People trying to dig up bodies found under residential schools
Executive summary
Investigations across Canada using ground‑penetrating radar and Indigenous‑led searches have identified well over 1,300 “hits” or potential unmarked burials and multiple Indigenous nations have reported hundreds of suspected graves (for example, 214/215 targets at Kamloops, 751 at Cowessess, and 114 at McIntosh) [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, as of April 2025 major summaries note that no bodies have been exhumed from those suspected gravesites in many high‑profile cases, and some commentators and organizations dispute claims or call for greater evidentiary standards [4] [5].
1. Why people are digging or searching: survivors’ testimony and community-led truth‑seeking
Communities and survivors began systematic searches after oral histories, archival gaps and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s finding that thousands of children died in the residential school system left families with unanswered questions; Indigenous nations have led GPR and field investigations to locate burial features so families can seek names and cultural closure [6] [1]. The Stó:lō Nation, Star Blanket Cree Nation, Cowessess and others have combined testimonial accounts—some alleging secretive burials or worse—with technical surveys that produced anomalies described as burial features [6] [7] [2].
2. What the searches are actually finding: anomalies, “burial features,” and some physical remains
Reports use cautious language: many teams report “potential unmarked burials,” “burial features” or GPR “hits.” National tallies count over 1,300 potential unmarked burials from multiple community searches [1]. Specific findings include 215 targets of interest at Kamloops (initial report), a jawbone fragment discovered by Star Blanket Cree Nation, 751 suspected graves at Cowessess as announced by that nation, and 114 burial features at McIntosh—each finding announced by First Nations or Indigenous‑led teams [4] [7] [2] [3].
3. The status of exhumations and forensic confirmation
Despite the numerous GPR discoveries and community announcements, consolidation of reporting shows that many of these sites have not been subject to full forensic exhumation: compiled reporting as of April 2025 states no bodies have been exhumed from suspected gravesites in several prominent cases, and where excavations have occurred some have not found human remains or investigated all anomalies [4]. The reasons include community disagreement over whether to disturb burial sites, cultural protocols, limits on funding and access to forensic teams, and the technical limits of non‑invasive surveys [4].
4. Competing narratives: community findings vs. critics and denialists
Some organizations and commentators argue the scale or interpretation of discoveries has been exaggerated or misreported. The Fraser Institute has published work asserting “no unmarked graves have been discovered at Kamloops or elsewhere—not one,” framing many announcements as unproven [5]. Conversely, Indigenous communities and mainstream outlets have reported concrete discoveries and physical fragments consistent with burials, and the federal government and independent interlocutors have treated the issue as a national priority [6] [8]. Academic and media fact‑checks later characterised attempts to dismiss community findings as “residential school denialism” and warned about misleading portrayals of how media reported initial announcements [9].
5. Why technical language matters: GPR, “hits” and cultural context
Ground‑penetrating radar and similar techniques detect anomalies in soil but cannot, by themselves, prove human remains. That’s why many Indigenous nations describe “burial features” or “targets of interest” rather than definitive graves, and why exhumation or forensic analysis is necessary to confirm what lies beneath—an approach some communities resist for cultural reasons [1] [4]. Journalistic and political language—“mass grave” versus “unmarked burial sites”—has shaped public reaction and political statements, sometimes amplifying disagreement about terminology [10] [9].
6. Government responses, reports and next steps
The federal government has received and acknowledged reports and final recommendations from independent interlocutors and has signalled intent to develop frameworks for respectful treatment of unmarked graves and reconciliation work [8] [11]. Indigenous leaders, survivors and some jurisdictions favour community‑led, culturally safe approaches that prioritize identification and commemoration over large‑scale disturbance; other actors press for forensic confirmation to build legal and historical records [11] [4].
Limitations and final note
Available sources document numerous community‑led detections and several high‑profile announcements, but also show disagreements over language and the limited number of forensic exhumations to date; available sources do not mention a definitive nationwide count of confirmed exhumed bodies because many investigations remain incomplete and culturally contested [4] [1]. Readers should weigh Indigenous testimony and community‑led findings alongside technical limitations of non‑invasive surveys and the presence of critics who urge higher evidentiary standards [6] [5] [9].