Religiosity and Scientificity: The Transformation of Missionary Anthropology in the West China Border Research Society (1922–1950)

Abstract

Religiosity and scientificity have long been intertwined in missionary anthropology. Since the 20th century, there has been a shift from religious missionary anthropology to scientific anthropology worldwide. Reviewing published materials and archives, this paper provides a case study of this transformation. It focuses on how the foreign missionary-founded West China Border Research Society transformed from a relatively closed and fixed local Christian academic research institution into a more open, international, and purely scientific research institution disciplined by Christian rationality. It sheds some new light into the Society’s roles and its transformation process. Contrary to the views of many scholars who assert that the Society “died” in 1937 and subsequently engaged in China’s state service and nation-building efforts, we contend that after 1937, the Society sought greater independence and a more scientific approach. Christianity dominated the Society in the early stages after its inception in 1922 in Chengdu, China, and its research results could not be objective or scientific. Although the Society later became more open and globalized, missionary anthropologists still mainly controlled it. After 1937, missionary anthropologists returned to religious rationality under the pressure of being connected to global academia. The Society eventually adopted “salvage anthropology” and tried to develop into a scientific research institution aimed at objective recording, while this somewhat rigid research approach also disciplined and suppressed the nationalist research orientation of Chinese colleagues and scholars. In response, Chinese researchers established other institutions and journals with stronger nationalism and undertook the “border construction work” that the Society could not accomplish.

1. Introduction

From the mid-19th century through the early 20th century, with the emergence of modern science and scientists, science began to diverge from esthetics, theology, and ethnicity (Harrison 2006). As the status of science continued to rise, individuals involved in any field related to exploring unknown realms embraced self-designation as scientists, emphasizing their commitment to professionalism and objectivity. During this period, explorers, travelers, and missionaries from Europe and the United States who went to China for investigations also identified themselves as “scientists,” believing that the knowledge they collected and disseminated would contribute to humanity’s scientific and social progress (Harrell 2011, p. 3). However, different perspectives regarding the purpose and impact of science existed among these self-proclaimed “scientists”, particularly the early missionary anthropologists. It is well known that the relationship between anthropologists and missionaries is ambivalent; as Van der Geest (1990, pp. 588–89) pointed out, missionaries are considered to be directed by religion, while anthropologists are rational and critical. “Missionaries are preachers and converters, whereas anthropologists prefer to see themselves as listeners and custodians of culture”. As scientists, anthropologists preserve and record culture while missionaries destroy it. Early missionary anthropologists integrated missionary work and scientific research and held different views and attitudes toward religion and science in varying political, economic, and disciplinary contexts, with further changes in response to changing external influences.

In 1922, a group of foreign missionaries in West China jointly established a West China Border Research Society (WCBRS). The initial purpose of the Society was to encourage and promote anthropological research among non-Chinese groups in the Sino-Tibetan border region (Purpose and Program 1924–1925, p. 1). However, contrary to the common knowledge mentioned above, William R. Morse, as the Society’s first president, repeatedly emphasized the scientific features of its research and the compatibility of religion and science in his president’s address:

We are binding ourselves freely and voluntarily to study and work and sacrifice for the great cause of science, impelled to do so, it may be, by religious convictions. Behind the study and research we are impelled by a force demanding us to do our best for the brotherhood of man by as intensive study as is possible of the man himself and of the country in which he lives.

(Morse 1922–1923, p. 4)

Early members of the WCBRS, including Morse, believed that Christian religious faith was the driving force for scientific research. The Society primarily focuses on medical history, natural history, and anthropological research. The introduction of scientific research into missionary endeavors yielded economic and spiritual benefits (Liijestrand 1933–1934, p. XIV). However, scholars have raised doubts about whether this Christian organization can truly strike a balance between science and religion (Rodriguez 2010; Brown 2004). Even in its area of expertise, anthropology, the Society’s early members still conducted research akin to other missionary anthropologists who observed the subjects through the “eyes of God” (Harrell 1995, 2011; Swain 2011), as evidenced by their publications in the Journal of the West China Border Research Society (JWCBRS). Scientific anthropological methods have been used to facilitate the transformation of the research area. However, following changes in international and domestic contexts after the 1930s, shifts in the global anthropological paradigm, and developments within missionary work, the WCBRS, which was struggling to survive, adapted its research orientation and interests to align with Christian rationality, which better supported the scientific evolution of missionary anthropology.

At present, further research on the WCBRS needs to be conducted. Many existing studies on the WCBRS mainly focus on its historical evolution and summarize its characteristics (Zhou 2018), the Society’s missionary members’ biographies, and the re-examination of their studies. For example, there have been many studies on David C. Graham (Mckhann and Waxman 2011; Brown 2001; Kyong-Mcclain and Geng 2011; Bian 2011, 2018; Geng 2004, 2018), Thomas Torrance (Zhu and Li 2013; Chi 2012), James H. Edgar (Shen and Chen 2010; Shen 2012; Feng 2010), A.J. Brace (Zhu 2019), Rober Cunningham (Zhu 2015; Zhu and Zhou 2017), etc. Other studies often used the WCBRS as the background of relevant missionary anthropologists. For example, books edited by Stevan Harrell discuss missionary anthropologists’ “civilizing project” worldwide (Harrell 1995), and also the exploration, experience, and contributions to knowledge production on China’s frontiers (Harrell 2011). Wang (2008) examined the role of missionary anthropologists such as David C. Graham and Thomas Torrance in nation-building. Zhou and Wang (2012) also inspected changes in members’ anthropological thoughts regarding the WCBRS. Long and Zhou (2019) revealed the complex roles of the WCBRS. They pointed out that although research from the Society had typical “imperial features”, they also pushed the “scientific discovery” of Southwest China. After the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War, the Society adopted the strategy of “localization” to serve the country and provided materials for China’s historical narratives. Andres Rodriguez conducted a more direct and systematic study. In an earlier article, he discussed how missionary anthropologists in the WCBRS in the Republican era tried to integrate ethnic minorities in the borderland into Christianity and the Chinese nation-building project (Rodriguez 2010). In his later book, Building a Nation in China’s Borderlands: 1919–1945 (Rodriguez 2022), he analyzes the development of the WCBRS from 1922 to 1937, pointing out that with the establishment of relevant research institutions in China, the transformation of political forms, and the professionalization of scholars, the Society established in 1922 eventually died. The new generation of Chinese scholars admired the work of missionary anthropologists but also criticized them. Although Rodriguez pointed out that missionary anthropologists such as Graham continued to be active in the Society until 1948, he believed that by 1937, the Society had essentially disintegrated.

The above research has shed light on the important role of the WCBRS in both missionary work and scientific knowledge production. Yet, many scholars agreed that the Society had actively participated in China’s nation-building project, especially after the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War in 1937. However, after carefully reading relevant materials and archives, we found that from 1937 to 1950, when the Society disintegrated, missionary anthropologists remained the dominant power of the Society, and their new understanding and interpretation of the relationship between science and religion ultimately pushed the WCBRS toward becoming a true scientific institution. We argue that the WCBRS has tried to be an independent scientific institution since 1937 and this change also disciplined Chinese members and other relevant Chinese scholars’ work published in the JWCBRS, which had to be scientific. Yet, to push the development of nation-building and the modernization of the border, Chinese scholars established other academic institutions and journals to supplement the Society’s shortcomings with research on stronger nationalism and applied anthropology.

Through an analysis of available materials and archives, this paper examines how the WCBRS, founded by missionary explorers as an institution combining missionary work and scientific research, gradually transformed into a purer scientific research institution disciplined by Christian rationality under the influence of various elements while standardizing the research orientation of its Chinese colleagues and relevant Chinese scholars. This paper presents a snapshot of the transformation of missionary and scientific anthropology in the global context after the 1930s while supplementing a case with distinctive Chinese characteristics based on previous research. This study is divided into three parts. The first part reviews the understanding of science among the members of the WCBRS at its inception. In a context in which Christianity dominated the entire society, the findings of the missionary anthropologists could not entirely be objective and scientific. The second part analyzes the transformation of WCBRS due to globalization and the opportunities and challenges it brings. We point out that the nature of society has not changed, and the Society is still mainly controlled by missionary anthropologists. The third section explores how missionary anthropologists eventually returned to religious rationality under the pressure of the transformation of being globalized and connected with global academia. They adopted “salvage anthropology” and tried to transform the Society into a scientific research institution aimed at objective recording, while this somewhat rigid research approach also disciplined and suppressed the nationalist research orientation of Chinese colleagues.

2. The West China Border Research Society in the Early Years: 1922–1936

On 24 March 1922, 12 missionaries “who were interested in promoting investigation in the life and customs, the religion and sociology, the ethnology and anthropology, and other problems related to the various aboriginal races that inhabit the border lands of Western China” gathered into Morse’s house to discuss the establishment of a professional research institution, the “West China Border Research Society” (Forward 1924–1925, p. I). The Society aimed to promote research on Western China’s borders by encouraging investigations, loans of equipment, meetings, lectures, papers, the publication of journals, and any other means decided upon by the members (ibid., p. 1).

In this context, in 1924, the WCBRS published the first issue of its journal, Journal of the West China Border Research Society. This journal has undergone several adjustments over time. Early issues were published as biennial publications and were divided into seven parts: natural history, agriculture, medical science, Chinese culture, non-Chinese culture, religion, and traveling (Contents 1926–1929, p. 1). In 1933, it was changed to an annual journal, and in 1941, it was divided into two sections: historical and cultural studies (section A) and natural history studies (section B) (Proceeding of the Society 1941, p. 68). This journal has published records of important societal meetings, annual lectures, and professional papers written by members. As a Society self-defined as “not national but international,” “cosmopolitan and catholic”, members hoped that the JWCBRS put this community more “on the map” in academy, scientific society, and educational circles than any other one factor (Morse 1932b, p. VI). Therefore, when the first issue of the JWCBRS was published in Chengdu, a total of 500 copies were issued, with 50 copies sent separately to various universities and academic research institutions around the world; only five Christian universities, including Baptist College, and three Christian research institutions, The Chinese Record, N.C. Branch Asiatic Society, and Yale Divinity School Library, were included (Mailing List for Journal 1924). This shows the determination of the WCBRS to be recognized by the main scientific research institutions worldwide.

As Christian academic organizations, the early members of the Society were mostly missionaries. Of the listed 16 members in the first issue of the WCBRS, only H. N. Steptoe was a British diplomat stationed in China, and J.R. Muir was a British customs officer posted in China; the other 14 were all missionaries (Organization and First Year’s Program 1922–1923, p. 1). The 1922 Constitution explicitly stipulated that the number of members should be limited to 25 and based in Sichuan (WCBRS-Constitution 1922). In 1927, because of the Anti-Christian Movement in China, many Western missionaries were frustrated and returned to their home countries. In order to deal with the so-called “evacuation” event and to maintain the function of the WCBRS, President D.S. Dye followed the precedent set by learned societies, such as the Royal Geographic Society of Washington and the Royal Asiatic Society, to expand the membership wider (Brace 1935, p. 140), as well as to attract intellectuals from China to join the Society (Morse 1932b, p. V). By 1934, membership had increased from the original 14 to over 150 (Graham 1933–1934b, p. VIII), including the Christian couple Chiang Kai-sheik and his wife, who were invited to join in 1935. In 1937, before the full-scale outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War, although membership continued to grow and the number of missionaries was reduced, most new members were still Christians.1 Furthermore, the leaders of the Society and the journal were all missionaries, and these missionaries or Christians constituted the main contributors of the early JWCBRS.

2.1. Science as a Tool

Before the 19th century, religion and science went hand-in-hand, especially with the development of natural history, and the natural sciences benefited directly from religious promotion. Until the mid-19th century, the discipline of natural history in Britain was arranged according to the principles of Christian theology (Harrison 2006). This makes it easy to understand why, in 1858, a group of missionaries in China established the Royal Asiatic Society North China Branch and regarded Christian theology as the “richest, noblest, brightest ornaments” of humanity that was superior to science. The emerging scientific disciplines of natural history, geographical surveys, archeology, and ethnology all began to study China, which, in the eyes of the institution’s founders, was also for the service of Christianizing China (Bridgman 1858). Half a century later, although the early WCBRS, regarded as modeled after the Royal Asiatic Society North China Branch (Cheng and Yi 2015), did not publicly declare that Christian theology was superior to science, the tool-like understanding of science was still firmly entrenched.

Introducing science into Christian groups’ missionary and research work, on the one hand, could prove that Western Christian countries were superior to China and thereby legitimize their missionary work. For example, in the foreword of the 1932 issue of the JWCBRS, which Leslie G. Kilborn (1933–1934, pp. 1–2) took over as editor that year, he wrote:

Modern science was largely introduced into China through the Christian missionary, and today the scientific spirit is being fostered in many a Christian institution to a very marked degree. In fact, science in China would suffer an irreparable set-back were the Christian centres for scientific work in Peiping and Shanghai, in Nanking and Tsinan, in Canton and Chengtu removed.

Kilborn’s confident statements are not fictional. During the mid-to-late Ming Dynasty, missionaries used various emerging Western sciences to open the doors to China and boost their missionary work. However, China’s elites were much more receptive to Western sciences than Christian theological ideas. The recent establishment of museums, hospitals, and various scientific institutions in China can be traced back to the transplantation efforts of missionary groups (Teng and Fairbank 1963, pp. 12–17). On the other hand, as the boundaries between science and religion became clearer, the new label of “scientist” also made missionaries more specialized in their research fields, highlighting their professional status and earning them more funding support. Therefore, the missionaries of the WCBRS were accustomed to the titles conferred by various scientific institutions. When publishing related papers, they would clearly state that they were members of a particular scientific institution, such as A.J. Brace, noting F. R. G. S. (Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society), and James H. Edgar, noting F.R.G.S. and F.R.A.I (Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute).

Between 1922 and 1936, the JWCBRS published four president’s addresses of the WCBRS. In each address, the president could not avoid the topic of science, which allowed us to gain clearer insight into early Society’s understanding of the relationship between science and religion. On 9 June 1934, S.H. Liijestrand, in office, provided a detailed explanation of the definition of “scientific mind” and how to use it to explore researches (Liijestrand 1933–1934, pp. XIVIII–XIV). On 1 June 1935, A. J. Brace (1935, p. 139) began his presidency by citing T. Swann Harding’s recent paper “Can Science Long Remain Inhuman” to argue that “as missionary scientists and researchers, I do not think we shall be accused of lacking unity and penetration, in a vital sense, into the real fundamental objects of our research”. He called on members of the Society to conduct in-depth scientific research on their study objects in their limited lives. However, as mentioned above, early members firmly believed that religion was the driving force of science, and this source of power was “God given”, stimulating scientific research to move forward continuously. Therefore, Faraday, Maxwell, and Henry were repeatedly praised by the Society’s members for their dual identities and were regarded as “men of deep religious instinct as well as profound scientific insight” (Liijestrand 1933–1934, p. XIV). In terms of what science can do to religion, the Society’s members, represented by the presidents, returned to the instrumentalist perspective of their predecessors from the Ming Dynasty onwards, in which scientific innovation and progress were for the service of spreading Christianity and the scientist’s identity was for upholding and practicing the religious principles of Christianity (Morse 1932b, p. IV). Whether it is scientific anthropological research on non-Chinese peoples in the West China region or the exploration of the entire region from scientific perspectives, “the first appeal to us is that of a knowledge of the people and country which must be occupied by missionaries in the not distant future”. As members of an institute imbued with a spirit of scientific research, the members of the WCBRS “cultivated an open mind, not only impart knowledge but render a service to China and contribute not a little to the solution of problems of future missionaries” (President’s Address 1922–1923, pp. 6–7).

2.2. The Eye of God: Early Scientific Anthropological Studies by the WCBRS

Missionaries have a natural advantage in conducting anthropological research when they travel to remote parts of the world to spread the word of God. They needed to learn the local language and understand the local customs, religions, and cultures to bridge the gap with the local people and facilitate their missionary work. Missionaries not only contributed the earliest anthropological works but also provided first-hand research materials for anthropologists sitting in their armchairs in the big cities of Britain (Rosenstiel 1959; Van der Geest 1990; Tippett and Priest 2013). In the early 20th century, Christian missionary anthropologists were very proud to claim that “social anthropologist might almost be claimed as a missionaries science” (Zhou and Wang 2012). At the Commission IV of the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910, participants advocated for evangelical enthusiasm to be reinforced by anthropological understanding, calling on each mission for the Society to use scientific, anthropological methods to study the people in their mission areas (Harries 2005). In response to this call, J.H. Oldham, who graduated from Oxford University and was a missionary in Africa, founded the International Review of Missions in 1912, publishing cutting-edge theories, methods, and ethnographies to promote the development of missionary anthropology (The Editor’s Notes 1912). It must be said that the establishment of the WCBRS and its emphasis on scientific anthropological research, on the one hand, were influenced by the conferences and background mentioned above (Rodriguez 2010; Zhou and Wang 2012); on the other hand, the West China border was a natural experimental field for anthropology. As the president of the Society, Morse (1932a, p. 633) said that the West China border was an “anthropological paradise” and “ethnological Elysium”. However, as mentioned above, the scientific research conducted by the WCBRS was aimed at spreading Christianity. For this purpose, the scientific, anthropological research claimed by the early Society was similar to that of the same period and earlier groups of missionary anthropologists, making it difficult to objectively, rationally, and scientifically approach research subjects (Swain 2011; Harrell 1995; Harries 2005).

James H. Edgar was one of the main initiators of the WCBRS and an early honorary member. After receiving a brief training at the Missionary Training Home in Australia, Edgar was sent to China by the China Inland Mission to preach the Gospel. He had lived in the Kham region for a long time and gained fame for constantly disseminating ethnographic knowledge about the Tibetan region to the outside world. Since the founding of WCBRS, Edgar has been one of the main contributors to the journal, with his contributions occupying one-third or more than half of each issue and covering a wide range of topics related to customs, religions, languages, and human geography in the Kham region. As a member of F.R.A.I., he was among the first to popularize anthropological knowledge in Western China. Before the founding of the WCBRS, he was invited to lecture on Cultural Anthropology (Edgar 1921) at the West China Union University on 14 May 1921. Edgar’s works are typical examples of missionary anthropology from this period. In his book The Marches of the Mantze published in 1908, which concerned human geography in the Kham region, Edgar (1908) wrote that the scientific goal of exploration by missionaries in the Far East was to replace Buddhism with Christianity in controlling the region.2

This idea permeated his academic career consistently. Within the framework of cultural superiority, which posits the advancement of Christianity against the decline of other religions, even when he professed to employ anthropological methods for the scientific exploration of cultural, religious, and lifestyle dimensions, the subjects of his research were ultimately depicted as vulnerable entities in need of salvation through Christian modernity (Edgar 1924–1925, p. 17). In addition, during this period, members of the WCBRS generally believed that religion was an important component of anthropological research and that a professional academic organization could not exclude religious studies from its scope (Kilborn 1933–1934, p. 1). They also believed that various civilizations in West China were “best studied comparatively and not as isolated units” (Morse 1932b, pp. I–II). Edgar was one of the early missionaries who practiced this research principle and introduced comparative studies of religions along the western China border. Therefore, when he conducted a survey in Lifan in Northwest Sichuan, he was the first one who compared the custom of the Qiang (羌) people using yaks to give sacrifice with the passage in the Gospel of John (1:29), which states that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and proposed that Lifan’s custom resembled the Jewish one (Edgar 1926–1929, p. 151).

Later, Torrance, sent to China by the British China Inland Mission for preaching, advanced Edgar’s conclusions. Using the same methodology of comparative religions, Torrance (1933–1934, p. 31) boldly proposed that the Qiang people in Northwest Sichuan were descendants of ancient Israelites. Today, Torrance’s conclusions have been consistently criticized by academics and are considered misunderstandings of the West Centrism (Cammann 1990; Wang 2008; Zhu and Li 2013), but many scholars within the WCBRS supported them at the time. However, some missionary anthropologists who had received formal anthropological training also criticized his conclusions later, which showed the diversity among missionary scholars at that time. The most obvious example is David C. Graham, a Baptist missionary and one of the founders of the WCBRS. Graham published an ethnography titled “The Customs of the Ch’iang” in JWCBRS in 1942, presenting the opposite conclusion to Torrance’s. This missionary anthropologist who traveled to Northwest Sichuan with Torrance to investigate Qiang and Gyalrong (嘉绒) people found that the Qiang were not monotheists as Torrance believed, but polytheists who were also influenced by Han religious customs. Regarding ethnic origins, Graham’s conclusions were consistent with those of Chinese scholars then, believing that Qiang was a branch of the Burma-Tibetan race but not a descendant of the ancient Israelites (Graham 1942).

After the paper was published, it caused a stir within the Society, with Graham (ca1953, p. 107) writing in his autobiography, “it shocked everybody, and angered one or two of Torrance’s staunchest friends”. It was criticized by Daniel S. Dye, a senior member and successive president of the WCBRS. However, Graham, who was known for his objective and rigorous scientific anthropological methods and was considered odd by the academic community, deviating from the mission of evangelism (Mckhann and Waxman 2011; Bian 2018), also tried to change China with Christianity in his early times in China. When using comparative religious methods to examine the relationship between Confucianism and Christian civilization, he also proposed that the Confucian ideals of gentlemen could be realized through Christianity (Kyong-Mcclain and Geng 2011). Meanwhile, in an article published in the JWCBRS on the Chuan Miao (川苗) people, Graham also tried to bridge the distance between Miao culture and Western culture, comparing Luh Sen (芦笙), the musical instrument of the Miao, to the Scottish bagpipe (Graham 1922–1923, p. 56). It is not difficult to tell whether this research method of comparing the same cultural types of different groups and obscuring heterogeneity, seeking homogeneity and similarity, can emotionally bridge the distance between different cultures and make it easier to spread one’s culture, that is, the Christian culture.3

In the early days of the WCBRS, the missionary anthropologists represented by Edgar and Torrance were key figures whose scientific approach to missionary work and method of examining subjects with Christian theological concepts profoundly impacted the anthropological research paradigm of the early WCBRS. The Society publications during this period contained much human geography and ethnographic knowledge for missionary purposes. Some scholars have pointed out that the “different educational backgrounds of missionary anthropologists play an important role in defining the views of the region”. The early religious influence was mainly because the participants had not received modern Western higher education, and most graduated from traditional Christian theological seminaries. Later, missionaries who graduated from medical schools changed the research situation (Rodriguez 2022, p. 60). As previously noted, Torrance’s principal supporter Daniel S. Dye pursued his studies at Cornell University and Daniel University in the United States, where he obtained a Master of Science degree and a PhD in Science. Morse, an advocate for science-serving missionary work, earned a medical doctorate from McGill University in Canada. Therefore, as an early Christian research group primarily composed of missionaries, regardless of their educational backgrounds, the group’s interest in using scientific research to serve as missionary work was very clear, and the distinctive feature of using Christianity to transform and save the cultures of non-Christian people through missionary anthropology was also very prominent.

3. The Globalization of the West China Border Research Society

In 1922, immediately before the establishment of the WCBRS, many discussions on the Constitution were held. From the membership system in the Constitution, we can tell that the early WCBRS was a relatively closed, localized Christian academic research group centered on Chengdu. In the Constitution’s first draft, membership was divided into two parts: members and honorary members. Initial membership was limited to a maximum of 16 people, and including honorary members was not specified (Constitution 1922). In the final draft, membership was divided into three classes: honorary, corresponding, and membership. Non-residents of Chengdu could only be elected as corresponding members. Membership was limited to 25 members in Chengdu, and honorary members were excluded. The Society’s officers were the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer, constituting an executive committee with one other member to be elected. All officers were residents of Chengdu (WCBRS-Constitution 1922). As a Christian academic research group, the early Society had strict membership limits, and for nearly a decade after its establishment, there were no Chinese members in the Society. It was not until 1927 that many missionary members left China after a large-scale anti-Christian movement erupted in China, and the WCBRS gradually transformed.

First, to dispel the Chinese people’s suspicions that “Our society is not a center for spies and militarists”, the Society’s President Morse called for extending Chinese membership (Morse 1933–1934, p. V). Eight years after the establishment of the Society, in 1930, the first Chinese member, S.C. Yang, finally joined, and six years later, he was elected as the first Chinese president (Forward 1935, p. 1). The major event in the involvement of Chinese scholars was seen by the Society as fully demonstrating its “international nature” (ibid.). Second, to increase membership fees to ensure the regular publication of the JWCBRS, in May 1931, the Society revised its Constitution, which was in effect for nearly ten years. This 25-member limit was abolished. However, the Society officers must still be Chengdu residents (WCBRS-Constitution 1931).

If the above events drove the WCBRS to gradually transform from an early relatively closed and fixed local Christian academic research group to a more open and inclusive institution, then after 1937, when the prolonged Anti-Japanese War swept across the whole of China and eventually developed into a global anti-fascist war under the influence of international and domestic political and academic environments, with the guarantee of the above institutional reform, the globalization transformation of the WCBRS was accelerated. The globalization of the Society presents two main paths: on the one hand, it absorbs a large number of Chinese scholars, and on the other hand, it enhances its ties with well-known scientific research institutions and scholars worldwide.

3.1. Fewer Missionary Anthropologists and More Chinese Scholars

Since 1936, the passing away or returning to the homeland of a group of veteran missionary anthropologists was a heavy blow to the WCBRS. New missionaries, let alone those with academic credentials, could not be recruited due to the impact of the Anti-Japanese War.4 In March 1936, James H. Edgar, who published four monographs and more than 100 articles, was the honorary president of the WCBRS and the most prolific missionary anthropologist, passed away in Tachienlu (康定).5 In November 1939, Morse, the Society’s first president, passed away in Boston. This anthropologist, anatomist, surgeon, medical historian, and educationalist was perceived as one of the most brilliant scientists in West China. In November 1941, Rev. Robert C. Cunningham passed away in Tachienlu, where he had published several articles on life and events in Tibet in the JWCBRS. His departure was seen as “the West China borderland has lost a unique spirit and this Society has lost a loyal friend”. At the same time, Miss Grace Manly died of typhus fever. She was an American Methodist missionary who published a series of articles on the folk customs of West China in the JWCBRS (Forward 1941, p. 1). There was also a list of missionary anthropologists who passed away or returned to their home countries and were no longer serving the Society on the 14th issue of the journal. In addition to the four mentioned above, there was also Joshua Vale, Adam Grainger, W.N. Ferguson, Thomas Torrance, T. Edgar Plewman, J.F. Peat, A.J. Brace, W.J. Mortimore, Parker M. Bayne, Omar L. Kilborn, and James Endicott who passed away (Proceedings of the Society 1942, p. 103). Many missionary anthropologists have contributed considerably to the JWCBR. To cope with the survival pressure caused by the shortage of members, the Society and journals had no choice but to significantly increase the number of Chinese members and author groups.6 The greater involvement and participation of Chinese scholars and elites has also gradually become a measure of the internationalization of the Society.

At that time, China lost its northeastern and northern parts. The Southwestern region, including Sichuan, became the rear area of the Anti-Japanese War. Many academic institutions and scholars have moved to Sichuan. In the Foreword of Volume X of the JWCBRS in 1938, the editors depicted a series of changes in which the West China border became the center.7 No later than 1942, the Ginling (金陵) Woman’s College, the University of Nanking (南京), and Cheeloo (齐鲁) from Shangdong Province, etc., which had established sociology, cultural anthropology, border studies, and other disciplines closely related to anthropology, had relocated from the central plains to Southwest China, and shared facilities and teaching resources with the West China Union University (Graham ca1953, p. 96). In addition, many Chinese faculty members resigned from universities in occupied areas and joined the West China Union University or National Sichuan University. Some young scholars who had recently returned from studying abroad could not take up their posts at academic institutions in the Central Plains and had to join universities in the southwest.

The arrival of many Chinese scholars with professional anthropological knowledge filled the vacancies in the WCBRS, and they gradually became core contributors to the JWCBRS. In 1937, the journal hired its first Chinese editor, Cheng Te-k’un 郑德坤, whom the Harvard–Yenching Institute had sponsored to study for a PhD in anthropology at Harvard University. He graduated recently and returned to China. His appointment was in response to the change in the journal’s policy of receiving Chinese submissions, and the first Chinese article was published by Wen Yu, a Chinese linguist teaching at the National Sichuan University (Cheng and Kilborn 1937, p. 9). This was an important attempt by JWCBRS to attract Chinese readers and authors. In 1940, Li An-Che 李安宅, a Chinese scholar who had studied anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University, joined the Society. President Leslie G. Kilborn expressed his warm welcome and looked forward to more Chinese scholars joining the Society (Kilborn 1940–1941, p. 66). Since 1937, a total of 16 young Chinese anthropologists from outside Sichuan had joined the WCBRS, including Feng Han-yi 冯汉骥, Fu Chien-min, 胡鉴民 Din Shang 丁山 from National Sichuan University, Chiang Chih-ang 蒋旨昂, Chiang Wen-kang 姜蕴刚, Hwang Y. E. 黄燕仪, Wen Yu 闻宥, Cheng Te-k’un 郑德坤, Lo Tsong-shu 罗宗恕 from the West China Union University, Hsu Yu-tang 徐益棠 from Ginling University, Liu En-lan 刘恩兰 from Ginling Women’s College, Li An-che from Yenching University, Yu Shi-yu 于式玉, Li Fang-kwei 李方桂, and Lin Yueh-hwa 林耀华 from Academia Sinica. Wen Yu, Liu En-lan, Li An-che, Feng Han-yi, and Lin Yueh-hwa have become rising star authors in the Anthropology section of the journal. By 1945, the latest issue of the JWCBRS had only two foreign authors, one of whom was a Christian anthropologist, and the rest were Chinese scholars (Contents 1945). Meanwhile, Chinese scholars also began to hold important positions within the Society, including Cheng Te-k’un, who served as the editor of the JWCBRS and secretary of the Society, and Li An-che, elected several times as vice president and president. President S.H. Fong 方叔轩 and the biology professor Lan Tien-ho 蓝天宝 from the West China Union University both served as vice president of the Society.8 Actively developing more Chinese members, attracting more Chinese people to notice the WCBRS, and participating in specific work was the key approach that the Society’s later officers took to transform this initially purely Western institution into an international one.

3.2. Building Global Networks

In contrast to the closed and local nature of the early WCBRS, the editors of the JWCBRS aimed to make it a globally influential publication since its inception, using it to disseminate societal research on the West China border. As President Morse (1933–1934, p. V) put it, “Our Journal is the one scientific medium which advertises and spreads the information we have gleaned through the world”. In 1924, when the first issue of the journal was published, the editorial office sent copies to nearly 50 top universities and research institutions in China and worldwide (Mailing List for Journal 1924). In 1928, Leslie G. Kilborn, who had obtained a doctorate in medicine, pharmacy, and religious literature from the University of Toronto in Canada, returned to China and served as secretary of the WCBRS from 1929 to 1932 and editor of the JWCBRS from 1929 to 1935 and 1937 to 1939. The arrival of the son of a missionary (his father was O. L. Kilborn, one of the founders of the West China Union University, a Canadian Presbyterian missionary), who had studied both science and religion, became an important mediator for the Society in its external communication and exchange. In 1929, the Society decided that all communications, manuscripts, etc., should be addressed to Kilborn (Society Members 1926–1929, p. 4). However, due to the limited funding and the “anti-Christian movement”, the journal was published only as a biannual and had a serious problem of delayed publication. The Society’s external communication and exchanges through journals were not ideal.9 By the time the Society revised its Constitution in 1931, its openness was strengthened, and membership and subscription income increased, not only guaranteeing the normal publication of the journal but also transforming it from a biannual to an annual publication. The number of letters sent to Kilborn worldwide had also increased rapidly.

The Sichuan University Museum contains a collection of letters written to Kilborn by others. The earliest was in 1931 and the latest was in 1948. The letters involve prestigious research institutions and famous scholars purchasing, exchanging journals, or applying to join WCBRS. For example, from 1931 to 1934, there were 13 research institutions from China and abroad, including the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the University of Michigan, the Henry Lester Institute of Medical Research, the Institute of Plant Industry of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Science, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University, the Institute of Pacific Relations Honolulu Hawaii, the Royal Anthropological Institute (London), the Royal Society of Canada, Queen’s College Oxford University, the American Geographical Society, the Himalayan Journal, Hertford College Oxford, Sun Yat-sen University, and the Royal Asiatic Society North China Branch. The Librarian of the British Museum noticed that the articles published in the Lignan Science Journal quoted relevant content from the JWCBRS and wrote a letter requesting the establishment of a long-term exchange relationship for publications (The Letter of Leslie G. Kilborn 1931–1934). In 1935, to increase the sales revenue of the magazine and expand its influence on society, the following four magazine distribution agencies were established in China and the UK: the Canadian Mission Press in Chengdu; Kelly and Walsh, 22 Nanking Road in Shanghai; and the French Bookstore, Grand Hotel de Peking in Peiping. British readers were able to obtain copies through the Sole Agent: Arthur Probsthain, 41 Great Russell Street, London, W.C.1. From 1935 to 1940, Kilborn’s correspondence revealed 16 additional academic institutions requesting exchanges or purchases from the journal, which includes the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., the U.S. National Museum, the U.S. National Herbarium, Harvard University Department of Anthropology, the Museum für Völkerkunde, Columbia University, Cornell University, the National Szechuan University, the National Resources Commission, the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R, the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology Toronto, the Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology, the National Library of Peiping, Hua Chung College Wuchang, the National Central Library Chungking, and the National Bible Society of Scotland West China Agency.

In addition to academic institutions, renowned scholars worldwide have begun to pay attention to this journal, published in the capital city of Southwestern China’s Sichuan Province, but were also eager to join this Society with a certain local research orientation. In 1939, Professor A.R. Radcliffe Brown, a world-renowned anthropologist at the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Oxford, requested that D.S. Lo write to Kilborn to obtain a journal (The Letter of Leslie G. Kilborn 1939). Staff from the American Embassy were particularly accustomed to reading the journal, with three individuals writing to Kilborn to subscribe to it, namely, Dr. J.F. Melby, Wyllis Peck, and Herold J. Wiens (The Letter of Leslie G. Kilborn 2010 etc.). Herold J. Wiens (1954), who returned to the United States in 1946, grew to be an expert on the study of the southwestern border of China. China’s March toward the Tropics, published in 1954, was one of the earliest works in the United States to study the relations between Han and southwestern borderland ethnic groups. In 1936, Stuart N. Wolfenden, a linguist who published Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology and was a member of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, read an article published in the first issue of the journal written by missionary anthropologist T. E. Plewman, titled “A Journey into the Heofan Valley,” about the record of the Chiang language. Wolfenden wrote a letter to Kilborn expressing his interest in learning more about the Chiang and Gyalrong languages and related geographical studies, hoping to collaborate with relevant scholars and join the WCBRS (The Letter of Leslie G. Kilborn 1936). Around 1937, scholars from Canada, the United States, and Europe, who were recognized worldwide as high-ranking scholars, joined the Society, including Dr. Joseph F. Rock, Dr. H. Smith of Upsala University, Prof. Erich Haenisch of the University of Berlin, Sir Joseph Flavelle of Toronto, Dr. Luclus Porter, Dean Sage, Sir Eric Teichman, and others (Graham 1937b, p. 225).

3.3. The Benefit of Globalization

The successful establishment of global networks has provided numerous benefits to the West China Border Research Society. First, continuous growth in membership fees, sales revenue, and financial support ensured the normal publication of the JWCBRS. For instance, the publication expenses for Volume VI in 1933–1934 were USD $419.6, while the postage and other miscellaneous expenses were USD 37.32. Membership fees of USD 434, combined with the previous year’s remaining USD 23.5, were sufficient to maintain the financial balance for publication (Albertson 1933–1934, p. IV). In 1940, the journal’s sales revenues were CNY 10,522.92. This was almost sufficient to cover the publication costs of the next issue, which amounted to CNY 11,170.07 (Simkin 1940, p. 238). However, hyperinflation became more severe as the Anti-Japanese War entered a stalemate. The WCBRS was forced to raise its annual membership fee to CNY 5, which was maintained for nearly 20 years in two stages. In 1941, it was raised to the CNY 10 (Proceedings of the Society 1941, p. 66), and in 1942, it was raised again to the CNY 20 (Advertisement 1942, p. 121). The increase in membership fees did not dampen enthusiasm for joining the WCBRS.

Simultaneously, financial support from various institutions alleviated the financial difficulties faced by the Society. In 1932, the Harvard–Yenching Fund funded the publication of photographic plates.10 The Harvard–Yenching Institute was generous in its support because Harvard University was included on the institute’s list of exchange partners when it was first established (Mailing List for Journal 1924). In 1931–1933, the Harvard–Yenching Fund of the West China Union University sponsored the publication of photographic plates for volumes IV and V of the JWCBRS. From 1934 to 1937, the Harvard–Yenching Fund provided direct funding for the journal, amounting to USD 300 to USD 325 annually. Later, funding was provided by the West China Union University Research Funds, which continued until 1944, when war-induced inflation increased to CNY 2000 (WCBRS Financial Statement 1944). Some institutions on the list of exchangers later became journal sponsors. Since 1944, financial gifts have been received from the British Council, the British Boxer Indemnity Fund, the Royal Asiatic Society, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal College of Learned Societies of Great Britain, the Sino-British Cultural Society, the Sino-American Cultural Society.

The JWCBRS was adjusted into an annual publication in 1933. When D. C. Graham (1937c, p. 225) addressed the president at the beginning of the Anti-Japanese War, he particularly mentioned that “At Present the West China Border Research Society is not financially embarrassed”. It was precisely during the most difficult time of the Anti-Japanese War, with a dual guarantee of funds and personnel, that the journal could be divided into historical, cultural, and natural history studies, with Sections A and B published (Proceedings of the Society 1941, p. 68). It is worth mentioning that in 1936, S.C. Yang, elected as the first Chinese president of the Society, hinted at cooperating with the Chinese government to provide relevant investigation materials that could increase the Society’s funding sources (Yang 1936, p. 187). However, from the entire funding situation in the subsequent period, the successful transformation into a global organization made it unnecessary for the WCBRS to accept funding from the Chinese government or other Christian organizations to survive. Only after the price rise in 1947 and the severe shortage of funds, when the Society hoped to publish a new journal shortly, did it consider applying for funding from the Associated Christian Colleges for China and the United Board for Christian Colleges in China, at the suggestion of Graham. On the one hand, this reflects that the development of the WCBRS was independent of the Chinese government and other Christian organizations.

On the other hand, it provides global cooperation and exchange opportunities for WCBRS. First, by exchanging publications with the JWCBRS, the Society obtains the latest publications from various top institutions worldwide. These publications covered anthropology, institutional anthropology, natural sciences, etc., such as the Michigan Academy of Science Papers, Socialistic Agriculture, Pacific Affairs, Man, the Himalayan Journal, etc. (Mailing List for Journal 1931–1933). Secondly, collaborations with scholars and research institutions came pouring in. In addition to the linguist Wolfenden, as early as 1925, the Department of Religious Education at the University of Chicago wrote to the WCBRS to collaborate on researching religious issues in Western China (WCBRS 1925). With Graham’s efforts, renowned physical anthropologists Davidson Black and Franz Weidenreich and the research institutions behind them collaborated with the Society to study the human skeletal remains discovered in the Western China border region (WCBRS 1940a, 1940b). Lauriston Ward, the head of the anthropology department at Harvard University, sent the Society “Suggest Outline for Description of Pottery” to facilitate the classification of pottery collected by the Society. The Harvard–Yenching Institute directly funded Graham to study archeology, ethnology, and anthropology at Harvard University between 1931 and 1932. Following Graham, Cheng Te-kun enjoyed this treatment. In addition to sending members of the Society to study abroad, the Society has also actively invited renowned scholars from overseas to exchange ideas in China. For example, in 1947, Professor F.D. Lessiny, a Tibetologist from the University of California, was invited to study Tibetan Buddhism in China (Bowuguan xiaoxi 1947). These academic exchange activities provided a great way for the Society members to quickly learn and absorb the latest scientific research achievements and methods in related fields.

3.4. The Challenge of Globalization

The large influx of Chinese scholars and the exchange and cooperation with various institutions and scholars from around the world have brought benefits to the Society, as well as huge challenges and pressures. Through Zhou Shurong’s statistical analysis of WCBRS membership from 1922 to 1950, it is clear that the institution’s globalization impacted the composition of its members. Between 1922 and 1931, membership was fixed at approximately 25, and the membership was mainly composed of missionary anthropologists. After the membership system opened between 1931 and 1936, well-known Chinese Christians joined the Society. Between 1937 and 1950, the number of scholars worldwide gradually exceeded the number of missionaries. By 1950, the Society had 543 members, including 232 members from around the world, 293 ordinary members residing in the West China region, 110 missionaries, and 272 scholars. The number of corresponding members worldwide was almost equal to the number of ordinary members residing in China, whereas the number of scholars exceeded that of missionaries. The number of Chinese members increased from 1 in 1930 to 24 in 1937, eventually totaling 118, accounting for 21% of the total membership.11 Meanwhile, 70-plus authoritative research institutions in over 17 countries established publication exchange relations with the WCBRS (Cheng and Yi 2015; Graham 1943).

Scholars from China and around the world have become the main members of the Society, and the attention and long-term financial support from international academic institutions have, to some extent, propelled the Society toward a more scientific organization. The WCBRS anticipated it would have to be more objective and cautious in its research conclusions when sharing research territory with these groups of researchers (Forward 1938, p. 8). As expected, Chinese anthropologists who had fled to Chengdu during the war under the influence of strong nationalist ideology once tried to reverse the missionary’s monopoly over their research of the West China border and establish a Chinese independent academic research system, including Li An-che, a member of the WCBRS, and Li Chi 李济, the director of the Archaeology Group of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Chen 2010; Graham ca1953, p. 90). Global members of the Society have also openly expressed doubts about the scientific validity of missionary anthropologists’ research findings. For example, Joseph F. Rock, an Austrian American botanist who joined the Society in 1935, publicly claimed that he had reservations about the research of other members of the Society, except for Graham (Glover et al. 2011, p. 13).

Due to these changes and other factors (see below), in 1941, the WCBRS was forced to adjust its objectives once again, explicitly stating “Scientific Studies” in its bylaws that “the society is instituted to promote scientific studies connected with the West China Border” (WCBRS 1941–1942). In this context, some Chinese scholars have pointed out that the outbreak of the war against Japanese Aggression in 1937 led to a transformation of the WCBRS from its original “foreign-led” status to a “localized” one (Zhou 2012). Rodriguez, on the other hand, argued that the Society dominated by missionaries effectively disintegrated after the outbreak of the war in 1937 and was replaced by a group of academics with complex identities. Consequently, he stopped studying the missionary anthropology of the WCBRS at this point (Rodriguez 2022, p. 74). Their views shed new light on the study of the Society. However, if we carefully examine the composition of the Society’s officers and treasurers from 1937 to 1950, when the Society was dissolved, we will find that the treasurer, who controlled financial power, never slipped out of the hands of the missionaries. No matter how, there was always a Chinese president paired with a missionary vice president.

Meanwhile, the editors of the JWCBRS always consisted of a missionary paired with a Chinese scholar, and it never changed. Another important piece of evidence is that, from the establishment of the Society in 1922 to its dissolution in 1950, foreign missionary presidents’ speeches were mostly a summary and outlook on the Society’s development. The speeches of Chinese presidents, except for the first S.C. Yang, were all lectures in their research fields, such as S.H. Fong’s “Notes on the Hwa Yang Kuo Chi” in 1940 and Li An-Che’s “Border Research in Free China, Bonism”.12 Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that after 1937, the composition of the members and officers of the WCBRS underwent a dramatic globalization transformation and a formal localization renovation. However, its core and real power holders were still a group of missionaries who had the power to make decisions. Their new understanding and interpretation of the relationship between science and religion ultimately pushed the WCBRS’s transformation toward a true and somewhat rigid scientific institution.

4. The Scientificity of the West China Border Research Society’s Missionary Anthropological Research (1937–1950)

The outbreak of the full-scale anti-Japanese War became an important watershed in the missionary anthropological research of the WCBRS. The departure of missionary anthropologists who had initially dedicated themselves to serving the mission through scientific research weakened religious fervor in the Society’s publications and journals. The global scientific trend and the rise in educated missionaries, such as Graham and Kilborn, who had received rigorous higher education, their individual experiences and multiple other factors collectively standardized the academic and scientific nature of the WCBRS.

4.1. The Fate of the Rulers

In 1911, David Crockett Graham, a Northern Baptist missionary who graduated from Whitman College in the United States with a Bachelor’s degree, set sail from the port of California to China with his wife, preaching the Gospel. This journey began Graham’s 37-year, unbreakable bond with China. This young theology bachelor actively participated in various Christian evangelism activities during his college years and was determined to spread the gospel overseas. In his memoirs, he wrote, “A strange thing is that at Whitman College, I did not get interested in science and took no scientific studies. If one had told any student friend of mine that I would ever be a scientist, he would have laughed at you” (Graham ca1953, p. 26). While preaching, Graham developed a keen interest in scientific research on natural geography and the human environment while assigned to the Western Sichuan China district. A series of events later led Graham to become a “distracted” missionary.

In 1918, Graham took his first vacation, returned to the United States, went to the University of Chicago to further his studies, and obtained a Master of Theology degree. He learned scientific methods for studying and researching religion. He also collaborated with the Smithsonian Institution in the United States to collect specimens for natural history. This collaboration enabled Graham’s passion for natural history to flourish. The Smithsonian Institution provided him with free cameras, measuring instruments, barometers, and tools for collecting and preparing the specimens. Dr. Hrdlichka of the Smithsonian Institution taught him the methods of anthropological measurements and observations (Graham ca1953, p. 79).

When we carefully read Graham’s various published articles, as mentioned above, before 1926, he was still thinking about changing China through Christianity. With the deepening cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution and obtaining a PhD degree from the University of Chicago in 1926, Graham gradually developed a “dry and tedious” writing style, in which he only made objective and rigorous descriptions in later works, rejecting any Christian value judgments and no longer comparing and analyzing the object culture within the context of Western context. The diaries submitted to the Smithsonian Institution between 1924 and 1930 are quite clear. Even their editor, Hartmut Walravens, noted, “The diaries prepared at the request of the Smithsonian make relatively dry reading as their main goal was to document the travel route and the respective activities” (Walravens 2006, p. 8). Between 1919 and 1939, over 20 years, Graham was sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and conducted 14 summer trips to the frontier regions of Sichuan and Yunnan. Some other missionaries noticed and criticized these expeditions, saying that “a missionary had no right to do anything but the particular job he was hired for” (Graham ca1953, p. 80). In 1922, Graham and other missionaries in West China founded the WCBRS, which provided an important platform for publishing his scientific research findings and enabled him to meet a group of missionaries who shared the same ideals. The president of the Society, Morse, publicly stated that other missionaries should not criticize missionaries who went on expeditions and travels, as they were also serving the mission (Morse 1933–1934, p. IV). Graham’s connection with the Society allowed him to leave his missionary work in Suifu (Yibin) and return to academia for scientific research.

In 1931, Graham’s third furlough back to the United States was a pivotal event that changed his career as a missionary anthropologist. First, he was awarded an honorary doctorate in science by Whitman College for his achievements in natural history and then studied cultural anthropology, especially scientific archeology, at the University of Chicago under the guidance of Fay-Cooper Cole. He later attended Harvard University to study archeology and cultural anthropology. This opportunity was made possible because his numerous papers published in the JWCBRS drew the attention of the Harvard–Yenching Institute. After returning to China, Graham worked at the West China Union University until his retirement in 1948. Academia has always regarded his third furlough for further study as a significant turning point in his transition from amateur anthropological research to scientific research (Kyong-Mcclain and Geng 2011, p. 216). However, academia has overlooked that a controversy occurred in European anthropology at this time, in which there was an increasing number of professional anthropologists and their skeptical attitude toward missionary anthropologists (Powdermaker 1966, p. 43). This trend may have spread to the United States; thus, even two decades later, Graham still vividly remembered his study of cultural anthropology at the University of Chicago:

This was one of the roughest and toughest classes of students I was over in. All professed no use for religion. They gloried in the vilest of language. Many criticized the classes and the teachers and said they saw no use in the courses. They would spend their nights in town, raising nod and coming back of often drunk and noisy. Because of the fact that I was a minister they at first picked on me, and I was afraid that I might have to fight a fist fight, but restrained myself to the nth degree. Gradually their attitude changed to one of friendship and respect.

(Graham ca1953, p. 83)

Graham’s words reveal that the students in the cultural anthropology class showed contempt for religion and hostility toward him as a missionary anthropologist. A thorough reading of his memoirs reveals that the respect he later received was due to his scientific and professional approach to cultural anthropology and archeological research. In addition to possessing the knowledge and methods of scientific research, for his future career in scientific research, he was recognized by several institutions as a prominent scientist, as well as the challenges faced by these young anthropologists, all of which were direct reasons for Graham’s dedication to scientific research after his return to China. In 1934, when Graham once again took the podium at the WCBRS with a scientific ideal for future research, he delivered a speech titled “Methods and Equipment for Research on the China Tibetan Borderland”. In this declaration-like manner, Graham introduced the audience to “the survey method”, “the case study method”, “the psychological method”, “the historical method”, “the questionnaire method”, “the interview method”, “the statistical method”, and “the experimental method”—altogether eight scientific methods. He specifically proposed that the objective research method is superior to the subjective one for two scientific branches of interest: religion and archeology. As explained by Graham, an objective research method is:

The attitude here described is called the objective method, and it is of primary importance in scientific research. It means to beware of starting with a theory to prove, and then mustering facts and data from all sources to prove the theory.

(Graham 1933–1934a, p. IX)

In discussing how to apply scientific and objective methods to the study of indigenous religions, Graham combined popular cultural relativism and functionalism theories from Western anthropology:

In the study of native religions, care should be taken to avoid offending the susceptibilities of the people. One should guard himself against the point of view that looks upon unfamiliar native customs as hideous or preposterous. All native religions and attempts to secure the cooperation of unseen powers or forces in order to solve real life problems or to satisfy human needs, such as the healing of disease, food, protection from enemies, descendants, and a happy and satisfying life. Every native custom, if investigated in an unbiased way will be found, in minds of the natives, to help satisfy such a human need.

In conclusion, Graham emphasized that “other religions should be studied sympathetically, and with a just appreciation of all that is beautiful, noble and good” (ibid.). This attitude toward the study of local religions contrasts markedly with that of early missionary anthropologists, who looked down on others from the perspective of God. Furthermore, Graham explicitly stated in his discussion of field inquiry methods that leading questions with obvious hints should be avoided (p. XII). These all seem to point toward the opposite of scientific research methods: Thomas Torrance’s research. The timing of Graham’s lecture was significant, as it was held just before the Annual Business Meeting of the WCBRS, with the president’s annual address, secretary’s report, treasurer’s report, and editor’s report following the lecture (Minutes of the Annual Business Meeting of the WCBRS 1933–1934, p. V). It is not hard to imagine that, besides the general audience, officers of the Society were among the main guests at the lectures. However, before the old missionary anthropologists left, one can imagine Graham’s declaration toward full-fledged scientific research could not have a strong impact on the Society, which we can tell from Torrance’s event. Fortunately, the new generation of missionary anthropologists who were gaining power showed great appreciation and support for Graham, such as Leslie G. Kilborn, who took over as editor in 1931; he never rejected any of Graham’s articles and even published four to seven papers or reports on each issue (Graham ca1953, p. 92).

Before 1937, although Graham had not yet played a leading role in the WCBRS, he demonstrated his emphasis on scientific research at the West China Union University Museum. In his 1933–1934 annual report to the Harvard–Yenching Institute, in summarizing the work of the West China Union University President Dr. Beech, Graham stated that “the West China Union University Museum should be the best museum in the world for research on the Chinese and non-Chinese peoples of west China,” and further added that the West China University Museum “should use scientific methods in archaeological excavations to help unearth and recover the unknown history of west China” (Graham 1933). At the same time, Graham believed that reports on archeological excavations conducted using scientific methods should also be published in scientific journals and subjected to scientific scrutiny by other scientific institutions (Graham 1937a). As old-school missionary anthropologists retired and new-school missionary anthropologists took the stage, Graham’s scientific ideas became increasingly important in the WCBRS.

4.2. The New Positioning of the WCBRS and the Redemption of the Salvage Anthropology

After 1937, the topic of “the relationship between science and religion” disappeared from the speeches of successive presidents, replaced by the ideal of pursuing complete science represented by David C. Graham. In the eyes of emerging missionary anthropologists, this ideal did not contradict the Christian spirit. Because “Science need oppose religion only if religion is superstition, which it need not be” (Graham ca1953, p. 76). When returning to Christian rationality, God becomes “a supreme spirit and character”, guiding and monitoring the missionary anthropologists as they pursue objective scientific research and thereby praising the glory of God (Muller 1893; Harrell 2011).

In 1938, the newly elected President Dr. R. Gordon Agnew, a Canadian dental surgeon, spoke on the 16th anniversary of the WCBRS, noting that many of its members had “worked brilliant and enthusiastically to build our society on a creative and thoroughly scientific foundation”. Like Graham, this medical practitioner proposed five steps for scientific research based on objective observations and practice. In his view, classical scholars, historians, or religious scholars who study any subject with due regard for the facts, pure motives, and a completely free mind are truly scientists (Agnew 1938, pp. 241–42). In this context, after those previously mentioned in 1941, when the WCBRS first included “scientific studies” in its revised bylaws, on 7 May 1945, the Executive Committee of the Society, composed of President William P. Fenn, Vice President Li An-che, Treasurer Brain Harlend, Editors Series A.D.C. Graham and Cheng Te-K’un, Editors Series B Liu Ch’eng Chao and D.C. Graham, Librarian Mrs D.C. Graham, Member at Large D.S. Dye, Secretary Cheng Te-K’un, drafted a new set of bylaws (Executive Committee 1945–1946). Article II of this bylaw stated, “The Object of the society shall be the promotion of scientific research on West China in general and on the Border regions in particular”. Article III stated that “Membership in the Society shall be open to anyone who is interested in the scientific study of this region”. Thus, the WCBRS has undergone a complete transformation from an academic organization to a scientific research institute in terms of its objectives and membership systems.

In the early days, when the Society explicitly served as a scientific tool for missionary work, it advocated using a comparative missionary methodology and extended it to other aspects of anthropological research. However, the subjectivity and bias resulting from this method’s widespread use have led to self-criticism among the Society’s members. In the context of globalization and the growing enthusiasm for scientific research from the president to officers and even members, how can a new theory and paradigm be developed to achieve objective, rigorous, and value-neutral scientific and anthropological research while concealing the Christian underpinnings of the institution? In the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, a research trend of “salvage anthropology” emerged in the academic circles of Europe and the United States, triggered by Darwin’s theory of evolution, from focusing on species extinction in the biological world to the self-destruction of human society. The goal of salvage anthropology is to document all aspects of indigenous culture scientifically and objectively, including language and customs, before the destruction or extermination of the indigenous population and culture. No theoretical analyses or value judgments were made. In the United States, the Smithsonian Institution and Boas and his disciples were the leading representatives of this trend (Gruber 1970). Therefore, David C. Graham, who served at the Smithsonian Institution and was a student of Boas’ student Fay-Cooper Cole, has always been regarded as a representative of introducing the method of salvage anthropology to the West China Border Research Society (Brown 2004; Kyong-Mcclain and Geng 2011; Mckhann and Swain 2011; Rodriguez 2022).

In fact, with the globalization transformation of the WCBRS, more members of the Society have accepted this research trend because of the exchange of books and the arrival of new members. The archives of the WCBRS at the Sichuan University Museum contain a list of anthropology books divided into the following categories: Physical Anthropology, Social Anthropology (including Sociology, Linguistics, Magic, and Religion), Material Culture, Archeology, Regional Studies, and Periodicals. This list of more than 100 books and journals includes many works by the Boas School (Bibliography of Anthropology in West China Border Research Society n.d.). This can explain why presidents with different professional backgrounds, from PhDs in cultural anthropology who had indeed received training in “salvage anthropology” to medical doctors, biology doctors, etc., consistently advocated for the emerging research method of “salvage anthropology” in their speeches. For example, Cheng Te-k’un and Kilborn stated that “the various aboriginal groups may be expected to benefit greatly by this exchange of their primitive cultures for the more mature culture of China, but in the process, the anthropologist is rapidly losing his opportunity”, and thus called on the members to learn from Graham and devote their efforts in field research to those ethnic groups influenced by dominant cultures (Cheng and Kilborn 1937, pp. 9–10). Canadian dental doctor R. Gordon Agnew, who arrived in China in 1923, stated the following:

There is need to act quickly in some of these fields of investigation. The inroads of new cultures, new habits, new modes of living and new standards are so rapid that in many of the fields of study which primarily concern man himself, we must realize the necessity for immediate action if we are to complete studies before changing conditions so modify available material that primitive conditions may be lost forever.

(Agnew 1938, p. 244)

Dr. C.D. Reeves, who graduated from the biology field at the University of Michigan, delivered the president’s address and summarized the Society’s purpose into three categories: to know, publish, and conserve. In addition to the direct purpose of conserving the disappearing primitive culture of aboriginal groups, publishing is intended for conservation, too. She pointed out that:

Since a journal is published, that infers the keeping of the results of investigations for future generations. I have been thinking that really, we should not only seek to know these various forms, but to aid in their conservation.

(Reeves 1941, p. 61)

However, “salvage anthropology” and the Boasian paradigm based on it, which were only recorded without theoretical analysis, were criticized by later scholars as being inferior to evolutionary theory and lacking coherence in cultural studies (Brown 2004). On the one hand, they did not give up their missionary work;13 on the other, they pursued objective value-neutral scientific research. The method of “salvage anthropology” had already become the optimal choice for the missionary anthropologists of the WCBRS. The concept of “salvage” is in tacit agreement with the Christian view of salvation to a certain extent. To some extent, the emergence of “salvage anthropology” had saved missionary anthropology, providing shelter for its strong religious color.

4.3. Obstinate Science: Disciplining Anthropology Beyond Nationalism

Since the 1920s, the influence of missionary anthropologists on the development of anthropology began to decline, replaced by a group of professional academic anthropologists who took center stage. Once formed by combining foreign missions and modern science, this discipline seems to have abandoned its religious aspect and turned completely toward science (Harries 2005). These newly emerging academic anthropologists showed great contempt and hostility toward missionary anthropologists, believing that “these people destroy the natives’ joy in life; they destroy their psychological raison d’etre” (Malinowski 1967, p. 41). Ironically, these academic anthropologists had taken the same path as missionary anthropologists within a decade, collaborating with Western governments to develop and reform colonies. They are often “called upon to provide information and advice to the West regarding their efforts to manipulate and control the non-Western world” (Lewis 1973). For example, Malinowski advocated the role of anthropologists as policy advisers for African colonial administrators (Grillo 2002). Meanwhile, the missionary anthropologists dived into “salvage” and “reconstructive” salvage anthropology and even believed that “detailed ethnographic accounts were more valuable in recording cultural practices than functionalist theories or works concentrating on their disintegration” (Harries 2005, p. 252). This world trend was also evident among missionary anthropologists in China and emerging Chinese anthropologists.

After the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War, a nationalistic anthropological research orientation quickly combined with the emerging applied anthropology in the West became a lifeline for local Chinese anthropologists seeking to save the nation and integrate the borderlands and islands. The most notable case was that of Wu Wenzao 吴文藻, the founder of the Yenching School, who actively participated in the policymaking of the government’s efforts to develop and govern the borderlands. He even wrote to Malinowski, who was thousands of miles away in Europe, to consult on European powers’ colonial policies to promote ethnic integration in China (Rodriguez 2022, pp. 111–16). With universities moving westward, driven by this trend, Chinese anthropologists who had relocated to Southwest China established research societies and corresponding journals focusing on frontier issues, forming a potential competitive relationship with the WCBRS, which advocates scientific research.

Between 1939 and 1941, two organizations were established within the West China Union University, one of which was the Institute of Chinese Culture 中国文化研究所, established by Wen Yu and Han Rulin 韩儒林 with funding from the Harvard–Yenching Institute, publishing the journal Collected Papers of the Institute of Chinese Culture, West China Union University 《华西协合大学中国文化研究所集刊》 (Zhongguo Wenhua Yanjiusuo Jinkuang 1940). Wen Yu, a representative figure of the Romantic Literature School (鸳鸯蝴蝶派) in the early Republican period, transitioned to work at the university, continued to conduct professional academic research to clarify his reputation as a vulgar and frivolous romance novelist. Therefore, unlike other Chinese anthropologists who founded periodicals, Wen Yu stipulated in the founding regulations of his periodical the scope of research and the academic nature of the journal without any nationalist sentiment (Wen 1940). The other was the West China Frontier Institute 华西边疆研究所, founded by Li An-che, a representative figure of the Yenching School燕京学派, who had just joined the WCBRS for only one year. In stark contrast to the former, strong nationalist sentiment was revealed in the “Origin of the West China Frontier Institute”, written under the name of the Institute Board, which stated that the mission of the institute was “to unite and communicate various levels of culture to promote the spirit of the Chinese nation” (Huaxi Bianjiang Yanjiusuo Dongshihui 1942).

In 1941, Chinese anthropologists Hsu Yu-tang and Wei Huilin 卫惠林, relying on the sociology department of Ginling University, which was relocated from Nanjing to West China Plain, established the Border Research Office 边疆社会研究室 and launched the Border Research Newsletter 《边疆研究通讯》 to serve the nation’s border construction (Wei 1942). It is noteworthy that Hsu Yu-tang moved the publication of the 1938 edition of Southwestern Frontier 《西南边疆》 from Kunming to Chengdu’s West China Plain, with the same goal of resisting the aggression and saving the Chinese nation. Hsu stated, “With an academic research stance, we will introduce everything about the Southwestern Frontier to the Chinese people, with the hope of contributing to the promotion of the policies on war of resistance and state-building” (Hsu 1938). In addition, Christian organizations in China began to focus on the frontier, establishing the Border Service Department of the Church of Christ in China 中华基督教全国总会边疆服务部, with the aim of “serving the frontier residents in various fields with the Christian service spirit, based on the central government’s intention of caring for border peoples; enlightening frontier residents, alleviating their sufferings, improving their lives, promoting their unity, and enhancing the nation’s strength” (Zhonghua Jidujiao Quanguo Zonghui Bianjiang Fuwubu 1943b). They recruited Li An-che, D.C. Graham, etc. and then Members of the Border Service Department investigated West Sichuan. The creed for the Border Service Department’s staff was “All brothers for the ideal goal of national unity, Border Service for the urgent need of the country and nation” (Zhonghua Jidujiao Quanguo Zonghui Bianjiang Fuwubu 1943a). In order to meet the nation’s demand for border service and “win the attention of the general public,” the organization launched the journal of Border Service 《边疆服务》 (Zhang 1943). Li An-che was the main contributor to the journal.

In this context, some scholars have pointed out that the trend of applied anthropology in the global anthropological community, mixed with the nationalist border reform in China’s anthropology, also affected the WCBRS. Members of both Chinese and Western nationalities in the Society actively supported and worked hard to promote China’s sinicization and other border policies to promote the modernization transformation of China’s southwestern border (Zhou and Wang 2012; Rodriguez 2010). Their argument is mainly based on relevant articles by Cheng Te-k’un, Leslie G. Kilborn, David C. Graham, and Lin Yueh-hwa in JWCBRS. As mentioned earlier, Cheng and Kilborn co-authored the foreword for Issue IX of the journal, which emphasized the urgency of saving anthropological records of the cultural heritage of the western China border region. Graham’s two articles, one titled “The Customs of the Ch’uan Miao” written in 1937, and another titled “The Customs of the Ch’iang” written in 1942, compared the chaos and starvation in the regions before and pointed out that with the continuous help of the Chinese government, Chinese people, and the West China Union University, the people living in the southwestern region received good school education and had friendly relationships with the Han people. Graham (1937b, p. 98; 1942, p. 98) stated, “They can make a valuable contribution morally, commercially, and it may be culturally to the future of the western highlands and China”. These three articles are more like an objective description of the modernization transformation of this region rather than a direct suggestion or participation in China’s border policy.

If any academic studies have proposed the above trends, the most notable is the XVAth issue of the JWCBRS, edited by Cheng Te-k’un and Graham in 1944. This study aimed to introduce the practical and applied aspects of anthropology. The two editors believed that “Few of any branches of science are of more practical value than anthropology”. Archeology in this discipline can be used to reconstruct human history; ethnology can understand the original human cultural types; physical anthropology can explain the material aspects of human beings; sociology and social psychology study social problems; and ethnology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology can explain the relationships between different ethnic groups, races, and nationalities. Government officials and educational, social, and religious workers have gradually recognized the practical application of the discipline. They cited Malinowski’s famous words in practical anthropology to demonstrate that using anthropological methods does not diminish the scientific nature of research. They also pointed out that the articles selected for this issue “hoped and believed that they contain much information that is both interesting and useful” (Cheng and Graham 1944, p. V).

Reading through this issue’s articles, two papers have been published in applied anthropology. One was by Lin Yueh-hua, a Wu Wenzao student and a Yenching School representative. He obtained his PhD in anthropology from Harvard University. His mentor deeply influenced him, and he had gone on fieldwork trips to southwestern ethnic regions, especially the Yi夷 area. After returning to China, he actively used anthropological knowledge to transform and civilize the border regions and people.14 Lin embarked on a three-month fieldwork trip in the Sichuan, Xikang, and Yunnan border areas in the summer of 1943. He experienced internal feuds and rescued the Han people who had been captured and enslaved by the black Yi (Lin 1944a). Deeply angered by the chaos and suffering of the Han in the Yi regions, Lin devoted himself to integrating the Yi areas into the “proper territory of the state” (Lin 1946). Based on this fieldwork, Lin published two articles in this issue. The first, “A Brief Account of Yenching Expedition to the Lolo Community” (Lin 1944d), as the title suggests, is a brief overview of the fieldwork without any commentary or critique. The second, “Social Life of the Aboriginal Groups in and Around Yunnan” (Lin 1944b), is typical of his approach to applied anthropology at this time, and he concludes that anthropology not only presents the synchronic present but also predicts the future evolution of social relationships. By examining the relationships between the Miao, Lolo, Pai-i, and the Chinese in and around Yunnan, Lin suggests that modern scientific and medical knowledge can be introduced to accelerate the assimilation of these communities and that the case of the Lolo people in the Yunnan mountains can be applied to the closed Liangshan region to promote inter-ethnic marriage and the acceptance of Chinese culture (ibid., p. 55).

In the same issue, there is also an article by Lin’s junior fellow apprentice at Yenching University, Chiang Chih-ang, who graduated from Northwest University in the United States. At that time, the academic environment was not very rigorous. Chiang Chih-ang published the same article, “Black River Communal Politics” in both Chinese and English in the next year’s JWCBRS and Frontier Affairs 《边政公论》, with only modifications in the conclusion. The paradox is that although both end with the application of anthropology, their orientation is not entirely the same. In the conclusion of the English version, the author pointed out that improving the difficult living conditions of the Black River community could only rely on external social and government forces and provide various suitable forms of help, such as transportation and communication, agriculture and livestock, education, and civil training, based on the community’s uniqueness and the relationship between ethnic groups (C.-a. Chiang 1944a, p. 33). The conclusion of the Chinese version was named “A Problem of Centripetalization”, which means “how to develop a centripetal social transformation process toward a ‘core community’ in the future, no matter how the larger administrative divisions will be”. The “core community” metaphorically refers to the nearby Han community (C.-a. Chiang 1944b). Chiang likely intended this revision. The former is closer to the “scientific” application of anthropology advocated in the Foreword of JWCBRS, while the latter is consistent with the nationalist application of anthropology at the time in China. This issue is also reflected in natural science. For example, the Chinese botanist Fang Wen-p’ei 方文培, a member of the Society, published two articles in the JWCBRS, “A New Species of Salix From Szechwan Chinese Stachyurus” (Fang 1945) and “The Rhododendrons of Mount Omei” (Fang 1946), which are specific studies of certain Chinese plants. Meanwhile, the article “Zhongguo zhiwuxue fadashi” (The History of the Development of Chiense Botany) (Fang 1932, p. 125) published in a Chinese periodical attempted to go beyond the Western botanical classification system and build a self-reliant Chinese botany in China. Such dualistic cases are commonplace and often occur among the Chinese authors of the WCBRS.

Between 1941 and 1942, Liu En-lan, who graduated from Clark University in the United States, was the head of the Geography Department at Ginling Women’s College. She conducted two field trips to Northwest Sichuan. Related field reports were published relatively early in JWCBRS. Both the “Geography of Lifan,” published in the Natural Science section of the journal in 1943, and “Tribes of Li-fan County in Northwest Szechwan,” published in the Human Geography section of Issue XVA, maintained the objective and scientific descriptions and analyses required at the time. These articles differed significantly from later articles published in domestic Chinese journals, which demonstrated the use of an anthropological methodology with a nationalist agenda. In particular, in the article titled “A Review of the Nationalities in Northwest Sichuan Border Area” 《四川西北边区民族之检讨》, Liu (1946) pointed out that “the complex ethnic groups in the Sichuan border area are, in fact, all members of the Chinese nation. If the residents of different cultural zones could approach each other and adopt each other’s strengths to form a unified culture, then the misunderstandings and wars among domestic nationalities could be greatly reduced…” This issue also reflects Li An-che’s work, who served as the president of the WCBRS. Li published two articles in the journal, one of which was “A Lamasery in Outline” (A.-c. Li 1942), and the other one was “The Sakya Sect of Lamaism” (A.-c. Li 1945), both of which were objective academic studies on Tibetan Buddhism. Li An-che is one of the leading figures in Chinese academia who used anthropological methods to explore border services and work. He reserved all related articles to publish in various Chinese periodicals (Rodriguez 2010). It is worth noting that Li An-che and Liu En-lan differed from Chiang Chih-ang and Lin Yueh-hwa as they did not agree with the idea of sinicization.15 A.-c. Li (1943) went further to argue that “of course, we cannot regard the borders as they (all colonial countries) do, but achieving theoretical equality in the field of cultural studies is an indispensable condition”. Furthermore, as one of the earliest introducers of applied anthropological studies in the JWCBRS, Cheng Te-k’un never discussed applied anthropology in his articles published in English or Chinese periodicals. His article, “Introduction to the South-Western Peoples of China” (Cheng and Ling 1945), co-authored with his student Ling Ch’ao-t’ao梁钊韬 and published in the JWCBRS, also engaged in objectively classifying southwestern ethnic minorities based on the then prevailing language-based method of ethnic affiliation.

In summary, since the outbreak of the Anti-Japanese War, the West China Border Research Society has not transformed into an institution that utilizes emerging methods in applied anthropology to provide policy consultations or services to the Chinese government. The only exception is Lin Yueh-hwa, who was an executive committee member from 1947 to 1948, just before the Society was about to end. How could he, with only his power, shake the hold of missionary anthropologists in the Society? As Gordon Agnew (1938, p. 243), the president elected in 1938, pointed out, projects with a strong application purpose have not yet yielded results as ideal as those from basic scientific research. Besides Agnew’s guidance and encouragement for objective scientific research, when Graham had real power in the WCBRS, he used his commitment to science to regulate and restrain the JWCBRS and other related activities, even the members of the Society. In 1938, Graham (1938a) proposed the following during an internal discussion on the Society:

That its lectures and the Journal will be of greater scientific and educational value, and that its continued success and value to the community will depend upon the loyal support not only of its officers, but also its entire membership.

In the same year, the inaugural issue of Southwest Frontier 《西南边疆》, edited by Hsu Yu-tang, published a review of Volume 8 of the JWCBRS, which broadly discussed Graham’s article as being factual and trustworthy, and worthy of reference. At the same time, Torrance’s was overly speculative, and Joseph F. Rock’s study of Moso language had failed to use the International Phonetic Alphabet and was accused of being “ignorant”. After reading the review with great trepidation, Graham reflected that the JWCBRS had entered a new era, “when articles and books that concern the Chinese or aborigines of West China will need to reach a high scientific standard”, otherwise they would be criticized by Chinese colleagues (Graham 1938b, p. 237).

As mentioned earlier, after adjusting its membership system as a global Christian scientific research institution, why does it need to abandon the objective scientific research atmosphere formed through constant efforts and adjustments, especially when it has not accepted funding from the Chinese government? On this international platform for scientific research, Chinese scholars’ scientific anthropological studies of the southwestern borderlands have received attention from international academia. Liu En-lan’s article, published in Volume XVA, received praise from J. Howard Jeffery (Correspondence 1945, p. 138). As the Chinese president, Li An-che was very perceptive in recognizing the objective and scientific features of the WCBRS and the journal during this time, and one of the main reasons he established the West China Frontier Institute was to make up for the lack of applied and service-oriented work—namely, the “border construction work” (Huaxi Bianjiang Yanjiusuo Dongshihui 1942). This is the endeavor that the WCBRS could not accomplish.

5. Conclusions

To sum up, from 1922 to 1950, the West China Border Research Society experienced a significant transformation from a relatively closed and fixed local Christian academic research institution into a more open, international, and purely scientific research institution disciplined by Christian rationality. To continue Rodriguez’s research on the Society, we further explored how it developed after 1937, when more Chinese members joined. In contrast to many scholars’ perspective that the WCBRS actively participated in the Chinese nation-building, we argue that the Society actually tried to be independent from the Chinese government and a more scientific institution. Therefore, it did not approach their research with strong nationalism or applied anthropology on border construction. In response, Chinese researchers established other institutions and journals to supplement such “shortcomings” of the Society. They maintained different writing styles and aims when publishing papers in JWCBRS and Chinese periodicals, with the former scientific and the latter nationalistic and applied.

Unfortunately, the Journal of the West China Border Research Society was frozen in Volume XVIB in 1946. This journal, which had lasted over 20 years, was forced to cease publication after the war because of the increasingly severe inflation and a lack of funding from outside sources. However, the Society’s missionary anthropologists never gave up on their efforts to publish the next issue. In 1947, as acting president and treasurer, Kilborn collected manuscripts for Volume 17 and requested USD 250.00 from the Harvard–Yenching Institute for publication funding support. The following year, Kilborn also solicited contributions from Graham, planning to publish his two articles: “Twenty-seven Ch’uan Miao Legends or Folkstories” and “The Customs and Religion of the Lolos”. Kilborn also discussed funding issues with Graham (The Letters of Leslie G. Kilborn 1947–1948). By 1949, the newly elected President C. Bright was working to raise funds to publish Volumes A and B before the end of 1950 (Research Committee 1949). Although the JWCBRS had already concluded its run, the WCBRS’s daily activities, including lectures, continued. If, as in experience, the articles in the journal primarily came from the previous year’s lectures, then both the lectures and the unpublished Volume 17 of the journal would continue to maintain the rigorous scientific standards that the Society had come to recognize. In 1950, with the founding of the People’s Republic of China, all foreign missionary anthropologists were withdrawn, and the West China Border Research Society was permanently closed. It was also a typical example of the dramatic reduction in missionary anthropology globally, as the victory of the nationalist revolution in colonies and the rise in academic anthropology drove out and largely replaced the pioneers of anthropology.

However, whether the West China Borderland Research Society was a religious or scientific institution depended not only on the Society’s definition but also on historical accumulation and the perspectives of observers, especially those being studied. In later years, both Chinese and foreign scholars, under the reflection and narrative logic of “Orientalism”, labeled the Western missionaries, explorers, plant hunters, and naturalists who were active in the East, including the WCBRS, as agents of imperialism (Said 1978; Fan 2004; Harrell 2011). Until 1981, the Chinese witness to this historical period, a former member of the Society, anthropologist Chiang Wen-kang, was still using the victim narrative to “condemn” Graham and Bright for selling Chinese relics to the West through the WCBRS and the West China Union University Museum (which was not true) (W.-k. Chiang 2007, pp. 11–12). This radical critical perspective goes beyond the perception of Chinese colleagues with strong nationalist sentiments in the same era. In 1941, Hsu Yu-tang, in reviewing the research on China’s borderland ethnic groups, mentioned the WCBRS and the JWCBRS, saying that the content of the journal before 1932 was “extremely simple”, and after that “the number of pages increased gradually”, until 1934 when “the number of members increased day by day, and the content of the journal became more interesting, and its status in the international community also gradually improved” (Hsu 1941). At the same time, Ma Changshou 马长寿, a Chinese anthropologist working for the Sichuan Provincial Museum, also praised the open lectures and the JWCBRS, considering it to be one of the “most diligent” societies (Ma 1947). Hsu Yu-tang’s forward-looking and futuristic observations, combined with his review of the JWCBRS in his edited Southwest Frontier, confirm that the WCBRS had transformed from serving religion with science to objective scientific research, with Chinese scholars acknowledging the Society from an objective and neutral perspective.

Since the 21st century, with the flourishing of anthropology in China, the WCBRS was not viewed as a monster of imperialism, and there was a process of rediscovery concerning this Society. In the academic history research of Chinese anthropology, Li Shaoming 李绍明, a prominent contemporary Chinese anthropologist, even proposed that besides the North School, namely Yenching School, which emerged from the sociology department of Yenching University, and the South School at the Institute of Nationalities, Academia Sinica in Nanjing, there was another school in Chinese anthropological history that could be traced back to the WCBRS, that is the West China School 华西学派. The academic community had forgotten this school for a while (S. Li 2007). When this influential figure, who had studied at the West China Union University and was considered a giant in the field of Chinese anthropology, raised his voice, the number of articles and monographs related to the WCBRS increased daily, and individual figures within the Society became the focus of research in this wave. J.H. Edgar, T. Torrance, R. Cunningham, D.C. Graham, and all the missionary anthropologists who made slightly more significant contributions are constantly explored and restudied. The two-stage development process of the WCBRS, from its religious orientation to its scientific one, was also deeply reflected in these academic history and scholarly biography works, which were being commented on. Among them, the religious orientation of the early representative figures Edgar and Torrance and the conclusions they drew, which were discriminated against by the academic community, have been discussed by Chinese and foreign scholars. Graham’s dull and dry articles, which were written in an objective and unemotional manner to pursue objective science, were widely recognized by the descendants of the studied object—Qiang scholars (Bian 2011, 2018; Geng 2004, 2018).

Under the influence of multiple factors, such as international and domestic political changes and paradigm shifts in both Chinese and Western anthropology, as a Christian research group, the West China Border Research Society was forced to return to religious rationality and advocate for objective and scientific record-keeping based on “salvage anthropology”. Until today, as traditional Christian studies have dwindled and Chinese scholars have turned to studying “sinicization of Christian”, the cultural heritage of the WCBRS after its transformation and the missionary anthropologists who have actively engaged in objective scientific research remain attracted to the attention of both Chinese and foreign scholars from related disciplines.