How are archaeologists and forensic teams locating and identifying unmarked graves at residential schools?

1. Community direction first: Indigenous communities set the agenda

Investigations are overwhelmingly community‑led: Indigenous Nations and Survivor groups decide what areas to search, pace the work, and whether to proceed from detection to disturbance or exhumation; federal programs fund these community priorities through the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund, which had put 161 agreements in place and allocated more than $246.7 million by March 31, 2025 ^[1]. Government guidance and resources—such as archive indexes and a federal residential‑school map—support community research but do not replace local authority ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Archival and landscape research anchor physical searches

Before any field survey, teams compile school registers, maps, property plans and coroners’ or hospital records to narrow likely burial areas; Library and Archives Canada and Indigenous‑led historical work are explicitly used to identify names and cemetery locations and to guide where remote sensing is applied ^{[5] [7]}. Community memory and Elders’ guidance frequently point searchers to specific zones, and historical lists (e.g., names of those buried on site) have informed where search teams concentrate GPR and visual inspections ^[8].

3. Visual surveys and surface indicators remain vital

Investigators still rely on careful visual inspection: depressions, patterning of depressions in rows, soil disturbances and old grave markers or cemetery remnants are all recorded as initial evidence. The McIntosh/Grassy Narrows project reported rectangular depressions 55–245 cm long and rows consistent with graves during visual inspection alongside geophysics ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Ground‑penetrating radar (GPR) is the primary geophysical tool — and it has limits

GPR has been central to many high‑profile finds: Cowessess First Nation used GPR to identify 751 unmarked graves at Marieval and Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc reported 215 GPR‑based features at Kamloops; later projects have similarly reported “potential” or “plausible” burial features identified by GPR ^{[11] [12] [2]}. But GPR detects subsurface anomalies—shifts in soil, voids, or disturbances—not bones directly; interpretation requires experienced operators, ground‑truthing and context from archives and community knowledge ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Forensics and exhumation are rare, contested and community‑led

As of April 2025, many detected anomalies had not resulted in exhumation; communities weigh the cultural, ethical and trauma implications of disturbing burials and often prefer memorialization and documentation over exhumation unless families request otherwise ^[9]. The university and technical teams involved stress that GPR outputs are indicators that require corroboration and careful discussion about next steps with families ^{[10] [1]}.

6. Best practices and peer literature: interdisciplinary, cautious methods

Academic reviews and guides recommend combining remote‑sensing, archaeological field methods, archival research and Indigenous knowledge, and emphasize reporting protocols, survivor‑centred approaches and transparency about uncertainty ^{[2] [3]}. University and treaty reports have categorized findings as “potential,” “plausible” or “likely” to reflect differing confidence levels based on multiple indicators ^[9].

7. Public debate and skepticism: contested readings of evidence

Some commentators dispute numerical claims or the interpretation of GPR results; think‑tank critiques have labeled media coverage as overreach and challenged the evidentiary basis of GPR‑derived counts ^[4]. Mainstream outlets and Indigenous leaders counter that GPR indicators combined with archival records and community testimony constitute credible evidence that warrants respectful action and further investigation ^{[12] [11]}.

8. Practical constraints: funding, maps and expertise shape what’s possible

Communities have had to pay for aerial maps and submit information requests to assemble needed records; federal map tools and grants ease these burdens but funding timelines remain a constraint on how much ground can be searched each year ^{[6] [1]}. Technical capacity—trained GPR operators, archaeologists, forensic specialists—and necessity of survivor consent limit how quickly sites can be examined and confirmed ^{[8] [2]}.

Limitations and transparency: available sources document methods, funding figures and disputes over interpretation, but they do not provide a definitive, universal protocol for every site; practices vary by community and by the balance each community chooses between detection, disturbance and memorialization ^{[1] [3] [2]}.