Reported and Edited By Kelsang Jinpa
Translated By TenGyal
There is a growing concern that the Chinese government will define the narrative of Tibetan archaeological research findings exclusively through the framework of the so-called “ Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.”
Mark Aldenderfer, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at the University of California, Merced, in a talk titled “ What Does Archaeology Tell Us About Tibet’s Past,” warned that the findings of Tibetan historical research and archaeological investigations have reached- or are in danger of reaching-a point where they are bound to and cannot escape Chinese political narratives and interpretations.
According to Professor Mark Aldenderfer, despite heavy state investment in Tibetan historical and archaeological research since the 1970s and 1980s, publishing independent research in China has become increasingly difficult. The Chinese government now mandates that archaeological findings align with official state narratives—specifically through the framework of the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” and the Belt and Road Initiative. Consequently, research must serve to reinforce political claims that Tibet is an “inalienable part of China” and that the ancient Zhangzhung (Shang Shung) kingdom was the true origin of Tibetan civilisation and Buddhism, making official state interpretations the only permissible perspective.
Similarly, alongside the discovery of key imperial tombs vital to Tibetan historical research, Chinese archaeologists excavated the Reshui imperial tombs in Terlam (Dulan) County, Tsonub (Haixi Mongol and Tibetan) Prefecture, between 1990 and the early 2000s. Due to extensive looting during these excavations, only a fraction of the original relics remains today. Likewise, among the imperial tombs in Chongye—which house the remains and artefacts of central Tibetan emperors from Lha Thothori Nyantsen to Udam Tsenpo—several were haphazardly dug up and robbed of their artefacts. Furthermore, during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, China destroyed most of the Buddhist heritage sites in Ngari, including Tholing Monastery and temples, founded by Lha Lama Yeshe Ö of the Guge royal lineage. In 2001, under the guise of “reconstructing” Tholing’s relics, the Chinese government transformed the site into a tourist attraction, stripping it of its historical significance.
Instead of offering unbiased interpretations of Tibetan archaeological discoveries that reflect Tibet’s actual history, the Chinese government continues to reshape these findings into its own official narrative. A prime example of this ongoing distortion is the case of the ancient Zhangzhung Tibetan civilisation. Since around 2000, Chinese state media have asserted that Zhangzhung is not only the foundation of Tibetan civilisation but also the origin of Buddhism, while linking it to China’s ancient Silk Road and the modern Belt and Road Initiative. Through this lens, trade, migration, cultural exchange, political ties, ancient trade routes, regional connectivity, and the entirety of Tibetan history are systematically co-opted and reframed into a narrative of a unified Chinese national territory.
This trend was underscored in June of this year when Professor Mark Aldenderfer gave a lecture at Southwest Minzu University. A Chinese archaeologist framed the professor’s entire presentation around China’s “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,” bending it to fit the state’s official rhetoric. This incident highlights the ongoing danger that critical Tibetan historical and archaeological findings will continually be co-opted and interpreted through the narrow lens of China’s so-called “ Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress.”
The Chinese government has long restricted and continues to prevent foreign archaeologists from travelling to Tibet to conduct research on the region’s historical archaeology. When Professor Mark Aldenderfer first carried out archaeological fieldwork in Tibet during the 1990s, he could only do so under the explicit sponsorship of Chinese archaeologists. Ultimately, the Chinese government fears that allowing foreign researchers to travel freely in Tibet would bring many true facts regarding Tibetan history and culture to light; consequently, it has become a reality that it is impossible for foreign archaeologists to go to Tibet for dedicated research.
In his lecture, Professor Aldenderfer noted that the fossilised human jawbone recovered from the sacred Baishiya Karst Cave in Gangya (Ganjia)—located near Labrang Tashikyil Monastery in Tibet—belongs to a Denisovan who lived over 165,000 years ago. This discovery surpassed the previous 2013 benchmark (established at the Nyading site), which dated human presence in Tibet to between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. The findings from Baishiya Karst Cave confirm that hominins inhabited Tibet during the Middle Pleistocene epoch, and it is through Denisovan genetic heritage that Tibetans on the plateau possess the unique EPAS1 gene adaptation for high-altitude oxygen circulation. However, he cautioned that Denisovans cannot be definitively identified as the direct ancestors of present-day Tibetans.
Furthermore, tsampa (flour made from roasted barley grains)—which is essential to survival on the Tibetan Plateau—emerged around 4,000 years ago, prior to which millet served as the primary staple. This shift from millet to tsampa was driven by climate change. As for the origin of yaks in Tibet, while various theories exist and no definitive date is established, the most credible sources place their emergence between 2,500 and 3,000 years ago.
Regarding the future of Tibetan archaeology, he noted that while research in northeastern and western Tibet has progressed and will continue to expand, work inside ancient central Tibetan monasteries remains unlikely. Furthermore, although a growing number of native Tibetan archaeologists are receiving doctoral training in Tibet, they operate strictly within China’s political and ideological framework, limiting their academic independence. Consequently, when evaluating human origins, settlement patterns, and major historical eras—such as Zhangzhung, early Tibetan civilisation, and the imperial period— the professor stressed that it is crucial to distinguish empirical archaeological data from state-sponsored political narratives.
