fields end up being unreasonably reduced into a large, abstract model. In his thesis, Harrell never really presented a solution to this state of affairs in Chinese ethnography. However, regarding attempts at synthesis and interactive dialogue in Tibetan ethnography, one should understand that the very same danger is entailed in simplistically assuming and then searching for such commonality. In view of these facts, if I were to offer a prescription to synthesis-seeking modern Tibetan studies, my first recommendation would be to continue making reference to history, and my second would be to further promote anthropological history research, where there are still many unexplored fields.27 The synthesis of Tibetan ethnology is a necessary work, but when undertaking such a work, it is vital to give due consideration to the different historical experiences in individual regions. It is of course essential to incorporate the findings of Beijing-centrism (political studies), but what must really be emphasized is the importance of positioning one’s own research in the sphere of continuity with history. For example, there exists different historical experiences between central Tibet where ruled by the Dalai Lama’s government and Amdo region where neither ruled directly by the Dalai Lama’s government nor Chinese authority in the first half of twentieth century. We have to pay much attention to such difference when we go into anthropological history research. However, while largely forgotten today, much of this history has actually been taken on by anthropologists. This makes it all the more important that the history of modern Tibetan studies be written from a fresh perspective, and I hope that with this paper I have contributed in some small way to this enterprise.Notes (1) Note that in this paper, the term anthropology refers to sociocultural anthropology. (2) For example, [CLARK 1983: SNELLGROVE 1966: TSERING SHAKYA 1994] etc. (3) However, what requires attention is the fact that Samuel himself did not necessarily take a neutral approach to this contradistinction. Rather, Samuel considered the stateless Sherpa people to be a valid representation of Tibetan society [SAMUEL 1982. 1994: 225 etc.]. Samuel personally took the distinctive view that Tibet under the Dalai Lama was, by contrast, a rigid, centralized, statist system and that it therefore had lost the attribute of statelessness. Samuel then made the case that these two polar opposite qualities, i.e. statelessness and statist attributes, correspond respectively to two antithetic aspects in Tibetan Buddhism. These are the shamanist aspect, which exists in Tibet’s indigenous Bon teaching and the Nyingma branch of Tibetan Buddhist schools, and the rigid and logical doctrinarianism of the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. This correspondence forms the basis of Samuel’s great work [SAMUEL 1993]. (4) In addition, Tsering Shakya, who produced worthy modern history research [TSERING SHAKYA 1999] equal to that of Goldstein, also spent the first part of his career gaining attention as an anthropologist. Other researchers who authored works on old Tibetan society in the early twentieth century, including Aziz and Rebecca R. French, are also classified, institutionally, as anthropologists. Their published works include [AZIZ 1978: FRENCH 1995]. (5) For more information on the process by which this stereotype of Tibet was formed, please refer to the research of Donald Lopez Jr. [LOPEZ JR. 1988] and Peter Bishop [BISHOP 1989]. However, there already exist persuasive disquisitions regarding the problems of incorporating post-colonial criticism into Tibetan studies [DREYFUS 2005: HANSEN 2003: SAMUEL 1994: 696–697], casting doubt on the value of such research. (6) For details on the circumstances, please refer to [McKAY 1997] and [HIRANO 2004]. (7) For more information about Tucci’s Tibet survey, please refer to [TUCCI 1987]. [McKay 1997] provides outstanding research on the interest in Tibet among officials of the British Raj. (8) For the results of the surveys conducted in the 1980s, please see [CLARK 1988: GOLDSTEIN and BEALL 1990: GOLDSTEIN 1986, 1994]. (9) The official Tibet survey project conducted by the Chinese government during the 1950s left valuable results thanks to the work of team leader Li Youyi, who inherited the high-level bourgeois sociology of pre-liberation China. As an example of research that has utilized the results of this survey, please see my work [OKAWA 2007]. (10) For more on the circumstances, please refer to [NISHIZAWA 2006]. However, the researchers who studied Hong 024MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5