OPINION | OLD VILNA JEWISH CEMETERY AT PIRAMÓNT: SAGA OF 2015-2026 | EARLIER OPPOSITION TO CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT | COMMENT BY ANDRIUS KULIKAUSKAS, SID LEIMAN, JULIUS NORWILLA, DOVID KATZ | 2023-2024 “WORKING GROUP” ON VILNA CEMETERY | LIST OF MEMBERS | MOUNTING OPPOSITION TO “‘COMPROMISE’ MUSEUM PROJECT” | THE USCPAHA | THE CPJCE | THE AJC | THE CER | THE GWF | CEMETERIES & MASS GRAVES | CHRISTIAN-JEWISH RELATIONS | HUMAN RIGHTS
◊
English translation of the Seimas press conference “Vilnius A City Built on Cemeteries” of 5 November 2026
◊
Source: Press conference convened by Seimas member Kęstutis Vilkauskas, “Vilnius – miestas ant kapinių. Šiandienos iššūkiai” (“Vilnius, a City Built on Cemeteries: Today’s Challenges”), 5 November 2026, approximately 40 minutes. Video recording.
EDITORIAL NOTE: We publish below a working draft English translation of a mechanically generated Lithuanian transcript of the 5 November 2026 press conference held at the Lithuanian Seimas concerning Vilnius’s historic cemeteries and the proposed future of the Soviet-era Concert and Sports Palace, built within the grounds of the old Jewish cemetery at Piramónt (in Shnípishok, now the Šnipiškės district of modern Vilnius). Automatic transcription can omit words, mishear names, and misconstrue entire phrases. This English translation should therefore be regarded as a point of departure and an aid to orientation, not as an authoritative verbatim record. Readers wishing to rely on particular statements should check the original video. Uncertain passages are identified in square brackets where feasible; bracketed identifications and explanatory notes are editorial, not spoken. The views expressed are those of the participants, not of Defending History. This was a press conference and discussion held at the Seimas, not a plenary parliamentary debate.
A NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION: Timestamps refer approximately to the beginning of each intervention, not to individually timed sentences. Hesitations, false starts and mechanical duplications have generally been lightly smoothed; meaningful qualifications, arguments, and disagreements are preserved. Where the automatic transcription is doubtful, the translation is correspondingly provisional. The spelling of certain audience participants’ names requires confirmation from the recording.
◊
Transcript
[00:16] Kęstutis Vilkauskas (chair): Good afternoon to those watching our broadcast and those present here in person. We are beginning the press conference “Vilnius, a City Built on Cemeteries: Today’s Challenges.” Participating in our press conference are Dr. Rytis Jonaitis, an archaeologist and researcher in the Department of Urban Research at the Institute of History, and Dr. Adas Jakubauskas, longtime chairman of the Union of Lithuanian Tatar Communities and associate professor at Mykolas Romeris University.
By way of introduction, I would like to say that in the very centre of Vilnius, in one place, we have two cultural heritage assets: the Vilnius Concert and Sports Palace, entered in the Register of Cultural Properties in 2006, and the site of the old Jewish cemetery at Šnipiškės, which received legal protection in 2008 and was also entered in the Register of Cultural Properties.
But entries in registers do not, in themselves, protect either the site of the old Jewish cemetery at Šnipiškės or the Vilnius Concert and Sports Palace. Both heritage assets are deteriorating before our eyes year after year. A large section of society has been dissatisfied with this situation. Consequently, various petitions, letters and protests began coming to the Seimas.
At a meeting of representatives of culture and science held at the Academy of Sciences this January, as many as 300 signatures supported a resolution calling on the Seimas to exercise strict oversight over the protection of these cultural heritage assets. We also received appeals from 53 signatories of the Act of 11 March [Lithuania’s restoration of independence], and letters and resolutions from the National Forum and numerous other Lithuanian organisations.
I would point out that the electoral programmes of almost all parties now represented in the Seimas promised voters that they would develop and ensure the protection of cultural heritage. I thank Seimas member Šarūnas Birutis, who prepared a draft Seimas resolution on the further use of the Vilnius Concert and Sports Palace. Following its presentation, the draft was accepted for further consideration in the Seimas.
The draft resolution states that the earlier government resolution concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation of this historic place and the Sports Palace situated there remains fully in force. [Translator’s note: The relevant government measure appears to be Resolution No. 597 of 9 June 2015, subsequently amended.] A professional technical design was prepared for this purpose. It underwent expert assessment and coordination, and a building permit was issued for its implementation.
However, this project was not properly presented to the public. So when public calls to put the site and the Sports Palace in order began, various misunderstandings and objections arose.
Today we have here the sensitive, beautiful, historically and technically well-resolved project prepared by the studio of Sigitas Kuncevičius. You can see it on our screens. I believe it has newly and clearly shown many people how one can honour, in a friendly and humane way, both the site of the old Jewish cemetery at Šnipiškės and the history of our nation’s liberation, as well as the Palace as an architectural heritage asset.
I thank the designers and architects who prepared and presented this exhibition, which you will be able to see in the Freedom Defenders’ Gallery in the Seimas [the automatic transcript has a garbled location]. I invite all Seimas members and visitors to look more closely at the exhibition panels and familiarise themselves with the displayed renovation project for the Palace.
I invite Seimas members to discuss the functions that could be carried out in the renovated building, the possibilities of helping to finance the project in stages, and, after discussing everything, to support the draft Seimas resolution prepared by Šarūnas Birutis.
Now, those who know these questions best are the true professionals who have spent their entire lives studying them. I would therefore like to invite Adas Jakubauskas, longtime chairman of the Union of Lithuanian Tatar Communities and associate professor at Mykolas Romeris University, to present his thoughts. Please.
[05:07] Adas Jakubauskas: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. In my view, a very important subject has been raised today: Vilnius, a city of cemeteries. Indeed it is. Let us look at how many cemeteries were devastated during the Soviet period. On Pylimo Street, the Wedding Palace was built on a cemetery.
Here I should also speak about the Lithuanian Tatar community. The Lithuanian Tatar community, dating back to the time of Vytautas, began settling in Vilnius in the later period of Vytautas the Great. Probably in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, a mosque was built and a cemetery established. In 1968 the Soviet authorities demolished the mosque, destroyed the cemetery, and the place practically ceased to exist. We as the Tatar community nevertheless sought to have archaeological research undertaken.
I must therefore state that at the Lukiškės cemetery, now at 11 Goštauto Street, the Soviets built the Institute of Semiconductor Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR on this territory. It is not merely the symbolic site of a former cemetery: actual burials have been archaeologically confirmed there. Last year several trial trenches were dug and ten undisturbed graves were found. This year further archaeological investigations were conducted, and in total approximately fifty undisturbed graves have been discovered.
I would also recall that there may have been more than one Tatar cemetery in the then-suburb of Lukiškės. There may also have been another Tatar cemetery on the site where Lukiškės Prison was built in 1901–1903. There is information that the prison was built partly on a Tatar cemetery.
And, dear colleagues, I would remind you that the area from the Church of Saints Philip and James to the Geležinis Vilkas Bridge was historically known as Tatar Lukiškės. I would very much like that name, which was firmly established for centuries in the consciousness of Vilnius residents and in historiography, to be restored. I believe that Vilnius City Municipality could also see to it that the area regained its original name.
I would put it this way: we are now sitting in Tatar Lukiškės, the area beginning at the Church of Saints Philip and James and extending, as I have said, to the Geležinis Vilkas Bridge. Those are the current issues.
Otherwise, I strongly support the idea [of restoring the Concert and Sports Palace]. The Sports Palace was built in Soviet times. I will not go into that; our esteemed Rytis Jonaitis will discuss it, since he is a researcher. But as a Lithuanian patriot and a Lithuanian citizen, I am categorically in favour of turning the Sports Palace there into a congress palace, a congress centre. This is a matter of Lithuania’s honour. It is a building directly connected with Lithuanian history, and I would say there can be no other opinion on this matter. That is my introduction. Dear Seimas member Kęstutis, perhaps you will give the floor to Rytis?
[09:02] Vilkauskas: Thank you, Adas. Perhaps there are questions immediately—or will you ask them later? Later? Good, thank you. I now give the floor to Dr. Rytis Jonaitis, archaeologist and researcher in the Institute of History’s Department of Urban Research. Please, Rytis.
[09:19] Rytis Jonaitis: Good afternoon, colleagues. I should like to begin not with the Sports Palace, but with a very good example of how an area containing a cemetery, burial ground or ancient graveyard can be put in order. This is the well-known Bokšto Square, now a whole complex where the dermatological and venereal diseases dispensary used to be.
Private developers bought the plot and, since it was a cultural heritage site, began archaeological investigations. We discovered a medieval burial ground there, which we investigated for, I believe, eight years, with a one-year break, finishing in 2014. In that period we excavated precisely 533 graves. This considerably delayed all construction, but the clients approached the matter tolerantly and allowed us, so to speak, to take charge of the site, excavating everything by hand with trowels.
The importance of this burial ground is that it dates to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. People were buried there practically from the time of Traidenis to that of Gediminas. These burials probably belonged to the Orthodox Christian community, because they were inhumations, whereas in the pagan state the pagans still cremated their dead at that time. A similar cemetery was found at Kernavė [the place name is distorted in the automatic transcript], although not in a construction area.
Another point I want to touch on in this short, improvised presentation is that the title “Vilnius on Cemeteries” is entirely literal. Imagine Vilnius’s Naujamiestis district and a visual axis from St Stephen’s Church, near the railway station, to the Church of Saints Philip and James in Lukiškės, taking Mindaugo Street and the surrounding Panerių and Aguonų Streets. In the seventeenth century, that whole territory consisted of continuous cemeteries.
Where apartment buildings are being built near the Maxima supermarket on Mindaugo Street, where construction has taken place on Panerių Street and on Aguonų Street near the Labour Inspectorate, archaeological investigations were carried out everywhere, and all those graves were examined.
Returning to the Sports Palace: knowing how brutally everything was constructed in Soviet times, and how gravestones from the Jewish cemetery on Olandų Street were used, there is a very high probability that during the construction of the Sports Palace the Jewish cemetery there was simply brutally—brutally—destroyed.
Perhaps one or two unexcavated graves remain, but given the scale and depth of construction of the Sports Palace and the former open-air swimming pool beside it, and so forth, as an archaeologist with twenty years’ experience, I very much doubt that anything has survived there. Yes, remembrance is necessary, but restoration is also needed. My personal opinion is that the Sports Palace is certainly worth restoring. That is my short presentation.
[12:49] Vilkauskas: Thank you. Do you have questions for our speakers? No questions or comments? Yes, please.
[13:02] Unidentified audience member, a sound engineer: Hello. I wanted to make an observation. Both speakers used the term “Sports Palace.” I want to say that this building is called the Concert and Sports Palace. The shortened name is completely inappropriate, because unlike many other sports arenas in Lithuania this building had one exceptional and valuable feature: its acoustics. Even modern buildings constructed with concerts in mind [the end of the comparison is incomplete in the automatic transcript].
As a sound engineer who worked for many years in that building, I can say that its function as a concert venue was especially important. The most important concert and cultural events in all Lithuania, and even in the entire Baltic region, took place there. So I would ask you to take this into account and not shorten “Concert and Sports Palace” to “Sports Palace.” Thank you.
[14:15] Vilkauskas: Thank you for the observation. Any more questions or statements?
[14:20] Adas Jakubauskas [speaker identification probable]: May I? I agree collegially with what you have said. The point is that, as an old Vilnius resident, I can say that we always called it the Sports Palace because of the various events there. On that side we had a boxing section, where I spent quite a few years. That is why we were accustomed to calling it the Sports Palace. No ill intent, but I agree with you as well.
[14:48] Vilkauskas: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Please, please. Just introduce yourself, so everyone knows—although we know you, please introduce yourself.
[15:00] Vincentas [surname uncertain; transcribed approximately as Jesiulevičius]: The previous speaker mentioned that history has been recorded to some extent in the part of the cemetery which has now been dealt with by agreement, where a monument has been erected and there is a plaque explaining how it began: that tsarist Russia purchased the land, that the dead were to be moved, and how everything proceeded. I think this should also be mentioned, rather than making it sound as though everything happened out of nowhere.
[15:48] Rytis Jonaitis: Thank you for the question. Yes, I did not mention that all that land was purchased by tsarist Russia when, in the nineteenth century, Lithuania came under the Russian Empire [chronology as stated by speaker]. It was considered purely in terms of defensive functions. At the time there were enormous earth-moving operations both in the present Concert and Sports Palace area and in Kalnų Park, where a fortress was being built. It was considered from the point of view of defence, and one might say that the destruction of those Jewish cemeteries practically began then.
[16:31] Unidentified audience participant: On the question of names: I belonged to that group, together with Kęstutis here, Henrikas Žukauskas and other colleagues. We actually use the full name “Vilnius Concert and Sports Palace” everywhere. That is its documented name; even the construction permit was issued under that name. But, you know, nothing is eternal.
In Philadelphia, America, the building in which the decision was made to establish the American state in 1776 is now called Independence Hall, and it is depicted on the hundred-dollar bill [as stated by the speaker]. We too may need to think about bringing the name of this building closer to our state and statehood, to the building’s significance.
We conducted an experiment through Baltijos tyrimai, a very respectable firm which, you know, is an affiliate of the Gallup Institute in Lithuania. We conducted a poll asking what people would like the building to be called after it had been restored and brought back to life. Four alternatives were offered. We have not yet announced the results; we have been waiting for an occasion. Perhaps this is not the occasion—although it is a press conference—and I will not give the figures on how supporters of various parties voted for particular names.
But the most popular name among citizens, in a poll of more than 1,100 respondents conducted according to proper methodological principles, was “Palace of Freedom” (Laisvės rūmai), followed by “Palace of National Revival” (Atgimimo rūmai), then “Palace of Independence” (Nepriklausomybės rūmai), and fourth “Palace of Memory” (Atminties rūmai).
This is simply food for thought: how ordinary citizens wish to connect their lives, city and history with this building, and how it might be called both officially and in everyday speech. Of course, the appropriate institutions must decide its name. This is only public opinion, and perhaps not the final opinion; more polls could be conducted. It is something to consider when thinking about what this building means in the life of our state.
[18:59] Vilkauskas: Thank you very much. A meaningful discussion is beginning. Please introduce yourself.
[19:03] Audience participant, surname Liutkus [first name unclear], Society for the Beautification of Lithuania: I would like another aspect of this unique building to be considered. Recalling the late academician [surname transcribed approximately as Kudzys], we probably all remember what he said: this is a unique building from the architectural, structural and engineering points of view. It has a cable-supported structure of a type not manufactured in Lithuania. Let us consider who designed it, who installed it, and whose specialists were involved. For us as Lithuanians, it was a source of pride to have erected such a building at that time. Thank you.
[19:50] Vilkauskas: Thank you. Anyone else? Please, Birutė Valionytė, president of the Signatories’ Club.
[19:57] Birutė Valionytė: Good afternoon, and congratulations on the press conference. I would like to put a question to the archaeologists, a question that is, psychologically speaking, quite fundamental.
All of Vilnius is built on cemeteries; it simply depends on the period. We go back to the fourteenth century, perhaps the thirteenth—but what about earlier times? What came before that? This makes cemeteries a subject for discussion. Cities change and expand, and their surroundings change. In my view, the fundamental question is what kind of marker we leave to show that there was a cemetery here.
So I want to ask Adas, who spoke earlier: how do you envisage making it visually impossible to erase from memory that this place was, for example, Tatar Lukiškės? Do you see what I mean? Likewise, as far as I know, there were not only Jewish graves but also Karaite graves in the area that is now opposite the castle [location and wording uncertain]. What markers of remembrance exist when we look further back in time?
That is a fundamental question. And my principal question is this: what organisational measures do you think we must still take? How can we raise a wave of support so that this project finally becomes a reality?
[21:32] Vilkauskas: Thank you. A question for Adas.
[21:35] Adas Jakubauskas: If you will permit me, esteemed signatory, I shall answer. Thank you for the question. As you may remember, several previous governments considered creating a government ministries’ campus where the institutes of physics, semiconductors, mathematics and chemistry are located. That was a vision at the time, but it was subsequently abandoned.
In any case, in 1968–1971 the Soviets built there, devastated the place, demolished and destroyed things. The Soviets erected buildings which, in my opinion, cannot now simply be removed. They were built on the bones of people buried by the Tatar community. A place of worship, the mosque, was demolished.
We therefore appealed to institutions, to the state property bank [Turto bankas], which manages the place, and others, asking that it be put in order. How do we envisage that? As I mentioned, commissioned archaeological works have now uncovered close to fifty undisturbed graves. This is not merely some mythologised former cemetery: it is an actual cemetery.
What should be done? We believe the remains must not be removed from that place. They should be left there, but on the understanding that no entertainment activities take place there. It should be a place of quiet and solemnity. If certain state institutions move there—as far as I know, the Tax Inspectorate may move there, since the Institute of Semiconductor Physics is now being renovated—that should be taken into account.
We set a condition. Since the history of Tatar Lukiškės marks the beginnings of the Lithuanian Tatar community in Lithuania as a whole, we want to return, at least symbolically, to the place the Soviets took from us. We asked that certain rooms in the renovated building be allocated to the Lithuanian Tatar community.
As far as I know, negotiations are now taking place. But again, our laws are imperfect. We were offered the opportunity to return to our own territory, but at a commercial rental rate of seventeen euros per square metre. That is not merely unreasonable; it is stupid. Without doubt there must be intervention by members of the Seimas to amend the law so that the premises can be made available for use without commercial rent [the Lithuanian term is panauda]. Then the Tatar community could return, establish a museum and other premises and institutions needed by the community, and function there.
And I will say this: it is only three or four hundred metres from the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania [the automatic transcript gives “3 400 metres,” probably meaning 300–400 metres]. Vilnius residents know that the place was once very beautiful. It has disappeared, but we would like to produce a three-dimensional representation of the mosque and place it on the façade of the renovated building.
Incidentally, the late sculptor Jonas [surname transcribed approximately as Jėgla] created a memorial marker which we would like to install there. This would remind Vilnius residents of the place, because for a long time, dear colleagues, it was overgrown with scrub and used as a rubbish dump. There were waste containers there. It was profoundly disrespectful.
We would indeed be happy if the site were put in order. But we cannot insist that those buildings be demolished or that no activity be permitted there. We understand that history cannot be turned back. There was a cemetery; the cemetery was destroyed; buildings now stand on the cemetery. Those buildings must be brought into use, in cooperation with the Republic of Lithuania, with our state. That is our vision.
[25:46] Rytis Jonaitis: Thank you. As for my own answer—perhaps not an answer, perhaps an explanation—it is that cemeteries are discovered in Naujamiestis when apartment buildings are being built. Those apartment buildings are constructed by private developers. If you tell them to put up some memorial plaque or marker stating that there was once a cemetery on the site, their sales will immediately fall. They take a completely practical view.
I think this requires a decision at the municipal or political level, because private developers are not particularly inclined to mark such things. The academic community knows about those graves. We write articles, monographs and so forth, and give public lectures and courses; guides know about them. But what is lacking is that final act of commemoration: a person should be able to come to a place and see that a sixteenth-century cemetery once stood there. Unfortunately, that is missing.
[26:50] Kęstutis Vilkauskas: Thank you. And to answer Birutė’s question about how to solve this, and what you said about raising a wave of support: we have a legal route, but also a respectful route, through discussion with people holding different opinions. I think we will continue along that route. As I mentioned, the draft Seimas resolution has passed the presentation stage, and we will continue discussing it with people of differing views, doing so respectfully and taking their arguments into account. Yes, Birutė, please.
[27:24] Birutė Valionytė: Why did I ask that question? Because we would have to erect memorial plaques or some other signs of remembrance all over Vilnius: all of Vilnius is built on cemeteries. The essential question is how we do this.
In my view, the Jewish cemetery is commemorated very beautifully and its memory is clearly and respectfully preserved in this project. The question is: why has the memory of the Tatars, the Karaites and others who are no longer here not been preserved? Another question is whether we necessarily have to do this where residential buildings now stand.
Today the question is one of form. Frankly, I have not seen any publication or material about Vilnius in which old Vilnius is presented in layers: this was here, then something else replaced it, do you understand? That is memory. As things stand, to learn what you have just been telling us, one has to search very deeply before finding any information about it.
I believe we should make this public somehow. Vilnius is not only Jewish cemeteries; it is certainly not only Orthodox cemeteries. There are other Lithuanian cemeteries that have also disappeared, and we no longer even know about them.
Since we are talking in November [the month of remembrance of the dead in Lithuanian tradition], this is a very topical matter for our collective memory as a nation. I think it is especially important to stress the preservation not only of Jewish cemeteries but of all the others that were here. The city is expanding. There certainly will not be cemeteries here in the very centre of the city; they are generally moved because they do not stop urban development. But we must find a proper way of preserving their memory.
That is the question. Because when we now emphasise only that this is Jewish [the phrase trails off in the transcription], I want to establish a fact: the Karaites were nearby. Why do we not talk about them? The question immediately moves onto another level. I think we simply have to see the whole picture. We have adopted a rather narrow focus and are discussing that, while for some reason the Karaites themselves are also silent.
[29:48] Adas Jakubauskas: If I may, Birutė, I should correct you. You are talking about the Karaite community, the honourable Karaite community, but in this instance I represent the Lithuanian Tatar community, which is quite different. Historically, on the approaches to Vilnius there was the suburb of Tatar Lukiškės, where at its peak up to 200 people lived. There was a Tatar village here.
That history too should be commemorated so that Vilnius would know about it, because Vilnius does not know. And, as I have said—and will repeat—history cannot be reversed. The buildings have been erected; we cannot demolish them, but must bring them into use. We want them to be brought into use in a way that takes account of our community’s needs and its historical memory. Thank you very much for speaking about this; I sincerely thank you.
[30:43] Kęstutis Vilkauskas: Thank you. Well, our conference is drawing to a close, but perhaps one last question or statement. Please.
[30:57] Eduardas Šablinskas, Vilnius resident: Two things come together here. First, it is very important that historians and the institute make an effort to act on what Birutė proposed: to begin work and collect the material.
Second, we did all of this to demonstrate that the Concert and Sports Palace is needed. Returning to the economic aspects, I can say that our own state officials ruined the Sports Palace. Take note of the ugly building erected at the corner of Rinktinės Street: it too encroaches on a cemetery, but it was built quietly, calmly, by people who were no good, and people moved in without any [the sentence breaks off]. These are economic matters.
There is an attempt to set against one another my respected Jewish people, about whom I have written a great deal. They genuinely have rights there and have come up with a very fine way of commemorating the place. Now it is only necessary to achieve a synthesis with the Concert and Sports Palace.
Most important, I hope this conference will at last set in motion the implementation of all the legal acts that have been adopted. All that remains is the money, and the builders can go to work, because the permits have been issued.
And I have to add something else. We are also standing on a cemetery here. Those who remember their youth will recall that there was a youth stadium here, and before that there was also a cemetery. And in this square, where [Vilnius mayor Valdas] Benkunskas is trying to overshadow the Sports Palace, he wants to build another conference centre. What is it needed for?
This is a case of setting things against each other, as in the old days when they closed the Sports Palace in order to open the Siemens Arena, so that it would not compete with it. It is all about flows of people. Now the same thing is being attempted again.
Instead, and I say this without malice, there should be a Seimas residence or hostel here, with the first and second floors used as halls to receive people. Then at last that wretched building [reference unclear] would be freed up and could be given over to private business.
So I hope that what is taking place here, and the opening at one o’clock afterwards, will finally get the reconstruction project moving by the end of this year. Thank you.
[33:19] Vilkauskas: Thank you very much. Only Vincentas, briefly—briefly.
[33:26] Vincentas [surname uncertain]: We nevertheless have to distinguish what Birutė mentioned, which is a broad, general matter for consideration and resolution at the level of the city and even all Lithuania. There are unresolved problems concerning the commemoration of defenders, partisans and others. That is a broad issue.
But when a particular matter has been resolved, everything has been agreed, and then we get endless examination and endless improvement, I can see that we are sliding in that direction. Here we have to resolve the issue. As for the name that was mentioned, perhaps we can improve it. But that draft resolution was already considered at its first stage in the Seimas; all the main questions were discussed there, and it should be implemented. Are we going to wait until the building collapses and then divide up the bricks, or whatever is left?
[34:29] Vilkauskas: Thank you, Vincentas. Well, to conclude—please, if this is a discussion we must let others speak as well. Please.
[34:43] Vilkauskas: Just switch on your microphone, because we cannot hear you.
[34:47] Unidentified questioner: Thank you. Dr. Jonaitis, you mentioned that there are probably very few human remains there. Do you have any sources that would prove that there are no remains of the dead in the cemetery there?
[35:02] Rytis Jonaitis: Thank you for the question. That was my supposition. I do not know. It is a supposition based on experience working on sites like that, on construction projects of the scale of the Sports Palace. When it was built, they went very deep indeed. So I think that everything on the actual site of the Sports Palace should have been destroyed. But again, I repeat, this is only a supposition.
[35:26] Unidentified questioner: And a second question. These are very attractive images, but I do not see any signs here, as was mentioned, indicating that this is a Jewish cemetery. Was it a Jewish cemetery?
[35:43] Another voice: It is.
[35:43] Unidentified questioner: Is there a Star of David anywhere here?
[35:47] Vilkauskas [speaker identification probable]: Yes, I can answer that. We genuinely invite you to the exhibition at one o’clock. The entire project will be presented there professionally, briefly but professionally, and you will be able to see those smaller details that form part of the historical-memory component of the project. I sincerely invite you.
[36:08] Vilkauskas: I see no more questions. Oh, please, one more speaker.
[36:11] Representative of the Kaunas Jewish Religious Community [name transcribed indistinctly, possibly beginning with “Tikš…”]: I wanted to ask a question. There is a thought that continually troubles me. The tsarist authorities: did they purchase this cemetery territory, or did they pay for the removal of human remains? And whose property was it? Did it belong to the kahal [Jewish communal authority], or to the state, meaning the so-called tsarist state?
That is what is unclear to me. Do documents survive in the archives identifying who actually owned or administered the cemetery territory?
[36:50] Vilkauskas: Rytis, please, the question is for you.
[36:53] Rytis Jonaitis: You see, I am an archaeologist investigating considerably older things. It is a great pity that Vida Girininkienė could not attend. This is entirely her subject: she specialises precisely in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century cemeteries.
Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to this question, and I do not want to speculate about whether the land was purchased or payment was made. One would have to examine nineteenth-century historical sources, which I have no doubt are very well documented.
[37:27] Vilkauskas: Thank you. Please—this really must be the last one; we cannot seem to end the press conference.
[37:31] Unidentified audience participant: I want to bring us back to the subject of the press conference. During this event I heard an excellent idea, first put forward by Valionytė, which I think is very meaningful. Our values and our self-awareness are, after all, based on history.
We should investigate and present Vilnius in its successive historical layers, and represent those layers physically in the city itself. In other words, as we walk through the city we should continually encounter markers showing, for example, where the city boundary once stood. In all medieval cities cemeteries were situated at the edge of the city, because the city was very small. It grew and grew and grew. And so it happened in Vilnius that we now all find ourselves in former cemetery zones.
It would be valuable to have recognisable markers in a unified format. This might be a public initiative or perhaps a state project that would restore this history, especially for our young people, who today do not take such a focused interest. Walking around the city, they would come across these markers, scan a QR code and learn about the place. The material could be continually updated.
There should be some modest, simple inscription and a QR code linking to a continually updated website where different multimedia formats could present the period of Lithuanian history in which a particular layer of the city came into being.
That could be an excellent idea arising from this press conference.
[39:17] Kęstutis Vilkauskas: Thank you very much. Let me repeat once more that the subject of our conference was precisely “Vilnius, a City Built on Cemeteries: Today’s Challenges.” That means the whole city. We have heard a historical assessment and the viewpoint of the Tatar community, which is also a historic national minority.
I want sincerely to thank everyone who participated in our conference today. I thank Dr. Rytis Jonaitis, archaeologist and researcher in the Institute of History’s Department of Urban Research, and Dr. Adas Jakubauskas, longtime chairman of the Union of Lithuanian Tatar Communities and associate professor at Mykolas Romeris University.
I thank everyone who asked questions and spoke. Let us move forward towards our decision. I believe that this discussion and this conference will encourage us to look even more carefully, and with greater respect, at how this question should be resolved.
Thank you sincerely, and I look forward to seeing everyone at the exhibition and presentation at one o’clock. Thank you.
[40:21] Unidentified voice: Thank you. Good luck.
◊
Translator’s notes for editorial checking
- The supplied text is the platform-generated Lithuanian transcript, not an independently checked stenogram. Square-bracketed uncertainties are deliberately retained. Speaker identities at several audience interventions have not been verified against the video.
- At approximately 02:47, the automatic transcript appears to give 2018 as the date of an earlier government resolution. The relevant measure is Lithuanian Government Resolution No. 597 of 9 June 2015, subsequently amended, with a consolidated version effective from 30 November 2018.
- The audience surnames at approximately 15:00 and 19:03, the sculptor’s surname at approximately 24:55, and the Kaunas Jewish Religious Community representative’s name at approximately 36:08 are uncertain in the machine output.
- At 11:52–12:38, Dr. Jonaitis advances the opinion that the old Jewish cemetery was probably destroyed during building works. At 34:47–35:26 he explicitly acknowledges that he does not know whether remains survive and that his assessment is only a supposition. The distinction between an archaeologist’s hypothesis and archaeological proof is essential.
- Some references to other Vilnius burial grounds, to tsarist land purchases and to relocation of graves are statements made by participants; this translation does not independently substantiate them.
- The reference to the American hundred-dollar note at 17:00 is reproduced as spoken; the image on that note should not be silently treated as a checked factual assertion.
- Video source: original recording. For sensitive quotations, compare the specific timestamp with the original audio before using quotation marks as definitive testimony.