Identification of dermestid beetle modification on Neolithic Maltese human bone: Implications for funerary practices at the Xemxija tombs

Abstract

Taphonomic modification of Neolithic human skeletal remains from six rock-cut tombs in Malta have provided key information about funerary practices and the local environment. Application of microscopic analysis, computed tomography (CT) scanning, and 3D imaging of the modifications, has allowed their comparison with similar examples in modern and archaeological skeletal material. The modifications are interpreted as pupal chambers and feeding damage by dermestid beetles. Due to the behaviour and ecology of dermestid beetles, we suggest several scenarios for funerary practices at the Xemxija tombs which nuance our current understanding of collective burial during the late Neolithic in Malta.

New insights into taphonomic analysis of the Upper Pleistocene Ursus spelaeus bone deposit from Bàsura cave (Toirano, NW Italy)

“…However, recent studies on fossil traces from open‐air sites attributed such damage mainly to dermestid beetles (Holden et al ., 2013). Dermestids exclusively infest exposed carcasses during the skeletonization phase of decomposition to avoid competition with other necrophagous animals, feeding on dry and desiccated tissue (Britt et al ., 2008; Thompson et al ., 2018).…”

“…Although osteophagous beetle activity is well documented on human and animal bones from open sites, tombs, rock shelters or small mortuary caves (Britt et al ., 2008; Thompson et al ., 2018; Wrobel and Biggs, 2018), to date no cases have been reported from deep cave environments. The ichnology of bioerosion in the Bàsura bone assemblage requires further analyses that can allow us to describe the traces and to hypothesize the trace‐makers.…”

Cruel traces: Bone surface modifications and their relevance to forensic science

“…Damage to modern (Behrensmeyer, 1978; Tappen, 1994), archeological (Derry, 1911; Huchet, Deverly, Gutierrez, & Chauchat, 2011; Pittoni, 2009; Thompson et al, 2018; Watson & Abbey, 1986; Wylie, Walsh, & Yule, 1987), and paleontological (Britt, Scheetz, & Dangerfield, 2008; Hill, 1987; Kaiser, 2000; Roberts, Rogers, & Foreman, 2007) bones is commonly attributed to the activities of terrestrial insects, especially termites (Termitoidae). These associations are reasonably, but indirectly, inferred based on contextual information (e.g., the presence of pupae, colonies, subterranean galleries, nests, exoskeletal remains, or BSMs, themselves), whereas experiments that systematically and unambiguously link specific insect taxa to specific BSMs are comparatively rare (Brothwell, 1992).…”

Recommendations for Maintaining a Dermestid Beetle Colony (Dermestes maculatus) for Processing Human Remains

“…The existing entomology literature about dermestids tends to discuss topics such as taxonomy (e.g., 2), necessary temperatures for development (e.g., 15,16), or artifact dermestids leave behind on animal bone after consuming soft tissue (e.g., 17,18). Literature about dermestids for a broader audience is generally focused on their use for processing nonhuman animal specimens (7,8,9,10,11,19), evidence of their activity from the archaeological or paleontological records (20,21,22,23,24,25), or evidence that they were present on human remains at a modern crime scene (3,26,27,28). Additionally, the available academic literature regarding the upkeep of dermestid colonies is either outdated or not specific regarding the methods necessary to maintain dermestids (e.g., 7,8,29).…”