Objectives: Identifying scurvy and rickets has important implications for understanding adaptations and variability among past communities, and bioarchaeologists now regularly evaluate these conditions. Due to the increased number of studies, cases with less clear-cut lesions and variable preservation are now frequently reported. Despite an improved understanding of the biological mechanisms for disease expression, there is a lack of consensus on the language used to express diagnostic certainty, limiting comparability. This article aims to address these issues and provide recommendations on more consistent diagnostic terminology using widely accepted diagnostic methodology based on biological mechanisms.
Materials and Methods:We review diagnostic terms used in bioarchaeology by considering published cases of rickets, scurvy and co-occurrence alongside M.B.B.'s past project notes. We also consider differences in the diagnosis of rickets and scurvy in living and archeological individuals.Results: We provide recommendations on a framework that can be used to show diagnostic certainty in cases of rickets, scurvy, and co-occurrence. Core lesions of rickets and scurvy are used alongside a limited lexicon of diagnostic terminology based on the Istanbul protocol. Discussion: It is not the number of lesions that determines whether an individual is assigned to a particular diagnosis category, but rather the range and expression of lesions present. Avoiding a "tick-list" approach to core lesions of these diseases will be critical to ensure that identifying rickets and scurvy continues to contribute to understanding adaptations and variability among past communities. The framework allows more consistency in diagnostic certainty, facilitating greater comparability in research.
