Ancient Egyptian human remains, mummified and skeletal, have been studied for centuries by archaeologists and egyptologists, who have focused on mummification techniques, palaeopathology and signs of activity. However, some of these studies have been lacking in taphonomic and osteological knowledge. This dissertation considers if some of the interpretations of osteoarchaeological data in these studies can be better explained by taphonomic processes, a more in-depth knowledge of paleopathology and osteological identification techniques. As a result, the interpretations of terrible working and life conditions at Tell el Amarna, the capital city founded by Akhenaten were created by interpreting common pathologies as indications of forced labor and poor diet, and by ignoring facts about the context.  The identifications of KV55 and KV60-A individuals cannot be considered valid. No reliable radiologic methods exist that can age an individual between the ages of 35-45. A damaged vertebra and a femur were incorrectly said to contain osteophytes. The damages described in the cranium and teeth of this individual may even be of peri-mortem origin. The tooth used to identify KV60-A with Hatshepsut does not have the wear expected for the age group of the individual, while the cranial morphology shows a high indication of masculine traits.  Unknown man E, Unknown woman A and the Greek-roman mummy seemed to have been affected by common taphonomic and archaeothanatological processes. The healing process of the mandibula and maxilla makes it unlikely that the so called “bridges” were used during life. In conclusion, a much deeper knowledge of taphonomy, paleopathology and general osteological knowledge in these studies would have been necessary to avoid misinterpretations.

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.