Talk:Osteology

Osteology vs Osteopathy
Can someone add info to this article discriminating the two, and how Osteological Allopathy relates to Osteopathy? Rather confusing. Tyciol 12:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understood it, osteology was the study of bones. Osteopathy is the art of treating disease by skeletal manipulation. Something entirely different, and I would argue not the subject of this article. An osteologist is not an osteopath. I have studied osteology and archaeozoology, the bones of humans and animals in archaeological contexts, but I would not claim to be an osteopath. Silverthorn 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe
I can't believe that people actually study bones for a living!

I would.


 * I do. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanding and Improving
I have attempted to expand and improve upon the brief description that already existed in order to make it more of an article and less of a stub. So far this has included giving some idea of the type of things that go in a typical osteological report and the sort of topics that research can be involved in. However, I think this article still has room for improvement. Suggestions for things that could be included in my opinion are:


 * history of the discipline
 * key workers in the field

As well as expansion of already existing areas. Silverthorn 13:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Museum of Osteology
There is a new Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma City, OK. It is really cool. Over 300 skeletons! It is part of Skulls Unlimited which was featured on the TV Show Dirty Jobs. If you are in the area check it out! We even bought the T-shirt that allows you in for free if you wear it all year of 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.136.80 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Osteology can also determine an individual's race...?
Those categories of race seem... outdated. "Mongoloid", "negroid" and "caucasoid"... Is this right? I know these are "historical groups" but just mentioning them like that seem a bit problematic, since it appears as these categories do actually make any scientific sense. I really don't have the backup to rewrite it all (at least yet), but seriously, this is really weird. I've seen these categories are mentioned on other articles here and I'm now confused. Isn't race a mostly social construct? Obviously, there are characteristics common to certain ancestral groups, but is there a valid and recent evidence to sustain these three "historical races"? Can't someone improve this section? I really don't have the knowledge or time for such. Thanks in advance. --Pwoli (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)