Under a decree issued by President U.Khurelsukh, approximately 150 historians, led by the Institute of History and Ethnology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, are working intensively to complete the 30-volume History of Mongolia by March 2027.

Looking back, the complete history of the Mongolian People’s Republic was first published as a single volume in 1954, then expanded into three volumes between 1966 and 1968, and later revised and consolidated into one volume in 1984. Most recently, in 2003, a five-volume “History of Mongolia” was compiled and published.

Now, more than 20 years later, scholars and researchers have been entrusted with the significant task of producing a comprehensive and detailed national history once again. Despite the demanding and limited timeframe, they are working to produce 30 volumes. We spoke with the general editor of the task, Vice President of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences and Academician Ts.Tserendorj.

What was the need for compiling and publishing Mongolia’s history in 30 volumes? Producing such an extensive work in a short time must be challenging?

The presidential decree to compile and publish the 30-volume history of Mongolia was issued two years ago, in November 2024, and the responsibility was initially assigned to the government at the time. However, as the project lacked clear ownership, it was reassigned at the end of 2025 to the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, the central institution in this field. A 13-member editorial board was established, and individual editors were appointed for each volume.

The 30 volumes are divided into three major periods: 10 volumes covering ancient Mongolian history up to the Mongol Empire; 10 volumes on the Great Mongol State and subsequent developments up to the 12th century; and 10 volumes from the Qing dynasty period to the present day. Around 150 scholars are contributing within their respective fields, all of whom are recognized professionals in their disciplines.

Since the democratic revolution, Mongolian historians have actively revisited national history, correcting past interpretations, restoring sections that were deliberately omitted due to ideological reasons, and rewriting history based on credible research and primary sources. Under the leadership of Professor A.Ochir, the five-volume “History of Mongolia” was published in 2003.

Since then, historians have been discussing the need to consolidate their new research findings, refine content, and present a unified perspective to both domestic and international audiences for over more than a decade. This initiative originated from the scholars themselves.

During my tenure as Director of the Institute of History and Ethnology from 2021 to 2025, I focused on the question of how Mongolians should understand their complete national history. I raised the issue of rewriting it with a unified perspective at the state level and worked toward turning it into reality.

There are several reasons why this effort is necessary. First, over the past 20 years, research on every period of Mongolian history has significantly deepened. Second, it is time to consolidate and evaluate the new works and findings of professionally trained historians, both domestically and internationally. Third, as public interest in history and cultural heritage has increased, there has also been a rise in non-specialists offering oversimplified or subjective interpretations, which can mislead the public and create division. Therefore, it has become essential to establish a unified, evidence-based historical narrative.

There is already debate on social media regarding the selection of scholars for this project. People question whether researchers can remain objective, given that academics often disagree with one another. Who has been included in the editorial council, and can they remain impartial?

It is natural for scholars and researchers to hold different perspectives and viewpoints. Truth often emerges through such debate. For this 30-volume work, nearly 150 historians with specialized expertise across various periods and fields of Mongolian history have been involved. These include nine academicians, 19 Sc.D, 107 Ph.D. holders, along with a small number of graduate students working as technical assistants.

We have sought to include as many qualified specialists as possible across each research field and assign them to the relevant volumes. Mongolian historians are approaching this work with deep respect and a strong sense of responsibility. Professional integrity is of utmost importance to researchers, they will never include anything without evidence or verification.

In earlier five-volume editions, the section on the Mongol Empire was somewhat limited in scope. In this new work, each historical period is examined in greater detail, enriched with recent research, and previously debated issues are clarified. Even time periods that were previously overlooked will now be addressed, making this work particularly significant.

Frankly speaking, there is an entire generation with a rather incomplete general understanding of Mongolian history. Some still perceive historians through the lens of the socialist era, assuming they remain ideologically constrained. Others are influenced by so-called “amateur historians”, leading to claims such as “our historians write false history”, which fuels division and debate.

However, over the past 36 years, historical research in Mongolia has become far more detailed and sophisticated across all periods. I would encourage people to at least read and compare the five-volume history published in 2003, along with more recent scholarly works by professional historians. Young people have also changed.

Could it be that enough effort is not being made to engage readers?

I don’t think so. If people actually read them, they would see that our history textbooks have already changed significantly. Researchers constantly strive to explore new ideas and advance their studies at every step. Of course, when it comes to communicating their research to the public, our scholars vary in their approaches.

If people have not read the five-volume history, will they really read all 30 volumes? The question then arises: how can the work of professional researchers, produced through such immense effort, be effectively delivered to the public?

In general, a sense of distrust has taken root in our society. The poor example set by politicians seems to have contributed significantly to this. As soon as historians begin working on a 30-volume history of Mongolia, suspicions may arise, such as, “Whose agenda is behind this?” or “Those who produced these 30 volumes will profit from them.”

From our perspective, we are so occupied with completing and publishing the work that we hardly even have the capacity to think about profit, let alone earning income. First, we must finish the work and get it published. After that, there will certainly be a need to make it as accessible as possible to the public and to present it in various formats.

At the very least, the volumes will be distributed to libraries in all 21 provinces and the districts of the capital city. Interested readers will be able to access and read the volumes individually. We could also make them available online for free or produce a series of podcasts.

It appears that books previously initiated by the President have been made freely available on digital platforms, allowing anyone to access and read them. Therefore, it would be beneficial to create a unified platform where people genuinely interested in history and culture can easily find reliable and high-quality information.

At a time when more young people are becoming interested in history and cultural heritage, it would be ideal to make around 30 core works, serving as primary sources for Mongolians, freely accessible through a unified digital system. Currently, only The Secret History of the Mongols is openly available online; the rest are not. Unfortunately, under current conditions, we lack the financial resources to make this a reality.

Recently, when commemorating historical figures, there is a tendency for provinces and local regions to “claim” them, which may risk diminishing their broader national significance. What is your view on this?

To be honest, given Mongolia’s current circumstances, there are limited alternatives and scarce resources. There are many prominent political and public figures, as well as heroes of both national and international significance. However, the country does not have the economic capacity to commemorate every historical anniversary at a national level.

Ideally, figures such as D.Natsagdorj, Undur Gegeen Zanabazar, B.Rinchen, and R.Choinom would be commemorated nationwide. But in reality, this is not feasible. As a result, provinces and local governments take responsibility for organizing such events and covering the associated costs.

For example, when I attended the 140th anniversary of former Prime Minister A.Amar in Bulgan Province, I remarked that A.Amar is not merely a figure of Bulgan Province, but a national statesman of Mongolia. Such an event, ideally, should be opened not by a provincial governor but by the Prime Minister of Mongolia.

Last year, during the 120th anniversary of B.Rinchen, although we managed to secure a government resolution, we were unable to obtain funding. Ultimately, we had to approach the leadership of Selenge Province to support the organization of the Rinchen Mongolian Language Olympiad.

In truth, it is not our intention to diminish the legacy of historical figures. Politicians may issue resolutions or decisions, but without financial backing, those documents alone cannot make events happen. If it were possible, we would prefer to commemorate individuals who made significant contributions to history on the broadest and most prominent scale.

Currently, it is said that the anniversary of Dayan Khaan will be marked by the people of Umnugovi Province. Given present circumstances, this is probably the most practical approach. What matters most is that we continue to honor and remember the historical contributions of such figures. This reflects the current reality of our country’s political, social, and economic situation.

Younger generations have become increasingly interested in producing historical films. However, many criticize them for containing inaccuracies. Are filmmakers not consulting historians, or are historians reluctant to provide guidance?

In general, it is quite rare for our filmmakers to approach professional historians and propose collaboration. When I do meet some of them, I often tell them directly, “You should have asked.” If they were to say, “We are planning to make this kind of film, could you help us?” historians would never refuse. Even if one person is unavailable, they would connect them with others who have the time and expertise.

To be honest, when you watch many contemporary films labeled as “historical”, they can feel rather embarrassing. That said, it is still a positive sign that young people are turning their attention to their national history and taking bold steps, even under risky conditions. Producing historical works requires substantial funding. In such circumstances, I believe historians should support filmmakers as much as possible. As historians, we are willing to contribute in any way we can. And importantly, we would not charge filmmakers for our advice, our scholars are always ready to offer guidance free of charge.

I have personally worked as a consultant on a few films. One issue, however, is that as consultants, we sometimes end up trying to turn the film into a documentary rather than an artistic work. We tend to say, “That’s not accurate,” “This is unnecessary,” or “Something like that never happened in real history,” which can unintentionally interfere with creative freedom and frustrate filmmakers. For works aimed at mass audiences, a certain level of artistic exaggeration is inevitable to engage viewers emotionally.

However, historical facts should never be treated carelessly. At the very least, filmmakers should seek advice to avoid distorting real historical figures and events. Even for large public productions, such as the opening and closing ceremonies of national festivals, we are fully open to offering consultation if requested.

It seems that many young people feel that asking others for help somehow diminishes them.

I often say the same thing to young researchers as well. “Like the saying ‘Khan Khentii stands vast beside you,’ there are so many accomplished doctors and professors right next to you, why not go and ask them? Instead, you struggle alone without even knowing whether you are right or wrong.”

There is nothing wrong with not knowing something. And there is certainly nothing wrong with asking those who do know. Our scholars would never say, “I have studied this subject for years, and you must pay me.” Before turning research into a published book or a film shown on screen, it would only benefit them to consult knowledgeable experts and refine their work. Even during discussions and seminars, there seems to be a shortcoming in how feedback is absorbed and applied.

There is an old saying our grandparents used to repeat: “It’s as if cursed by the Tanguts.” It implies, “I don’t know, and I won’t listen to those who do.” Imagine that: you neither seek knowledge yourself nor accept guidance from those who possess it. That is a path toward perpetual ignorance and darkness.

By D.CHANTSALMAA