In China anthropology (ethnology) is widely perceived as a discipline which specializes in the study of ethnic minorities (minzu). The general dilemmas of identity politics are therefore fundamental to disciplinary practice. Many have noted the problems which arise when groups which vary greatly in size and key distinguishing features have to be squeezed into the single available category minzu. This paper will explore the particular difficulties faced by a foreign researcher working among a rather large Moslem people suspected by the state of harboring separatist aspirations; a further complication arises if the foreigner is based in Germany, since this happens to be the principal base for diaspora nationalism.
The village Uyghurs of Qumul (eastern Xinjiang) have little or no awareness of this political background, but it has inevitably influenced my fieldwork in recent years and will certainly constrain my publication strategies in years to come. Following a basic exposition of the minority policies of the socialist state and their impact in shaping or ‘constructing’ a modern Uyghur identity that is nowadays largely beyond contestation, I shall focus on a subject of considerable sensitivity and potential controversy: the correct classification of the theocratic dynasty that held power until 1931, the last ‘indigenous’ rulers of Qumul.