ArticlePloS one2024
Unravelling taphono-myths. First large-scale study of histotaphonomic changes and diagenesis in bone from modern surface depositions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of raw material in textile bone instruments from the capital of the Roman Province of Lusitania (Mérida, Spain).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Histological and metagenomic analysis of microbial communities in archaeological human bones.PloS one · 2026Article
- Bone histology for forensic anthropology: a technical review on the advances in microstructural analysis of taphonomically altered buried or subaerially exposed bone.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of diagenetic alterations in bone microstructure ('histotaphonomy') as indicators of funerary treatment in the past and for post-mortem interval calculations in forensic cases has received increasing attention in the last decade. Studies have used histological changes to conclude in-situ decomposition, mummification, infanticide and post-mortem interval. There has been very little attempt to experimentally validate the links between decomposition, depositional conditions, time-since-death and microscopic changes in human bone so that meaningful interpretations of archaeological and forensic observations can be made. Here, we address this problem experimentally using the largest sample of human remains from anatomical donors and the longest-term deposition framework to date. This study tests one key assumption of histotaphonomy; that putrefaction during the early stages of decay is reflected in bone microanatomy and composition. Seventeen human donors and six pigs were deposited on the surface in a known Australian environment and left to decompose between 463 and 1238 days. All remains underwent all stages of decomposition reaching skeletonisation. Rib and femur samples were analysed using conventional histological methods and scanning electron microscopy, by applying the Oxford Histological Index, and examining collagen birefringence, microcracking and re- and de mineralisation. Biomolecular changes of the femoral samples were analysed using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The results indicate that bioerosion in human bone does not occur due to putrefaction. There were no correlations between bone histology and the following variables: human vs pigs, season, primary vs secondary deposition, position, fresh vs frozen and time-since-deposition. Furthermore, no trends were observed between biomolecular changes and time-since-deposition. The study also shows that pigs cannot be used as substitutes for human remains for bone biodegradation research. This is the first, controlled, larger scale study of human remains providing a lack of support for a long-assumed relationship between putrefaction and bone histology bioerosion. Using bone degradation as an argument to prove putrefaction, in-situ decomposition and early taphonomic processes cannot be supported based on the experimental human data presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.