Olšany Cemeteries

The necropolis as a cultural and historical system

Olšany Cemeteries (Olšanské hřbitovy) form a large historical Prague necropolis dating from the seventeenth century, with particular significance for the memory of twentieth-century Ukrainian emigration. This is neither one grave nor a single uniformly planned cemetery: the official administration distinguishes Olšanské hřbitovy I and II, separated by Jana Želivského Street and historically formed from different burial territories and denominational sections. The canonical database object is R0070, type Place. [OLS01]

The site's history has two levels. The first is Prague's own history: epidemics, urban sanitation, funeral legislation, religious communities and memorial architecture. The second is the memory of Ukrainians who found refuge in Czechoslovakia after the defeat of the 1917–1921 revolution and worked in schools, universities, scholarly institutions and civic organisations. In a 2021 scholarly publication, Ihor Stambol examined Olšany specifically as a Ukrainian memory site, showing the wide range of biographies represented there. [OLS01; OLS03]

Formation of the cemeteries and development of urban space

According to the municipal funeral service's official history, the Olšany necropolis began with the plague cemetery of 1680. Later burial reforms in the late eighteenth century made it a major part of Prague's cemetery system; the administration associates a significant turning point with 1787. The necropolis expanded repeatedly in the nineteenth century, including in 1839, 1862 and 1889. This explains why present-day section names do not always match old register numbers exactly. [OLS01]

The first municipal non-denominational cemetery opened on 13 May 1900, and burials in the second municipal cemetery began in 1917. The Orthodox Church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God was consecrated in part of the complex in 1925. This is an important heritage and denominational layer, but should not be called an “exclusively Ukrainian church” merely because Ukrainian burials lie nearby. In the early twentieth century, cemetery sections also incorporated military memorials and burials of participants in various historical conflicts. [OLS01]

The official administrator states that the complex covers more than 50 hectares and gives an approximate number of historical burials. These general statistics are background to our subject, rather than a count of Ukrainian graves. The total area cannot be divided by a hypothetical number of people from Ukraine, nor can their precise concentration be inferred without registers. Information on collective military burials likewise is not equivalent to Ukrainian émigré burials. [OLS01]

Memory of interwar Ukrainian emigration

Prague became one of the largest centres of Ukrainian cultural life beyond state borders in the 1920s–1930s. The Ukrainian Free University, Ukrainian Civic Committee, scholarly, student and publishing organisations operated there. Decades of life in Czechoslovakia naturally produced a Ukrainian memorial layer in municipal cemeteries. In Stambol's study, Olšany is not only where biographies end, but a space where present generations can recover the history of an entire scholarly and civic network. [OLS03]

People named in his scholarly article include Sofiia Rusova, Stepan Siropolko, Fedir Shvets, Volodymyr Leontovych, Hryhorii Sydorenko, Apollinarii Marshynskyi, Spyrydon Cherkasenko and others. Candidate cemetery links can be created for existing project entities Rusova R0005 and Siropolko R0028, citing the source. However, the administration must confirm an individual grave's location, plot registration number and current burial status; a bibliographic mention alone does not provide that confirmation. [OLS03]

The encyclopaedia's task is more than displaying a list of famous people. Each biography should lead to institutions where the person worked, books they published and specific historical events. Rusova's educational activity and Siropolko's scholarly-pedagogical work, for example, open two different stories about Ukrainian émigré schools and pedagogy. The necropolis thus becomes an entrance to a living network of stories, rather than a sad catalogue of names. [OLS03]

Oleksandr Oles: burial, exhumation and return

The most significant matter recorded by contemporary documents is the burial history of poet Oleksandr Oles (Oleksandr Kandyba, R0018) and his wife Vira. Oles died in 1944 and was buried at Olšany. In January 2017, a situation arose concerning reuse of the leased burial plot: the poet's and his wife's remains were exhumed. Czech media described the circumstances, and Ukraine's Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling for an appropriate subsequent resolution. [OLS04; OLS07]

The story does not end with exhumation. The Czech Embassy in Kyiv reported a ceremony on 29 January 2017 and burial of both sets of remains in Kyiv's Lukianivka Cemetery. Consequently, “Oleksandr Oles is buried at Olšany Cemeteries” is now incorrect in the present tense. The accurate historical relationship is R0070 former_burial_site_of R0018 for 1944–2017; the 2017 reburial event connects the previous and new objects, but the latter needs a separately verified Place, without an invented canonical ID. [OLS04]

A public explanation of grave leases must rely on Czech law and the administrator's rules, rather than blaming unspecified people for “destroying memory”. Available news reports reconstruct events but do not replace the lease, administrative documents and the family's reburial decision. The story matters for contemporary memory policy: physically preserving graves requires organisational responsibility, funding, registration and care. [OLS02; OLS04; OLS07]

Creating a reliable map of historical graves

The official administrator lists Vinohradská 1835/153, 130 00 Praha 3 for Olšanské hřbitovy and Hřbitovní správa Olšany. This is suitable as an administrative reference for the whole complex. It does not identify individual Ukrainian burial locations. The data model must distinguish two coordinate levels — main entrance or institution, and individual gravestone — or one public address will incorrectly become “grave coordinates”. [OLS01; OLS02]

Every individual burial needs a person identifier, historical name form, death and burial dates, relevant necropolis section, sector, row, grave number, current burial status, location source, checking date and photographic rights. If even primary register confirmation is absent, only a general “memory site” relationship and scholarly reference are displayed; the point remains inactive. This is strict but necessary editorial discipline. [OLS02; OLS03]

The system must distinguish current_burial_site, former_burial_site, commemorative_monument, symbolic_memorial, reported_burial_site and unknown. Otherwise a memorial plaque may be mistaken for an actual grave, and a historical fact of 1944–2017 for current status. Transferred remains receive an Event: reburial with date and source. Readers will see the history of status changes, rather than an artificially simplified map point. [OLS02; OLS04]

Necropolis architecture and the heritage context

Numerous gravestones, chapels, halls, the Orthodox church and military memorials form Olšany's architectural ensemble. The Czech National Heritage Institute has a separate Cultural Heritage Catalogue record for the site. The platform's historical-architectural section can divide a virtual tour into the seventeenth-century plague cemetery, municipal non-denominational sections, Orthodox complex and twentieth-century burials. Each layer will have its own historical sources and explanation. [OLS01; OLS05]

The protected monument's boundaries, current cemetery management and historical topography of sections may not coincide. Editors must not create a heritage polygon by simply tracing a Google Maps screenshot or a modern tourist map. Reliable GIS geometry must come from NPÚ or another authorised cadastral source with a licence permitting use. Until then, an official link to the administrator's plan is sufficient. [OLS01; OLS05]

Present condition: care, memory and digital ethics

Ukrainian cemetery sites in Czechia may range from surviving, maintained graves to places with lost inscriptions, changed leaseholders or commemorative references to people whose remains were transferred. These conditions should be documented with a dated photograph, rather than labelled “neglected” without a site inspection. The current research has not undertaken an individual field inventory of Ukrainian graves. [OLS02; OLS03]

Work with the necropolis should also have a civic dimension: information routes, volunteer care, ethical visiting and careful explanations of denominational differences. However, the platform must not suggest falsely that every grave is included on a verified map. A timely “location requires checking against the register” label is more useful than an attractive but erroneous GPS marker. [OLS01; OLS03]