Forensic anthropology
Key points
Forensic anthropology is organized differently in the Nordic countries, but the main tasks remain the same, namely human identification, most often regarding skeletal remains, and close collaboration with forensic pathologists, e.g. using post-mortem CT-scanning and trauma-analyses, and with archaeologists, e.g. in search and recovery operations.
Clinical relevance box
Knowledge of forensic anthropological methods for producing biological profiles from human remains, especially bones, are relevant for forensic pathologists and odontologists, as the forensic anthropologists often focus on specific bone morphology, in order to apply methods for estimating age at death, biological sex, stature and population affinity. Their knowledge of bone structure also enables them to collaborate with forensic pathologists in trauma analysis and imaging. Forensic anthropologists often work with archaeologically found human remains, and hence they are well-suited to participate in search and recovery of bodies.
Forensic anthropology is a specialized field of biological anthropology that applies skeletal analysis and archaeological techniques within a legal and humanitarian context, mainly to contribute to individual identification. In this paper we provide a brief overview of how forensic anthropology is organized in the Nordic countries, and the main tasks performed by forensic anthropologists. These include the analysis of human skeletal remains, particularly aiming at constructing a biological profile of the deceased. We touch upon recent developments in the field regarding the interpretation and understanding of bone trauma and the use of modern medical imaging technologies.
Forensic anthropology is a specialized field of biological anthropology that applies skeletal analysis and archaeological techniques within a legal and humanitarian context. Forensic anthropology in Denmark is primarily practiced by forensic anthropologists or pathologists affiliated with one of the country's three departments of forensic medicine. The field is actively advancing in Sweden and Finland. In Sweden, the role is being formalized within the National Board of Forensic Medicine (Sw. Rättsmedicinalverket), while in Finland forensic anthropologists collaborate with the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation [1]. There is also a Finnish Association of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology [2]. In Norway, the police rely on external expertise from biological anthropologists or archaeologists at museums or universities. There is no official requirement of certification to practice forensic anthropology in the Nordic countries, but it demands for continuous practice and development of skills. Although there is an overlap and strong links between forensic archaeology and forensic anthropology, they have different roles and require different specialist skills. The formalization of forensic archaeology within the Swedish Police Authority began in 2018 and currently comprises three full-time forensic archaeologist positions [3]. In Denmark there is an established collaboration between archaeologists at museums and the police [4][5][6] The growth of forensic archaeology is growing in awareness too in Norway [7].
The variety of forensic cases handled today by forensic practitioners, ranging from decomposed and highly fragmented human remains of mass fatality incidents, necessitates the integration of diverse areas of expertise. This interdisciplinary synergy has become central to modern forensic practice, where anthropologists operate within networks that include pathologists, odontologists, geneticists, archaeologists, amongst other professionals. The collaboration between forensic anthropologists and pathologists is one of the most established partnerships in this field [8]. By engaging with adjacent scientific fields, anthropologists enhance not only the accuracy of their analyses, but also the societal impact of their work, reaffirming the human rights dimension inherent in restoring names to the dead.
Analyses of human remains
By far, most forensic anthropological cases involve bone finds. Hence the first fundamental step is to determine whether the recovered material is indeed bone. The next step is to establish whether the bone or bone fragment is human. When skeletal remains presented for forensic investigation are deemed to be of human origin, the next step is to determine their forensic significance. What is considered of forensic interest is generally decided in consultation with relevant authorities and depends on the interest in pursuing a preliminary investigation and the potential for identifying the remains. The cut off point/boundary between archaeological vs forensic varies between countries and jurisdictions within countries, e.g. ranging from 100 years before present date in Denmark, to an absolute date of 1850 in Sweden.
Local historical knowledge find situation and body positioning, postmortem human manipulations, and nearby artifacts may aid in establishing the chronology of human remains.
One important technique for establishing time since death, and whether the remains are modern or ancient, is radiocarbon dating [9]. For more recent remains, radiocarbon dating even has the potential to estimate year of birth by using the so-called bomb pulse: the atmospheric radiocarbon increases from 1950s–60s nuclear tests [9].
Much research is carried out regarding changes that a human body goes through after death until the time of recovery and beyond. Most of the research concentrates on estimating postmortem interval. This includes various methods such as decomposition of soft tissue, insect activity, microbiomes, metabolomics, lipidomics and proteomics [10][11][12][13]. Decomposition studies are commonly carried out in human taphonomy research facilities. Most of them are located in the US, but also Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have their own facilities [14]. Currently, no taphonomy facilities exist in the Nordic countries.
Biological profile
Biological profile includes biological sex, age, population affinity, and stature. A biological profile estimated from skeletal remains helps in the identification process and narrows down who the individual could be on the missing persons list [15]. Antemortem fractures, bone morphology and pathologies may also assist in the identification when antemortem data are available.
Sex estimation of adults is generally based on morphology and/or metrics, with the pelvis being the most reliable skeletal element to be used, followed by the skull and long bones. Some metric sex estimation methods based on Nordic populations have been developed [16][17][18]. The sex of non-adults cannot be determined from osteological methods alone as sexually dimorphic traits will not develop until puberty [19]. However, recent work has demonstrated that proteomics (peptide analysis) can be used for estimating sex in non-adults [20]. DNA analysis may obviously also be applied [21].
Another crucial aspect of biological profiling is the estimation of age at death. Age in non-adults is estimated through dental and skeletal development (e.g. epiphyseal fusion) and bone measurements [22]. Evaluating the age at death of adults is more challenging, as most often relies on interpreting degenerative changes in joints. These methods used on their own have proven to be rather inaccurate. Attempts have been made to use stricter morphometric approaches, or to develop systems combining several joints and methods [23]. The Transition Analysis (TA3) method that combines skeletal elements performs better and is especially useful to determine the age of older individuals compared to the previous methods [24]. Besides macroscopic methods, histomorphometric methods that evaluate bone are also available [25].
Population affinity is estimated most commonly from the skull using morphology or metrics [26]. Several software applications with large reference datasets can be used to compare cranial or post-cranial measurements to different groups [27][28]. In addition, dental non-metric traits can be applied to estimate population affinity [29].
Stature estimation is based on anatomical methods, which sum skeletal measurements with a soft tissue correction [30], or mathematical methods that use population-specific regression equations, preferably from femur and tibia [31][32].
Stable isotopes may provide valuable information about an individual's geographic origins, diet, and movement during life. By examining isotope signatures in human tissues, it may be possible to reconstruct aspects of a person’s life history, which can be crucial for identifying unknown remains [33][34][35].
Trauma analysis
Trauma analysis is a broad and rapidly evolving specialized area of forensic anthropology that aids in interpreting the circumstances surrounding death and requires a deep understanding of bone biology, trauma biomechanics, and skeletal response to stress. Forensic anthropologists examine two key aspects of trauma—the timing (antemortem, perimortem, postmortem) and the mechanism (blunt force, sharp, projectile, thermal or blast) and may also assist in tool mark analysis [36].
Exhumations, forensic archaeology, search and recovery, fire scenes, DVI situations
Beyond their involvement in recovery operations of human skeletal remains and their role in the mortuary or laboratory, forensic anthropologists have been increasingly tasked to participate in search operations with the police. This participation is particularly important in cases of missing persons (presumed dead) where there may be scattering, burial, fragmentation and other alterations such as fire of the human remains in cases of homicides, enforced disappearances and mass fatality incidents including terrorist attacks and fatal fires [37][38][39][40].
Imaging in forensic anthropology
In recent decades, forensic anthropologists have integrated various imaging techniques, including conventional radiography, post-mortem computed tomography (PMCT), micro-CT, surface scanning, photogrammetry, and 3D printing, into their toolkit [41]. When bones are still covered in soft tissues, CT scanning helps avoid maceration and aids in species identification, as well as the assessment of age, sex, stature, and population affinity using traditional methods applied to the images (e.g. [42][43]. PMCT has been successful for personal identification and disaster victim identification [44]. In cases involving burnt or cremated remains, its applicability depends on the state and fragmentation of the body. Trauma analysis through imaging is particularly valuable when soft tissue is still present and maceration is not possible [43][45][46]. Both CT and micro-CT serve as foundations for creating 3D models, which support advanced applications such as biomechanical testing [47] and 3D printing [48].
In addition, photogrammetry and surface scanning are widely used in forensic anthropology. These technologies enable the creation of 3D virtual models of teeth and bones, which can be analyzed through metric or mathematical approaches. These methods can also play a crucial role in crime scene investigation and can be integrated with other methods [49].
Other forensic anthropological methods used in forensics
Although forensic anthropologists are most commonly known for their work on the deceased, many also deal with the living, whether to assess their age in cases of child abuse from photographs, whether to identify individuals through CCTV, or to assess the age of the living from radiographs and other imaging techniques [50].
References
Mäkinen T, Maijanen H, Seitsonen O. The status and future of forensic archaeology and anthropology in Finland. Scand. J. Forensic Sci. 2022;28:32–39.
Seitsonen O. FAFFA: A short history of the Finnish Association of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology. In: Kunnas L, Marila M, Heyd V, Holmqvist E, Ilves K, Lahelma A, Lavento M, editors- Celebrating 100 Years of Archaeology at the University of Helsinki: Past, Present and Future. ISKOS 27. Helsinki: Kijapaino Hermes; 2023. p. 220–224.
Alfsdotter C, Petaros A, Güvencel A, Molnar P, Teglind R, Alkass K. Development and implementation of forensic anthropology in Swedish Forensic Practice. Scand. J. Forensic Sci. 2022;28:10–19.
Jørkov ML, Lynnerup N. Forensic archaeology in Denmark. In: Groen M, Márquez-Grant N, Janaway RC, editors. Forensic Archaeology: A Global Perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. p. 55–57.
Krants L. Forensic Archaeology in Denmark: A Work in Progress. In: Barone PM, Groen WJM, editors. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Forensic Archaeology, Soil Forensics. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018. p. 165–76.
Villa C, Lynnerup N, Boel LWT, Boldsen JL, Weise S, Bjarnø C, et al. Forensic archaeology and anthropology in Denmark. Scand. J. Forensic Sci. 2022;28:3–9.
Schotsmans E, Georges P, Coulombeix A, Groen M. Forensic Archaeology in Europe. In: Vivas M, editor. (Re)lecture Archéologique de la Justice en Europe Médiévale et Moderne. Bordeaux: Ausonius Scripta Mediaevalia 35; 2021. p. 343–364.
Dirkmaat DC, Chapman EN, Kenyhercz M, Cabo LL. Enhancing scene processing protocols to improve victim identification and field detection of human remains in mass fatality scenes. Research Report Submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice; 2012. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/enhancing-scene-processing-protocols-improve-victim-identification-and-field
Ubelaker DH: Radiocarbon Analysis of Human Remains: A Review of Forensic Applications. J Forensic Sci. 2014:59(6): 1466–1472.
Secco L, Palumbi S; Padalino P, Grosso E, Perilli M, Casonato M, et al. «Omics» and Postmortem Interval Estimation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025;26:1034.
Bambaradeniya TB, Magni PA, Dadour IR. A Summary of Concepts, Procedures and Techniques Used by Forensic Entomologists and Proxies. Insects. 2023;14(6):536.
Hauther KA, Cobaugh KL, Jantz LM, Sparer TE, DeBruyn JM. Estimating Time Since Death from Postmortem Human Gut Microbial Communities. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:1234–1240.
Megyesi MS, Nawrocki SP, Haskell NH. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50(3):618–26.
Eline MJ, Schotsmans E, Márquez-Grant N, Forbes SL. Introduction. In: Schotsmans E, Márquez-Grant N, Forbes SL, editors. Taphonomy of Human Remains: Forensic Analysis of the Dead and the Depositional Environment. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 1–7.
Spradley MK. Metric Methods for the Biological Profile in Forensic Anthropology: Sex, Ancestry, and Stature. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2016;6(3):391–399.
Brůžek J, Santos F, Dutailly B, Murail P, Cunha E. Validation and reliability of the sex estimation of the human os coxae using freely available DSP2 software for bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;164:440–449.
Maijanen H, Junno JA, Keisu A, Niinimäki J, Lehenkari P, Oura P. Sex estimation from knee breadth dimensions in a Finnish population. Legal Med.(Tokyo) 2021;51:101873.
Maijanen H, Lynch J, Junno JA, Niinimäki J. Sex estimation from humeral and femoral head diameters using CT-scans of living Finns. Legal Med. (Tokyo) 2024;69:102341.
Black S. Forensic osteology. In: Cox M, Mays S, editors. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. Cambridge: University Press; 2000. s. 491–503.
Stewart NA, Gerlach RF, Gowland RL, Gron KJ, Montgomery J. Sex determination of human remains from peptides in tooth enamel. Proc Natl Acad Sci. (USA) 2017;114:13649–13654.
Thomas RM. Sex determination using DNA and its impact on biological anthropology. In: Klales AR, editor. Sex Estimation of the Human Skeleton. Academic Press.2020: 343–350.
Baccino E, Sinfield L, Colomb S, Baum TP, Martrille L. Technical note: The two step procedure (TSP) for the determination of age at death of adult human remains in forensic cases. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;244:247–51.
Milner G, Getz S, Weise S, Boldsen J. Ongoing Work with Adult Skeletal Age Estimation: What Works and What Doesn’t. Forensic Anthropol. 2024;7(2–3):187–196.
Boldsen JL, Milner GR, Konigsberg LW, Wood JW. Transition analysis: a new method for estimating age from skeletons. In: Hoppa RD, Vaupel JW, editors. Paleodemography: Age Distributions from Skeletal Samples. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 73–106.
Bantavanou P, Siegmund F, Moraitis K, Pavlidis P, Bertsatos A, Valakos E, et al. Histomorphometric method for age-at-death estimation using the anterior side of the femoral midshaft. J Archaeolog Sci: Rep. 2025;62:105012.
Hefner JT. Cranial nonmetric variation and estimating ancestry. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(5):985–95.
Jantz R, Ousley S. Introduction to Fordisc 3. In: Langley N, Tersigni-Tarrant MT, editors. Forensic Anthropology: An Introduction. Massachusettes: Academic Press; 2013. s. 253–269.
Hefner J, Ousley S, Richardson R. MaMD Analytical 1.0 A Computer Program for Macromorphoscopic Trait Analysis in Forensic Anthropology. Forensic Anthropol. 2024;7:119–140.
Scott GR, Navega DS, d'Oliveira Coelho J, Vlemincq-Mendieta T, Kenessey TD, Irish JD. rASUDAS2: A New Iteration of the Application for Assessing the Population Affinity ofI Individuals by Tooth Crown and Root Morphology. Forensic Anthropol. 2025:8(1):1–9.
Raxter MH, Auerbach BM, Ruff CB. Revision of the Fully technique for estimating statures. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006;130:374–384.
Trotter M, Gleser GC. A re-evaluation of estimation of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1958;16:79–123.
Ruff CB, Holt BM, Niskanen M, Sladék V, Berner M, Garofalo E, et al. Stature and body mass estimation from skeletal remains in the European Holocene. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;148: 601–617.
Bartelink EJ, MacKinnon AT, Prince-Buitenhuys JR, Tipple BJ, Chesson L. Stable isotope forensics as an investigative tool in missing persons investigations In: Morewitz SJ, Sturdy Colls C, editors. Handbook of missing persons. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 443–462.
Schoeninger MJ, DeNiro MJ. Nitrogen and carbon isotopic composition of bone collagen from marine and terrestrial animals. Geoch. Cosm. Act. 1984;48:625–639.
Bartelink EJ, Chesson LA. Recent applications of isotope analysis to forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Res. 2019;4(1):29–44.
AAFS Standards Board, LLC. 2016; Standard for analyzing skeletal trauma in forensic anthropology. (Set 2025 juni). Read 01.04.2025. https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/147_Std_Ballot04.pdf
Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. The role of archaeology in the recovery and interpretation of human remains from an outdoor forensic setting. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1997. p. 39–64.
De Boer HH, Blau S, Delabarde T, Hackman L. The role of forensic anthropology in disaster victim identification (DVI): recent developments and future prospects. Forensic Sci Res. 2018; 4: 303–315.
Márquez-Grant N, Roberts J. Redefining forensic anthropology in the 21st century and its role in mass fatality investigations. Eur J Anat. 2021;25:19–34.
Kendall A, Galloway A, Milligan C. The Path of Flames: Understanding and Responding to Fatal Wildfires. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2024.
Brough A, Villa C, Colman KL, Dedouit F, Decker SJ. The benefits of medical imaging and 3D modelling to the field of forensic anthropology positional statement of the members of the forensic anthropology working group of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging.. J Forensic Radiol IM. 2019;18:18–19.
Villa C, Buckberry J, Lynnerup N. Evaluating osteological ageing from digital data. J Anat. 2019;235(2):386–395.
Dedouit, F, Savall F, Mokrane F-Z, Rousseau H, Crubézy E, Rougé D, et al. Virtual anthropology and forensic identification using multidetector CT. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1036):20130468.
Rutty GN, Robinson C, Morgan B, Black S, Adams C, Webster P. Fimag: the United Kingdom disaster victim/forensic identification imaging system. J Forensic Sci. 2009:54(6):1438–42.
Kranioti EF, Spanakis K, Flouri DE, Klontzas ME, Karantanas AH. Post-mortem CT in the investigation of homicides. Clin Radiol 2023;78(11):832–838.
Norman DG, Watson DG, Burnett B, Fenne PM, Williams MA. The cutting edge – Micro-CT for quantitative toolmark analysis of sharp force trauma to bone. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;283:156–172.
Lindgren N, Henningsen MJ, Jacobsen C, Villa C, Kleiven S, Li X. Prediction of skull fractures in blunt force head traumas using finite element head models. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2024;23:207–225.
Henningsen MJ, Thorlacius-Ussing L, Jensen LG, Hansen K, Jacobsen C, Lou S, et al. 3D printed skulls in court – a benefit to stakeholders? Int J Legal Med. 2023;137(6):1865–1873.
Villa C, Jørkov M, Madsen C, Jensen JF. 3D documentation of stone sites at Ilulissat, West Greenland. In: Ch'ng E, Chapman HP, Wilson AS, Gaffney V, editors. Visual Heritage: Digital approaches to heritage science. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 115–132.
Cunha E, Baccino E, Martrille L, Ramsthaler F, Prieto J, Schuliar Y, et al. The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: a review. Forensic Sci Int. 2009;193(1–3):1–13.
Corresponding author: Niels Lynnerup. E-mail: nly@sund.ku.dk
The article is peer reviewed.
The article is cited as: Lynnerup N, Adalian P, Pedersen DD, Jørkov ML, Maijanen H, Marquez-Grant N, et al. Forensic anthropology. Nor Tannlegeforen Tid. 2026; 136:
Keywords: forensic anthropology, human remains, bone, taphonomy, identification
Akseptert for publisering 05.05.2025. Artikkelen er fagfellevurdert.
Artikkelen siteres som:
Lynnerup N.Adalian P.Pedersen DD.Jørkov ML.Maijanen H.Marquez-Grant N.Petaros A.Villa C. Forensic anthropology. Nor Tannlegeforen Tid. year;vintage. doi:10.56373/69772e96d0691