Nicholas B. Breyfogle, Abby Schrader, and Willard Sunderland, eds., Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History.
L. M. Dameshek and A. V. Remnev, Sibir" v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii [Siberia as Part of the Russian Empire]. 362 pp., maps. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2007. ISBN 5867935108.
In the aftermath of the USSR's collapse, scholarship on Siberia and the Russian/ Soviet periphery has increased, driven by post-colonial paradigms and greater access to former Soviet archives. Traditional scholarship is being subjected to revision, and new questions are being asked. Siberia's indigenes have received greater attention;l the journal Ab Imperio as well as recent collections by Jane Burbank and others have reconceptualized empire and imperial space;2 and the resurrected interdisciplinary journal Sibirica provides a forum for discussion of Siberia and the Russian Far East. Sibirskii khronograf is publishing an excellent series of primary document collections,3 and every week sees new studies by Russian historians) Altogether, this scholarship variously addresses relations between center and periphery and between hegemons and regional ethnicities, the exploitation of resources, imperial aggrandizement, and conflicts between competing value systems and belief structures. Both books under review reflect this exciting period for scholars who are reconceptualizing Siberia and the Russian periphery.
L. M. Dameshek and A. V. Remnev's study of Siberia during the imperial period is most welcome, and it deserves translation into English and other languages. This volume from the Borderlands of the Russian Empire series of Historica Rossica partially updates the magisterial five-volume Istoriia Sibiri [History of Siberia] edited by Aleksei Pavlovich Okladnikov and others during the late 1960s.5 Though constructed within a Marxist-Leninist framework, Okladnikov's collection has yet to be entirely superseded. But in contrast to it, as well as to the several volumes of important essays later edited by Leonid Mikhailovich Goriushkin of Novosibirsk University,6 Dameshek and Remnev interrogate Siberia's functionality so as to subvert the very notion of it as an integral part of a supposed imperium. Post-Soviet surveys on Siberian history have tended to be secondary- or tertiary-level textbooks/Dameshek and Remnev's volume also targets university students, yet, despite several passages that dwell too much on facts, figures, names, and dates, their analysis and thematic conceptualization render it engaging for specialists as well.
They introduce two major themes for considering Siberia's history: its role in Russia's "imperial narrative" (5); and the disjunctures, both administrative and social, that arose between center and periphery. With regard to the first of these, the authors note that Siberia is a "mental construct" (13), not least because it is difficult even to define the region geographically. Some geologists disregard the Urals as a legitimate boundary between Asia and the putatively discrete continent of Europe; and present-day dal'nevostachniki (Far Easterners) will sometimes bristle at being called "Siberians." Under Peter I, the province of Siberia (Sibirskaia guberniia) included regions west of the Urals. Culturally, the relative ease with which Russians traversed the subcontinent to reach Kamchatka by 1700 indicated to some their "natural" right to it. Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin even wrote that there were portions of Asia and North America where the "geography has a purely Russian physiognomy"; and he suggested that these areas could somehow be united with the "native Russian land" (korennaia Russkaia zemlia), the supposed "fundamental core" of the empire (17).
So the question is posed from the beginning: Was Siberia a colony or not? Was it part of a general Drang nach Osten, as G. Patrick March has argued,8 or did it constitute a "fundamental" part of the Russian state, like the erstwhile Riazan' principality? Indeed, the question itself introduces the Andersonian notion of Russia as an "imagined community."9 Dameshek and Remnev do not explicitly argue in favor of seeing the Russian state this way, but it is telling that they devote all of chapter 10 (the last chapter) to that group of young intelligenty convicted and punished during the 1860s for oblastnichestvo---a word that strictly means "regionalism" but also carries connotations of "separatism" for proponents and opponents alike. The authors extensively discuss the ideas of Grigorii Nikolaevich Potanin and Nikolai Mikhailovich Iadrintsev--who, after his return from exile in Arkhangel' province, expressed these ideas in his magnum opus Siberia as a Colony.10 Both men were influenced by Proudhon, Saint-Simon, and Marx; and Iadrintsev's comparison of Siberia's exploitation to that of the American colonies by England indicates that he drew inspiration from Franklin and Jefferson as well. He also developed a (pardon the phrase) proto-post-colonialist discourse. As Dameshek and Remnev write, "Iadrintsev recognized that there were 'natural' causes, which he directly attributes to civilization's negative effects, for native peoples' extinction." "He saw colonization as inevitably connected with illnesses lethal to the 'inorodtsy,' the decline of traditional agriculture and even famine, and 'psychological shocks and oppressive effects'" (318). Despite Marx's influence, Iadrintsev and Potanin were original thinkers: "The regionalists' idea of patriotism and nationalism was more topical for Siberia than the 'struggle with capital' because, in their opinion, it [their idea] retained part of the ideal of human development--autonomy. From this Potanin derived a completely eastern analogue to the Swiss sense of nationalism: 'Such colossal patriotism in so small a society'" (324).
Anyone following events in Siberia since 1991 might reasonably ask whether the authors are guilty of presentism in this and similar passages. But I think not. Both Iadrintsev and contemporary Siberian newspapers advanced a decidedly anti-government line, challenging Petersburg's use of the region as a dumping ground for convicts, casting doubt on its ability to protect against an alleged threat from China, and questioning the distribution of wealth generated by their region's natural resources. How they avoided censorship for so long remains something of a mystery (though Irkutsk's daily Sibir' and Iadrintsev's Vostochnoe
obozrenie were eventually shut down). That Siberians to this day voice similar concerns shows how fossilized center-periphery relations remain. As such, the authors conclude by suggesting that there are two "methods" by which Russia may be governed. The first grants local governments considerable autonomy and gives the center control only "partly." The second is rigidly hierarchical and vertically integrated, with the center "deciding all questions and substituting for local self-government." Russia was ruled according to the first method until the early 18th century, when the second replaced it. Dameshek and Remnev suggest that the "market and democracy may not develop effectively in these conditions," and that the "history of Siberian regionalism is not merely interesting but also undoubtedly significant and practical" (333). While leaving suspended the notion of the state as a "mental construct," they seem to believe that such a state, whatever it is based on, should be governed according to the decentralized method they attribute to pre-Petrine Russia. This suggests an interesting blend of Slavophilism, democracy, and confederate organization.
The authors devote much attention to Siberia's indigenes. Whereas west of the Urals the imperial narrative involved a supposed "gathering of the Rus'," no such story about the east and its peoples could be convincing. Administrators and scholars debated how to categorize Tatars, Ostiaki, Tungus, and other natives whose lifestyles eluded the definitions of the sosloviia (social estates) to which others were being assigned. This was a serious issue for the state, involving as it did taxation and individuals' "imperial rights." (11) The Russian imperial government's record on indigenous affairs rates comparatively well to that of the governments of the United States or Australia, largely because the Crown benefited enormously from the furs the natives paid as tribute (iasak). For this reason the state, from the beginning, sought to protect natives from settlers, and a regulation in the 1822 Siberian Reforms granted natives separate legal protections. (12) Special native courts were established as part of the judicial reforms of the 1860s, and Iadrintsev and other oblastniki showed considerable interest in indigenous affairs. (13) Nonetheless, most tribes had to pay some form of tribute until the end of the imperial era, and virtually all suffered the near-destruction of traditional belief systems and ways of life.
Dameshek and Remnev's second theme concerning disjunctures between center and periphery is revisited throughout. As of Peter I's reign, Siberia already had a long history of corrupt military governors (voevody) thanks in large part to the officially condoned practice of graft called kormlenie ("feeding"). But this earlier period paled in comparison to what followed, when such governors as Ivan Varfolomeevich Iakobi, Ivan Osipovich Selifontov, and Nikolai Ivanovich Treskin established veritable satrapies. Not until the 1850s, during the still quite autocratic rule of eastern Siberia's governor-general Nikolai Nikolaevich Murav'ev, did Siberian officialdom begin to professionalize. (14) Nonetheless, throughout the imperial era the center's control over personnel and institutions in the periphery was always subject to the vagaries of weather, geography, communications, and sheer distance. As late as the 1980s, no paved road existed to connect Vladivostok to the interior; and only in 1991 was the Baikal-Amur (BAM) Railroad finally completed. Though patterned after those in Russia, Siberia's settlements were too far-flung and spread out for understaffed regional administrations to govern adequately. This facilitated banditry but also, in combination with the absence of serfdom, created a peasantry more autonomous than in European Russia. The authors detail the region's complicated administrative evolution, proving that for all their shortcomings, central and regional officials doggedly tried to improve the system. All the same, Russia's sovereigns typically failed to comprehend the situation in Siberia; a gulf divided those with a systematizing mentality from the means needed to realize reforms; and most officials refused to lift a finger without superiors' direct orders (and even then routinely ignored them).
These problems are evidenced by the fate of the 1822 Siberian Reforms. Devised for the most part by Mikhail Mikhailovich Speranskii following his brief stint as Siberia's governor, they addressed many aspects of what he and the Siberian Committee acknowledged was a region with conditions unique within the empire. Speranskii's general administrative reforms laid the bases for more rational governance, and the authors discuss these at length. Regulations concerning exile failed to improve the situation, however, due to both the exponential increase in deportees' numbers and policymakers' fundamental conceit that rigidly applied statutes would transform urban criminals and other societal deviants into productive peasants and laborers. Aside from their failure, these exile regulations reveal how the systematizing impulse that inaugurated rational governance also ushered in an age of social engineering projects and massive human rights violations. (15) The authors give a useful introduction to Siberia's exilic history, which commenced soon after Ermak's 1582 invasion. But their assertion that tsarist exiles' numbers increased following the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railroad is misleading, given that the peak occurred earlier, during Alexander II's reign. Exiles' numbers did increase after 1905 (only in small part because the railroad facilitated deportation) but did not reach earlier levels.
In sum, Sibir' v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii is a commendable volume that manages to address a number of historical and conceptual issues in a succinct and balanced manner. With its many useful maps, statistical tables, and chronologies of regional officials, it should serve as a standard reference work for scholars wishing to explore Siberian history in greater detail.
By comparison, Peopling the Russian Periphery is a more wide-ranging contribution that includes several frontier regions as well as the Soviet period. But it is a less satisfying work. Published in 2007, it consists mostly of articles originating at a conference held at The Ohio State University in 2001. This publishing delay was likely beyond the control of the editors, each of whom has written an important study concerning the Russian empire's periphery but who contributed only the introduction to this collection. (16) It should be noted that at least four of the book's twelve contributors have recently published monographs similar to their articles. (17)
The introduction includes an informed discussion of the historiography of the periphery and concludes that, despite different schools of thought ("state school," "liberal," "regionalist"), tsarist-era historians "agreed that colonization represented a dominant leitmotif of Russian history" (2). A generally favorable attitude toward colonization prevailed throughout the Soviet era until the 1980s, when "some historians of colonization had begun to apologize for the ideological excesses of earlier scholarship" (3). With important earlier exceptions, (18) it was during the same period that Western historians began focusing on colonization and the periphery. (19) Given that Russian as well as non-Russian historians have been influenced by "the linguistic turn" and consequent developments in postcolonial and cultural studies, it is odd that no Russian scholars are included in this collection, especially given the editors' avowed hope that their volume will contribute to comparative studies and help contextualize Russia within an international experience.
Comparative approaches are no doubt useful, but I am unconvinced by the editors' assertion that Russia's colonial tradition is more similar to than distinct from those of other states. Despite the editors' disapproval of the value-laden term Sanderweg, Russia's colonial development was indeed unique, irrespective of whether one sees this as good or bad. From its beginnings Russia was a collation of territories conquered, annexed, and colonized by a little principality called Muscovy. In contrast to those of most other countries, these colonized territories were contiguous to the motherland rather than separated by leagues of ocean. As for the notion of a frontier, the United States similarly had one that stretched from its capital city to the Pacific, but there is little in the American experience to compare with Russia's exile system or government restrictions over settlement, and North America's nomadic tribes could not match Central Asia's sedentary societies as a deterrent to manifest destiny. Chinas Xinjiang province offers a rough analogy to Siberia, but significant differences remain, insofar as Xinjiang absorbed many fewer exiles, and the exiles it had were more closely monitored by central authorities. (20) As these comparisons suggest, Russia's Eurasian experience was sui generis due in large part to the more than one million people deported between 1807 and 1917 alone. All of this makes the absence in this volume of an article on pre-Soviet exile inexplicable.
There is similarly little evidence for the assertion that, beginning in the 18th century, Russian elites embraced "a European-style civilizing mission in which ordinary Russian colonists.., were imagined as Kulturtrager" (10). During the 19th century, writers' and statesmen's "imperial visions" certainly conditioned views of Siberia and the East in general; (21) but the divide between the "two Russias"-elites and commoners--precluded the kind of civilizing mission suggested here. Orthodox missionaries did set about converting natives, but neither on the scale nor with the ferocity of Spanish missionaries in the New World. Government officials were more inclined to protect indigenes from Russian settlers than to regard the latter as Kulturtrdger. Indeed, they generally denigrated those they governed. In 1623, Tobol'sk's voevoda complained to Moscow about the "scandalous .... illegal, [and] un-Christian behavior" of "people from all walks of life" in his city, including monks and nuns. (22) Frequent murders, rapes, rambunctious Cossacks, and dealers of contraband tobacco made Siberia's frontier cities rough-and-tumble places, and over the next two centuries (and during the period cited by the editors), such behavior may actually have worsened, thanks to a skeletal police force and the deportation of hundreds of thousands of criminals. (23) Far from trying "to civilize" them, officials hired Tungus and other natives because of their ability to track down fugitives; and what Iadrintsev later called a "guerilla war" raged throughout the countryside between settlers and criminal vagrants known as brodiagi. (24) Hence Speranskii tried to protect indigenes with a special regulation. Moreover, those supposedly designated as Kulturtrager were themselves "civilized," in the sense that they intermarried with natives and adopted their lifestyle in such a way as to become known as sibiriaki. Nikolai Bestuzhev, who like his brother Mikhail was exiled as a Decembrist, married a Buriat woman and chose to remain in Siberia despite having permission to return to Petersburg. He penned the first ethnographic studies of Buriats and lauded their belief system. His predecessor Aleksandr Radishchev had written similar ethnographic studies after being exiled to the upper Lena River. Certain elites undoubtedly did believe in a mission civilisatrice, but they reckoned that it did not depend upon "ordinary Russians."
The best articles in this uneven collection are by Valerie Kivelson, Lynne Viola, and Alfred J. Rieber--none of whom attended the Ohio State conference. Kivelson's article shows that from the beginning Muscovite sovereigns and officials sought to justify their occupation of Siberia on legal grounds and through cartographical iteration. At the same time, and in contrast to the Spanish and the English, "the Russian sovereign and his judicial-administrative system were ... committed to taking seriously the petitions of Siberian natives and to dispensing justice to natives and Russians alike" (32). Viola focuses on what she terms the "aesthetic" of the so-called special settlements, to which hundreds of thousands were deported during Soviet times. Abjuring any totalitarian paradigm, she nonetheless finds that "an entire paper world of intricate plans ... represented a vision of control and rational order projected on to the chaos of Russia by an urban state determined to transform and control a largely agrarian administration and peasant economy" (194-95, italics in the original). She develops these notions at length in her recent book, but her article still manages to illustrate the devastating lethal impact of Stalinism's "veritable cult of scientific planning" (196).
Rieber's conclusion summarizes several themes he credits as having been introduced by the foregoing set of articles but which he himself actually mentions first. From its very beginnings, he writes, the Russian state recognized the advantages of settling servitors and peasants along the periphery while trying to prevent others from escaping through it. Rieber suggests an explanation for "why no single overriding myth of the frontier, comparable to the [Frederick Jackson] Turner thesis in American history, prevailed in Russian history" (267). First, Russian frontiers' multifarious functions defied formulation of a common myth; second, Russia's governing elites were less united behind state policies than their American counterparts. This second point is debatable, however, and seems to overlook Washington's political wrangling over, for example, Native Americans, the Transcontinental Railroad, and oil exploration. Asserting that "[p]hysical features, not politics, set the boundaries of regions" (275), Rieber raises an important point insufficiently developed by the other contributors, but which Russian scholars have done much to emphasize. Finally, he notes several issues of current concern, such as the depopulating of northern Siberia, that all told highlight the absence in this volume of an article on the post-Khrushchev period. Several other of Rieber's propositions are more problematic. For example, his characterization of Siberia's Old Believer communities as "backward-looking utopias seeking to reconstruct the world they lost in the great schism of the seventeenth century" (268) is not supported by the evidence. Old Believers were hard-working, peaceable teetotalers whose cattle-raising and other enterprises contributed significantly to regional economies. Local administrators drew explicit comparisons between them and those exile-settlers generally unable to become self-sufficient peasants who depended on state subsidies, escaped or joined Siberia's enormous vagrant population, or simply died of exposure or malnutrition. Whatever their eschatological beliefs, Old Believers were progressive in that they prefigured the yeoman farmers later called for by the Stolypin Reforms and were key to the region's development. During its final years the tsarist government actually welcomed 5,000 Old Believer migrants from Central Europe to settle the Russian Far East. (25) Rieber's assertion that model colonies began with Catherine II, withered under her immediate successors, and gained new life during the empire's final years, is also not right. In Siberia, construction of state colonies began during Empress Anna's reign and continued until the 1840s, when Petersburg abandoned them due to a decline in both treasury funding and faith in Physiocratic economics. Throughout this period few state colonies in Siberia were successful, and projects initiated by Empress Elizabeth and Emperor Paul were nothing short of catastrophic. It is also a stretch to claim that settlement of Siberia and the Russian Far East during the late imperial period was based on "rational planning" (270).
Among the volume's other articles, Brian J. Boeck's on Muscovy's policies vis-a-vis the southern steppe stands out. He writes that Moscow "was primarily interested in cordoning off the steppe, not colonizing it" (41), due to the threat from nomads. His observation that the steppe also represented an epidemiological danger is especially insightful. Andrei A. Znamenski's piece on the "rock people" (kamenshchiki) of the Altai highlights the fluidity and manipulability of identity in imperial Russia. He shows how a small group of ethnic Russians insisted on being classified as inorodtsy so as to receive tax benefits and other rights typically enjoyed only by Siberia's indigenes. Such self-assertion took on mythic proportions: "regionalists freely recast the administrative and financial leeway that the 'rock people' enjoyed into a form of folk democratic rule--and an alternative to the existing social and political realities" (118).
Also exceptional is Elena Shulman's survey of the propaganda used to draw females to the Russian Far East during the 1930s, as well as their reasons for leaving and their experiences while there. She persuasively argues "that the dream of frontier exploits effectively struck a chord among young women because it was one of the few spaces where womanly virtues seemed to be a decisive force both in history and in revolutionary struggles against nature and savagery" (215). Fear of Japan and the popularity of Jack London's and other American adventure stories were factored into state propaganda. Shulman discerns women's motivations and experiences by analyzing their letters home. Many felt that by leaving European Russia behind they would escape the "daily drudgery of housekeeping" (220) and traditional gender roles; and it seems that many were empowered by joining in the building of a frontier society--something that helps explain differences between Far Eastern and European Russian women to this day.
Michaela Pohl's "The 'Planet of One Hundred Languages'" revises our picture of the Virgin Lands campaign, traditionally derided as Khrushchevian folly. Pohl describes Virgin Land settlements in what is today called the Astana region of Kazakhstan as having evolved into successful multi-ethnic communities. This evolution was not easy, however, and she has found evidence of mass violence among Russians, Chechens, Kazakhs, and others who suddenly found themselves living cheek-by-jowl. Pohl is keen to point out that these settlers were truly volunteers, and not just called that by the authorities. Like Shulman's young women, they had various reasons for moving to Kazakhstan, as her interviews with present-day residents show. "The contradictory (not just negative) effects on Kazakh culture and the dramatic and previously unknown evidence of clashes with others should not obstruct our view of the more durable processes through which ethnic relations improved, primarily through the growth of prosperity," Pohl writes (257, italics in the original). She adds that it was difficult to get interviewees to discuss their region's violent past, and excerpts demonstrate that these people are proud of what they accomplished and want visitors to think the best of them. Nonetheless, Pohl supports their accounts with statistical data illuminating the Virgin Lands' positive side.
In conclusion, Breyfogle, Schrader, and Sunderland's collection has much to offer specialists and graduate students, but a well-rounded English-language primer on Eurasian peripheral studies is still needed. Then again, the conflation in a single volume of Siberia with Russia's other peripheries seems more likely to obscure particularities than to reveal general truths. Russia's borderland colonization, at times systematic, was also necessarily ad hoc and, in any case, took place over hundreds of years. Policies and practices pertaining to expansion in the southern steppe during the 17th century were enormously different from those, say, in the settlement of the Amur region during the late 18th. Despite several recent, well-researched works by non-Russians, in the aftermath of Marxism-Leninism's ideological collapse Russian scholars now dominate the study of Siberian history and are reconfiguring this enormous region's present as well as its past. Just a small number of their publications have been cited here, but many topics remain to be investigated, such as Siberia's communities of Old Believers, Poles, and Skoptsy; the maritime ports of Okhotsk, Vladivostok, and Petropavlovsk; Grigorii Skorniakov-Pisarev's picaresque career; the lucrative gold-mining industry; the Sibiriakov merchant family; the BAM; Primor'e's Asian immigrant population; Siberian monasteries--to name but a few. Students planning to enter this field should first familiarize themselves with both older and newer Russian publications as well as keep abreast of the journal Sibirica, and use the two books reviewed here as points of departure.
School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics
University of Queensland
St. Lucia QLD 4072
(1) Yuri Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994); Andrei Znamenski, Shamanism and Christianity: Native Encounters with Russian Orthodox Missions in Siberia and Alaska, 1820-I917 (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999).
(2) Jane Burbank and David L. Ransel, eds., Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998); Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, and Anatolyi Remnev, eds., Russian Empire." Space, People, Power, 1700-1930 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007).
(3) See, e.g., N. N. Pokrovskii, ed., Pervoe stoletie sibirskikh gorodov: XVII vek (Novosibirsk: Sibirskii khronograf, 1996).
(4) See, e.g., L. P. Roshchevskaia and V. K. Beloborodov, eds., Tobol'skii sever." Glazami politicheskikh ssyl'nykh XIX-nachala XX veka (Ekaterinburg: Sredne-Ural'skoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1998); and G. V. Shebaldina, Shvedskie voennoplennye v Sibiri: Pervaia chetvert' XVIII veka (Moscow: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2005).
(5) Aleksei Pavlovich Okladnikov et al., eds., Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei (Leningrad: Nauka, 1968-69). Other volumes in the Borderlands series include Aleksei Miller and Mikhail Dolbilov, eds., Zapadnye okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006)--reviewed in Kritika 9, 2 (2008): 407-32; V. O. Bobrovnikov and I. L. Babich, eds., Severnyi Kavkaz v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2007); and S. N. Abashin, D. Iu. Arapov, and N. E. Bekmakhanova, eds., Tsentral'naia Aziia v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2008).
(6) See, e.g., Ssylka i katorga v Sibiri (XVIII-nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1975); Politicheskie ssyl'nye v Sibiri (XVIII-nachalo XX v.) (Novosi birsk: Nauka, 1983); Krest'ianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri, 1907-1914 gg.: Khronika i istoriografiia (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986); and Politicheskaia ssylka i revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Rossii konets XIX--nachalo XX v. (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988).
(7) M. V. Dorofeev, Istoriia Sibiri: Uchebnoe posobie dlia studentov neistoricheskikh fakul'tetov (Novokuznetsk: Kuzbasskaia gosudarstvennaia pedagogicheskaia akademiia, 2007); A. K. Kirillov et al., Istoriia Sibiri, 1583-2006: Problemy i perspektivy. Sbornik materialov regional'noi molodezhnoi nauchnoi konferentsii (Novosibirsk: Sova, 2006); I. V. Naumov, Istoriia Sibiri: Kurs lektsii (Irkutsk: Izdatel'stvo Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta, 2003); Leonid Grigor'evich Olekh, Istoriia Sibiri: Uchebnoe posobie (Novosibirsk: Sibirskoe soglashenie, 2001).
(8) G. Patrick March, Eastern Destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996).
(9) See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New York: Verso, 2006).
(10) N. M. Iadrintsev, Sibir" kak koloniia v geograficheskom, etnograficheskom i dopolnennoe (1882; repr. 1892; repr. Novosibirsk: Sibirskii khronograf, 2003).
(11) See Jane Burbank, "An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire," Kritika 7, 3 (2006): 397-431.
(12) See also Lev Dameshek, "'Ustav ob upravelenii inorodtsev' Speranskogo," Zemlia irkutskaia, no. 8 (1997): 17-19; and Marc Raeff, Siberia and the Reforms of 1822 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, I956).
(13) Elena Kovalaschina, "The Historical and Cultural Ideals of the Siberian Oblastnirhestvo," Sibirica 6, 2 (2007): 87-119.
(14) See N. 12. Matkhanova, Vysshaia administratsiia Vostochnoi Sibiri v seredine XIX veka: Problemy sotsial'noi stratifikatsii (Novosibirsk: Sibirskii khronograf, 2002).
(15) See Andrew A. Gentes, Exile to Siberia, 1590-1822 (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2008), chap. 5.
(16) Abby Schrader, Languages of the Lash: Corporal Punishment and Identity in Imperial Russia (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002); Willard Sunderland, Taming the WildField: Colonization and Empire on the Russian Steppe (Ithaca, N Y: Cornell University Press, 2004); Nicholas B. Breyfogle, Heretics and Colonizers: Forging Russia's Empire in the Caucasus (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005).
(17) Valerie Kivelson, Cartographies of Tsardom: The Land and Its Meanings in Seventeenth-Century Russia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006); Lynne Viola, The Unknown Gulag: The Lost World of Stalin's Special Settlements (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Jeff Sahadeo, Russian Colonial Society in Tashkent, 1865-1923 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007)--reviewed in this issue of Kritika; Elena Schulman, Stalinism on the Frontier of Empire: Women and State Formation in the Soviet Far East (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
(18) See, e.g., Donald W. Treadgold, The Great Siberian Migration: Government and Peasant Resettlement from Emancipation to the First World War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957); and Raeff, Siberia and the Reforms.
(19) See, e.g., March, Eastern Destiny; Steven G. Marks, Road to Power: The Tram-Siberian Railroad and the Colonization of Asian Russia, 1850-1917 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); and Znamenski, Shamanism and Christianity.
(20) Joanna Waley-Cohen, Exile in Mid-Qing China: Banishment to Xinjiang, 1758-1820 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991).
(21) See Mark Bassin, Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
(22) Gramota dated 31 January 1623, reproduced in G. E Miller [Muller], Istoriia Sibiri, 3 vols., ed. E. P. Bat'ianova et al. (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1999-2005), 2: 342-47.
(23) During the 19th century the Zhurnal Ministerstva vnutrennykh del (ZhMVD) routinely identified Siberia as having the highest violent crime rate of any region of the empire, save the Caucasus. See, e.g. ZhMVD, no. 7 (July 1840), tables 1,3 lit. A; nos. 4-12 (April 1842), table 18; nos. 7-8 (1844),
table(s) B; nos. 9-12 (1845), table(s) B; nos. 29-32 (1850), table(s) B; no. 11 (1855), table(s) B; (May-June 1855), table B; (July-August 1855), table B; and nos. 14-15 (1855), table(s) B. 24 Andrew A. Gentes, "Vagabondage and Exile to Tsarist Siberia: Disciplinary Modernism in Tsarist Russia," in Cast Out: A History of Vagrancy in Global and Historical Perspective, ed. Augustus Leon Beier and Paul Ocobock (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008), 184-208.
(25) Treadgold, Great Siberian Migration, 70-71.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Gentes, Andrew A.|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2009|
|Previous Article:||Nikolai Nikolaevich Pokrovskii and Gail D. Lenhoff, eds., The Book of Degrees of the Tsars' Genealogy" according to the Oldest Manuscripts: Texts and...|
|Next Article:||Irina Iukina, Russian Feminism as a Challenge of Modernity/Russkii feminizm kak vyzov sovremennosti.|