Thirty-five years ago, the idea of a young Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau was proposed based on a comprehensive investigation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. This hypothesis suggested that the plateau began to rise from a planation surface(relict surface) that was less than 1000 m high formed during the Miocene to Pliocene. The fast uplift, i.e., the Qingzang Movement, began since ~3.6 Ma, evidenced by massive molasse deposits around the plateau margin and the synchronous occurrence of faulted basins within the plateau. However, later studies challenged this idea and suggested earlier(8, 14 or 35 Ma) formation of the huge plateau topography. Here we reevaluate the Qingzang Movement on the basis of our previous results and in light of new studies in the recent decades. The plateau margin has been subjected to intensive incision by very large drainages and shows the landscape characteristics of an “infant” stage of the geomorphological cycle. However, these drainages were not formed until 1.7–1.9 Ma; headwater erosion has not yet reached the hinterland of the plateau, so the interior of Tibet is free of significant erosion despite its lofty elevation, and remains an “old stage” landform. If the mean erosion rate is equivalent to the sum of clastic and soluble discharges of the modern rivers draining the Tibetan Plateau, it should have been worn down to a lowland within 8.6 Ma, ignoring tectonic uplift and isostasy. The massive conglomerate around the plateau margin began to deposit at about 3.6 Ma, indicating an increased relief after that time. Furthermore, the Hipparion fauna sites were widely distributed, and elephants, giraffes, and rhinos were abundant in the Qaidam Basin until the early Pliocene. Cenozoic climate change alone is not able to account for the dense occurrence of Hipparion fauna, unless the paleo-elevation of Tibet was lowered. The rise of Tibet since the Qingzang Movement has had a great influence on the Asian interior aridification. Thirty-five years ago, the idea of ​​a young Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau was proposed based on a comprehensive investigation on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. This hypothesis suggested that the plateau began to rise from a planation surface (relict surface) that was less than than The fast uplift, ie, the Qingzang Movement, began since ~ 3.6 Ma, evidenced by massive molasse deposits around the plateau margin and the synchronous occurrence of faulted basins within the plateau. However, later studies challenged this idea and suggested earlier (8, 14 or 35 Ma) formation of the huge plateau topography. Here we reevaluate the Qingzang Movement on the basis of our previous results and in light of new studies in the recent decades.受到 这个 大小 排放 和 显示 the landscape characteristics of an “infant” stage of the geomorphological cycle. However, these drainages were not formed until 1.7 -1.9 Ma; headwater erosion has not yet reached the hinterland of the plateau, so the interior of Tibet is free of significant erosion despite its lofty elevation, and remains an “old stage” landform. If the mean erosion rate is equivalent to the sum of clastic and soluble discharges of the modern rivers draining the Tibetan Plateau, it should have been worn down to a lowland within 8.6 Ma, ignoring tectonic uplift and isostasy. The massive conglomerate around the plateau margin began to deposit at about 3.6 Ma, Further, the Hipparion fauna sites were widely distributed, and elephants, giraffes, and rhinos were abundant in the Qaidam Basin until the early Pliocene. Cenozoic climate change alone is not able to account for the dense occurrence of Hipparion fauna, unless the paleo-elevation of Tibet was lowered. The rise of Tibet since the Qingzang Movement has had a great influence on the Asian interior aridification.