Excavations at Chemmani mass grave continued over 80 days where584 human skeletons and 170 artifacts were recovered.
Aggrieved parties reject archaeological team’s interim findings, file legal action
By S. Rubatheesan
Based on evidence gathered so far, the Chemmani mass grave site—where 584 human skeletons and over 170 artefacts were found—could be a formal burial ground, an interim report by an archaeological team says.
The report by Prof. Raj Somadeva on excavations at Sittupatti cemetery, Chemmani in Jaffna, notes the evidence documented in the report “is insufficient, in isolation, to support a definitive conclusion regarding the nature and character of the burials investigated.”
“The artefacts and associated contextual evidence suggest that the site exhibits greater similarities to contexts characterised by formal burial practices than to clandestine burial sites documented in other parts of the world,” the report observed.
The third interim report titled “Forensic Archaeological Excavation in Chemmani Jaffna” by Prof. Raj Somadeva and Anusha Wanninayake was submitted to Jaffna Magistrate’s Court on Monday.
Meanwhile, as aggrieved parties in the Chemmani mass grave case, the families of the disappeared moved a motion in the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court this week challenging the interim report submitted by the archaeological team led by Prof. Somadeva, a senior professor in archaeology at the Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology, University of Kelaniya.
They urged the court not to treat the disputed conclusions of the summary report as conclusive before properly examining identified material objections and evidentiary issues.
In the motion moved by Attorney-at-Law Kasthury Ahalankan, on their behalf, the families of disappeared object to the findings, observations, interpretations and conclusions in the report.
Prof. Somadeva’s report was handed over after over eighty days of excavation. If the concentration of burials resulted from an epidemic or another form of natural catastrophe, “a limited assemblage of associated material culture would not necessarily be unexpected”, it said.
“Under such circumstances, the primary concern may have been the rapid disposal of the deceased rather than the deposition of substantial material offerings or personal belongings,” it states.
In other words, deaths arising from an epidemic or another natural catastrophe would likely have led to hurried burials. The authors say their observations call for more comprehensive interpretation requiring “the integration of archaeological context, stratigraphic relationships, burial organisation, and skeletal evidence”.
The available evidence, it reiterates, should be evaluated cautiously before concluding the circumstances, purpose or historical context of the burials as well.
The excavations showed a notable pattern of children being buried in shallow graves. None of the human skeletons had any clothing evidence: “The absence of surviving textile materials should not be interpreted as evidence that the deceased were buried without clothes.”
Singling out human skeleton No. 25, where personal belongings including a plastic bag and shoe were recovered, the report noted that the possible coffin remains distinguish the burial from the rest and require further investigation.
The ground-penetrating radar survey images revealed numerous subsurface anomalies distributed across the surveyed area, some of which may be consistent with additional burials, the report noted.
“These observations suggest that the distribution of potential burial features extends beyond the limits of the excavated trench, indicating that the site may be considerably more extensive than the area investigated through archaeological excavation.”
During the excavation process, coins were also recovered in association with the human skeletons within the excavation trench. The legible dates were 1920, 1944, 1963, 1975, 1978, 1982, 1991 and 1994, the report states.
In their motion, the families of the disappeared say the findings in the report “must be examined in the light of location of discovered human remains, the circumstances of their discovery, the archaeological context, the recovered artefacts, the number and distribution of the remains, and the historical circumstances that prevailed in the area and location at the relevant period.”
The parties also contended that no designated burial section or authorised burial ground allocation was identified in the precise location where the remains were recovered.
Pointing out that Prof Somadeva used the term “mass grave” in the previous three interim reports he had submitted to court, the parties said he had deliberately omitted the term in the latest report: “The omission raises serious doubts about the accuracy and validity of the interim report.”
Without adequate examination of the physical evidence and the archaeological context, the aggrieved parties objected to any conclusion that ordinary burial has been established by the report.
“More than one pair of skeletons were identified in association with an adult carrying a child, a finding that is highly unusual and inconsistent with a pattern of ordinary burial. These circumstances warrant careful forensic and archaeological examination to determine the context and manner in which remains were deposited.” (Courtesy- The Sunday Times)
The full interim report can be accessed here
Post a Comment