Q : Michael Gervers

A : D. Tumen

Q: Could you please tell me the range of archeological periods being excavated in Mongolia today?

A: All over Mongolia archeological monuments are found dating from the Paleolithic, also known as the Old Stone Age, up to the 14-15th century Old Mongolian Period.

Q: What are the other periods between Paleolithic and Mongolian?

A: Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Xiongnu Period and then the union of several tribes which we usually call the first millennium AD or the pre-Mongolian Period

Q: Could you name some of these tribes?

A: After the Xiongnu came the Xianbei union in the 3rd century AD. This lasted for almost 100 years until the end of the 4th century AD. After the Xianbei there was another union of tribes, the Touba and the Jujan. Then came the Turkic Period, which was a union of two tribes, the First Turkic and the Second Turkic. This was followed by the Uighurian and the Kirgiz, which lasted for a very short time. Following that was the Khitan, and after that a union of the Mongolian tribes dominated from the 11th century.

Q: And what is the difference between the First and the Second Turkic Period?

A: There is no very significant difference. But there were some variations between the two burial traditions. For instance, the First Turkic tribe usually cremated their dead. However some sacrificial monuments and grave sites with human remains and horses were found about the middle of the 19th century which seem to belong to a Turkic period. Our Department's last excavation revealed that burial with horses was a ritual of the Mongolian period.

Q: But surely they were burying horses with the deceased in the Bronze Age?

A: Usually, incomplete animal bones were found, for example mostly sheep, goat, horse heads, ribs and scapula, and sometimes dog skulls from the Bronze Age graves excavated in Mongolia.

Q: But in the Iron Age, in the Pazyryk region for example, there were many complete horse burials.

* = See Pazyryk article in Wikipedia and selection of Pazyryk objects in the State Hermitage Museum collection

A: Yes, in the Russian Altai region, at Pazyryk*, kurgans with complete horse skeletons were discovered. However, until 2005 the Pazyryk kurgan, or archaeological monuments from the period, had never been excavated in Mongolia. Since 2005 Mongolian and French archaeological expeditions have carried out archaeological surveys and discovered many Pazyryk sites in the Mongolian Altai mountains. They partly excavated the Pazyryk grave sites in the region and unearthed many interesting artifacts and horse skeletons. The tradition of burying the dead with horses was also practiced in the Xiongnu and Turkic periods, although only a few graves with complete horse skeletons are known from the Xiongnu period. That more have not been found may be explained by the fact that most Xiongnu graves were robbed and disturbed at some unknown time. From the archaeological viewpoint, it would seem that complete horse burials were more common before and after the Xiongnu period.

Q: Which was the group from Inner Asia, including Mongolian territory, that you indicated were similar to the Avars from East Europe?

A: That was the Jujan tribe, whose union was around the 4th century, after the Xianbei. Their political center was the Khangai mountain region.

Q: What was the connection between this tribal group and what we know of the Avars through excavation in Hungary?

A: This is very interesting. Most of the information comes from historical sources. For example, Chinese sources tell us that during the 4th century the Jujan moved to Central Asia. Hungarians call them 'the newcomers'. This was called the Avarian Period. I visited the Museum of Anthropology in Budapest, at the beginning of the 1980s. There were lots of artifacts from the Avarian Period, which had been found in Hungary. There had been an archaeological excavation of Avarian grave monuments. Hungarian researchers and physical anthropologists told me that most of the skeletons with Mongoloid features were found in graves that denoted high social status. It may be that in the Avarian period the common people were native born and the newcomers were of higher status, very rich and with Mongolian features.

Q: When the Hungarians were actively engaged in excavations in Mongolia, were they looking for Avar material or were they more interested in trying to find proto-Hungarians?

A: They were interested in both, but usually in the Xiongnu Period.

Q: And why would they be interested in that period?

A: Because the Xiongnu tribal union is very familiar to foreign researchers, including the Hungarian archeologist Erdely. The first wave of immigration from Inner Asia to Europe was Xiongnu.

Q: Are these the people whom we also refer to as Huns? What about Attila? Where was his home?

A: I can't say, but he certainly belonged to the Xiongnu tribe whose home land is Mongolia. Some of the Xiongnu moved through Central Asia and the Eastern European countries, to Hungary, Bulgaria, the south of Czechoslovakia and Italy. The Xiongnu were everywhere.

Q: Why do you think the Xiongnu left the Mongolian territory?

A: There were probably many reasons, but I suspect that there was a great power struggle and conflict between the nomadic tribes for the control of Inner Asia, with the result that some of them moved to the West and some of them to North China, while most of the population remained in their home land.

Q: It was not because of the Chinese?

A: According to Chinese historical sources the Xiongnu, the so-called Barbarians from the North, frequently invaded or attacked North China for wealth, while at the same time there was also considerable trade and exchange between the two populations. Battles between the Mongols and the Chinese occurred only after the Mongol Empire period. In 1469, during the Ming Dynasty, the Chinese invaded Mongolia and totally destroyed Karakorum, the capital city of the Mongolian Empire.

Q: Is there any way to know where the various tribes came from during the first Millennium?

A: I think most historians believe that all the tribes lived in the territory of Mongolia. There were many of them. Some became powerful and united and ruled all the others. Their names became associated with the period: Xianbai, Touba, Jujan, Turkic and so on. They probably ruled all the nomadic Turkic, Tungus, Manchu tribes in Inner Asia. For the most part, the general population did not change, but they had many different rulers.

There were many tribes or aimags in the territory of Mongolia before the Mongolian Empire: Naiman, Hereid, Merged, Hiyad, Tatar Mongols, all were independent tribes. When the tribe of Chinggis (Genghis) Khan gained power, it united and ruled these others to become the Mongolian Empire. The territory which they occupied and controlled reached as far as Europe and South Asia.

Q: I noticed from your excavation maps that the Iron Age and Xiongnu sites tend to be in the central regions of Mongolia, but the heartland of the Mongol Period was obviously in Eastern Mongolia. There are very few so-called Mongol Period excavations anywhere in central to western Mongolia. Is there a reason for this?

A: Yes. First, it is because the initial unification of the Mongolian tribes took place in the Three River basin of northeastern Mongolia, where the Kherlen, Onon and Tuul rivers flow. Chinggis was born in Deluun Boldog, Khentii aimag in 1161. The second reason is that archaeological monuments from the Bronze and Iron Ages in west and west-central Mongolia are very well studied, while monuments of the Mongol Empire period have received relatively little attention to date.

Q: Is there any reason why so few Xiongnu sites have been found in eastern Mongolia?

A: Actually there are Xiongnu grave sites everywhere in eastern, western, northern and southern Mongolia. One of the reasons why most of the Xiongnu grave sites were found in western Mongolia was that until 2000 most foreign and Mongolian archaeologists directed their attention to the earlier historical periods (the Bronze, Iron Age, and Xiongnu periods) and worked in eastern Mongolia.

The Khangai mountain range is the western border of central Mongolia. Between the -Altai to the west and the Khangai lies the Trans Khangai, which is the home land of another Turkic tribe, the aimag of the Naiman.

Q: What does 'aimag' mean?

A: It means an independent union of tribes.

Q: The term 'aimag' today is used to distinguish different geographical areas. Does it also refer to different ethnic groups?

A: No. In this modern sense, 'aimag' is an administrative unit that may include several ethnic groups: for example, Khovd aimag. 'Aimag' had a different meaning in the historical period; it was an independent union of tribes, for instance the Naiman, Hereid, Merged Borjigon, and Tatar aimags

Q: What are the best-known periods in Mongolian archeology?

A: The Xiongnu, Bronze Age, Neolithic and Paleolithic periods and the Mongol period. There are many gaps in our knowledge of the first millennium. We have not been able to find cultural differences between the tribes in those unions. Probably, culturally they were very similar to each other.

Q: Is there a hierarchy of wealth in these different periods? In other words, are you more likely to find richer sites from the Bronze Age than from the Mongol Period?

A: There are cultural differences. We can see social stratification in graves that were excavated from the Pazyryk, Xiongnu and Mongol periods. There are very rich grave sites which belonged to high ranking persons or tribal heads. In these cases we can see a difference in the rituals, artifacts, and also in the Pazyryk or Iron Age, for example, the sacrifice of women. We can also see a big difference in a Xiongnu grave, which shows the exact social status of the person.

Q: You can tell this from the Xiongnu graves?

A: Yes, firstly from the surface and underground construction of the grave, and secondly, from the archaeological findings. Usually, the grave of a high ranking person is very big, and rich with golden and other artifacts. However, it is very difficult to see the social stratifications of the Bronze Age because their grave sites are not very rich and most of them were robbed a long time ago.

Q: I think you mentioned today that the slab graves from the Bronze Age were made of some kind of deer stone. Were these recycled deer stones?

A. I think you remember that last year we visited two sites from the Bronze Age at the Temeen Chuluu (Camel Stone) site in Battsengel sum, Uberkhangai aimag and the Shatar Chuluun site, Erdenetsogt sum, Bayankhongor aimag. In each site several slab graves with deer stone enclosures were found. Those sites are located in central Mongolia. We do not see any social differences or stratifications in the slab graves, mainly because most of the graves were robbed.

Q: So they were not so deeply buried?

A: No, only about two to three meters down. All one finds are fragments of animal bone, ceramics and a very few bronze or iron decorations.

Q: Which period do you associate with the slab graves?

A: The Bronze Age, and the Early Iron Age. The entire Bronze Age is from the second millennium BC until the 7th century BC. The Bronze Age overlapped with the Iron Age in the 7th century BC. The Iron Age ran from the 7th century until the 3rd century BC. The Xiongnu period developed out of the Iron Age.

Q: Now, let us turn to the subject of archaeological cooperation and the interests of those foreign countries who are currently excavating. Is there any particular period that interests the French, for example, or the Japanese or the Russians or the Americans? Is there any national interest or association with the period that they are excavating?

A: Usually they are all interested in different historical periods. For example, the French archeologists pay more attention to the Xiongnu grave sites and the American archeological team from the University of Arizona to the Paleolithic period. It also depends on who leads the excavation.

Q: So there is no national preference?

A. We Mongolians are also very interested. During both the pre- and post-communist eras Mongolian archeologists and scientists studied all the historical periods. However, until about the 1950s, Mongolian archeology was very fragmented. The Russian archeologist, Keselev, who discovered the ruins of Karakorum city, led the first, very important, archeological excavation by a joint Russian-Mongolian expedition.

Q: What about Kozlov and Noyon-Uul?

A: The Russian archeologists, Kozlov, Debets and Tal'ko-Grintsevich, excavated many graves from the Xiongnu and Mongol periods in Buryatia around the Russian-Mongolian border. In 1924 Kozlov and an expedition organized by the Russian Geographic Society came to Noyon-Uul, which is very close to the Russian Buriat border, to perform an archeological survey, during which he discovered a big grave monument. That was not his only excavation, but all archeological expeditions have some lucky and some unlucky moments. Kozlov dug many graves there, but only one of them (the so-called Mokrii kurgan, mokrii meaning damp or wet) had not been looted, and this was the nobleman's grave which he discovered.

Q: That was the one that was found in its original condition?

A: Yes, that one likely was in the original condition. He found lots of artifacts in this grave.

Q: And what happened between 1924 and 1950? How did Mongolian archeology begin, from the view point of the Mongolian archeologist?

A. There were no Mongolian specialists in Mongolian archeology. The first fully trained Mongolian archeologist graduated from Moscow University at the beginning of the 1950s. Before that there were only some undergraduate students of archeology who came from Moscow State University or Leningrad University to join a few introductory Russian expeditions.

Q: Perhaps we should talk about these rather well-known Mongol archeologists.

A: Yes. D. Navaan and N. Ser-Odjav were the first generation of Mongolian archeologists. They established Mongolian archeology.

Q: Would it be fair to say that, until the 1990s, Mongolian archeology was dominated by the Soviets?

A: Yes, it was dominated by the Soviets. Since the mid 1960s there were joint archeological expeditions and for almost 30 years, until the 1990s, there were archeological surveys throughout the Mongolian territory. The Russian archeologist, A. Okladnikov, who usually studied the Paleolithic, was the supervisor of a Russian-Mongolian joint historical, cultural expedition. This expedition had teams studying the pre-historical period, the Paleolithic and Bronze Ages and others which concentrated on the Xiongnu. They did not research any tribal period.

Q: Since the Post-Soviet period, has Russian archeology changed direction in Mongolia? Or is it a continuation of what they were doing before 1990?

A: It is a continuation, but there are some differences. For example, before the 1990s, most of the Russian archeologists concentrated on the Bronze Age, studying deer stones or petroglyphs and some grave sites. They were more interested in western Mongolia, trying to see the historical relationship between the Bronze Age populations of western Mongolia and south Siberia, because there is much common cultural evidence. In south Siberia they have Kheregsuur and lots of stone kurgans, and of course there are the deer stones of Mongolia.

After the 1990s, Russian-Mongolian expeditions still paid attention to the Bronze Age, but they were not only looking at Kurgan culture. They found totally new cultural sites, for example: the Chimerchukh culture in the Altai, which also was found in northwest China and the Mungen Taiga. The Munkhkhairkhan cultural sites are identical to the Bronze Age culture from Russian Tuva. The Russians did an archeological survey in Mongolia to see if there was some connection in the geographical distribution of this culture. They found exactly the same type of monuments in western Mongolia, along the Altai Mountains.

Q: Just changing the subject slightly, does the present day Mongolian border reflect the historical cultural habitation of the region? You were saying that there are a number of sites in south Siberia which are similar to ones in Mongolia. This would seem to suggest that, from the cultural view point, the present border between Mongolia and Russia is not really a border.

A: Not a cultural border. There was a common culture in ancient times; the present border is more recent. Even during the historical period, maybe 2000 years ago, there were different nomadic tribes, but there was not a defined political border until about the 17th century. The people who lived close to the border moved back and forth. Now that a strict border line has been established these populations have been isolated, leaving relatives stranded on two different sides. Now it is just the language of the 20th century, not of ancient times. Because they were nomads they wanted to move as they pleased. Also some of the areas were tribal and within them there were no borders. I think you will understand what I mean.

Q: Yes absolutely. Borders are often natural borders such as rivers or mountains.

A: Yes, geographical borders, not political ones.

Q: We also spoke about the fact that in the Iron Age, I am thinking of the Pazyryk culture, it is said that they must have been Iranian people. Now does this mean that Mongolia was the eastern end of nomadic travel? Was there a common nomadic culture that went from Iran to Mongolia? Do we know?

A: I can't say exactly. However most Mongolian archeologists, and some foreign ones, have a similar opinion of Pazyryk. The Chinese historical sources mention a remarkable tribe from the 4th century BC with very unusual physical features. They had very bright hair and they inhabited the north of China.

Q: Red hair?

A: Blonde hair, blue eyes, high nose. Those are caucasoid features. They were a nomadic people who moved from north China, meaning the territory of Inner Mongolian today, and drove to the Gobi. They moved only between these directions, north and south. They had a totally different physical appearance. The tribe was called 'Dingling'. Most Russian and Mongolian archeologists think of it as a Pazyryk or maybe pre-Xiongnu tribe, not as some kind of immigrant from Iran. I don't know the pre-history of Iran and their archeological monuments, so I can't tell what kind of connection there was between Iran and Pazyryk. I think perhaps an ancient Asian and Caucasoid nomadic population migrated from north to south and mixed with the local people. Gradually, the Mongoloid features became dominant. Maybe they were united with the Xiongnu tribes.

Q: What evidence is there that they had blonde hair and blue eyes? Has the hair been preserved in the grave site?

* = See Nikita Bichurin article in Wikipedia.

A: No, the information was found in Chinese sources of the 4th century BC Ancient Chinese historical sources from this period refer to these unique tribes. They were studied by the Russian missionary and researcher Ya. I. Bichurin* (1777-1853), an educated high level Russian of the middle of the 19th century who worked in Tibet and China. He was fluent in ancient Chinese and the Mongolian language and studied Chinese historical sources. He published the material on these tribes of Inner Mongolia from Chinese historical sources and gave them the name of Dingling tribes.

Q: Is it possible to identify these tribes archeologically?

A: No, but now they are also identified as Pazyryk because early archeological monuments and human remains with European features were found at Pazyryk. It is the early Iron Age.

Q: So this would suggest that there were European people, nomads, coming to Mongolia?

A: Either coming to Mongolia or else it was the Mongolian population which moved to a different location.

Q: The reason that I've mentioned Pazyryk is that so many of the findings in the graves are similar to what was found in Iran from about the same period. Do you think that the decoration found on objects from Pazyryk was strongly influenced by Persia?

A: Maybe. I don't know exactly, because nobody mentioned any connection between Iran and Pazyryk. Nor did Rudenko mention it. In the 50s and 60s there was no evidence to compare with Iran. That maybe would have changed their conclusion. I have not seen any article written by Mongols that mentioned any connection between Iran and Pazyryk. Today is the first time that I've heard about it and I was very surprised. I remember very well the books of Rudenko. But I do not know the cultural monuments of Iran. I have to see some of these materials from Iran to see how the comparison was made. For now, I can't say anything about a direct connection. There are also some archeologists who suggested that there was some Indo-European influence on the Xiongnu culture, but I don't know what that means; the influence is not clear to me.

Q: What about relations in archeological and academic terms between Mongolia and Inner Mongolia? Is there work being done in Inner Mongolia which relates in any way to what's being done in Mongolia?

A: Yes, we have a very interesting political situation. Inner Mongolians are Mongolians. There is no difference, but we are politically divided into two parts. Manchuria occupied Mongolia in the 17th century and divided the country into two parts, Inner and Outer Mongolia. Before the 17th century there was one Mongolia with the same language, culture, tradition and history. Nowadays, most western people say 'northern China' not 'Inner Mongolia'. The same types of archeological monuments are found both in Mongolia and in Inner Mongolia. In some of the sites there were lots of elements from China because it was close to China and there was trade and exchange of Chinese goods. Most of the grave sites and constructions are similar. And there are the same difficulties in both Inner Mongolian and Mongolian archeology. As I said before, it is very difficult to find cultural differences between these tribes, the Xianbei, Touba, Jujan and so on, because they had a common culture. In Inner Mongolia most of the findings are considered to be from the 3rd century BC and to the Xianbei and Khitan period (9th-10th century AD). The union of the Xianbei tribes was established after the Xiongnu, which was a very powerful tribal union in Inner Asia including Mongolia. Here in Mongolia we regard all these grave sites as Xiongnu. At the moment, the differences in culture and grave ritual between Xiongnu and Xianbei are not so clear. It is very difficult to understand or to find the difference between Xiongnu and Xianbei.

Q: Is that in Inner Mongolia or Mongolia ?

A: In both. We say that all the grave sites here belong to the Xiongnu, but in Inner Mongolia all the similar cultural monuments are called Xianbei. Different names depend upon the tribe who ruled at the time, but these may be the same tribe.

Q: Now, I suppose that the Chinese archeologists are looking for evidence of a Chinese presence in Inner Mongolia.

A: I think all archaeologists who do archaeological research on Mongolian prehistoric sites seek to understand the historical and cultural relationship between the ancient nomads of Eurasia and their neighbors. But everybody is looking for their own elements in this culture.

Q. Do the Russians do the same?

A. No, Russia was very far from Mongolia, there was no influence in the prehistoric period. Russian archeologists are interested in the ancient cultural relationships between Mongolia, Siberia and Central Asia, and so on.

Q: Might there be a difference, in terms of Inner Mongolia and Mongolia, between nomads to the north of the Gobi and nomads to the south of the Gobi? In other words could the Gobi also be a cultural dividing line?

A: No, not culturally. In Prehistory the culture was likely very similar.

Q: You mentioned in the lecture today, in response to a question about the Neolithic, that some of the inhabitants at the time, at least, were agriculturalists.

A: Yes. This conclusion was published by the Mongolian scholar D. Dorj, who studied the Mongolian Neolithic, in his work The Neolithic of Eastern Mongolia. In the book he concluded that agriculture was one of the mainstays of the East Mongolian Neolithic population. But it is very hard to say because we have very few human remains from the Neolithic period. There may be two skulls each from eastern and western Mongolia, so it is not enough to tell.

Q: So you cannot tell whether they were agriculturalists or not?

A: No. Maybe there was a degree of agriculture which was secondary to the nomadic economy. But I could not say anything about it.

Q: Can we return to the question of excavations undertaken by French archaeologists?

A: At the beginning of 1995 the government wanted to build a hydro power station on the Egyin Gol. But beforehand they had to do a big ecological survey and also sought foreign investment for an archeological survey. The French government and the supervisor of an archeological team who worked for the UNESCO organization found the money for this expedition. They have been working from 1995 until now. During the first five or six years they carried out an archeological survey around the Egyin Gol basin and discovered lots of archeological monuments. In fact they excavated the whole basin. Also there was another archeological expedition to a Xiongnu common man's grave site. The Mongolian archaeologists Turbat (T'orbat), Amartuvshin and Erdenebat (Ed-en-ebat), who participated in the expedition, published books and many articles.

* = See "Population origins in Mongolia: Genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern DNA" on Wiley InterScience

One French anthropologist named Eric Crubézy and others made a bone DNA analysis for a skeleton which was found in an excavation in the Egyin Gol basin. He found a relationship between the ancient and current people living in the region. He published an article* about this in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Q: What are the French excavating now?

* = See a report about the French archeology project on the Musée Guimet website

A: They finished an archeological survey and excavation in the Egyin Gol area at the beginning of 2000. Now they have two new projects. One of them is working in the Altai Mountains. They excavated grave sites which are actually in Pazyryk territory and last year they also excavated some Pazyryk grave sites in the Baga Turgen Gol (Small Rapid River) area, the Altai Mountains, Ulaankhus sum, Bayan-Ulgii aimag. They also found lots of interesting things. Another point to note is that a French-Mongolian team worked in Arkhangai aimag and has excavated Xiongnu sites. There are two expeditions working on the Gol Mod sites which have very interesting Xiongnu grave sites. A Mongolian-American expedition is working on the Gol Mod 2 and a Mongolian-French expedition is working on the Gol Mod 1. Usually these French teams come from the Musée Guimet* in Paris. They are still excavating in Gol Mod 1

Q: To what extent is the work of your department known and valued by the Mongolian population? Do the Mongols themselves want these articles, do they read the newspapers? Are they interested in Mongolian history?

A: Yes, they are very interested.

Q: I must say that even years ago this interest was there. When I was in Khovd aimag in 1990 I met a nomad who produced a copy of the Secret History of the Mongols from his ger. He was very interested in that. I wonder whether among the herding people in general there is an interest in history and in archaeology?

A: Yes, most of the people are interested in Mongolian history. They take pride in their history because Mongolia was once a leading power. They are proud of Chinggis Khan and our history. But during the communist period it was not encouraged to be proud of our own history. We were not even allowed to mention the name of Chinggis Khan because there was a negative, independent side to him. But every Mongol in his heart regards Chinggis as a god.

Q: This is an interesting point. So, under Soviet domination the study of the Mongol period was perhaps discouraged?

A: Yes, it was very difficult. Nobody paid any attention to the Mongol period during that political phase. The Mongol Empire period was not studied from the archeological point of view. Research on the Mongol period only began after 1990.

Q: I remember when I was in Mongolia around that time, that the Japanese had come and were making, as I understood, an aerial survey, looking for the burial place of Chinggis Khan.

A: Yes. That was in the late 80s and early 90s, during the time of Perestroika, during the Gorbachev period. The political climate became warmer and we felt ourselves to be freer and able to speak our minds very openly. The first archeological survey of the Mongolian-Japanese joint expedition, the Gurvan Gol Project in the Three River Basin was carried out at that time.

Q: And was that published?

A: Just a report was published. This was the first serious archeological survey of the Mongol period.

Q: Would the political situation under the Soviets explain why so little has been known about the first millennium also? Was it because that too was a distinctly tribal period? Or was the Mongol period considered to be part of the same tribal period?

A: I can't tell you the exact reason why there is a big gap in this period. Maybe not many archeologists were interested in this period, because there is not so much clear evidence. The Chinese historical sources mention the names of a number of different tribes living to the north of the Gobi.

Q: Are there scholars in Mongolia who are able to read Chinese sources?

A: Yes, some historical books were published in the mid 1980s. One of them relates to the Jujan period which corresponds in European terms to the Arab period or the Avar period in Hungary. This book was published by the Mongolian historian, Khandsuren, who was fluent in Chinese and studied Chinese sources. Another book was published by the Mongolian historian, Sukhbaatar, about the ancient ancestors of the Mongols. He wrote about the union of Xiongnu tribes; linguistics, political status, social stratification, economy, religion, indeed everything about the -Xiongnu. After this, he published a book about the Xianbei, who they were and their connection to the Mongols. One of our Mongolian archeologists named Bayar published two books at the beginning of the 1990s on the Stone Men from the Turkic and Mongolian periods. At the beginning of the 60s one of our famous archeologists, Perlee, published a book about the Khitan (Qidan) relations with the Mongols.

Q: And for this he needed to read Chinese or Ancient Chinese?

A: Yes. He studied the archeological findings, historical sources and published some of his conclusions about the relationship between the Mongol and the Khitan.

Q: Perhaps we should turn to the subject of the future. What do you anticipate in the next ten years will be the objectives of Mongolian archeology?

A: This is a good question. The aim of our department is to develop archeological education in Mongolia and also to pay more attention to the protection of Mongolian archeological monuments against robbery and illegal excavation. We would like to do a very wide survey, to register all these sites on some kind of archeological map, at least of eastern and northern Mongolia, if not all parts of the country. One of our biggest plans is the creation of an archeological database that shows the location of archeological monuments. Since the 1990s, whenever we carry out a survey, we have used a GPS to define the exact geographical location. It is a very useful tool for mapping the archeological monuments. We also want to improve the specialized qualifications and professional skills of Mongolian archeologists and we want to revitalize the teaching program and curriculum in our own department, which includes both archeologists and anthropologists.

Q: You seek to compare the National University of Mongolia with other universities, and perhaps to organize a centre for specialized study?

A: Yes. Most Mongolian archeologists have had a Russian education, which has some good and some bad aspects. We could combine Russian with Western archeological education, such as Canadian, American or Western European and thus improve our teaching methodology in archeology.

Q: And this means, perhaps, sending Mongol-ian students abroad to study?

A: It is very difficult to send Mongolian students to study abroad because we don't have enough money to pay for their education. If any students are able to receive grants from somewhere, they can go. But we also want to improve our own knowledge and share this knowledge with our students. When I go abroad, I not only give lectures, but also collect books and invite other professors from abroad to give lectures to our students. That is a different way to improve our teaching program and curriculum and impart more knowledge to our students. Because, after graduation, they will become specialists in Mongolian archeology and have improved language skills. Combining teaching and research improves the program. We should encourage cooperation and perhaps establish some kind of joint department with foreigners.

Q: By joint departments, do you mean with other universities abroad?

A: Yes. Maybe there could be an international department of Mongolian archaeology. There are foreign professors who want to come to our department and to teach. Foreign students can come to our department. We need to encourage international co-operation.