Bodies found under residential schools
Executive summary
Indigenous-led searches and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys across Canada have reported hundreds of potential unmarked graves at former residential school sites — notable announcements include 215 anomalies at Kamloops, 751 at Cowessess/Marieval, and more than 1,100 total reported across several nations in 2021 — and subsequent investigations have continued to find additional potential sites such as 114 “unmarked burial features” at McIntosh and 171 plausible burials at St. Mary’s [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some commentators and institutions stress that GPR detects soil disturbances or “anomalies” and that excavations confirming human remains have been limited, producing disagreement over how to describe the findings in public reporting [6] [7] [8].
1. How many “bodies” have been reported — and what do the numbers mean?
Media and Indigenous communities have announced large numbers of suspected unmarked graves: the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc reported 215 anomalies at Kamloops, Cowessess reported 751 at Marieval, and other Indigenous-led searches together pushed publicly stated totals into the hundreds and later the thousands, with some outlets saying "more than 1,100" sites were identified in early reporting [1] [2] [3]. Reporting since 2021 shows ongoing discoveries: McIntosh investigators detected 114 "unmarked burial features" and Wauzhushk Onigum reports 171 plausible burials at St. Mary’s [4] [5]. These counts reflect survey results and community assessments, not uniform forensic confirmation [3] [4].
2. What methods produced these findings — technical limits and interpretations
Most announcements derive from GPR surveys and archival/community research led by Indigenous nations and archaeologists; GPR identifies subsurface anomalies consistent with graves or other disturbances but cannot, on its own, specify that a feature contains human remains [6] [8]. Some reporting and advocacy present GPR results as evidence of unmarked graves; critics and some commentators emphasize that until excavation or other forensic work occurs, GPR "hits" remain indications requiring further investigation [6] [7] [8].
3. Excavation and forensic confirmation: what has and hasn’t happened
Available reporting indicates that many sites have not undergone full excavation; some community leaders and researchers have prioritized culturally appropriate, community-driven processes — including decisions to memorialize rather than exhume — and there are documented instances where excavations have yet to be carried out to confirm remains [8] [9]. Catholic News Agency and some commentators noted that no excavation had been completed at certain sites at the time of their pieces and warned against reporting implied certainties that remain unverified [7]. Other reporting frames GPR detections as corroborating long-standing survivor testimony and archival records of deaths at residential schools [1] [9].
4. Conflicting narratives and political framing
Reporting has split between outlets and commentators who treat GPR detections as confirmation of previously undocumented child deaths — citing Truth and Reconciliation Commission records of thousands of residential school deaths — and those who argue media accounts overstated unconfirmed findings, calling for more forensic proof before using terms like “mass graves” [10] [6] [11]. Organizations such as the Fraser Institute and some commentators have argued that many GPR anomalies remain unexcavated and that coverage sometimes conflated anomalies with confirmed human remains [6]. Conversely, Indigenous leaders and survivor networks stress that community testimony, historical records and GPR together justify continued searches, commemoration and demands for access to church and government records [9] [1].
5. Scale of the underlying tragedy and institutional context
Independent of debates over technical confirmation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission documented thousands of deaths in the residential school system and widespread abuses; advocates and legal and human-rights bodies see recent discoveries as part of that broader record and as a continuing process to locate and commemorate missing children [1] [9]. The discoveries have prompted federal advisory work, memorial efforts, and calls for archives to be opened to help identify those who died [9] [12].
6. How to read future reports responsibly
Readers should distinguish between (a) GPR-detected anomalies or “unmarked burial features,” (b) archival or testimony-based evidence of deaths, and (c) forensic excavation that confirms human remains; many recent announcements fall into the first two categories but not always the third [6] [8] [4]. Journalists and officials must cite methods and status (survey vs. excavation) and respect Indigenous communities’ choices about exhumation and commemoration [8] [9].
Limitations: sources provided cover prominent announcements, debates over GPR interpretation, and some federal and community responses, but available sources do not mention specific forensic results for every site or the full set of community decisions about exhumation and memorialization beyond what is cited here [9] [8].