John Crandall and Deb Martin write a reply to Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. (which I commented on last week) that seems to broaden some of the points I raised. They like the diagnosis of porotic hyperostosis, but are skeptical of the specificity of the conclusions in the original paper:
In summary, we wish to re-emphasize that evidence of porotic hyperostosis in ancient remains is not unilateral evidence of a meat deficient diet. In response to the findings presented by Dominguez-Rodrigo and colleagues, we feel compelled to remind scholars of the problematic nature of the skeletal and fossil records. Paleopathology, or the study of ancient diseases and abnormal bony changes like PH, lends itself to the identification of broad community patterns in health rather than the identification of specific paucities (such as a lack of meat) and has increasingly emphasized the need to carefully qualify differential diagnoses.
