This project seeks to discern the physical and conceptual boundaries of the Tibetan region of Gyalthang, in southern Kham.  At issue are questions about the relationships between older conceptualizations of place and newer understandings of identity vis place in twenty first century Sino-Tibetan borderlands. How do the various peoples who live within its boundaries understand Gyalthang? Following the theoretical work of Jonathan Z. Smith (Map Is Not Territory, 1978), I argue that the complex and dynamic webs of ethnic identity in the region neither conform to fixed physical or conceptual boundaries, nor elevate Gyalthang or even Kham as a central aspect of homeland for many of its inhabitants.  My work is based on an evaluation of historical sources coupled with ethnographic and folkloric data gathered during fieldwork conducted over the past twenty-five years in Gyalthang. Do Gyalthangpa (Tibetans of rGyal Thang) understand themselves to be Khampas? Today, Gyalthang is part of Northwest Yunnan Province of the P. R. China, roughly corresponding to Shangri-La County (Ch. xianggelila xian 香格里拉县), and more expansively the Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (Ch. diqing zangzu zizhizhou 迪庆藏族自治州). Gyalthangpa speak several local Tibetic languages (Bartee, 2007), and there are pockets within this territory where Tibetan inhabitants identify neither as Gyalthangpa nor Khampa. While Ganden Sumtseling Monastery was, since the late seventeenth century (Schwieger, 2011; Bstanpa rGyalmtshan, 1985, Hillman 2005), an important center of identity-gravity in the region, some of the geographical areas controlled by the eight kangtsens (monastic colleges) fall outside of Gyalthang. Gyalthang cannot be cleanly defined by the constellations of monastic power. With no specific historical political or religious demarcation of the boundaries of Gyalthang, and with no unified linguistic or ethnic identity, what then makes (or made) Gyalthang Gyalthang?  International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, Eric Mortensen, Boundaries of the Borderlands: Mapping Gyalthang, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council), Guilford College

Pre-1959 Tibet was not a “closed off land” as is often assumed, but a place of dynamic economic structures and a diverse body of economic actors. The Trehor region, an area located in modern day northern Kardze Prefecture, was a center of trade, and due to its proximity to Sichuan and to Lhasa, the route through the Trehor area became a primary trade and communication route during the first half of the twientieth century. The Younghusband expedition (1903-1904), instigated by British India, and the forceful colonizing projects of General Zhao Erfeng (1908-1911) of the Qing, catalyzed new economic structures and strengthened long distance commercial ties between Tibet, China, and British India. The influx of goods and multiple currencies into Kham had a direct influence on Tibetan monasteries in the Trehor region. According to the Kardze Prefecture Gazetteer, in 1947, the monasteries and their “monastery merchants” (simiao shang) controlled roughly 60% to 70% percent of commercial pursuits in the Kham area. Monasteries in the Trehor area were able to take advantage of economic networks by stationing their monastic merchants throughout China, Tibet, and possibly India. They maintained sophisticated economic bureaucracies that were managed by high level monks with both business acumen and religious clout. Monasteries furthermore acted as money lenders, controlled a monopoly on tea imports in the area, imported and traded British Indian products, and some even printed their own paper currency which circulated inside and outside the monastery. By utilizing Chinese gazetteers, investigative reports from the 1950s as well as later Tibetan language surveys and a Tibetan language monastic history, this paper focuses on the Trehor area, paying particular attention to three Geluk monasteries Dargye, Kardze, and Drango. Overall, this paper investigates economic power of monasteries and demonstrates how monasteries maintained strong economic agency into the first decade of Communist rule. International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr  
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, Monasteries, Merchants, and Long Distance Trade: The Economic Power of Tibetan Monasteries in Northern Kham (1900-1959), Elizabeth Reynolds, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council), Columbia University

As a member of a deeply-rooted traditional craft-making family in the Meshö (Sman Shod) Valley of Kham region, I will present the results of my ongoing fieldwork and academic study on the renaissance of Buddhist craft-making that is beginning to flourish in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands. Meshö is a remote valley in Dergé County (Kandze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture), Sichuan Province, where the majority of its 5,343 residents are agro-pastoralists. The area is famous for the monastery of Dzongsar, one of the largest monastic universities in Kham during the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1980s, when the renovation of the monastery was permitted, the lack of specialists in traditional handicrafts pushed the monastic authorities to establish workshops headed by the few remaining elderly craftsmen who retained traditional craft-making knowledge and skills. In the early twenty-first century, these workshops have become real schools of traditional crafts through local and foreign funding, and are now managed by a local NGO: Yuthok Yondengonpo Medical Association (YYMA). There are now more than 27 workshops, in which 13 different traditional crafts (lost-wax-casting, pottery, thangka painting, wood carving, etc.) are taught to around 450 apprentices. My paper will focus upon how new trade opportunities are transforming economic, familial, and community networks that surround these craft workshops. I will particularly deal with the demographic profile of teachers and apprentices, the challenges faced by local crafts workshops regarding modernization, and the raise of art and crafts entrepreneurs in Kham. I will also consider the reaction of local authorities to the rapid growth of the crafts industry. International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr  
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, The Renaissance of Traditional Dzongsar Craft-making in the Meshö Valley: An Insider’s Perspective on New Economic Processes and Identity Transformations in Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, Dawa Drolma, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council), Bay Path University

This paper examines the fascinating life of Wangchuk Tempa 汪学鼎 (1886-1961), the de facto early-twentieth-century political and military leader of Gyalthang (rGyal Thang) in southern Kham, in order to illustrate the complex power dynamics at play in this frontier region. Wangchuk Tempa received monastic training at Ganden Sumtsenling Monastery in Gyalthang and at Sera Monastery in Lhasa, before leaving the monastic life in 1916. By the late 1920s he had recruited a well-armed militia to protect Gyalthang from roaming bandits and Chinese military incursions, and his militia fought against the Red Army when it came through Gyalthang in May, 1936. While many young Gyalthangpa were inspired by the Communist activists they met in Lijiang, Kunming, and Bathang in the late 1940s, and some ultimately joined the underground Communist Party, Wangchuk Tempa remained wary of the Communists’ intentions in Gyalthang. Even after the People’s Liberation Army officially “liberated” Gyalthang on May 10, 1950, Wangchuk Tempa continued to fight against the PLA and resist Communist rule in the area until 1952. A fierce defender of local autonomy, Wangchuk Tempa engaged in lengthy negotiations with Communist Party officials while traveling around China on political tours, before he eventually agreed to serve as Vice Governor of the newly established Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in 1957. Chinese Communist Party accounts (wenshi ziliao) of the 1980s demonize Wangchuk Tempa as a “bandit leader” and “anti-revolutionary rebel,” while Gyalthangpa today often refer to his legendary exploits in laudatory and mythic terms. Wangchuk Tempa’s leadership in Gyalthang highlights the complex relationship between local, regional, and national politics. It also demonstrates the limited authority exercised by the government of the Dalai Lama, the Qing court, the Nationalist government, and the early Chinese Communist government in Gyalthang in the early- to mid-twentieth century. International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr  
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, Wangchuk Tempa and the Control of Gyalthang in the Early-Twentieth Century, Dáša Mortensen, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In this paper, I will begin by considering the concept of “house society” and its applicability to Southwest China. I ask the question of why no scholar, Levi-Strauss included since he originally framed this concept, has successfully used this concept to go beyond the traditional framework of descent and alliance. After making a thorough survey of the history of European views on Tibetan kinship, I argue that the dominance of Ladakh metonymy was responsible for the failure to reconsider both this area and the concept. Based on this dual consideration, I further scrutinize Levi-Strauss’s concept of “house society” in light of the case of Dra-pa Tibetans, who are regarded as the link between two large areas: societies on the Tibetan plateau characterized and demarcated by two kinship-marriage models, and the Ye (house) societies that include ethnic groups such as the Yi, Dra-pa, Na and Naxi. For several reasons, I argue that the house society model was not a social institution that emerged later but that it was one of the earliest. Though the earliest records we obtained were about one thousand and five hundred years ago, it might possibly date back to earlier time. While the mode of sexual relations among Dra-pa is being transformed towards marriage, the matrilineal/local-based visit by males still dominates. I further argue that associating women with the house plays a crucial role in the emergence of this institution. This binding relationship between women (men included) and the house is a form of house fetishism and has contributed to social phenomena we are witnessing today in Dra-pa, as well as other areas westward, such as local competition over building the best house. International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr  
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, “House Society” Revisited, Chen Bo, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council), Sichuan University

In recent years, increasingly sophisticated work has traced the remarkable changes in early twentieth-century state-building along China's southwestern and Tibetan borderlands. During this same period, however, the tentacles of global commerce were reaching into these regions, too, but we do not yet fully understanding the links between state and commerce, on one hand, and the long-term trajectories of change that left many borderlands communities with less and less control over their own political and economic futures. Rather than conceiving of these regions as autonomous until after 1945, as James Scott would have it, this paper argues that significant changes were already underway by the early twentieth century. These changes included the organization of trade, as new types of shareholder firms as well as state-owned companies emerged; control over resources and profits, as outside traders and officials gained access to land, mineral rights, commodities, and trade routes. To chart these changes, the paper focuses on two regions--southern Yunnan and western Sichuan's Tibetan (Kham) areas--and the commodities that they produced, including rubber, pack animals, medicinal materials for Chinese Traditional Medicine, and gold dust. While these areas had been involved in trading these commodities for, in some cases, centuries before the twentieth century, the paper explores how the unique combination of modern commerce and state-building began to transform these regions. International conference “Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Sino-Tibetan Kham Borderlands,” Februray 18-20, 2016. This conference is an outcome of a collaborative ERC-funded research project (Starting grant no. 283870). For more information, please visit the project's Website: http://kham.cnrs.fr 
Mot(s) clés libre(s) : UPS2259, CEH, Centre d'Etudes Himalayennes, C. Pat Giersch, Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion Along Twentieth-Century China’s Southwestern and Tibetan Borderlands, Territories, Communities, and Exchanges in the Kham Sino-Tibetan Borderlands, ERC (European Research Council)