Customer Reviews

A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony 1581-1990

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Reviewed by Johanna Granville, Clemson University, Clemson, SC USA

James Forsyth's History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony, 1581-1990 is a much needed addition to the extant literature on Soviet history. The policies of glasnost and end of censorship after the 1991 Soviet collapse have led to greater interest in the history of non-Russian nationalities. The dearth of reliable historical information on Russia east of the Urals is becoming increasingly clear as Siberia and the Russian Pacific littoral develop into a significant geopolitical and economic entity. Russia's expansion eastward may have been as defining for Russian society as was the United States' advance westward for American society. Thus, it is surprising that historians are just beginning to concentrate on this vast landscape. This is not to say that Western scholarship has completely overlooked Asiatic Russia, but there is still much work to do. In this ethnohistory of Siberia, Forsyth attempts to "narrate and interpret the stages in the conquest and exploitation of Siberia" (defined as "everything lying east of 60 degrees E and 50 degrees N") and "the place of this process in Russian and world history." Forsyth's narrative tends to emphasize the role of ordinary people--the inhabitants of Siberia--rather than of prominent decision makers. He raises several questions about the indigenous peoples of Siberia (e.g. Buryat Mongols, Yakuts, Tatars, Samoyeds, Tunguses, and Chukchis). What was the role of the native peoples, who up to the 18th century, inhabited Siberia? Who were they, and how did they live before the Russian invasion? How did the Russian invasion affect their lives? Has the fate of the Siberian natives been similar to that of the Indians and Eskimos of North America? Forsyth's main argument is fairly simple: despite the Leninist rhetoric that the Russian occupation of Siberia was a peaceful process and that it brought the indigenous peoples into contact with a "higher culture," the Siberian peoples in reality suffered a great deal from collectivization, "denomadisation," and the consequent destruction of their traditional cultures and occupations. The book is particularly strong on the early Russian conquest of Siberia after 1456 and the folk heroes like Yermak Timofeyevich who emerged in the process. Forsyth attributes the Russian success in subjugating the indigenous tribes to a number of factors: demanding tribute, trading ruthlessly for furs, dominating by superior numbers, spreading disease (especially smallpox), exploiting intra-tribal conflict, and employing superior firepower. For centuries after taking control of a certain Siberian tribes' land, the Russians would exploit that tribe by requiring them to pay "yasak" (a Turkic word meaning tribute). Yasak was often collected in the form of furs, such as sable, fox, and marten---as precious to the Russians as gold to the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico and Peru. Russian Marxist historians have made Yermak and the Cossacks into folk heroes comparable to the pioneers of the American West. (Just as the Soviet media routinely sanitized news about Soviet society, so historians also self-servingly rewrote history.) However, the actual record of the Cossacks and "voyevodys" may be closer to the genocidal campaigns of the Nazis in the occupied regions of Belarus and the Ukraine. According to Forsyth, these interlopers were "courageous but ruthless men-of-action, mainly belonging to the petty nobility." Both tsarist and Soviet regimes abused the Siberian territory and its aborigines. Whereas the tsarist regimes extracted yasak, furs, and minerals, the Soviet regimes built vast projects in the region that disrupted the environment and local way of life. Gold dredging threatened rivers, industrial pollution affected Lake Baikal, and projects such as the Baikal/Amur railway (BAM) caused ecological damage, while the KGB harrassed local people who complained. Overall, the book is grim on the future of Siberia. The native ethnic groups are still minorities in their own land. Forsyth believes that some communities may resort to creating reservations akin to the ones for Indians in Canada and the United States. The book is solid, but not flawless. Although it synthesizes multivolume ethnographic and historical works of German, imperial Russian, and Soviet scholars in one volume, the extensive bibliography will not benefit those who read neither Russian nor German. Moreover, Forsyth apparently has not worked with recently declassified archival documents, and his balance is skewed a bit toward the seventeenth century. Readers may also find the beginning section on geography extremely dry, and the multitude of ethnic groups confusing. Nevertheless, since the scope of this finely produced book is vast, and its subject very timely, it will indeed benefit both nonspecialists and general readers. It contains twelve useful historical maps of the Siberian region and fifteen illustrations.

Johanna Granville, Clemson University

This book may well be the very best history of the native peoples of Siberia and their conquest by the Russians in the past centuries.
Though the title is exaggrating a bit - with Siberia today having an overwhelmingly Russian majority population I don't find it more of a "colony" than the USA, Canada, or Australia, where natives have been even more outnumbered by European settlers - the book itself is very thoroughly-researched, amazingly up to date and is even fair enough to compare the current situation of the Siberian peoples to that of Northern minorities elsewhere.
No doubt, it is a somewhat disturbing read - but then so is the situation of these often diminishing ethinc groups even today.

Since he is mainly interested in the native peoples, he must cover geography and ethnography as well as history. The Russians are by no means neglected. This is a good source for any aspect of Siberia or any of its numerous peoples. It is quite difficult to cover such a mass of data. Forsyth makes it look easy

History of the Peoples of Siberia
By James Forsyth

He writes in a somewhat dry but informative style starting from the earliest times of Russian conquest.
Little is known about this vast area by the West. Siberia mainly refers to the area North of Kazakhstan, from the Urals to the Pacific Ocean. I think living here for six years has helped me to understand this are a little and I'd like to add a few paragraphs of observations of this book and life here that might be interesting to read.
I think a few comments about the historical situation of the Roman/Byzantium Empire help to keep things in context because Russia's history and heritage is closely linked. Firstly, the history books we were given in America followed almost exclusively the history of Western Europe and from the perspective of the Catholic Church and the political situation. When Emperor Constantine moved the capitol to Constantinople, in fact, the Roman Empire continued on for another 1000 years till its fall to the Turks. The history of the empire was tumultuous with continual wars on the borders and schisms within. Why does the West look almost exclusively at Western Europe in interpreting history? This is complex: Italy was at times heavily taxed and with the Iconoclastic turmoil in the Empire, when over the course of 100 years, several emperors tried to destroy all the icons. Those in Italy resisted this, and even when the Empress Irene in Constantinople convened the 8th Church council to reinstate the place of icons, the political damage was perhaps already done. Meanwhile the Pope in Rome was under serious charges by certain nobles of Rome who wanted to depose him. The Christian Emperor was the natural person to convene a court to assess these charges against the pope, but because of the political turmoil and not wanting to appeal to a woman Empress, the pope had Charlemagne hold court, which cleared him of charges. Later, during Christmas service the Pope took unprecedented act of placing a crown on Charlemagne and announcing he was the Holy Roman Emperor. This act divided Europe politically, and later theologically. The Pope thus announced his authority over earthly kings. Later with the addition of the philoque clause in the creed, the unified Christian civilization divided. In short, the Roman Empire did not fall with the plunder Rome in the 5th century. Rome was simply another city in the Empire, which was retaken by the Emperor and the invaders banished back to the North. Western Europe was really in fact the poorer section by far and the most backward up to the 12th century. Constantinople's enormous wealth and power and military technology kept it at the forefront for another 1000 years. The Pope of Rome over time was more interested in seeing that the Holy Roman Empire meant quite a different thing over time. And I believe the Hapsburgs of Austria were crowned with that title.
In the 10th century, Prince Vladimir sent an embassy to Constantinople in search of a religion for the Russians, and thus Russian became Orthodox. When Constantinople fell to the Turks, it became said that Moscow was the 3rd Rome and a 4th would never be. The Russian Czar, thus, came to an inheritance, not just of land, but of protector of Orthodox Christians. By the 15th century, Moscow had defeated the tartars and by the 16th century was interested in acquiring territory as the Western European countries were doing. With the might of the Swedes and Turks to the West, the natural way was to expand to the East. Ivan the Terrible overthrew the Kazan territory which runs in southeast of European Russian to the Urals. The wealth of the fur trade, especially the sable, was a great incentive. A single sable fur could make a trader a fortune at one point. Russia seems to have expanded to the East in two ways-as the Urals presented a formidably barrier, much as the Appalachians did for American Western expansion. Siberian rivers flow north, so sailing in the artic during the summer brought Russian traders and soldiers into the rivers of Siberia, albeit a long river journey. The other way was far to the South, where the Urals were not as high. The Urals to the Pacific contained many clans and khanates which often proved very difficult to win and control. The Golden Horde still held vassal states to the North of Mongolia. Many of the native population have many similarities to American Indians-shaman culture, tribal wars with other clans. As the search for valuable furs increased, so did the expansion to the East, (indeed Russian trading posts existed as far as California). The Czar's government made reasonable terms on paper, 1 sable fur (for example) per year from each man over 15; however, local officials, exiles and competing clans and scavengers often shook additional payments and often impoverished the local population. Over time, with intermarriage between Russians and the native population as well as the decimation by smallpox, the people of Siberia became a settled part of the Russian Empire.
Forsyth's book is a bit dry and written as a child of the 1960's, so he seems a bit too sympathetic with the native populations enjoyment of shamanistic culture, just as many in the universities have drifted away from a Christian type of background. Along with that, as with the writers of the church since the `Enlightment' all that is miraculous is treated with skepticism and a sort of cause and effect basis that undermines the real study of history, but is something one can hardly get around today in the West, though it is possible today more in the Russian culture with the resurrection of the Russian Church and the important play they have in historical presentation.
Apart from Forsyth's failings, the book is systematic and informative if not exactly lively. One can get a good idea of what was going on in the vast area of Siberia from the 15th century on.
-Micah