Society for American Archaeology

Earthworm Activity: A Source of Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Sediments

Author(s): Julie K. Stein
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 277-289
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280451 .
Accessed: 12/11/2012 04:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARTHWORM ACTIVITY:
A SOURCE OF POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE OF
ARCHAEOLOGICALSEDIMENTS
Julie K. Stein

Conspicuous disturbances in archaeological sites are readily detected during excavation. However, one

animal whose destructive effects are not often recognized is the earthworm. Work at the CaristonAnnis
moundin Kentucky,an Archaic shell midden,has resulted in the identificationof areas of extensive earthwormdisturbance.Archaeologicalsites most readily affected are those with the appropriatevegetationcover,
moisture and temperatureconditions,and available chemical elements. The type of disturbance a site will
undergodepends on the species of earthwormspresent. Subsurface-castingspecies mixmatrixonly below the
surface while surface-castingspecies bring the fine-grainedmatrix to the surface, thus concentratinglarger
objects below ground.If earthwormcasts are identifiedin a profile,one shouldproceed cautiouslywith interpretations concerningsoil matrix.
POSTOCCUPATIONALDISTURBANCEof archaeological deposits is an expected phenomenon
for most archaeologists. Rodents move through strata accumulating their backdirt at the surface.
Tree roots penetrating downward can be ripped up if the tree is blown over. Differential freezing
and thawing transports large objects upward, while ants and some earthworms are capable of
transporting the same material to lower levels. Wind, water, and gravity scatter material in every
direction, while catastrophic events such as earthquakes can completely obliterate any original
order. Human activity (plowing, excavating) is often the most powerful force of disturbance.
Wood and Johnson (1978) have described nine types of disturbance that affect archaeological
deposits.
One type of disturbance, faunalturbation-the mixing of sediment by animals (Thorp 1949)-is
commonly observed in archaeological profiles as networks of abandoned animal burrows. A burrow, after abandonment, fills with material from another soil horizon. Differences in soil texture
and color allow the feature to be easily recognized. But some animal burrows are so small that
they are not easily detected; ants, earthworms, spiders, and crickets are a few of the small
animals that disturb the soil (Kiihnelt 1955).
Of all these small creatures, the earthworm is the most easily overlooked although it is often the
most destructive. Earthworm burrows are so small they may go undetected. Instead of filling with
material from another soil horizon, these burrows can fill with the excreta of the earthworm. The
excrement is sometimes very similar macroscopically to the sediment surrounding the burrow.
The role of the earthworm as a maor source of disturbance in archaeological deposits is here
examined. The discussion begins with a description of the life cycle of earthworms together with
the optimal conditions for the animals' survival. The disruptive effects of earthworms are
described and illustrated by results of investigations at a shellmound in western Kentucky. Sites
most vulnerable to earthworm activity are identified, and the means for determining earthworm
habitation are presented. The discussion concludes with cautionary notes on the types of analyses
that are precluded if earthworms have been churning the debris.

Julie K. Stein, Department of Anthropology, DH-05, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Copyright ? 1983 by the Society for American Archaeology
0002-7316/83/020277-1 3$1 .80/1

277

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

278

AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 48, No. 2,1983

EARTHWORMS
The earthworm is said to be the most important macroanimal of soils. Its significance was
recognized by Darwin (1890) as early as 1837 when he began his observations on the abundance
of earthworms and their effects on soil. In 1878 the Danish soil scientist P. E. Muller (Cruickshank
1972) identified earthworm activity as a crucial element involved in the genesis of forest soils. He
described an A horizon as a layer of thoroughly mixed mineral material and well decomposed
humus. Both the mixing of the two components and the decomposition of the organic material is
enhanced by the activities of earthworms (Pitty 1978; Wilde 1958).
Although earthworm species differ in size and behavior, the general activities of all species
are similar (Edwards and Lofty 1972). They move through the soil, displacing and ingesting
mineral and organic matter. Earthworms especially favor dung, succulent herbage (grass), and
tree leaves. The leaves of ash, hickory, tulip tree, dogwood, and basswood are among the most
favored; foliage of oaks and conifers are least favored (Satchell 1967; Satchell and Lowe 1967;
Bocock and Gilbert 1957; Gilbert and Bocock 1960; Barley 1959; Thorp 1949).
After the material has passed through their digestive tracts, earthworms eject it, as castings,
on the surface or in soil crevices. Casts have far greater stability and water-storage capacity than
the soil surrounding the casts. In fact, with continuous activity, earthworms can alter a soil's
structure from its original form to a granular structure composed totally of castings. Forest soils
typically have a crumb structure produced from abundant organic material that has been processed by earthworms. The granular-cast structure in some soils is so resistant that it was able to
withstand rigorous water erosion and air-drying tests conducted by Guild (1955).
There is a variety of explanations for the way in which the stable granules are formed. First,
the casts are simply reinforced mechanically by filaments of vascular bundles from ingested plant
remains. Second, soil particles are cemented together by calcium humate formed in the worm's intestines by the calciferous glands. Third, bacterial populations, present either in the dung, the
gut, or the casts, are responsible for gluing the soil particles together with bacterial gums. Fourth,
the development of fungal hyphae after excretion stabilizes wormcasts. And fifth, the presence of
calcium stabilizes clay.
Earthworms work the soil to create extensive burrow networks that are more or less vertical
for most of their depth, but branch near the surface. Under unfavorable surface conditions (e.g.,
soil temperature greater than 10?C, or mean annual precipitation of less than 560 mm [Buntley
and Papendick 1960]), earthworms will excavate to depths of 6 m (Scully 1942:504; Edwards and
Lofty 1972:118). In winter, one or more individuals curl up at the bottom of a burrow and hibernate.
An earthworm's average life span is usually less than two years (Satchell 1967). They are eaten
by toads, frogs, snakes, turtles, birds, moles, and shrews. Earthworms are preyed upon by
humans. The giant Australian earthworms (Megascolides australisj, which attain lengths of more
than 3 m, are supposedly hunted by aborigines, who consider them a great delicacy (Schaller
1968:61). If the soil becomes saturated with water, earthworms are forced to the surface for oxygen to avoid drowning. However, extended exposure to ultraviolet light on the surface is also
deadly.
Of the more than 1,800 species of earthworms in the world, Lumbricus terrestris, reddish in color, and Aporrectodea trapezoides (formerly called Allolobophora caliginosa [Gates 1972]), which
is pale pink, are the most common species both in Europe and in the eastern and central United
States. Neither species is native to the United States. L. terrestris, the common nightcrawler,
rapidly replaced native species as forests and prairies were cultivated. Olson (1928) reports that
L. terrestris became widely distributed over Ohio during the 1920s; and according to Smith (1929),
this species was noticed near Champaign, Illinois in 1896.
Most earthworm studies in soil zoology have been conducted in England on European species
(Darwin 1890; Edwards and Lofty 1972; Evans 1948a, 1948b; Evans and Guild 1947, 1948a,
1948b; Guild 1948, 1951, 1955; Nelson and Satchell 1962; Satchell 1955, 1958, 1967; Satchell and
Lowe 1967). The ecological requirements discussed here are derived from those studies and may

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stein]

EARTHWORM ACTIVITYAND DISTURBANCE

279

not reflect accurately the requirements of similar North American species. Until research is conducted that specifically defines the behavior of this continent's species, we are forced to apply
the European data.
L. terrestris is the most thoroughly studied species. It draws leaves and other materials into the
mouth of its burrow, and produces casts that are excreted only on the surface around the burrow
opening. Thus this species transports great quantities of sediment to the surface and can consequently bury Roman walls (Darwin 1890), patios (Wood and Johnson 1978), and artifacts (Atkinson
1957; Rolfsen 1980) within a few years.
In contrast, A. trapezoides, also introduced from Europe, feeds below the surface on dead herbage, bacteria, and fungi, excreting casts in nearby soil crevices. The results of this behavior are
not as noticeable as those of the common nightcrawler because casts are not visible on the surface. The animal ingests and excretes as much sediment as does L. terrestris, but subsurface
casting precludes burial of objects.
Native North American species are not as adaptable environmentally as these two imported

individuals.
OPTIMAL CONDITIONS FOR EARTHWORMS
Earthworms can inhabit a wide variety of environments, but certain conditions are considered
optimal. Texture, moisture, temperature, available food source, agricultural practices, and soil
acidity comprise the most important characteristics of the animal's environment.
Texture
Soils with medium textures create the best habitats (Evans 1948a; Guild 1948, 1951). Too much
sand promotes drainage and lowers the amount of moisture and organic matter the soil can retain, while excessive clay restricts burrowing because of increased soil hardness. According to
Guild (1948:184), a light-loam (silt-loam or loam [Buol et al. 1973]) texture is optimal for earthworms.
Moisture
Water constitutes 75-90% of the earthworm's body weight (Grant 1955) and to maintain this
percentage, moisture must be available all year. Yet too much moisture will cause drowning. Soil
moisture is affected by evapo-transpiration (i.e., plant factors such as the rooting, drought
tolerance, and stage and rate of plant growth; climatic variables including air temperature and
humidity, and wind velocity and turbulence; and soil characteristics such as texture, soil
stratification, and moisture suction relations). Most earthworms do not inhabit soils in regions
with mean annual precipitation less than 560 mm (Buntley and Papendick 1960), and they will not
occupy water-logged locations. To a large degree, soil porosity and landscape relief control soil
moisture. Proper drainage, which aerates the soil, helps keep moisture at a level appropriate for
earthworms.
Temperature
Temperature influences the fecundity of certain earthworm species (Evans and Guild 1948a).
The optimum soil temperature is 10?C. Earthworms are rarely seen in soils where the mean annual air temperature is colder than 7 ?C. Earthworms can tolerate extreme seasonal
temperatures; they respond by moving deeper into the soil. Gerard (1967) believes that this migration occurs when the soil temperature falls below 5 ?C. Inactivity will also ensue when

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

280

[Vol. 48, No. 2,1983

temperatures rise significantly. Gates (1961) reports that earthworm species in the tropics
become inactive (little movement or feeding) except during the monsoon season, although the
movement may be related to changes in moisture.
Food Source
To thrive, earthworms require an abundant food source; the type of food consumed varies with
species. Surface-feeding species usually prefer tree leaves, grass, and dung (Bocock and Gilbert
1957; Barley 1959; Satchell 1967; Satchell and Lowe 1967; Thorp 1949). Subsurface-feeders
prefer decomposed plant material, subsurface vegetation (roots), humic material, and
microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) (Barley 1959; Tracey 1951; Waters 1955). The abundant
organic content of archaeological debris serves as an excellent food source, especially for subsurface feeders.
Agricultural Practices
While some agricultural techniques promote earthworm activity, others are detrimental. In recent years many forests, especially on floodplains, have been cleared for cultivation. With the
loss of leaf litter as a food source, earthworm populations declined sharply. According to Satchell
(1958:214), earthworm populations decreased by 70% when grasslands were plowed. If an area
has been cultivated in recent years, the size of the earthworm population depends not only on
available food but also on the types of additives the farmer has applied. If fertilizer (food source)
or lime (a calcium source, see below) is added to a field, the earthworm population will usually expand (Barley 1961; Tischler 1955). Even some herbicides will increase the population by providing
more dead herbage on which earthworms can feed. Pesticides, on the other hand, often eliminate
earthworms. Depending on the type, they can either kill outright or accumulate in the
earthworm's tissues until a toxic level is reached.
Soil Acidity
The pH of a soil also influences the earthworm's condition. Tolerance to changes in acidity
varies widely depending on the species involved. Most species cannot tolerate pH values below
4.5 (Edwards and Lofty 1972) and prefer neutral conditions, a pH around 7. It is uncertain
whether pH condition is itself the factor limiting earthworm survival (Satchell 1955; Guild 1951).
Guild (1955) has suggested that it is the lack of calcium in acid soils that inhibits earthworm
metabolism, rather than the pH. Calcium is required for the function of the calciferous gland, an
organ believed by some to affect digestion of food (Guild 1955).
EFFECTS OF EARTHWORMS ON ARCHAEOLOGICALSITES
Earthworms disrupt archaeological sites in the following ways.
1. They obliterate stratification within the midden matrix by mixing sediment. Earthworms,
especially subsurface-casting species, can mix material from adjacent strata, blending the colors
and textures into hybrid materials with intermediate properties. Archaeologists differentiate site
profiles by noting differences in color and texture, but earthworm activity can produce overlapping parameters, thus inhibiting the archaeologist's ability to delineate strata.
2. Surface-casting species can bury objects by systematically bringing fine-grained matrix to
the surface. Rolfsen (1980) reports that in an experiment conducted with marked chert and
ceramic fragments, earthworms buried the material to depths as much as 45 cm below the
original position after five years.
3. Earthworms obscure boundaries of soil and archaeological horizons. The animals will
especially disrupt the boundaries of archaeological features such as burial pits and hearth
outlines. This phenomenon is particularly noticeable in areas of contact between cultural and

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stein]

EARTHWORM ACTIVITYAND DISTURBANCE

281

noncultural deposits. If such contact is located within the upper meter of sediment, earthworms
will effectively blur the boundary.
4. Earthworms may alter the botanical assemblage preserved in a site. Because earthworms
can ingest anything smaller than the diameter of their mouths (approximately 2 mm), any small
carbonized plant remains (i.e., seeds) that were incorporated at the site could have been digested
and decomposed. It is unfortunate that, because some cultigens and wild plants are usually identified by the presence of their seeds and not by larger plant parts, earthworms can selectively
remove the evidence for the presence of such plants. Large volumes of sediment must be processed to insure recovery of small botanical remains.
5. Earthworms alter the chemistry of soils. Worm casts and soil samples taken adjacent to the
casts have been compared chemically (Lunt and Jacobson 1944). The results indicate that casts
have higher soluble concentrations of almost all soil elements. Such properties as pH, total and
exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium and manganese, available phosphorus, total exchangeable bases, and organic matter all appear at higher concentrations in casts than in the surrounding soil.
If an archaeologist is using the chemistry of soils to locate archaeological sites, then earthworm
activity is not a significant problem. But if small chemical differences are being mapped within a
signature of prehistoric activity.
EARTHWORM ACTIVITY AT THE CARLSTON ANNIS MOUND
The Carlston Annis mound is an Archaic shell mound located on the Green River, in westcentral Kentucky. The site was occupied between 5149 + 300 B.P. and 4349 + 300 B.P. (Watson
and Marquardt 1979). Archaic inhabitants subsisted on mussels and fish from the river, as well
as various nuts, plants, and animals from the surrounding floodplain and uplands. These people
discarded debris and so created the mound that today rises 2 m above the surrounding plain, with
dimensions of 80 by 100 m (Figure 1). Besides shells, animal bones, charred plant remains, and
abundant rocks and sediments, the site contains numerous human burials (Marquardt and Watson 1976).
At the Carlston Annis mound the dominant earthworm now present is the European species
Aporrectodea trapezoides (identified by William Fender, personal communication 1981). Native
North American species identified thus far are Diplocardia ornata (Gates 1942) and D.
varivesicula (Murchie 1966); both are subsurface-casting species. The abundance of subsurface
casts suggests that these animals have been active for some time.
Certain characteristics of the mound are ecologically favorable for earthworms in general and
especially for A. trapezoides. The shell midden has a silt-loam to loam texture (mean grain size is
.006 mm). This texture, combined with the pore space created by the presence of shells and sandstone fragments, creates an ideal environment for a subsurface-casting earthworm.
The moisture content of the soil is also ideal. Kentucky's mean annual precipitation of 1,220 mm
(Schwendeman 1958) maintains soil moisture throughout the year. The porosity and relief of the
mound provide the necessary drainage to aerate the wet soil, keeping the soil moisture at about
30%. Historically recorded temperature extremes between 43 ?C and -29 ?C rarely occur with a
suddenness that exceeds the earthworm's ability to burrow. In the winter the maximum frost
penetration is approximately 37 cm (Wood and Johnson 1978:336), leaving sufficient room for the
earthworms to hibernate.
Before modern vegetation clearance, the food source of the earthworm population at the
Carlston Annis mound was most likely derived from the tall canopied forest and understory plants
that dominated the area (Wagner 1979), as well as decomposed plant material, subsurface
vegetation (roots), humic residues, and microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). The high organic
content of the occupation debris was a nutritious supplement to the diet. In recent years, as the
natural floodplain vegetation was removed and insecticides applied, the earthworm population
has probably declined.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

15Bt 5
ANNISSITE
CARLSTON
BUTLERCOUNTY,KY
CONTOUR INTERVAL
0

10

20

30

0.25
40

METERS
50

Mag.

+
0,0

SITE DATUM TOP Of WELL ASSUMED TO BE

Figure 1.

102 00

The topography of the Carlston Annis mound with the surrounding plain and the Green River (draw

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARTHWORM ACTIVITYAND DISTURBANCE

Stein]

283

The chemistry of the mound deposits also represents optimal conditions for the animals. In the
shell midden, the pH ranges from 7.6 to 8.3 with an average of 7.8. This slightly alkaline pH
results from the abundant calcium released from shells. At the mound, earthworms benefit from
both ideal pH conditions and abundant available calcium, as well as from the presence of other
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon.
Calculations of Earthworm Activity
Close examination of a profile at the mound reveals abundant earthworm casts. The casts,
found principally in large concentrations in soil crevices, indicate the activity of subsurface
casters. The casts are continuously distributed from near the surface to the lowest midden
deposits 2 m below the surface, with few cast-free deposits observable. Because casts are extremely durable, their presence does not only indicate modern earthworm activity; like the midden, they could have been accumulating during the years of site deposition, or they may have been
deposited in the 4,000 years since deposition ceased.
European scientists have calculated the number of earthworms that inhabit certain soils as
well as the amount of material they rework. Although comparing such calculations to a site in
Kentucky is highly speculative, it does serve a purpose. The calculations indicate just how potentially disruptive earthworms can be should an archaeological site be located in a setting that is
optimal for the animals' survival. The Carlston Annis site represents such a site with extraordinarily beneficial conditions. Although these calculations are not applicable to all forested sites
located in open floodplains, they are presented here to warn archaeologists of the potential effects of earthworms.
The number of earthworms necessary to rework the entire 5,848 m3 of mound material in 4,000
years can be roughly estimated (Table 1). Of the total midden volume, 1,345 m3 is matrix. Studies
in England estimating the number of earthworms in soil (reviewed in Satchell [1967:273]) indicate
that the weight of earthworms in the top 17 cm of the soil was 148-162 g/m2 on land with mixed
woodland forests, a volume of between 871 and 953 grams-of-earthworm/m3. The Carlston Annis
mound was surrounded by mixed-woodland forests for most of its history (Wagner 1979). Even

Table 1. Estimateof EarthwormPopulationin the CarlstonAnnis Mound.

EarthwormCalculations
Number of worms
5,848 m3

(total volumeof mound)

23 %

1,345 m3
871-953 g/m3
1,345 m

1,172,000 g
or
2,724,000 #
Rate soil is ingested
4,423-43,411

g/m3/year

1 m3 = 979,000 g
1 m3 = 225,000 g

(volumeof matrix in mound)

(g of earthworms in 1 m3, [Satchell 1967])

(g of earthwormin matrix)
(No. of whole earthwormsin matrix)
(weight of soil ingested by a large earthworm
populationin one year, from Evans [1948b],
Satchell [1967], and Guild [1955])
(weight of midden)
(weight of matrix only)

Time required to rework matrix equals 51 years

Time site exposed to matrix reworkingequals 4,000 years

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

284

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 48, No. 2,1983

though the mound affords the food and soil conditions preferred by earthworms, the lower
estimate of 871 g/m3 is adopted for this study.
The maximum biomass associated with earthworms for the site's 1,345 m3 of matrix is
1,172,000 g or 2,724,000 whole earthworms. This population estimate represents the number of
worms the mound's matrix could theoretically support if each 17-cm depth offered conditions
similar to those found in English soils. Obviously, more worms must be located in the upper 17 cm
of the mound than in the lower 2 m. But as the midden material was accumulating, earthworms
were present at each surface. Therefore, it is probable that throughout its history the matrix
could support a total of almost 3,000,000 earthworms.
The weight of soil that earthworms ingest has been calculated (Evans 1948b; Guild 1955; Satchell 1967) by collecting and weighing casts added to the surface in one year. Although the weights
are based on casts from species that excrete on the surface, it is assumed by Satchell (1958:210)
that the casting weights of species that void below the surface must have similar values. The
weight of soil ingested by a large population in one year ranges from 752 to 7,380 g/m2 (4,423 to
43,411 g/m3). In the mound, 1 m3 of midden weighs 979,000 g (Stein 1980). In the midden, 1 m3 has
an average of 23% matrix, which therefore weighs 225,000 g.
The results of these calculations indicate that it would take almost 3 million earthworms only 51
years to ingest and disrupt all the matrix in the Carlston Annis site. Obviously this calculation is
not a precise measurement of the rate of earthworm disturbance. It assumes no negative feedback mechanisms limiting the reproduction or ingestion rates of the earthworms. The presence of
moles, birds, and other predators presently at the site suggests that depletion of the population is
occurring. However, it does demonstrate how easily earthworms could modify the entire matrix
of the midden.
Effect of Earthworms at the Carlston Annis Mound
At the Carlston Annis mound, earthworm disturbance has been so great that four of the five
disrupting effects are evident.
1. The texture of the midden matrix shows a mixing of two sources of sediment, sandy-silt river
deposits and a clayey-silt lake deposit. Figure 2 illustrates the grain-size distribution of the two
sources (noncultural deposits) and the resulting distribution of the midden (cultural deposits) after
earthworms have mixed the matrix. Although the frequency diagrams do not prove that earthworms were the mechanism, they do suggest that the material has been mixed.
2. Boundaries in the mound deposits are almost entirely absent. Burials have no discernible pit
boundaries. The sediments below the mound grade subtly into the midden matrix. Even the plow
zone is undistinguishable unless sprayed with a fine mist of water. If one examines the areas
where boundaries should be evident, only earthworm casts are detected.
3. In the project's collection of charred botanical remains we have found very few seeds
(Wagner 1979). But because the site has been totally reworked by earthworms, the scarcity of
seeds need not imply that the inhabitants of the mound did not rely on these plants. However,
because a large volume of sediments have been processed by flotation and water separation (over
8,000 1), one would expect to find more seeds and seed fragments than are now available.
4. At the Carlston Annis mound the chemistry of the archaeological profiles shows little soil
horizonation. Profiles commonly contain horizons with well defined soil zones, (e.g., A, B, and C
horizons), but chemical elements in the shell midden are not distributed throughout the archaeological profile in the traditional manner. Their distribution reflects the results of mixing and disrupting processes. Many factors can interrupt the development of soil horizons in a profile (e.g.,
intrusion of burials, ground water fluctuations, and additional sedimentation), but at the Carlston
Annis mound, which is an open-air forested landscape composed of fine-grained sediments, the
source of disruption is most likely earthworms. Forest soils usually have well defined surface
zones (A horizons) composed of mineral and humus components mixed by earthworms. In the
mound, earthworms have extended the mixing beyond the surface zone to a depth of 2 m, altering

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stein]

EARTHWORM
ACTIVITY
AND DISTURBANCE

285

Figure 2. The upper diagram illustrates the grain-size frequency curves constructed for the noncultural
deposits near the Carlston Annis mound. These two sediment types are easily distinguished from each
other: the lake sediment (L) has more clay and less sand than the samples collected from the river deposits
(R). The lower diagram illustrates the grain-size frequency curves constructed for the cultural deposits.
Their similarity indicates a random mixing of the two noncultural deposits (river and lake), probably produced by earthworm activity. Samples from the shell midden (SM), the shell-free midden (SfM), and the colluvium (C) all have comparable proportions of sand, silt, and clay. Samples were analyzed following Folk
(1974), including treatment with H202 to remove organics.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 48, No. 2,1983

the distribution of chemicals within the profile. Any archaeological interpretations based on the
chemical analysis of samples from the matrix of this mound must be considered suspect.
Although these observations do not prove that earthworms were the dominant mechanism
disturbing the midden, the facts that the midden is rife with casts, the matrix is unstratified, the
chemical elements in the soil are mixed, and the soil conditions are ideal for earthworm habitation,
all strongly suggest that these creatures have indeed played a major role in disturbing the
deposits.
CONCLUSIONS
The Most Vulnerable Kind of Archaeological Sites
The types of archaeological sites most vulnerable to earthworm disturbance are those that
display the previously described characteristics of food, soil texture, and soil moisture favorable
to the animals. These characteristics are most frequently found in forested regions in open settings. Favorable habitats associated with rivers are levees, dry portions of the floodplains, and
any colluvial fans located on the margins of the floodplain. Glacial terrain with moraines, kettle
lakes and loess-covered slopes would also provide numerous favorable habitats, although outwash and gravel features are unfavorable. Sites located in favorable geomorphic situations are
likely to have witnessed earthworm activity.
Sites located in areas with unusual physical characteristics will be exempt from earthworm
disturbance. Extremely sandy conditions such as those found on some beaches and in dune fields
will not support populations. Caves, whether wet or dry, rarely provide suitable habitats.
Rockshelters are generally too dry, as are sites in arid or semiarid regions. Sites presently underwater or waterlogged are also protected, although they may be disturbed by other organisms.
Sites that do not presently support earthworm populations may have supported them in the
past. During the last few millennia, environmental changes have occurred in many areas, either
on a regional or local scale. Mean annual air temperature and precipitation has fluctuated since
the end of the Pleistocene, and forest composition has changed dramatically (Davis 1976; Delcourt
and Delcourt 1979; Wright 1976, 1981). Also, the effects of forest clearance, drainage modifications, highway construction, and expanding urbanization have altered local environments
significantly. When looking for evidence of earthworm disturbance one must consider the
possibility of climatic and environmental change for the area in which the site is located.
How to Detect the Presence of Earthworms
To detect the presence of earthworms in a site one must examine the soil structure closely.
Macroscopically, the presence of 0.5-mm-sized granules of matrix or burrows approximately 10
mm in diameter are indicative of earthworm activity. But an effective study would have to include
the use of micromorphological techniques (Brewer 1964; Goldberg 1979; Rutherford 1972) to identify how the earthworms have altered the archaeological deposits. By making thin-sections of the
soil structure and examining the features microscopically, one could ascertain the degree to
which the soil has been altered. One should also collect and identify any earthworms encountered
during excavation. The species of earthworm inhabiting the site may differ in the way they affect
the soil, either casting on the surface or in soil crevices. The difference in casting will determine
how much disturbance has occurred.
Although the earthworm has often been overlooked, its disruptive force is obviously great. Excavators should be aware that earthworms can be reworking the matrix of a site. They may not
necessarily affect the position of larger objects, but will definitely disturb material less than 2 mm
in diameter. If earthworm casts are identified in a profile, one should proceed cautiously with interpretations concerning soil chemistry.
Because the earthworm aerates the soil and processes organic material, it has long been recognized as a friend of the farmer. But, as I hope I have demonstrated in this paper, the earthworm
may be an unsuspected nemesis for the archaeologist.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stein]

EARTHWORM ACTIVITYAND DISTURBANCE

287

Acknowledgments. This research was a part of the Shell Mound Archaeological Project directed by Patty
Jo Watson and William H. Marquardt. It was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant # BNS 7808
916, and a University of Minnesota Dissertation Fellowship. I would like to thank Stanley E. Chernicoff,
Herbert E. Wright, Jr., Patty Jo Watson, Janet E. Levy, and Karl Butzer for their assistance in the editing of the
manuscript, and William H. Marquardt for his contribution in drafting. Also special thanks must go to the people of Logansport, Kentucky, especially John L. Thomas, Waldemar Annis and Ethie Annis, for their
assistance in the collection of earthworms from their land, and their general cooperation and enthusiasm.
REFERENCES CITED
Atkinson, R. J. C.
1957 Worms and Weathering. Antiquity 31:219-233.
Barley, K. P.
1959 The Influence of Earthworms on Soil Fertility, II. Consumption of Soil and Organic Matter by the
Earthworm Allolobophora caliginosa. Australian Journal of Agricultural Resources 10:171-185.
1961 The Abundance of Earthworms in Agricultural Land and Their Possible Significance in Agriculture.
Advances in Agronomy 13:249-268.
Bocock, K. L., and 0. J. W. Gilbert
1957 The Disappearance of Leaf Litter under Different Woodland Conditions. Plant and Soil 9:179-185.
Brewer, R.
1964 Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils. Wiley, New York.
Buntley, G. J., and R. I. Papendick
1960 Worm-worked Soils of Eastern South Dakota, Their Morphology and Classification. Soil Science
Society of America, Proceedings 24:128-132.
Buol, S. W., F. D. Hole, and R. J. McCracken
1973 Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Cruickshank, J. G.
1972 Soil Geography. Halsted Press, New York.
Darwin, Charles
1890 The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms. Appleton, New York.
Davis, M. B.
1976 Pleistocene Biogeography of Temperate Deciduous Forests. Geoscience and Man 13:13-26.
Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt
1979 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Distributional History of the Deciduous Forest in Southeastern
United States. Veroffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH. Stiftung Rfibel, Zurich
68:79-107.
Edwards, C. A., and J. R. Lofty
1972 Biology of Earthworms. Chapman and Hall, London.
Evans, A. C.
1948a Studies on the Relationships Between Earthworms and Soil Fertility, II. Some Effects of Earthworms on Soil Structure. Annals of Applied Biology 35:1-13.
1948b Relation of Worms to Soil Fertility. Discovery 9:83-86.
Evans, A. C., and W. J. McL. Guild
1947 Studies on the Relationships Between Earthworms and Soil Fertility, I. Biological Studies in the
Field. Annals of Applied Biology 34:307-330.
1948a Studies on the Relationships Between Earthworms and Soil Fertility, IV. On the Life Cycles
of Some British Lumbricidae. Annals of Applied Biology 35:471-484.
1948b Studies on the Relationships Between Earthworms and Soil Fertility, V. Field Populations.
Annals of Applied Biology 35:485-493.
Folk, R. L.
1974 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill, Austin, Texas.
Gates, G. E.
1942 Check List and Bibliography of North American Earthworms. American Midland Naturalist
27:86-108.
1961 Ecology of Some Earthworms with Special Reference to Seasonal Activity. American Midland
Naturalist 66:61-86.
1972 Toward a Revision of the Earthworm Family Lumbricidae. IV. The trapezoides Species Group.
Contribution, North American Earthworm (Annelida), No. 3. Bulletin of the Tall Timbers Research Station
12:1-146.
Gerard, B. M.
1967 Factors Affecting Earthworms in Pastures. Journal of Animal Ecology 36:235-252.
Gilbert, 0. J. W., and K. L. Bocock
1960 Changes in Leaf Litter when Placed on the Surface of Soils with Contrasting Humus Types, II.
Changes in Nitrogen Content of Oak and Ash Leaf Litter. Journal of Soil Science 11:10-19.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 48, No. 2, 1983

Goldberg, P.
1979 Micromorphology of Sediments from Hayonim Cave, Israel. Catena 6:167-181.
Grant, William C., Jr.
1955 Studies on Moisture Relationships in Earthworms. Ecology 36:400-407.
Guild, W. J. McL.
1948 Studies of the Relationship Between Earthworms and Soil Fertility, III. The Effect of Soil Type on the
Structure of Earthworm Population. The Annals of Applied Biology 35:181-192.
1951 The Distribution and Population Density of Earthworms (Lumbricidae) in Scottish Pasture Fields.
Journal of Animal Ecology 20:88-97.
1955 Earthworms and Soil Structure. In Soil Zoology (Proceedings of Nottingham School of Agricultural
Science), edited by D. K. McE. Kevan, pp. 83-98. Butterworth, London.
Kiihnelt, Wilhelm
1955 An Introduction to the Study of Soil Animals. In Soil Zoology (Proceedings of Nottingham School of
Agricultural Science), edited by D. K. McE. Kevan, pp. 3-22. Butterworth, London.
Lunt, H. A., and G. M. Jacobson
1944 The Chemical Composition of Earthworm Casts. Soil Science 58:367-375.
Marquardt, W. H., and P. J. Watson
1976 Excavation and Recovery of Biological Remains from Two Archaic Shell Middens in Western Kentucky. Paper presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Murchie, W. R.
1966 Diplocardia variresicula, a new Megascolecid Earthworm from Indiana (Oligochaeta). Ohio Journal
of Science 66:609.
Nelson, J. M., and J. E. Satchell
1962 The Extraction of Lumbricidae from Soil with Special Reference to the Hand-sorting Method. In
Progress in Soil Zoology, edited by P. W. Murphy, pp. 294-299. Butterworth, London.
Olson, H. W.
1928 The Earthworms of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin 17:47-90.
Pitty, A. F.
1978 Geography and Soil Properties. Methuen, London.
Rolfsen, Perry
1980 Disturbance of Archaeological Layers by Processes in the Soil. Norwegian Archaeological Review
13:110-118.
Rutherford, G. K.
1972 Soil Microscopy. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario.
Satchell, J. E.
1955 Some Aspects of Earthworm Ecology. In Soil Zoology (Proceedings of Nottingham School of Agricultural Science), edited by D. K. McE. Kevan, pp. 180-199. Butterworth, London.
1958 Earthworm Biology and Soil Fertility. Soils and Fertilizers 21:209-219.
1967 Lumbricidae. In Soil Biology, edited by A. Burges and F. Raw, pp. 259-322. Academic Press, New
York.
Satchell, J. E., and D. G. Lowe
1967 Selection of Leaf Litter by Lumbricus terrestris. In Progress in Soil Biology, edited by O. Graff and
J. E. Satchell, pp. 102-119. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Schaller, Friedrich
1968 Soil Animals. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Schwendeman, J. R.
1958 Geography of Kentucky. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Scully, N. J.
1942 Root Distribution and Environment in the Maple-Oak Forest. Botanical Gazette 103:492-517.
Smith, F.
1929 An Account of Changes in the Earthworm Fauna of Illinois and a Description of One New Species.
Illinois National History Survey Bulletin 17:347-362.
Stein, J. K.
1980 Geoarchaeology of the Green River Shell Mounds, Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Thorp, J.
1949 Effects of Certain Animals that Live in the Soil. Science Monthly 68:180-191.
Tischler, W.
1955 Effect of Agricultural Practice on the Soil Fauna. In Soil Zoology, edited by D. K. McE. Kevan, pp.
125-138. Butterworth, London.
Tracey, M. V.
1951 Cellulase and Chitinase of Earthworms. Nature 167:776.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stein]

EARTHWORM ACTIVITYAND DISTURBANCE

289

Wagner, Gail
1979 The Green River Archaic: A Botanical Reconstruction. Paper presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Atlanta.
Waters, R. A. S.
1955 Numbers and Weights of Earthworms under Highly Productive Pasture. New Zealand Journal of
Scientific Technology 36:516-525.
Watson, P. J., and W. H. Marquardt
1979 Shell Midden Formation and Deformation: A Case Study. Paper presented at Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Atlanta.
Wilde, S. A.
1958 Forest Soils: Their Properties and Relation to Silviculture. Ronald Press, New York.
Wood, W. R., and D. L. Johnson
1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation. In Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 315-381. Academic Press, New York.
Wright, H. E., Jr.
1976 The Dynamic Nature of Holocene Vegetation: A Problem in Paleoclimatology, Biogeography, and
Stratigraphic Nomenclature. Quaternary Research 6:581-596.
1981 Vegetation East of the Rocky Mountains 18,000 Years Ago. Quaternary Research 15:113-125.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.70 on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:09:17 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions