(en) Fernanda Pirie, The hegemony of the Chinese state: sovereignty and order in eastern Tibet, Conference paper prepared for Reinventing the Chinese Party-State, Shenyang, 5th & 6th December 2008: «Amdo was never incorporated into the political region of the Dalai Lama, despite the fact that most of its population regarded Lhasa as the ultimate source of religious authority. [...] Amdo was dominated by Mongol forces from the mid thirteenth until the early eighteenth century, when the Manchu Qing dynasty rose to power and established Xining, a town to the north of Amdo (now the capital of Qinghai province) as its administrative base for the area.»
(en) Fernanda Pirie, Legal complexity of the Tibetan plateau, Journal of Legal Pluralism, 2006, numéros. 53-54, p.77-99, p.80: «the Dalai Lamas’ government never succeeded in establishing political, military or fiscal control over Amdo and the region was not politically unified with central Tibet.»
(en) Fernanda Pirie, Legal complexity of the Tibetan plateau, Journal of Legal Pluralism, 2006, numéros 53-54, p.77-99, p.80: «After defeating the Qoshot Mongols in 1724, the Manchu Qing dynasty established Xining as the administrative centre of Qinghai, an area which roughly corresponded with what the Tibetans regard as Amdo.»
Sur les définitions du Tibet, cf. (en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, What is Tibet? – Fact and Fancy, extrait de Change, Conflict and Continuity Among a Community of Nomadic Pastoralists — A Case Study from western Tibet, 1950-1990, in Resistance and Reform in Tibet (sous la direction de Barnett et Akiner), Londres, Hurst & Co., 1994: «[...] the two major sub-ethnic regions known in Tibetan and Kham and Amdo. The ‘modern’ Sino-Tibetan border in these two regions was generally established during the mid-18th century when the Tibetan Government lost political control over most of these areas to Manchu (Qing) China.».
(en) Fernanda Pirie, Legal complexity of the Tibetan plateau, Journal of Legal Pluralism, 2006, nrs. 53-54, p.77-99, p.80: «Their Amban exercised more of a supervisory than an administrative role, however, and even this was resisted by the Golok tribes to the south. The Amban allowed the major monasteries, such as Labrang, Repkong, Kurdi and Taktsang Lhamo, to retain considerable power over the Tibetan populations in their areas. A number of secular leaders also retained the power they had established over large groups of tribes, sometimes amounting to small kingdoms.»
Sur les définitions du Tibet, cf (en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, What is Tibet? – Fact and Fancy, extrait de Change, Conflict and Continuity Among a Community of Nomadic Pastoralists — A Case Study from western Tibet, 1950-1990, in Resistance and Reform in Tibet (sous la direction de Barnett et Akiner), Londres, Hurst & Co., 1994: «The ‘modern’ Sino-Tibetan border in these two regions was generally established during the mid-18th century when the Tibetan Government lost political control over most of these areas to Manchu (Qing) China. While the Tibetan Government has never accepted the loss of these regions as permanent or de jure – for example it claimed all of Kham and Amdo in the Simla Convention of 1913-14 – most of these areas in fact were not a part of its polity for the two centuries preceding the rise to power of the Communists in China in 1949. Consequently, the convention used in Tibetan historiography in the West has been to differentiate analytically between the political entity Tibet and other areas outside it where ethnic Tibetans lived. For example, Hugh Richardson, the well-known British diplomat and historian, for practical purposes differentiated the Tibetan world into two categories. Following the work of Sir Charles Bell, he used the term ‘political’ Tibet for the polity ruled by the Dalai Lamas, and the term ‘ethnographic’ Tibet for other areas such as Amdo and Kham which were outside that state».
(en) Venkatesan Vembu, Tibet wasn't ours, says Chinese scholarDNA (newspaper)(en): «(...) we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan. (...) (Tubo/Tufan) was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty».
(Yeh 2003, p.508)«While the division of Tibetan cultural geography into the three ‘provinces’ of U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo now dominates exile discourse, this is a relatively new representation. An earlier scheme, in use in the mid-seventeenth century, conceived of the three regions as being Ngari Korsum, U-Tsang, and mDo-Kham (including both Kham and Amdo)». (en) Emily T. Yeh, «Tibetan Range Wars: Spatial Politics and Authority on the Grasslands of Amdo», Development and Change, vol.34, no3, , p.499–523 (DOI10.1111/1467-7660.00316)
Les documents officiels historiques de la province du Qinghai 明洪武六年(1371年)改西宁州为卫，下辖6千户所。以后又设“塞外四卫”：安定、阿端、曲先、罕东(地当今海北州刚察西部至柴达木西部，南至格尔木，北达甘肃省祁连山北麓地区)。En 1371, la dynastie Ming transforme le Xining Zhou en Xining Wei, puis installe 4 Weis de plus, connus comme les 4 Weis (défenses) de Saiwai. Ce territoire est délimité au sud par Golmud (Gelimu en Pinyin), au nord par la montagne Qilian, et à l'ouest par le bassin du Qaidam. En 1488, Ming renforce la garnison de Xining, contrôle les tribus mongoles et tibétaines, Xining administre les 4 Weis à partir cette année-là.
(en) Andreas Gruschke, Excerpt of The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces: Amdo, vol. 1 The Qinghai Part of Amdo (Northeastern Tibet), White Lotus Press, Bangkok: «While the designations Amdo and Kham have become widely used in modern times, it is less known that until the 19th century Tibetan sources only used the composite Tibetan term Do-Kham. As mdo khams it may be found in Tibetan, as duo gansi in Chinese sources, starting in the Mongol-Chinese Yuan dynasty (1274-1368).8 Eastern Tibet, i.e. the region beyond the Central Tibetan provinces of Ü and Tsang, is then generally referred to as Do-Kham Gang-sum (mdo khams sgang sum), or Do-Kham Gang-drug (mdo khams sgang drug): that is to say the 'three, or six, mountains [of] mDo [and] Kham'.9 The term sgang is meant to designate the pasture grounds on the high upland between the great river systems of Salween, Mekong, Yangtse, Yalong Jiang, and their tributaries.10 As a toponym Do-Kham thus seems to represent a comprehensive concept of the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau or realm, as is stated in Das' Tibetan-English Dictionary:
[mdo khams]Mdo and Khams, indicates Am do, the province of Tibet S.E. of KököNor, and Kham.11.»
(en) Andreas Gruschke, The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces: Amdo: voir bibliographie (extrait en ligne).
(en) The History of Tibet Alex MacKay 2003, The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted, Turrell V. Wylie, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (juin 1977), p.103-133.
Françoise Robin, La révolte en Amdo en 1958 Site du Sénat, Groupe d'information internationale sur le Tibet, 18 juin 2012, «Naktsang Nulo nous livre un témoignage de première main: à Chumakha, dit-il, les affrontements sino-tibétains de la fin du printemps avaient laissé 1000 orphelins et 600 personnes âgées sans famille - et fait plus de 3000 prisonniers. Les enfants et les vieillards furent parqués à partir de décembre 1958 dans un camp. La mise en place simultanée des communes signifia l'arrêt de la production agricole et pastorale. Quatre mois plus tard, seuls 50 enfants et 10 personnes âgées avaient survécu à la famine qui caractérisa cette désastreuse campagne, soit un taux de survie entre 3,5%. Naktsang Nulo, enfant à l'époque et résidant dans ce camp, confirme dans son témoignage que l'une des stratégies de survie fut souvent le recours au cannibalisme.»
Gray Tuttle, An Overview of Amdo (Northeastern Tibet) Historical Polities, The Tibetan and Himalayan Library: «Amdo as a term seems to have accompanied the rise of the Gelukpa religious tradition in the region since the 17th century, and the territorial extent of Amdo seems to have kept pace to some degree (at least in historic texts) with the expansion of Gelukpa monasteries. […] At its greatest extent, Amdo covers a region roughly the size of France, but it is not at all clear that such a conception of a single cultural territory of this vast scope predates the rise of the Gelukpa dominance of this area in the 16th century. [...]. The first historical work to take this region as its central focus was the 1652 Amdo Religious History of Rebgong’s Kelden Gyatso [...].»
Gray Tuttle, An Overview of Amdo (Northeastern Tibet) Historical Polities, The Tibetan and Himalayan Library: «Of course today we can talk about Amdo as a cultural-linguistic unit, since most of the areas that are now included in Amdo speak the same basic language [...].»
Cyril Tikhomiroff, Le Lama et L'Empereur, Département Humanités et Sciences Sociales de l'École polytechnique, p.43: «Les Qoshot, établis entre l'actuelle Urumqi et le Kokonor, ont la mainmise sur le Tibet depuis l'opération de Gushri Khan».
Notes de lecture, sur http://www.zen-occidental.net. À propos du livre de Katia Buffetrille et de Charles Ramble, Tibétains, 1959-1999, quarante ans de colonisation, Paris, Autrement, collection «Monde», 2003, 224 pages, (ISBN2-86260-822-X): «Analysant le "nationalisme" tibétain, en fait un fort sentiment d'identité collective, George Dreyfus retrace la genèse de cette identité, de ce sentiment d'appartenance à une communauté plus qu'à un Etat-Nation, qui se traduit parfois par l'étrange paradoxe d'un habitant de l'Amdo ne se considérant comme "Tibétain" (Böpa) que pour se différencier radicalement de l'occupant chinois».
s.jpg){kind=link}
