BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS The History of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. Edited and introduced by Alan Wood. London: Routledge, 1991. xiv, 192 pp. $49.95. This little book is the third volume of essays on Siberia emerging from the British Universities Siberian Studies Seminar founded at Lancaster University in 1981. Its title is something of a misnomer for it is not a history of Siberia continuously from conquest to revolution, but a collection of es- says devoted to particular aspects of the development of Siberia from the late sixteenth to the early twentieth century. No single-volume compre- hensive history of Siberia yet exists. Aware that Siberia is not just a land of a harsh and extremely cold climate and that its history is more than an ac- count of criminality generated by the exile system, the editor sees as the thrust of the essays the transformation of Siberia the colony into an integral partof the Russian state. The editor's "Introduction: Siberia's role in Russian history," is a well-informed statement setting the background for the essays which fol- low and challenging the negative view of Siberia held by many as an in- hospitable land peopled by political dissidents and criminals. Basil Dmytryshyn's essay, "The administrative apparatus of the Russian colony in Siberia and northern Asia, 1581-1700," provides a comprehensive description of that apparatus and at the same time notes the factors facili- tating the conquest of Siberia, which, he paints out, developed opportunisti - cally. David N. Collins' companion essay, "Subjugation and settlement in seventeenth and eighteenth century Siberia," describes the conquest of the native population, the factors facilitating it, and the beginnings of Russians settlement. The author makes clear that conquest (zavoevanie) was in- volved, not just benign assimilation (osvoenie). The two essays together es- tablish the colonial status of Siberia. J. L. Black's essay, "Opening up Siberia: Russia's 'window on the east,"' is disappointing in that it proposes to do too much in too little space and then backs off. Except for the editor's "Afterword" it is the shortest of the es- says. His objective is "to delineate the magnitude, the complexity, the ambi- tions and chief characteristics of Russian-sponsored exploration, exploita- tion and settlement of the vast expanses of Siberia!" But then he confines himself in the first half of the essay to a rapid overview of the Russian ex- ploration and purposes and in the second half gives a more detailed treat- ment of the Second Kamchatka Expedition (1733-43) as encompassing all the characteristics of Russian expansion in Siberia. His rapid overview hardly fulfills his purpose; and the Second Kamchatka Expedition in my opinion does not encompass all the characteristics of earlier and later ex- ploration. He also is guilty of some errors of fact, and he exaggerates Vitus 364 Bering's role in the conceptualizing and genesis of the Kamnchatka Expedition. The prime mover behind it was Ivan Kirilov, senior secretary of the Governing Senate. To his credit Black points out Peter's iniitiative in beginning a geographical survey of his realm and the role of the Academy of Sciences in collecting an immense amount of material about Siberia, thus opening it up in a different way. , James Forsyth's essay, "The Siberian native peoples before and after the Russian conquest," describes the native life and culture, which was of a higher order than many writers have conceded and was effectively adapted to the natural environment. The Russian conquest of and immi- gration into Siberia brought changes that mark the beginning of Siberia's integration into the Russian state. In the process the tribute system (iasak ) undermined the native economy.and attenuated its nelf-sufficienqy, making the natives more dependent on the Russians. Though both the native and Russian populations increased in the eighteenth century, the Russian growth was much the greater, leaving the natives clearly in the minority. The editor's "Russia's 'Wild East': exile, vagrancy and crime in nine- teenth-century Siberia," provides a definitive account of the origins and de- velopment of the Siberian exile system, which among other reasoias got out of hand for want of an adequate infrastructure to police it, though Siberia did benefit from the activities of many of the political exiled. But its safety-valve function for metropolitan Russia and the autocracy tied it definitely to and made Siberia a part of the Russian state. Leonid M. Goryushkin's essay "Migration, settlement and the rural economy of Siberia, 1861-1941," deals with the influx of peasants from European Russia into Siberia, mainly to its western part, that occurred after the emancipation of the serfs. A flourishing dairy industry _developed, co- operatives being organized to market in Russia and abroad the large sur- plus of products produced. Cottage industries aliw flourished. In other words Siberia, tied firmly into the Russian economy, definitely changed from the colony that it was in the seventeenth centwry. In his essay, "Siberia in the revolution and civil war, 1917-1921," John Channon surveys.the revolution as it unfolded in Siberia from February 1917 to the early 1920s. It was. on the periphery that the significant devel- opments sustaining the civil war took place. Channon seeks to answer the ' question why the Whites did not gain popular support among the vast ma- jority of the population, which was rural and better-off than the peasantry west of the Urals. At the same time it was the revolt the Czech by Legions " returning home via the Trans-Siberian Railway that marks the beginning ' of the civil war, which ended with the Bolshevik occupation of Vladivostok in 1922. Meanwhile, it is striking that the erstwhile: colony had a potent in- fluence on the mother state in time of great crisis. The final Bolshevik vic- tory reestablished the central control of Moscow over Siberia. .