Russia and Siberia in the World-System: German Perspectives || Rossia Siberica: Russian-Siberian History Compared to Medieval Conquest and Modern Colonialism

Research Foundation of SUNY

Rossia Siberica: Russian-Siberian History Compared to Medieval Conquest and ModernColonialismAuthor(s): Martin AustSource: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 27, No. 3, Russia and Siberia in the World-System: German Perspectives (2004), pp. 181-205Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel CenterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241735 .

Accessed: 04/09/2013 13:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Research Foundation of SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 13:17:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsuny

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241735?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Rossia Sïberica Russian-Siberian History Compared to Medieval Conquest and Modern Colonialism

Martin Aust

twelve years Alan Wood has been criticizing the fact that Soviet historiography has filled libraries on Siberian history,

while Western works have been sparse. He deplored the lack of a comprehensive history of Siberia in English or any other Western language (Wood, 1987: 35). In addition to an overview in German of Ludmilla Thomas (1982), there are four recent syntheses in English (Bobrick, 1992; Forsyth, 1992; Lincoln, 1994; Wood, 1991a). Thus the multi-volume Soviet history of Siberia still remains the most extensive work on this topic (Okladnikov, 1968-69). However, the general reading public in the Western world can form its own picture of Siberia only through its perception as a convict colony found in the literary works of Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, and Solzhenitsyn.

Scholars do not agree on the role of Siberian history in European history. It is still a matter of controversy whether the Russian conquest and exploitation of Siberia should be regarded as a continua- tion of medieval settlement or as an aspect of modern European expansion- in other words, was it aedificatio terrae or colonialism?

Wolfgang Reinhard regards Russian-Siberian history as a contin- uation of medieval eastern colonization as well as parallel to Euro- pean penetration of Austria, America, or Argentina (Reinhard, 1996: 155, 161). However, there are also voices that plead for a more un-

* I thank Prof. Klaus Zernack for encouragement and support. This article was inspired by the discussion in his seminar of Germania Slavica, in which the possible analogy of Rossia Siberica with Germania Slavica was raised. This article was translated by Rahel Petersen-Aust and Beatrice Wallerstein. It was first published in German in the Zeitschriftfur Weltgeschichte , I, 1, Herbst, 2000, 39-63.

review, xxvii, 3, 2004, 181-205 181



182 Martin Aust

equivocal classification. Andreas Rappeler, for example, points to the fate of Siberian natives and the unbridled hunting for fur. He sees Siberia as the "Wild East" by analogy with the "Wild West" in America (Rappeler, 1993: 41). Similarly, Fernand Braudel sees the Russian exploitation of Siberia as part of European overseas expansion (Braudel, 1989: 8-9).

On the other hand, Rlaus Zernack (1994) stresses the component of universal history in the Russian penetration of Siberia. He sees it as the final step of more than a thousand years of settlement, a process that started in Western Europe and was brought to Siberia by the Russians. From this point of view the cultural South-North divide of the Roman Empire seems to be transformed into a West-East divide of the Carolingian Empire, in which all the territories east of the Carolingian Empire were regarded as potential targets of colonization. The states of this conquest can be divided into the following periods: the creation of Germania Slavica (eighth to fourteenth centuries), of Polonia Polonica (thirteenth to fourteenth centuries), of Polonia Ruthenica (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries), of Rossia Ros- sica, Rossia Fennica, and Rossia Moscovitica (twelfth to sixteenth centuries), and finally of Rossia Siberica (sixteenth to twentieth centuries). Zernack thus agrees with Rliuchevskii that "Russian history is the story of a land that has been colonized" (1995: 20).

This article seeks to compare Siberian history beginning in the sixteenth century to medieval conquest on the one hand and to modern European colonialism on the other. It is a question of the right comparative context. The aim is not merely to establish parallels of particular phenomena, but also to characterize the course of Rus- sian-Siberian history itself.

In the beginning there were Ivan IV the Terrible, the Novgorod merchant family of the Stroganovs, and Vasilii Ermak Timofeevich and his Cossack troops. It is not yet possible to give a clear answer to the question of which of these initiated Russian expansion into Siberia.

After the turmoil over the succession to the throne of the Rha- nate of Sibir' in 1555, Edigei sent envoys to Tsar Ivan IV in Moscow asking to place Siberia under his rule. Ivan IV willingly acceded to this wish, added the title "Ruler of all the Siberian lands" to his titles and imposed a tribute (acaK, iasak) of 30,000 sable skins. However, the Muscovite tsar did not have the power to impose his will. Rhan Edigei delivered only 700 pieces of fur, and Ivan IV was not able to



ROSSIA SIBERICA 188

force him to meet the tribute quota he had fixed. Moscow's military forces were bogged down in the Northern War, fighting with Sweden and Poland-Lithuania for the Dominium maris baltici. The lack of tsarist power became fully evident when Kuchum became Khan of Sibir' and ended allegiance to Ivan IV (Skrynnikov, 1982: 106-10).

In these circumstances, anyone who got involved in the economy of the eastern region of the Muscovite state had to provide his own protection. This was particularly true for the Novgorod merchant family of the Stroganovs, whose wealth was founded on salt, ore, grains, and furs. They traded with the English and Dutch, established commercial links with Central Asia and even with Paris and Antwerp (Bobrick, 1992: 39). In 1558, Ivan IV granted the Stroganovs the privilege to exploit salt, copper, and iron along the Kama River in the Urals. For a twenty-year period he released them from paying tribute in this area and vested them with the powers of administration and jurisdiction. They were also supposed to defend the area against the Nogais and the Tatars (Nolde, 1952: 132-33; Lantzeff & Pierce, 1973: 81-84).

Given that it was in the trading interest of the Stroganovs to include parts of Siberia in their mining monopoly and to gain access to the rich sources of Siberian furs (Bobrick, 1992: 41-42), it was not surprising to read in the chronicle of the Stroganov family for the year 1582, that they claim to have instructed ataman Ermak and his Cossack troops to capture the Khanate of Siber' (Dmytryshyn et al., 1985: 3-6; Liubavskii, 1996: 442).

Ruslan G. Skrynnikov has vehemently contradicted this formula- tion. According to him, Ermak decided on his own to capture Iskler, capital of the Khanate of Sibir', on the Irtys River, near what later became Tobolsk. As Skrynnikov says, the Stroganovs had only employed Ermak to defend them against westward-moving Tatars. Thus, it was by chance that Tatar capital was captured while in pursuit of the Tatar aggressors. Surprised by the course of events, Er- mak himself decided to assume administrative duties in the name of the tsar, who was only later informed about this (Skrynnikov, 1982; 1992:313-18,330-31).

Skrynnikov's interpretation of the events has not found wide agreement. The authors of the Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands argue that the conquest was a result of the hostile relationship between the Muscovite Empire and the Khanate of Sibir', thus ascrib-



184 Martin Aust

ing the initiative neither to the tsar, nor to the Stroganovs, nor to Ermak (Kaempfer & Stoekl, 1989: 897). It is certain, however, that the Muscovite Empire waited until Ermak was captured and that the Khanate of Sibir' was defeated only after Voeikov's campaign in 1598 (Nolde, 1952: 155; Rappeler, 1993: 38).

This prelude to the Russian conquest and opening up of Siberia in the second half of the sixteenth century contains traits of Euro- pean colonialism. For example, the Moscow tsar, like the monarchs of Spain and Portugal, had an interest in filling his public treasure with foreign wealth. What South American silver was to the Spanish, Siberian furs were to the Muscovite rulers (Reinhard, 1996: 58).

One must see the initiative of the Novgorod family of the Stroga- novs in the context of early modern (merchant) capitalism. That no powerful trading companies were founded in Russia such as existed in England or the Netherlands is less due to the Stroganovs themselves than to external circumstances (Braudel, 1986: 475-500). On the one hand, the Muscovite Empire did not have the necessary capital or navigational prerequisites to establish intercontinental trade, as was the case with England and the Netherlands. In addition, the Russians did not have any exportable commercial products, their exports being restricted to raw materials (Heller, 1987: 190). Neverthe- less, the Stroganovs' enterprising impetus is part of the European expansion to the East.

Finally, Ermak's Cossacks may be seen as the social counterpart of Hernàn Cortés' hidalgos when he went off to conquer Mexico in 1519. For all of them, the need for personal security was linked to the need for booty. Conquest took both Ermak and Cortés far from home, where their numbers were inferior to those of the natives but where they prevailed thanks to their firepower (Lincoln, 1994: 42; Thomas, 1998).

Not only the beginning, but also the later course of Russian- Siberian history can be seen as analogous to the expansion of Euro- pean colonialism. This becomes especially clear when viewing the role of the Russian government. By further penetrating into Siberia, the Russian government sanctioned the policies of the Cossacks after the fact. The conquerors' leeway expressed in the proverb "God is high up and the tsar is far away" has frequently been quoted since its origins in the conquest of Siberia (Bobrick, 1992: 106). From this point of view, the Russian-Siberian case is comparable to that of the British Empire which likewise was viewed as a "patchwork quilt creat-



ROSSIASIBERICA 185

ed by ad hoc adjustments to special circumstances 'on the spot' "

(Osterhammel, 1995: 8). In contrast, conscious planning and development initiated by sovereigns characterized medieval conquest and settlement, for example in Silesia by the Piasts and in Prussian Or- densland (Conze, 1993: 65, 71). The Romanovs, however, were far from such conscious planning in the seventeenth century.

Their Siberian policy was rather to pursue the extraction of wealth such as furs and precious metals (Thomas, 1982: 58; Collins, 1991: 51). In 1583, this had already been very clearly expressed in Ivan IV's seal that showed two sables as the heraldic sign for Siberia (Goehrke, 1981: 33). The importance of furs for the Russians in Si- beria was something they shared with West Europeans in America and Canada. There the ruthless exploitation also started with fur hunting (Sautter, 1972: 17, 19). In both areas, trappers, adventurers, and Cossacks speeded up the exploitation of new hunting grounds mainly along the waterways (Goehrke, 1981: 26, 59; Giraud, 1966: 26).

Fur hunting reached its zenith in the eighteenth century. There- after, it was displaced by the government's greater demands for raw materials from Siberia (Collins, 1991: 48). The numerous expeditions launched by the Petersburg Academy of Science in the eighteenth century served to explore the wealth of Siberia in raw materials (Mumenthaler, 1998: 257). Some consider the fact that these expeditions, as of the eighteenth century, contained a component of scientific research, also involved competition with European colonial powers (Reinhard, 1996: 55).

Since there had not been enough free manpower to mine min- eral resources, forced labor (katorga)was introduced in Siberia in the eighteenth century. Twenty-year terms of forced labor became an alternative to the death penalty. In the 1760's, for example, not only serfs and free workers but also forced laborers were employed in mining in the Altai Mountains and in the area of Nerchinsk (Kaczyri- ska, 1994: 16, 90).

Among the Siberian raw materials known in the eighteenth century, gold was the last to be exploited by the Russians (Lincoln, 1994: 185-88). In 1763 M. V. Lomonosov wrote "Fundamentals of Metal- lurgy" in which he discussed when and how Siberian gold could be extracted- not from hard to exploit veins but primarily in the sand of river beds. Not until half a century later, did a mining engineer, L. Brusnitsyn, provide instructions on how to wash out gold from the



186 Martin Aust

sand and gravel. A shovel and a pan were the only instruments need- ed for washing gold. Thus, everybody could participate in the gold rush. Consequently, Tsar Alexander I opened up gold prospecting, for a state monopoly would have been impossible. After the fur fever in the seventeenth century, the nineteenth century started with a gold rush. Gold was found near Tomsk in 1828 and along the southern tributaries of the Lena in 1829. In 1830 gold was discovered in Krasnoyarsk and Minusinsk, at Achinsk and in the TransBaikal Prov- ince in 1832. Gold was also found in the tributaries of the Angara river in 1836 as well as in the permafrost of the Yakutsk Province in 1840. The richest deposits, however, were located in the northern parts of the administrative districts of Yakutsk and Eniseisk as well as in valleys of Kara and Kolyma. The latter were not mined until the days of Stalin's slave labor camps.

Around 1850, there were about 60,000 gold miners in Siberia. Mining companies profited from the gold rush by delivering the mined gold to the government furnaces. The government had the gold cast into bars and then transported to the treasury in St. Peters- burg. At that time, when the Russian government prized Siberian gold as much as the Portuguese government had prized Brazilian gold in the eighteenth century (Reinhard, 1996: 77), forced labor became a matter of public criticism in western Europe. Elzbieta Kazynska points out that forced labor had not been a purely Russian institution. The Spanish made use of it in Central and South Amer- ica, the Portuguese in Mozambique since the eighteenth century, the Danish in Greenland since 1728, and in 1863 the French colonized New Caledonia using convict labor (Kaczyriska, 1994: 12). Australia has to be added to the list, which the British made into a penal colony after having lost America. The above-mentioned public criticism, however, was directed especially at this penal colony of Australia. Voices for the abolition of this system grew louder, after the British system of convicts and deportation had become a matter for parlia- mentary investigation in London in 1837-38 (Voigt, 1988: 37).

For our comparative study of Siberian history, the existence of convict labor is however more relevant than the question of its abolition. Forced labor provides an additional argument for referring to Russian expansion in Siberia as paralleling European colonialism. However, the use of forced labor by Russia in Siberia distinguishes it from European colonial expansion in North America which took place without forced labor (Kaczynska, 1994: 25).



ROSSIASIBERICA 187

Apart from this difference, the fate of the natives permits not only a methodical, but also a qualitative, comparison between the conquest of Siberia on the one hand and that of North and South America on the other hand. The Russian expansion into Siberia has in common with the Spanish conquest the directive of the governments to respect the natives and not to use violence to exploit them as well as the introduction of virulent alien diseases, such as smallpox, leprosy, and syphilis.

When, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, Spanish royal jurists defined the natives of newly conquered areas as subjects of the Spanish crown and forbade violence against the missions, the Spanish kings published one decree after the other to prescribe peaceable relations with the Indians. Their aim was to meet the re- quirements of the Papal decree of 1493 concerning missions. This did not however keep the local hidalgos from using the Indians as slave labor (Konetzke, 1965: 166-69). Looking at European expansion as a whole, one sees that the mission itself had not been success- ful until the end of the eighteenth century (Bitterli, 1986: 50-51). The natives suffered more from European imported diseases than from enslavement. In Central and North America it is estimated that within the first century of contact with the White newcomers, 80- 90% of the native population suffered from previously unknown epidemics (Bitterli, 1986: 33). In similar fashion the indigenous Sibe- rian peoples had to resign themselves to a similar fate in their first contacts with the Russian conquerors in the seventeenth century. Khants, Mansi, Samoeds, Selkups, and Kets suffered an enormous population decrease, when they were confronted with smallpox for the first time in 1630-31 (Forsyth, 1992: 58).

The Russian tsars also urged peaceable behavior towards the natives. However, the motives of the Romanovs were considerably different from those of the Spanish rulers, who were concerned with the mission. Under no circumstances did the Romanovs want to en- danger the smooth collection of tributes that gave them wealth in form of pelts and furs. The mission, on the other hand, played only a minor role within the Russian multinational Empire. The Musco- vite tsars did not consider it necessary to promote conversion to Christianity in order to rule over heathen peoples. Herein one can also see a striking difference in the expansion of power in medieval eastern Europe, when the founding of political rule was inseparably connected with conversion (Zernack, 1977: 69; Boockmann, 1994:



188 Martin Aust

93-114). The Muscovite tsars, however, allowed the natives to keep their allegiance to their faith and exercise it in suitable ways. Mis- sionaries should use only the word, not the sword. Baptism should be based on the natives' voluntary decision. Exceptions to this order were forced christenings under the rule of Peter the Great and Anna Ivanovna in the eighteenth century (Nolte, 1969: 22, 26, 31, 35; For- syth, 1991: 84; Rappeler, 1993: 41-41). Cases are known of Russian settlers resorting to the services of native religious shamans (Forsyth, 1991: 84).

When describing the high mortality rates of natives in North, Central, or South America arising from European colonial expansion, Reinhard draws a parallel with Russian-Siberian expansion in his history of colonialism (Reinhard, 1996: 16, 72, 118). In Bitterli's terminology, Russian-Siberian expansion can be regarded as culture clash. Distinguished from sporadic cultural contacts and the peaceful coexistence of different cultures, the culture clash leads to diminish- ing or even extinguishing the militarily or politically weaker partner (Bitterli, 1986: 27).

Thus Russians often used force and exaggerated their demands when collecting tribute (Rappeler, 1993: 40). In many ways, Russian conquest led to the deterioration of natives' living conditions. The Russians often paid for the chieftains' cooperation. They then became assimilated at which point the chieftains neglected their own people thereby exposing them to deleterious conditions. Russian settlement and fur hunting destroyed former hunting and pasture grounds of native inhabitants. Siberian women were exposed to enslavement and prostitution. Import of alcohol led to its misuse among the natives. It is understandable that there were spontaneous regional uprisings of native resistance to the Russians. All these uprisings, however, failed (Forsyth, 1991: 81, 82, 88). Finally, only those survived who could find a modus vivendi with the superior military power of the Russians (Collins, 1991: 52). In the nineteenth century Siberian natives constituted 14% of the population of Siberia. How- ever, their almost 120 languages were reduced to 29 by Soviet times.

If one surveys the first three centuries of the Russian-Siberian encounter from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, there are clear parallels between the conquest and opening up of Siberia and the early modern European colonial expansion: Siberia as a source of wealth; the unintended fallout of the Stroganovs' and Ermak's engagement as Skrynnikov interprets it;



ROSSIA SIBERICA 189

the on-the-spot improvisation by conquerors pushing ahead; the ruthless hunting for Siberian furs and the exploitation of resources and of raw materials; exiling convicts and using them as forced labor; and finally the epidemics among the natives.

Juergen Osterhammel and Wolfgang Reinhard distinguish between exploitation colonies, military bases, and settlement colonies (Osterhammel, 1995: 17; Reinhard, 1996: 2, 3). Which was Siberia? In the case of an exploitation colony, the imperial center controls a colony as a subordinate territory, not subjected to settlement. This is not the case of Siberia. The Khanate Sibir' did not remain autono- mous. Instead, the Muscovite tsar declared himself Tsar of Siberia, and henceforth Siberia was to be considered an integral part of the Russian Empire. In the case of military bases, no new rule is put in place over the territories. They serve only as bases strategically used for trade or military security of an area. Indeed, installing Russian outposts in Siberia in the seventeenth century can be interpreted as the organizing of such bases. This interpretation has to be restricted to being under a formal Russian rule for collection of tributes and safeguarding the territory serving for trading contacts, as was the case, for instance, of Portuguese bases in Asia. In addition to military bases, the Russian presence in Siberia can be described as settler colonies. In this view, colonialism appears as the progressive settlement combined with the replacement of peoples. From the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, Russian- Siberian history is a mixture of military bases and settler colonies. The character of a military base, however, is typical of the seventeenth century, whereas settlement colonies dominate in the eighteenth century.

The course of settlements is analogous to colonialism because of similarities with European expansion in modern times. However, there are no similarities when comparing Russian exploitation of Si- beria up to the middle of the nineteenth century with medieval conquest and settlement. Referring to eastern Europe from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, Werner Conze characterizes medieval conquest and settlement in precise words. According to Conze, medieval conquest is a "sequence of stages from an average level of plough using culture to a higher level of developed agrarian produc- tion with systematically laid out villages and towns." Herein Conze saw the "historic moment, in which clerical and princely elite could



190 Martin Aust

realize their desire to develop by using the present workforce sur- plus" (Conze, 1993: 58, 62).

In Siberia, Russian settlers did not find any indigenous agriculture to refine. The first task was indeed just to establish farming. The low-ranking provincial servicemen (deti boyarskie) serve as a typical example. In 1640, they reported to the central office for Siberia in Moscow that they had found a place in the area of Tomsk useful for farming and setting up of a guard station (storozhevaia stanitsa). In 1656, the government gave orders to install a guard station, called Sosnovsk, at this place. Servants and Cossacks were the first settlers (Emelianov, 1978: 17-18). In seventeenth-century Siberia, agrarian settlement was negligible. The main function of Russian settlement was to ensure the necessary infrastructure to collect tribute. In 171 1, at the time of establishing the government of Siberia, there were 49,824 farms in the Urals and in Siberia. In 1710, 143,000 male tax- payers were counted (Liubavskii, 1996: 461). Only recording tax-paying males, the census (first reviziia) of 1719-23 totaled 5,772,332 peasants and just 230,910 males in the taxable urban population (Hughes, 1998: 159).

In the eighteenth century, Russian exploitation of the Yenisei region clearly showed the limits of free settlement. Along the line of Achinsk, Krasnoyarsk, Kansk, and Nizhneudinsk forced settlement took place in the last two-thirds of the eighteenth century. The pre- ceding free settlement had not been able to provide enough workers for ore extraction in which the Petersburg government had been highly interested. The second census of 1743-47 listed 122 farms run by exiles and 22 hamlets (derevni) developed by free settlement for the region of Khakassko-Minusinok (Bykov, 1981: 5, 76, 83-84, 88-89).

Although there was an increase in Russian population in Siberia in the eighteenth century, it is commonly agreed upon that natural growth in population was the driving force. Concerning the figures for the Russian population in Siberia, there are different ones for the year 1797. Liubavskii cannot decide whether 575,800 Russians in Siberia up to the Yenisei or 553,776 Russians in Siberia as a whole is the correct figure (Liubavskii, 1996: 469; Kolesnikov, 1973: 53, 133, 322-45, 369-79; Kabuzan, 1985: 44-45).

In the beginning of the eighteenth century the Petrine Reforms sharply cut back Siberian self-government. In the seventeenth century, the first Russian settlers had founded local authorities to pro-



ROSSIASIBERICA 191

tect their autonomy against directives from Moscow (Aleksandrov & Pokrovskii: 1991).

In the seventeenth century, the Siberian town community con- sisted of servicemen, mainly Cossacks, of townspeople (posadskie liudi), and peasants. All the farm owners of the community elected one of the elders, who could neither be appointed by the central office for Siberia nor by the tsar against the community's will. The community and Muscovite head office practiced mutual control and cooperation. In the 1640's, for instance, the Tobolsk community of Cossacks pushed through the rule that the governor (voevody) could only promote his employees to higher municipal positions if the community had agreed beforehand. If he ignored the community, however, they would complain to the tsar which led to the early recall of many governors from Siberia. The reforms of the eighteenth century, however, greatly strengthened the Petersburg administration to the detriment of the Siberian administration which thereby lost its significance (Pokrovskii, 1996: 11, 12, 14).

This constellation strongly reminds us of the Spanish crown's effort to prevent the emergence of feudal structures within the newly-conquered colonies. By establishing their own administration the Catholic Church tried to fight against the desire for power of local governors (Heine, 1984: 81). In Siberia, on the other hand, there were no legally privileged villages and towns with carefully defined liberties, which was a characteristic of medieval conquest and to which Robert Bartlett devoted one chapter each in his book, The Making of Europe (Bartlett, 1993: 106-32, 167-96).

Thus, there are hardly any parallels to medieval colonization during this early modern phase of Russian-Siberian history. Not until the nineteenth century, however, did the Russians provide the preconditions necessary for the organization of the conquest and settlement that started around 1870.

The question about the preconditions and potentials of conquest and settlement has occupied a large part of research on medieval colonization of eastern Europe. Works by Herbert Ludat and Oskar Kossmann plead that one should not underestimate indigenous Slavic possibilities for developing agriculture. Thus, Ludat stresses the importance of Slavic as well as Baltic urban communities (suburb- ium) and mercantile centers as starting points for the economic development of indigenous towns. In these communities and mercantile centers, new settlements (locationes) with so-called German law



192 Martin Aust

could be set up (Ludat, 1955: 52). Kossmann draws a similar picture of precolonial agriculture and rural society in Poland (1971).

In contrast to these historic landscapes in central and northern East Europe with urban trading centers and rural population tilling the soil, the Russians found nomads, especially hunter-gathers and fisherfolk. Not until the nineteenth century could an aedificatio terrae be found in Siberia to improve existing farming in the course of settlement. This has to be explained not only by the existing conditions in Siberia, but also by the development of agriculture in European Russia itself.

Up until the middle of the nineteenth century, an extensive economic system was partly dominant. The needs for increased produc- tion were a priority and were met by cultivating newly secured lands. Such land reserves were exhausted in European Russia by the middle of the nineteenth century (Goehrke, 1981: 50). It was then that the constellation characterizing medieval settlements was permitted in Siberia, whereby potential settlers were attracted to the unculti- vated soil (Conze, 1993: 64). Beginning with the 1870's, Russian- Siberian history developed in a manner analogous to Germania Slavica, the typical settlement in the Middle Ages east of the river Elbe.

This interpretation deliberately contradicts the opinion that Rus- sian settlement in the East in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had been nothing but the russification of Siberia, because ethnic Russians were numerically superior to the natives- in 1858 the tenth and last census counted 2,288,036 Russians and 648,000 natives in Siberia (Liubavskii, 1996: 487). On the other hand, in the field of Germania Slavica research the reciprocal penetration of Slavic and German ethnic groups in medieval German east settlement (Ostsiedlung) had long been investigated (Fritze, 1980: 11; Higounet, 1986: 310). Thus, it is necessary to examine the nineteenth-century Russian-Siberian case from the point of view of Ger- mania Slavica scholars. Concerning the Russian-Siberian example, the following thesis serves as the basis: In the second half of the nineteenth century, Russian settlers in Siberia founded a culture. Its language was Russian and the people tilled the soil, yet the culture differed significantly from that of European Russia. Contemporaries knew this very well. In particular N. M. Jadrintsev in his work, Siberia as a Colony, published in German in 1886, argued both that a new population type had evolved out of the Russian nationality in the



ROSSIA SIBERICA 1 93

East and that the development of Siberia was not yet completed (Jadrintsev, 1886:60,61).

Jadrintsev's work on racial categories- he said the Siberian people were a "peculiar provincial race"- is not particularly useful for our work. More useful in describing the historic landscape of Rossia Siberica are his ideas of a Russian Siberian synthesis. Members of the old-established peasant community imparted to the Russian newcomers their intimate knowledge concerning Siberian nature, especially the climate, vegetation, and surface conditions. In so doing, they initiated the process of assimilation of the Russians (Jadrintsev, 1886: 97, 98). However, the relevant geographical conditions and agricultural knowledge were unknown to the Russian settlers in the nineteenth century. Siberia was an area where hardly any serfdom existed. In 1861, only 2,801 peasant serfs and 900 servants in bond- age had been counted in Siberia (Kolesnikov, 1978: 3). In the whole Russian Empire, however, there were 48.4 million peasants in 1857, of whom 51% were serfs (Schalhorn, 1985: 55).

Even the mentality of Siberian peasants was foreign to the Rus- sian newcomers. Siberian peasants revealed their regional identity in their oral legends of regional history which they maintained. In the first half of the nineteenth century, they attracted the attention of travelers from European Russia because of their thirst for knowledge that peasants in European Russia seemed to lack. For instance, the Dorpat professor G. Ledebur complained that he did not have enough resting time on his trip to Siberia in 1826 due to the inquisi- tive curiosity of the Siberian peasants he had to satisfy on his way to the stations (Minenko, 1991: 19).

The peasants Ledebur met are usually called old-established (starozhily). Until the middle of the eighteenth century, new settlers in Siberia mainly came from northwest Russia. They built up a core of established residents (Kolesnikov, 1978: 3). These then are the elements of the picture around the middle of the nineteenth century that allow us to compare further Russian-Siberian history with the development of Germanica Slavica in the Middle Ages.

After the abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861, many peasants, driven by land-hunger and oppression of the landlords (pomeshchiki) migrated from the central Russian black earth region to Siberia. Between 1896 and 1914 Siberia received approximately 80% of all emigrants from European Russia (Goriushkin, 1991: 140; Bon-



194 Martin Aust

wetsch, 1991: 8-20).1 The agricultural area of southwest Siberia exercised a strong attraction for the settlers due to its moderate climate- on average there are 1,128 hours of sunshine from May to August compared to 951 hours in Moscow- and to its black earth (Goehrke, 1981: 17, 23; Thomas, 1982: 2). In 1868, for example, 8,000 nonregistered migrants moved to the administrative districts of Tobolsk and Tomsk and started the first wave of illegal settlement that continued throughout the 1870's (Minzhurenko, 1978: 42-46).

This forced the government to distance themselves from the no- bility's disapproval of peasant migration and to issue on July 10, 1881, provisional rules on peasant settlement on public land. Peas- ants were no longer compelled either to submit to decisions of ad- mission to Siberian communities or to liquidate all their state debts before leaving. Instead, they could pay their debts from their place of destination over many years. However, the government did not publish the new rules so that even in the 1880's the proportion of illegal migrants (samovoUnye pereselentsy) made up 60-80% of all settlers in Siberia. In the law of June 13, 1889, the government created further bureaucratic obstacles to migrants by requiring permission of the interior ministry and the ministry of state domains for migration to Siberia. The ministries gave 2,000 official permissions in that year. When 3,350 families settled in the administrative district of Tomsk in 1889, it became obvious that this law was largely ignored. The self-government (zemstvo) of the region of Charkov counted 125 laws and instructions concerning the question of settlement from 1890 to 1898. Even the police themselves did not know all these rules so that in the end no one really knew the legal position of settlers.

In contrast to the engagement of sovereigns during the process of medieval conquest and settlement, the Russian government viewed peasant settlement in Siberia with skepticism and disapproval. Segments of the government and administration, however, did move in the direction of planning settlements. Within the bu- reaucracy demands increased for an end of exile and forced labor and opening of Siberia for free colonization. In the course of reac-

1 On the other hand, Kaczyriska reports that Moscow and St. Petersburg took the first place in the migration surveys for the years after 1890, while the Siberian governments of Tomsk and Yenisei came in only tenth and eleventh (Kaczynska, 1994: 42).



ROSSIA SIBERICA 195

tions to the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 as well as to the 1905 revolution, supporters of the repressive system of deporta- tions were able to prevail (Kaczyiiska, 1994: 26).

The Siberian railway committee, on the other hand, vigorously fostered settlements since the government had established a fund for the purpose of settlement in places along the railroad track. In 1892-1904, the money supported 400,000 new settlers (Liubavskii, 1996: 478-79). This should be qualified by saying that building the Trans-Siberian Railway was mainly based on political and military motives of the Petersburg government (Marks, 1991: 2). Therefore, this enterprise seems to be more connected with the colonial and imperial interests of Russia in the Far East than with the context of an aedificatio terrae. However, even in the absence of government policy, considerable conquest and settlement took place, mainly carried out by peasants. Peasant settlement remained illegal until the agrarian reforms of Petr Stolypin. It was not until 1907 that the government calculated settlement to be useful in solving the agrarian crisis in Russia (Okladnikov, 1968: III, 301).

From 1897 to 1911, a total of three and a half million men, women, and children moved from European Russia to Siberia to settle preferably in the southern areas of the administrative districts of Tobolsk and Tomsk as well as in the Altai region (Lincoln, 1994: 257). After their arrival the newcomers sought accommodations, jobs, and land mainly from the already established areas for three reasons. First, when arriving, they were usually completely impover- ished. Therefore, paid labor within the already established settlements was the only possibility. Secondly, after the abolition of serfdom, acquisition of real estate was permitted in Siberian communities but collective ownership remained dominant. Thus, acquiring individual land was extremely difficult for new settlers. Finally, in old-established communities land could be worked that had earlier been cultivated and now lay fallow. Therefore, the laborious cultiva- tion of virgin soil was not necessary (Coquin, 1969: 501-03).

New settlers were fueled by the Russian problem of land-hunger. Established areas were compelled to impose a quota on land for new settlers and at the same time increased the one time charge for ad- mitting settlers. As less land became available for distribution in the course of the second half of the nineteenth century, established settlers' attitudes towards the new settlers changed from hospitality to hostility. For example, in the area of Bijsk, the portion of land per



196 Martin Aust

person had decreased from 38 desiatines (one desiatina = 2.7 acres) in 1884 to 11 desiatines in 1889. In 1885, only 410 of the 2,019 villages in the administrative district of Tomsk were willing to admit new settlers (Coquin, 1969: 507-10).

It is not surprising, however, that the majority of peasant com- plaints in Siberia in the second half of the nineteenth century were registered in the Altai region. Peasants most frequently complained about rates and taxes within the community (Goriushkin, 1985: 61, 63). At the same time and in spite of conflicts settlers learned to deal with completely new conditions of climate and soil. The new settlers brought innovative potential from which the established settlers benefitted. The new settlers brought with them improved types of seed corn as well as fruits, for example, strawberries, apples, and melons. The traditional Siberian wooden plough gave way to the Russian iron plough. The older settlers adopted techniques from the new settlers, for example fertilizing the ground with animal dung and heating buildings for the cattle (Goriushkin, 1991: 145-50).

As a whole, there was a huge economic upturn in Siberia at this time, commonly carried out both by the new settlers and the old-established ones. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the agricultural productivity of Siberia per head of population outstripped that of European Russia (Goriushkin, 1991: 144). While there had been only two dairy manufacturers in Siberia in 1894, their number increased to 3,109 in 1910. At that time, Siberia accounted for 60% of Russia's and 16% of the world's exports in butter (Goriushkin, 1991: 148, 149; Goriushkin, 1967: 155-70).

There were also considerable changes in agricultural work due to mechanization. Not only had half of the machines to be imported from foreign countries, but foreign branch offices dominated their sale in Siberia. Company names such as "John Grievs & Co." and "Lund and Petersen" indicated the presence of Americans and Scan- dinavians (Goriushkin, 1967: 113,1 19). Similar to medieval conquest and settlement foreign expert knowledge played an important role in the Siberian aedificatio terrae. In the Middle Ages the Dutch were the experts for laying out marsh hoof fields in damp and swampy areas throughout Europe (Petri, 1975: 695-754).

The Siberian economic upturn at the beginning of the twentieth century corresponded to the socio-economic impact of medieval conquest, ensuring a flourishing agriculture which produced "new social 'middle classes'" (Erlen, 1992: 144). However, for the time



ROSSIASIBERICA 197

being the parallel is limited to economic growth. It is difficult to judge, though, to what extent this boom produced a social middle class in Siberia, because the Soviet experiment in the twentieth century interrupted the process of extension to Siberia that had started in the nineteenth century. There had not been the continuity necessary to develop these social structures. Thus, the impact of medieval conquest can only be grasped by viewing several centuries (Erlen, 1992: 142).

Cultural results, however, are more obvious than the social impact of Russian-Siberian conquest in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The rise of regional identity is understood as a product of the Russian-Siberian synthesis in the course of new settlement. Therefore, it is possible to talk about Rossia Siberica by analogy with Germania Slavica (Goehrke, 1978: 97; Faust, 1980: 2).

The most prominent advocate of Siberian regional identity was Nikolai Michailovich Jadrintsev. He had studied at St. Petersburg University around 1860 and had developed a lively interest in discus- sing geographical questions (Faust, 1980: 77, 78). Jadrintsev could not have written his work on Siberia without some kind of university education. Here our findings at the macro level of Rossia Siberica concerning conquest and settlement are confirmed at the micro level of Jadrintsev's biography.

Siberia as a Colony by Jadrinstev can be regarded as representing the journalistic engagement of several Siberian regionalists (oblastni- ki) to encourage Siberian identity via published opinion. Improving the Siberian education system was high among the political demands (Faust, 1980: 107, 116, 117). While Jadrintsev himself published a very nebulous plan of Siberian autonomy, the rest of the Siberian writers concentrated on winning influence on the decisions of local authorities by publishing their opinion in bigger towns (Faust, 1980: 44, 577).

The question will be left to future research to what extent the Si- berian people were aware of having a regional identity (Goehrke, 1978: 97, 98). An "enormous, rudely democratic country, which will soon throttle European Russia," was the warning in 1910 of none other than Petr A. Stoypin in a letter to Tsar Nicholas II. It could be the result, he thought, of the new independence that was growing among Siberia's immigrants (Lincoln, 1994: 260). Revolution and civil war in Russia, however, led to a diametrically opposed result.



198 Martin Aust

Siberia did not emancipate itself from Russia. Rather the Soviet Union ended Siberia's pursuit of autonomy (Goehrke, 1989: 99).

Having begun in the middle of the nineteenth century the settlement movement continued until the middle of the 1920's in Russian- Siberian history (Hildermeier, 1998: 266-67). As late as 1927 the his- torian S.V. Bachrushin talked about a new Siberia that had already adopted its present appearance since the middle of the nineteenth century (Bakhrushin, 1927: III, IV).

The first five-year plan interrupted Siberian development, here described as establishing Rossia Siberica. As the Soviet experiment in general, the first five-year-plan is responsible for halting the development of Siberian history. Among the then contemporaries, P. N. Miliukov already realized that the integration of Siberia in the European historical context through Russian settlement had been stopped at that point (Bohn, 1996: 253, 255-56, 265).

The Soviet period of Siberian history can be categorized neither as medieval conquest and settlement nor as colonial expansion, although single phenomena seem to invite to more than one method- ological comparison. The Soviet planning strategists overcompen- sated for what the Romanovs lacked concerning sovereign planning activities in contrast to Heinrich I of Silesia or Kazimierz III of Poland, for instance. In addition, modern history scholars some- times use the term eastern settlement (Ostsiedlung) following medieval east colonization to characterize migration streams to newly- erected industrial complexes in Siberia (Hildermeier, 1998: 903). Both these arguments for drawing a parallel of Soviet activity in Sibe- ria to medieval conquest and settlement area in contrast to colonial aspects of twentieth-century Siberia. In the same way as the Rjuri- kides and the Romanovs, the Soviet governments regarded Siberia as treasury. When reading a comprehensive history of the Soviet Union, mining of ore, coal, minerals, natural gas, crude oil, and other Siberian raw materials are mentioned at regular intervals (Rauch, 1990: 557, 558; Hildermeier, 1998: 369, 481). As was typical of colonialism, these mined raw materials had not been locally processed. This was evidence of colonial exploitation of Siberia.

In total, however, specific characteristics of Soviet domination in Siberia are not sufficient for a qualitative comparison with medieval conquest and colonial expansion. Two imposing phenomena give good reasons not to include the Soviet era in our comparison, but rather to classify it as an interruption of Russian-Siberian history-



ROSSIA SIBERICA 199

the Gulag archipelago as well as the destructive ecological legacy of desire for economic grandeur.

The Gulag differs in its character of mass extermination by deportation, exile, and forced labor of tsarist rule (Kaczyriska, 1994: 94-95). Moreover, the Soviet camp system has to be compared with the other totalitarian systems of the twentieth century (Werth, 1998: 226-39). Severe despoliation of nature, for which Soviet industrialization is responsible, is an argument against comparing Soviet planning with sovereign engagement in medieval conquest and settlement. While the latter led to a long-term upturn in the regions, the outcome of the first reads dreadfully:

Making a wide sweep from the Urals industrial centers at Che- lyabinsk and Sverdlovsk . . . through Magnitogorsk, Novoku- snetsk and Kemerovo, what has been described as "a vast toxic rust belt of mines and metallurgical combines" stretched across the western third of Siberia from the northwest to the southeast (Lincoln, 1994: 401).

These results also have to include radioactive waste, soil polluted by DDT, as well as the pollution of Lake Baikal by industrial effluents of a pulp plant (Lincoln, 1994: 408).

Considering all this, it is not surprising that in 1989 there were clear protests by Siberians against the Moscow central government. The Siberians criticized poor conditions of nutrition and housing. They accused Moscow of ignoring regional issues, of still misusing Siberia as a place for exiled criminals as well as of subjecting the natural landscape to destruction by industrialization (Wood, 1991b: 184, 185). However there were not only protests expressing regional identity. The example of Yakutia, today the republic of Sakha, shows how regional identity can be politically used (Goetz & Halbach, 1994: 275-76, 278-81). In 1989, 95% of the Yakuts claimed Yakutian as their mother tongue. Among the whole population of 1.09 million people there are 33% Yakuts, 52% Russians, and 2% native-born Siberians. In 1990, the Supreme Soviet of Yakutia declared sover- eignty, and in February 1991, the independent Republic of Yakutia was proclaimed. The majority of Russians in Yakutia also fully supported this political regionalism. A similar process of autonomy can be noted in the republic of Buriatia, equally inhabited by Buriats and Russians (Goetz & Halbach, 1994: 96, 97).



200 Martin Aust

These examples initially indicate that there is no Siberian identity as such. When in spring of 1992, the congress of the Siberian Soviet discussed Siberian autonomy, there were no results. Moscow, for instance, in bilateral negotiations, not Siberia-wide, granted conces- sions to Yakutia, the republic of Altai, and the area of Irkutsk in the federation accords (Mommsen, 1996: 181-82).

The question has to be asked concerning the roots and character of these insular regional identities in Siberia. Scholars refer to historical points of contact that became important after the end of Soviet rule. You may recall that, for example in the nineteenth century, Russian settlers in Yakutia already had adopted the Yakutian language and Yakutian customs. Moreover, in 1906 there was already a society of Yakuts expressing regional identity (Thomas, 1982: 64; Goetz & Halbach, 1994: 278). On the other hand, political scientists regard references to regionalism in Siberia as propaganda ploys used by the prevailing elite in negotiating with Moscow about re- sponsibility and resources (Pavlenko, 1994: 193). Therefore, it would be most welcome if historians and political scientists together studied the development of Siberia and came to a common explanation of regionalism. The nobile officum of historians is to work out whether historic processes have already been concluded and have come to a visible result or whether these processes have been interrupted and now continue with a still open ending.

Finally, there is no doubt that Russian-Siberian history from the late sixteenth to the early twentieth century can be seen in the Euro- pean context in two ways. Until the nineteenth century, Russian advances into Siberia were related to modern European expansion. The Moscow and Petersburg governments were mainly interested in exploiting the newly gained territory. Parallel to this, the first cau- tious Russian settlement up to the middle of the nineteenth century laid the foundations for the change in Russian-Siberian history. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some kind of conquest and settlement had been initiated in Siberia which, from the European perspective, represents the last step of an originally medieval aedificatio terrae. The historical landscape of Rossia Siberica developed from a common effort of new Russian settlers and the early Siberian settlers.

Thus, Rossia Siberica emerged from a two-stage process, the first stage reaching until the nineteenth century created the basis for the second. Consequently, the totality of historical change is not fully



ROSSIA SIBERICA 201

expressed in the thesis that the Russian exploitation of Siberia is similar to that of Canada, the United States, and Argentina by the Europeans (Reinhard, 1996: 155). Stressing the widespread deaths of natives and building of the Trans-Siberian Railway does not recon- struct the whole history of Siberia.

It has to be considered that in the late nineteenth century the Russians ended the phase of Siberian development that had started in western Europe in the Middle Ages. Our thesis is not impaired by the fact that the so-called ins Theutonicum did not find its way into the east-Slavic region. Its maximum reach was in Polonia Ruthenica, that is Lithuania and the Ukraine (Zernack, 1994: 114, 116). The above-described development of settlement as well as the Russian- Siberian synthesis and stimulation of agriculture adequately support our thesis.

Additionally one has to point to the history of universities. They began in Bologna, Paris, and Oxford in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries and came to a close in Tomsk in the second half of the nineteenth century. This foundation of a university shows the inclu- sion of Rossia Siberica in a cultural Europeanization with its origins in the Middle Ages (Bartlett, 1993: 288; Miliukov, 1902).

We are not trying to date the Russian-Siberian Middle Ages as reaching to the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. The modern character of railway construction, telegraphy, and the mechanization of agriculture at this time in Siberia cannot be denied. It is more important to investigate the historical change under the surface of these phenomena in an effort to show how processes of migration, development, and deepening originated in medieval Europe and moved to Siberia.2

This interpretation of Russian-Siberian history firmly contradicts the concept of Eurasia as the epitome of Russian history. George Vernadsky, for example, regards distinguishing between a European and an Asian part of Russia as arbitrary. To him, geography provides the decisive argument for speaking about Eurasia, because climate and vegetation alternate along the latitudes in Russia and Siberia and the Urals do not serve as a border (Vernadsky, 1949: 4-5).

2 The medieval scholar itself is interested in investigating the "effective period of single phenomena from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age" (Heimann, 1997: 19).



202 Martin Aust

On the other hand, the Russian conquest of Siberia demon- strates that one should place history in a European context. Formed at the beginning of the twentieth century, Rossia Siberica is not Eurasia, but is a result of European history. The Soviet experiment forcibly subjected the potential of this Rossia Siberica to the erection of the first socialist state and thereby cut short the consolidation of a process that had begun in the middle of the nineteenth century. The questions of the roots of contemporary Siberian regional identity must be considered in terms not only of today's powers of trans- formation, but also of the possibility of renewing the potential of Russian-Siberian historiography, that has been pondered since the beginning of the twentieth century.

REFERENCES

Aleksandrov, V. A. & Pokrovskii, N. N. (1991). Vlasf i obshchestvo: Sibir* v XVII v. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Bakhrushin, S. V. (1927). Ocherkipo istorii kolonizatsii Sibiri v XVI i XVII v. Moscow: Sabashnikov. Bartlett, Robert(1993). The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change, 950-1350.

London: Penguin. Bitterli, Urs (1986). Alte Welt - Neue Welt. Formen des europâisch-ueberseeischen Kulturkontakts vom 15.

bis zum 18.Jahrhundert. Munich: C. H. Beck. Bobrick, Benson (1992). East of the Sun: The Conquest and Settlement of Siberia. London: Heinemann. Bohn, Thomas (1996). "Soziologische Grundlagen des russischen historischen Prozesses- ein

unveroeffentlichtes Manuskript Pavel N. Miliukovs aus der Panser Emigration," Berliner Jahrbuchfuer osteuropaeische Geschichte 1996/2: Sibirien: Kolonie-Region, 247-66.

Bonwetsch, Bernd (1991). Die Russische Revolution 191 7: Eine Sozialgeschichte von der Bauernbefreiung 1861 bis zum Oktoberumsturz. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Boockmann, Hartmut (1994). Der Deutsche Orden: ZwôlfKapitel aus seiner Geschichte, 4th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Braudel, Fernand (1986). Sozialgeschichte des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts: Der Handel. Munich: Kindler. Braudel, Fernand, ed. (1989). Europa: Bausteine seiner Geschichte. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer. Bykov, G. F. (1981). Zaselenie russkimi prienisseiskogo kraia v XVIII v. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Collins, David N. (1991). "Subjugation and Settlement in Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century

Siberia," in A. Wood, ed., The History of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London: Routledge, 37-56.

Conze, Werner (1993). Ostmitteleuropa: Von der Spaetantike bis zum 18.Jahrhundert. Herausgegeben und mit einem Nachwort von Klaus Zernack, 2nd. ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Coquin, François Xavier (1969). La Sibérie: Peuplement et immigration paysanne au XIX siècle. Collec- tion historique de VInstitut d'Études Slaves XX. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.

Dmytryshyn, Basil et al., eds. (1985). To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian East- ward Expansion, I: Russia's Conquest of Siberia, 1558-1700. Portland, OR: Western Imprint.

Emelianov, N. F. (1978). "Naselenie srednego Pritom'ia v XVII. do pervoi polovine XIX. w.," in Voprosy formirovanii russkogo naseleniia Sibiri it XVII-nachale XIX w. Tomsk: Izdatel'stvo Tom- skogo universiteta, 17-39.

Erlen, Peter ( 1992). Europâischer Landesausbau und mittelalterliche deutsche Ostsiedlung: Ein strukturell- er Vergleich zwischen Sûdwestfrankreich, den Niederlanden und dem Ordensland Preusse. Marburg/ Lahn: J. G. Herder-Institut.



ROSSIA SIBERICA 203

Faust, Wolfgang (1980). Russlands goldener Boden: Der sibirische Regionalismus in der zweiten Hàlfte des 19.Jahrhunderts. Dissertationen zur neueren Geschichte 9. Cologne: Boehlau.

Forsyth, James (1991). "The Siberian Native Peoples Before and After the Russian Conquest," in A. Wood, éd., The History of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London: Routledge, 69-91.

Forsyth, James (1992). A History of the People of Siberia: Russia *s North Asian Colony, 1581-1990. Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Fritze, Wolfgang H. (1980). "Germania Slavica: Zielsetzung und Arbeitsprogramm einer interdiszi- plinaeren Arbeitsgruppe," in W. H. Fritze, éd., Germania Slavica, I: Berliner Historische Studien. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 11-40.

Giraud, Marcel (1966). Histoire du Canada. Paris: Presses Univ. de France. Goehrke, Carsten (1978). "Zum Problem des Regionalismus in der Russischen Geschichte," For-

schungen zur osteuropâischen Geschichte 25, 75-107. Goehrke, Carsten (1981). "Die geographischen Gegebenheiten Russlands in ihrem historischen

Beziehungsgeflecht," in M. Hellmann, éd., Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands, Vol. I/I. Stutt- gart: Anton Hiersemann.

Goetz, Roland & Halbach, Uwe (1994). Politisches Lexikon Russland: Die nationalen Republiken und Gebietseinheiten der Russlàndischen Federation. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Goriushkin, Leonid M. (1967). Sibirskoe krest'ianstvo na rubezhe dvukh vekov. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Goriushkin, Leonid M. (1985). KresVianskoe dvizhenie v Sibiri 1861-1907. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Goriushkin, Leonid M. (1991). "Migration, Settlement and the Rural Economy of Siberia, 1861-

1914," in A. Wood, éd., The History of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London:

Routledge, 140-57. Heimann, Heinz D. (1997). Einfuehrung in die Geschichte des Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer. Heine, Hartmut (1984). Geschichte Spaniens in derfruhen Neuzeit, 1400-1800. Munich: C. H. Beck. Heller, Klaus (1987). Russische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte: Die Kiever und die Moskauer Période.

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Higounet, Charles (1986). Die deutsche Ostsiedlung im Mittelalter. Berlin: Siedler. Hildermeier, Manfred (1998). Geschichte der Sowjetunion, 1917-1991: Entstehung und Niedergang des

ersten sozialistischen Staates. Munich: C. H. Beck. Hughes, Lindsey (1998). Russia in the Age of Peter the Great. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Jadrintsev, Nikolai M. (1886). Sibirien: Geographische, ethnographische und historische Studien. Jena:

Hermann Costenoble. Kabuzan, V. M. (1985). DaVnevostochnyi krai v XVII-nachale XX xw. (1640-1917): Istoriko-demo-

graficheskii ocherk. Moscow: Nauka. Kaczyriska, Elaebieta (1994). Das grôsste Gefangnis der Welt: Sibirien als Strafkolonie zur Zarenzeit.

Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Kaempfer, Frank & Stoekl, Guenther (1989). "Russland an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit," in M.

Hellmann, éd., Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands, Vol. l/II. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 853-960.

Rappeler, Andreas (1993). Russland als Vielvoelkerreich: Entstehung-Geschichte-Zerfall, 3rd. ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Kliuchevskii, V. O. (1995). Russkaia istoriia: Polnyi kurs lektsii v trekh knigakh, kniga pervaia, new ed. Moscow: Mysl'.

Kolesnikov, A. D. (1973). Russkoe naselenie Zapadnoi Sibiri v XVIII-nachale XIX v. Omsk: Zap.-Sib. Kn. izd-vo, Om. Otd-nie.

Kolesnikov, A. D. (1978). "Sostav pereselentsev v Sibir'," in Voprosy formirovaniia russkogo naseleniia Sibiri v XVII- nachale XIX w. Tomsk: Izdatel'stvo Tomskogo universiteta, 3-16.

Konetzke, Richard (1965). Sued- und Mittelamerika, I: Die Indianerkulturen Altamerikas und die spa- nisch-portugiesische Kolonialherrschaft. Fischer Weltgeschichte, Vol. 22. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

Kossmann, Oskar (1971). Polen im Mittelalter: Beitraege zur Sozial- und Verfassungsgeschichte. Mar- burg/Lahn: J. G. Herder-Institut.



204 Martin Aust

Lantzeff, V. & Pierce, Richard A. (1973). Eastiuard to Empire: Exploration and Conquest on the Russian Open Frontier to 1750. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.

Lincoln, W. Bruce (1994). The Conquest of a Continent: Siberia and the Russians. New York: Random House.

Liubavskii, M. K. ( 1 996). Obzor russkoi kolonizatsii s drexmeishikh vremen i do XX veka. Moscow: Izdatel' stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.

Ludat, Herbert (1955). Vorstufen und Entstehung des Staedteiuesens in Osteuropa: Zur Frage der vorko- lonialen Wirtschaftszentren im slavisch-baltischen Raum. Cologne: R. Muller.

Marks, Steven G. (1991). Road to Power: The Trans-Siberian Railroad and the Colonization of Asian Russia, 1850-1917. London: Tauris.

Miliukov, Pavel (1902). "Universitety v Rossii," in F. A. Brokgauz & A. I. Efron, eds., Entsiklopediche- skiislovar' 35. St. Petersburg: I. A. Efron, 788-800.

Minenko, N. A. (1991). KuVtura russkikh krestian ZauraVia XVIII-pervaia polovina XIX v. Moscow: Nauka.

Minzhurenko, A. V. (1978). "Neprichislennye pereselentsy Sibiri (konets XIX-nachalo XX w.)," in Voprosy formirovaniia russkogo naseleniia. Tomsk: Izdatel'stvo Tomskogo universiteta, 40-70.

Mommsen, Margareta (1996). Wohin treibt Russland? Eine Grossmacht zwischen Anarchie und Demo- kratie. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Mumenthaler, Rudolf (1998). "Dem Reich und den Wissenschaften zu Nutzen: Forschungsreisen im Auftrag der Petersburger Akademie der Wissenschaften, M in E. Huebner et al., eds., Russ- land zur Zeit Katharinas, II: Absolutismus - Aufklàrung - Pragmatismus. Cologne: Bôhlau, 253-79.

Nolde, Boris (1952). La Formation de l'Empire Russe: Études, Notes et Documents, Vol. 1. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.

Nolte, Hans-Heinrich (1969). Religioese Toleranz in Russland, 1600-1725. Gottingen: Musterschmidt. Okladnikov, A. P., éd. (1968, 1969). Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei v piatykh

tomak. Leningrad: Nauka. Osterhammel,Juergen (1995). Kolonialismus: Geschichte, Formen, Folgen. Munich: C. H. Beck. Pavlenko, Sergej (1994). "Sibirische Perspektiven," in K. Segbers, éd., Russlands Zukunft: Ràume und

Regionen. Aktuelle Materialien zur internationalen Politik 33. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 189-98. Pétri, Franz (1975). "Entstehung und Verbreitung der niederlàndischen Marschkolonisation in

Europa (mit Ausnahme der Ostsiedlung)," in W. Schlesinger, éd., Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europàischen Geschichte. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 695-754.

Pokrovskii, N. N. (1996). "Zemstvo-Tradition und Staatsmacht in Sibirien," in Berliner Jahrbuchfuer osteuropaeische Geschichte 1996/2: Sibirien: Kolonie - Region: 7-17.

Rauch, Georg von (1990). Geschichte der Sowjetunion, 8th éd. Stuttgart: Kroener. Reinhard, Wolfgang (1996). Kleine Geschichte des Kolonialismus. Stuttgart: Kroener. Sautter, Udo (1972). Geschichte Kanadas: Das Werden einer Nation. Stuttgart: Kroener. Schalhorn, Bernhard (1985). "Bauem," in H.J. Torke, éd., Lexikon der Geschichte Russlands. Munich:

C. H. Beck, 53-55. Skobelev, S. G. (1992). "Prichiny kolebanii chislennosti korennykh sibirskikh narodov v XVII-XVIII

w.," in R. S. Vasil'evskii, ed., Istoricheskaia demografiia Sibiri: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Novosi- birsk: Nauka, 73-83.

Skrynnikov, R. G. (1982). Sibirskaja ekspeditsiia Ermaka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Skrynnikov, R. G. (1992). hoan der Schreckliche und seine Zeit. Munich: C. H. Beck. Thomas, Hugh (1998). Die Eroberung Mexikos: Cortés und Montezuma. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer. Thomas, Ludmila (1982). Geschichte Sibiriens: Von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Akademie-

Verlag. Vernadsky, George (1949). A History of Russia, 8th rev. ed. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. Voigt, Johannes H. (1988). Geschichte Australiens. Stuttgart: Kroener. Werth, Nicholas (1998). "Ein Staat gegen sein Volk: Gewalt, Unterdrueckung und Terror in der

Sowjetunion," in S. Courtois et al., eds., Das Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus: Unterdruckung, Verbrechen und Terror, 5th German ed. Munich: Piper, 51-295.

Wood, Alan (1987). "From Conquest to Revolution: The Historical Dimension," in A. Wood, ed., Siberia: Problems and Prospects for Regional Development. London: Croom Helm, 35-61.



ROSSIA SIBERICA 205

Wood, Alan (1991a). The History of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London: Routledge. Wood, Alan (1991b). "Siberia in the Twentieth Century," in A. Wood, éd., The History of Siberia:

From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London: Routledge, 181-86. Zernack, Klaus (1977). Osteuropa: Eine Einfuhrung in seine Geschichte. Munich: C. H. Beck. Zernack, Klaus (1994). "Ostkolonisation' in unversalgeschichtlicher Perspektive," in G. Huebinger

etal., eds., UniversalgeschichteundNationalgeschichten: Ernst Schulinzum 65. Geburtstag. Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach, 105-16.

