Evolution of Discourses on the Conquest of Siberia in Local Historical Memory

Research objectives: Systematization and factor analysis of evolving ideas about the conquest of Siberia in the local historical memory of the Perm region from the end of the 16th century to the present. Research materials: The research draws upon archival materials, materials from local historians, journalists, historians, teachers, and intellectuals, folklore materials, media materials from different eras, local history works, and local teaching aids from the Perm region. Novelty of the research: Based on the introduction of previously unpublished local history and personal materials, the study examines local historical memory about the annexation of Siberia, which has been perceived as an insignificant topic in historical science. The regional dimension of the “collective memory” of the “Conquest of Siberia” explored in this research can be applied to other regions significant for this process. Results of the research: Although the Perm region served as a “springboard” for the conquest of Siberia and is a symbolic border between the “Russian World” and the “Trans-Urals,” the research does not confirm the hypothesis about the system-forming significance of the myth of the “Siberian capture” for the construction of local identity. The study identifies several interdependent discourses in the local historical memory of the Perm region regarding the annexation of Siberia. The first discourse is the glorification of Yermak, initially influenced by the government’s struggle with the “Cossack freemen,” but by the beginning of the 20th century, Yermak was endowed with the features of a local folk hero, and his campaign was a common cause of local residents. The second discourse is the role of the Stroganovs, which was developed in the 1830s by F.A. Volegov, survived the Soviet ideologization, and experienced a slight surge in the 1990s, but is not dominant overall. The third discourse emerged in the late 19th century and is a representation of the conquest of Siberia in the works of the local intelligentsia. They note Moscow’s insignificant attention to the role of the Perm region in the conquest of Siberia, which can be considered a typical colonial discourse, but they themselves do not regard the “Siberian conquest” as a significant factor in regional history. In general, the discourses of the local historical memory of the Perm region about the conquest of Siberia shift the focus of attention from events to specific heroes, and the retrospective interpretation of their exploits is more of a “folk” rather than a statist character.