[ China & Inner Asia, Table of Contents ]
[ Panels by World Area Main Menu ]
[ View the Timetable of Panels ]
Authority Structures in Amdo/Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan: Conflict and Compromise
Organizer: Paul Nietupski, John Carroll University
Chair and Discussant: Elliot Sperling, Indiana University
This panel studies the conflicting historical claims of political and social control of the Amdo region, now included in China’s Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan provinces. Though inhabited primarily by Tibetans, Amdo is located on the frontiers of the Tibetan, Mongol, Chinese and Manchu civilizations, and as such it holds a rich history of conquest, intercultural interaction and assimilation. The Amdo region is often included in regional imperial visions. The peoples of Amdo are political members of the modern Chinese state, and were arguably subjects of the Qing Empire, evidenced by policies detailed in the Lifanyuan statues. However, Amdo was also under direct Zunghar Mongol control until the mid-eighteenth century. Moreover, it is widely accepted that the region was for all practical purposes independent of any outside power, governed by local Tibetan lay and Buddhist monastic leaders. Different powers made claims to ownership and authority in Amdo.
The panelists present the different perspectives of regional authority, first as found in the Qing-era Lifanyuan. Second, actual power, tax structures, property holdings and ethnic compositions on the frontiers of Qing and local Tibetan centers are examined. Third, Tibetan-Mongol polity is presented by the example of a reborn lama and an important monastic estate lord. Finally, the case of a self-described Tibetan of mixed Chinese and Tibetan descent shows how a modern local Amdo resident defined himself in Amdo’s complex political and ethnographic environment. These presentations show the powerful national ideologies present in Amdo history, in conflict and in compromise.
The Lifanyuan and the Qing Administration in Amdo: Xining, Qinghai
Ning Chia, Central College
Current publications on the early Qing Empire discuss the integration of historical China proper and Inner Asian societies, especially Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Amdo, a part of Qing Inner Asia on edge of the Chinese, Mongol, Tibetan, and northwestern Muslim heartlands has however, not been given the same scholarly attention regarding the imperial administration. Amdo had critical influence on surrounding regions in various ways, and was as important as other ethnic heartlands to the Qing court. The Lifanyuan – the imperial agency responsible for non-Chinese regions in Inner Asia – developed special governing branches in Amdo. Among them, the key office was that of the Grand Minister Resident of Xining. The study of this office examines the following issues. (1) How the Qing court, for the purpose of administration, officially identified the “Amdowa,” who were ethnically and culturally Tibetan but politically separate from Tibet. (2) Why the Qing administration in Amdo was different from any other ethnic heartland in Inner Asia. (3) Why Qinghai on the northern Tibetan Plateau became an administrative section under its own name during the Yongzheng and Qianlong reigns. Finally, (4) how the Qing government tried to manage Amdo multi-ethnic interactions. Research on the Lifanyuan documents sheds light on this neglected area of Qing frontier history; it develops knowledge of the central-local relationship in that area, and offers necessary background for the study of modern Amdo.
Amdo Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries as Political Centers in the Qing
Gray Tuttle, Columbia University
The emperors who ruled China and its neighboring regions from the thirteenth century onward often chose to recognize indigenous forms of rule at the frontiers of Chinese cultural and political domination. Though outside the mainstream, the policy of allowing Tibetan Buddhist lamas to rule ethnic Tibetans, Mongours, Muslims and even Chinese who happened to live in these territories seems to have been encouraged, at least during the Qing. My research examines a local practice not covered in detail in the grand statutes recorded in the Lifanyuan law books. Only in the twentieth century were the details of the local ruling monasteries on the frontiers of Chinese and Tibetan culture east of Qinghai Lake documented in a systematic way. Unlike the dominance of a single monastery like Labrang to the southeast, the region between Xining, Lanzhou and Labrang was characterized by a complex overlap of jurisdictions: small Chinese garrisons in the lower valleys, occasional dominance by armed Muslims, Mongour or Tibetan local headmen (tusi) often ruling in conjunction with a "mother" Tibetan Buddhist monastery and its many subordinate ("son") branches. I will examine the least understood element of these various authorities: the many lesser known monasteries that ruled with combined political and religious power. Their structures of power, ability to collect taxes, property holdings and ethnic compositions will be examined in light of the historic relevance these monasteries held for Chinese and Tibetan interactions from the late Ming into the twentieth century, with special attention to the Qing dynasty.
Tibetan Buddhist Authority Structures in Amdo
Paul Nietupski, John Carroll University
Belmang Könchok Gyaltsan (1764-1853) was a recognized rebirth of a Buddhist lama and one of Amdo’s many prolific writers. He was born and spent most of his life in Amdo, during the period of decline of Mongol power, and the gradual erosion of Manchu authority. He was educated by the leadings scholars of the day in Amdo and in Lhasa and wrote twelve volumes of works on philosophy, ethics, hagiography and history. He was well acquainted with the regional authority structures of the Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus and Chinese, as is demonstrated in his Elementary History of China, Tibet, the Monguors and Mongolia. This text is an Amdo Tibetan Buddhist perspective on the evolution of civilizations in Inner and East Asia. The relative authority of the regional powers present in Amdo is demonstrated in this and other of his writings.
In addition to being an exemplar of a Tibetan Buddhist religious authority, he was one of the many local Amdo Tibetan corporate estate owners, heir to his predecessor’s accumulated wealth and a powerful local political figure. Amdo people believe that he was the second of five human lifetimes, as such he accumulated considerable wealth and regional political authority.
This paper explores the extent of regional authority of the local powers claimed in Belmang’s “Elementary History” and other writings. It tests these claims against the lama’s actual power in the Amdo community. Finally, Belmang’s claims are evaluated in comparison to the regional authority of the Mongols, Manchus, Chinese and Muslims.
A Mellifluous Voice: The Life Work of Alag Tsetan Zhabdrung Jigmé Rigpé Lodrö
Nicole Willock, Indiana University
The monastic scholar Tsetan Zhabdrung Jigmé Rigpé Lodrö (1910-1985) is an exemplary figure of the turbulent history of 20th century Amdo. Born in Yadzi (Ch: Xunhua) in Qinghai Province of mixed Chinese and Tibetan ancestry, he identifies himself as of Tibetan ethnicity based on language, customs and birthplace. At age three he was recognized by Zhamar Pandita as the incarnation of Tsetan Zhabdrung. He subsequently went on to study with two prominent Amdo scholars, Jigmé Damchö Gyatso and Yongdzin Lozang Paldan. His most famous work, A General Commentary on Poetics introduces the student to various forms of ornamentations based on the Indian scripture on poetics, the Kavyadarsa.
By using these traditional poetic techniques, he presents new Amdo nationalist themes to create a modern discourse treating such topics as the unification of Amdo minority groups and the usefulness of modern technology. His skill in poetics was also put to paper in his autobiography, where he expressed many of his life experiences through poetry, e.g. his twelve-year imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution. After his release he taught at the Northwest Nationalities College in Lanzhou, Gansu Province. At this time in a relatively relaxed political atmosphere his above mentioned works were published. He is thus credited as being one of the few monastically trained scholars to revive Tibetan studies within the People’s Republic of China after the Cultural Revolution.