In the seventeenth century, the expansion of Russian peasants would spread into Siberia, changing the landscape and how it was separated. Valerie Kivelson's study of ignored Russian maps in the expansion of the early Russian empire is a major and important work for the comparative social history of migrations and empires in itself. In addition, explores both property and geographical mapping as indications of the distinct display of the Russian state and of the Orthodox faith. The use of maps was crucial for the Muscovy Empire’s complex formation of territories and responsibilities. Which brings back to light, Russian history from a geographical perspective and on how spatial thinking influenced how Muscovites understood and organized the world.
…show more content…
After a general introduction to the history of Russian cartography in chapter one, the book looks at two distinct genres of map. For the first part of the book, chapters two, three, and four look at large-scale maps of local property in the heartland of Russia, produced/drawn by ordinary civil servants, locals and military men, so that officials of Muscovy can deal with conflicts about fields, mills, land or anything dealing with territory and that on it. Using these maps, and documents that would go with them, she steadily gives us a view on how the people of the Muscovy, during that time, thought about their environment, about their land and their rights of ownership. In the process, she sheds light on the power structures of the Muscovy state, where all of the land was owned by the Great Prince, who by his choice, would allow a landlord or township to manage it. In which, the people bound to the land would settle any of the disputes. On all levels, a sense of ownership would be felt by the people, while developing a duty of responsibility. This allowed Serfs to become witnesses in lawsuits between landlords, even if many, were probably unable to read. All in all, the first half of the book considers the fixity of space embedded in social relations of serfdom in the heartland as reflected in property …show more content…
These maps present Muscovite ideas of spatiality in a less local and more imperial context. Unlike Western maps, most of the Muscovy ones includes the regions and the names of the people within that region. And unlike the removal or enslaving of the native populations by European colonizers, such as, British, Portuguese, Spanish and French, the ‘rights’ of these peoples were preserved to a certain degree. As long as they paid the required tribute to the Tsar they were left alone to their ways, their religions and customs. And baptism was pushed on the non-believers because that would turn them into full citizens with all the benefits and rights that came with being a citizen. When compared to the Spanish and the Portuguese, Tsarist imperialism seems flat-out enlightened, in this respect at least. Lastly, the second half examines the concept of mobility being evident in small scale maps of Siberia, as colonialism made, and or caused, for the movement of Muscovites throughout the region. The structure of the book as a whole through dual themes introduced within it serve to highlight the difficulties of relations between state and society, master and serf, and colonizer and
After a general introduction to the history of Russian cartography in chapter one, the book looks at two distinct genres of map. For the first part of the book, chapters two, three, and four look at large-scale maps of local property in the heartland of Russia, produced/drawn by ordinary civil servants, locals and military men, so that officials of Muscovy can deal with conflicts about fields, mills, land or anything dealing with territory and that on it. Using these maps, and documents that would go with them, she steadily gives us a view on how the people of the Muscovy, during that time, thought about their environment, about their land and their rights of ownership. In the process, she sheds light on the power structures of the Muscovy state, where all of the land was owned by the Great Prince, who by his choice, would allow a landlord or township to manage it. In which, the people bound to the land would settle any of the disputes. On all levels, a sense of ownership would be felt by the people, while developing a duty of responsibility. This allowed Serfs to become witnesses in lawsuits between landlords, even if many, were probably unable to read. All in all, the first half of the book considers the fixity of space embedded in social relations of serfdom in the heartland as reflected in property …show more content…
These maps present Muscovite ideas of spatiality in a less local and more imperial context. Unlike Western maps, most of the Muscovy ones includes the regions and the names of the people within that region. And unlike the removal or enslaving of the native populations by European colonizers, such as, British, Portuguese, Spanish and French, the ‘rights’ of these peoples were preserved to a certain degree. As long as they paid the required tribute to the Tsar they were left alone to their ways, their religions and customs. And baptism was pushed on the non-believers because that would turn them into full citizens with all the benefits and rights that came with being a citizen. When compared to the Spanish and the Portuguese, Tsarist imperialism seems flat-out enlightened, in this respect at least. Lastly, the second half examines the concept of mobility being evident in small scale maps of Siberia, as colonialism made, and or caused, for the movement of Muscovites throughout the region. The structure of the book as a whole through dual themes introduced within it serve to highlight the difficulties of relations between state and society, master and serf, and colonizer and