anthropology. What is hidden in this background is the reality that the disciplines of anthropology and history are not defined by the “subject” of study (past or present), but by the “methodology” (textual study or field survey). This is rarely acknowledged in the syllabus or seminar homepages. As long as there is a need for field surveys in developing nations, whether the subject of study is historical or current, these institutional conditions have helped to ensure that such surveys remain the strong suit of anthropologists. It is for this very reason that the study of the history of modern Tibet has been led by anthropologists.Based on the above facts, it should be understood that the dichotomy between Sherpa-centrism and Lhasa-centrism was not, as Samuel thought, the dichotomy between anthropologists and historians, but instead represented two trends within anthropology.IV The Problem with Substitutive EthnographyUp until now, I have demonstrated the inadequacy of the Sherpa-centrism/Lhasa-centrism dichotomy. I will now point out a notion that is present in both Sherpa-centrism and Lhasa-centrism. This is the notion that the study of modern Tibet is not the study of post-1959 Tibet. For the history-oriented, the history of modern Tibet refers to the history of the Dalai Lama regime prior to 1959. For others, it is something that refers to the “Tibetan-type” society that “survives” among Tibetan communities in places such as Nepal. Neither group considers Chinese-ruled Tibet to be a genuine subject of study. Such an attitude stems from the way in which the cataclysmic changes in Tibet after 1959 were understood. Irrespective of political differences, no one disputed the fact that the democratic reforms of new China brought unprecedented upheaval to Tibet. In addition, these changes have for many years been negatively assessed in mainstream Tibetan studies, and what occurred after 1959 is understood not so much as a new facet of Tibet, but rather as Tibet’s destruction. This being the case, those who have a desire to study Tibet would come to the conclusion that, as noted by Tsering Shakya, “there was nothing worthy of study in post-1950 Tibet” [TSERING SHAKYA 1994: 9]. This is the stark reality that steered Tibetan research for thirty years and gave rise to the two trends. For example, it is possible to see a direct expression of this attitude in the following passage from the epilogue of A Cultural History of Tibet:Thus all individual characteristics [of Tibetan culture] have to be firmly eliminated [under Chinese rule]. It follows therefore that the changes that have taken place in Tibet over last nineteen years are largely irreverent to the subject-matter of this book. [SNELLGROVE and RICHARDSON, 1980: 273].Thus, many researchers consider the history of Tibet to have stopped in 1959,23 and the study of modern Tibet has for many years been the pursuit of “Tibetness,” which each researcher defines themselves. Accordingly, some researchers investigated central Tibet under the Lhasa administration before dramatic changes took place (Lhasa-centrism), and other researchers investigated the Tibetan communities in neighboring countries (Sherpa-centrism). Only after understanding Lhasa-centrism and Sherpa-centrism in this way can one understand the subtle collusion existing between them. Researchers from both groups share the same desire to avoid the more problematic challenge of discussing the political relationship with China in favor of representing a purer version of Tibet. It is this desire that has fuelled the cathexis for the substitutive ethnography trend in Tibetan studies.022MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5