ll become increasingly more elusive with each passing year, as the memories of elders fade and as those elders pass on. Thus it would seem highly worthwhile to try to acquire the necessary data as soon as possible, in order to paint a fuller picture of the traditional society before it becomes too late.
Barfield, Thomas J. 1993. The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Clarke, Graham E. 1992. “Aspects of the Social Organisation of Tibetan Pastoral Communities. Proceedings of the 5th Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, Narita, Vol. II, pp. 393 - 411. Narita: Naritasan Shinshoji.
Clarke, Graham, ed. 1998. Development, Society, and Environment in Tibet. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Cooper, Louise. 1993. “Patterns of Mutual Assistance in the Mongolian Pastoral Economy.” Nomadic Peoples 33: 153-62.
Don-grub dBang-rgyal and Nor sDe. 1992. Yul mGo-log gi Lo-rgyus Deb-ther Pad-ma dKar-po’i Chun-po Zhes Bya-ba bZhugs-so. Xining: mTsho sNgon People’s Publishing House.
Ekvall, Robert B. 1968. Fields on the Hoof. Nexus of Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralism. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gelek. 1998. “The Washu Serthar: A Nomadic Community of Eastern Tibet.” Development, Society, and Environment in Tibet. G. Clarke, ed., pp. 47 - 58. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Levine, Nancy E. 1998. “From Nomads to Ranchers: Managing Pasture Among Ethnic Tibetans in Sichuan.” Development, Society, and Environment in Tibet. G. Clarke, ed., pp. 69 - 76. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
-----. 1999. “Cattle and the Cash Economy: Responses to Change Among Tibetan Nomadic Pastoralists in Sichuan, China.” Human Organization (1999) 58:2:161 - 172.
Rock, Joseph F. 1956. The Amnye Ma-chhen Range and Adjacent Regions. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente.
Salzman, Philip Carl. 1978. “Ideology and Change in Tribal Society.” Man 13: 618 - 37.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1961. “The Segmentary Lineage : An Organization of Predatory Expansion.” American Anthropologist 63: 322 - 345.
 These two periods of research were supported by the Committee on Scholarly Communication with China (1994) and the National Science Foundation (1997), in both instances supplemented by funds from the University of California, Los Angeles. Thanks also are due to the National Center for Tibetan Studies in Beijing, for sponsoring the research and to Dr. Gelek and Mr. Dawa Tshering who aided me during field research. A special note of thanks is due to Khenpo Chonam, who is from Golog Autonomous Prefecture, and assisted me in translations of literary material on the area.
 One person said, "a household could stay by itself if there were many strong sons or lots of fierce dogs to protect against thieves."
 Ekvall states that in situations where rukor were permanent, they were “organized with a headman--usually the wealthiest or most able individual--and sometimes the encampment is known as his Ru sKor “ (1968: 28).) He does not, however, indicate whether he is talking about Golog and/or other Tibetan pastoralist populations.
 One person said, “the position of leader goes to the oldest legitimate son first, an illegitimate son second, or, if there are no sons, to a man selected by the ‘second in command’ (blon po) or a respected lama. It has to stay in the correct clan. But if there is someone exceptional or the proper clan has no members, then the leader’s lineage can change.”
 There also were shog dpon --some of the larger tshowa in Golog were called shogpa (also known as shog chen). This term literally means wing, and these wings were internally subdivided into shog chung, or “little shog.” At the highest level were
leaders of overarching confederacies, which linked many tshowa, like the former leader of the Washul (dBal Shul) Serthar, Rigdzin Dondrup.
 At that time pastoralist families were assigned to class identifications. These included nomadic leaders, (brog bdag), rich nomads (‘brog phyug), three middle level groups, (collectively called ‘brog ‘bangs, nonetheless pronounced drogdrang), and poor nomads (known as ‘brogpa dbul ‘phongs).
 In addition, as is typical for uncentralized pastoralists peoples, the recompense for a death would be settled more easily and at lower cost within the group. It would probably be uncollectable for very distant unrelated groups.
 There also are accounts of bchu-lnga dpon or bchu-drug dpon, leaders of fifteen or sixteen households, and leaders of five households, or lnga dpon. As Clarke has noted for Hainan nomads (1992: 398-99), it is common to find units of social organization assessed in terms of groups of tens, hundreds and thousands of households, which seemingly derives from the Mongol system. For another example, one of the tshowa I visited in 1997--Hor sKor ma in Ma sTod county-- was described as having traditionally included 1,000 households.