Czech archaeologists comb site of former Soviet Gulag in Kazakhstan that held Czechs and Slovaks
The site of a one-time Soviet Gulag, located in Kazakhstan, is now being studied by archaeologists from the University of West Bohemia in cooperation with the NGO Gulag.cz. The camp once held more than 20,000 people, mostly political prisoners, including around two dozen Czechoslovaks.
Gulag.cz is a Czech NGO founded in 2009 that focuses on the history of the Soviet Gulag system, Soviet repression and its impact on former satellite states. Its members have undertaken research and documentation of former Gulag camps, including archaeological expeditions to sites in Siberia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and most recently Kazakhstan. Radio Prague’s Anna Kubišta spoke to Štěpán Černoušek, chairman of Gulag.cz, about their work on the site of the former Gulag in Kazakhstan.
“This research actually builds on our previous expeditions and, in fact, on long-term research that we have been carrying out for almost 17 years. It began with expeditions to abandoned Gulag camps in Siberia, where the remains have survived in remarkably good condition between the towns of Salekhard and Igarka, along the railway that was once built by prisoners. There are actually standing barracks there, with prisoners’ equipment still inside, and as Gulag.cz we organised three expeditions there. What is surprising is that virtually no one had really taken an interest in these sites, documented them or studied them in detail. It is no longer possible to travel to Russia at present, but five years ago, we went to Kazakhstan for the first time, also to other sites connected with the Gulag, because Kazakhstan had the largest number of camps after Russia itself. There were some 20 camp complexes here, and certainly hundreds or even thousands of individual small camps. I was interested in what had actually survived, and there are also some remains here, although not as well preserved, including prisoners’ objects, as in Siberia.
“We focused on the area around the town of Zhezkazgan, where there was a steppe camp, the so-called Steplag, after the Second World War, from 1948 to around 1956. It was a special camp for political prisoners. There were people who had actively fought against the Soviet regime – from Ukraine and the Baltic countries. There were also Czechoslovaks, at least around 20 people with Czechoslovak citizenship, plus some 30 or nearly 40 people convicted of spying activities against Czechoslovakia. We do not know exactly who they were, but we know that they were there in approximately that number.
“Five years ago, we carried out some initial documentation of the remains of the camps around Zhezkazgan. About a year ago, we teamed up with the Department of Archaeology at the University of West Bohemia, which conducts research into Communist and Nazi camps on Czech territory. They were interested in what the situation at the Gulag sites looked like, while we were interested in what could be found at places where the buildings themselves no longer stand and where the remains are more deteriorated. We wanted to see what archaeology could contribute. This is how this expedition came about. It had official permission from the Kazakh archaeological authorities to “dig into the ground”, whereas our previous expeditions had been more focused on documentation.
“So this is another “level” – the first proper archaeological research with an official licence in Kazakhstan and, in fact, in the entire former Soviet Union. So I am pleased that they have also understood here that this documentation is important and that it can tell us a great deal.”
What can comparing the Czechoslovak camps with the Soviet Gulag bring to historians and archaeologists in general?
“Because it is said that the Czechoslovak communist camps were essentially copies of the Soviet Gulag, archaeologists are asking to what extent this is actually true. Whether there are similarities in the layout of the barracks, the way the barracks were arranged, or in the way the camp itself was organised. Gulag.cz has done research in Siberia, we have also been to Kyrgyzstan, and this year to Uzbekistan, where I managed to find the remains of a Gulag camp - the first documented material evidence of a Gulag camp in Uzbekistan, so that is also quite a significant find. And our research so far suggests that there was a great deal of variation in what the camps looked like, what materials the barracks were built from and how the individual barracks were arranged within the camp. There were major differences, but many things were the same, such as massive barbed-wire fencing, at least three layers, or three fences. There was never any shortage of barbed wire, and there were guard towers in every camp. Almost every camp had a solitary confinement cell. Even some of the objects we found during this expedition in Kazakhstan, such as a small tub of Vaseline, are exactly the same as those we found in the camps in northern Siberia, thousands of kilometres away. So it is clear that some of the equipment was the same, and of course the regime imposed on the prisoners was also the same. It is still too early to carry out any kind of thorough comparative analysis, but it has given us a lot of insights.”
One of the finds apparently challenges the existing data on when Steplag was definitively closed. What exactly was found, and why does the date differ?
“It is generally stated that Steplag, operated between 1948 and 1956. There had already been camps in Zhezkazgan in the late 1930s. In the 1940s, prisoners were mining manganese and copper there, but in 1948 political prisoners were brought in and it became a special camp, a so-called “special camp with a strict regime”. Most of the prisoners were from Ukraine and the Baltic countries, but there were also Russians who, for example, had previously been prisoners of war in Germany, and people of around 40 nationalities. The generally accepted dates relating to the camp’s closure are 1948 to 1956.
“But at the site, we began finding various objects. It was mainly surface collection, although we also found some things underground using metal detectors. There were, for example, broken bottles dated 1959 and 1960, which did not make much sense to us. We thought there might have been something else there. But then we managed to find a witness who remembered the camp as a young boy. He immediately told us that there had been a camp there – a women's camp. This was later confirmed by finds such as women's shoe soles and similar objects. He also gave us many details about where the guards came from with their guard dogs and where the men's zone was. However, according to his own account, the witness moved there in 1959, which was three years after the official end of Steplag.
“So historical sources tell us one thing, while archaeology and oral history provide completely different information. The witness said there had been Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian women there. My assumption is that these were women from the Baltic States who had been involved in the anti-Soviet partisan movement, the so-called Forest Brothers – perhaps they had helped them or something similar – and that they were to some extent not covered by the wave of amnesties following Stalin's death. Neither the 1954 nor the 1956 amnesty.
“The lives and horrors took place right there, on the site, in the steppe. People spent years and months there in captivity, so that memory has somehow remained embedded in the ground and among the local inhabitants. It is important to go to these places, rather than relying only on archives in Moscow or Kyiv.”
“It appears that although Steplag itself was abolished, with its camp administration being eliminated in Moscow with the stroke of a pen, that did not mean that the camp actually ended. This camp, where the women were held, continued to operate. There were guards and prisoners, but it apparently came under a different structure, perhaps the Interior Ministry of Kazakhstan. We do not know yet; all of this will have to be verified.
“This is completely new information, and for me personally it confirms the importance of expeditions like this and of archaeological work, because they bring completely new information and new perspectives. It shows that we cannot rely solely on archival material. Moreover, those archival materials were written by the perpetrators, the guards and the NKVD, so we also need to look at sources from the other side. Archaeology and a thorough examination of the site can reveal a great deal. The objects themselves can tell us a lot. We found three cartridges near the guard towers, which shows that shooting really took place there. We also found spoons, tin cups and other everyday objects used by people in the camps, supporting the assumption that it really was a camp. Then there were the remains of bottles bearing those dates. All of it starts to make sense and gives us additional information.
“The lives and horrors took place right there, on the site, in the steppe. People spent years and months there in captivity, so that memory has somehow remained embedded in the ground and among the local inhabitants. It is important to go to these places, rather than relying only on archives in Moscow or Kyiv.”
Do you hope that you might find, or somehow learn more about, the fate of the Czechoslovak prisoners?
“Well, the personal files – nobody really knows where they are. They will probably be in some Kazakh Interior Ministry archives, which are not fully accessible. From what I have discussed with Kazakh historians, it does not look as though access to this type of documentation is likely to be opened up completely. Yes, a special archive on this subject is being established. The issue is relatively open in Kazakhstan, and there is no problem with the authorities trying to prevent this kind of research. On the contrary, we feel a certain degree of support, although it is still a sensitive topic. Even with that support, however, the archives are far from fully open. There was nothing like what happened in Russia in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when archives of this kind were opened up considerably and it was at least temporarily possible to access them. That has not happened in Kazakhstan, so there is not much hope in that respect.
“Nevertheless, as our work becomes more widely known, people are getting in touch with us. In recent months, quite a few people have contacted us whose parents, mothers or grandmothers went through camps in Kazakhstan. We are now in contact with a man whose father was in Steplag. So we want to verify all this and find out more, but it looks as though we have at least one Czech or Czechoslovak link to Steplag.”
How do you view the fact that Czech researchers can study the remains of the Gulag in Kazakhstan, but not in Russia?
“You know, I used to travel to Russia a lot. I organized four expeditions to Gulag camps there. Before that, I travelled extensively to places such as Kolyma and Vorkuta, to locations connected with this subject. So I have followed this process for the last, say, 30 years.
“Gradually, I watched the relationship develop. At first, the authorities did not really care. Then there was a certain degree of – I don't want to call it openness exactly – but around 2009, 2010 and 2011, it was possible to do quite a lot of things related to the subject. Then things changed after Putin returned to the presidency, and the screws gradually began to be tightened. There was pressure on NGOs and on Memorial, and eventually pressure to shut Memorial down.
“Russia is doing everything it can to erase this part of its history – the Gulag and Soviet repression – to stop people talking about it and, instead, to portray the Soviet era as essentially a positive period. And the Gulag and the millions of people who died do not fit very well into that picture.”
At the same time, a great Gulag museum was being established in Moscow. With the help of the Moscow authorities, they managed to build a modern, good museum, but it was closed this year. Memorial was declared an extremist organization and effectively driven out of the country, so it cannot officially continue its work there. The same applies to the Sakharov Center. And to be completely honest, I cannot imagine us going there today, even on an unofficial expedition, as we did in the past.
“The idea of taking a drone out somewhere in the taiga today would probably cause major problems. So in the current situation, it is simply not possible to work on this subject in Russia.
“Russia is doing everything it can to erase this part of its history – the Gulag and Soviet repression – to stop people talking about it and, instead, to portray the Soviet era as essentially a positive period. And the Gulag and the millions of people who died do not fit very well into that picture.”
What surprised or affected you most at the site itself?
For me personally, probably two things. The first is the cemetery near the camp in the village of Terekti, which local people told us about. It is a prisoners' cemetery, with almost 20 unmarked graves. They are just small, low wooden posts in the ground, with barely noticeable mounds. It is an incredibly powerful place. The prisoners suffered and died there.
There is one iron cross with the name of a Lithuanian man engraved on it. Someone installed it in 1990, perhaps a relative who knew that someone had been there. But apparently nobody had been there since then, until us. It is an incredibly powerful place.
“We thought that next year, when the research continues, we could bring in some geophysical equipment to survey the site and determine how many graves there are. Of course, it would be non-invasive. We are not planning to dig there or exhume anyone, absolutely not. But at least we would like to know how many people are buried there and try to find out more, of course by establishing links with Baltic archives, institutions and historians working on the subject.
“So that was one thing. The second thing that was very powerful for me was meeting the witness, Mizambai Bralin. It started with us working at the site and uncovering various things. But a lot of questions arose about the purpose of the individual buildings, the ruins and the objects. A lot of things did not make sense. So I tried to find out in the village whether there was anyone who might remember something.
“It was almost unbelievable. He said that nobody else in the village was really interested in these things. It was as if he had carried all those details inside him for 70 years so that one day he could tell us everything exactly.
“The first people I spoke to said definitely not – it was all long gone, everyone was dead, they did not know anything, they only knew that Steplag had been there. So I did not have much hope.
“Then someone gave us a tip about Mizambai. We knocked on his door, he came out and simply started talking. It turned out that he was the kind of person who remembered things incredibly well. He had always been interested in how things worked, including technically.
“As a child, it had made a very strong impression on him when he saw the female prisoners and the guard dogs. He remembered everything extremely well. He knew exactly where each building had stood and what it had been used for. He walked around the ruins with us and identified everything for us precisely.
“It was almost unbelievable. He said that nobody else in the village was really interested in these things. It was as if he had carried all those details inside him for 70 years so that one day he could tell us everything exactly.
“Many things fell into place. Without him, we probably would not have answers to 90 percent of the questions – we would only have guesses.”
What are the next steps in the research?
“We will now process the results, both for academic publications and for our virtual museum on GULAG.cz. There will be a lot of 3D models, and we also filmed material there for a documentary.
We want to continue disseminating the findings through academic and journalistic articles, as well as virtual exhibitions. And we want to return there. We want to continue the research.
We have provisionally agreed on next June, and local Kazakh students would also become involved. So it should be, in quotes, an even bigger “excavation”, which could bring many more details and pieces of information and put the site into an even broader context. There is a lot of work ahead.”
