Challenges of Subalternity on the Northeast Asian Frontier.

Jon K. Chang, Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East. 276 pp. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2016. ISBN-13 978-0824856786. $68.00.

Victor Zatsepine, Beyond the Amur: Frontier Encounters between China and Russia, 1850-1930. 240 pp. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2017. ISBN-13 978-0774834094. $80.00.

Until the fall of the Qing and Romanov dynasties, China and Russia shared the longest land border in the world. In addition to its vastness--cutting through the Siberian taiga, the steppes of Mongolia, and the Central Asian mountain ranges--this border was special in many ways. It not only divided the two largest Eurasian empires, but it was also the place where European and Asian civilizations met, where nomads and sedentary people mingled, where the imperial interests of Russia and later the Soviet Union clashed with those of Qing and Republican China and Japan, and where the world's two largest communist regimes hailed their friendship and staged their enmity. During the past century, tightly patrolled borders gradually replaced the once open and vaguely demarcated interimperial frontier. With this transformation, contacts across borders faded and left no room for people with hybrid identities and vague notions of belonging.

Despite its pivotal role in world history, its radical changes over time, and the growth of a general academic interest in frontiers and borderlands, the intersecting periphery of the Chinese and Russian empires in Northeast Asia has not yet received the scholarly attention among historians it deserves. Two new books fill some of the blank spots on the history of this region. Victor Zatsepine's Beyond the Amur traces the history of the distinctive frontier society of Russians, Chinese, and indigenous people along the vast Amur River and its tributaries at the turn of the century. Jon K. Chang's Burnt by the Sun explores the fate of the Korean diaspora in the Russian Far East from korenizatsiia to deportation. Chang and Zatsepine both argue in different ways that people and states were responsible for the transformation of this region from an open interimperial periphery into a full-fledged borderland of nation-states in the modern sense--that is, a landscape divided by congruent lines of economic, political, ethnic, and cultural differences.

The monographs are two fairly typical examples of a shift in historical writing in which frontiers and borderlands are no longer seen as peripheral. Building on works of geographers and anthropologists as well as the pioneering historical works of Frederick Jackson Turner and Herbert Eugene Bolton, historians have turned their attention to the margins of nation-states and empires from the Americas to Southeast Asia. (1) Recent scholarship adopts cross-cultural perspectives, thereby pushing historiography away from center-periphery interpretations of frontiers and borderlands toward developments in the peripheries. (2)

This trend can also be observed in emerging scholarship on borderlands edging China and Russia. (3) Research on the history of their interimperial frontier in Northeast Asia, however, mainly exists in the form of general surveys, with minimal interest given to the locality and the people. (4) Books on the history of diplomatic relations focus on Russian imperial expansion and Qing reactions to it but ignore the people in the peripheries as a factor in their relations. (5)

To the present day, the majority of regional histories conceive the interimperial frontier and emerging borderland between the Chinese and Russian empires as their outermost peripheries--if the area figures in their analysis at all--but not as a meeting place of their different peoples. Scholarship on Russian regional history of the territories between Lake Baikal and the Pacific has largely been general. (6) Though marking a more thoroughly researched field, a similar trend exists in scholarship on the history of China's Northeast. Some monographs explore the region's position within the political mapping of the Chinese Empire. (7) Others address the imperial rivalry between Russia, Japan and China, (8) with a strong focus on the Manchukuo period. (9)

Most of the scholarship is informed by a top-down perspective, in which power inevitably flows from the metropoles to the subordinated borderlands. One major reason for such a one-sided perception is the fact that the overlapping Chinese and Russian peripheries remain unexplored territory to historians, spaces demanding laborious efforts in provincial archives. Scholars need to know several languages and conduct research in more than one national domain. Even mastering the relevant languages is not always sufficient. Historians also have to deal with different "archival cultures." (10) Comparatively scant attention has therefore been given to regional lenses on the interimperial periphery. It is also for these reasons that only a few scholars have departed from a typical emphasis on one entity to provide a valuable study of the cultural history of everyday encounters among Russians, Chinese, and other people in the borderlands. (11)

Chang and Zatsepine seek to challenge the centrist approach. As with most studies that explore regional histories and subaltern spheres, both authors encountered groups of people who left few traces of themselves. Such limitations can partially be overcome, however, by turning to other sources offering unique glimpses into everyday life on the frontier. Newspapers, economic and ethnographic surveys, and travelers' field notes can be found in the libraries, and the recollections of witness who are still alive can be included as oral accounts in the historical panorama. In their monographs, the two authors tackle the challenge of bottom-up perspectives that write the people of the frontier back into history quite differently.

Victor Zatsepine explores the frontier encounters between Russia and China on the Amur and its tributaries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His Beyond the Amur takes a broad-brush approach, focusing on colonization projects, economic activities, and the impact of the natural environment on the local population. By employing a cross-border perspective, his monograph is refreshing, as most previous studies have limited their scope to one side of the river.

Beyond the Amur is a brief and well-written study. Zatsepine seeks to analyze the Amur frontier in the triangular relationship of "a place, a local experience, and an imperial policy" (4). Natural features--in particular, the vast, often inaccessible territory and the harsh climate--had a defining influence on Russian imperial expansion and Qing internal colonization. Chinese, Russians, and indigenous people established a hybrid frontier society, a world of its own quite distinct from eastern Siberia or southern Manchuria. Zatsepine is right to argue that "tensions between formal imperial expansionist initiatives and local developments on the ground shaped" the transformation of the Amur frontier (7). Economic and administrative reforms were hindered by a lack of resources in the two overextended empires. The governments proved to be incapable of sealing the porous border and overcoming ambiguous identity formations. Zatsepine convincingly argues this point in his section on banditry (49-51), among others.

Yet the interplay between states and people remains vague in his narrative. Chapter 3 examines local commerce, the extraction of natural resources, unofficial networks, and contraband trade across the Sino-Russian border in detail, yet it fails to analyze the customs and border management policies of Russia and China. Zatsepine is certainly right that the "border remained sparsely populated and poorly guarded" (62), yet the reader learns little about the dynamics on the ground, the strategies of the states, and the counterstrategies employed by local frontier people. (12)

Despite his book title, Zatsepine focuses on the period from the 1880s to the 1910s, with only snapshots of the mid-19th century and the early Soviet years. There are certainly good reasons to choose such a narrow timeframe. At the turn of the century, the region witnessed population growth and thriving economic activity, while Russia and China failed to establish a strong border and the frontier society perhaps reached its dynamic and babylonic moment. Yet the forces behind the channeling of the previously unrestrained flow of people, commodities, and ideas across the border: namely, the Sino-Soviet rivalry over the control of the Chinese Eastern Railroad in 1929 and Japan's occupation of Manchuria in 1931--as well as domestic developments in the USSR, such as the deportation of disloyal people or the establishment of border zones--deserve more attention. Three pages (152-55) are insufficient to analyze why the Soviet Union and Japan (and later the People's Republic of China) succeeded at tasks that the weak state authority of the Qing and Romanov empires for so long failed to achieve.

Zatsepine's account rarely goes beyond the known. Chapter 6 on the Chinese Eastern Railway, for instance, examines the influence of new infrastructure projects on the Amur frontier region, the local economy, and the failure of Russian economic expansion into Manchuria. His findings that the railway "was not an effective tool for the Russian colonization" (116) will hardly surprise readers familiar with the literature. (13) The Boxer Rebellion and the Russo-Japanese War, discussed in chapter 7, offer few insights into local dimensions of the rivalries and follow the narrative of previous scholarship, perhaps with the exception of the Blagoveshchensk Massacre (120-24).

The Amur was indeed an open territory where people from various regions and backgrounds met. The role of Chinese farmers, merchants, and laborers, for instance, cannot be overestimated for the development of the Russian Far East. Zatsepine rightly observes that "little is known about the daily lives" of Chinese sojourners or indigenous people or migrants from European parts of Russia. But his account falls short of his aim of tracing the people of the frontier "to the extent possible" (35). Seen from the "panoramic or bird's eye view of this region" (16), the frontier society remains somewhat colorless. Even the few individuals who appear in the book, such as the Russian-Chinese merchant Ji Fengtai (Nikolai I. Tifontai) or the Nanai hunter Dersu Uzala, famously portrayed by Vladimir K. Arsen'ev and Akira Kurosawa, hardly belong to the realms of subalternity. Because Zatsepine bases his analysis exclusively on published materials, his conclusions do not go far beyond studies that were written at a time when Russian and Chinese archives were still off-limits to historians. (14) That is all the more disappointing as the author wrote his monograph, a slightly revised version of his 2006 dissertation, at a particularly favorable moment, when repositories in China and Russia were relatively accessible.

It is essentially for this reason that Beyond the Amur is neither a thorough study of state strategies to control the periphery nor an examination of the everyday lives of frontiersmen and the ways in which these challenged or supported state-imposed regimes. A book of 240 pages covering such a broad topic and area might not be able to do justice to the historical complexity of this region at the turn of the century, with its competing imperial interests, revolutionary movements, and local actors. Such deficiencies and a few errors notwithstanding, Beyond the Amur remains an inspiring book for readers interested in turn of the century imperial encounters on the Northeast Asian frontier. (15)

In focusing on individuals of a single ethnic group within the boundaries of one country, Jon K. Chang takes a different approach. In Burnt by the Sun, he documents the experience of Koreans inside Russia and the Soviet Union from the late 19th to the mid-20th century, with particular attention to the Stalin years.

Iliaron Em, whom Chang interviewed in 2008-9 in Uzbekistan, may illustrate this difference of approach: tracing the microhistories of people on the Sino-Russian border. Iliaron's life story is typical of agricultural Koreans before and after deportation. He grew up on a collective farm on a Soviet Amur island in a house inherited from kulaks who had been repressed during collectivization. In the summer, Chinese farmers crossed the border river and lived in Iliaron's village, where they helped with the harvest well into the 1930s. Koreans and Chinese divided crops and revenues, and the Chinese returned to China. Though few language barriers existed, Iliaron remembers how the boys laughed about Chinese women wearing trousers and other cultural differences. In 1937, the Soviet authorities deported Iliaron's family to the Kazakh steppe. His father had been arrested before and died in custody in 1939. The family still had to meet its production quota to remain part of the Korean kolkhoz and keep its house (121-23, 167). Not only do such fragments uncover subaltern worlds of everyday Soviet life and consequences of repression and deportation absent from the literature; they also reveal how much the distinct frontier society was still alive in the 1930s, years after the Sino-Soviet conflict and Japan's occupation of Manchuria.

Chang's analysis of why the Korean ethnic community was viewed as a problematic and disloyal nationality by both the tsarist and the Soviet regimes forms the core of his book. Building on and in part challenging Terry Martin's theory of Soviet ethnic cleansing, (16) Change convincingly argues that the primary reason for the almost wholesale deportation of Koreans from Primorskaia oblast to Central Asia was deep-rooted prerevolutionary anti-Asian prejudice that carried over into Soviet nationality policies, rather than the geopolitical threat of war with Japan or the insufficient cultural assimilation or "remaking" of the Korean community during the early Soviet period.

Korean farmers had begun moving to the Russian Far East in the mid19th century, often to escape hardships on their native peninsula. The vast majority settled in villages in the southern districts of Primor'e. Unlike the Chinese, who by and large were male and came as single migrant workers, Koreans migrated with their families and stayed. In contrast to the Chinese, the Koreans developed strong allegiances to tsarist Russia, and by the time of the Russian Revolution there was sizable cohort of Russified Koreans.

One of the major findings of Chang's research is the influence of imperial values and categories in society and politics beyond the threshold of 1917, from a Dal'biuro resolution to remove all Koreans just after the Bolsheviks had seized complete control in the Far East to their actual deportation during the Great Terror. While officially greeted as allies in the building of communism, the Korean diaspora had not been granted the same degree of autonomy as other national minorities from early on. Many Koreans still encountered economic discrimination, despite all multiculturalist and internationalist rhetoric or the achievements in education and cultural promotion of the 1920s. The Bolsheviks' inability to separate culture from nationality reinforced racialized ideas of national belonging. These programs stressed ethnic and national differences by assigning different rations, benefits, or jobs, depending on nationality. They linked the diaspora nationalities' political allegiance to their ethnic homelands, classifying Koreans as a "national minority" rather than as natives of the Soviet Far East.

Chang portrays the Soviet Korean community as loyal to the Bolshevik regime, fighting as Red partisans during the Civil War, enlisting as soldiers in the ranks of the Red Army during the Sino-Soviet conflict in 1929 or defending the Soviet border as members of farmer brigades after Japan's occupation of Manchuria in 1931. Some Koreans were loyal to the point where Korean sections of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) assisted in the repression and deportation of their own on behalf of the Soviet state. In 1937-38 about 172,000 Koreans were deported to the Central Asian Soviet republics, making it the first of Stalin's forcible relocations of an entire national community that was soon followed "national operations" of other Soviet nationalities. s

Proving their allegiance to the Bolshevik regime thus did not save the Korean diaspora from persistent charges of being "alien" and steadfast minions of the Japanese Empire. "The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, the Japanese intervention during the years of civil war, and Japan's occupation of Manchuria created and reinforced a lasting image of Koreans as collaborators of the Japanese. Such negative perceptions ultimately undermined the effort of the Soviet Korean community to construct an identity as Soviet people and paved the way for labeling them an "enemy nation."

Burnt by the Sun would have profited from more rigorous editing to minimize its shortcomings of form and content. Erratic jumps between topics and a narrative overburdened with lengthy quotes, numbers, names, and other details make it at times difficult to read. (17) It is nevertheless a compelling study, because Chang, unlike Zatsepine, succeeds in giving the people of the periphery a voice. Drawing on a wide variety of rich if scattered sources in Russian and English--culled from central and provincial archives, contemporary publications, and local newspapers--Chang constructs a nuanced picture that offers perspectives from within the Korean community and the Soviet state. Most impressive, perhaps, are the 60 interviews with elderly Korean deportees, conducted over several years of fieldwork in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Eyewitness accounts and commonplace biographies of people like the previously mentioned Iliaron Em advance our insight into individual perspectives on the relationships among Koreans, Russians, and Chinese and the everyday challenges of rural and urban Koreans prior to and after their deportation. By telling the stories of these ordinary women and men from the fading Northeast Asian frontier, scholarship will challenge top-down interpretations of this region, which often suggest that the fate of the peripheries were decided solely by people and institutions in the metropoles.

German Historical Institute

1607 New Hampshire Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20009, USA

[email protected]

(1) Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt, 1920 [1893]); Herbert E. Bolton, The Spanish Borderlands: A Chronicle of Old Florida and the Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996 [1921]).

(2) Jeremy Adelman and Stephen Aron, "From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, NationStates, and the Peoples in Between in North American History," American Historical Review 104, 3 (1999): 814-41; Michiel Baud and Willem van Schendel, "Toward a Comparative History of Borderlands," Journal of World History 8, 2 (1997): 211-42; Pekka Hamalainen and Samuel Truett, "On Borderlands ? Journal of American History 98, 2 (2011): 338-61.

(3) On China, see, e.g., David Anthony Bello, Across Forest, Steppe, and Mountain: Environment, Identity, and Empire in Qing China's Borderlands (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Nicola Di Cosmo and Don J. Wyatt, eds., Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries, and Human Geographies in Chinese History (London: Routledge, 2003); C. Patterson Giersch, Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China's Yunnan Frontier (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006); Diana Lary, ed., The Chinese State at the Borders (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2007); Morris Rossabi, ed., Governing China's Multiethnic Frontiers (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005); and Jonathan Schlesinger, A World Trimmed with Fur: Wild Things, Pristine Places, and the Natural Fringes of Qing Rule (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017). Works on Russia include Paulus Adelsgruber, Laurie Cohen, and Borries Kuzmany, Getrennt und doch verbunden: Grenzstadte zwischen Osterreich und Russland, 1772-1918 (Vienna: Bohlau, 2011); Brian J. Boeck, Imperial Boundaries: Cossack Communities and Empire-Building in the Age of Peter the Great (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); and Michael Khodarkovsky, Russia's Steppe Frontier: The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002).

(4) Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010); Alfred J. Rieber, The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: From the Rise of Early Modern Empires to the End of the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Rieber, Stalin and the Struggle for Supremacy in Eurasia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). One notable exception is the works of Owen Lattimore, who conducted his pioneer fieldwork in the region during the 1920s and 1930s: Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict (New York: Macmillan, 1932); Mongols of Manchuria: Their Tribal Divisions, Geographical Distribution, Historical Relations with Manchus and Chinese, and Present Political Problems (New York: John Day, 1934); Inner Asian Frontiers of China (New York: American Geographical Society, 1940); and Studies in Frontier History: Collected Papers, 1928-1958 (London: Oxford University Press, 1962).

(5) The best monographs on the early Qing-Russian encounters were published nearly five decades ago: Mark Mancall, Russia and China: Their Diplomatic Relations to 1728 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), treats the early interactions between the two governments rather institutionally, emphasizing background negotiations and the half-diplomatic, half-commercial Russian caravans sent to Beijing. Clifford M. Foust, Muscovite and Mandarin: Russia's Trade with China and Its Setting 1727-1805 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), reviews Sino-Russian 18th-century trade, termed the "Kiakhta system." On Russian expansion into the Amur-Ussuri region in the mid-19th century, see also R. K. I. Quested, The Expansion of Russia in East Asia, 1857-1860 (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1968). For Sino-Russian diplomatic relations since the mid-19th century, see S. C. M. Paine, Imperial Rivals: China, Russia, and Their Disputed Frontier (Armonk NY M. E. Sharpe, 1996).

(6) Janet M. Hartley, Siberia: A History of the People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014); Alan Wood, Russia's Frozen Frontier: A History of Siberia and the Russian Far East, 1581-1991 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011); Stephen Kotkin and David Wolff, eds., Rediscovering Russia in Asia: Siberia and the Russian Far East (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1995); Mark Bassin, Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

(7) Some of the most notable books about the Manchurian frontier are Robert H. G. Lee, The Manchurian Frontier in Ch'ing History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970); Thomas R. Gottschang and Diana Lary, Swallows and Settlers: The Great Migration from North China to Manchuria (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 2000); James Reardon-Anderson, Reluctant Pioneers: China's Expansion Northward 1644-1937 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005); Shao Dan, Remote Homeland, Recovered Borderland: Manchus, Manchoukuo, and Manchuria, 1907-1985 (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2011); and Patrick Fuliang Shan, Taming China's Wilderness: Immigration, Settlement, and the Shaping of the Heilongjiang Frontier (London: Roudedge, 2017).

(8) Accounts of Russian contacts with China and Japan during the early 20th century have traditionally concentrated on Russia's colonial penetration of Manchuria, as well as the commercial and political concessions obtained by the tsarist and Soviet governments from Chinese authorities. See James Hugh Carter, Creating a Chinese Harbin: Nationalism in an International City, 1916-1932 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Bruce A. Elleman and Stephen Kotkin, eds., Manchurian Railways and the Opening of China: An International History (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009); David Wolff, To the Harbin Station: The Liberal Alternative in Russian Manchuria, 1898-1914 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999); N. E. Ablova, KVZhD i rossiiskaia emigratsiia v Kitae: Mezhdunarodnye i politicheskie aspekty istorii (pervaia polovina XX veka) (Moscow: Russkaia panorama, 2005); Soren Urbansky, Kolonialer Wettstreit: Russland, China, Japan und die Ostchinesische Eisenbahn (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2008); Kimitaka Matsuzato, ed., Russia and Its Northeast Asian Neighbors: China, Japan, and Korea, 1858-1945 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017); and Felix Patrikeeff, Russian Politics in Exile: The Northeast Asian Balance of Power, 1924-1931 (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).

(9) The study of Japanese imperialism in Manchuria has received a fair amount of attention among historians. See, e.g., Prasenjit Duara, Sovereignty and Authenticity: Manchukuo and the East Asian Modern (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003); Rana Mitter, The Manchurian Myth: Nationalism, Resistance, and Collaboration in Modern China (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); Louise Young, Japan's Total Empire: Manchuria and the Culture of Wartime Imperialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); and Yoshihisa Tak Matsusaka, The Making of Japanese Manchuria, 1904-1932 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001). Yet there is no significant research on Soviet-Japanese contacts and entanglements during the Manchukuo period (1932-45), when the border became increasingly tight.

(10) Compare with Soren Urbansky, "Diplomacy of Shunters: The Sino-Soviet Split Seen from a Provincial Archive in Russia," PRC History Review 2, 3 (2017): 16-18.

(11) One notable exception is on Harbin as a center of Russian imperial expansion and post-revolutionary emigration. See R. K. I. Quested, "Matey" Imperialists? The Tsarist Russians in Manchuria, 1895-1917 (Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 1982); Thomas Lahusen, ed., "Harbin and Manchuria: Place, Space, and Identity," special issue of South Atlantic Quarterly 99, 1 (1999); Blaine R. Chiasson, Administering the Colonizer: Manchuria's Russians under Chinese Rule, 1918-29 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010); Frank Gruner and Ines Prodohl, eds., "Ethnic Ghettos and Transcultural Processes in a Globalised City: New Research on Harbin," special issue of Itinerario 35,3 (2011); and Susanne Hohler, Fascism in Manchuria: The Soviet-China Encounter in the 1930s (London: I. B. Tauris, 2017).

(12) For the increase of economic, quarantine, and military surveillance of the border, see an insightful study of tsarist policy toward its Far Eastern periphery: Natal'ia A. Beliaeva, Ot porto-franko k tamozhne: Ocherk regional'noi istorii rossiiskogo protektsionizma (Vladivostok: Dal'nauka, 2003).

(13) Ablova, KVZhD-, Urbansky, Kolonialer Wettstreif, Wolff, To the Harbin Station.

(14) See, e.g. John J. Stephan, The Russian Far East: A History (Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press, 1994).

(15) To name a few errors: Khanka and Hulun are the two biggest lakes of China's Northeast but not of the whole country (26). The Amur Railway did not yet exist during the Russo-Japanese War (134). The foreign intervention and civil war in the Russian Far East ended in 1922, not 1921 (140). Under Stalin, the Koreans in the Soviet Far East were deported to Central Asia, while the Chinese were repatriated to China, in pan via Central Asia (155).

(16) Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001).

(17) There are also a number of avoidable historical inaccuracies. Just to name two: during the Great Terror, korenizatsiia was certainly no longer "in full bloom" (146); and thousands of

Soviet Chinese were deported from the Far East to China via not "and" Central Asia (159). The book would also have benefited from a rigorous editing, eliminating transliteration errors such as Fedor F. Busse not "Bucce" (14), and Okhotsk, not "Oxotsk" (81). Some maps and illustrations are of poor quality (e.g. 7, 63, 89).

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:	"Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East" by Jon K. Chang
Author:	Urbansky, Soren
Publication:	Kritika
Article Type:	Book review
Date:	Sep 22, 2018
Words:	4294
Previous Article:	On the Path to Russian Modernity.
Next Article:	Millenarian Bolshevism?
Topics:	Books Book reviews