Introduction

A distinguishing feature of Nepali heritage and the practice of culture is the community’s affective connection to and inter-dependence with their Gods. Beyond the several year-round religious festivals, sacred temples, and the thriving culture, which have made Nepal a unique destination for tourists, this affective connection is perhaps most exemplary in the field of heritage repatriation. I am, in this paper, interested in finding connections between the successes of the Nepali heritage repatriation efforts, including the role that museums and activist groups play in it, and the Nepali experience of this heritage, the emotional connections with culture and especially stolen artefacts.

Recent developments in the Nepali government and museums’ outlook towards heritage repatriation are marked with a concerted effort in ‘emptying’ the museum collections and returning the Gods back to the very communities and shrines that they were originally taken from. This shift in approach, instigated with the return of the Laxmi Narayan idol into its original shrine in the city of Patan, has been argued to be a counter example to Western art conservation practices (Selter 2022). Museums in non-colonial powers often push for the repatriation of stolen heritage, but Nepali museums are going further by facilitating the restitution of the already repatriated heritage back into the source-communities. Here, I make a distinction between “repatriation” and “restitution”, wherein the former is seen as the bringing back of looted cultural property to the source-nation, whereas the latter goes a step further: returning them to the source-communities, often the same shrines, from where they were initially taken. While the dominant theories on the display and conservation of cultural artefacts rely on the museum sphere, the Nepali policy plans to no longer display repatriated Gods in museums but to reinstate them into the pedestals that they were stolen from, provokes as many questions as it does praises. Why are these fragile statues and sculptures put back into public spaces from where they can again be subject to theft and destruction? Why are museums not taking the responsibility to preserve, study and display these repatriated idols for the benefit of all people? What are people to gain from this?

These questions can be approached from manifold perspectives. This thesis analyses museums as the primary locus of knowledge, wherein decisions about cultural artefacts are made in conjunction with the pertinent laws and regulations. A comparison of the modus operandi and purported values of ‘Western museums’, or museums in former colonial metropoles, illuminates how exactly the Nepali museums represent a shift in museological approaches. I then focus on the Nepali practice of culture, including the ancestral faith and emotions attached to culture, using a case study of the Guthi system, or small-scale community organisations, in Kathmandu Valley. My use of the concept “practice of culture” includes not just everyday banal religiosity, but also the monthly and annual ceremonies and rituals that have been observed for centuries, systems of faith and cosmology, as well as other secular traditions that inculcate a deep emotional connection between the people and their heritage.

I rely on an oral history from my grandfather, Shridhar Lal Manandhar, a prominent photographer as well as the head of the Sincha Guthi, one of many in the Kathmandu Valley, to which I too belong[1]. Referred to henceforth, as Shridhar, he was an invaluable source of knowledge for me growing up and it is to him, and to my family, that I credit my curiosity and fascination with Nepali culture. I follow the oral traditions with which Nepali myths, legends and lores are passed down from generation to generation. Focusing on the ancestral idols that the Sincha Guthi members have worshipped for generations, I pursue an object-oriented ethnography to highlight the deep-rooted connection that people have to their Gods and Goddesses. Through interviews with a prominent cultural heritage documentarian and activist, Alok Siddhi Tuladhar, I outline the role of these Guthi in heritage conservation and observance today as well as the salience of common conceptions of the ‘living’ heritage of Nepal. There is an important affective dimension to Nepali restitution efforts embedded within the beliefs, traditions, gossip, and lore that surrounds the Nepali practice of culture, which is where we find its successes. I conclude with a critique of Western ideas that have permeated the deep-rooted understandings of conservation, instead promoting the practices of living culture, within and beyond the Guthi system, through which Nepali people have preserved the centuries’ old heritage that they have inherited.

 

1. Historical and Analytical Background

In gauging particularly on the geographical focus of my study, the Kathmandu Valley is an example of a bustling part of Nepal where the “practice of culture” is constantly visible and alive. While there have been many dynasties and rulers since then, contemporary Kathmandu Valley is most famous for the traditional architecture, cultural sites, and cosmologies from the native Newari ethnicity. These cultural riches that have come to give a unique identity to Nepal for tourists travelling into Kathmandu includes not just the grand Durbar Squares or Palace grounds, but also intricate detailing on the typical wooden carved windows in every house, carvings of religious motifs on every stone waterspout, as well as the meticulous jewellery adorned by each idol, whether in a grand temple or a street corner (Schick 1997).

One of the major channels through which Nepali art and traditions flourished was through the Guthi system. As the dominant system of civic, social, cultural and religious institutions, these Guthi were community collectives made up of different families who commissioned, managed and preserved the idols, temples and heritage that make up Kathmandu today (Subedi and Shrestha 2024). Each Guthi generally have their own ancestral idol, commonly referred to as Kul Devata which could be of any scale: an important idol worshipped by the entire country, the Living Goddess Kumari, or of a much smaller scale, housed in a sacred trunk and taken out only once a year. Through the rites and practices built into each Guthi’s traditions, they have become especially responsible for the maintenance and preservation of their inherited idols, and their roles are visible within several religious festivals that take place in the valley as part of their annual Guthi responsibilities. As even today, Guthi assume custodianship of various artefacts, an analysis of the experience of growing up within this system, helps analyse the emotional relationship people have towards their heritage through which the restitution of repatriated artefacts takes precedence.

When investigating the repatriation of contested collections, it is also important to analyse the museum sphere as the prime institution in which such artefacts are housed, held in transit, or displayed. However, this strong emphasis on the value of museums is an argument that many scholars heavily rely upon, leaving room for its critical analysis. For example, in the influential paper entitled The Public Interest in Cultural Property, John Henry Merryman proposes a cosmopolitan approach to cultural property, warning against the “cultural nationalism” that comes about when emphasizing the provenance of cultural artifacts (Merryman 1989, 361-362). Cultural property, defined as artistic, religious, and scientific objects made by humankind, holds an intrinsic value, which warrants its designation as a “public interest” (Merryman 1989, 353). Merryman argues that the outlined “sources” of public interest pave way for the exploitation of such cultural property, ultimately proposing three core values of “preservation”, “truth” or authenticity and “access” when debating the fate of cultural property (Merryman 1989, 355). He argues that these core values should be central in any policy decisions, especially those about the repatriation of cultural property. Museums, particularly, play a significant role as integral spaces for the adequate preservation, accurate authentication, and widespread access to the cultural property. Little is mentioned though, as is common with other scholars who agree with him, about the interests of specific groups of people for whom the cultural property under deliberation holds a much deeper meaning.

This is where we can trace a markedly Western approach and understanding to cultural objects, encompassing the practices of curating, conserving, interpreting and studying artifacts from nations the world over. Erin Thompson, engaging directly with Merryman’s influential paper, rejects his three core values, asking which public does he represent, what interests and values is he biased towards? (Thompson 2017, 305) Using examples from different source countries, she shows how these values only prioritise the current holders of the artefacts, along with educated archaeologists, anthropologists, curators, and politicians involved. These notions of repatriation, and of the extent to which some requests can go, have also permeated the sphere of the museum who, through the history of colonization, loot and conquest, have come to possess such artefacts. The stakeholders from the source country are far removed from decisions about the preservation of the artefact, the process of discerning the authenticity and of deliberating repatriation claims (Thompson 2017, 308). This way, I position my research within the perspective of the source communities, showing how the three conditions, and beyond, are met within the confines of the system.

 

2. The Nepali Practice of Culture

The Living Nature of Nepali Heritage

 

Nepali culture has been frequently understood to have a ‘living’ component to it. The visible heritage that seems to be omnipresent and in continuous interaction—with devotees and tourists alike—is what allows for the delicate balance between Kathmandu as a place for living culture, and the city’s perception as an open-air museum, borne by the western touristic gaze. Alok Tuladhar outlines that the presence of shrines and monuments within the city—on street corners, rooftops, on the way to school and back—shows not only the intertwined nature of the culture in Kathmandu, but also how woven this culture is within the daily lives of the people (Tuladhar 2024). Even today, people stop over at numerous temples and shrines on their way to work, sometimes carrying offerings, ringing the temple bells, and putting on the tika, or holy vermillion powder, on their foreheads as blessings. This nature, making it hard to separate one’s personal, social, and religious life, adds to the living nature of Nepali culture: the interactions between people and their heritage are so seamlessly blended, making it an irreplaceable feature of each other. Shridhar remarks that this interaction is not necessarily even religious, giving examples of the daily mundane interactions that take place in steps of grand temples and Durbar Squares. Through his anthropological interests in photography, he’s taken several pictures of these vegetable markets (Fig 2) and of the people sitting right below steps of grand temples in the Durbar Square (Fig 3 and 4), a site we can still see today.

 

 

While travellers and scholars acknowledge the visible traces of this ‘living’ heritage, it is perhaps a step further into uncovering what it is that makes Nepali heritage ‘alive’. Elke Selter outlines the dual meaning of “living heritage”: that the idols themselves are considered living beings and that it is still in practice today, linking the past, present and then future (Selter 2022, 117). The former meaning, that the idols are alive, is one that best encapsulates the essence of the Nepali case, however the latter motivates the affective dimension between the people and their heritage, driving the national desires for the restitution of repatriated idols. Selter notes the tactile interactions between the people and their idols, seen across Nepal within daily, monthly and special worshipping practices. These interactions are marked by the belief that the God that is represented in an idol or statue is living within it; further visible in the range of daily, monthly and annual processions where idols are bathed, ornamented, and in some cases, paraded around the city in palanquins and chariots.

These worshipping practices highlight the reverence of the idol beyond its archaeological or artistic value, but into the value of its essence and its soul. Alok mentions, when asked about this ‘living’ nature, the religious consecration practices through which an idol, initially considered a piece of art, is transformed into a living holy representation of a God (Tuladhar 2024). The meticulous process through which an idol becomes God, starts with the commissioning and carving of the idol, which itself involves sacred prayers and rites ensuring its purity and holiness. Then, together with the persons who commissioned it, the artist and priests, a religious Praan Pratisthapan ceremony is conducted, understood as, “the process of giving life to that image with divine powers, by sending God into the image, only then it is worthy of worship” (Tuladhar 2024). The Sanskrit word Praan translates to life force and Pratisthapan means to establish or install (Roche 2024). In Kathmandu Valley, this consecration ceremony is done for both Hindu and Buddhist Gods in accordance with their individual faiths, rites and done by their own priests. This was also seen as a “cause for celebration”, mentions Tuladhar, as it often involves yagya or fire sacrifice, animal sacrifice, and elaborate feasts celebrating the establishment of the new idol, shrine or temple. Oftentimes this auspicious day, which is sometimes documented as an inscription on the idol, is celebrated for generations after, through the framework of the Guthi system.

The Guthi System

The Guthi system is a key aspect, when analysing the practice of culture, through which the affective connection is inculcated within the Nepalese people. These Guthi groups are formed of families from the same caste or clan whose lineage date back to the same ancestors: directly connecting the past to the present. Visible in the family tree created by my grandfather with the help of other Guthi elders of the time and other recorded documents and photos (Fig 5), the direct lineage between people in the Guthi and their forefathers is an essential component in its formation. In the case of the Sincha Guthi, this lineage is so central that the name itself is derived from one of my ancestors, Singhbir Manandhar—taking the Nepali diminutive suffix ‘cha’ into Sin-Cha highlighted in green in figure 5 (Manandhar 2024).

History is also ever-present in the religious ceremonies of the Guthi: central to which is the ancestral God, the Kul Devata, which dates back to many generations. The numerous annual festivities of the Guthi system, which my grandfather calls “our excuses to get drunk”[2], involves practices that directly and indirectly celebrate their history. Ancestral idols, through the rites and ceremonies within the Guthi system, would’ve been both worshipped and preserved for the future generations. In many cases, the dates at which these idols were consecrated in the ‘Praan Pratisthapan’ ceremony, along with the name of the persons who commissioned them, are inscribed in the idol itself. Alok underscores the Busaa Dan (in English: Day of Birth) ritual, celebrating the anniversary of the consecration of the Guthi idol (inscribed also on the idol). Beyond the feasts that are often involved, this is also the day when one’s ancestors are remembered, religious offerings are made to Guthi idols, and annual cleaning up and maintenance is done. In figure 6, the Busaa Dan ceremony in the Sincha Guthi is pictured in front of an ancestral Buddhist shrine in our ancestral neighbourhood of Wotu, with the then head of the Guthi, other members and the Newari high priest wearing his ceremonial crown.

 

Another important Guthi tradition that Alok highlights is the Tisa Bichaha ceremony, which translates from Nepal Bhasa[3] to ‘Ornamental Inspection’ ceremony. This is an important tradition which is primarily surrounded around the ‘inspection’ of jewellery or other precious ornaments, donated to temples by Guthi ancestors. Giving an example of the Janabahal temple, Alok talks about this ingenious tradition whereby the large volume of donations made by the public are logged in inventories and safeguarded. The descendants of the donors, during this ceremony, go to the temple and demand that the jewellery be shown to them. This “fool-proof” ritual ensures that individual ornaments are tallied and documented, and avoids mishandling, in that “the priest cannot do any ‘hanky-panky’ anymore” (Tuladhar 2024). Shridhar also recalls this ritual within the Sincha Guthi when during his youth, members would go to the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, have a big feast there and stay the night. This tradition in the Sincha Guthi spans almost 12 generations after my oldest recorded ancestor Mohan Singh donated an ‘Ek-Mukhi Rudrakshya’—a gilded necklace made out of seeds from the Rudrakshya tree—to the temple in the year 1402AD (highlighted in red in Figure 5). I too follow in this tradition by going to the temple annually during the summer. While the jewellery isn’t physically shown anymore, an annual monetary donation is submitted for the jewellery’s upkeep and maintenance. Built within the premise of Guthi traditions, this ceremony helps ensure continuity as well as, by its design, the remembrance and maintenance of these artefacts for the generations to come.

The documentary practice of dating each artefact is carried out even today, especially in the addition of new jewellery, ornaments and other articles. The below figure shows the addition of a silver Torana to the Kul Devata palanquin in the Sincha Guthi, inscribed with the name of Ganesh Bhakta Manandhar and his children, who commissioned the Torana in Bikram Sambat 2068.01.30, in C.E: 13th May 2011 [4] (Fig 7). These donation practices—done either to celebrate special events, job promotions, or even just to “beautify the gods” as done by my grandmother—can be of any scale. The documentation practices of the donation, upgrading, replenishing and repairing of the jewellery and the idols themselves are equally an important part of Guthi traditions. It is this system of ensuring continuity, by preserving and adding to the repertoire of tangible heritage through constant intangible practices of culture, that the ‘Nepali equation’ is completed, as Alok says, the Guthi system is just one example of the ‘mechanisms’ that was put in place for its smooth facilitation into the future (Tuladhar 2024).

 

 

 

Museums in Kathmandu Valley

Given this intricate relationship between the people and the artefacts which make up the culture, the values and function of conventional forms of museums seem to misalign. When asked about this role in a society that’s ordered in non-conventional value systems, Alok argues that, “the concept of museums cannot be drawn parallel with what we have in Nepal. If you look at the western concept of museums, I think it is the antithesis of culture” (Tuladhar 2024). The value of the artifacts, idols and temples, in a city likened to an open-air museum, is completely nullified when put up as museum pieces—inside of humidity and temperature-controlled glass boxes. In unveiling the common conception of museums as a public good, Alirio Karina writes: “there is a fantasy that the museum – particularly one holding hostage pieces of other worlds, parts of others’ bodies – might be a context from which to teach empathy and understanding” (Karina 2022, 654). In the case of Nepali museums, where cultural artefacts are removed from the cultural context in which it was created and worshiped, what is purportedly being taught and imparted within this infrastructure, is a rather unfinished picture, stripped of what it is that makes it valuable.

This incompatibility of the conventional museum practices and the display of Nepali living cultural artefacts invites a new consideration of museology through which the Nepali collective memory can be evoked and exhibited. Central to this, I argue, should be the practice of culture which make up the scaffolding of these artefacts. Museums, both in Nepal and abroad, are guilty of sidelining and deemphasizing these traditions and practices, which ultimately lead to a decline in its observance. A new museology that encompasses the values of the historic objects it displays, in attempts to educate and invoke emotions of collective memory, must do so within the context of both its cultural and artistic genesis. A strong example of this envisioning is the display of the Ṣaḍakṣarī Lokeśvara in the Museum of Nepali Art (MoNA), in Kathmandu (Karki 2021). This Paubha, a typical Nepali meditative painting—of the Buddhist God of compassion credited for the Buddhist matra Om Mane Padme Hom—is unique from his very commission. Painted not just for its artistic or aesthetic beauty, the painter Ujay Bajracharya followed precisely the rules and regulations associated with this art, including: the Hasta Puja ceremony where a priest blesses the hands and painting materials, daily purification rituals, meditation, and observing a fast until each day’s painting is completed (Tuladhar 2024). Displayed at the MoNA in a special room, this is a unique example of museum practices as the Paubha has been considered a holy object of worship upon its Praan Pratisthapan consecration rituals. In my interview with him, Alok commended the display of this art work and the traditions associated with it, not just because of its educational value, but also because of its potential to cultivate the artists and artistic traditions of Nepal.

 

3. Conclusion

In my attempt to uncover the affective connections between the Nepali people and their culture and heritage, the theme of restitution stands as only one of many examples of this dimension. The outlined rituals, traditions, and festivities, whether grand or banal, are examples of perspectives that are ignored and underappreciated in common imageries of cultural practices. These are overtaken by western concepts, for example of the open-air museum, which at first glance, seem to bridge the gap between Nepal and the West. However, through my analysis of the practice of culture which constantly gives meaning to Nepali heritage, I argue that Western concepts such as these obscure the meaning that cultural heritage has for the local people. The heritage within the valley is seen less as living pieces of a puzzle that makes up the culture and more like artefacts that are in dire need of extraction from the risky public places, corrupted by overpopulation, pollution, stray animals, and theft.

I show that the Nepali practice of culture not only gives meaning to its material heritage, it is also the framework through which the material heritage is preserved, protected and replenished. Merryman’s three core values, with which he promotes contemporary museums and its modus operandi, are already fulfilled within Nepali cultural traditions and practices. The annual guthi responsibilities—for example, the Busaa Dan ritual to celebrate the day of consecration of inherited idols— “preserve” cultural property. The Tisa Bichaha ceremony ensures both preservation and “truth” as it is predicated upon the provenance and authentication of cultural property that was commissioned centuries before by their ancestors. These are both strong examples of how the Nepali practice of culture, through scientific documentary traditions and ritual traditions invoking remembrance, ensures that the inherited cultural heritage will be preserved and protected. Merryman’s third core value of ‘access’ is also maintained within Nepali cultural practices, as temples and shrines are often open for the public for worshipping. Gods and Goddesses under Guthi custodianship are also taken out on an annual basis where they can be worshipped by the public. While there are indeed secretive idols that are not open for anyone to see[5], the worshipping of the temples in which they are housed is permitted annually. While these main ideals hailed by contemporary museums are already implemented within the Nepali traditions and spaces, the cultural objects themselves are—most importantly—unencumbered by glass barriers or entrance fees, allowing for the daily interactions between the people and their heritage.

 

While I leave my conclusion with a focus on the practice of culture that, as I show, preserves its tangible heritage, it is equally important to acknowledge that this practice also encompasses the larger cosmologies that surrounds the Kathmandu Valley. Although the focus is on the protection of material heritage through intangible practices, this cosmology enshrines the value of impermanence: neither we nor our material possessions are permanent. In my interview, Alok mentioned how even the modern chemical vermillion powder used for worship corrodes the stone and metal idols; the goal, therefore, is not just to preserve one particular object for eternity, but to preserve the living traditions and way of life. Just as the Praan Pratisthapan practice is used to consecrate an object to be worshipped, the reconsecration ceremony is also common when an idol is replaced due to worldly decay, theft or damages. This becomes a cycle through which the intangible heritage ensures that material culture is preserved and protected and when the time comes, replenished and replaced. My research, although focused on the conservation of the material culture through the “practice of culture”, ultimately hopes to add to and enlarge the little that is written about the wider cosmology and beliefs of the Nepali society.

 

————————————————————————————————-

[1] The head of the Guthi is known as the Thakuli, in the Newari language or Nepal Bhasa. This position is taken by the eldest member of the families within the Guthi, and upon their passing, it is passed down to the next eldest member.

[2] It is common to drink sacred rice wine, aaila, offered to the deities during Nepali festivals. Shridhar mentioned how these would be the only occasions in which drinking was socially permitted.

[3] The Newari Language is commonly referred to as Nepal Bhasa.

[4] The Bikram Sambat is one of the calendars followed in Nepal, in addition to the Newari Calendar. Conversions done: https://www.hamropatro.com/date-converter

[5] The most famous example being the Taleju Bhawani, a “Gopya deuta” or secretive goddess, seen only by the priests from the Guthi. The Goddesses’ bejewelled necklace, stolen, found its way to the Art Institute of Chicago in 2010.

 

Reference List

Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 2013 (1956). July 27, 2013. https://nepaltradeportal.gov.np/resources/docs/ancient-monument-preservation-act-2013-1956.pdf   [accessed: 15 May 2024].

Cuno, James. 2014. “Culture War: The Case Against Repatriating Museum Artifacts.” Foreign Affairs 93 (6): 119–29.

Ghimire, Anish. n.d. “A Potent Voice in Culture Preservation and Restoration.” Accessed May 24, 2024. https://kathmandupost.com/art-culture/2024/01/01/a-potent-voice-in-culture-preservation-and-restoration.

Gurubacharya, Binaj. T04:08:28. “‘Our Gods Were Locked in the Basement.’ Now Nepal Is Pursuing Sacred Items Once Smuggled Abroad.” AP News. T04:08:28. https://apnews.com/article/nepal-art-repatriation-religion-hindu-buddhist-265bf753acce894f90b6dd87c50c3745.

Hickley, Catherine. 2023. “How 4 Countries Are Preparing to Bring Stolen Treasures Home.” The New York Times, August 9, 2023, sec. Arts. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/09/arts/design/restitution-nepal-indonesia-democratic-republic-of-congo-cameroon.html.

Karina, Alírio. 2022. “Against and beyond the Museum.” Third Text 36 (6): 651–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528822.2022.2145049.

Karki, Shristi. 2021. “Nepali Art Finds a New Home.” January 16, 2021. https://nepalitimes.com/multimedia/nepali-art-finds-a-new-home.

Manandhar, Shridhar. 2024. Interview by Subham Manandhar. Vienna. May 16, 2024.

Merryman, John Henry. 1989. “The Public Interest in Cultural Property.” California Law Review 77 (2): 339–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480607.

“Necklace Inscribed with the Name of King Pratapamalladeva.” 1645. 1655 1645. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/130700/necklace-inscribed-with-the-name-of-king-pratapamalladeva.

Pudasaini, Som. n.d. “Bagmati River Civilization And Spiritual Salvation.” SpotlightNepal. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://www.spotlightnepal.com/2019/03/04/bagmati-river-civilization-and-spiritual-salvation/.

Roche, Calum. 2024. “What Is the Pran Pratishtha Ceremony, What Is Its Origin and Where Is It Celebrated?” Diario AS. January 22, 2024. https://en.as.com/latest_news/what-is-the-pran-pratishtha-ceremony-what-is-its-origin-and-where-is-it-celebrated-n/.

Schick, Jürgen. 1997. The Gods Are Leaving the Country: Art Theft from Nepal. Orchid Press.

Selter, Elke. 2022. “Returning Stolen Idols to the Community: A Challenge for Heritage Law.” July 13, 2022. https://www.biicl.org/blog/42/returning-stolen-idols-to-the-community-a-challenge-for-heritage-law.

Selter, Elke. 2022. “Returning the Gods to the People: Heritage Restitution in Nepal.” Santander Art and Culture Law Review 8 (2): 115–34. https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.22.014.17027.

Small, Zachary. 2021. “Citizen Activists Lead the Hunt for Antiquities Looted From Nepal.” The New York Times, October 29, 2021, sec. Arts. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/arts/nepal-looted-antiquities-citizens.html.

Smith, Emiline. 2022. “The Ongoing Quest to Return Nepal’s Looted Cultural Heritage.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 23 (2): 264–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/gia.2022.0039.

Smith, Emiline, and Erin L. Thompson. 2023. “A Case Study of Academic Facilitation of the Global Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects: Mary Slusser in Nepal.” International Journal of Cultural Property 30 (1): 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739123000048.

Subedi, Salik Ram, and Sudha Shrestha. 2024. “Backbone of the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage: A Case of Guthi System in Nepal.” https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202401.0162.v1.

Sushant Pradhan, dir. 2022. How Stolen Art Was Brought Back to Nepal | Sanjay Adhikari | Sushant Pradhan Podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Uyi3muu7M0.

Teague, Ken. 2024. “TOURISM, ANTHROPOLOGY AND MUSEUMS: REPRESENTATIONS OF NEPALESE REALITY.”

Thompson, Erin. 2017. “Which Public? Whose Interest? Rethinking Merryman’s ‘The Pubic Interest in Cultural Property.’” Art Antiquity and Law 22 (4): 305–14.

Tuladhar, Alok. 2024. Interview by Subham Manandhar. Vienna. May 18, 2024.