Paper abstract:

Mongolia’s transition from socialism to democracy in the 1990s was sudden and rocky, but the country has since developed a diversified private sector. Images of Chinggis (Genghis) Khan, the founder of the Mongol Empire who united various warring tribes over eight hundred years ago, are visible throughout the country in the forms of everything from government-sponsored monuments and banknotes to liquor and beer bottles to packages of dumplings. This proliferation of Chinggis stands in sharp contrast to socialist Mongolia, where open discussions and portrayals of the Great Khan were strictly limited. However, since the democratic transition, Chinggis Khan’s dominance of the pantheon of national heroes has solidified into incontrovertible fact—influencing not only government decisions but also daily life in Mongolia. Using Eric Hobsbawm’s invented traditions theory, this paper examines how the Mongolian government and private companies alike use and misuse Chinggis Khan’s legacy and its associated intangible cultural heritage to craft modern narratives rooted in an imagined past. First, I will build on existing literature to discuss how the post-socialist, democratically elected Mongolian government has reappropriated the figure of Chinggis Khan to legitimize their own rule as the “true heirs” of the Great Mongol Empire—building national unity around an ancient historical figure and signaling a separation from the socialist regime of the twentieth century. Second, I will examine how Mongolian companies have developed what I term “Brand Chinggis.” Brand Chinggis is a strategic, profit-driven appropriation of Mongolia’s perceived glorious past that aims to sell goods and services using an imagined version of Chinggisid Mongolia—tying products directly to Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Empire. In doing so, brands selling everything from hotel stays to vodka legitimize themselves in much the same way as the democratic government. Using specific case studies including monumental architecture, banknotes, and the advertising campaigns of branding of several private companies, I argue that while Chinggis Khan is in fact a figure of national importance to Mongolia, this “cult of Chinggis” has been appropriated to further specific and intertwined state, individual, and corporate goals—flattening the legacy of the Mongol Empire and its leader in an attempt to draw Mongolian citizens to their cause, convince them to consume, and define “Mongolian-ness” in relation not to the country’s larger, more powerful neighbors, but to a stronger, more glorious past.