (1969)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Davies (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)
Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
Davies (1980)
Kuehn (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Spackman et al. (1966)
Robbin (1984)
Kuehn (1980)
Robbin (1984)
Robbin (1984)

0
285
360
380
900
1,015
1,065
1,230
1,400
1,698
1,740
2,050
2,090
2,285
2,460
2,466
2,530
2,550
2,565
2,575
2,580
2,650
2,724
2,775
2,830
2,850
2,894
2,905
2,985
3,155
3,170
3,200
3,260
3,344
3,399
3,408
3,475
3,500
3,650
3,650
3,660
3,710
3,800
3,930
3,965
3,970
3,980
4,000
4,015
4,015
4,050
4,080
4,080
4,095
4,150
4,160

0.00 0
-0.71 -0.71 Davies (1980)
0.00 0.00 Shier (1969)
-0.08 -1.27 Robbin (1984)
-0.73 -1.65 Frazier (1974)
-3.94 -2.09 Davies (1980)
-3.42 -2.15 Davies (1980)
-2.67 -2.22 Davies (1980)
-3.76 -2.63 Frazier (1974)
-0.48 -2.21 Robbin (1984)
-0.50 -1.92 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-3.66 -1.75 Robbin (1984)
-1.00 -1.35 Shepard (1960)
-1.35 -1.43 Shier (1969)
-1.50 -1.70 Robbin (1984)
-0.97 -1.30 Robbin (1984)
-1.00 -1.55 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-2.44 -1.57 Davies (1980)
-0.82 -1.57 Robbin (1984)
-2.74 -1.65 Frazier (1974)
-1.50 -1.90 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-1.50 -1.79 Robbin (1984)
-1.53 -1.96 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-2.74 -1.74 Kuehn (1980)
-1.71 -1.70 Robbin (1984)
-2.00 -1.69 Spackman et al. (1966)
-1.19 -1.89 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-1.21 -1.85 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-1.46 -1.74 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-2.90 -2.01 Davies (1980)
-2.50 -2.05 Robbin (1984)
-0.91 -2.27 Shepard (1960)
-3.91 -2.19 Kuehn (1980)
-1.49 -2.00 Kuehn (1980)
-2.74 -2.82 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-0.91 -2.93 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-1.52 -2.77 Nelson and Bray (1970)
-8.23 -2.96 Frazier (1974)
-1.70 -3.00 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-2.77 -3.42 Kuehn (1980)
-2.83 -3.47 Robbin (1984)
-3.00 -2.82 Frazier (1974)
-3.85 -3.07 Shier (1969)
-1.92 -2.96 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-3.63 -2.82 Davies (1980)
-3.50 -2.73 Robbin (1984)
-2.00 -2.51 Robbin (1984)
-1.86 -2.81 Scholl and Stuiver (1967)
-2.34 -2.87 Kuehn (1980)
-2.32 -2.72 Davies (1980)
-4.00 -2.83 Robbin (1984)
-4.04 -3.21 Spackman et al. (1966)
-2.50 -3.29 Robbin (1984)
-2.77 -3.64 Kuehn (1980)
-4.50 -3.19 Robbin (1984)
-2.90 -2.86 Robbin (1984)

0
332
393
405
838
926
987
1,147
1,368
1,652
1,674
2,068
2,086
2,382
2,541
2,579
2,581
2,616
2,626
2,691
2,763
2,765
2,911
2,916
2,967
3,039
3,053
3,127
3,215
3,369
3,392
3,486
3,490
3,649
3,674
3,685
3,745
3,859
3,978
3,986
4,050
4,060
4,261
4,365
4,417
4,425
4,440
4,473
4,495
4,497
4,550
4,574
4,595
4,615
4,662
4,673

0.00 0
-0.71 -0.71
-0.08 -0.08
0.00 -1.27
-0.73 -1.65
-3.94 -2.09
-3.42 -2.15
-2.67 -2.22
-3.76 -2.25
-0.50 -2.21
-0.48 -1.92
-1.00 -1.75
-3.66 -1.36
-1.35 -1.42
-1.50 -1.75
-1.00 -1.82
-0.97 -1.64
-2.74 -1.57
-1.50 -1.57
-2.44 -1.64
-0.82 -1.90
-1.50 -1.79
-1.53 -1.82
-2.74 -1.64
-2.00 -1.70
-1.71 -1.69
-1.19 -1.89
-1.21 -1.85
-1.46 -1.70
-2.90 -2.01
-2.50 -2.23
-0.91 -2.27
-3.91 -2.19
-2.74 -2.00
-1.49 -2.82
-0.91 -2.93
-1.52 -2.78
-8.23 -2.81
-1.70 -3.00
-2.83 -3.42
-3.00 -3.47
-2.77 -2.82
-3.85 -3.07
-1.92 -2.95
-3.63 -2.79
-3.50 -2.73
-2.00 -2.51
-1.86 -2.81
-2.32 -2.87
-2.34 -2.72
-4.00 -2.83
-4.04 -3.21
-2.50 -3.29
-2.77 -3.64
-4.50 -3.19
-2.90 -2.86

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GULF OF MEXICO YOUNGER DATA SET A: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Sea level indicators seaward of current sea level)
C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)
Robbin (1984) 4,220 -4.80 -2.94 Robbin (1984) 4,728 -4.80 -2.94

Davies (1980)
Kuehn (1980)
Frazier (1974)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Frazier (1974)
Robbin (1984)
Shepard (1960)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Smith (1969)
Faught & Donoghue (1997)
Davies (1980)
Shepard (1960)
Kuehn (1980)
McBride (1997)
Robbin (1984)
Frazier (1974)
Shepard (1960)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Frazier (1974)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)

Robbin (1984)
McBride (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Nelson and Bray (1970)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Davies (1980)
Faught and Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught & Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught & Donoghue (1997)
Frazier (1974)
Faught & Donoghue (1997)
Robbin (1984)
Davies (1980)
Davies (1980)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Robbin (1984)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Fairbanks (1989, 1990)
Nelson and Bray (1970)

4,310
4,420
4,600
4,695
4,770
4,800
4,800
4,900
4,900
4,950
5,140
5,190
5,200
5,370
5,450
5,550
5,600
5,600
5,650
5,650
5,735

6,060
6,070
6,100
6,135
6,375
6,400
6,635
6,755
6,785
6,825
6,840
6,850
7,010
7,025
7,130
7,150
7,160
7,240
7,240
7,280
7,400
7,450
7,500
7,595
7,630
7,780
7,840

-0.79 -2.64 Davies (1980) 4,897
-1.77 -2.06 Kuehn (1980) 5,048
-3.05 -2.63 Frazier (1974) 5,316
-0.70 -2.64 Davies (1980) 5,417
-0.44 -2.92 Davies (1980) 5,494
-6.86 -3.11 Robbin (1984) 5,519
-4.90 -3.13 Frazier (1974) 5,542
-2.74 -3.28 Shepard (1960) 5,611
-3.05 -3.71 Nelson and Bray (1970) 5,646
-3.20 -3.56 Smith (1969) 5,710
-1.80 -3.16 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 5,882
-3.45 -3.85 Davies (1980) 5,952
-5.79 -4.03 Shepard (1960) 5,969
-2.10 -4.57 Kuehn (1980) 6,136
-7.56 -4.84 McBride (1997) 6,248
-4.30 -5.09 Robbin (1984) 6,340
-7.01 -5.04 Frazier (1974) 6,412
-3.66 -6.23 Nelson and Bray (1970) 6,450
-5.18 -6.10 Frazier (1974) 6,465
-5.47 -6.57 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 6,550
-10.40 -6.10 Robbin (1984) 6,903
-6.70 -6.19 McBride (1997) 6,944
-7.56 -6.10 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 6,958
-3.70 -8.18 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,026
-4.30 -9.86 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,288
-4.60 -9.99 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 7,307
-19.99 -9.70 Nelson and Bray (1970) 7,508
-22.20 -10.13 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,611
-7.60 -11.37 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,613
-5.50 -11.18 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,681
-6.70 -9.36 Fairbanks (1989, 1990) 7,689
-13.00 -7.27 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,827
-3.25 -7.10 Frazier (1974) 7,867
-7.30 -8.47 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,939
-7.54 -8.51 Faught and Donoghue (1997) 7,969
-6.40 -8.40 Frazier (1974) 7,993
-15.09 -8.55
-7.00 -8.53
-12.19 -7.57
-4.30 -7.35
-7.2 -9.23
-0.79 -9.25
-4.90 -11.75
-28.20 -14.16
-7.2 -16.30
-29.69 -18.89
-21.15 -21.68
-22.17 -20.05

-0.79 -2.64
-1.77 -2.06
-3.05 -2.35
-0.70 -2.64
-0.44 -2.92
-4.90 -3.11
-6.86 -3.13
-2.74 -3.28
-3.05 -3.71
-3.20 -3.84
-1.80 -3.16
-3.45 -3.86
-5.79 -4.03
-2.10 -4.58
-7.60 -5.06
-4.30 -5.35
-7.01 -6.01
-5.18 -6.67
-5.47 -6.67
-10.40 -6.58
-6.70 -6.19
-7.60 -6.11
-3.70 -8.18
-4.30 -9.87
-4.60 -10.00
-19.99 -9.70
-22.20 -10.13
-7.60 -11.37
-5.50 -11.76
-6.70 -9.98
-13.00 -7.72
-7.30 -7.63
-7.54 -9.00
-6.40 -9.39
-7.00 -8.67
-15.09 -9.01

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

APPENDIX IV

Gulf of Mexico Younger Data Set B:
7-Point Floating Average Sea-Level Curve

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO YOUNGER DATA SET B: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Sea level indicators landward of current sea level)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Behrens (1966)
Behrens (1966)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Morton et al. (2000)
Behrens (1966)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)

0
0
186
290
350
364
405
520
560
691
725
841
876
1,083
1,109
1,220
1,220
1,250
1,250
1,342
1,350
1,390
1,400
1,400
1,450
1,475
1,481
1,538
1,581
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,611
1,708
1,737
1,740
1,833
1,835
1,848
1,860
1,930
1,940
1,984
2,019
2,072
2,154
2,286
2,320
2,340
2,340
2,488
2,520
2,539
2,566
2,622
2,703

0.00
-0.15
-0.50
-1.50
0.00
0.00
-0.15
0.30
0.00
-0.75
0.40
0.10
0.00
0.00
-0.85
1.10
-0.60
0.15
-0.85
-2.00
0.30
0.15
-0.30
-0.15
-0.30
-0.15
-0.90
0.95
0.00
-0.91
0.30
-0.61
1.00
1.60
-0.15
2.80
-0.15
1.00
1.00
2.30
2.60
2.60
0.00
-0.90
-1.00
0.00
-0.70
-0.75
2.80
2.60
-1.50
-1.22
1.00
0.30
0.00
0.70

0.00
-0.15
-0.29
-0.33
-0.29
-0.26
-0.30
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
0.01
-0.16
0.00
0.02
-0.01
-0.15
-0.44
-0.39
-0.25
-0.45
-0.39
-0.45
-0.35
-0.19
-0.10
-0.12
-0.21
-0.14
-0.19
-0.02
0.33
0.18
0.58
0.68
0.78
1.01
1.20
1.34
1.74
1.34
1.23
0.94
0.80
0.37
-0.11
-0.08
0.29
0.21
0.18
0.32
0.46
0.57
0.27
-0.06
0.22
0.18

Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
McFarlan (1961)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Behrens (1966)
Behrens (1966)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Morton et al. (2000)
Behrens (1966)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
McFarlan (1961)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)

0
0
300
375
377
439
450
517
569
657
700
780
800
1,000
1,011
1,142
1,150
1,155
1,184
1,250
1,290
1,298
1,311
1,311
1,370
1,385
1,394
1,432
1,470
1,500
1,552
1,552
1,554
1,600
1,647
1,652
1,750
1,750
1,765
1,790
1,900
1,936
1,947
1,974
2,000
2,148
2,264
2,300
2,368
2,457
2,500
2,584
2,600
2,646
2,735
2,823

0.00
0.00
-0.50
-1.50
0.00
0.00
-0.15
0.30
0.00
-0.75
0.40
0.00
0.10
0.00
-0.85
1.10
-0.85
-0.61
0.15
-2.00
0.30
0.15
-0.30
-0.15
-0.90
-0.15
-0.30
0.95
0.00
1.00
0.30
-0.61
-0.91
1.60
-0.15
2.80
1.00
1.00
-0.15
2.30
0.00
2.60
2.60
-0.90
-1.00
0.00
-0.70
-0.75
2.80
2.60
-1.50
1.00
0.30
-1.22
0.00
0.70

0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.31
-0.26
-0.26
-0.30
-0.03
-0.03
-0.01
0.01
-0.16
0.00
-0.01
-0.16
-0.14
-0.44
-0.39
-0.25
-0.45
-0.35
-0.39
-0.44
-0.19
-0.10
-0.12
0.06
0.13
0.17
0.06
0.33
0.18
0.58
0.58
0.68
0.74
1.20
0.97
1.36
1.34
1.06
0.78
0.80
0.37
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.21
0.49
0.54
0.46
0.57
0.27
-0.32
-0.06
-0.14

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

GULF OF MEXICO YOUNGER DATA SET B: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Sea level indicators landward of current sea level)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)

McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
McFarlan (1961)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Morton et al. (2000)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridae (1961. 1974)

Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)

2,750
2,775
2,802
2,876
2,903
3,100
3,150
3,220
3,252
3,333
3,440
3,482
3,488
3,550
3,580
3,591
3,604
3,630
3,720
3,760
3,780
3,781
3,781
4,013
4,030
4,033
4,100
4,112
4,271
4,280
4,370
4,390
4,412
4,513
4,560
4,610
4,656
4,760
4,844
4,910
5,050
5,054
5,125
5,141
5,200
5,285
5,315
5,340
5,624
5,714
5,870
5.988

6,030
6,219
6,345
6,360

0.30
0.46
-1.50
-1.50
-1.80
-0.95
0.15
-1.20
-1.50
-1.40
-1.30
-1.50
2.00
0.80
-5.20
0.00
1.00
-2.30
2.40
-2.60
1.52
1.70
1.50
1.80
-2.00
-2.00
-5.49
-2.00
-3.00
-0.20
-3.81
-4.20
1.80
1.30
1.50
0.15
1.20
1.00
2.20
-7.10
-0.30
1.50
1.60
0.00
-6.60
1.70
2.20
-0.70
-5.40
-4.80
1.50
-11.85

-10.40
-9.00
0.70
-10.10

-0.18
-0.48
-0.61
-0.69
-0.91
-1.19
-1.17
-1.14
-1.10
-0.68
-0.59
-1.16
-0.94
-0.60
-0.74
-0.19
-0.84
-0.74
0.25
0.46
0.57
0.62
-0.01
-0.42
-0.93
-1.60
-1.84
-2.64
-2.96
-2.41
-1.44
-0.94
-0.49
-0.29
0.39
1.31
0.04
-0.19
-0.19
0.01
-0.16
-1.24
-1.31
0.01
-0.04
-1.03
-1.94
-1.73
-2.48
-4.21
-5.81
-5.61

-6.28
-7.01
-8.09
-7.56

St. Vincent Island
McFarlan (1961)
McFarlan (1961)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
McFarlan (1961)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Morton et al. (2000)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Morton et al. (2000)
Stapor and Stone (2004)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Schnable and Goodell (1968)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Morton et al. (2000)
St. Vincent Island, FL1
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)

Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Morton et al. (2000)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974)
Blum et al. (2001)

2,900
2,941
2,969
3,000
3,049
3,297
3,426
3,445
3,500
3,571
3,750
3,760
3,800
3,837
3,876
3,913
3,943
3,950
4,073
4,124
4,173
4,200
4,200
4,500
4,519
4,522
4,614
4,624
4,830
4,846
4,943
4,986
5,000
5,157
5,201
5,271
5,475
5,499
5,574
5,647
5,794
5,800
5,890
5,895
5,965

6,070
6,086
6,111
6,423
6,520
6,633
6,838
6,868
7,089
7,241
7,263

-1.50
0.30
0.46
-1.50
-1.80
-0.95
0.15
-1.20
-1.50
-1.40
-1.30
2.00
-1.50
0.80
-5.20
1.00
-2.30
0.00
2.40
-2.60
1.52
1.50
1.70
1.80
-2.00
-2.00
-5.49
-2.00
-3.00
-0.20
-3.81
-4.20
1.80
1.30
0.15
1.50
1.00
1.20
2.20
-7.1
-0.3
1.50
1.60
0.00
-6.6

1.7
2.20
-0.7
-5.40
-4.80
1.50
-11.85
-10.4
-9.00
-10.10
0.70

-0.39
-0.48
-0.61
-0.69
-0.65
-0.91
-1.17
-1.14
-0.60
-0.68
-0.59
-1.16
-0.80
-0.93
-0.74
-0.69
-0.84
-0.74
0.22
0.32
0.90
0.62
-0.01
-0.42
-0.93
-1.57
-1.84
-2.64
-2.96
-2.41
-1.44
-1.14
-0.49
-0.32
0.39
1.31
0.04
-0.19
0.00
0.01
-0.13
-1.24
-1.31
0.01
-0.04

-1.03
-1.94
-1.73
-2.48
-4.21
-5.81
-7.15
-6.28
-7.01
-8.09
-7.56

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 103

GULF OF MEXICO YOUNGER DATA SET B: 7-POINT FLOATING AVERAGE SEA LEVEL CURVE
(Sea level indicators landward of current sea level)
14C Age Data Set Absolute Age Data Set
Depth 7-Point Depth 7-Point
14C Relative to Floating Absolute Relative to Floating
Investigators Age Current Average Investigators Age Current Average
(yrs BP) MSL Depth (yrs BP) MSL Depth
(m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL) (m MSL)
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 6,502 -9.90 -8.79 Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,383 -9.90 -8.79
Morton et al. (2000) 6,510 -6.10 -8.76 Morton et al. (2000) 7,413 -6.1 -8.76
Morton et al. (2000) 6,730 -8.10 -10.84 Morton et al. (2000) 7,590 -8.1 -9.30
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 6,837 -19.00 -10.66 Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,690 -19.00 -10.66
Blum et al. (2001) 6,970 -8.80 -10.43 Blum et al. (2001) 7,789 -8.80 -10.43
Morton et al. (2000) 6,980 -13.90 -11.71 Morton et al. (2000) 7,808 -13.9 -11.71
Blum et al. (2001) 7,010 -8.80 -13.73 Blum et al. (2001) 7,828 -8.8 -12.54
Morton et al. (2000) 7,020 -8.3 -13.89 Morton et al. (2000) 7,835 -8.3 -11.09
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,274 -15.10 -15.63 Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 8,084 -15.10 -11.01
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,470 -22.20 -17.09 Morton et al. (2000) 7,808 -13.9 -11.19
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,716 -20.10 -18.47 Blum et al. (2001) 7,828 -8.8 -11.58
Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 7,814 -21.00 -20.50 Morton et al. (2000) 7,835 -8.3 -12.24
Morton et al. (2000) 8,250 -24.1 -21.85 Fairbridge (1961, 1974) 8,084 -15.10 -11.53
Data of Stapor et al., (1977); Tanner et al., (1989), Tanner (1991a, 1992a, 1993).

2007

A Century of Geoscience
In Public Service

	Front Cover
	Title Page
	Front Matter
	Preface
	Acknowledgement
	Table of Contents
	Abstract
	Main
	Back Cover

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
3	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file