This essay focuses on how the osteological analysis is carried out in studies of different types of mass graves. The analysis is based on 20 studies of different types of mass graves. The 20 studies were selected because they represent analyses of various types of mass graves and because they all contain a presentation of the methods used in the examinations of the remains. Different types of archaeological mass graves are examined as well as forensically interesting ones. Similarities and differences between aims, questions asked, and methodology in studies of different types of mass graves are examined. The purpose for which the various methods are used is also investigated with the aim of seeing whether the same method can be utilized for different purposes in studies of different types of mass graves.  One conclusion reached is that a tendency can be seen that a certain set of methods is used in most studies of mass graves. Some differences can be seen depending on the main focus of the studies and the type of mass grave that is examined. The main differences can be distinguished between archaeological and forensic investigations. The two disciplines are similar in many ways but the focus in the studies and the purpose of them often differ. In forensic studies the aim is usually identification, while archaeological studies tend to have a broader focus, which is reflected in choices of methods and questions asked.  In all of the studies, largely the same kind of methods are used, however, it appears that different versions of a method can be applied. Researchers have developed various more specific versions of methods and a tendency can be seen that the different studies use different versions of the same kind of methods.  Another conclusion drawn is that although researchers state that at the moment there is no common standard for how investigations of mass graves should be carried out, it appears in this essay that a certain common structure can still be seen. Although there is no stated standard, there seems to be an unspoken one, at least when it comes to methodology in examinations of human remains from mass graves.