JAFFNA — Families of the disappeared have asked the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court to scrutinise an interim archaeological assessment suggesting that the Chemmani site resembles a formal burial ground, arguing that critical forensic and historical questions remain unanswered.
Families of the disappeared have filed a motion before the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court challenging an interim archaeological report by Professor Raj Somadeva that suggests the human remains discovered at Chemmani bear greater similarities to formal burial practices than to clandestine burial sites.
The motion, submitted on October 22 through Attorney-at-Law Kasthury Ahalankan, disputes the findings, interpretations and conclusions contained in the report prepared by Somadeva and fellow archaeologist Anusha Wanninayake.
Their report, titled Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani, Jaffna (2025/2026): A Summary Report on Findings, was presented to the court on October 19 following extensive excavations at the Siththupaththi site in Jaffna.
The archaeological assessment examines hundreds of human remains and approximately 170 artefact entries recovered during the excavations.
Although the team identifies characteristics it considers more consistent with formal burials, the report acknowledges that the available evidence is insufficient to establish a definitive conclusion about the nature and circumstances of the burials.
The families argue that the findings must be assessed against the wider archaeological, forensic and historical context before the site can be classified.
Chemmani Excavation Report Suggests Formal Burial Practices
The archaeological team examined the distribution of human remains, soil conditions, associated objects and other physical characteristics of the excavation site.
According to reporting on the findings, the investigation recorded a minimum of 574 individuals, 51 separate accumulations of disarticulated bones and 170 artefact entries.
The Sunday Times, in its October 25 report, placed the number of skeletal remains at 584.
The figures have not been independently reconciled and may reflect differences in counting methods or reporting stages.
Following more than 80 days of excavation, Somadeva’s team suggested that the arrangement of some remains and associated materials resembled formal burial practices more closely than clandestine burial sites documented elsewhere.
The report also considers the possibility that large numbers of people were buried rapidly during an epidemic or natural disaster.
Under such circumstances, the authors suggest, the priority may have been the swift disposal of bodies rather than elaborate funeral ceremonies or the inclusion of numerous personal possessions.
Neither an epidemic nor a natural catastrophe has been independently established as the explanation for the deaths.
The hypothesis remains subject to further archaeological, forensic and historical investigation.
Chemmani and Political Capital: The Somadeva Report’s Challenge to Fabricated Narratives
Professor Raj Somadeva’s archaeological findings have introduced alternative explanations for remains recovered at Chemmani, but further scientific investigation is needed.
Read More →Coins, Personal Belongings and Possible Coffin Remains Examined
Several objects recovered during the excavations form part of the archaeological team’s interpretation.
The interim report refers to coins bearing dates including 1920, 1944, 1963, 1975, 1978, 1982, 1991 and 1994.
These discoveries may assist researchers in understanding activity at the site across different periods, although the date on a coin does not necessarily establish when an associated individual died or was buried.
Investigators also examined materials discovered near Skeleton No. 25.
The items reportedly included a plastic bag, footwear, pieces of clothing and metal objects, including nails that may have formed part of a coffin.
The team regards some of these objects as potentially relevant to determining whether burial practices were followed.
However, the presence of personal belongings or possible coffin materials does not, by itself, establish the circumstances of death.
The relationship between each object and the associated human remains must be examined in its archaeological context.
Determining whether the site was used repeatedly over an extended period, whether burials were disturbed and whether remains were deposited under different circumstances will require further analysis.
Families of the Disappeared Challenge the Archaeological Interpretation
The families’ motion argues that the interim report does not adequately address several important features of the excavation.
Their objections include the absence of evidence establishing that the precise location where remains were recovered had been designated or authorised as a formal burial ground.
They also question whether the location, depth, distribution and condition of the skeletons are consistent with ordinary burial practices.
According to the motion, more than one pair of remains was discovered in circumstances suggesting that an adult had been holding or carrying a child.
The families contend that these arrangements are unusual and require detailed forensic examination.
They argue that the evidence should be assessed before conclusions are drawn about whether the remains resulted from individual burials, multiple interments, secondary deposition, the disposal of bodies or another explanation.
The motion also requests consideration of the historical circumstances prevailing in the area during the relevant periods.
For families seeking answers about relatives who disappeared during Sri Lanka’s conflict, the interpretation of the burial site carries considerable significance.
However, neither their objections nor the archaeological team’s provisional assessment can independently determine the identities of those buried or establish how they died.
Why Was the Term ‘Mass Grave’ Omitted?
A central point of disagreement concerns the language used in Somadeva’s latest report.
The families argue that the professor previously referred to the Chemmani site as a mass grave in three earlier interim reports but omitted that description from the latest assessment.
They contend that the change raises concerns about the accuracy and consistency of the reporting.
Their motion seeks judicial scrutiny of the reasons for the change and whether the revised terminology is supported by the available evidence.
The distinction has both scientific and legal implications.
The expression mass grave is commonly used in investigations involving large numbers of human remains, but its precise meaning and implications depend on context.
It should not automatically be treated as conclusive proof of unlawful killing.
Equally, describing a location as a burial ground does not establish that every person buried there died of natural causes or received a lawful burial.
The relevant questions concern the identities of the deceased, the circumstances of their deaths, the manner in which their bodies were deposited and the reliability of the evidence supporting competing explanations.
Ground-Penetrating Radar Suggests Wider Burial Area
Ground-penetrating radar surveys have also identified disturbances beyond the excavated sections of the site.
The archaeological report indicates that potential burial features may extend outside the boundaries of the trenches examined so far.
These findings suggest that the area requiring investigation could be considerably larger than the sections already excavated.
Radar findings alone cannot establish whether every detected disturbance contains human remains.
Further excavation and scientific examination would be required to determine the nature of the identified features.
The wider distribution of potential burial locations also complicates attempts to reach a final conclusion based solely on the evidence recovered from existing trenches.
Any comprehensive assessment must account for the possibility that different areas were used at different times or under different circumstances.
Scientific Evidence and the Wider Political Dispute
The Chemmani excavations have attracted national and international attention because of Sri Lanka’s unresolved cases of enforced disappearance and allegations of unlawful killings during the country’s conflict.
The interim report has prompted contrasting interpretations.
Those who regard the archaeological findings as evidence of formal burial practices argue that scientific analysis should take precedence over assumptions about the site’s origins.
Families of the disappeared and their representatives maintain that the archaeological interpretation must be tested against all available evidence before alternative explanations are discounted.
The controversy also raises questions about how scientific findings are interpreted within a politically sensitive investigation.
The original commentary accompanying the report argues that some organisations and media outlets have promoted a particular narrative concerning Chemmani and that findings inconsistent with that narrative may face resistance.
Such claims require independent evidence.
The families’ decision to challenge the report does not, by itself, establish that they are acting on behalf of outside political interests or rejecting scientific methods.
Their motion seeks further examination of the evidence through the judicial process.
At the same time, archaeological conclusions should not be accepted or rejected solely because they support or contradict an established political position.
The findings must be assessed on their methodology, supporting evidence and the limitations acknowledged by the researchers themselves.
Final Forensic Findings Remain Essential
The dispute now rests with the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court, which must consider the objections raised against the interim archaeological assessment.
Further forensic examination, laboratory analysis, historical research and investigation of the wider burial area may be necessary before the circumstances surrounding the remains can be established.
Questions concerning the ages of the remains, causes of death, possible evidence of violence and the identities of those buried have not been conclusively resolved by the interim report.
The archaeological team’s suggestion that formal burial practices may have occurred deserves examination, but it does not amount to a final determination that the site was an ordinary cemetery.
Likewise, the discovery of hundreds of remains cannot independently establish that those buried were victims of unlawful killings.
A credible final assessment must be based on evidence capable of withstanding scientific and judicial scrutiny.
For the families of the disappeared, the central objective remains determining who the deceased were, how they died and whether their deaths are connected to unresolved disappearances.
Those questions remain unanswered, and the court-supervised investigation will be crucial to establishing the truth.
