>I don't see any refutation of the analysis of the social structure,
>however - a feudal society in which an impoverished mass supported a
>parasitical caste of priests. Should I conclude that Grunfeld
>basically got this right?
It would be extraordinary if it was otherwise. Aside from minor details, society had to have been organised along fairly standard feudal lines. What alternative was there, given the material circumstances? Though referring to the ruling class in a feudal society as "parasitical" is only our perspective. Any ruling class must serve *some* useful function for it to continue over a long period. Nevertheless, certainly parasitical in many senses.
Unique variations would have been adaptations to the peculiar material conditions of Tibet. One instance I'm vaguely aware of is that Tibet was plagued by the ravages of cretinism, due to a deficiency of iodine in the soil.
That sticks in my mind simply because Tasmmanian soils suffer a like deficiency. I recall as a schoolkid being issued with regular "goiter tablets", part of a public health effort which included forcing vendors to fortify salt with iodine.
No doubt some would protest that this public health effort was some kind of cultural imperialism, depriving native Tasmanians of their simple charm. Of course some of our the notoriety, such as for in-breeding, hasn't gone away entirely, even now. Tasmania still holds great promise as a home of research into human genetic illness. But the reputation for being simple-minded, if not entirely gone, is at least fading.
Another unique culture destroyed! But who cares? The incestuous cretins of Tibet get all the world attention, no-one even seems to have noticed the extermination of our similarly primitive culture. If only we'd had the forsight to have our leaders dress up in a really bright costume.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas