The Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut hosted a Fellow’s Talk with Victor Zatsepine, an associate professor in the department of history and Asian American Studies. Alexander Diener, a professor of geography at the University of Kansas, also gave his response. Zatsepine’s lecture titled “Exploration and Changing Political Landscape in the Eurasian Borderland,” dived deep into three specific geographic expeditions undertaken during the 1920s.
Zatsepine began by highlighting the various reasons and purposes of these expeditions into the Gobi desert, which he showed a map of to described how it lies between Mongolia and China. He argued that “the Gobi desert in the 1920s was an experimental site for raw resources and economic development for the neighboring states.” This came into play since other nations such as Britain, the U.S., Soviet Union, Germany and Japan wanted to understand the capabilities of the location.
There were three expeditions that Zatsepine focused on, the first being Pyotr Kozlov’s Mongol-Tibetan expedition, which lasted from 1923 to 1926. Kozlov was an officer of the Russian army and was already famous for his discovery of the ruins of Khara-Khoto, a Tangut city. His expeditions reveal the Soviet state’s involvement in the region, which reflects Mongolia’s shift to a socialist state. “The Soviet scientists were aware of U.S. attention on the area, which brought it to the global stage,” Zatsepine stated.
The second expedition that he highlighted was the Roy Chapman Andrews’ Central Asiatic expeditions, which lasted from 1922 to 1930. Andrews worked for the American Museum of Natural History and focused his research on archaeology. “The hope of these expeditions was to find evidence of human evolution in the Gobi desert,” according to Zatsepine. Sponsored by individuals like John D. Rockefeller, Andrews found fossil remains of dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs, including the skeleton of Protoceratops Andrewsi which can be viewed at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Out of all the expeditions, Zatsepine stated that Andrews’ was one of the most well documented.
The last of the three expeditions was Sven Hedin’s Sino-Swedish expedition from 1927 to 1935. This was a collective effort between the Swedish and German governments. This expedition was different from others because Hedin was required to negotiate with the Chinese government to conduct his research. It wasn’t until 1927 that China had a unified government, which meant that past expeditions had to negotiate with various groups in and around the Gobi desert. This expedition also came during a time where “there was rising nationalism in Beijing and Shanghai,” Zatsepine said. “From this expedition they discovered rich deposits of iron, oil and gold.” Hedin was a controversial figure however, as he was an avid monarchist and would later go on to support the Third Reich. Despite his allegiances, Zatsepine acknowledged that his work “produced volumes of scientific research and information.” Unfortunately, this information was later used by the Japanese government in their invasion of China during WWII, Zatsepine said.
To conclude the talk, Zatsepine highlighted the limits and values of these expeditions. He stated that all of these were “expeditions by European guys with motives for their states in mind.”
Some limits he mentioned were the lack of local agency, power relations and the mindset of the researchers. Zatsepine stated that “the roles of translators, laborers and indigenous people were extremely downplayed,” by all the members of the expeditions. Not to mention the fact that there was a clear power imbalance between the scientists and laborers. Zatsepine also denounced the fact that all of these explorers had imperialist interests that identified the Gobi desert as an area to be exploited.
Yet these expeditions did have their values, as Zatsepine stated that “the attention stimulated the local governments to have an interest in their own affairs.” They also led to great discoveries and advances for scientific knowledge. However, this resulted in a “huge amount of fossils, minerals and artifacts being removed,” according to Zatsepine. Because of how many things were being taken from the area, the local governments would begin to regulate trade to prevent more artifacts from being taken by European powers. Zatsepine also touched upon the lack of indigenous voices, women and others who were excluded. As he stated, “expeditions were a male enterprise.”
To end the presentation, Alexander Dieran responded to Zatsepine by acknowledging how his research into the topic was “a great challenge to undertake.” He also reminded the audience that various textbooks and academics will “often focus on eight regions, but they lump Northeast Asia in with the rest of Asia. Books often have a hard time separating these areas.” As a geography professor, Dieran raised the issue of the “complexity of thinking about this geographic imaginary.”
Dieran spoke on how the 1920s reflected the shift in power and society for these areas. Traditionally, Mongolia was thought to be this scary, warrior nation. But with the emergence of superpowers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Dieran stated that “they knew they were between the hammer and the anvil.” Despite the invasive and exploitative nature of these expeditions, “the discovery of mineral deposits and the extraction of them put Mongolia on the global stage,” Dieran said.