Page 1 of 5

Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology (SWGANTH)

Determination of Medicolegal Significance

Issue Date: 01/23/2013

Revision: 3

Determination of Medicolegal Significance from Suspected 

Osseous and Dental Remains

1.0 Principle, Spirit and Intent

The laboratory should carry out its testing activities based on sound techniques and report its 

findings in such a way as to meet professional standards. The integrity of the laboratory’s 

procedures, policies, laboratory testing, and reporting should remain above reproach at all times.

2.0 Purpose and Scope

This document presents methods utilized in the determination of medicolegal significance from 

suspected osseous and dental remains. Practitioners of forensic anthropology should implement 

these guidelines to the fullest extent as applicable, practical and appropriate. In the absence of 

specific guidelines or in the case of conflicting procedures, the principle, spirit and intent should 

be met. 

3.0 General Principles

Accurate and timely determinations of medicolegal significance are essential in forensic 

investigations as they provide direction to law enforcement personnel and other investigative 

entities. Osseous and dental remains may still be of medicolegal significance even in the 

absence of criminal investigations. The following guidelines are organized into three areas: 1) 

recognition of osseous/dental remains from other types of material; 2) identification of human 

versus non-human remains; and 3) determination of medicolegal significance. The type of 

analysis required for making these determinations may vary depending on the condition of the 

specimens. 

4.0 Best Practices

4.1 Approaches for the Recognition of Osseous/Dental Remains

Segregation of osseous and dental remains from other types of material (e.g., rock, wood, and 

shell) is an acceptable practice in forensic anthropology. Although not all-encompassing, this 

section lists several acceptable techniques that are available for this type of analysis. Selection 

of techniques to be employed is primarily dependent on the size and overall condition of the 

specimen. 
Page 2 of 5

Acceptable classifications for the segregation of osseous and dental remains are as follows:

Consistent with Osseous/Dental Remains: The remains exhibit features that are 

consistent with bones or teeth. 

Inconsistent with Osseous/Dental Remains: The materials do not exhibit features 

associated with bones or teeth, and they can be confidently removed from further 

consideration. 

Inconclusive: The materials lack sufficient morphological and/or elemental features 

to make a definitive determination. In these instances, the default assumption 

should be that the material is osseous/dental and appropriate procedures should be 

followed until proven otherwise.

4.1.1 Gross Techniques

Gross (i.e., visual) examination is an acceptable technique for identifying osseous and dental 

remains when the specimens are large, complete, or have diagnostic features. Grossly 

observable characteristics may include features such as the presence of trabecular bone, evidence 

of a vascular component, or the recognition of osteological landmarks.

4.1.2 Microscopic Techniques

Microscopic examination is an acceptable technique for identifying osseous and dental remains, 

especially when the specimen is small and fragmented. A microscopic analysis of the specimen 

may be able to reveal features that are consistent with osseous and dental remains (e.g., cortical 

bone, trabecular bone, or cellular structures), or it may reveal features that are inconsistent with 

osseous and dental remains. 

4.1.3 Additional Techniques

Additional techniques that may fall outside the purview of an anthropologist are also acceptable 

for identifying osseous and dental remains. This includes elemental techniques, such as scanning 

electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) and X-ray fluorescence 

spectrometry (XRF). These techniques are based on analysis of the specimen’s elemental 

composition.

4.2 Approaches for Differentiating Human from Non-human Remains

Assessment of osseous and dental material for human/non-human differentiation is an acceptable 

practice in forensic anthropology. Although it is possible for non-human remains to be of 

forensic significance (e.g., cases involving accusations of cruelty to animals, rustling, illegal 

hunting, or body part importation), in most instances non-human remains are not of medicolegal 

concern. Furthermore, in most medicolegal scenarios it is seldom of investigative significance to 

identify the non-human species.
Page 3 of 5

Selection of methods to be employed in the determination of human versus non-human bone and 

teeth depends upon the materials available for examination and the overall condition of the 

remains. Analysis generally requires only gross examination, but the use of more technically 

complex approaches may also be warranted. Although not all-encompassing, this section lists 

several acceptable techniques that are available for this type of determination.

Acceptable classifications of human/non-human analysis are as follows:

Diagnostic of Human: The remains match known human reference specimens to 

the exclusion of other reasonable possibilities. 

Diagnostic of Non-Human: The remains demonstrably match known non-human 

reference specimens to the exclusion of other reasonable possibilities. 

Inconclusive: The remains lack sufficient morphological features to make a 

definitive determination. When the determination of human or non-human is 

unclear, the default assumption should be that the remains are human and 

appropriate procedures should be followed until proven otherwise.

4.2.1 Gross Techniques

Gross (i.e., visual) analysis of specimens is an acceptable technique for differentiating between 

human and non-human remains. For complete or relatively intact bones, gross morphological 

differences are generally distinct enough to allow for human bones and teeth to be confidently 

segregated from non-human remains. Many of the bony landmarks and articular surfaces are 

functionally and morphologically different and unique to family or species. Similarly, human 

and non-human teeth may be diagnostic to species. Special consideration needs to be provided 

with subadult skeletal remains, since they typically lack many of the landmarks and 

characteristics observed in adults, and with pathologic remains that may be significantly altered 

by the disease process. 

Differentiating human from non-human remains from a photographic review, as opposed to a

physical examination of the actual remains, is acceptable. Submitted photographs should be of 

adequate quality to allow for an accurate assessment.

4.2.2 Histological Techniques

If fragmentation is sufficient to preclude gross identification of human versus non-human 

remains, microscopic (i.e., histological) techniques can be employed as an acceptable method. 

The characteristics of the bone microstructure may be consistent or inconsistent with human 

bone, but caution is needed as there are exceptions. In human bone the distribution of osteons

generally does not show a regular pattern; however, osteons showing no clear pattern are also 

found in some non-human animals. The presence of fibrolamellar, or plexiform, bone is usually 

an indication that the remains are non-human.

4.2.3 Additional Techniques
Page 4 of 5

Additional techniques that may fall outside the purview of an anthropologist are also acceptable 

for distinguishing human from non-human remains. This includes protein radio immuno assay

(pRIA) which is an antibody response method and genetic testing which uses nuclear or 

mitochondrial DNA analysis. 

4.3 Approaches for the Determination of Medicolegal Significance of Human Remains

Not all human bones and teeth are of medicolegal significance. For example, human remains 

may not be of medicolegal significance when they are from archaeological contexts, disturbed 

cemeteries (although desecration may be considered a crime in most jurisdictions and is a crime 

under international law), anatomical teaching collections, ceremonial remains, and “trophy 

skulls.” Although not all-encompassing, this section lists acceptable techniques that are 

available for determining medicolegal significance of human remains. When remains are 

determined to be “not of medicolegal significance,” final disposition of these remains should 

follow the laboratory’s standard operating procedure and follow pertinent jurisdictional laws and 

policies. 

Acceptable classifications of medicolegal significance:

Remains are of Medicolegal Significance: The remains and associated contextual 

evidence indicate that they are of forensic interest and should be analyzed in a 

manner consistent with established medicolegal guidelines. 

Remains are Not of Medicolegal Significance: The remains and associated 

contextual evidence demonstrate no medicolegal significance. Their disposition 

should be handled in accordance with established guidelines.

Inconclusive: The remains and associated contextual evidence lack sufficient 

information to make a definitive determination of medicolegal significance. When 

the determination of medicolegal significance is unclear, the default assumption 

should be that the remains do have medicolegal significance and appropriate 

procedures should be followed until proven otherwise.

4.3.1 Gross Techniques

Taphonomic or contextual indicators are commonly used to assess the medicolegal significance

of human remains. For example, cemetery remains may retain clear markers of their 

decomposition history (e.g., distinct cranial warping and staining from lying on a flat, rigid 

surface; remnants from embalming; and associated burial hardware such as coffin portions). In 

many instances, scene context, archaeological provenience (the three-dimensional location of an 

item in relation to other items), and site formation processes may assist in the establishment of 

medicolegal context or significance. 

4.3.2 Additional Techniques
Page 5 of 5

Additional techniques that may fall outside the purview of an anthropologist are also acceptable 

for determining medicolegal significance of human remains. This includes radiocarbon dating

with special attention to the modern bomb curve that resulted from thermonuclear testing 

between 1950 and 1963.

5.0 Unacceptable Practices

The following practices are considered unacceptable and should be avoided when determining 

the medicolegal significance of suspected osseous and dental remains:

 Utilizing specialized techniques such as SEM/EDS, pRIA, radiocarbon, or histological 

analysis without proper equipment or requisite training;

 Making gross morphological determinations of human versus non-human without proper 

training in human osteology, human variation, and a familiarity with non-human skeletal 

remains (e.g., training, a comparative collection of relevant taxa, and/or necessary 

reference material);

 Making a human/non-human differentiation from inadequate photographs.