ArticlesKong and the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia saw this phenomenon as a chance for a theoretical leap forward in Chinese anthropology and so were partly optimistic about it [cf. FRIEDMAN 1963]. On the other hand, as is revealed in the poignant and somewhat sarcastic recollections of the leading American Sinologist anthropologist Stevan Harrell [HARRELL 1999], the researchers who have used Taiwan as a substitute field saw the phenomenon as a much more serious issue. (11) There are studies that have analyzed the Tibetan refugee community by considering the refugee community as a refugee community; in other words, within the framework of refugee studies or migrant studies (there was a time when I too was involved in such research to some extent [OKAWA 2006, 2008]). Such research has also been viewed as one trend in modern Tibetan studies. The volume of studies is staggering considering the refugee population, which is less than a hundred and some thousands, making the research somewhat unique. However, it will not be possible to discuss the research in this paper. (12) In terms of the research results, see [KAWAKITA 1961] and also [TAKAYAMA 1960; 1990]. The latter is by Ryuzo Takayama, who was a member of the same expedition. (13) While it might not be considered particularly outstanding among her extensive body of work, Nakane subsequently conducted a Lhasa-centric survey (history of modern central Tibet based on verbatim accounts from exiles) [NAKANE 1972; 1981]. (14) For more information, please refer to Nawa’s arguments in [NAWA 1999: 184]. (15) The research results from the Nepal survey era include [RAMBLE 2007: DIEMBERGER 1997: LEVINE 1988]. All of these researchers subsequently entered Tibet, and Diemberger even went beyond the framework of anthropology by, for example, helping Tibetan researchers reproduce ancient Tibetan texts [PASANG WANGDU and DIEMBERGER 2000]. (16) Already by 1960, the Rockefeller Foundation had invited a large number of Tibetan intellectuals (mainly scholar monks) living in the refugee camps to cities such as Seattle, London, Tokyo, Munich, Rome, and Copenhagen, and this significantly advanced colloquial Tibetan language studies and studies of Tibetan Buddhism. The Tibetan uprising was thus a major event that changed the schema of Tibetology as a whole. (17) One interesting study concerning anthropology in China at the time is [GULDIN 1994]. (18) Though the Dalai Lama regime was officially ended in 1951 by the 17-Article Agreement, the regime itself continued to survive under Chinese rule, if only by a thread, as a traditional polity based on a special dispensation referred to rightly in Tibetan as “one country, two systems.” Therefore, in investigatory research into old Tibetan society, the year 1959, as opposed to 1951, is considered epochal. For more information, please refer to my work [OKAWA 2001, 2007]. (19) [CASSINELLI and EKVALL 1969] is one example of such armchair ethnography, which has lost all value today. (20) The research produced by Franz Michael, a historian of the Qing Dynasty [MICHAEL 1982], is certainly an exceptional case in that an interview survey was conducted by someone who was a historian institutionally, but unfortunately, it is not a particularly brilliant exception. The low level of accuracy in this survey has been acknowledged several times [GOLDSTEIN 1989a: 16n25; SAMUEL 1993: 568n9]. The crudeness of the quantitative data in particular is enough to make one want to avert one’s eyes. (21) I once heard the following from a local researcher who had experience organizing texts in the Archives of the Tibet Autonomous Region: “My job at the time was to go through the historical documents and pick out any document that bore the words bod rgyal khab (Kingdom of Tibet) or bod chen mo (Greater Tibet) and affix them with the label “not to be shown to the public.” (Interview, anonymous, Lhasa, August 21, 2006) (22) In this respect, Tibetan anthropology is vastly different from Chinese anthropology, which provides a much more fertile ground for philological research. (23) I have named this phenomenon “the freezing of Tibetan history.” While there is no space to go into detail in this paper, such “freezing” of history is something that can even be observed in the everyday lives of the people living in Tibet proper today. (24) Examples of fine Tibetan analysis from the Beijing-centrist scholars include [MATSUMOTO 1996] and [MORI 1998]. As for pioneers of field survey-based Amdo ethnology, a good place to start would be the research of Makley [MAKLEY 2007].025