Download >> Vestiges of Totemism in Newar Society - Dr. Kamal P ...

Vestiges Vestiges of of Totemism Totemism in in Newar Newar Society
Society
Since the days of Levi (1905) scholars who have studied Newar social structures have
focused on the caste system. They consider it as a unique phenomenon because the
Newars alone among the Tibeto-Burman speakers of the Himalayas are the adherents of
the var`@$ramavyavasth@. Since Hodgson several lists of Newar castes are available.
However, prior to Furer-Haimendorf (1956) few caste-lists were based on first-hand
field-work. These lists heavily draw upon the 19th -century chronicles whose precise
sources have so far remained elusive. Sthitir@jamalla (1382-1395) obviously did not
invent the caste system among the Newars, not did he impose it. If one reads the 19thcentury
chronicles carefully it becomes clear that on February 15, 1395, some six months
before his death in August, the king performed a koty@h=ti yaj~a and completed the
codification of what could be called the jajam@ni system -- a division of social,
economic and ritual occupations among his populace. Unfortunately, the chronicle
compiled during his reign does not cover the period as the last entries in the
Gop@lar@javm$@val} do not go beyond A.D. 1389. The medieval inscriptions, colophons,
and documents do not seem to have any specialized occupational surnames. Therefore,
the accounts of the modern chronicles may very well be true as they are.
The most common medieval Newar surnames are P@la, Varman, Vardhana, R@butta,
Bhalloka, or simply Bh@ro. The more specialized functional-ritual roles were M@hatha,
Mulami, Mah@p@tra, Daivaj~a, Am@tya,Vajr@c@rya, Ac@rya etc. If we go further back to
the first millennium A.D. the available historical records show that the social order was
even less differentiated--with $re#hi, S@rthav@ha, V@rta, Y@jn~ika, Vipra, K%atriya (with
Varman, P@la, J}va, Sena, Mitra, Gupta, surnames) and, of course, c@n&@la. The
interpretation of terms such as as#@d$saprakrti is problematic because it might simply
mean the 18 traditional positions in the State bureaucracy. Of course, the kings and
feudatories used a phraseology not unfamiliar to the students of Indian epigraphy where
the more ambitious of the rulers claimed to be engaged in “setting the system of castes
and orders” or “in keeping castes confined to their respective spheres of duty”. Sivadeva
II (A.D. 705), for instance, boasted of “thoroughly imposing the caste system among his
people”. But that was the style of epigraphic claims, and all this may, however, be
statements of wish rather than description of social realities in the 7th century Nepal
Valley (See Malla, 1985 for further discussion).
In the last 30 years, from Furer-Haimendorf (1956) to Quigley (1986) Newar
caste system has been studied mainly in terms of a hierarchy-versus-mobility model,
discretely definable with the help of the diacritics of endogamy and commensality.
Although all the scholars claim to have based their analysis and interpretation on first-
1

hand field-work, their interpretations of the data are not only confusing but also mutually
conflicting. “A Newer caste”, wrote Furer-Haimendorf, the doyen of South Asian
Anthropology, “is a commensal and usually endogamous group, make up of several
exogamous clans, or residential units, but we shall see presently that the principle of
endogamy is not as strictly adhered to as in Indian caste societies” (1956:18). Since this
classic statement, several social scientists have made fascinating discoveries--almost
nearly reminding us of the proverbial elephant. Early in 1960 Nepali reported
hypergamous unions “without punitive consequences” (1960=145). Rosser (1966
analyzed how rich Jy@pus end up as respectable Shresthas. In Pyangaon, Toffin found that
“between the Jy@pus and the Shresthas there are no real barriers, movement from one
caste to the other is a fluid process” (Toffin, 1977, 838). Vergati reports that in the middle
ranking castes “a woman can raise the status of her husband” i.e., anagamy (Vergati,
1982:284) and that because of Newar pre-pubertal rite ihi, divorce and remarriage are
not much of a problem for Newar women (Vergati 1982:284). Allen found Newar women
continuously “exercising their traditional rights to divorce, separation and remarriageÉ--there
is a marked structural and ideological deviation from orthodox
Hinduism, particularly in Newar evaluation of women and female sexuality (Allen,
1986:97-98). Quigley has recently discovered the ”pervasive ideology of caste purity
allied to a principle--and practice--of isogamy (i.e., territorial endogamy)”. Basing
himself upon Dhulikhel Shrestha data, Quigley concludes
The ideology of hierarchy among Newars is consistent and incontrovertible and
operates primarily through isogamous marriages. (Quigley, 1986:94)
But Dumont and Pocock are categorical in their view that territory is neither a
fundamental organizing principle in Indian society nor a sociological reality--a datum of
social structure (Dumont and Pocock, 1957). In a society where the family of the bride
and family of the bridegroom have to exchange gifts about 10 times a year, all on foot and
on human shoulders, what has been called “isogamy” may be, at least in part, a logistic
commonsense. Furer-Haimendorf noticed the strong residential character of Newar
social units (nani, b@h@, bahi, @gama, s@h, ). Kolver and Gutschow found ritual and social
hierarchy reflected in the organization of space in Newar towns (Kolver and Gutschow,
1975).
For the moment, then, “the ideology of hierarchy operating primarily through
isogamous marriages or territorial endogamy” seems to be the sociological essence of
Newar caste system. Few scholars have, however, looked into the political, economic,
and social causes underlying this psychology of introversion, exclusiveness, and the
proliferation of endogamous status groups, each staking rival claims to higher ranks in
2

Newar society. After a 7-year long economic blockade of the Kathmandu Valley, a
quarter of century long bellicosity and subversion, the Newar city-states were absorbed
into what was to be a modern nation-state. The centre of power shifted from the Newar
noble families to the power- and land-hungry rural nobility whose core values were
concentration of power at home and conquest abroad. The Newars, as a block, were
reduced to the status of an occupied subject race, and except for a loyal family or two they
were stripped of their social status and economic foothold. The last Newar noble to hold
some power, Tribhuvan Pradhan, was beheaded in a court intrigue in 1801. Till 1804 no
Newar was admitted in civil service. The Legal Code promulgated in January 1854
classified the entire Newar community--irrespective of its internal stratification--as an
“enslavable alcohol-drinking caste” (Sharma, 1977). It was only in 1836 that the Newars
were made a non-enslaveable community (Regmi Research Series, 1970:19). They were,
of course, not admitted in the army till 1951--the year when the festival of Indra Jatra
discontinued to be celebrated as “the Victory Day” ---commemorating the conquest of
the valley by the Gorkhali army. It was only as late as 1935 that some amendments were
made in the old legal code granting R@jop@dhy@yas the status of Brahmans and the Mallas
and the Shresthas of “pure extraction” the status of Chetris. Economically, the position of
the Newars has been weakened by the diversion of Tibet trade from the Chumbi Valley
route since 1904, and the competition with the M@rw@ris became all the more stiff sine
the end of the World Was I. Although Jang Bahadur and his descendants were welldisposed
to a few clientele Newar families, the 104 years of their family rule was not a
golden age of Newar social history. It was only those clientele Newar families patronized
by the Ranas who succeeded in upgrading their social and economic status by imitating
new norms of the Rana durbar. They succeeded in producing the required social
credentials to prove that the Mallas and the tharghar (families of noble extraction) alone
were “pure” Shresthas. The amended code classified the rest of the Newar community in
the following four major blocks:
a. those Shresthas who are below the pure ones, including Udae, Bare
b. Jy@pu and equivalent castes
c. M@nandhar, Nakarmi, Chip@, Gathu, Khusal, Musal, Dui, Pu^, and other
equivalent castes
d. Untouchables
i. Kasai, Kusle, Kulu, Dong,
ii. Chy@mhkhalak, Po&e--sprinkling of water necessary on touch
This is, of course, only the official picture of the Newar caste system on the eve of the
end of the Ranas. What has happened to the Newars is that they have fully come under
the grip of the caste ideology--a grip so firm that fission among endogamous groups--
3

each claiming a higher status than is ordinarily accorded it by others--became an
endemic feature of Newar society. If we accept Leach’s criterion, these competing
“grades within a single caste have the nature of social classes rather than of castes”
(Leach, 1960:11). A kind of social Darwinism reigned supreme, each grade closing in
upon itself in self defense, Except the status of the Brahmin at the top and the
untouchables at the bottom, the hierarchy, thus, has remained fluid. Today the Newars
may be said to have castes in Dumont’s sense that there is a hierarchy of the pure at the
top and the polluted at the bottom, but with a very confused situation in the middle.
Fortunately, for us there still survives the vestiges of forms of Newar social
organization which are based, not upon the ideology of hierarchy along the poles of the
pure and the polluted like castes, nor upon the principle of rivalry and privilege as the
classes, but simply on the principle of identity and difference. Surprisingly, so far no
social scientist who has studied the Newar social systems has even reported that the
Shresthas and Jyapus in Bhaktapur, Dhulikhel, Manandhars in Banepa, some Shrestha
families in Patan, and some Jyapus in Kathmandu have a system of social classification
which in Newari is called kuna^ short for kulan@ma (lineage name). Most of these
names are those of animals, plants, insects, flowers, artifacts, physical features which are
descriptive in nature. Among many primitive tribes divided into sibs (clan or gentes) the
sib name is derived from an animal, plant or natural object. The sib members display
special attitudes towards these creatures or things, which are their totems. The institution
which comprises the sibs, their totems, and attendant beliefs, costumes and rituals is
called totemism. Totemic syndrome, in brief, involves 1. clan organization 2. clans taking
animal or plant names as emblems, and 3. belief in a relationship between groups and
their totems. However, totemism can exist in different forms as social phenomenon
(formally identical but descriptively distinct sib characteristics) or as cultic phenomenon
attendant beliefs as a peculiar forms of socialised mysticism, with distinct attitudes,
rituals, and custom surrounding the totems as a mildly sacred realm of nature). Sib
characteristics, the drawing of a mildly sacred realm of nature into a social system as a
continuum and exogamy combine into totemism with “striking frequency”. However, in
recent years long debate continues between the nominalists, the functionalists
(Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown) and the structuralists (Levi-Strauss) on the
interpretation of totemic phenomena. Levi-strauss, who launched a stringent attack on
nominalist and functionalist positions, does not deny that totemism is” a logic that
classifies” and that totemic symbols are borrowed from nature by men “to create
differences amongst themselves” (1969: 108) as a basic schema of classification.
In the Newar social system, exogamous lineages are still more fundamental units
than status groups ordered in a hierarchy of the pure and the polluted. For instance,
marriages are decided at the lineage or Phuki-level, not at the caste level. The members
4

of one lineage share the same digu dya and the whole lineage must celebrate together the
annual worship of the digu dya on the same date. Some upper caste Newars have an
@gama--as well--a common lineage sanctuary within a central patrilocality where the
lineage deity is worshipped daily as well. All those who share the same shrine or digu dya
or @gama are phuki (stomach or blood brother). They are all ritually bound--observing
common ritual obligations in life-crisis rites. Such lineages are exogamous. All totemic
names are affiliated to lineage not to castes. Sometimes after about five or six generations
the phuki network is split sharing the same totem, but a different degu-p=j@-guthi.
Whereas caste lapels imply a hierarchy of ritually discrete groups-at least in theory if not
in practice--totemic names among the Newars appear to be the vestiges of a system of
classifying the exogamous lineages which are fundamentally egalitarian in nature. It was
merely a system of differentiation among the lineages of equal status. On the basis of
what little we can generalize at this stage of our enquiry, Newar totemism resembles the
early gotra-and-pravara system of the Brahmin clans in Vedic or post-Vedic India
rather than the full-fledged var`a hierarchy, so elaborately propounded in Manusm{ti and
other law texts. Its main function, among others, was to identify a lineage, to differentiate
lineages in a clan, and by doing so to regulate marriage between lineages so that there is
no incestuous relations between phuki -brothers and sisters.
Like many other traces of older Newar social and cultural forms, totemism has, of
course, been functioning under severe pressure from the caste system. The gotra system is
at times superposed upon a totemic lineage among the upper caste Newar. Thus one can
still find in Bhaktapur examples of lineages such as the following, functioning with four
social markers:
Horoscope Name Name in official documents Gotra Totem
Bh@ju M@n Bh@ro Bh@ju M@n Shrestha K@$yapa Sulpy@ (snail)
Both Bh@ro and Sulpy@ begin to be dropped out in favour of Shrestha and K@$yapa gotra
for fear of stigmatization by groups who do no longer use these totemic or older forms,
leaving in the end an umbrella terms like Shrestha or a gotra which is also shared by the
Parbatiya Chetris. The superposition of gotra is only symbolic as it does not regulate
marriage as in the case of the Brahmins--marrying Sagotra only if they belong to
different pravara. The identification of sapi`&a (agnetic) members of a linage (who at one
time shared the same digu dya but may have now established a separate entity as b@phuki)
is done among the Newars by means of these totemic names.
Totemism is pervasive among the Jy@pus and Shresthas who between them
symptomatic. As far a we know, neither the untouchables, the occupational castes (other
than M@nandhar), nor the Brahmins, nor the Gubh@ju, Bare, and Ud@s have totemic
5

names. This needs investigation and explanation. But the receding of the egalitarian
exogamous totemic names is no mystery in a social contact where, in the last century or
so, there has been such a proliferation of closed endogamous units with rival claims, now
completely under the grip of the Hindu ideology of purity-pollution.
Dumont calls Newar castes “enormous conglomerates of groups distinguished by
their profession, social status, and even religion. Clearly, these conglomerates are not
castes” (Dumont, 1964:98). Whether or not to call the various contending and rival status
subdivisions, apparently ranked by reference to an ideology of relative purity, with priests
at the top and untouchables at the bottom “caste system” or merely an imperfect attempt
to imitate the Indian classical var`a-model, is a question of terminology. The vestiges of
totemism among the Jy@pus and Shresthas leave less room for doubting that Newar social
system, until recent years ,is close to what Redfield calls “a tribal society rearranged to fit
a civilization” (1960:34). The fact that the “rearrangement” has been a continuous and
on-going process has, probably, as much to do with the on-going distribution and
redistribution of political and economic power as with Brahminical ideology of hierarchy
among various pure and polluted ritual statuses. Who eats with whom? or who marries
whom ? is a sacred question, intimately tied to the profane question: who are the rich and
powerful at any time in our social history. The recent legal upgrading of the Chathari
Shresthas from the category of m@sine matav@li j@t (enslavable alcohol-drinking caste) in
1854 to the status of pure Chetris in 1935 is only one such brilliant testimonial to the fact
that Newar castes are neither “intrinsic” nor “absolute” -- to use Leach’s celebrated
words.
Among the dominant blocks of Newar castes, the R@jop@dhy@yas, Mishras, Jh@s
and Bhattas were clearly immigrants and descendants of the so-called Pa~ca Gau&a and
Pa~ca Dr@vi&a brahmin advisers to the Malla kings of the 14th-15th century. Several
Newar Chatharis, too, are said to have immigrated to the Valley with the Mithila king
Harasimhafdeva in A.D. 1325. The Joshis of Kathmandu, for example, have kept
elaborate and detailed family-trees tracing their ancestry back to 32 generations of
professional astrologers who came from Mithila. It is interesting to note that totemic
names are prevalent among the Shresthas (Chatharis as well as lower status groups) and
the Jy@pus, and marginally among the S@yamis--but none among the R@jop@hy@yas nor
among the artisan castes, including Ud@e, Bare, Gubh@ju and the untouchables.
The comparative evidence from India (the Reddis, for instance) shows that the
caste is “a transformed tribe” and that divisions of the caste originated from totemic
clans, many of which retain their totemic names and some of their taboos. Strong traces
of totemism are found among the lower Telegu, Kannara, Marathi and Central Indian
castes. Ferreira (1965) concludes that totemic social organization was never completely
abandoned by a very large number of castes in the vast central belt of India. He shows
6

how the less totemic the caste, the higher its status. The retention of tribal totemism by
castes extends to totemic names and totemic descent, totemic taboos and exogamy,
worship of totem images at marriages, and mourning for the dead totem. In several cases,
totems have only recently been assimilated by a caste.
Among the Newars, too, the Shrestha and Jy@pus may have been conglomerates of
exogamous totemic sibs or lineages which were integrated into exogamous castes. The
importance of the phuki-network, digu-dya, digu p=j@ guthi, the compact, closed,
residential patriolocal units, an integrated corporate existence of the lineage, more liberal
relations between the sexes, frank indulgence in the pleasures of alcohol and buffalo
meat, the passion for dance and music and, above all, the role of seniority-based
leadership in lineage and corporate lives--all indicate that many of the Newars may
have been Hindused tribes, and that some may have been Hinduised tribals “anxious to
conceal their totemic names by borrowing the names of Brahminic gotras” (Lanoy
1971:188).
In the conduct of his social life, the phuki-network is a fundamental reference
point for a Newar. A Degu p=j@ guthi, consists of all the adult members of a lineage, the
most important ritually interacting network, not only celebrating an annual feast in which
every adult member must be present, but also interacting at every point of life-crisis
rituals of all its full-fledged members. All Newar guthis are, in fact, modeled on degu
p=j@ guthi--with a Thakali and dujah. It was, perhaps, upon this model of social
organization--based on lineage and exogamy--that a hierarchy-cum endogamy moel
based on the Hindu concept of purity and pollution was superposed. Otherwise, one can
hardly explain our data--where a man has a horoscope name Bh@ro and official-formal
name Sherstha, a Hindu gotra of K@$ypa Rishi, and a totemic name Sulpy@ or snail!
The Newars are, of course, heavily influenced by Indian culture. A long period of
orthodox Hinduisation has interacted with monastic and esoteric Buddhism. Today
Newar society is based on the foundations of a complex urban culture, in which several
sacerdotal and artisan groups have played a crucial role. From a very early period, the
indigenous populations of the Nepal Valley were gradually assimilated in a social
structure with immigrant Brahmins and K%atriyas at the top and unclean service castes at
the bottom. However, even two millennia of dominance of the Hindu rulers and the
cultural hold of Brahminism exerting too powerful pressures of conformity to caste
structure and purity maintenance have not done away with some of the indigenous forms
of social life. Newar totemic names can, of course, be dismissed as mere folk taxonomy
or as quirks of individual nick-names. But wisdom may lie in not doing so.
The Ku:Na of Bhaktapur Newars
1. Chathari Shrestha: : Bhau, Dho, Go*ga, B@t@, Timl@, Dhayaguli, Khw@khali,
7

2. Pancthari Shrestha : M@ka, Phai-ju, Bh@-ju, go*ga, Hye-ju, Jha*ga, Bhadr@.
3. Jyapu : Ko-ju, Dhola-ju, , By@n-ju, Dhuw@-ju, Maka-ju, Kusi, Dho-ju,
Kisi.
4. Kumh@ : Khaitu, Chu-ju, M@ka, Cho-ju, Dhampo, H@mo, Jhanga, Kha-ju,
Khi-ju, P@kha-ju, Sulu, Tw@-ju.
5. Jyapu II : Hyango-ju, Khic@-ju, Nakhusi, Ph@ju, Dhukuchu, Boha-ju,
Musy@, Ka:le, Dugu-ju, Thus@, Malka: ju.
The Ku:Na of Dhulikhel Shresthas
Khasi-ju, Bi-ju, By@n-ju, Ko-ju, M@ka-ju, Puw@-ju, Ko-ju.
The Ku:Na of Patan Shresthas
Cip@lu, Ny@chyo, Musy@.
The Ku:Na of the Jyapus of Kathmandu
Khy@, Sy@-baji, M@ka:, Dhuc@, Ghw@rp@, Bhyw@was@, Baku@a, B@ka, Phaka,
P@chai, Phai, Go, Mu: swa.
The Ku:Na of the S@yamis of Banepa
By@n-ju, Bakhu, Gidda.
References References References References
Allen, Michael R. 1973. Buddhism without Monks: The Vajrayana Religion of
theNewars of the Kathmandu Valley. South Asia 3. 1-14.
1986. The Cult of Kumari: Virgin Worship in Nepal. Second Edition. Kathmandu.
Bailey, F.G. 1961. ‘Tribe’ and ‘Caste’ in India. Contributions to Indian Sociology. No. 5:
7-19.
Dumont, Louis. 1972. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications.
London: Granada.
---1964. Marriage in India: The present State of the Question. Postscript to Part I:
Nayar and Newar. Contributions to Indian Sociology I: 77-98.
Dumont, Louis and D.F. Pocock. 1957. Village Studies. Contributions to Indian
Sociology I: 23-41.
Fiscal Privileges of Rajputs and Thakurs, 1863.Regmi Research Series. 2:1. January
1,1970. P. 19.
8

Furer-Haimendorf, Christoph von. 1956. Elements of Newar Social Structure. The
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 86: 15-38.
Editor, 1966. Caste and Kinship in Nepal, India and Ceylon. Bombay : Asia.
Editor, 1974. Contributions to the Anthropology of Nepal. London: Aris & Philips.
Ferreira, John V. 1965. Totemism in India. Bombay. Asia.
Gellner, David N. 1986. Language, Caste, Religion ad Territory: Newar Identity Ancient
and Modern. European Journal of Sociology. 27: 102-148.
Greenwold, Stephen M. 1974a. Monkhood versus Priesthood in Newar Buddhism. In
Furer-Haimendorf, 1974. 129-149.
--- 1974b. Buddhist Brahmans. European Journal of Sociology 15: 101-123.
--- 1975. Kingship and Caste. European Journal of Sociology 15: 49-75.
Hodgson, Brian H. The Hodgson papers in the India Office Library. London. The volume
Entitled “Ethnography”.
Hofer, Andras. 1979. The Caste Hierarchy and the State in Nepal : A Study of the Muluki
Ain, 1854. Universitats Verlag: Innsbrack.
Ishii, Hiroshi. 1981. Newar Culture and Society: An Introduction. Dance and Music in
South Asian Drama. A Report of Asian Traditional Performing Arts. Tokyo: The
Japan Foundation. 157-166.
Kolver, Bernhard and Niels Gutschow. 1975. Bhatapur: Ordered Space: Concepts and
Function in a Town in Nepal. Wiesbden: F. Steiner Verlag.
Lannoy, Richard. 1971. The Speaking Tree: A Study of Indian Culture and Society.
London : Oxford University Press.
Leach, E.R., Editor. 1960. Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West
Pakistan. Cambridge.
Levi-Stauss, Claude. 1963. Totemism. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
Levi, Sylvain. 1905-8. Le Nepal. Etude Historique d’ un royaume Hindou. Paris : Ernestt
Leroux. Vols. 1-3.
Lienhard, Siegfred. 1978. Problems du Syncretisme Religieux au Nepal. BEFEO/XV/
239-270.
Locke, John K. 1986. The Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal: A Survey of the Basah and
Bashis of hte Kathmandu Valley. Kathmandu: Sahayogi pradashan.
Malla, Kamal P. 1981. Linguistic Archaeology of the Nepal Valley : A Preliminary
Report. Kailash 7: 1-2: 5-23.
1985. Epigraphy and Society in Ancient Nepal : A Critique of Regmi, 1983.
Contributions to Nepalese Studies. 13:1: 57-94.
Nepali, G.S. 1960. The Newars of Nepal. Journal of the University of Bombay 29: 144-
148.
9

- 1965 The Newars: An Ethno-Sociological Study of a Himalayan Community.
Bombay: United Asia.
Quigley, Declan, 1986. Introversion and Isogamy : Marriage patterns of the Newars of
Nepal. Contributions to Indian Sociology 21:1: 75-95.
Radcliff-Brown, A.R. 1952. Structure and Function in Primitie Society. London:
Routledge and Degan Paul.
Redfield, Robert. 1960. Peassant Society and Culture. Chicago: The University Press.
Rosser, Colin. 1966. Social Mobility in the Newar Caste System. In Furer-Haimendorf,
1966 : 68-139.
Sharma, Prayag Raj. 1977. Caste, Social Mobility and Samskritization. a Study of
Nepal’s Old Legal Code. Kailash 5: 4: 277-299.
Slusser, Mary Shepherd. 1982. Nepal Mandala: a Cultural Study of the Kathmandu
Valley. Princeton : Princeton University Press, Vol I: Text vol II. Plates.
Toffin, Gerard. 1977. Pyangaon: Une Communaute Newar de la Vallee de Kathmandu: a
vie materielle. Paris : CNRS.
1984. Societe et Religion Chez les Newar du Neoal. Paris: CNRS.
Vajracharya, Dhanavajra and Kamal P. Malla, Editors. 1985. The Gop@lar@javam$@val}:
A Facsimle Edition. Wiesbaden: franz Steiner Verlag.
Van Kooi J, K.R. 1978. Religion in Nepal. Ledien : E.J. Brill
Vergati, A. 1982. Social Consequences of Marrying Visnu Narayana : Primary
Marriage Among the Newars of the Kathmandu Valley. Contributions to Indian
Sociology 16:2 : 210-287.
Vergati-Stahl, A 1979. Une divinite Linagere des Newar: Digu Dyo. BEFEO LXVI.
115-128.
Wright, Daniel, Editor. 1877. History of Nepal. Translated from Pabatiya by Munshi
Shew Sankar Singh and Pundit Gunananda. Cambridge: the University Press.
10