Recent development of Himalayan studies in China: works, perspectives and orientations (2012–2022)

1 There have been continuous state efforts towards scientific research on the Tibetan plateau since (...)
2 There are a number of scholarly writings that use the term Ximalaya (Himalaya) as their title or k (...)
3 Since the turn of the century many Chinese universities have initiated various programmes that use (...)

1This paper sets out to review the development of Himalayan studies in social science in China over the last decade. While Himalayan-related research is not new in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (1949 onwards),1 Himalayan studies as a specific field of research in social science, however, has not been commonly referred to in this way.2 In other words, Himalayan studies, as such, is a ‘weak’ concept in Chinese academia and is largely fragmented into a variety of different fields such as borderland studies, ethnic minorities studies, Tibetan studies and oversea ethnography.3

2As a scholar of Tibetan studies and later social anthropology, my own interest in Tibetan borderlands has brought my attention to some particular lines of research related to Himalayan studies, which I review here as One Belt One Road, corridor studies, ecology, bilingual education, and minority literature and film. I also point out two opposing trends within this discursive field of Chinese Himalayan studies: on the one hand, the new outward dynamics of One Belt One Road have clearly delineated the political and/or cultural agenda and discourse while, on the other hand, academic involution, particularly of border and borderland studies, shows how, in the Chinese context, Himalayan studies have dissolved into other (national or nationally confined) categories.

3One of the major obstacles to pinning down so-called Himalayan studies in the Chinese context is the complexity of the ‘Tibet question’ which has been radically polarised between the discourse of the Chinese state and the discourse of those outside China, mostly in the Western world. To articulate research in Himalayan studies within Chinese academia is to navigate the large disjuncture between top-down Chinese state discourses, official directives and the questions unfolding on the ground – and is thus both arbitrary and personal. All the subjects/lines of research chosen for review here have been actively propagated, discussed, debated or problematised in Chinese academia over the last decade, which I set as the time frame for this review. The primary objective of this paper is to inform the academic community outside China about what has been done in relation to Himalayan studies within Chinese academia. Nevertheless, given the nebulous and polarised nature of this field in China, any choice of time frame, of the inclusion or exclusion of subjects for review inevitably precludes what should (not) be discussed as questions and thus makes it less impartial than what it is meant to be.

4As I have been a member of Chinese academia during this period, I have inevitably engaged with more topics than I review here. Moreover, there were some clear – if not radical – political and academic shifts during that period, such as the Tibetan uprising, the Sichuan earthquake and the Beijing Olympics in 2008, as well as the subsequent change in political and academic environment with the ascendance of Xi Jinping from 2012 onwards. These shifts eventually formed the two oppositional trends that I previously referred to – the outward dynamic of One Belt One Road and the involution of border and borderland – in Chinese academia that have re/shaped Himalayan-related studies in China.

One Belt One Road: the new meta-framework

4 See its official website: https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/index.htm
5 See its official website: http://fz.people.com.cn/skygb/sk/index.php/Index/seach

5In a recent review of Himalayan-related research in China, Chinese scholar Wang Qilong from Sha’anxi Normal University – who specialises in Tibet and the Himalayas – makes a list of Himalayan-related institutions that have been established in China over the past ten years (Wang and Zhao 2020). Besides six institutions that have Ximalaya (Himalaya) in their name, this list includes 15 institutions that are related to Pakistan, 12 related to India, four to Nepal and one to Bhutan. According to the author, two thirds of these institutions have been set up since the initiation of the yidai yilu (One Belt One Road, hereafter OBOR, also translated into English as Belt and Road Initiative) in 2013.4 Introduced by the Chinese government and in particular by president Xi Jinping, OBOR is the exportation of both Chinese economic capital and Chinese soft power, including Chinese culture and ideology. This juggernaut project has since become the foundational framework and guidance for all Chinese-initiated international projects that include Himalayan regions. According to statistical data from the Chinese National Social Science Foundation (CNSSF) – the major primary source for funding social science research in China –, since 2014 there has been a rapid increase in CNSSF-funded projects that have explicitly used OBOR as their primary research objective or research context.5 This new line of research has largely re-structured the Chinese vision of China vis-à-vis the outside world. It has also powered a new kind of outward dynamic in Chinese academia, particularly for the study of borderlands, ethnic minorities and the Himalayas.

6The most visible sign of this outward dynamic is the OBOR label, which has been stuck onto nearly all academic events, projects, discourses and theories that extend outwards beyond China. On 30 October 2015, Dierjie Zhongguo Zangxue zhufeng luntan (The Second China Tibetology Everest Forum), held in Beijing, focused exclusively on the ‘Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and One Belt One Road’ (Li 2016). Likewise, Shoujie silu Zangxue xueshu yantaohui (The First Silk Road Tibetology Seminar), held in 2018, chose the ‘Silk Road and Tibetan Studies in the New Era’ as its conference theme (Ngawang 2018). Both silk road studies and Tibetology studies have been reinterpreted in ‘the new era’, namely the OBOR era. Zheng Dui, the director of the China Tibetology Research Centre, emphasises the importance of Tibetan Buddhism in this new age of OBOR (Zheng 2019). As Tibetan Buddhism has been an important cultural connection on the ancient silk road, he argues that it can (and should) be rebranded as a new cultural product that represents ‘Chinese culture’ in the OBOR framework. In a similar fashion, Zhang Shijun, after reviewing the historical (Tibetan) Buddhist connections between China (Tibet) and India, quickly turns to the current OBOR context and asserts that Tibetan Buddhism will play a vital role in both cultural and economic fields, as well as in political and diplomatic relationships between China and its Himalayan neighbours (Zhang 2018).

7The official implementation of OBOR is complemented by what I consider to be the grassroot impetus to push for more public space – as opposed to state-sanctioned discourses and government-sponsored initiatives – in the field of Himalayan studies. Dan Smyer Yu from Yunnan Minzu University was one of the first to be awarded CNSSF funding in 2015 for his research project titled ‘Trans-Himalaya Ecology and Cultural Diversity in the Context of One Belt One Road’. He then jointly hosted several Himalayan-related events including the ‘Yale-YMU Summer School: Environment, livelihood and culture in the Himalayas’ in June 2016 and the ‘International Seminar on Sino-India-Myanmar-Bangladesh Corridor: Construction of modern Asian regions in the perspective of process geography’ in April 2018. These events resulted in the publication of a collection of papers in which Yu critiques the traditional concept of Himalayan studies as ‘Tibetan centered’, a ‘South Asian perspective’ and a ‘colonial and cold war legacy’. He proposes the notion of trans-Himalayan studies which shifts the focus from Tibet, South Asia, to include a broader area such as the highland regions in southwest China and Southeast Asia (Yu et al 2017). Shen Haimei, another anthropologist from Yunnan Minzu University, takes advantage of OBOR to advocate for more cooperative ethnography in the trans-Himalayan context (Shen 2018). Shen argues that the Himalayas, as a particular regional unit, should be approached from multiple perspectives – social, cultural, economic, ecological – as well as through concrete subjects such as livelihood (Shen 2016, Shen and Chen 2022).

Corridor and road: the involution of border and borderland

6 ‘Ethnic Identification’ (Ch minzu shibie) was a state-led national campaign at the creation of the (...)
7 After the minzu shibie (ethnic identification) campaign, a lot of small ethnic groups were not gra (...)

8In 1978, the late Fei Xiaotong, a veteran of Chinese anthropology who had been the leading figure in the ‘ethnic identification’ campaign more than twenty years before6, declared that ‘[a]lthough the composition of China’s big family of nationalities is now basically clear, some questions remain to be solved’(Fei 1980). What Fei refers to as questions to be solved regarding the task of ‘ethnic identification’ pertains to some groups of people with ambiguous and controversial identities, most of whom live in the corridor-like region of the ethnic borderland in western China.7 Fei’s idea greatly influenced Chinese academia – mostly in ethnic minority studies – and later gave birth to zoulang yanjiu, or corridor studies. Deriving from borderland studies and minority studies, corridor studies put the emphasis on a more specific geographical space. This space greatly expanded later to include: (1) Xibei zoulang (northwest corridor) – a region developed from the traditional Hexi Corridor in Gansu; (2) Zang-Yi zoulang (Tibetan-Yi Corridor), sometimes also called Zang-Qiang-Yi zoulang (Tibetan-Qiang-Yi Corridor), a vast north-south belt that goes from Gansu, Sichuan and Guizhou to Yunnan and the easternmost Himalayas; and (3) Nanling zoulang (Nanling Corridor), a region crossing the southern ridges of Guangdong and Guangxi.

9While Fei initially introduced the concept of corridor as a more holistic solution to the ethnic mosaic in western China, it has since been adopted by Chinese academia as an academic demarcation that keeps ethnic border and borderland within a Chinese discourse (Li and Liu 2008, Li 2020, Shi 2014, Yang 2016, Zou 2020). Chinese anthropologist Wang Mingming has famously called these corridor regions zhongjianquan or the Middle Ring – an in-between region sandwiched by the Chinese civilisational core and the ‘barbarian’ world outside (Wang 2008). Zhao Xudong from Renmin University explicitly makes the difference between ‘the ethnic Tibetan-Yi Corridor [of China] and One Belt One Road of the world’ (my emphasis). He proposes to name the studies of all these ethnic corridors Zhongguo zoulang xue, or Chinese Corridorology, in order to differentiate them from One Belt One Road studies which he sees as mutually complementary – one from a national and the other from a global perspective (Zhao 2017).

8 By ‘areas studies within China’ I mean to emphasise both a Chinese state-centric perspective and a (...)

10Under this impetus, Chinese scholarship has undergone an involution of border and borderland studies, which deliberately attributes studies on ethnic borders and the borderland to ‘area studies within China’.8 In her book on ethnic relations in the Yunnan-Burmese borderland, Gao Zhiying from Yunnan University applies Wang Mingming’s concept of ‘Middle Ring’ to extend the concept of Tibetan-Yi Corridor to chronicle Chinese history (Gao 2010). Starting from the Tang dynasty (seventh century), she recounts the historical development of this multi-ethnic borderland – from Lijiang to the northwest Yunnan border with Myanmar – within a modern Chinese corridor narrative. Shen Haimei similarly argues that meili xueshan or khawa karpo (Meili Snow Mountain, Tib kha ba dkar po) can be envisioned in relation to Zomia, the Southeast Asian massif and Himalayan massif, which effectively forges Himalayan eco-social/cultural unity within China (Shen 2016). In another article, she uses the case of grape growing in the Meili Snow Mountain area to argue that climate change has reshaped local Tibetan culture and society as part of the eastern Himalayas (Shen and Chen 2020).

11In the meantime, one significant development is the fast-growing field of haiwai minzuzhi (oversea ethnography) and kuajing minzu yanjiu (studies of cross-border ethnic groups), which can be seen as complementary to corridor studies and borderland studies (Chen 2011, Chen 2013, Gao and Deng 2020, Gao and Ren 2021, Gao and Tan 2020, Shen and Chen 2022, Shen and Huang 2022, Ye 2019, Ye 2022). For example, Chen Bo of Sichuan University, specialised in Tibetan culture and society in China, has tried to broaden the interpretation of the Tibetan conception of yul (translated as place, region or territory). Based on his ethnographic fieldwork in the cultural Tibetan region of glo-yul (Mustang) in Nepal, Chen argues that the Tibetan conception of yul should be addressed or envisioned based on ‘trans-civilizational and trans-regional core values’ on the other side of the border (Chen 2013). The emphasis on either oversea or cross-border is reflected in the binary interpretation of civilisation, culture, ethnicity or religion that is separated by the modern national border. Similarly, when studying the Lisu people in the Sino-Burmese borderland of northwest Yunnan, Gao Zhiying argues that both their religion (Christianity) and their ethnicity should be understood according to two different contexts – those on the Chinese side who have gone through a ‘sinicisation process’ versus those on the other side of the border who have also been localised by the Burmese political and social environment (Gao 2016, Gao and Deng 2020, Gao and Ren 2021, Gao and Tan 2020).

12In 2014, anthropologist Zhou Yongming organised an international seminar on luxue (Roadology) at Chongqing University, which later turned into an edited volume of collected papers (Zhou 2016c). The concept of luxue here is to be understood as road-related studies, particularly about roads in Chinese ethnic borderlands such as Yunnan and Tibet. Several papers in this volume touch upon Himalayan borderlands in Yunnan and Tibet, including two papers from Zhou himself: one on the spatial perspective of Han-Zang gonglu (Sino-Tibetan Road) from Sichuan to Lhasa; the other on the local government plan to rebuild Stilwell Road (or Ledo Road) in the Yunnan-Burmese borderland (Guo 2016, Murton 2016, Wang 2016, Zhang 2016, Zhou 2016a, 2016b).

9 Information about the conference was not published either in print or on its website. All the info (...)

13In 2017, Zhongguo Zangxue yanjiusuo (Centre for Tibetan Studies) of Sichuan University hosted an international seminar titled ‘Sino-Tibetan Communications: Passage, commodity and trade’.9 Two of the seven panels focused on the tea trade between Tibet, China and the other side of the Himalayas. Liu Zhiyang, from Zhongshan University in Guangzhou, demonstrated in his presentation that tea drunk in Lhasa at the turn of the twentieth century came from multiple places in China such as Sichuan, Hunan, Hubei, Yunnan, as well as from Darjeeling in India. By reviewing the multiple tea transportation routes to Lhasa, Liu questioned the commonly held idea in Chinese academia that China has been the primary – if not the only – tea provider to Tibet. Archaeologist Huo Wei of Sichuan University presented a comparison between recent archæological findings from western Tibet and those found on the eastern border with Sichuan. He argued that the similarities between the objects are proof of what he calls the ‘Silk Road on the Tibetan Plateau’ which has been an important part of the complex exchange along with the other better-known Silk Roads.

14With the OBOR initiative, studies on road development in the context of ethnic borderlands have also been revitalised, like old wine in a new bottle. While exploring the ancient zhongni road between Lhasa and Kathmandu, Xiong Wenbin, a Chinese historian specialised in Tibetan art, reviewed the cultural and historical legacy of this road from the seventh century (Tang dynasty in China) to the dawn of modern China (Xiong 2020). Despite the fact that modern infrastructures, particularly the road construction, on the Tibetan plateau have marginalised the historical significance of this ancient passage, Xiong argues that this trans-Himalayan passage has not only survived but thrives in this age of OBOR. Chinese archaeologist Tong Tao from the Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS) in Beijing has also been working on the Himalayan Silk Road – the ancient passage from Chang’an, the capital of the Tang empire, to Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan empire (Ch tubo; Tib bod), and southwards to Nepal (Tong 2020). Based on recent archæological findings on the Tibetan plateau, Tong argues that this ancient Himalayan passage is the dong dao (eastern passage) which has been open to socio-cultural exchanges since the seventh century, whereas the xi dao (western passage) – the ancient route between the Tang empire and South Asia through the western Himalayas, was the major route for commodity exchange before the seventh century.

Fig1: General map of China and location of the Three-River-Source National Park.

Agrandir Original (jpeg, 81k)

Sources: adapted from Wikimedia commons maps.

Ecology: new uncharted field on the plateau

15Studies of the environment and ecology have broadly speaking been the major components of natural science research in Tibetan and Himalayan regions since the founding of the PRC. Yet the very concept of shengtai (ecology) has been (re)introduced into the field of social science as uncharted ground since the recent establishment of natural reserves, national parks and environmental conservation initiatives in these regions, particularly when it addresses problems such as local development, environmental migration and inter-ethnic relations.

10 http://www.qhnews.com/2010zt/system/2010/07/09/010156060.shtml, http://sjy.qinghai.gov.cn/, access (...)

16In 2003, a vast region in Qinghai province that includes the sources of three major rivers in East and Southeast Asia – the Yangzi River (Chang jiang), the Yellow River (Huang he) and the Mekong River (Lancang jiang) – officially became Sanjiangyuan ziran baohuqu (National Three-River-Source Natural Reserve, hereafter SJYNR). In 2016, this region was again upgraded to the first National Park of China, or Sanjiangyuan guojia gongyuan (hereafter SJYNP).10 As a direct consequence of the setting up of the SJYNR and later of the SJYNP, a large number of residents in this designated region – most of them Tibetans – have been relocated away from the park area to become shengtai yimin, literarily translated as ‘ecological migrants’, a newly invented concept that refers to a population that has migrated due to the establishment of an eco-park or eco-zone. Along with other migrant populations in China, such as nongmin gong (migrant workers in cities), shengtai yimin has become a new social category and a major research topic in this region. Whether these environmental migrants have relocated voluntarily or have been displaced by force is normally off limits for discussion in Chinese academic circles. (Feng 2016, Feng and An 2015, Li 2019, Qi and Chen 2020, Suonan 2016, Wei 2013, Xu 2013). Most research falls in with the party line to discuss how those relocated have adapted to their new life – nevertheless with challenges and difficulties – in new settlements. Meanwhile, the natural environment in the park has improved thanks to tuimu huancao (withdrawing herds and restoring grassland) which is one of the original objectives of the SJYNP (Feng 2016, Li 2019, Qi and Chen 2020, Suonan 2016, Wei 2013).

17While the introduction of shengtai as a research topic in social science has been subjugated by the grand discourse on political ideology and economic development, it has nevertheless created spaces for some previously unheard voices. Based on more than seven years of investigation in two villages of migrants from the SJYNP, anthropologist Xu Jun from Sichuan University concludes that even with maximum efforts from local government and migrant nomad families, ‘this experiment [of environmental migration] has not been successful to this day. Most migrants have not found their stable new livelihood during the five to ten years of this project. And no data so far shows that the ecological migration project has benefited the general ecological system’ (Xu 2013). Feng Xuhong, the editorial director of Beifang minzu daxue xuebao (Journal of Northern Minzu University), argues that SJYNP ecological migrants are largely marginalised in their new settlements, both economically and culturally (Feng and An 2015). She calls this type of new migrant – following American sociologist Robert E Park – ‘marginal man’ (Park 1928).

18Over the last decade, economic development on the Tibetan plateau has skyrocketed thanks to the economy of a special local product – dongchong xiacao (caterpillar fungus, Tib dbyar rtsar dgun abu) (Fan 2015, Gadan and Li 2012). Anthropologist Fan Changfeng, from East China Normal University in Shanghai, reviews the growth of the caterpillar fungus economy in Amnye MaChen mountain region since the 1980s. He argues that the caterpillar fungus economy is essential in the ecological development of the region (Fan 2015). In another paper, he emphasises the importance of ‘traditional Tibetan ecological wisdom’ to balance the government discourse of economic development with indigenous knowledge on local ecology (Fan and Fan 2012). In fact, it seems almost impossible to talk about any aspect of Tibetan ecology without starting a discussion on indigenous knowledge such as Tibetan Buddhism or Bon (Deji 2021, Dunzhu 2021, Yu 2010).

Bilingual model and classes for Tibetan boarders: contested language education

19Education, particularly language education, is one of the most contested fields in minority-related studies in China, including what falls within the scope of Himalayan studies, with the focus on Tibetan areas where tension is particularly palpable. Two aspects have been actively discussed and debated by both Han and minority scholars in Chinese academia. One concerns the two models of bilingual education that are applied in jiunian yiwuzhi jiaoyu (nine‑year free compulsory education) schools in minority regions. Yilei moshi (type I model) allows non-Han minority students to learn all subjects in their native language except Chinese. Erlei moshi (type II model) only allows minority students to study their native language as a stand-alone subject, while all other subjects are taught in Chinese. Official Chinese policy has tried to promote the type II model as much as possible in most minority regions – leaving only the type I model for the remote nomadic population. This government effort has so far proved successful, mostly in minority areas with small populations such as the Jingpo (Kachin) on the Sino-Burmese border in Yunnan (Yangjing and Mu 2018).

20In the Tibetan case, on the other hand, most Tibetan academics strongly advocate mother tongue education and thus generally favour the type I model (Badeng 2009, Jiayang 2012, Long and Badeng 2010, Renqing and Cheng 2016). In August 2014 the ‘Annual conference on Academic Exchange on Tibetan Education’ (Zangqu jiaoyu xuesh jiaoliu nianhui) was organised by the Gyal Tshan Education Research Centre (Tib rnga ba kul rgyal mtshan slob gso zhib ajug lde gnas), a local non-government institute of Aba prefecture in Sichuan. More than half of the discussion time during this three-day conference focused on bilingual education, with most participants emphasising the importance of the Tibetan language.

21The other aspect is what might be called educational migration of minority students. Starting in 1985, the Chinese government began to build neidi ban, or minority boarding classes in Chinese schools, including in some borderland regions. As a specific Chinese educational structure to host migrant minority students, neidi ban may in theory host minority students from any of the 56 official minzu, although they only in fact provide for two ethnic groups: Tibetans and Uyghurs. Given the political sensitiveness of this subject, most research on neidi ban concentrates on the progress of and state policy on this state-run programme (Wu 2013, Yu and Meng 2015).

22Criticism of neidi ban, like that of state policy, is normally unheard of. But some Chinese scholars have enabled alternative voices from outside China to be heard (Yang 2017, Yang and Dunzhu 2015, Zhu 2007). In a rather rare case, Tibetan linguist Acuo Yixiweisa (Tib a tshogs ye shes vodg sal) from Nankai University in Tianjin reviews the forced assimilation policy in the recent history of Australia, Canada, India and the United States. By showing the failure of so-called ‘residential schools’ or boarding schools for indigenous children, he warns about avoiding the mistake of creating a ‘stolen generation’ or a ‘lost generation’, which the afore-mentioned countries made (Acuo 2012).

Literature and film: Tibetan, minority or Chinese?

11 For example, there has recently been a new trend of ‘Alai fever’ in Chinese academia. In 2022, thr (...)

23The last subject worth including in this review is the popularisation of minority literature and film – particularly Tibetan-related – among the Chinese public and Chinese academia especially over the last decade. To what extent the Chinese language, literature or film are related to Himalayan studies is open to question, but these popular ‘frontier/border/ethnic’ literary and film productions have clearly contributed to a process of ‘Othering’ in China. Moreover, they are considered to emanate from a general ‘cultural Other’ with both a specific geographic orientation and a political rhetoric. Together with the above-reviewed subjects, minority literature and film-related studies have shown the multiple facets of the paradox of oppositional trends of outward dynamics and involution in Himalayan-related studies – and social science in general – in China.11

12 The novel was written in Chinese and subsequently translated into English as ‘Red Poppies: A novel (...)

24Ever since the publication of his novel chen ai luo ding in 1998,12 Sichuan-based author Alai has become popular among the Chinese public as a xueshan shang zouxialai de zangzu zuojia (Tibetan writer who comes down the snow mountain). At the same time he has also become controversial, mostly among Tibetans because of his personal identity as a ‘Tibetan writer who writes in Chinese’ (Alai 2016). The ambiguity of Alai’s identity comes from his family genealogy as well as his birthplace in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands, which has been the context in most of his writings.

25Chinese scholars read Alai differently. Despite recognising the complexity of Alai’s identity, Zheng Shaoxiong from the Sociology Institute of CASS considers Alai an assertive minority (Tibetan) elite who constructs the ‘literaturized historical narrative for his own minzu (people)’ (Zheng 2018). Ding Zengwu from Hefei College notes that Alai’s writings have addressed the sensitive core of the Sino-Tibetan-related topic – the national identity of Tibetans in China (Ding 2016). Ding also considers Alai a Tibetan writer – yet an ‘atypical’ one, with ‘atypical Tibetan historical memory’. Xu Meiheng from the Tibetan Contemporary Literature Centre of Tibet Minzu University argues that Alai’s recent publication Yun zhong ji (In the Cloud) is a critique of the natural connection between ethnic identity and religious identity (Alai 2019) (Xu 2020). In keeping with the state line, Xu further interprets Alai’s writing as indeed showing a perfect combination of the traditional Chinese concept of jia (family) and the modern Western concept of guo (nation/state).

26Like Alai, Tibetan writer and film director Wanma Caidan (Pema Tsedan, Tib pad ma tshe sden) has also explored the tension between modernity and tradition in the sensitive context of Tibetan society in contemporary China. But unlike Alai, Wanma Caidan has been praised and recognised by both the Chinese and the Tibetan public. Most Chinese film critiques credit the success of Wanma Caidan’s films to the use of native (Tibetan) language in his productions.

27Compared to previous internationally produced Tibetan films, Dan Smyer Yu calls these locally produced Tibetan films Xin Zangzu dianying (New Tibetan Films). He argues that the rise of these ‘New Tibetan Films’ is ‘part of the reconstruction of Tibetan cultural identity’ by re-Tibetanising the public space. Contrary to Alai who questions whether (Tibetan) Buddhism and even the (Tibetan) language constitute the Tibetan cultural core, Wanma Caidan has not only made Tibetan-language films his signature but also claims that ‘Tibetan culture does not exist without Buddhism’ (Yu 2017).

28Wan Daike from Minzu University in Beijing makes a further distinction between Zangzu dianying (Tibetan film) – which may include all films with Tibetan-related content or theme – and Zangyu dianying (Tibetan language film) – which only includes films in Tibetan (Wan and Zhao 2021). Despite their differences, Wan insists that these films all seek to give an account from an ‘insider’s point of view’ which Wan, paying homage to the French New Wave in the 1950s, calls the Zangdi dianying xinlangchao (Tibetan New Wave of Films).

Conclusion

29As far as the Himalaya region is concerned, this paper has left out a fairly large part of it. In Chinese academia, particularly over the past decade, ‘Himalayan’ as a regional unit that is academically conceivable has been largely overshadowed by grand discourses, such as OBOR and/or has partly fused with other categories such as borderland studies, Tibetan studies, minorities studies, etc. In this paper I have reviewed Chinese research conducted within the framework of these discourses and categories as they relate to Himalayan studies from a Chinese perspective. On the one hand, despite the strong presence of the state in Chinese academia, I have not seen any systematic, organised effort to shape a dominant discourse in Himalayan studies. On the other hand, newly introduced concepts, such as corridor studies and oversea ethnography, have effectively reoriented the development of more traditional Himalayan studies. Whether this gives added value or places hurdles in the way remains to be seen.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Acuo, Y. 2012. ‘The aquisition of minority language and the problem of maternal language education in Tibetan region (Ruoshi yuyan xide yu Zangqu ertong muyu jiaoyu wenti)’. Tibetan Education Forum (zangqu jiaoyu yanjiu) 1(1): 17–20.

Alai. 2002. Red Poppies: A novel of Tibet (translated by H Goldblatt and S Li-Chun Lin). New York: Mariner Books.

Alai. 2016. Essays of Alai (Alai sanwen). Beijing: People's Literature Publishing House (Renmin wenxue chubanshe).

Alai. 2019. In the Cloud (Yun zhong ji). Beijing: October Literature Publishing House (Shiyue wenyi chubanshe).

Badeng, N. 2009. ‘About the language choice in Tibetan school education (Zailun Zangzu xuexiao jiaoyu zhong de yuyan xuanze wenti)’. Journal of Research on Educaton for Ethnic Minorities (minzu jiaoyu yanjiu) 20(1): 91–95.

Chen, B. 2011. Between Mountain and Water: Ethnography of glo-yul in Nepal (Shanshui zhijia: Niboer luoyu minzuzhi). Chengdu: Bashu Publishing House (Bashu shushe)

Chen, B. 2013. ‘Oversea ethnography: the case of glo-yul in Nepal (Yuwai minzuzhi: yi Niboer Luoyu weili)’. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (xinan minzu daxue xuebao)(12-20).

Cheung, S.-w. 1996. ‘Representation and negotiation of Ge identity in southeast Guizhou’. In Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan, edited by M J Brown, pp240–273. Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian Studies.

Deji, Z. 2021. ‘Changes of religious ecology in Tibetan Buddhism (Zangchuan fojiao zhong de zongjiao shengtai bianqian)’. Tibetan Studies (xizang yanjiu) (2): 51–58.

Ding, Z. 2016. ‘National identity under the double perspectives of ethnic boundary and historical memory: on Alai's novel and his "atypical Tibetan text" (Zuqun bianjie yu lishijiyi shuangchong shiyu xia de guojia rentong: ping zhandui yi Alai de fei dianxing Xizang wenben)’. Studies of Ethnic Literature (minzu wenxue yanjiu) 34(1): 63-71.

Dunzhu, Z. 2021. ‘A study on the ecological and ethical tradition in the Tibetan belief of Lu (Shixi Zangzu lu wenhua zhong de shengtai lunli chuantong)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 149(43–50).

Fan, C. 2015. ‘Political and cultural communication of caterpillar fungus production site: an anthropological study of caterpillar fungus economy in Amnye Machen mountain society (Dongchong xiacao chandi de zhengzhi he wenhua daoxiang: Animaqin shan chongcao shehui de jingji renleixue yanjiu)’. Tibet Studies (xizang yanjiu) (2): 37–47.

Fan, C and Fan N. 2012. ‘Blessing or curse of biodiversity: poisoning the plateau pikas and Tibetan ecological wisdom in the Three-River-Source region (Shengwu duoyangxing de zhufu haishi zuzhou: Sanjiangyuan diqu dusha gaoyuan shutu de quanli huayu yu zangzu shengtai zhihui de diaochayanjiu)’. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University (qinghai minzu daxue xuebao) 23(4): 90–95.

Fei, X. 1980. ‘About the problem of ethnic identification in our country (Guanyu woguo minzu shibie de wenti)’. Chinese Social Science (Zhongguo shehui kexue) vol 1: 147–162.

Feng, X. 2016. Studies of Three Tibetan Ecological Migration Villages in the Three-River-Source Area (Sanjiangyuan zangzu shengtai yimin sancun). Beijing: Social Science Document Publishing House (Sheke wenxian chubanshe)

Feng, X and An Y. 2015. ‘The marginal condition of the ecological migrants in the Three-River-Source (Sanjiangyuan shengtai yimin de bianyuanren chujing)’. Guangxi Minzu Studies (guangxi minzu yanjiu) 124(4): 67-72.

Gadan, C and Li Z. 2012. ‘Ecological protection, resource development and revenue increase of the peasants and nomads in Tibet: the case of caterpillar fungus (Zangqu shengtai baohu, ziyuan kaifa, yu nongmumin zengshou: yi dongchong xiacao weili)’. Tibet Studies (xizang yanjiu) (5): 114–120.

Gao, Z. 2010. Ethnic Relations and Cultural Change on the Western Border of Tibetan-Yi Corridor (Zangyi zoulang xibu bianyuan minzu guanxi yu minzu wenhua bianqian). Beijing: Minzu Publishing House (Minzu chubanshe).

Gao, Z. 2016. ‘The sword-ladder ritual of Lisu and its functional changes among the Sino-Burmese cross-border Lisu (Duochong bianyuan zhong de zhongmian kuajie lisuzu shangdaoshan yishi jiqi gongneng bianqian)’. Ethnic Groups of the World (shijie minzu) (6): 29–39.

Gao, Z and Deng R. 2020. ‘Cross-border mutual construction of ethnic identity, regional identity, and national identity: perspective of cross-bow culture of Lisu people from China, Burma, and Thailand (Zuqun rentong, quyu rentong, yu guojia rentong de kuanjing hugou: yi zhong, Mian, Tai, Lisuzu nugong wenhua de weiyi yu chonggou wei shijiao) ’. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (yunnan shifan daxue xuebao), 52(5): 96–106.

Gao, Z and Ren J. 2021. ‘Sinicization practice of Christianity among the cross-border people in Yunnan: perspectives of identity and blending (Jidujiao zai Yunnan kuajing minzu diqu de zhongguohua shijian: yi rentong yu jiaorong wei shijiao)’. The World Religious Cultures (shijie zongjiao wenhua) (3): 23–30.

Gao, Z and Tan X. 2020. ‘Becoming local: a comparative study of the localization of christianity among the Lisu in China and Burma (Suixiang rusu: Zhongmian Lisuzu jidujiao de zaidihua bijiao yanjiu)’. Studies of World Religions (shijie zongjiao yanjiu) (3): 154–165.

Gros, S. 2004. ‘The politics of names: the identification of the Dulong (Drung) of northwest Yunnan’. China Information 18(2): 275–302.

Guo, J. 2016. ‘Road and politics of space and time: road and social change along the Dulong river during a century (Daolu yu shikong zhengzhi: yibainian lai Dulongjiang diqu de lu yu shikong zhengzhi)’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp114–129. Chongqing Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Jiayang, Z. 2012. ‘Study on the path of returning to maternal language education in Tibetan middle and primary school in Sichuan (Sichuan Zangzu zhongxiaoxue huigui muyu shouke de lujing yilai jiqi tupo)’. Tibetan Education Forum (zangqu jiaoyu yanjiu) 1(1): 21–28.

Kaup, K P. 2000. Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic politics in China. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Li, J. 2016. ‘Conference report of the second China Tibetology Everest forum (Dierjie Zhongguo zangxue zhufeng luntan)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) S1: 192–195.

Li, J and Liu Z. 2008. ‘Space: a new perspective on the ethnic culture along the Tibetan-Yi corridor (Kongjian: Zangyi zoulang minzu shengtai wenhua yanjiu de xinshijiao)’. Journal of Guangxi Minzu University (Guangxi minzu daxue xuebao) 30(6): 13–16.

Li, P. 2020. ‘Ethnic studies of Tibetan-Yi Corridor in China during the past 40 years (Jinsishinian lai woguo Zang-Yi zoulang de zuqun yanjiu jiqi yiyi)’. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University (qinghai minzu daxue xuebao) 3: 14–19.

Li, X. 2019. ‘The cultural construction of natural space on the grassland of the Three-River-Source: the case of ecological migration project in Maduo county of Qinghai (Sanjiangyuan caoyuan ziran kongjian de wenhua jiangou: yi Qinghai Maduo xian z xiang shengtai yimin xiangmu weili)’. Social Science Review (sheke zongheng) 34(11): 81–86.

Long, L and Badeng N. 2010. ‘Challenge on the billigual education in Kham and Amdo dialects regions (Shixi Kangba he Anduo fangyan qu shuangyu jiaoyu mianlin de tiaozhan)’. Tibetan Studies (xizang yanjiu) (2): 113–120.

Mullaney, T S. 2011. Coming to Terms with the Nation : Ethnic classification in modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Murton, G. 2016. ‘Trans-Himalayan transformations: building roads, making markets, and cultivating consumption between Nepal and China's Tibet’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp328-340. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Ngawang, J E. 2018. ‘Conference report of the first silk road Tibetology seminar (Shoujie silu zangxue xueshu yantaohui zongshu) ’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 4: 193–196.

Park, R E. 1928. ‘Human migration and the marginal man’. American Journal of Sociology 33(6): 881–893.

Qi, J and Chen X. 2020. ‘Ecological migration and adaption in the Three-River-Source Area (Sanjiangyuan diqu shengtai yimin yidi anzhi yu shiying)’. Minzu Studies (minzu yanjiu) (4): 74–140.

Renqing, Z and Cheng D. 2016. ‘The dilemma and politics of type I model billigual education in Tibetan nomadic regions (Xizang muqu shuangyu jiaoxue yilei moshi de shishi kunjing yu duice)’. West Quality Education (xibu suzhi jiaoyu) 18(2): 37–38.

Shen, H. 2016. ‘The unity of eco-social culture in the Himalaya: about the research method in Yunnan Meili Tibetan regional studies (Ximalya shengtai shehui wenhua de zhengtixing: jianlun Yunnan meili Zangqu quyu yanjiu de lunjingfangfa)’. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (xinan minzu daxue xuebao) (7): 1–8.

Shen, H. 2018. ‘Theory and method of tran-Himalayan ethnography (Kuaximalaya hezuo minzuzhi shuxie lilun yu fangfa)’. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (yunnan shifan daxue xuebao) 50(6): 63–72.

Shen, H and Chen X. 2020. ‘A study on the climate adaptation in the eastern Himalaya: gendered knowledge on water and grape growing in Meili Tibetan areas in Yunnan (Dong Ximalaya shanqu qihou ganzao shiying yanjiu: xingbiehua de shuichuantong zhishi yu Yunnan meili Zangqu de putao zhongzhi)’. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (xinan minzu daxue xuebao) (9): 9–15.

Shen, H and Chen X. 2022. ‘New anthroplogy research topics on cross-border livelihood (Kuabianjie shengji yanjiu de guoji renleixue xin yiti)’. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (yunnan shifan daxue xuebao) 54(2): 95–107.

Shen, H and Huang F. 2022. ‘The refugee management of International Immigration Organization: the case of Rohinya refugee in Bangladesh (Guoji yimin zuzhi de nanmin zhili: yi Mengjialaguo luoxingya nanmin shiwu weili)’. South Asian Studies Quarterly (nanya yanjiu jikan) 188(1): 108–160.

Shi, S. 2014. ‘Ethnic mobility in the history of Tibetan-Yi Corridor (Zang-Yi zoulang lishi shang de minzu liudong)’. Minzu Studies (minzu yanjiu) 1: 78–125.

Suonan, D. 2016. ‘Studies on the ecological migration village in Three-River-Source: the case of Heyuan new village in Maduo county of Guoluo (Sanjiangyuan shengtai yimincun yanjiu: yi guoluozhou maduoxian heyuan xincun weili)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 124(S1): 178–182.

Tapp, N. 2002. ‘In defense of the archaic: a reconsideration of the 1950s ethnic classification project in China’. Asian Ethnicity 3(1): 63–84.

Tong, T. 2020. ‘Silk road on the Himalayas and ancient kingdoms: context and new evidences from archaeology (Ximalaya de sichouzhilu yu guguo fengsukao: shidai beijing yu kaogu xinzheng)’. Chinese Cultural Forum (zhonghua wenhua luntan) 6: 13–23.

Upton, J L. 2000. ‘Notes towards a native Tibetan ethnology: an introduction to and annotated translation of dMu dge bSam gtan's essay on Dwags po (Baima Zangzu)’. Tibet Journal 25(1): 3–26.

Wan, D and Zhao L. 2021. ‘Studies on Tibetan language films of twenty years in China since 21st Century (Xinshiji guonei Zangyu dianying yanjiu 20nian)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 148(3): 199–205.

Wang, L. 2016. ‘Studies on the protection of the heritage region of Tea-Horse Ancient Road between Yunnan and Tibet (Dianzang chama gudao xianxing yichan quyu baohu yanjiu)’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp229–240. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Wang, M. 2008. The Middle Ring: Tibetan-Yi corridor and rethinking of anthropology (Zhongjianquan: Zang-Yi zoulang yu renleixue zaigousi). Beijing: Social Science Publishing House (Shehui kexue chubanshe).

Wang, Q and Zhao Y. 2020. ‘History, current situation and prospect of Himalayan studies (Ximalaya yanjiu de lishi xianzhuang yu qianjing)’. Tibet Minzu University Journal (xizang minzu daxue xuebao) 41(6): 99–114.

Wei, R. 2013. ‘Studies on the social integration of Tibetan ecological migrants: the case of three-river-source migrants (Zangzu shengtai yimin de shehui ronghe lujing: yi Sanjiangyuan shengtai yimin weili)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 106(1): 120–125.

Wu, X. 2013. ‘Investigation and analysis of the cultural adaptation of students of Tibetan classes in Chinese regions: the case of Tibetan middle school in Chengdu (Neidi Xizang ban xuesheng wenhua shiying zhuangkuang diaocha fenxi) ’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 108(3): 166–173.

Xiong, W. 2020. ‘Ancient road between Tibet and Nepal and its historical function (Fanni gudao jiqi lishi zuoyong)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 1: 38–48.

Xu, J. 2013. ‘Opportunities and adaptation: livelihood of ecological migrants and their relation with the original inhabitance grasslands in Qinghai (Jiyu yu shiying: Qinghai shengtai yimin shengcun yu yuanjudi caochang guanxi)’. Journal of Ethnology (minzu xuekan) 16(2): 38–40, 101–108. Xu, J. 2017. ‘The construction of experience and knowledge of Himalayan region (Ximalaya quyu jingyan yu zhishi puxi goujian)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) (3): 64–74.

Xu, M. 2020. ‘The perfect combination of home and nation: on Alai's novel "In the Cloud" (Jiayuan qinghuai yu guojia yishi gaodu ronghe de xiezouqu: lun alai de xiaoshuo yunzhongji)’. Tibet Studies (xizang yanjiu) (5): 141–151.

Yang, H. 2016. ‘Tibetan-Yi Corridor studies: the making of a unified national consciousness (Zang-Yi zoulang yanjiu: tongyi minzu yishi de jianshe)’. Tibet Studies (xizang yanjiu) 3: 52–59.

Yang, M. 2017. ‘Learning to be safe citizens: state-run boarding schools and the dynamics of Tibetan identity’. Citizenship Studies 21(7): 824–841.

Yang, M and Dunzhu N. 2015. ‘Assimilation or ethnicization: an exploration of inland Tibet class education policy and practice’. Chinese Education & Society 48(5): 341–352.

Yangjing, P and Mu Y. 2018. ‘Bilingual education on the Sino-Burmese border: a case study of Long’an primary school in Longchuan, Yunnan (Yunnan bianjing de shuangyu jiaoyu: yi Yunnan longchuan longan xiaoxue weili)’. Northeast Asia Foreign Language Forum (dongbeiya waiyu luntan) 9(5): 39–44.

Ye, L. 2019. ‘Change and continuity: a study on the religious history of Luowo (Mustang) in central Himalaya (Bianqian yu chengxu: Ximalaya zhongbu Luowo de quyu zongjiaoshi yanjiu)’. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University (qinghai minzu daxue xuebao) (2): 1–10.

Ye, L. 2022. ‘The history of Luowo (Mustang) northwest Nepal and its relation with Tibetan regions in China (Niboer xibeibu luowo de lishi bianqian jiqi yu Zhongguo Xizang difang zhijian de guanxi)’. Tibetan Studies (xizang yanjiu) (2): 24–32.

Yu, D S. 2010. ‘In the arms of God: ecological and sacred landscape in an Amdo Tibetan village (Zai shen de huaibao li: yige Anduo Zangzu cunluo de shengtai-xiansheng jingguan)’. Northwest Journal of Ethnology (xibei minzu yanjiu) 65(2): 21–35.

Yu, D. S. 2017. ‘The Buddhist landscape in the films of Wanma Caidan (Wanma caidan dianying zhong de fojiao jingguan)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 128(1): 172–179.

Yu, D S, Li Y and Zeng L. (Eds.). 2017. Research Collections of the Trans-Himalayan Region: Environment, liveilhood, and cutlure (Huan Ximalaya quyu yanjiu bianyi wenji: huanjing, shengji, yu wenhua). Beijing: Xueyuan Publishing House.

Yu, Y and Meng L. 2015. ‘Research review on Tibetan classes in Chinese regions for the past 30 years (Sanshi nian lai woguo neidi Xizang ban yanjiu pingshu)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 119(3): 122–127.

Zhang, S. 2018. ‘Strategy and path for propagating the religious cultures on Tibetan plateau out of China in the age of OBOR (Yidai yilu changyi xia Qing-Zang gaoyuan zongjiao wenhua duiwai chuanbo de lujing yu duice) ’. The World Religious Cultures (shijie zongjiao wenhua) 2: 90–96.

Zhang, Y. 2016. ‘Corridor and passage: anthropological reflection on the southwest regional studies in China (Zoulang yu tongdao: zhongguo xinan quyu yanjiu de renleixue zaigousi)’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp194–205. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Zhao, X. 2017. ‘The initiation of corridor studies in China (Zhongguo zoulangxue fafan)’. Frontier of Thoughts (Sixiang Zhanxian) 43 (2): 1–11.

Zheng, D. 2019. ‘Tibetan Buddhist culture and the Belt and Road Initiative (Zangchuan fojiao wenhua yu yidai yilu changyi)’. China Tibetology (zhongguo zangxue) 1: 118–124.

Zheng, S. 2018. ‘The history and possibility of Kham: an anthropological analysis based on four novels of Alai (Kangqu de lishi yu kenengxing: jiyu Alai sibu changpian xiaoshuo de lishi renleixue fenxi)’. Society (Shehui) 38(2): 84–110.

Zhou, Y. 2016a. ‘Rebuilding the Stilwell Road: globalization and boxing out in China's southwest (Chongjian shidiwei gonglu: quanqiuhua yu xinan zhongguo de kongjian kaweizhan)’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp179–193. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Zhou, Y. 2016b. ‘Roadology studies on the Sino-Tibetan road: production, application, construction, and consumption of road space (Han-Zang gonglu de luxue yanjiu: daolu kongjian de shengchan, shiyong, jiangou yu xiaofei)’. In Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua), edited by Y Zhou, pp15–32. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Zhou, Y. 2016c. Roadology: Road, space and culture (Luxue: daolu, kongjian yu wenhua). Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (Chongqing daxue chubanshe).

Zhu, Z. 2007. State Schooling and Ethnic Identity: The politics of a Tibetan neidi secondary School in China. Lanham, M D: Lexington Books.

Zou, L. 2020. ‘The formation of Fei Xiaotong's ethnic corridor and its meaning (Fei Xiaotong minzu zoulang silu xingcheng jiqi yiyi) ’. Minzu Studies (minzu yanjiu) 5: 45–54.

Haut de page

Notes

1 There have been continuous state efforts towards scientific research on the Tibetan plateau since the founding of the PRC (1949). Most of this research has been oriented towards natural science and has been conducted within Chinese academia inside Chinese territory. In recent decades, however, there have been more diverse forms of research in this field, including some collaborative research across borders with less state presence. Here, I consider the Chinese academic grassroot impetus to push for more public space in the field of Himalayan Studies.

2 There are a number of scholarly writings that use the term Ximalaya (Himalaya) as their title or keyword for research (Wang and Zhao 2020; Xu 2017). However, the concept of ‘Himalaya’ as an academic category has been applied more regularly to the field of natural science such as the environment, geology, botany, etc. The ambiguity of this concept in social science reflects both a long-term ethnic dilemma and the change in political discourse in China.

3 Since the turn of the century many Chinese universities have initiated various programmes that use the name haiwai minzuzhi, meaning ‘oversea ethnography’ or ‘ethnographic research outside China’, whose scope largely extends beyond anthropology. For the purpose of this review, I mention research done in Nepal and cross-border studies in Yunnan (see later in this review). However, besides some state-organised studies and some studies selected from personal choice, I have not noticed any systematic efforts or prospective work in this direction, whether in the Himalayas or in other parts of the world.

4 See its official website: https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/index.htm

5 See its official website: http://fz.people.com.cn/skygb/sk/index.php/Index/seach

6 ‘Ethnic Identification’ (Ch minzu shibie) was a state-led national campaign at the creation of the PRC, aimed at identifying all the peoples in China. For a general study of this campaign, see Mullaney 2011. Individual case studies on ethnic identification include, for example, Miao (Tapp 2002), Dulong (Gros 2004) and Zhuang (Kaup 2000).

7 After the minzu shibie (ethnic identification) campaign, a lot of small ethnic groups were not granted minzu status and have kept appealing for it. See for example the Baima (Tibetan) case in Sichuan (Upton 2000) and the Ge people case in Guizhou (Cheung 1996).

8 By ‘areas studies within China’ I mean to emphasise both a Chinese state-centric perspective and a Chinese language-centric perspective – as opposed to any local language – in these studies.

9 Information about the conference was not published either in print or on its website. All the information below comes from the Wechat Public Account of the Centre for Tibetan Studies of Sichuan University.

10 http://www.qhnews.com/2010zt/system/2010/07/09/010156060.shtml, http://sjy.qinghai.gov.cn/, accessed on 29 November 2022.

11 For example, there has recently been a new trend of ‘Alai fever’ in Chinese academia. In 2022, three universities in southwest China – Chongqing University, Xinan University and Sichuan University – jointly hosted a book reading club with this year’s theme ‘a diverse local space seen through Alai’. It is worth noting that most of the monthly discussion topics featured keywords related to the Himalaya, such as dongchong xiacao (caterpillar fungus), shanshen (mountain god), Han-Zang jiaohuidi (Sino-Tibetan borderland).

12 The novel was written in Chinese and subsequently translated into English as ‘Red Poppies: A novel of Tibet’(Alai 2002).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations


		Titre	Fig1: General map of China and location of the Three-River-Source National Park.
		Crédits	Sources: adapted from Wikimedia commons maps.
		URL	http://journals.openedition.org/ebhr/docannexe/image/721/img-1.jpg
		Fichier	image/jpeg, 81k

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Yinong Zhang, « Recent development of Himalayan studies in China: works, perspectives and orientations (2012–2022) », European Bulletin of Himalayan Research [En ligne], 59 | 2022, mis en ligne le 21 décembre 2022, consulté le 01 décembre 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ebhr/721 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ebhr.721

Haut de page

Auteur

Yinong Zhang

Yinong Zhang was trained in Tibetology and social anthropology (PhD Cornell, 2009). He is currently a professor at the Anthropology Institute of Shanghai University. His research interests include Tibetan and Muslim relations on the Sino-Tibetan borderland, Minzu and its social life, ethnic nationalism and post-colonialism, border and borderland theory.

Haut de page