Reciprocity and Sharing Practices among the

Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer Rāutes of Nepal

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Tribhuvan University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Philosophy

in

Anthropology

By

Man Bahadur Shahu

Tribhuvan University

Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology

Kathmandu, Nepal

May, 2014

iv

Acknowledgments

This ethnographic research would never been able to complete without generous

support, stimulation, warm hospitality and good company from the different

individuals and organizations at different stages. First and foremost I must offer

sincere thanks to Rāute Mukhiyās Myan Bāhādur, Ahin Bāhādur, Surya Nārāyān, and

Bir Bāhādur who shared their knowledge, ideas and provided warm hospitality in

their camp. They provided information related with their art of living and everyday

cultural practices.

My sincere gratitude goes to my esteemed supervisor Prof. Dilli Ram Dahal for his

valuable time, intellectual support, inspiration, stimulation, comments and suggestions

to accomplish my dissertation on time. His tireless effort guided me to think critically

and differently. I owe my thanks to my external examiner Prof. Laya Prasad Uprety

who provided exhaustive and invaluable comments. I am enormously benefited

through his suggestions and comments.

I must thank the dissertation committee members Prof. Om Gurung, Binod Pokhrel,

and Mukta Lama for their critical comments and suggestions. I wish to thank Prof.

Ram Bahadur Chhetri, Suresh Dakhal, Dambar Chemjong and Tika Ram Gautam for

their suggestions and encouragement at different stages of dissertation writing.

I owe my gratitude to Phillip Ramariez CNRS for comments, suggestions and

encouragement from the beginning of the research work. I am grateful to Jana Fortier,

Yuba Raj Luintel, John Rheinhard, Frank Bernerd, Piers Locke and Nanda Bahadur

Singh who shared study materials, knowledge, suggestions and encouraged me to

study Rāute via personal conversation, email and telephone.

v

I am grateful to Fr. Casper J. Miller, SJ and Krishna Bahadur Karki for a copy editing

and proof reading. Likewise, I must thank Dambar Pujara for preparing map and Lal

Bahadur Thapa Magar for editing botanical terms. My special thanks goes to Second

Higher Education Project (SHEP) and Central Department of

Sociology/Anthropology, TU for providing me research grant for fieldwork and

writing. I must thank Geba Nath Nyaupane and Lal Bahadur Chouhan for their

constant support in the Tribhuvan University Central Library.

I would like to thank my M. Phil. class mates, especially Nabin Rawal, Vishnu

Acharya, Indra Bahadur Rakhal, Lagan Rai, Anup Rai, Monohar Karki, Shankar

Poudel and Mahesh Maharjan for sharing their ideas, knowledge and experiences and

patiently listening to mine. I must thank Sumitra Thapa Magar, Rojina Karki and

other staff of M. Phil. program for their constant help during my M. Phil. study.

My owe due respect Jos W. Bus, Bote Willem Nicolay, Corry Nicolay, Froukje

Nijholt, Sjoukje Lania, Gerda Breeuwsma, Wilko Verbakel, Matthew Wittich,

Dharma Rawal and Nisha Yonjan for their inspiration and encouragement through

various ways.

Finally but immensely, I must express my sincere gratitude to my brother Bahadur

Sing Shah for his contribution for my education. His unbounded love, inspiration and

care are impossible to pay back. My due respect also goes to my Bhauju Laxmi Shah

for her tireless support and care. I owe my thanks to my nieces Bhagrathi Shah,

Tikeshwori Shah and Anzali Shah and nephews Amit Shah and Sumit Shah for their

unfailing interest in my study, and their assistance throughout the study period.

Man Bahadur Shahu

vi

Abstract

This ethnography focuses on reciprocity of nomadic hunter-gatherer Rāute; whose

subsistence relies on foraging wild fruits and roots, hunting monkeys and rhesus, and

manufacturing woodenware. I have examined the reciprocity and sharing practices

maintained by the Rāute's relations with sedentary people such as farmers, artisans

and pastoralists. This study highlights how mutual trust, agreements, and generosity

contribute to reciprocity and how sharing practices are based on mobility, kinship

ties, rituals and occasions. The notion of reciprocity and sharing related to "giving",

"receiving" and "returning" practices are embedded in social contracts with kin

groups, community members, residential propinquity and strangers. The reciprocity

and sharing practices might be "accepted", "denied" and "cancelled" in Rāute society.

Despite their disinterest in long-term storage, cash income, agricultural production

and animal rearing, their society is affluent due to their continuous exchange and

sharing practices. Social network is possible through the miteri- "fictive kinship" with

non-Rāute that is able to maintain the long-term relationship. The reciprocity and

sharing practices based on "altruism" "sharing", "gift-giving" and "gift-returning"

have broader social interaction. There might be "obligatory" or "compulsory" and

"free" or "voluntary", which are underpinned by consumptions, circulations and

distributions of commodities. They overcome the problems like "food scarcity",

"starvation" and "malnutrition" through the strategies of "begging", "exchange","

bartering"," negotiating", "over handed", "sharing" and "trade pattern". Their trade

relation is concerned with "agreement" and "negotiation" that keep their economy

intact. The Rāute's economy is systematically organized in terms of "labour

mobilizations", "interdependence", "systematic exchange", "co-operation" and

"collectivism". I concluded that reciprocity practice in Rāute society is embedded in

"self-interest", "self-defence", "snatch" and "cheating".

Keywords: Reciprocity, sharing, gift exchange, trade, foraging, hunting-gathering,

commodities, miteri and altruism.

vii

Table of Contents

Page No.

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION ii

LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

ABSTRACT vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF MAPS x

ACRONYMS xi

GLOSSARY xii

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Statement of Problem 6

1.2.1 Economic Discourses on Hunter-Gatherers 6

1.2.2 Social Embeddedness 8

1.2.3 Gift Exchange and Reciprocity 10

1.2.4 Rāute and Economic Practices 13

1.3 The Research Questions 14

1.4 Research Objectives 15

1.4.1 The General Objective 15

1.4.2 Specific Objectives 15

1.5 Conceptual Framework 15

1.6 Rationale of the Study 18

1.7 Organization of Study 19

viii

Chapter Two

Research Methodology

2.1 People and Study Area 21

2.2 Research Design 23

2.3 Ethnographic Sampling 26

2.4 Units of Analysis 27

2.5 The Data and Methods 27

2.5.1 Participant Observation 27

2.5.2 Key Informant Interview 29

2.6 Data Type, Validity and Reliability 29

2.7 Ethical Considerations 30

2.8 Tools for Data Collection 31

2.9 Qualitative Data Analysis 32

2.10 Limitations of the Study 34

Chapter Three

Filed Location, History and Reciprocity of Nomadic Rāute

3.1 Field Entry, Challenges and Reciprocity 35

3.2 Ethno-History and Reciprocity 38

Chapter Four

Gift Exchange Practices of Nomadic Rāute

4.1 Discourse on Primitive Economy 47

4.1.1 Generalized Reciprocity 48

ix

4.1.2 Balanced Reciprocity 52

4.1.3 Negative Reciprocity 57

4.2 On Silent Trade 60

4.3 Hunting-Gathering: An Affluent Economy of Rāute 61

Chapter Five

Sharing, Negotiation, Transformation in Reciprocity

5.1 Avoidance, Hunting and Sharing 74

5.2 Farmer-Forager Relations 76

5.3 Miteri and Reciprocity 78

5.4 Sharing, Resistance and Nomadism 81

5.5 Verbal Art, Negotiation and Reciprocity 86

5.6 A Trick Negotiation 90

5.7 Women, Hunting-Gathering and Reciprocity 92

5.8 Global-Local Relation: Transformation of Reciprocity 98

Chapter Six

Summary and Conclusion

6.1 Summary 106

6.2 Conclusion 111

Appendices 112-116

References 117-122

x

List of Figures

Page No.

Figure No. 1: Reciprocity and Sharing 16

Figure No. 2: Forms of Reciprocity 18

Figure No. 3: Generalized Reciprocity 50

Figure No. 4: Balance Reciprocity 53

Figure No. 5: Negative Reciprocity 60

List of Maps

Page No.

Map No. 1: Distribution of Raute Settlements 23

Map No. 2: Study Area 36

xi

Acronyms

AD : Anno Domini

CDO : Chief District Officer

C.f. : Compare to

Ed. : Editor

Eds. : Editors

et. al. : et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or

`et alia' (neuter plural)

FUG : Forest User Group

H-G : Hunter-Gatherer

HMG/N : His Majesty's Government of Nepal

i.e. : That is

Km : Kilo meter

LDO : Local Development Office

M. Phil. : Master's of Philosophy

Pp : Pages

VDC : Village Development Office

v. s. : Vikram Samvat

xii

Glossary

Ārhā Saw

Āri Wooden bowl

Āsik Benediction and blessing

Aunsi New moon

Bancharo Axe uses to cut down the tree

Banmānche Wild man and Savage

Banpāle Forest guards

Basilā Hand axe

Bāuro Labour

Bhāg Share

Bhāgya Luck

Cauki A wooden seat and couch, some are used

for the purpose of rolling bread

Chāmal Husked rice

Chandragrahan Lunar eclipse full moon

Dān Gift, charity and generosity

Dharma Religion

Dhus Smoke

Dhuwāsã Smoky

Doko Larger size bamboo basketry

Doteli A language belong to Doti region

Dovan Confluence of two rivers

Dukhā Pain

xiii

Dukhāri bhaiyo Became poor

Dukhi Painful

Dukhi jiwan Painful life

Gādoo Traditional Rāute attire

Garib-Guruwa Very poor or destitute

Gharpāle Village guard

Gotra Clan

Hali An agricultural bounded labour who is

assigned to plough the field

Halo Plough

Jajmāni A patron-client system, where one caste

group provides caste base service to

other caste groups and there would be

frequent exchange of goods and services.

Jākuri A wooden bowl used to drink liquor

Jāl Hunting net

Jānd Fermented food

Jangali Savage and rustic

Jantā People

Jār Paramour or adulterer

Jhumā A vessel which is use to make fermented

food

Kanyā Virgin girl

Karmā Work

Kāth Wood

Khalo An amount of grain received from their

patron as the price of their artisanal

work

Khām geet Khām songs

Khasi Goats

xiv

Khāt Bed or bedstead

Kheti Grain production

Koshi Wooden Bowl

Kukāth Unused wood

Kuldewtā Clan deities

Lari Wooden Bowl

Mādal A traditional musical Nepali drum,

which is important for folk songs and

dances

Madhus Wooden box

Mār Kill

Mit Fictive friend

Mit buwa Fictive father

Mit Dai Fictive brother

Mitini Wife of mit

Miteri Fictive kinship

Mokchā Salvation

Mukhiyā Chief

Nāso Gift

Nāyak Traditional Leader

Pakā Sure

Pālā A wooden bowl

Pāp Sin or crime

Parbate A man who belongs to mountains

Parmā Mutual exchange of labour

Pinda Lump or a ball of rice offered in Srāddha

or rituals

Pir Pain

xv

Pujā Worship

Rākchasa Giants

Rakhelni Concubine

Rāksi Local liquor

Randhā A carpenter's plane

Sarāp Curse

Sarkini A female cobbler

Savyā Civilized

Sikār Prey

Sukhā Bliss

Sukhi Happy

Suryagrahan The solar eclipse

Surya nārāyan Sun god

Tantra Mantra Sorcery, magic and mojo

Tikā Mark on the forehead

Tribeni Junction of three different places

Ukhān tukkā Proverb or adage

1

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Background

I have vivid childhood memories of seeing Rāute visit my village and trade pālā,-a wooden

bowl used to keep ghee, curd and spices, with my mother. My mother used to exchange

grains with pālā when Rāute visited our village to trade their woodenwares. However, it had

been a long time since I had seen them trading, until, while I was a school student in my

teens, I saw my elder brother buy a halo, -wooden plough - made by same Rāute. He told me

how nomadic Rāute opted to be sedentary life. This group of Rāute can still be found living a

sedentary life in the inner Tarai of Dadeldhurā District in the far western part of the country.

My childhood memories of banmānche-wild man or savage - as we used to refer to Rāute has

fuelled my interest to look for cultural groups who wander in the deep forest of mid-western

Nepal. The banmānche image instilled in me in my childhood drew my attention to search for

similar nomadic hunter-gatherers and learn about their interactions and relationships with

farmers.

This research uncovers the exchange practices of Rāute, who are following a nomadic

hunting-gathering life. This group is the only nomadic band in South Asia and is known to

continue foraging1 over the years. The main reasons for selecting this topic are influenced by

my genuine and unbounded interest in the hunter-gatherers' reciprocity and sharing practices

of an egalitarian society, whose economic practices are shaped through barter trade with the

non-forager groups. This study highlights some of the fundamental issues: the first one is

inter-group exchange in the broader area of their nomadic zone, and second is their sharing

practices or ceremonial exchange within their own society through the generations.

1Richard Lee defines the foraging societies as "economically we are referring to those people who have historically lived by gathering, hunting, and fishing, with minimal or no agriculture and with no domesticated animals except for the dog" (1992:31).

2

There are many foraging tribes in Africa, Australia, Northern America, and South Asia. They

sustain themselves through hunting-gathering and by ensuring close ties with villagers. This

study traces out reciprocity and sharing practices within the only surviving hunter-gatherer

Rāute of South Asia. The tribe's economy depends on reciprocity with farmers, artisans and

herders of their nomadic zones. This research spins around the reciprocity of primitive

society which is alienated from the global economic process that I would present here. To

verify the statement I had done layers of interpretations as close to the reality as possible.

Rāute are found to have been following the "equal exchange" model that ensures equal

relationship between the Rāute and non-Rāute, mainly in their trading system. This relation is

unlike the "patron-client", "landlord-serf", "priest-artisan" and "investor-debtor" relations. I

have interpreted the field data based on social networks, kinship, labor division and

friendship, context and seasons to search for the meanings. Here, I trace out my wonderful

memories, images and experiences with Rāute which reflects the everyday realities, cultural

ideologies and social values. I will dwell on two types of exchange practices: nāso-gift2 with

non-foragers and commodity sharing within their own community members.

Herein, I have probed the economic systems of contemporary nomadic Rāute who subsist by

hunting-gathering and engage in wider interaction with farmers in the monsoon rain forest

region of west Nepal. I have seen the productions of Rāute economy depend on

undomesticated plants, animals and barter trade, which have often been socially ingrained.

This research explores the cultural disposition and rules of Rāute, who are not fully isolated

but avoid assimilation with sedentary groups. The subsistence economy of Rāute is based on

exchange, sharing, reciprocity, nomadic cycle and transactions of food, meat, ornaments and

2Turner et.al. (2007) define the terms nāso as "Deposit, pledge; something left to be kept". In Nepali society it is

understood as a commodity which keeps as the gift for memory. I use the terminologies of "gift" and "commodities" not a different sense, Rāute use these terminologies in the interchangeable and unalienable one and another.

3

goods which they receive either from the foraging i.e. hunting, collecting and digging or

bartering, negotiating and snatching from the villagers. They build a social bond and trust

with non-Rāute.

Rāute is one of the 50 surviving nomadic groups which have distinct economic lives, like

Pleistocene economies-no metal, firearms, dogs, or contact with non-hunting cultures (c.f.

Lee and Devore 1987[1968]:4). My interest is to explore how modern hunter-gatherers

maintain cultural resilience and continuously resist assimilation with the sedentary societies

despite the penetration of modernity. I have seen socio-cultural dimensions of their life

concerned with material products, which they receive through foraging, hunting and produce

themselves. The sedentarization processes are a part of modernity project, and come under

the nation-state policies and promote the homogenization of cultures and value. This policy

imposes modernity through the establishment of schools, logging and deforestation,

community forestry, bio-diversity, wildlife conservation centres and road construction

projects.

Rāute use witty ukhān-tukkā,- 'proverbs or adages' to exchange their commodities with

agriculturalists and pastoralists surrounding their camps. The verbal art which they perform

to persuade villagers largely supports their subsistence base economy and their trading

mechanism. Rāute convince outsiders through the art of conversation, trickster behaviour,

wear traditional attire and play traditional musical instruments to entertain sedentary groups

by performing dances in leisure times. I have interpreted ukhān-tukkā, their significance and

functional meanings and association with economic practices. Rāute divide the tasks and

responsibilities based on sex. For instance, males are assigned to hunt monkeys and langurs,

whereas females are assigned to forage for firewood, vegetable, fruits and dig ban-tarul–

"wild yam" and bhyākur –"partic".

4

Mukhiyā –'chief of kin members' is responsible for allocating tasks for disabled, pregnant,

widows and elderly citizens based on their capacities. The sharing practices depend on

hierarchy, investment, age and social structure of the particular society, which provides the

common benefit, invests their time and effort for the community that makes their life easier

and reduces the risk of vulnerability and food scarcity. They are known to use kukātha-

"unused wood" such as arjun, tundi and chhiroo to prepare woodenware and this helps

balance forest resources between farmer and forager by pruning and thinning of the forests.

Likewise, they only hunt the monkeys and langurs which destroy the farmer's crops. This

shows the symbiotic relation between farmers and foragers.

This research explores the economic dimension of nomadic Rāute who wander in the forest,

living in temporary camps, hunting monkeys, langurs and foraging for the wild fruits and

roots. Their economy depends on the available environment, adaptive strategy, bartering,

reciprocity, begging and negotiation. Rāute use both domestic (goat) and wild (monkeys and

langurs) animals as a food resource, besides foregoing around their nomadic zone. Different

ecological settings provide resources for their survival and they design their strategies

accordingly. "The man and environment relation, the 'gatherer-hunters' economic system is

constructed in terms of giving in relation to the metaphor 'forest is parent'... (Bird-David

1990:195)."

This ethnography contains several interesting issues, including how the Rāute live their

nomadic life gathering wild plants, fruits and roots, hunting and adapting to forest based

environment in the globalized world. Secondly it discusses how the Rāute remain affluent

despite not having any long term practice of storing surplus goods. It discusses the

symbiotic relations of nomads with the farmers. Third, it deals with the trade and exchange

of woodenwares with sedentary groups. Fourth, it discusses the egalitarian economy of the

5

band, un-stratified and isolated societies, who resist spending a sedentary life and settling as

farmers, domesticating animals and plants.

There are debates on whether hunting –gathering groups are completely isolated from the

sedentary groups, for instance, a particular foraging group of South Africa (Morrison

2002:2). It is debated whether their daily activities, including begging, negotiating and

establishing fictive relations still make them hunter-gatherers and this proves that they are

not fully independent and isolated as Plestonic.

Rāute economy is concerned with reciprocity, which exchanges its produce with non-

foragers, for instance, they exchange woodenware with beads, clothes, tobacco and

vegetables and such practices are shaped by age, gender and kinship. Rāute’s economic

strategy has changed over time due to global-local connections and the global network that

has affected the circulation and distribution mechanism of a particular society. These days

the ethos of immediate returning commodities has slightly changed due to the intervention

from different agencies in the name of incentives and privileges; however, its serious impacts

could not be observed on verbal art, kinship networks, family organization and traditional

leadership. Rāute never employ slaves, wages and bonded labour because they live away

from the greed and lust of earning of sedentary people. The nomadic culture of Rāute

depends on the seasons, death rituals, resources available and relation to the sedentary

population. I have included community administrative apparatus, love, sharing, moral

obligation, gift-giving, resource exploitation and adaptation, ownership over resources,

security and welfare mechanism to analyze reciprocity and sharing mechanism in Rāute

society.

6

1.2 Statement of Problem

This section briefly problematizes the research, which is based on the literature review of

Rāute's economic practices, including commodity exchange and sharing practices. The

economic issues mainly concern production, distribution and consumption that encompass

the socio-cultural phenomena such as gift and ceremonial exchange, sharing mechanism, use

technologies and foraging practices. The societal structure with its constructed rules and

regulations is influenced by the economic behaviour where there would be specific

restrictions and social taboos that impede the sedentarization process. This section discusses

economic discourses on hunter-gatherers, social embeddedness, gift exchange and reciprocity

and their other economic practices.

1.2.1 Economic Discourses of Hunter-Gatherers

Western economic theories have a lack of clarity and are insufficient and irrelevant to explain

the different structures and primitive economic organizations of mankind (Dalton 1961).

Modern economic theories discuss mechanical systems of market, money, labour and

exchange value that neglect the people's socio-cultural structure and livelihood strategies and

overlook the social history of pre-industrial society. Hunter-gatherer economy could be

understood in two ways: first is the notion that these peoples primarily depend on the hunting

of animals, and second that their way of life is generally a precarious and arduous struggle

for existence (Lee 1968:30). Studies on the contemporary hunter-gatherer reluctantly go

beyond these two points. The modern ethnographic research mainly depends on

globalization, social network, climate change, modernity, adaptation, migration and

technologies. It should look at egalitarianism, sharing, territorial ownership and economic

relations with sedentary groups, i.e., farmers and pastoralists along with cultural reproduction

through different socio-cultural practices such as feasts, festivals, rituals and ceremonies. The

7

circulation of goods not only gives material satisfaction in the preliterate society, but also

builds symbolic relations including emotion, attachment and social harmony. Fred R. Myers

(1988) argues about hunter-gatherer studies under four broad theoretical categories: (a)

optimal foraging theory (or socio-ecology); (b) historicist (ethno-historical) approaches; (c)

comparative sociology in the Marxist and structuralists tradition; and (d) humanistic

approach. The economy of modern hunter-gatherers like Rāute has close ties with

globalization processes, including industrialization, urbanization and modernization. The life

ways of modern hunter-gatherers have little variation with hunter-gatherers of the remote

past in terms of behaviour, adaptive technologies and relation with agro-pastoralists. Rāute's

economic characteristic are similar to western Hadza in terms of trade, begging to obtain

tobacco, clothes, beads, iron, and other goods (see Woodburn 1982). There are several

scientific reasons connected with hunting-gathering professions that contribute to

biodiversity conservation, for instance: the nomadic cycle controls the population of wild

animals, maintains economic relations with non-foragers and preserves their traditional and

indigenous knowledge practices on the gathering of edible fruits, roots, tubers, nuts and

flowers. Rāute have been claiming ownership of forest land and have declared themselves as

"kings of the forest"; however, these days, they have lost their ownership over the forest due

to encroachment by community forestry programs, logging, road constructions, civil war and

illegal poaching which have forced them to move and have snatched away their traditional

land use rights. These problems are similar to Mbendjele Yaka Pygmies of the Ndoki forest

in Northern Congo (see Lewis 2002). The selection process of hunter-gatherer Rāute is

different from the South American Indians named Karen Akarore who live in the deep

Brazilian forest. They hunt the wild animals and birds by using bows and guns and have a

rival relationship with other groups. Nomadic Rāute in Nepal engage in hunting certain

animals, carve woodenware from the selected timber, keep limited relations with farmers to

8

get grains and animals though fictive kinship networks. These economic issues have as yet

been overlooked and therefore, my study encompasses all these dimensions. This

ethnography questions the adaptive ecological and evolutionary models, discussed in the

book Man the Hunter (Lee and Devore 1968). This model might not be applicable to hunter-

gatherers like Rāute who are not only engaged in foraging for food, wild fruits and go for

hunting and fishing but also engage in additional subsistence and consumption activities (cf.

Bird, 1992). Their interpretations have shown the universal theoretical notions of gender, i.e.,

man the hunter and women the gatherer and man the nature and women the culture.

1.2.2 Social Embeddedness

The economic life of hunter-gatherers could be analysed through two schools of thoughts,

i.e., formalist and substantive. Both schools explain the transfer of goods from one to

another. The formalist school of thought elucidates the economic mode of life based on

formal institutions and disembedded with social matrix and associated with industrialization,

commercialization, monetization and commoditization. In formalistic economy, Karl Polanyi

writes, market is the main mechanism for exchange, sale, distribution and redistribution of

commodities, where it works for the fictitious commodities such as land, labour and money.

The economic practices are embedded with social values, beliefs, customs and practices that

have been followed from one generation to another. Polanyi's book "The Great

Transformation (1944) states: "institutionalization is the resting on balance of power and

devastating war, the organization of the world economy, self-regulating economy and liberal

state". He elucidates the importance of money that has close ties with market economy and

integrities, which has significance for the transformation of the economy in the 19th century.

Polanyni argues that money institutionalizes economy. Money has an association with social

life and is taken as part of life. The "use of money" seems to be pre-dominant. Karl Polanyi

9

states that earlier economies have relations with social matrix, land and labour which was

gained through the ties of kinship (birth, adoption and marriage) and community (Issac

2005:14). Polanyi’s arguments on substantive economy present the human interaction with

surroundings and institutionalization process. He was influenced by Malinowski's

interpretation of exchange: subsistence, prestige and Kula (see Issac 2005). Polanyi

articulated the economy on a comparative basis between substantivists and formalists,

particularly focusing on 'primitive' and 'modern', 'past' and 'present', 'extinct' and 'extant'

culture. Yet, the subsistence base economy is not separated from the market mechanism,

basically circulation, distributions, and consumptions, which could not be completely

sustained in isolated form.

There are two interesting components concerned with gift exchange in Rāute community:

first, they exchange the woodenware namely koshi-"bowl", madhus-"wooden box", and

jhumā- "a vessel use to ferment food " with sedentary groups. Second, they are "affluent"

without cash income, investment, agriculture production, stock raising and employment. The

pre-capitalist economy influences societal networks, which is different from commercialized

and monetized economy. The bartering objects are not only physical objects, but also

encompass intrinsic values in terms of social, cultural and economic system. Sharing the

monkey, meat and woodenwares to the disabled and handicapped people within their groups

is a symmetrical relation. It has voluntary characteristics, which contribute to make the

affluent and egalitarian society similar to San and Hadza. The sharing process in Rāute

community depends on the social interaction, mutual understanding, moral obligation, belief

system and hierarchical social order. They are not interested in the storing of agricultural

products because of the uncertainty of their migration and nature of sharing. There is also an

asymmetrical relation with the villagers that depends on the negotiation and fictive

relationship (Bista 1976, Fortier 2000 and Shāhu 2068 v. s.).With the asymmetrical relation

10

Rāute may have hundreds of mits, 'fictive friends', by which they build the long-term trust;

cooperation gives additional benefits, expands trade and protects them from further

jeopardizing of their trade route. The mit relation of Rāute is not only concerned with trade

but is loaded with sentiment, emotion, attachment and harmony unlike with other villagers.

The trade relation of Rāute with the agro-pastoral community could be seen over hundreds of

years in both higher elevations in summer and lower elevation in winter. They take

advantage of the seasonal basis of agricultural productions through reciprocity. The

individual autonomy in foraging, hunting and trading is a fundamental character of the Rāute

economic system. Therefore, my endeavours deal with the farmer-forager relations. The

sharing mechanism might be denied, cancelled and balanced to return, based on communal

ideologies, beliefs, taboos, and economic relations between giver and receiver.

1.2.3 Gift Exchange and Reciprocity

Gift exchange practices of giving, receiving and returning provide economic benefits to

Rāute. The practice differs across time, space and ethnicity and is bounded with a certain set

of rules and regulations that are concerned with cultural practices such as āsik- "blessing",

and sarāp-"curse". The dialogical social contracts between gift giver and receiver are

influenced by occupation, livelihood, rituals and kinship mechanism. The inter-ethnic

reciprocity is temporary, negotiation and fictive kinship based; similarly intra-ethnic

reciprocity is permanent and has welfare motives guided by the social network that has

compassion and empathy. Rāute expect something to be returned by those whom they give

commodities as the 'gift'. There might be compulsion, hostility and anger while they engage

in reciprocity. The notion of gift as similar to "a gift for a gift" is similar to Marcel Mauss

"there is no free gift". Simply, a gift is understood as a voluntary contribution of

commodities to a person with whom they have a relationship. The obligatory notion of gift

11

practice strongly ties with "giving", "receiving" and "returning" which builds continuous

relations through exchange.

The modern capitalistic society is heterogeneous and consists of specific class, market

mechanism, advance technologies and division of labour. There is a huge gap between

people in terms of resources and access; however, primitive communities are homogeneous,

egalitarian, and practice communal resource management and ensure division of works, and

have kin based economic and social bonds within the specific territory. Rāute maintain their

egalitarian structure and do not have any form of social hierarchy and differentiation. The

gift exchange process is concerned with permanent contracts, and moral obligation that

extends the human relationships through fulfilling human desires and expectations.

The studies on "Gift" extensively began since the Marcel Mauss 1924, "essaisur le don,"

described gift giving as being, after centuries of Christianity and religious charitable

institutions, "still wounding for him who has accepted it. Mauss theory on gifts is applicable

to the nature of the nomadic Rāute -to receive any items free of cost is considered to be pāp-

"sin" for them. The associated feelings of regret, humiliation and pain have resulted in the

Rāute ethos of receiving with one hand and returning back with another. In the Maussian

sense, “gift” is much broader; it includes all things transacted as part of social life and as

distinct from the more purely monetary relations, and it includes labour and immaterial

things like names and ideas as well as physical objects (Carrier 1995:19).

Rāute's nāso is unique because they receive some food stuffs as payment for their productive

commodities instead of receiving similar items in return. This carries several symbolic and

functional meanings and affects social life and broadens the social network with diverse

features. "Gift is partly a material phenomenon; in all societies, people promote their social

and economic interests by means of trade, sharing, gift, loans and mutual aid" (Nettle and

12

Dunbar 1997:93). This study looks at how archaic societies like Rāute succeed to maintain

reciprocity, kinship network, social connectivity and farmer-forger relations. This research

deals with the gift exchange practice as a system of survival strategies. Previous research

works on Rāute have not been able to explain the system of reciprocity, which influences

their everyday life. However, my endeavour incorporates this as part of their economic life.

The practice of gift-giving is widely popular in Nepali society; however, its forms and

systems have been transformed over time. In Nepali society, gifts are associated with power,

prestige, moral obligation and compulsion. Gifts are occasional, ceremonial, compulsory and

free. The social hierarchy also determines when to give, to receive and to return the gifts. The

notion of gift-giving and receiving are simultaneously transformed both in sedentary and

nomadic groups in Nepal, mainly in its forms and conceptions.

Gift-giving should be understood as a broader concept, which is not only limited to physical

objects, but also is concerned with emotion, sentiment and memory. Levi-Strauss writes:

"that would in any case be impossible, since the goods in question are not physical objects,

but also dignities, responsibilities, privileges-whose sociological role is nonetheless the same

as that of material goods" (1987[1950]:46). The relationships of Rāute are structural, based

on binary oppositions like sacred and profane, pure and impure, raw and cooked, in which

certain kinds of inter and intra-relationships are embedded. They engage in specific rituals

and ceremonies to handover the gifts to their relatives and other such as societal members,

farmers, artisans and peer groups for subsistence and long-term memories.

Discourse on gift-giving began after the Marcel Mauss essay Essaisur la don. Forme

Archique de l'Echange," (1924) began the academic discourses on gift-giving in

Anthropology. Gift-giving is a form of reciprocity or exchange and integrates a society

(Sherry 1983: 157) that creates harmony, generates social power, solves economic necessities

13

and extends the kinship. The gift system prevails everywhere in various forms that tie and

bind the people and satisfy human needs. The forms of gifts differ from society to society,

culture to culture and religion to religion. For instance, to give the dān-"gift, charity and

generosity" to the Brahmin means to clear the way to heaven; likewise to give the kanyā-

"virgin girl" is great dharma-"religion" in Hindu ideology. This has theological virtue and

moral values, including mokchā –"salvation" - there is a changing conception in its value due

to the penetration of capitalism and globalization processes. The gift-giving process is

concerned with the specific process of reciprocity which has been embedded with shared

rules followed by the community people, ascertained through behaviour and everyday

practice. Gift practices are more popular with less specialized and non-industrial societies

(Herskovits 1974), where varied informal rules co-exist in the process of giving, receiving

and returning their commodity. The arguments of western scholars are inadequate in relation

to gift exchange. The gift system is neither disorganized nor ordered as they interpret. It can

be "free", "obligatory", "compulsory", "sharing" and "delay-returning".

1.2.4 Rāute and Economic Practices

Rāute is an exotic and isolated society in terms of their contact, resistance and assimilation.

They keep a strategic relation to trade primarily through fictive kinship. The economy of

modern hunter-gatherer Rāute depends on environmental resources, mobility, populations,

and use technologies. They refuse to adopt modernity, have limited connections, and fictive

ties, with other groups. Studies on the nomadic Rāute began since 1970 through different

perspectives, since then Rāute have been able to draw the attention of different scholars to

study various dimensions, for example, cultural dynamics (see Bista 1976, and Reinhard

1974), folklore (Nepal 2054[2040] v. s.), ethno-botany (Singh 1997), identity (Fortier 2003

and Shāhu 2068 v. s., 2012), verbal art (Fortier 2002), languages (Bista 1976 and Bandhu

14

2044 v. s.). These studies overlook or give little attention to their economic practices,

particularly reciprocity and the sharing mechanism. These two components are important

factors for crafting the cultural identities that encompass the symbolic meanings and

exchange practices beside the social matrix such as kinship, marriage, birth and ceremonial

activities. Their research has discussed non-monetary, non-commoditization, ceremonial

exchanges, and reciprocity very little. Therefore, my endeavour broadly highlights research

gaps concerned with reciprocity and sharing.

The system of meat sharing and gift-giving is predominant, similar to Kung in the Nyae area

in Namibia (Marshall 1998). The economy of hunter-gatherers keeps social relation with

sedentary groups such as farmers, artisans, fishermen and pastoralists to get the economic

advantage (see Kohler and Lewis 2002). This ethnography examines the barter economy,

which is a direct form of exchange of goods and services (Headay 2005). There is no value of

the monetary economy. The value of the commodity is measured in labour power, investment

of time, size, style, quality and demands of the consumer. The form of barter economy is

popular within the Hindu stratified society which exists as a patron-client relation. This

ethnography justifies how the cultural dimensions support the economy of particular groups.

1.3 The Research Questions

The major research questions of the study are: What are the major forms of reciprocity in

term of gift exchange, including the process of giving, receiving and returning the

commodities? How do they construct the egalitarian societal structure through sharing,

fictive ties, verbal arts and their relation to non-forager groups?

15

1.4 Research Objectives

1.4.1 The General Objective

The general objective of the research is to explore the reciprocity in reference to the

circulation, distribution, consumption and sharing practices in archaic society.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1. To explore different forms of reciprocity practices existing in Rāute society, and.

2. To explore the sharing practices and their concerns with societal rules, laws, verbal

arts and fictive relations.

1.5 Conceptual Framework

The terms "reciprocity", "sharing", "gift exchange" and "egalitarian" are associated with

economic anthropology to explain production, distribution and consumption among various

groups of peoples such as hunter-gatherers and peasants. Karl Polanyi (1886–1964)

explained three basic concepts of economic integration: reciprocity, redistribution, and

exchange as is calculated from trade, which comes with several verities (see Wilk 1996).

Reciprocity is a symmetrical form of exchange between persons or groups of equal standing.

In a structural point of view, it should be looked at from the point of sacred and profane, pure

and impure, and safety and danger as Louis Dumount (1970) had interpreted the Indian caste

system. For instance, low castes are not generally expected to return gifts that they received

from their patron; giving the gift from dominant caste to the lower caste is expected to

transfer the evils and the inauspicious, such as illness, death and misfortune - from donor to

recipient (see Yan 2005: 252). Jonathan Parry related the gift exchange system with "spirit"

and "evils". He writes, ‘where we have the “spirit”, reciprocity is denied; where there is

reciprocity there is not much evidence of “spirit”. The two aspects of the model do not hang

16

together (Parry 1986: 463). The "egalitarian" concept could be measured in "authority",

"share", "prestige", "access" and "ownership" over the resources.

Sharing is a fundamental a concept which has a connection with reciprocity prevailing in the

pre-literate society, influenced by notions of kinship and friendship. The sharing practices

run under the rules of "obligations" and "generosity" within the family members, for

instance, parents to siblings, senior to junior, and husband to wife that might be a long or

short-term relationship. Seen through the lens of kinship networks, such relationships would

be interdependent and interchangeable. Sharing practice is solely an economic issue. The

ethnic bond, solidarity, integrity and kinship network have largely influenced people’s

economic activities. Sharing is one main characteristic of the foraging societies that mitigates

the unevenness of hunting meat (Kent 1993). Sharing practice shows transitions and

circulations of goods for the construction of egalitarian society. I have summarized all these

ideas in the following figure.

Note: I have drawn this conceptual diagram from the ideas of different theoreticians i.e.

(Polayni 1944), (Malinowski 1922), Mauss (2012 [1950]), (Sahlins 1972), (Parry 1986) and

(Kent 1993).

17

This conceptual framework shows the process of exchange influenced by the cultural ethos,

kinship, rules and regulations of Rāute society. The exchange process is connected with

power, social hierarchy, occupation and inter-ethnic relation that shape the economic

behaviour of primitive people (Malinowski 1922, Herskovits 1974 and Sahlins 1972). The

economic practice of primitive people ties with the socio-cultural values of the society. The

circulation of the commodities depends on social position, social ties and structural power,

which have social, political and economic connections. The exchange process of goods and

commodities is concerned with the interaction and interchangeable relationship that has

symbolic and material significance in a particular community. The issue of commodity

exchange is concerned with lineage, material exchange and alliance, and they have a moral

obligation of payment and repayment. The system of reciprocity strengthens the social ties

within the community people.

Marshall Sahlins, in Man the Hunter conference in Chicago in 1966, viewed the economy of

hunter-gatherers as "the original affluent society" (Sahlins 1968). He had explained the

tripartite form of reciprocity: generalized reciprocity, balanced reciprocity and negative

reciprocity. I had explained in different forms of reciprocity (generalized, balanced and

negative) in the Rāute community; for instance, sharing woodenwares with widows and the

disabled could be looked at as a form of generalized reciprocity, bartering commodities with

villagers taken as a balanced reciprocity, and receiving commodities through snatch and

pilfer can be taken as negative reciprocity. The forms of reciprocity could be summarized in

following conceptual figure.

18

Note: Most of the ideas for this conceptual framework were drawn from the Stone Age

Economics (1972) by Marshall Sahlins.

1.6 Rationale of the Study

This research looked at a primitive economic system based on exchange, circulation, labour

division, seasonal mobility, sharing and reciprocity that embedded with social organizations,

beliefs, values, rituals, religions and cultural phenomenon. This research sheds light on

economic components, i.e., production, consumption and redistribution, including, trade

economy, ceremonial festivals and social networks. Rāute maintain their culture through gift-

giving to produce and reproduce the social ties (Godelier 1999:1) within the community

members. This ethnographic research presents how the modern hunter-gatherers solve

economic problems and generate power through social connectivity and form an egalitarian

society. The information on hunter-gatherers will be useful for academicians and policy

makers who are interested in hunter-gatherers and their economic practices. This study helps

to understand the ideologies of sharing, hoarding, reciprocity, and hunting and trapping

practices. I have presented a three folds significance: first this research provides theoretical

contributions on economic anthropology, where I have emphasized reciprocity and sharing

19

practices, including giving, receiving and returning based on the ideologies on morality,

obligation and contract. I have critically examined the substantivist theories on economic

anthropology, particularly reciprocity, sharing and gift exchange. Ethnographic data from the

field has been systematically presented in the research, which might be useful for

constructing theories in similar fields. Second, the empirical information on primitive

economic practices will be useful to understand the traditional and indigenous livelihood

strategies and their significance in the modern era, which may supply abundant information

for the researchers, academicians and policy makers. Third, this study might be one of the

important contributions on economic anthropology in Nepal that contribute to make the

policies and planning for endangered ethnic groups of Nepal.

1.7 Organization of the Study

The main theme of study is to examine reciprocity and sharing culture in terms of production,

circulation and consumption in the modern hunter-gatherer society, which is presented in the

subsequent chapters. The first chapter defines reciprocity, gift exchange, social solidarity, and

sharing mechanism. This chapter identifies the research problems and conceptualizes the

issues on sharing through a literature review. This chapter contextualizes the study that shows

the research gaps, research questions, and objectives followed by conceptual framework,

limitation and significance of the study. The central concepts of reciprocity have been

highlighted through the reviewing theories concerned with economic anthropology

particularly reciprocity and sharing. The second chapter presents the research methods,

including research design, study area, study unit, ethnographic sampling procedures, key

informant interviews, types of data, validity and reliability, research ethics, implications

about different tools and techniques, and analysis process. Chapter Three examines study

areas, the choice of their settlement, information on clans, and field challenges; similarly, I

20

have also included the ethno-history and reciprocity of Rāute which include the oral history,

occupations, origin and exchange relation with sedentary people. Chapter Four presents the

forms of reciprocity and gift exchange practices, where I have examined the transition of

goods, dyadic and interdependent relations between farmer-forager, moral obligation and

generosity between giver and receiver. In this chapter, I have interpreted my data under the

theoretical framework concerned with reciprocity and gift exchange practices that enables to

show the social contract, solidarity and social bond between giver and receiver. This chapter

contains giving, receiving and returning processes of commodities that are interpreted under

the three forms of reciprocity (generalized, balance and negative) besides the silent-trade.

Chapter Five discusses sharing, negotiation and avoidance commodities and prey that include

the art of negotiation, miteri relation and the implications of verbal art in reciprocity. In

addition, I have also discussed gender dimensions of sharing and global interconnectedness

and its impact on exchange practice. Chapter Six first summarizes all the chapters, then

concludes the findings with the theoretical contributions of reciprocity and sharing practices

and their contribution on economic Anthropology. I have included the list of references

which I have cited in the main text. At the end of the thesis, I have incorporated additional

information with appendices.

21

Chapter Two

Research Methodology

This chapter discusses research methodology, where I have described the data collection

techniques, procedures and tools, validity and reliability of data and ethical considerations. I

have been engaged in research on Rāute since 2008. I carried out two fieldworks on nomadic

Rāute and two fieldworks on sedentary Rāute. This research is based on one month fieldwork

carried out in the month of January 2014 in the campsites of nomadic Rāute and some of its

information is also drawn from the previous study. The output of this research is the

cumulative data collection procedures from the beginning of the research.

2.1 People and Study Area

Rāute are Tibeto-Burman nomadic hunter-gatherers who only hunt monkeys and rhesus and

carve woodenwares for subsistence. Rāute's life ways run without formal rules and orders.

Rāute are popular as ban rājā, rāutiyā, rāutelā, and rajwār. The words like ban rājā and

rajwār are used to respect and honour them; likewise, rāutiyā, and rāutelā are to be used to

dominate. They are recognized by different ethnic-names, which indicate their occupations,

every day practices and their attachment with nature. Rāute life ways are relational with

other dominant groups, who pressurize them for the sedentary life through the adaptation of

an agricultural mode of life, education system and sharing their language that they

incessantly refuse over time. In their understanding, all these aspects force them to

assimilate, which is beyond their cultural ethos and autonomy. There is a strong informal rule

of law to continue their exchange of woodenwares such as lari, koshi and madhus with

grains, cloth, tobacco, and other items with the farmers with (Nepal 2054[2040]v. s., Luintel

2055 v. s., and Fortier 2001, 2009). They are considered as magic-spellers who capture

22

children for the sacrifice (Reinhard 1974 and Bista 1976). Every twelve years they perform

Bishwo Karmā Pujā3, which creates fear among the women and children of the village.

Nomadic Rāute are a tiny endangered group like Aranadan, Jarawa, Jeru, Kusundā, Onge,

Shompen, Vedda, and Yerukula (Fortier 2009:100). Rāute have strong economic relations

with the dominant Hindu population in their nomadic territory. They have frequent contacts

with farmers and artisans, however; this contact is unable to contribute to modernize them

from so-called jangali-"savage or rustic" to savyā-"civilized". The CBS data 2011 reported

that there are altogether 618 Rāute. The Surkhet Local Development office reported that

altogether there were 145 nomadic Rāute within 52 camps. I observed that 2-5 Rāute are

living in each camp. Rāute do not permit anyone to count their population; therefore, the

earlier researchers failed to show their actual population. These days their population has

became public due to the government’s social security allowance. Their avoidance to count

population has a strategic economic significance. If they can hide their population, they

might demand extra incentives from donors and state organizations. The nomadic route of

Rāute is found in the Chure and Māhābhārat ranges of mid-western and far-western Nepal,

where they prefer to choose deep forests and the banks of rivers like Bheri, Karnāli and Seti.

3 The sedentary people in the nomadic territory believe that Rāute perform human sacrifice every twelve years to make their deities happy to increase their woodenwares productivity and enhance the craftsmanship; however, they refuse the blame of the villagers. According to Hindu scripture, Vishwakarmā is known as the God of architecture and engineering.

23

Map No.1: Distribution of Rāute Settlements

They spend their nomadic lives from higher to lower altitudes and vice versa as per the

seasons to exploit resources through the rotational basis for livelihood. For instance, in the

winter seasons, they live in the lower belts like Surkhet, Dāng, Bānke, Bardiyā and Kailāli

districts and in summer they live in the higher altitudes like Jājarkot, Dailekh, Achham,

Kālikot and Jumlā districts. This maintains their seasonal mobility, which has been shaped by

the environment, resources, death of the community people, and their relation with villagers.

Every year they move from 6 to 12 different places in search of food and trade.

2.2 Research Design

By "Research Design," I mean the process by which you think through a project before

beginning the fieldwork and data analysis (Denham 1979:9). Research design shapes the

overall research strategies that include constructing and modifying the research problems,

24

study area, data collection procedures, sources of information, research tools, literature

reviews, field methods, theoretical implications, ethical considerations and validity. Design

is a logical progression of stages or tasks from problem formulation to the generation of a

conclusion or theory that are necessary in planning or carrying out a study (Maxwell 1998:

69). In research design, I have undertaken a process of research methods, problematization,

preparing field tools (i.e., checklist, field diaries and audio and video recorder), field

techniques, exploration, threading, analyzing/interpreting, presenting and editing the

information. The overall research design links the theories of economic anthropology with

empirical data that give the frame to interpret the research information in a coherent and

logical form. The prolonged fieldwork with the study group was flexible, and relaxing in

terms of time, contexts and informants selection. The exploratory and explanatory research

designs were chosen for the study. In the exploratory research design, data were collected

through observation, and unstructured interviews were done to seek qualitative information

concerning the primitive trade of hunter-gatherer Rāute. I employed holistic ethnographic

methods through prolong fieldwork where I integrated many phenomena with specific theme

of reciprocity and sharing. These phenomena were trade routes, their origin, inter-ethnic

relations, social taboos, rituals, kinship relation, tribal politics, human behavior, arts and

religion. The exploratory and explanatory research design was followed to collect the field

data. The exploratory research design was useful to identify the important variables to see the

farmer-forager relationship. I prepared the interview notes and further jotted down field

dairies in a computer. I was engaged to take the in-depth interviews through informal ways. I

had explored the information through literature reviews concerning with hunter-gatherers,

i.e., academic books, articles, reports and online resources. Interviews and observation

methods allowed me to study the connection of cultural goods with the economic system in a

natural setting. Although these methods were expensive and time consuming, they helped me

25

to collect enormous information. The interpretative approach was used to deal with

information with the implication of theoretical tools to search meanings of particular words,

sentences and phrases which were interpreted within the broader socio-cultural structure.

Theoretical applications in the research enhanced the framing and outlined the research,

besides finding out the research gaps. The interpretative approach was used to find the

symbolic and functional meaning of production, circulation and consumption. An explanatory

research design explained the causal relationship between the variables, for instance, how the

kinship ties, rituals, relationships, mobility, and strategies affect the hunting-gathering

economy. I focused on 'why' questions, such as why Rāute adopted nomadic life? Why their

migrated route is confined within a certain geographical zone? Why their exchange practices

and traditional occupations are concerned with age and gender? Why questions in the

research shape the causal relation between the different variables that enhance the analytical

process. The interdependent relationship between economic values and socio-cultural ethos is

reflected in the research. The causal chain in the research had shown the interrelationship

between cultural subsystems (see Munck 2009) that influence the everyday commodity

exchange, for instance, social taboo and cultural ethos, disposition, strategies of migration

and verbal art. The chain relations might be both simple and complex. I used the

interpretative approach for the 'thick description' to search the meaning, and analyze the

context that is embedded in the primitive economy through the application of theories.

Theories affirmed the empirical information to make this study representative and authentic

on exchange practices. The causal relation and implication of theories was helpful to provide

the details and comprehensive information about Rāute. The qualitative research design

included case histories and observation. The case studies were carried out in extensive field

study about individuals, families and community as per research questions and propositions.

Similarly, observation strategies traced out events, situations, contexts, acts and human

26

behaviour, which are connected with their subsistence economy, nomadic cycle, exchange

practices and seasonal migration. Here, I presented the hunting-gathering and trade stories in

narrative form to convince the readers.

2.3 Ethnographic Sampling

In the study area, there were 52 camps where 145 Rāute are living. There were some

complexities to consult with informants due to their cultural restrictions and nature to live in

isolation. Within the limited time, it was difficult to study the whole population; therefore, I

selected only 20 informants from the three different clans, i.e., Rāskoti, Kalāyal and Hamāl

that comprise 13.79 % out of the total population. I selected the population through snowball

sampling method to identify suitable candidates, who were assumed to be representative of

the wider Rāute society. I sampled at least three members from each clan group besides

former Mukhiyās, assistant Mukhiyās, shamans, Nāyak, Rāute experts and government

officials. The criteria for selection depended on their knowledge and experiences of

reciprocity (i.e., giving, receiving and returning) and sharing practices. The formal and

informal interviews were taken regarding their origin, clan system, exchange practices,

occupations, survival strategies and farmer-forager relationship. The potential variations

could be seen in terms of age, specialization, and ethnicity, where there were no female

members in the sampled population because women are not permitted to discuss with males

outside their societies. The sampling strategies were chosen immediately after the

identification of research problems. First, I sampled a few Rāute based on their social

positions, later as per their suggestions I consulted with other informants. The snowball

sampling process was economical and effective, but time consuming. This method was useful

for studying culturally unacceptable, hidden, sensitive and hard-to-reach issues in Rāute

community, such as a social taboos, deities, farmer-forager relations and hunting-gathering

methods. Ethnographic sampling was employed to seek appropriate information from

27

farmers, NGO personnel, and government officials who had experiences with their everyday

cultural practices. I built the network relationship for the study either through the

recommendation of Rāute Mukhiyās or my own newly created fictive relation with them. I

faced several challenges while undertaking interviews, i.e., sometime their recommendations

were found biased and influenced by the ideology of nepotism and favoritism that hinder

getting substantial and reliable data. Therefore, I took short formal interviews with referral

persons before undertaking an in-depth interview to understand their knowledge and

trustworthy information.

2.4 Units of Analysis

I selected some units of analysis for in-depth investigation. I observed the "sub-culture", and

"a group of people" to study their sharing behaviours, rituals, customs, norms, values and

beliefs. Individuals, households and community members were taken as the unit of analysis

for the ethnographic study of reciprocity and sharing practices among the hunter-gatherer

Rāute.

2.5 The Data and Methods

2.5.1 Participant Observation

Participant observation is one of the most sophisticated ethnographic methods to document

the everyday life of any particular group. It became popular after Malinowski's (1922)

fieldwork in the Trobriland Islands and turned novices into anthropologists and other social

scientists. "To understand a strange society, anthropologist has traditionally immersed

himself in it, learning, as possible as they can, to think, see, feel, and sometimes act as a

member of its culture and at the same time as a trained anthropologist from another culture,

this is the heart of the participant observation method-involvement and detachment"

(Powdermaker 1966:9). I had innocently watched their world, learnt from them, shared my

28

field gifts (i.e. chewing tobacco, turbans and caps) with them. I wandered with them while

they were trading, and tried to learn their art, music and verbal arts. This method helped me

to build mutual trust, companionship and immerse myself with them to find the intrinsic

meaning of the economic exchange, sharing and arrangement of commodities. This strategy

pertains to probing qualitative information like beliefs, myths, legends, social interlinks,

customs and rituals concerned with hunter-gatherers economic practices that helped me draw

out the minute details of everyday life. Rāute are very suspicious of outsiders and are not

interested in assimilating; therefore, there would be difficulties for social immersion in their

own community. The information that I used for this research was also collected within five

years and yet, for the M. Phil. dissertation, I spent only one month to observe the reciprocity

and sharing practices. Learning the language, participating with them in certain community

activities and engaging in the different rituals are the important aspects of the ethnographic

research; however, these aspects are restricted to share beyond the cultural boundary of

Rāute. My past research experiences with them helped to demarcate field strategies mainly to

consult with informants, to observe the phenomena and to record the information. This is my

second fieldwork after five years in the nomadic Rāute. My past experiences helped me

understand the considerable change in their everyday life. Ethnography in the Rāute

community is complex work; therefore, I tried to spend several hours, weeks, and months

and even a year in "just dialogue", what anthropologists call participant observation. I had

indirectly selected my research assistant to the Rāute Mukhiyā to overcome from the field

complexities. The complete participant observation is not possible in nomadic Rāute society,

which is proved through previous studies carried out by anthropologists since 1970s.

29

2.5.2 Key Informant Interview

Interviewing is an art that attempts to explore both visible and hidden issues of the proposed

study that encompassed formal and informal strategies to know the optimal foraging

strategies, which included the exchange, productions, circulations, consumptions,

distributions and sharing practices. I undertook semi-structured and unstructured interviews

to explore the Rāute knowledge on reciprocity, including their seasonal mobility, resource

availability and hunting resources. I recorded my field information on audio and video

recorders, and later transcribed, where informants might be mukhiyā, assistant mukhiyās and

elderly Rāute. I undertook 20 structured and semi-structured interviews after verbal consent

with informants. In recording, I emphasized the everyday life which is embedded with the

material desires of the Rāute. I took 10 interviews from farmers, artisans and government

officials to understand farmer-forager relationships and their everyday activities. The

fundamental transformations in the Rāute's economic exchange practice since the last couple

of the years were recorded in interviews. I was familiar with the parbate language of their

nomadic zones and, therefore, took some interviews in parbate language that made me and

my informants more relaxed and comfortable while undertaking the interviews. This method

helped to reconstruct the social history, according to the distribution of cultural traits. Their

communicative language is similar to Doteli language which is also my own mother tongue;

therefore, it made easier for me to capture the essence of their communication.

2.6 Data Types, Validity and Reliability

In the qualitative information I included a process of bargaining, dialogue, thoughts,

perceptions, interrelationship, everyday behaviour, socio-cultural relationships and their

changing dynamism. In qualitative research, reliability and validity, with the parallel concept

of "trustworthiness", contains four aspects: credibility, conformability, transferability and

30

dependability (Morse 2008: 14 et. al.). I had employed scientific methodology, intense

fieldwork, implication of theoretical models, checking and rechecking of field data to make

the research trustworthy, which made the study rigorous, and useful for conclusive

generalization. The explored data were verified through triangulation methods. I reviewed

the various types of literature concerned with theories and methods, besides the empirical

data. My previous experiences in the same community proved that Rāute often shared false

views and information and they never share what they actually do. The scientific

categorization and classification of data and their layers of interpretations made the research

more transferable and authentic.

2.7 Ethical Considerations

Ethics is an important component in anthropological research, concerned with

professionalism and moral duties of the researcher. I was equally obliged with my

informants, community, government, funding agencies and my own university. I have

maintained the ethical standard in the process of data collection through the informed

consent, privacy maintenance, obligation and avoiding deception throughout the research

period. "Ethnography should recognize the rights of the citizen to privacy, confidentiality,

and anonymity not to be studied, to be informed about the methods and aim of the study, its

anticipated consequences and potential benefits, risk and disadvantage and its resources and

funding" (Ellen 1995:138). Fieldwork was carried out as per consent that maintained the

privacy of the language, hunting strategy and observing the worship of deities. Before

conducting fieldwork, I clearly stated my research objectives, aims and future consequences.

In special cases, I used pseudonyms to save the core values of the foraging culture of Rāute

and protect them from further threat and injury. My previous experiences proved that Rāute

are not interested in recording information in various forms of audio and video. I respected

31

them via demonstrating a ‘moral act' and never intervened in the sensitive issues of their

culture. I made general agreements and got consent before undertaking the field study

concerned with population, hunting and worship, taking photographs and talking with female

Rāute.

2.8 Tools for Data Collection

In the field, I had carried a note pad with me to record qualitative information on the spot. All

the information from the field was jotted down in the field diaries. I recorded emotions of the

informants that were helpful to analyze the field data. In descriptive notes, I primarily

recorded the stories of hunting-gathering, foraging, reciprocity, sharing and circulation of

commodities. Checklists were used as a means of digging tools to get qualitative information

from the field in which I included origin, history, mythical stories, life cycles, religion,

festivals, and material culture, which directly and indirectly contribute to the economic

behaviour of Rāute. I used audio and video recorders to record the interviews that might be

useful for archiving. The recorded texts were transcribed and translated in the field or post

fieldwork period. Field notes recorded the field accounts, social reality, context, situations,

experiences, memories and observable items during the period of fieldwork. The relation

between interviewers and respondents were incorporated in the daily notes to make this

research ethnographically enrich. In addition, I used a camera for photographs to record the

Rāute's life ways that helped to draw qualitative information. It presented the visual images

about the social reality, local events, contexts and responses of the informants. Research tools

like video and camera give the reality of modern hunter-gatherer that yield enormous data

through the production of images.

32

2.9 Qualitative Data Analysis

... starts before you collect data-you have to have some ideas about what you are going to study-and it continues throughout any research effort. As you develop ideas, you test them against your observations: Your observations may then modify your ideas, which then need to be tested again, and so on (Russell 2006: 453).

The analysis processes begin from conceptualization of the research proposal to the

dissemination of results. My responsibilities in the research were not only to engage in

traditional rituals of ethnographic research, i.e., rapport building, recording and transcribing

texts, informant selection, observing the phenomena, jotting down the field dairies,

categorization and classifying the data, but also minutely analyzing the data. In the qualitative

data analysis, the theoretical and methodological frame connected the ideas together and

supported them to search for the meanings and messages of exchange, circulation and

distribution. I tried to connect the empirical cases with the epistemological stances for the

scientific interpretation and make the study more rigorous on reciprocity and sharing

practices. The negotiations, bargaining and consumption are fundamental components in the

economic anthropology, which were interpreted as per time and context basis within the

broader socio-cultural milieu. I went through the various academic sources, i.e., books,

articles, reports, news, field diaries, photographs, cartons, notes, dissertations, audio and

video records to collect the secondary sources. Through the fieldwork, I collected arts

(manufacturing skills, woodenwares, hunting nets, singing, dancing and verbal art), events

(different ceremonies, feasts and festivals) and behavior (nature of isolation, intoxication,

chatting, and silence). First, most of the information was in raw form, which was later coded

and classified as per its characteristics, i.e., events, situations and time. The coded

information changed into different variables, and later I looked into the relationship between

these variables. The procedure of data collection and data management processes is useful for

the analysis of data. The epistemological (knowledge tradition) and ontological assumptions

were included in the research. The interpersonal, emotional and institutional influences were

33

also presented, which were interpreted in the different phases. I had to deal with the trade

cycle of Rāute according to gender, age, time, seasons, nature and ethnic relation to visualize

the research. The collected audios and video texts on nomadic Rāute were either in Nepali

language or their own native language and these texts were further analyzed. I used the

interpretative approach to seek the meaning of words, sentences and oral histories concerning

the culture of reciprocity. To search for the meaning, I informally spent several hours with

them, asked the meaning of the words, proverbs and sentences and their relation to their

everyday culture. The social behavior of Rāute is based on the established codes which were

useful to see their social world and to explain mantra-"incantation or spell", proverbs and

songs. The actions of Rāute are symbolically embedded both within and outside their social

world that had interconnectedness with different customs, events, festivals, rituals and trade.

The relationship of the variables showed connections between farmer-foragers and was

bagged by the theories concerned with Economic Anthropology, such as Marcel Mauss and

Marshall Sahlins. Their theoretical notions provided the fundamental ideas on exchange

values, and their significance.

In the analysis process, one information followed by another through the theoretical and

methodological implications was considered in threading my ideas systematically. The

collected information from the field was first categorized in accordance with the contents and

nature, and then processed for analysis that made the information more communicable and

manageable than mere descriptions. The process of data analysis occurs in different layers,

from the conceptualization to dissemination of the research. First, analysis was begun

informally in the processes of observation and chatting, then continued in the processes of

note taking, transcription, report writing and analyzing the observable phenomena, i.e.,

narratives, conversations and negotiation of foragers with non-foragers. I employed induction

process and grounded theory to deal with the field stories and narratives to interpret.

34

2.10 Limitations of the Study

This study has both theoretical and methodological limitations. I concentrated only on

nomadic hunter-gatherer Rāute; therefore, I do not claim that this study might be a

representative study to understand reciprocity of other ethnic groups. The raw data of the

ethnography was analyzed only under the theoretical assumptions concerned with reciprocity

propounded by Levi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss and Marshall Sahlins; therefore, it may not cover

other anthropological theories. The fieldwork for the research was limited to only one month

due to resource and time constraints; thus, included information may be inadequate to explain

entire cultural practices followed by hunter-gatherer Rāute. I did not employ comparative

methods to compare my ethnographic information with other similar groups to analyze the

reciprocity and sharing practices. This study was carried out within a limited territory of

western Nepal, thus Rāute and non-Rāute commodity exchange relation may not be

representative of other areas of their nomadic zone. Their relation might be different with the

sedentary population because of different cultural practices and adopting strategies. I

reviewed limited theoretical, methodological and empirical literatures concerned with

economic anthropology and Rāute itself. This ethnography only employed interviews,

observation and ethnographic sampling methods to explore the primary information from the

field and these methods were useful for the qualitative data. In Rāute society talking and

chatting with females is prohibited, therefore, I did not collect information formally from the

female Rāute to maintain the cultural ethos. The information concerning with females was

either collected through observation or through indirect chatting with male Rāute and

villagers.

35

Chapter Three

Filed Location, History and Reciprocity of Nomadic Rāute

In Nepal there is a cultural diversity in terms of art, languages, sculpture, dresses, customs,

beliefs and oral literatures. Different ethnic groups of this country adopt different economic

modes of life. The economic history of these ethnic groups organized under the system of

labour, land, and resources, have a close relation with patronage, slavery and servitude,

reciprocity and sharing. The indigenous labour management, i.e., hali-"plough", bāuro-

"labour" and parmā-"mutual labour exchange" and patron-client relation are examples. Other

examples such as jajmāni-"goods and service in caste system", and khalo-"patronage",

maintain the economic system. In fact, the subsistence of economy in Nepal runs under the

caste system, religious philosophy, family structures and ethnic ideologies. This chapter

gives a reflection on field entry, challenges, ethno-history, identity and inter-ethnic relation

of nomadic Rāute. I have discussed nomadic Rāute, who wander within fixed geographical

locations for the purpose of foraging, including reciprocity and exchange practices.

3.1 Field Entry, Challenges and Reciprocity

My M. Phil. thesis is one part of long term project on hunter-gatherer Rāute. In 2009, I had

done fieldwork in the same groups in Kalekānda VDC of Achham Districts on the banks of

Karnali River that led to the further journey of my research on hunter-gatherer society.

Before taking my research journey in Rāute society, I consulted with journalists of Dailekh

and Surkhet Districts through telephone, email and social media. My frequent contact with

local people continuously provided information about their mobility. In the first two days of

my fieldwork, I stayed in Birendra Nagar, the headquarters of Surkhet District, where I

consulted with the Local Development Officer (LDO), journalists and local people to find the

actual location of Rāute and collect brief information about their everyday work. On the third

36

day, I drove to Dobilā Kholā on a motorcycle, almost 7 km away from Surkhet and found

Rāute had been living there for the past one and half months and shifted to the different

campsites within the same geographical location.

Map No. 2: Study Area

The study area is tribeni-"junction of three places" of Jarbutā, Sātākhāni and Ratu village

development committees and dovān-"confluence of two rivers". On the first day, while I was

on the way, I met two Rāute who were going to exchange woodenware. They stopped me and

asked for chewing tobacco. I told them I did not have any. They addressed me as "Sir ji” and

asked, "If you do not mind, give some money to buy some chewing tobacco". I told them it

is not good for health. Cunningly they replied Surti Bhayena bhane hāmro gibroo latin chha-

"without tobacco our tongue will be unable to work". This made me realize that tobacco was

one of their preferred gifts that they expected from the outsiders.

37

On the first day in the study location, I saw Rāute migrate from the banks of Dobilā Kholā of

Sātākhāni VDC to the terrace of Ratu VDC due to severe cold. The selected area for

migration was less than 500 meters away from their previous campsite. The selected area of

study was abundant in terms of forest resources to produce woodenwares from kukāth such as

chāp, katus, gurās, githi, tuni, and khiroo. They made two to four huts in each terrace. The

number of huts in each terrace depended on the size and choices of Rāute. I saw both male

and female busy constructing their huts with leaves, saplings, wooden logs and tattered

clothes. Some huts were strengthened by grass, mats and twigs of plants to make them warm.

Their camps were situated near a water source along a motorable road. They strategically

choose new campsites on the basis of prey, trade route, market, local shops and access of

wild roots, tubers and fruits. These days, Rāute also find the purchasing place, which must be

close to their settlement, where they can consume liquor and food items.

I got the opportunity to talk with Bhakta Bāhādur Shāhi, a sixty year old Rāute, who asked

me about my reason to visit their camp. He asked me who would come there for the next visit

and what they would bring for them. I told him that I had come to write about the reciprocity

nomadic Rāute and I did not know about others. He questioned me; ke hunchhā lekhera–

"What would happen through your writing". I assured him that I would record their

reciprocity practice through observation and interviews within their community and that may

be helpful for further incentives. He was not convinced and showed little interest in my

works. I was afraid that I might be denied entry or a chance to talk to them in a relaxed mood

as I had heard some rumours and realities concerning nomadic Rāute. My earlier experiences

on Rāute community proved that working with Rāute was complicated, especially in regard

to rapport building, recording language and hunting strategies. They have the nature of

isolation and a strong inclination to tantra-mantra-"sorcery". There is a rumour about Rāute

38

being engaged in abducting human beings for sacrifice. Rāute remain silent with strangers or

newcomers and their women and children are restricted from speaking with them.

My entry into the Rāute settlement was made musical by the echoes of Khahare stream, songs

of the birds and rhythms of mādal-"a kind of drum" in the deep forest. They choose an

appropriate location for trade, i.e., commodity circulation, distribution and consumption. I

consulted with Rāute Mukhiyā Surya Nārāyan Shāhi newly appointed Mukhiyā, to get entry.

He demanded incentives for the welfare of the community, such as khasis- "goats", packs of

rice, and blankets, and then I told him that the research was just a part of my university study

and that I was unable to give anything. I explained my research objectives and possibilities of

its future outcome. I requested Surya Nārāyan for permission to learn about their culture;

however, he trickily answered, "We just hunt the monkeys and Hanuman langurs and dig-out

the wild roots and fruits. Everyone knows about these practices and why do you need it

again? The hunting-gathering practice makes us different.” Surya Nārāyan expressed his

everyday problems of their social world such as villagers' encroachment, food scarcity and

local dispute. He asked me, ke Kām chha hāmi sanga- "What is your work with us?. If you

frequently came in our camp children and women may be afraid of you,” he said. Other Rāute

too raised similar concerns. They wanted to maintain secrecy about their culture and protect

hunted prey from the evil eyes of the outsiders. They believe that the evil eyes of the

outsiders pollute their prey; therefore, they ban villagers from entering their campsite.

3.2 Ethno-history and Reciprocity

Subaltern history is concerned with myths, legends, music, proverbs and migratory history of

the marginal people, which have been followed through the generations. This section presents

the linkage between ethno-history and reciprocity, which proves through their origin,

occupations and the interchangeable relation between Rāute with non-Rāute. Some existing

39

myths in their society depict farmer-forager relations and long-term relationships with them.

Dhan Bāhādur offers a myth as;

Our forefathers were two brothers. God assigned elder brother as a farmer and younger one (Rāute) was sent as forager to hunt monkeys and langurs, and gather wild fruits and roots and trade manufactured goods with the elder brother. Elder brother was assigned to produce grain for both the brothers. Once an elder brother wanted to visit his younger brother, but was unable to meet him because the latter’s (Rāute) camp was surrounded by wild animals like snakes, tigers and bears. He then returned back to his own house. We (Rāute) never suffer from these wild animals because God has given us special power to fight against them.

This myth shows the origin, ethnic affiliation with non-Rāute, which includes contradiction.

Their origin is concerned with the religious issues, geographical territory, bartering

mechanism, forest resources and ethnic identity. The mythical anecdotes related to Rāute

reflect the everyday practices, social taboos, occupations and interdependent relations with

the non-forager groups. They believe in the supernatural powers and sacrifice animals like

goats and chickens to make their deities happy forever. Their economic prosperity is

determined by religious ideologies. They believe that economic activities such as hunting-

gathering, exchange, trading and begging are shaped by supernatural power. The notion of

success and failure of works is concerned with religious ideologies that subjugate their

relation with non-Rāute, therefore, they are responsible to make their deities happy forever.

Chandramān Rāute nāyak-"leader" says:

We became Rāute since the time of our ancestor. We are banpāle-"forest guard" and you are gharpāle-"village guard". We move from forests to forests, thus we are banpāle. The proverb "brindrā bana jānu Kanthaphala Khānu"[go to the forest to eat the wild fruits] shows who we are and how our life is attached to the forest. We eat kāfal, anselu and chortā. These edible wild fruits are our bhāg-"share" and constructing houses, and adopting agricultural activities are your bhāg. The fruits and tubers are our bhāg hence, "you are the king of the village and we are the king of the forest".

The Chandramān's statement shows the relation of Rāute with forest, occupations and

villager's and largely with nature-culture. His statement does not contain any mythical and

historical relation with non-Rāute and only shows the ethnic interdependence. According to

Chandramān, there are four clans in Rāute community they are: Kalāyal, Rāskoti, Satyāl and

Samal. They were assumed to come from the Phukot of Jumlā and were born from the mouth

40

of deities. The origin of Kalāyāl from the Dhangrā of Doti, Satyāl and Samal came from the

eastern parts of Dang District. Regarding the origin of Rāskoti, Ain Bāhādur Shāhi says:

The origin of Rāskoti is head of Pukār Kholā of the Achham District at the temple of Malikā Bhagwati. Likewise Kalāyal originated from the Lātikoili of Surkhet and Samal from the temple of Bhotan, a temple in Jumlā. The God had kept us together and managed to marry one-to-another.

They have a strong attachment to traditional beliefs and have affiliation while articulating

about their origin, the causes of suffering, hunting, and death. The collected narratives from

the field demonstrate that their clan base origins are from different places which are grounded

on myths and nomenclature. They said they run their daily life through the manufacturing

koshi, madhus, khāt-"bed" and cauki-"bread board" through hard labor and trade. They define

the history as per their ethnic ties, religious connections, occupations and relation with nature.

They consider nomadic life easy and say, "Our life is easier than that of villagers. If you plant

rice in the field, it will take at least six months, but we Rāute cut down trees making the koshi

and trade it to the villager within three days. You villagers need to wait for at least six months

to get a taste of grain. Therefore, villagers’ life is painful." When I asked Chandrāmān about

fundamental transformation in the life of Rāute, he answered:

We heard that Rāute have been engaged in agriculture life, but I don’t believe it. You can kill us, but we cannot accept the sedentary life which is no more different than death. Mukhiyā can adopt an agricultural mode of life, but this Chandramān cannot adopt an agricultural mode of life. There are no changes in the food and clothing habits in our life.

When asked for reasons of migration, he says, “if we Rāute stay in one place we will be afraid with dhus-"smoke". If there is dhus we will fly towards the next hill.”

According to Chandramān, they only use Kukāth, which never finish because villagers use different kāth-"woods". “You can see the plants like tuni and simal that Chandramān has been exploiting since last two months, did that finish? The plants for the king of the village and plants for the kings of the forest are different therefore plants will not be finished.”

Asked if they calculated the hunting resources and their availability in the forest, he replied they never did so. “It never ends, you have Ratuwā and Ghoral and we have Bāndar and Gunā for hunting. The migrated distance might be two to three hours walking distance from the last camp and we continuously migrate towards the upland in the summer seasons and lowland in the winter. We wait Aunsi- "new moon" and Purne-"full moon" for the migration.”

41

The history of sedentary Rāute seems to differ: their origin is Salikhet of Dewthalā of

Darchulā District, later its name transformed into Rāutelā. The Ascot's Rāute of India

assumed that they migrated from Dārchulā (HMG/N 2041 v. s. and Shāhi 2057 v. s.). Some

of their families are still there. The sedentary Rāute of Jogbudā valley migrated from the

Deuthalā in 2037 v. s. They frequently visit Deuthalā to worship their deities during Dasain

festivals. The nomadic Rāute do not claim any sort of affiliation with the sedentary Rāute of

Dadeldhurā. In the ruling period of Nagrājā there was conflict among the people from

different groups. The losers were either kept as slaves or driven towards the jungle. It is

believed that the Rāute lost in the conflict and were driven towards the jungle

(Shāhi 2057 v. s.).

Mythical evidences of Rāute trace out the ethnic histories, cultural roots, and causal

relationships between Rāute and non-Rāute. For instance, the mother of the Rāute was the

daughter of the jangali-"forest dweller"; she was the rakhelni-"concubine" of the king

Rāskoti. The first son of the rakhelni was expected to be the heir to the throne; however, the

king did not allow him because the boy was born to a rakhelni. When Rakhelni's son was

unable to succeed to his father as the king, he became furious and entered into the jungle

(Nepal, 2054:126[2040] v. s.). There is another legend regarding their origin: Rāute had

sexual relations with the wife of a Bhotiyā; later they got married. Rāute succeeded to defame

the Bhotiyā through the marriage of his wife. The Bhotiyā could not tolerate such slander, so

they assaulted the Rāute and chased them towards the jungle, which the Rāute have inhabited

ever since. The processes of Sanskritization and Hinduzation may be reasons for the Rāute

adoption of Hindu ritual practices. HMG/N (2041v. s.) report explains the origin of the

Rāute: The ancestors of the Rāute claim themselves as Thakuri and had sexual relations with

Sarkini-"a female cobbler" who gave birth to a child. Later, her child was not accepted into

the Thakuri clan, and was compelled to enter into the jungle; since then they have been

42

named Rāute. Hindu philosophy states, "Sexual relationships between members of the high

and low castes are ostracized from the society". The ethno-history of the Rāute is connected

with pain, frustration and social stigma-much different from that of the farmer with whom

Rāute frequently interact for the purpose of survival. Devi Sharan Neupāne, a local

informant, mentioned a legend of Māhābharata from Khidgijuwla of Dailekh as:

In Treta yuga, Rāvana abducted Sitā and carried her off to Lanka. He attempted to seduce her. Sitā remained faithful to her husband Rama. Later Rama and his brother Laxman set off with a plan to free Sitā from the captivity of Rāvana. They pleaded for help from Hanuman. At their request, Hanuman helped them to destroy Lanka and established his throne. After a long battle between the army of the Rama and Rāvana, Rama managed to free Sitā from the captivity of Rāvana. In the battle, Rāute took the side of Rāvana and they were unable to fight against the militant force of Hanuman any longer; they fled towards the jungle seeking safety. Since then Rāute have been killing the soldiers of Hanuman (Shāhu 2013).

This myth shows the contradiction between Rāute and Hindu people. Rāute's activities are

against the Hindu ideologies. For instance, Rāute only hunt monkeys and rhesus. The Hindu

text Rāmāyana depicts monkeys and rhesuses as soldiers of Hanuman who rescued abducted

Sitā and killed Rāvana. Rāute were the loosers in the battle of Lanka. Thus, they wear the

yellow Tikā-"mark on the forehead" instead of red Tikā. Hindu villagers say Rāute are the

offspring of N. Rākchasa-"giants", and they perform work in the reverse order of Hindus.

Nepal (2054:47[2040] v. s.) writes, “Rāute and Kusundā both had relations with the rājā –

"king" and prajā - "people". Rāute had to pay the N. ālok - "tax" to the Kusundā every year.

Once Rāute finished paying off the ālok, the Kusundās looted the property from the Rāute

after twelve years. Since then, Rāute run away when they see the Kusundā. Rāute refuse to

accept the patron-client relationship and such relation is not possible because of their

nomadic cycle.

The ethno-history of Rāute depends on sacred and profane, purity and danger, winner and

loser that show the interdependent relationship between Rāute and non-Rāute. The notion of

caste, religion and ethnicity are deeply rooted in the ethno-history of Rāute that presents their

cultural practice and relation with non-forager in their day-to-day life. The long- term ethno-

43

history of Rāute is marked with reciprocity, social restrictions, taboos, and interchangeable

relations seen in the myths and legends concerned with Rāute.

Rāute use simple tools such as bāsila-"hand axe", bancharo-"axe", ārā-"saw" and randhā-"a

carpenter's plane" for manufacturing woodenwares, similarly jāl-"hunting net" to catch

monkeys and langurs. Gāboo-"net bag" is used to keep the goods, sickles and knives for

processing meat. They use rudimentary methods for preparing food, woodenwares for

fetching water and preparing jānd-"fermented food".

44

Chapter Four

Gift Exchange Practices of Nomadic Rāute

Mit Sanga Mitai Bhanuwlā Koshi Ko Mol Liunlā

Mit-"close friend" is respected as mit, but, they are not exempt from paying price for the

koshi".

There is "no free gift" as stated by Mary Douglas in the forward of Marcel Mauss' book The

Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (2012 [1950]), similar to the

above mentioned adage of Rāute. Irrespective of any relationship, paying a price for a gift

from Rāute is a must as a trade partner. They anticipate an immediate return for their gift to

the villagers and are not interested in sharing anything "free of cost". The transaction of

goods in Rāute society exists as a form of gift, which often measures in economic values,

egocentric and temporary. The so-called Rāute's gift is similar to commodity exchange

practices. The price of their gift is determined by the Rāute themselves. The mit relation

carries the multiple meanings that depend on reciprocity, i.e., gift exchange, dyadic relation,

price, interdependent relation and continuity of their primitive trade within their social

structure. In this section, I have presented how Rāute calculate their investment, measure and

expectation of their gift return. The process of gift exchange, ideology of moral obligation

and generosity are existing within their society. Mauss is uninterested in "pure" and "free

gift" whereas, he is interested in obligatory gift where there would be an expectation of

return between receiver and giver (see Venkatesan 2011). The mythical concepts of

reciprocity are concerned with voluntary contributions of gift givers to their recipients is a

faulty concept which is proved through the scholarly work of Marcel Mauss book "The Gift:

The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies (2012 [1950]) and B. Malinowski

in his work Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) dealt with a ceremonial exchange-

45

popular as kula within the Papuo-Melanesian people. The Papua New Guinea people engage

in ceremonial exchange to continue their further relationship. He argues that social

relationship in the primitive society is regulated by the customs of exchange where a physical

object is important. The ceremonial exchange occurs both within the same group or different

cultural groups. In the kula system the necklace of red shell moves in a clockwise direction,

whereas the white arm shell moves in an anti-clockwise direction. When they meet at a

certain point of their trade route they exchange the objects. When one gives a necklace, the

other has to reciprocate with a bracelet. They perform a ritual to exchange their objects,

which is only concerned with substance economy rather than the Maussain gift exchange

practices. Bronislaw Malinowski's book Crime and Custom in Savage Society (1926) and

James Laidlaw's article A Free Gift Makes no Friends (2000) has also discussed in exchange

of the commodities.

The process "to give", "to receive" and "to return" has a connection with transition of

commodities, influenced by the exchange of goods that Rāute produce in their everyday life.

The "gift exchange" practice prevailing in the primitive society is different from "credit",

"monetized" and "borrow" based on the economic system. There is not only movement of

goods but also circulation of ideas and cultural values. The so-called gift exchange practice in

Rāute community is based on the unilateral exchange between partners. This would be

possible through the social network and social relation. The gift exchange practice in hunter-

gather Rāute society is different from the Hindu dominated population. The exchange

practices do not take a long time and would be completed within one day. Their exchange

practices are self-centered and self-motivated. It often goes with specific customs and rituals

that shape their identity. Here, I would like to analyze the latent meaning of social ties and a

form of rapport between giver and receiver which is only one objective to receive the

economic benefits. Gift exchange practices in Rāute take place between individuals bound

46

with some obligation to return at equivalent price of their commodities. Rāute claim that they

produce goods as "gift" and prefer to build the social relation with them that has economic

meanings and continuity of their traditions.

This chapter examines the ideology of gift exchange prevailing in Rāute, who has no interest

to share free of cost. The "free" or "pure gift" does not make any sense for the construction of

social relations. There must be no "reciprocal relation" and "renouncing commodities" is

unacceptable in the gift exchange. On the contrary, villagers practise dān to their priest to

maintain the inter-caste relation in Hindu society, where there is no obligation to return to the

giver. The free gift creates humiliation within people, who accept utensils, cloths and land as

dān from the non-Brahmin people. The nomadic cycle of nomadic Rāute in the different

ecological zones compels them to keep intra-ethnic relations of reciprocity. A single Rāute

will have established hundreds of mits with the sedentary groups to solve his economic

problems. This community survives with interactive short distance trade relations with

sedentary groups, forages the wild roots and fruits, succeeds to maintain ancestral values and

avoids assimilating with the agro-pastoral community. Traditionally, Rāute have been able to

maintain symbiotic relations with agro-pastoral Hindu communities through the

manufacturing of woodenwares and trading them with villagers. They live one week to three

months in one place, then move to another place in cyclic order in accordance with forest

resources, market, temperature and death of their community members. The gift exchange

practices have a connection with different social, symbolic and cultural importance. It has a

close connection with dharmā-"religion", karmā-"work", and bhāgya-"luck" that are

influenced by beliefs, taboos, rituals, feasts, festivals and dance. The reciprocity practices in

primitive society defined as "vice-versa movements" may include sharing and counter-

sharing of unprocessed food, informal hospitality, ceremonial exchanges, loaning and

repaying, compensation of specialized or ceremonial services, the transfer that seals a peace

47

agreement, impersonal haggle, and so on" (Sahlins 1972). The reciprocity depends on the

contract which produces and reproduces the social relation within the people.

4.1 Discourses on Primitive Economy

Anthropologists have often noted that the foraging decisions people make are affected by

obligations to give to others and expectations of receiving from others (Minnegal 1997: 25).

Different religions have different conceptions related to gifts. A Hindu devotee sacrifices the

gift to the temple, offers the pinda-"a ball of rice" to the dead ancestor and gives cows to the

Brahmin. Buddhists give gift to the monasteries for the welfare of the monks and nuns and

Christians for the welfare of the church. It creates the notion of social contract, solidarity and

builds the long-term social relation. The terms gift exchange and hunting-gathering practices

are associated with economic anthropology, particularly in explaining production, foraging

and trading. Marshall Sahlin says, “Economy becomes a category of culture rather than

behaviour, in a class with politics or religion rather than rationality or prudence: not the need-

serving activities of individuals, but the material life process of society” (1972: xii). The gift

exchange process is not only limited to give and to receive but is also associated with moral,

social, legal and economic phenomena. The gift produces and reproduces the social ties

(Godelier 1999:1) among their community members. Discourse on gift began after the

Marcel Mauss essay Essaisur la don. Forme Archique de l'Echange," (1924) in

Anthropology in which he argued that "there is no free gift". This statement is contradictory;

some gifts are given voluntarily to the people, charities and deities and there is no chance to

return. Marcel Mauss described it as being, after centuries of Christianity and religious

charitable institutions, "still wounding for him who has accepted it". It is considered to be

pāp, feeling to be regretted, humiliating and painful to receive from one hand and return back

from another hand. "Gift-giving is a form of reciprocity or exchange and integrates a society"

48

(Sherry 1983: 157). It builds harmony, generates social power and solves economic necessity

and extends kinship. The forms of gift differ from society to society, culture to culture,

religion to religion and region to region. For instance, to give dān to Brahmin means to clear

the way to heaven, give the kanyā- "girl" is great dharma-"virtue". It has theological virtue-

moral values, including mokcha-"salvation". Gift is partly a material phenomenon; in all

societies, people promote their social and economic interests by means of trade, sharing, gift,

loans and mutual aid (Nettle and Dunbar 1997:93). The relation of nomadic Rāute is

structured and based on the binary oppositions like sacred and profane, pure and impure, raw

and cooked, where certain kinds of inter and intra-caste relationship are embedded.

This process of distribution, in many tribes, is thus set in a non-economic matrix which takes

the form of gift and ceremonial exchange (Herskovits 1974[1940]: 155). This process is

concerned with the certain symbols and symbolic phenomena—containing human nature and

behaviour. Mauss says, three obligations: "giving", "receiving", and "returning". So the

whole theory calls for the existence of a structure, only fragments of which are delivered by

experiences-just its scattered members, or rather its elements (Levi-Strauss 1987[1950]: 46).

Barter economy, including reciprocity, gift giving and sharing, which might be denied,

cancelled and balanced to return, has a connection with their ethnic ideology, social value

system, rules of taboo and system of belief. I venture to explain three types of reciprocity

that Marshall Sahlins called "generalized", "balanced", and "negative".

4.1.1 Generalized Reciprocity

In the generalized reciprocity a gift is given without expectation of any return. For example,

giving any goods from parent to child, senior to junior and husband to wife are examples of

generalized reciprocity. The generalized reciprocity has been observed in the sharing practice

within the kin groups, mainly sons, daughters, brothers and community members. It mainly

49

depends on ideologies of altruism and welfare of their fellows of their generation.

"Generalized exchange establishes a system of operations conducted 'on credit' a surrender, a

daughter or a sister to B who surrenders to C, who in turn will surrender one to A" (Levi-

Strauss 1987[1950]: 265). Levi-Strauss also discusses a restricted exchange between two

groups, which is run under the rule of taboos. It often concerns two parties A and B. The

generalized reciprocity is broader in comparison with other forms of reciprocity. Marshall

Sahlins has defined, "generalized reciprocity" as referring to transactions that are putatively

altruistic, transactions in the line of assistance given and, if possible and necessary, assistance

returned (1972: 193-94). This practice occurs within the kin groups, family and community

members, where the giver contributes indefinite resources and time to their predecessors. The

material flows and transitions unilaterally go according to hierarchal order such as

grandfather- father-son and denotes as X gives to you likewise Y gives to X. Similarly in

"extended general reciprocity" material flows as per generation base, grandfather-father-son-

grandson and denotes as X gives to Y similarly Y gives to Z.

The flow of commodity from one group to another group or one generation to another

generation would not be a state of equilibrium in generalized reciprocity. In figure no. 1, the

50

first two cases show the uneven and the unequal flow of commodities from one to another. It

is not necessary that the first generation strongly support their descendents. The third case

shows the intra-generational reciprocity, in which I found that there is equal chance that both

generations could contribute strong or weak assistance to their counterparts. It might differ

over community to community, family to family and individual to individual. There is intra-

generation generalized reciprocity within the family and friends. The strong ethnic and

kinship bonds build the trust through the generalized reciprocity. Due to these facts there

would not be any specific rate and measurement unit to count the investment they had

invested. One provides assistance to another without expectation of return, which is possible

through the socialization process. In Rāute society we could observe this reciprocity in

hospitality, religious ceremonies, rituals, foods and commodities sharing processes. It goes

with the vice-versa movement throughout their life. They avoid financial debt; however

social debt is strong. There is an unequal and asymmetrical relation, where goods and

services are repaid as counter-reciprocity. Serge-Christophe Kolm (1992:5) defines general

reciprocity as, "a gift bestowed not to a specific agent, but to society we call a "general gift".

With an individualistic conception, this means that the giver cannot trace, or does not care

for, what individuals exactly receive the benefits from his gift". The flow of materials moves

one way to their loved one, closet kin or offspring and lineage groups for the long period of

time (Sahlins 1972) and "delaying repayment", "unable to help" and "rare balance" by a

receipt. The sense of belonging is the dominant social factor that encompasses "co-

operation", "hospitality", "sharing" and "morality" to their juniors. The ethical obligation

works strongly within the giver and the recipient. Generalized reciprocity describes transfers

in a social context where people are all more or less in debt with each other (Narotzky 1997:

46). The hierarchal order in the family is predominant. Rāute provide finished woodenwares

in terms of blood, lineage and clan relation which is embedded in the altruistic influence

51

through informal rules. In Rāute society a gift is not accepted as a physical object, but also

incorporates emotion, sentiment and memory. For instance, the married daughter of Rāute

receives commodities as koshi, madhus and jhumā as dowry from their parents. Myan

Bāhādur says:

We do not have jewels, property and land to give as dowry like the villagers do. Thus, we give away woodenwares as marital gifts. We need sufficient woodenwares and trade them in the villages to arrange marriage. If we are unable to produce sufficient woodenwares in the time of marriage we seek support from other families and this minimizes burden in the marriage ritual.

In Rāute society, the social relation is possible through the material transitions from people-

to-people. They await the return of their investment at certain points of their life. Male Rāute

share the production with the disabled, elderly people and widows, who are considered garib

guruwā-"very poor", where there will not be an expectation of return in the future. They

allocate everything for the garib guruwā on each occasion and share the hunted prey. In the

Rāute society, sharing is taken as humiliation and inferiority. For example, they give the

monkey's tail to the widows and leftover food to them. This is a form of socially produced

punishment in Rāute society; cultural values forced to punish widows and they are blamed

for killing their husbands. According to villagers, Rāute chide widows saying nun khāne bhai

poi toki hai- "you killed your husband, thus how you could eat salt". They are blamed as

causing the deaths of their husbands. Rāute argue that this as a completely wrong perception

regarding Rāute. Ain Bāhādur says: we often love and care for the widows, disabled and

poor. Their leader has prime responsibility to look after them. The sharing and gift-giving

items are not expected to be returned by the receiver. This is an intra-group social behaviour

(Fortier 2000:114). The gift that they provide to the widows and disabled within their society

contains voluntary characteristics, where there would not be a future expectation of their

investment. The closet kinship network means to share money, materials and meat with their

nearest kin groups and family members. However, all of their shared items are associated

52

with wild products and prey. The generalized reciprocity in Rāute society has connections

with both social and economic capital. The contributions of the Rāute leaders have a

connection with ideologies of altruism, sharing and faith; in return, they are regularly

received by both material and social-psychological incentives for the people on the different

occasions and ceremonies. I observed that young Rāute assists Myan Bāhādur Shāhi because

of his contributions over the period of thirty years. Myan says:

People respect me because of my continuous sharing and caring all-around. I trust them and never leave any stone unturned to ensure maximum satisfaction of the people, in response, they honour me, and this is the wealth of my life. I share the received money on an equity basis.

Rāute ideologies on reciprocity within their own community are no different than the Hindu

dominant groups bordering their nomadic zone. The sharing materials are influenced by

nepotism and favouritism that strengthen their social fabric. The unilateral flow of

commodities from one generation to another and one person to another strengthen the social

harmony and integrity within the Rāute, which contributes to make an egalitarian society.

This is also possible due to their everyday interactions within the society. In fact, the long

memory of recipients compels Rāute to reciprocate their receivers in different modes and

dimensions, which is based on frequent interaction in everyday practices.

4.1.2 Balanced Reciprocity

"Balanced reciprocity refers to direct exchange" (Sahlins 1972: 194). Two parties directly

engage in exchange and compute in balance between receiver and giver. Both of them

equally benefit through their traditional bartering economic system. The specific character of

balanced reciprocity is that this reciprocity is less personal. There are two way material

flows, no altruism, and equivalence commodities, acknowledgment of labour and immediate

give-take relation. There would be inter-ethnic relation, primarily farmer-forager, while they

are exchanging commodities with grains. The mutual agreement and negotiation within the

53

group is necessary to meet their everyday needs and desires. There is an informal contract

within Rāute and non-Rāute for the transition of commodities, such contract concern with

giving, receiving and returning or repayment for the articles they produced for exchange.

This contract runs under obligatory rules and generosity. For instance, if A gives to B, B

reciprocates to A immediately.

This figure shows the equilibrium relationship in the commodity transition process between

giver and receiver. The balanced reciprocity is observed in the process of exchange of their

woodenwares with grains in the village. There are no fixed units of measurement to receive

necessary items from the villagers. This relation is based on customary practices. They

exchange the produced items without delay. They fulfil their recent desires and expectations

immediately. This practice is no different than the theoretical notion of Marshall Sahlins

about claim on balance reciprocity. This reciprocity occurs within Rāute and non-Rāute who

might be farmers and artisans. Their exchange partners are not fixed, thus they tie their

fictive relation for the temporary benefit. The demanded items differ, based on their current

necessity, such as foods, grains, goats, hens and clothes. There is no formal agreement

between the traders where both of them are motivated by the notion of self-centredness and

there would be rare altruism within the people. This reciprocity has been occurring in

accordance with the utilitarian values of the commodities. This occurs beyond their ethnic

54

boundaries. They demand grains as per size of woodenwares at the local level, where giver

and receiver negotiate for personal benefit rather than to assist one another. In their

community, exchange of goods might be debt and loan without credit for short-term; such

exchange occurs within kin groups, colleagues and relatives to overcome the embedded

problems that might be cash or kind. The exchange practice within the society might be

woodenwares, foods and prey that demonstrate the kinship ties, social bonds and prestige.

The exchange items might be different outside their community. However, within their

community there might be the same or different exchange. There is a balanced relation in

terms of labour, time and investment in the production and exchange. This kind of reciprocity

in Rāute community is contextual, situational and relation based. There is a contract between

two persons or two groups. They produce forest goods for the consumption of the sedentary

to reciprocate with grains. Exchange is possible as per their choice and interest. The gift

exchange in Rāute society differs from the general concepts in Nepali society. They "give to

get back" as soon as possible and they would say; "give with one hand, return back from

another hand". This creates balanced social relation through the transition of the produced

items, where negotiation is important to get maximum benefits from their trade partners. The

intra-groups gift-giving processes depend on the honour, morality, kinship, alliance, and

obligation. For instance, they share monkey thigh with the shaman for his healing service;

likewise, they give the head of the prey to the hunter who struck the monkey first. Sharing

these commodities shows due respect in their society. They maintain an equilibrium relation

through marriage alliance within the different clans that binds them together and safe from

further hurdles. Rāute not only balance their economy, but also continue their communication

in negotiation, circulation and distribution of resources. The dyadic relation between gift-

giver and recipient are predominant, which maintains the balance between farmer-forager.

The balance reciprocity is possible while two different parties are satisfied and come at the

55

point of agreement through the negotiation to achieve the benefits for the people. Rāute

reciprocity culture is embedded with the norms and values of society, particularly in the

sharing and distribution of resources. In such situation the issue of morality lives away from

its real ground. The following cartoon carries the meaning of balance reciprocity, which was

published after their visit to Prime Minister Mādhav Nepal in 2010; it shows their negotiation

and exchange strategies.

This is a form of barter economy in the non-literate societies who are in the pre-capitalistic

position. Rāute have employed different strategies, tricks and negotiate power for trade that

might be benevolent for individual to group. I present a case history collected in 2008.

Before my arrival at hotel in Khidgijuwla, Rāute Mukhiyā Myan Bāhādur Shāhi was sitting there in traditional attire called gādoo and turban on the head. I greeted Namaste but he did not respond. My field assistant introduced me and stated my objectives too. I offered tea to the Rāute Mukhiyā. He denied the offer and said, "There might be poison". After the persuasion of shopkeeper to Rāute; he accepted the tea and pretended to be hungry. He praised me saying, "You people of Kathmandu have a lot of money, big building and good enough life". He talked with me in a witty manner while others around were laughing and encouraging him to speak. After a cup of tea, he asked me if I would want to take his nāso. I asked the price, he answered you can fill this bowl with chāmal-"husked rice" instead of money. I thought it was not expensive; however, the shopkeeper gave me a clue it was five times more expensive than its monetary value. Then, I promise to buy before my field departure. As our agreement, he brought khosi on the last day of my field visit and it was bigger than the previous one. I exchanged chāmal with koshi without any bargaining due to my moral obligation. I paid more than the previous one (Shāhu 2008).

There are two interesting components concerned with gift exchange in Rāute community:

first, they exchange woodenwares mainly koshi, madhus, and jhumā to the villagers in return

56

for food items. When we calculate the value of time and investment of labour, there would be

an equivalent of the price of their produced goods. There would be an asymmetric relation in

the process of commodities' transition from one to another, for instance, the investment of

their time and labour to fell down the tree, carving the woodenware and trading the goods in

the market. However, at other times, there might not be equivalent, which they receive

through the exchange with the grains in the village. They are affluent without cash income,

agriculture productivity, animal rearing and employment. The bartering objects are not only

physical objects. They have multiple relations with social, cultural and economic aspects,

who are afraid of farming, sedentary life and education. Sharing the monkey meat and

woodenwares within their groups builds the symmetrical relation; however, they have an

asymmetrical relation with the villagers that only depends on negotiation and fictive

relationship. Female Rāute often purchase ornaments from the local Dalits like lohār, bādi

and sunār through selling firewood in the local market. The young Rāute women purchase

cosmetic items and also flat bangles made up aluminium, brass, silver and iron. The dyadic

relation between a gift-giver and receiver is based on ethnic ideology, societal rules and

regulations. It extends the human relation to fulfil human desire and means to survive and

contribute to sustain their culture. The social contract is governed though social law and

beliefs. It is not based on a fixed area. The life of the Rāute depends on gift, a means of

social existence and contributes to make their cosmological world. The paradox of the

modern capitalistic society is that heterogeneity creates class, coercive, conflictual and

exclusive relations. The practice of marriage is an important part of the reciprocity, including

their gift exchange. They follow the clan exogamy marriage within their three major clans

Kalāyāl, Rāskoti and Samal. The balance reciprocity is reflected in intra-group marriage

relations mainly brothers-sisters exchange and gift-giving process. They don’t prefer inter-

caste marriage, mainly with agriculturalists and agro-pastoralists, because they fear, it might

57

bring hurdles and disorder in their identity. The social and cultural sanction of Rāute

preserves their identity. Hence women are not allowed to speak with males from the

agriculturalist villagers. Their widows can only barter received woodenwares with the male

relatives. The refusal to accept gifts from the Rāute does not mean to break the fictive

relationship; however, if anyone refuses to take the gift after the negotiation with them, then

they will break their traded items rather than carrying back home. Such activities are

considered to be domineering or devalue their works and skills. These days they calculate the

values of their commodities in cash, which might not be equivalent to their labour and wages.

They charge the price as per quality of wood, invested time and energy for manufacturing the

woodenwares and the demand of the market and their own recent problems. For instance,

during my fieldwork, they charged Rs 50-100 for a koshi and Rs 100-800 for a madhus. I

observed that Rāute exchange the high quality koshi with chicken, the actual price of chicken

was much lower than the price of a Koshi. These evidences show the imbalance between the

price of commodities and chicken. Yet, the "balance reciprocity" weakens due to extra stress

and burden in the modern world.

4.1.3 Negative Reciprocity

Sipālu mānche sipālu hunchha makhani mānche makhani hunchha

Skilful people are skilful and beggar people are always beggar.

– Ahin Bāhādur Rāute

The above mentioned epigraph denotes the different survival strategies of Rāute. Begging is

a crime for them. They say, "We give our products from one hand and get returns from the

other hand". For them, receiving any commodity free of cost is a "crime", "poisonous",

"uncongenial" and "hostile". The cultural practices of Rāute are associated with the notion of

hardship in reference to social adjustment. This epigraph carries multiple meanings,

58

including their art of negotiation, social behaviour, ethnic identity and the lesson to their

predecessors. The Rāute fulfil their demand from the sedentary groups like brāhmin, chettri

and dalit whose relation exists as a patron-client. They keep the inter-cultural relationship

with them to trade their products. During exchange, they normally build fictive relation with

the villagers. It makes them easy at the beginning to get chewing tobacco, cigarette, tea,

snacks and clothes. This is a strategic game of negotiation. They build such relations to live

in the village and ask for food, money, tobacco, liquor and vegetables from the villagers.

Sharing, hoarding and theft are others form of economic management in the Rāute

community (see Fortier 2001). A few years back Rāute started begging money, clothes, tents,

tobacco and ornaments from the villagers. During special occasions they moved to city areas

and demanded special privileges from the state and non-state agencies. For example, this

year they collected rice and Khasi from Nepali film star Rekhā Thāpā to celebrate Māghi,

likewise blankets from the Red Cross society and shoes from the Christian missionary.

Therefore, begging has become a part of their livelihood strategy. They demand without

work, labour and investment. Due to the day-to-day necessity, they are also found to have

been involved in snatching farm products like green vegetables, maize and fruits from the

villagers. I observed that a Rāute had forcefully collected the vegetables and fruits from a

kitchen garden of a villager, when he was not offered anything while begging. There has

been little transformation in the traditional conception of bartering with non-traders. They are

demanding without giving any items, and are found to be trying to get commodities free of

cost and make fake relations with the villagers. They receive money without investment,

works and exchange with the local people. Yet, this practice is against their cultural value of

"give with one hand, get returns from another". This has eroded their primitive trade pattern.

Their self-interests, desires and needs are fulfilled through the short-term negotiation,

including verbal arts, giving false assurance, and prostrate submission by keeping the turban

59

on the feet. When anyone agrees to meet the first demand then the second and subsequent

demands are made. If they stop giving, then they [Rāute] demonstrate their "trickster" nature,

by pretending to be busy manufacturing woodenwares, rearing children and cooking food at

home. They demand khashi, money, clothes and food items from outsiders who show any

interest in learning their art, culture and language. They demand something from the

outsiders under the informal rules and regulations of their society. For instance, they share

proverbs, language, and woodcarving. The following figures show the different forms of

negative reciprocity prevailing in Rāute society.

In the above two figures, the first figure shows that Rāute (B, C and D) are begging,

snatching and stealing commodities from a villager (A). The flow or transition of

commodities is found to be greater in a portion of one side; however, then there is

uncertainty or minimum return from others after a long period of time. Both giving and

receiving processes occur through a long winding road. There might be disputes, suspicion,

confrontations, physical attack and overbearing that would be individual to individual and

group to group. The second picture is adapted from the Sahlins model of negative reciprocity

where there is a negative relation between the two groups (A and B). There is a high chance

of loss to the gift-givers because of their selfishness. In Rāute society negative reciprocity is

seen beyond their ethnic boundary that might occur either publicly or secretly and onstage or

60

offstage within their traverse trade route. Now-a-days begging and theft in the Rāute society

has become an art of living and they claim that it is a special privilege. They might engage in

a minor dispute with the villagers if the villagers refuse to buy their commodities after

negotiation. They also demonstrate their fierce nature as a form of vengeance.

4.2 On Silent Trade

The so-called "silent trade" is a specialized form of barter economy wherein goods are

exchanged without any meeting of any two parties to the transition (Herskovits

1974[1940]:185). Herodotus (440 BC) has extensively discussed the silent trade, particularly

between Carthaginians and the people who lived on the west coast of Africa (ibid). This was

an early form of commodity transition process in a non-pecuniary Rāute community, which

they left (Fortier 2000 and Shāhu 2011 field notes). This transition occurred between farmers

and foragers without negotiation, direct contact, bargaining and notice. A trader kept on

manufacturing goods at a crossroad near a house or courtyard of the person with whom he

proposed to exchange the manufactured goods, another kept grain equivalent to the price of

commodities. The exchange of grain is concerned with beliefs, compassion, commitments

and moral obligations that maintain the farmer-forager relation. A similar type of the silent-

trade culture was followed by the sedentary Rāute while they spent their nomadic life in

Dārchulā District. In this research, I collected information on "silent-trade" and its changing

dimensions over time. It includes resistance of assimilation, social restriction and existing

beliefs. The young generation of Rāute is ignorant about "silent trade". "I never engaged in

this type of practice," Chandramān says. The economy of hunter-gatherer Rāute is neither

based on isolation nor completely diluted with agro-pastoral people. There were specific rules

in the process of commodity exchange similar to African hunter-gatherers. Senior Rāute told

me, "fifty years ago we engaged in silent trade. We kept woodenware in the courtyard or

61

crossroad of the villagers at night, in response, the villagers kept grains in the woodenware,

all the activities carried out without negotiation." The silent trade was prevailing within the

Rāutelā of Dārchulā, yet they spent their sedentary life in Dadeldhurā (Shāhu field notes

2011). The main reasons of silence in the presence of villagers were to maintain the sacred

culture, including language and religion. They have fear of assimilation with other cultural

groups. A few years ago, their economy was non-monetary but now the value of money has

penetrated their everyday life. They did not sell their commodities for cash and traded the

produced commodities with grains such as un-husked rice, millet, wheat, carrots and green

vegetables according to the size of the woodenwares. The demands of Rāute increased

beyond grains, i.e., clothes, foods, money and tobacco, which are impossible through the

silent trade and there are less chances to be deceived (cf. Luintel 2055 v. s.). The increasing

demands and changing culture force them to adopt negotiation based exchange within the

people. The non-monetary economic trade is on the wane and commodity exchange practice

has been taken over by the market at local level. This has enforced them to break their silent

trade that has initiated new strategies and methods in the reciprocity. Despite several

hindrances, modern hunter-gatherers have been able to continue their exchange practice. The

forms of negotiations have changed over time and are now based on consumer behavior. The

use of verbal art is a form of new strategy to continue their relationship with farmers and

overcome the food scarcity and solve the everyday economic problems, which promotes

foragers to trade rather than to lead towards the verge of extinction. The economic market of

Rāute has changed little and their trade market has extended beyond the boundaries of the

courtyards of the farmers to local shops and urbanized areas.

4.3 Hunting-gathering as an Affluent Economic Practice

This ethnography presents how hunter-gatherer Rāute are affluent and how they mitigate

problems like food scarcity, starvation, pauperization and malnutrition through the

62

mechanism of begging, exchange and bartering, reciprocity, negotiating, petty theft, sharing,

trade and fictive network with villagers. Previous studies noted that Rāute never engaged in

begging, theft or forcibly took any goods (Luintel 2055 v. s.); however, my observation in the

field with the Rāute was just the opposite. I observed such activities at both individual and

community levels. The strong process of persuasion was employed to get foods, fruits,

vegetables, chickens, hay and tattered clothes from the villagers. If they were unable to

persuade for alms, they would threaten villagers with capturing farmland to construct camps

and use woods from the community forests. Marshall Sahlins stated that hunter-gatherers

have limited material desires and wants based on market economy, little transportation of

manufacturing items for daily consumptions. I looked at whether this notion is applicable in

the modern hunter-gatherer society. I observed similar aspects in Rāute communities to see

whether they have "plenty of materials", "sufficient leisure time", "long term storage or not".

I analyzed the notions of sukhā–"bliss" and dukhā –"pain" that they compare with both

nomadic and sedentary ways of life. These notions are contradictory; for instance, when

Rāute negotiate with the villagers they pretend to be dukhi- "painful" and to belong to the

underprivileged groups, but if anyone requests them to adopt for the sedentary life, then they

claim themselves to be sukhi –"blissful" and interpret the sedentary life as dukhi jiwan –

"painful life". Hunter-gatherers economic theories state that such groups spend less time for

substantive activities. Rāute do not deploy Neolithic tools, technologies, knowledge, energies

and economies. However, they use simple tools such as net, axe, and basilā-"hand axe" for

manufacturing, hexing and carving woodenware. They use simple methods like rough

carving woodenware and paint with cow dung and red soil to make the finished goods

attractive and trade them with the non-foragers in the village. Their activities are influenced

by mobility, resource scarcity, seasons, death of community members, and trade market that

has associations with a livelihood. Hunter-gatherer mobility is not only based on residences

63

and logistics as discussed by Binford (1980) but it is ritualistic, determined by common

decision, previous relation with non-foragers and accessibility of resources. Rāute's mobility

is concerned with death rituals, relations with villagers, abundant forest resources for

woodenware and the population of hunting species. The villagers of the study area said,

"They had already shifted to four different places within two months because of the sufficient

resources, an abundant number of hunting species, accessible trade route and contact with the

donors and place for consuming liquor". My observation showed that they do not have

calendars and schedules to allocate time, resources, methods and strategies to be affluent. It is

reflected through their consumption of items, investment of time, level of satisfaction and

their engagement with entertainment. Rāute spend at least one to two days in a week on an

average in the forest to cut down trees to make logs for woodenware another one to two days

in the production of woodenwares in the camp, and a day to trade commodities with non-

Rāute in the village and one day is allocated for hunting monkeys and rhesus. They allocate

time to cut down tree, produce woodenware and trade the products based on the quality of

wood, size and involvement of the people. For instance, they can complete madhus within

four to six hours, likewise they spend two to four hours for the manufacturing of koshi, two

days for the jhumā, two to three hours for jākuri-"a wooden bowl use to drink liquor" and one

day for khāt-"wooden bed". The informal sharing, exchange system, hunting strategies of

monkeys and rhesus, limited expectation and un-alienated causal relation with farmers defend

them from starvation, food scarcity and material needs, which is simply possible through

their traditional methods of accommodations and manufacturing processes. They use simple

technologies and skills to carve woodenware and hunt monkey and rhesus and this is time

consuming. Rāute have a simple living standard in terms of food consumption, clothes and

living. They claim to be the kings of the forest and belong to the Thakuri clan. "Our

affiliation with the ruling class enforces us to give satisfaction to people. We never trouble

64

villagers by destroying their grains, stealing their jewels or killing their domesticated animals.

The state has been mystifying us as a burden to the state and defines us as merciful actors,

which is a complete misconception. The more time we live in the forest means the more we

are attached to nature; we enjoy forest life. The villagers always pressurize us to adopt

modernity, which is against our culture and against the values of our ancestor." Choosing

kukāth in order to manufacture woodenware ultimately contributes to the pruning and

thinning of the forest resources. Likewise hunting strategies protect villagers' crop from

monkeys. Rāute's art of living not only makes their life affluent but also contributes to make

the villagers life plentiful. To justify affluent society Marshall Sahlins argued that "his wants

are scarce and his means (in relation) plentiful, consequently he is "comparatively free of

material pressures, "has" no sense of possession, "shows" an undeveloped sense of property,"

is "completely indifferent to any material pressures, "manifests" lack of interest" in

developing his technological equipment (1972: 13). The hunting job is determined by the

availability of moneys and rhesus in the jungle. They visit forests for hunting three to four

times in a month. According to Bhakta Bāhādur Shāhi, they can carve one to two koshi/āri a

day in the winter season and two to three of them in the summer. They spend two to three

days for madhus. "We spend eight to nine days for trading the products."

The prices for the woodenware are different, depending on food sufficiency, forest resources,

received incentives and allowances from the donors. Their trade mobility depends on density

of villagers' population, previous relations and context. They are affluent in comparison to the

sedentary population of the same location. They are managing their necessity not only

through the exchange of commodities but also through begging. For instance, if they

exchange koshi with grain, they try to persuade villagers to give them extra items such as

vegetables, meat, money, pulses, chickens and fruits. They try to show themselves as riddled

with problems and fake facts and try to romanticize the situation while trying to persuade

65

non-Rāute. They shower āsik and tell proverbs in their efforts to sell and bargain for

commodities. The working hours of Rāute are not fixed and are determined based on their

age, capacity and engagement. They are involved in their work from the early morning to

sunset. The deployment of human resources ever depends on their self-interest, societal

demands and instructions of the senior citizens. Alan Barnard quoted the Liz Wily:"Bush

men were not poor when they knew only of hunting and gathering; they became poor when

pastoralists and ranches came into contact with them" (Barnard 2007:70). The so-called

modern society made them poor, filthy, primitive and illiterate. In fact, they are more

prosperous and wealthy. They do not store grains, but still have plenty. The limited number

of human resources is employed to trade and allocate time for entertainment. Despite these

facts, they easily manage their economy without any scarcity and starvation of the members

of their community, including children, widows, women and elderly people. They are free

from the material pressure as Kung! of Kalahari (See Sahlins 1972:9). The argument of

Sahlins is culturally sensitive, he says, “Economy becomes a category of culture rather than

behaviour, in a class with politics or religion rather than rationality or prudence: not the need-

serving activities of individuals, but the material life process of society” (1972: xii). A few

years ago Rāute Mukhiyā spoke with the Prime Minister at his resident Bāluwātār as, dukhāri

bhaiyo-"we became poor". This confused me and forced me to ask how the king of the forest

has become dukhāri? Observing and reading news about the Rāute made it clear that this was

a bargain they used to make their economy affluent. Actually, they were not poor. Rāute

Mukhiyā Ahin Bāhādur provided contradictory information as compared to the following

statement:

Villagers are so poor, they work at least six months to produce grain from their field. For us that is a painful life and we don't like to live such a life. We plant our kheti-"grain" in the morning and harvest in the evening. Thus, we are wealthier than you.

66

They cut trees in the morning and produce wooden bowls and trade in the evening, which

they called to be their kheti-"farming". They claim to use "kukāth" like pāngar, uttitish,

gurāns, tuni, githi, khirro and arjun of the jungle, which is not useful for the villagers. Rāute

ask why the villagers disturb them even though they never disturb the life of the villagers.

"We only hunt monkeys and rhesus, animals which Hindus consider sacred, for prey and this

also saves villagers' cultivation. We never hunt other animals like deer, tiger, lion and birds.

They are meat for the villagers," Rāute says. "We have not done any mistake to the villagers,

but villagers often disturb our nomadic life," they say. "Hunters are free from the 'material

pressure', have no sense of possession, show “an undeveloped sense of property (Sahlins

1972: 13)". Savage people are often away from the collection of materials and property. They

have the nature of sharing, redistributing, exchanging and snatching rather than storing for

the future, and they have never faced food scarcity. Rāute Mukhiyās and clan members are

responsible to manage the necessities for the disabled, elderly people and widows. Mukhiyā

have responsibilities to make space for their existence, make strategies to share woodenware,

grains and prey with the poor, disabled and vulnerable members of the clan. Male Rāute

make extra wooden bowls for the widows that shape the way for income and resolve the

problems of resource scarcity. In Rāute society, the male members of their society not only

define the widows as the killers of their husbands, but show high respect through sharing

produced items. First, they give priority to them while distributing the resources. Widows are

allowed to sell the woodenware with their male relatives and beg from villagers. They have

right to snatch the hunted prey from the male hunters. Rāute's social disposition with forest

resources and inclination to nomadic life carries a symbolic meaning. They claim that

following sedentary lives makes no difference between the Rāute and the farmers. "Adoption

of sedentary life means to leave our culture and adopt an agricultural mode of life, which is

no different than death," they believe. They often demand extra incentives and privileges

67

when anyone expresses interest to know about them and to see their paisāri nāch. They share

the food, weapons, tobacco, clothes, axes, nets, sickles and meat among the members without

any charge within the Rāute, which is influenced by altruism and contributes to construct the

egalitarian society. There is no certainty to return back the paid amount to the widow, which

is the converse of the ideology to return. Rāute's intra-group contract is based on the

principle of sharing, grounded in morality, spirituality and ethics and they have been living

away from luxurious items produced in the markets.

They have limited "wants and desire", "no division of labour", and "no long term expectation

from the villagers". The present goods and items are adequate through bartering, donations,

begging, snatching, stealing and sharing. They negotiate to fulfil the current needs and

desires instead of long term benefits. At the time of negotiation, they seem to be open, frank

and show affinity; but when they see the same person near their campsites they pretend not to

know the person or not show any kind of hospitality. Rāute society is egalitarian in terms of

income, commodity production, exchange, income and consumptions. The food and

commodity scarcity is resolved through the process of borrowing without debt from the

relatives; however, such a relation is amicable with non-Rāute. There is a close relationship

between rituals, festivals, occasions and economy, which proves them as affluent. The

following case shows the affluent characteristics of Rāute:

On a Maghe Sakrānti day I had seen Rāute take bath in the river and shave hair, beard and mustaches. They collect necessary items such as goats, chicken, fish and vegetables from the market to celebrate Māghi. They wear new Gādoo, turban and coat. Both male and female drunk alcohol and were found loitering around in the village exchanging whatever food they had cooked including tarul-"yam", skharkhanda-"sweet potato", sellroti-"ring-shaped rice bread" and jānd-"fermented liquor". They would not celebrate the festival if anyone from their family had died in the past one year. Married daughters visit the parent's camps to celebrate Māghe sakrānti. "We collect githā and tarul and don't go outside the camp but drink jand and sing, dance within the camp. We have been slaughtering cocks since the ancestral time. At the time of celebration, we do not collect firewood or make logs for producing woodenware. We also slaughter the goats we bought from the market ". Young boys, both alone or in group play mādal and sing songs for entertainment. There is no restriction between male and female in singing. Rekhā Thāpā- a Nepali film star donated three goats and fifty two packs of rice on the occasion of Māghe. They appreciated the donation by offering garland to

68

her and by performing paisāri dance. They clad themselves in gādoo, turbans, caps, and coats. Some of them placed flowers in their turban. Rāute women were encouraging their husbands to dance. The age and gender based difference could be simply observed in the instruction and beats of the mādal. They choose a big farm terrace to perform the dance. Two elderly Rāute beat the mādal. Villagers gathered and clapped too. Chandramān managed the dancing act and instructed others to perform. They move left and right while dancing. Their bodily movement became more and more flexible when mādal beat was high. Some Rāute whistled to make the environment more exciting.

Rāute are affluent in terms food consumption, rest, entertainment and time saving. They have

"little storage or no storage", "rare scarcity of foods", and "sufficient leisure time". They

consume wild fruits, roots and grains that they collect through the foraging. They are living in

small bands and move to different ecological zones and have relations with the sedentary

population. The needs of the Rāute are easily satisfied because they have limited desires and

expectations in comparison to the sedentary people. Their activities firmly associate with

material productions and consumptions. Their economy is beyond the conception of different

agencies who define them as poor, vulnerable and precarious. They forage necessary items at

any time, except the major festivals, times of worship and rituals like death and marriage.

They are individualistic in the process of food collection and trade. They satisfy their limited

wants through the continuous process of reciprocity with agriculturalists and pastoralists. In

critical situations, they manage resources through sharing, borrowing and even stealing from

the villagers. They are gradually adopting other subsistence economic activities besides

foraging such as begging and stealing. They have limited material pressure and plenty of

resources due to their limited wants. Regular contacts with villagers help them collect food

stuffs, goats, chickens and clothes. Their nomadic movement from north to south is decided

by the possibility to meet their everyday needs from the villagers living around the vicinity,

the unrestricted availability of forest resources for carving woodenware and foraging wild

vegetables, fruits and digging yams and bhākur and medicinal plants. These special privileges

make their society affluent and prosperous.

69

Chapter Five

Sharing, Negotiation and Transformation in Reciprocity

This section presents the sharing strategies, including the informal reciprocal relation within

the Rāute and non-Rāute. The sharing practices are related to the ideology of cooperation and

the principle of tit-for-tat (see Marlowe 2010). Foragers widely share food, jānd, prey and

gathered resources to continue their culture of sharing with minimal cooperation. The

hunting-gathering practices existing in Rāute society are influenced by the notion of "ego"

and "alter ego" that depends on the ethnic ideology, religious value and emotional

attachment. Their processes of collection of wild species and tubers are more individualistic

and self-centered. Sharing practices depend on community organization, social connection

and consanguine relation of Rāute, which are shaped through the traditional and customary

rules and regulations that keep the society in a specific order. The social networks and the

interdependent relations inspire everyone to overcome food scarcity, shortage of goods and

vulnerability. The forms and strategies of sharing differ over time and space. That are

connected with societal rules that compel each member of their community for cooperation.

This is a form of social production which is guided through the socialization process. Their

disposition towards the religious ideology determines everyday sharing behavior. They share

foods, clothes, meat, money and liquor, which are influenced by the principle of mutual

understanding and strategies of co-operation and may be occasional and ritualistic. They have

an expectation to return their investment from the person with whom they share. The returns

might be immediate or delayed. As Hadza community food sharing practices in Rāute society

entails mutualism, nepotism, reciprocity and cost signaling (cf. Marlowe 2010). The rate of

sharing depends on kin, clan, and peer relationship. In the Rāute society food is widely shared

within households and relatives, mainly within parents, children, married daughters and their

70

husbands on special occasions and rituals. They avoid sharing food with villagers due to their

little contact, suspiciousness, isolation, individualistic nature and fear of assimilation. There

are certain forms of avoidance, social taboo and resistance to share the food, liquor and prey

with the villagers. The gender division of labor contributes to fulfill the demands of family.

For instance, males are assigned to hunting and females are for assigned to gathering. Both of

them fulfill their needs of one another. They equally share their production and other

responsibilities within the family, including the rearing children at camp and preparing and

distributing meat, wild fruits and green vegetables. On special occasions like marriage, birth

rituals and festivals they share special food and liquor among themselves to ensure maximum

satisfaction to the community people. In Māghi and Mangshir Purnimā they invite people to

their camps and cater special foods and entertainment. Sharing practices strengthen ethnic

consolidation and social harmony within their community which contributes to the formation

of an egalitarian and economically just society. The sharing mechanism depends on social

contract and kin based relations, which are usual, ceremonial and occasional. During festivals

close kin members, relatives and friends eat food and drink liquors together and participate in

singing folk songs. The intra-cultural sharing practice not only creates their ethnic integrity,

cohesion, solidarity and harmonious relations, but is also the best way to manage their

substantive base economy. I examined intra-ethnic sharing relationship within their society

that formed the egalitarian structure. Here, I present some of my ethnographic descriptions of

generosity, demand sharing, negotiation and procedures to share the commodities to

overcome the risks that they face in their everyday life. The sharing practices bring them

together and help to resolve the problem of food scarcity. The hunting-gathering life involves

risk and uncertainty, particularly where there is no storage and where provisioning is on a

day-by-day basis (Peterson 1993: 865). The status and positions among community members

are predominant. This is guided by the ethos of culture, which is embedded with socio-

71

biology, symbolic and psychological issues. Sharing strategies are invariable, which differ in

accordance with seasons, occasions and contexts that ensure a supply of foods, meat, wild

fruits and roots. Participation, their engagement and practices of nomadic life are guided by

the principle of sharing and the rules of taboo, prohibition, and restrictions. The sharing

mechanism outside their ethnic boundaries seems to be more hostile, repugnant, and

incompatible. The substantive economic practice is influenced more by the philosophy of

altruism than by compulsion. The motives of sharing not only contribute to the construction

of an equitable and just society but also form an egalitarian structure. Here, I present the

roles, duties and responsibilities of community members, primarily their modes of sharing,

context, engagement and motivation that depend on the clan and kinship bond to adopt them

to share their hunted-gathered foods, meat, liquor, money and produced commodities, and

tobacco. I also present some forms of cultural rigidity and flexibility in the sharing system

prevailing in their society. The sharing rules and regulations of the Rāute clearly demarcate

the cultural identity and sharing strategies, which run as per informal laws, religious faiths

and ideologies, mutual understanding and demand sharing of their community. Rāute are not

interested in sharing their produced items to the outsiders that they receive through exchange,

begging and purchasing. They share the commodities with those who are unable to earn and

perform their traditional business. The certain form of demands and compulsion binds them

together to solve problems, which are possible through the relation with the non-foragers.

The social prestige, dignity, friendship, attachment, emotion and sentiment play predominant

roles based on the principle of equality and equity that makes their life egalitarian and forms

the non-hierarchal society. The social affection and kinship networks of Rāute are reflected in

different occasions like festivals, rituals and complicated situations. There are some

fundamental issues that have been concerned with sharing practices. For instance, when do

they share commodities and is it associated with specific occasions and seasons? "Obviously,

72

no," says assistant mukhiyā Bir Bāhādur Shāhi. "It depends on the people's will and interest.

In special cases, sharing money and other incentives that they receive from different agencies

are distributed under the supervision of mukhiyā and his assistants on a fair basis." They look

after the widows, poor and destitute people are influenced by the theory of philanthropy. It is

concerned with extended forms of kinship relation, mutual understanding, societal

connectivity, festivals, ritual and hunting resources. Rāute often speak for the common

interest and welfare of the society. Mukhiyā uses the terminology jantā while negotiating

with agencies concerned. Mukhiyā Surya Nārāyan said, "The satisfaction of the people is my

satisfaction. I need to manage the demands of my people on special occasions such as māghi,

dashain and other festivals." He further said, "We offer chickens and goats and at least one

goat from each household to bhuyār-"a hunting god" at the Puse Sankranti. We arrange the

offering items through exchange of our commodities with villagers. After making offerings to

the bhuyār, family members, relatives and friends of our community sit together and drink

fermented liquor." They celebrate major festivals Puse Sankranti and Māghi for at least a

week, take rest and engage in entertainment. The main idea behind sharing is to ensure that

each member of the community is satisfied. The necessary items are managed through

reciprocity and petty credit, whereas the needs of the poor, disabled and widows are arranged

on a voluntary basis.

The philosophy of sharing in the Rāute society is beyond the monetized economy in the past.

These days sharing maintains shortage of foods and supports limited storage of grains and

goods. The received items such as meat and rice from the different agencies have to be

equally divided. Bir Bāhādur says:

We do not have formal rules and regulations while distributing the resources within the people. We do not use measurement tools, we share and measure through our eyes. There is no bias while we share the meat, money, donations and allowances from the agencies.

73

Rāute Mukhiyā said: "Fulfilling people's demands is our main responsibility. We work for the

welfare of people; therefore, people must obey our orders. The rule breakers are punished as

per societal rules and regulations." The traditional sharing and caring system runs the society

in decent order. Mukhiyā's responsibility is to satisfy people. Before taking final decisions he

needs to consult with jantā, including senior citizens for the sharing of received items from

the individuals and donor agencies. To fulfill special demand from the outsiders, Rāute

perform paisārināch. "We do not have special items to return to our donors; therefore, we

either share our nāso or show our dance and please them for similar support in the future."

The hunted prey is distributed among only those Rāute who were engaged in hunting. They

share prey with the widows, disabled and poor. The camp of widows and disabled are

constructed near to their relatives to get immediate support from them in difficult

circumstances.

The sharing mechanism depends on societal network, friendship and affinal relation with

villagers. They negotiate and demand with outsiders through demonstrating their affinal

connection, like father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister and sister-in-law and maternal uncle,

brother and sister. If any Rāute is able to receive goods from the villager, then he demands or

negotiates for other items. They built affinal relations for begging, demanding and

exchanging goods. This process solves their everyday problems such as foods, vegetables,

fruits, rāksi-"liquor", tobacco and prey. Ahin Bāhādur says, "If we have enough goods, we

can share. We are poor and how can we share?" The sharing base subsistence strategies of

Rāute are changing due to the influence of modernity, globalization, communication and

forest depletion, which also transform the socio-cultural ideologies, including inter-ethnic

relations. Rāute have gradually shunned their industrious nature and strong inclination with

the cash economy wrecking the traditional practices of commodity exchange.

74

The sharing practice creates cohesion, solidarity and integrity within their community that

has specific rules and regulations. The rate and forms of sharing, its methods and procedures

differ as per rituals, festivals and market demands. The shared items are different such as

food, ornaments, clothes, meats, fermented food, woodenwares, and money. The sharing

practices are not only based on age, gender and status, rather they are based on the

philosophy of generosity, hospitality and moral obligations. There are two reasons why they

do not share the commodities: first nomadic Rāute love to live away from the sedentary

groups; therefore, they usually say, "It is beyond the boundaries of our culture and we love to

live in isolation".

5.1 Avoidance, Hunting and Sharing

The ideology of hunting is equally associated with avoidance and sharing, concerned with

issues of assimilation, cultural secrecy and nomadic life. This section offers information on

processes, strategies and methods of hunting-gathering through the use of traditional

technologies, i.e., jāl-"net", sticks and bancharo-"axe". Rāute choose new areas for a

campsite as per the availability of the hunting–gathering resources, such as the population of

monkeys and rhesus and other forest resources.

Before deciding on their hunting site, they survey the area to ascertain the population of

hunting resources, including monkeys and langurs. This survey is carried out without any

information to the villagers. The hunting location is determined through a short discussion

within interested groups. The hunting location might normally be one to three hours walking

distance away from the existing camp. Any member of the community can participate in

hunting activities. There is no preference of age; normally 15-60 age group can engage in

hunting.

75

Despite their affinal relation, they are less interested to share their decisions about hunting

with the villagers. I showed interest in knowing about the hunting strategies but they did not

share any hunting information. Not even the closest Rāute member shared any clue on

hunting. They do not permit villagers to count the population of hunters. They rarely move in

groups while hunting and do not allow villagers to see their hunting strategies. If Rāute find

any villagers within the hunting zone, they request them to go away. This belief ties in with

luck, fate and the rules of taboo. They keep the hunting net in different directions, and

hunters encircle the area and make a sound like hāihui. The terrified monkeys will have

nowhere to go than into the fixed net. The netted monkeys are then struck with hand axes and

sticks. They leave at least one couple of monkeys for further breeding. The hunting strategies

and ritual practices underpin each other; for instance, they prefer to hunt prey when a son is

born in the group. If they succeed in finding sufficient meat, they believe that the new son

will live long and they share the hunted meat with their close relatives. However, such a

practice was not seen at the birth of a daughter. This proves that there is a strong notion of

patriarchal structure and we see gender biases from birth to death.

Rāute share the meat on an equal basis. They only share the prey with those who participated

in hunting. Sometimes they share meat with their relatives, widows and shamans too. During

the hunting, if any monkey escapes from the net, they ask the shaman for reasons and assume

that their hunting God became angry. On the day of death of their community member,

Rāute avoid hunting-gathering and trading. They engage in mourning the loss of a member

and make plans to shift from their present campsite. However, they do not throw away the

hunted meat and manufactured woodenwares after the death of community members (Luintel

2055 v. s.). The order of reciprocity and material production in band society is systematized

through social taboos and restrictions, avoidance and resistance.

76

5.2 Farmer-Forager Relations

In South Asia, there is a close relationship between farmers and foragers (Morrison and

Junker 2002 and Raczek 2011). Such relationship, far from being historically fixed and

immutable, was instead marked by a high degree of variability and flexibility with specific

groups of people altering their strategies in relation to ecological, demographic, and political

imperatives (Morrison 2002: 105). Rāute economy is interdependent and interchangeable

with agriculturalists and pastoralists, while they are moving through different ecological

zones. Farmer-forager relations is proved through the prevailing myths and legends

concerned with Sārki, Kusundā and Bhote that depict their origin, conflicts and reciprocity.

There is a mutual and symbiotic relation between farmer and forager in terms of reciprocity

based on religious ideology, cultural ethos and their autonomy. The rival relation is created

through dispute, intervention and violated rules of their culture. Rāute are strong in their

commitment and never compromise on what they have committed to do. They never tell lies

to others. They get angry if anyone breaches commitment. Rāute settle disputes through

mutual understanding, dialogue, border discussion and bargaining within and outside their

community. The farmer-forager relation is maintained through regular trade, begging,

reciprocity and affainal kin relation. They regularly receive grains, vegetables, clothes, fruits,

honey, dairy items and liquor through commodities exchange with sedentary groups. The

gift-exchange relation of nomadic Rāute with the sedentary population is seasonal, context

based and occasional, which demonstrates their strong inclination towards their traditional

values and ideologies. This produces and reproduces their cultural relations through the

continuous process of exchange in the social-cultural milieu. They extend their social

relations to solve the everyday problems such as shelter, access to forest resources and they

receive the agricultural products from the farmers. Yet, some of their economic relations are

found to be beyond the principle of reciprocity. Their relation is limited by societal rules and

77

regulations and everyday habitus. According to Bhakta Bāhādur, "in the beginning, our

ancestors refused to accept money and preferred to exchange commodities with sedentarized

people to fulfill their demands." The artisans exchange iron and metal items like bangles,

rings and beads, axe, basila, and aunthi with Rāute; in response they give āri, and madhus to

them. The reciprocity and sharing practices run without market mechanism. Yet, there has

been erosion in their traditional practices and cultural values due to the penetration of the

market. Rāute are unwilling to take citizenship certificates from the government. Rāute

Mukhiyā Surya Nārāyan argues as;

Accepting citizenship means polluting meat. We do not have permanent houses like the farmers. If we do not have permanent houses, how can we mention the permanent address in our citizenship certificate. I may make the citizenship; however, our people might punish me. Their desire is my desire. We never stand against the people's choice. Rāute never cast votes to select their leaders. We like all political parties and their leaders. To give a vote for one party means to displease the others.

For the past few years Rāute have been coming to Kathmandu regularly to visit leaders of

different political parties in search of economic benefits. They negotiate for financial support

with agencies concerned for the welfare of their community. Rāute are continuously refusing

modern medicine and treatment methods. Instead, they follow the traditional medicine and

treatment system. Taking modern medicine is against the rules and regulations of their

society. The following case history shows their resistance to modern medicine:

During my fieldwork, a medical team came from the Nepālgang Medical College to provide free treatment service to Rāute with special incentives like blankets and money. While they refused to take medicine, they accepted the blankets and money from the villagers. We have not taken any medicine since the time of our ancestors. It is not necessary for us. Children may die, but we do not accept medicine. If we accept medicine, our kuldeutā-"clan deities" will give us pain.

I observed that Rāute sold the newly received blankets to the villagers after the departure of

the health workers from their community. They negotiate with villagers as sarka odān darti

bichān–"Sky is quilt and land is a bed"; and "these items are unnecessary for us. One Rāute

78

sold the blanket in 150 rupees in the local shop with the villagers, later he bought a chicken,

two bottles of raksi from the shop and some of them used blankets as Gādoo.

Rāute has no system of storage as the farmers. They store the necessary items in the jāboo

where they keep the clothes, tobacco and other necessary goods for their daily consumption. I

asked why they did not have any storage. They answered, "We migrate from place to place

and people may die at anytime. If anyone dies, we will move to another place. The stored

items will be difficult to carry at the time of migration. However, we have sufficient rice from

the donors besides our collection through the bartering and begging."

5.3 Miteri and Reciprocity

The ritual friendship or Miteri relation is a form of fictive kinship within two individuals in

the north, the northeast, Tibet and Nepal who are mainly Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan, Indo-

European and Munda stocks (c.f. Okada 1957). Miteri serves to cement social interaction

between levels of caste in a complex hierarchical system that otherwise separates the

members of these endogamous groups and in a difficult physical environment that forces

people to interact closely for resource exchange (Messerschmidt 1982: 5). In South Asia,

interpersonal relations between two groups are tied through marriage and blood and this has

socio-cultural and political significance within the society. Miteri relation shapes social and

economic values between two groups of people based on trust and informal agreements.

Miteri relation in Hindu society is concerned with reciprocity which includes faith, love,

emotion, social attachment and sharing mechanism. This relation is based on the ideology of

sharing, love and care like Krishna and Sudhāma, which is away from selfishness and

personal benefit. The Rāute miteri relation is individualistic, profit oriented and strategic,

which is different from the miteri relation existing in Hindu society. The sharing practices

within their mits are embedded with the system of reciprocity, begging and compulsion.

79

While a village dweller hardly has more than one mit, a single Rāute has hundreds of mit.

Miteri relation of Rāute is demand based. Rāute mit must pay them but there is no

compulsion to return back. If a Rāute establishes a fictive relation with a village dweller, the

former demands food, goats, chickens, clothes and vegetable items. On the contrary, if

Rāute's mit likes to take away any wooden item, the village dweller will have to pay for this,

as the Rāute mit says there is "no free gift". In Hindu culture mit is a form of strong fictive

relation which is considered to continue up to seven generations. Miteri relation with Rāute is

based without any specific rule and regulation. Interestingly, Rāute never wait for any special

day to establish mit relation. The strategy of mit relation is one of the best methods to

circulate, demand and beg for commodities. Rāute keep the miteri relation as a short-term

relation but this demands mutual understanding between the villager and Rāute. Villagers are

found to be taking miteri relation as romance. This relation helps to extend reciprocity and

circulation of producing commodities. There is not an age preference where they tie their

miteri relationship with the villagers. I have not observed miteri relations between Rāute

women and non-Rāute as their male counterpart. In the Rāute society, miteri relation is a

subject of reciprocity which has a connection with economic and socio-cultural phenomena.

The influence of Hindu ideology of purity and impurity is deeply rooted in the minds of

Rāute. Therefore, they avoid commensality with Dalits. However, nothing impedes them

from keeping such a relation with ethnic groups such as Magar, Newār and Thāru. Hindu

people may tie their miteri relation with so-called Dalits, which is considered as a way to

overcome misfortune and also solve social problems. Miteri relation occupies larger social

networks. If you build the miteri relation with one Rāute, then other Rāute will directly and

indirectly show fictive ties for their economic benefit. It is a broader form of social network,

which is not only limited between two people but also has relation to family, community and

kin members. Their everyday business like exchange, begging, and sharing are connected

80

with miteri relation. Miteri relation is more self-centered and individualistic and there is no

emotional, sentimental and altruistic behavior. The inter-ethnic relationship between farmer-

forager is concerned with "give", "take", "demand", and "return". Villagers say, "To establish

miteri relation with Rāute means more loss than profit." They maintain miteri relations over

generations as a part of their livelihood. The miteri relation is one of the best strategic ways

for commodity exchange with the non-Rāute. The following case depicts miteri relation

between farmer and forager:

One day, Hoke Bāhādur Kalāyal visited a local shop with a small madhus made of tuni wood. He addressed me as mit dai–"fictive elder brother" and asked if I would buy the small nāso for memory. I asked how I became his mit dai. "You are from Dadeldhura and I have a mit there and I thought he is your brother, therefore, it is better to call you mitdai." Everyone there laughed as this. After a short discussion, I told him that I was unable to buy the madhus at it would be difficult for me to carry it to Kathmandu. "Oh! I know your problems, so I have made this small gift in memory," he said. "No problem dai you can keep this in your bag and take it to Kathmandu," he added. When I asked the price of nāso he said it was up to me and that he would not mention the price. "We have a kinship relation so how can I charge a price?" he said. I assured him that I would buy the nāso before my departure. Then he said that the small madhus was not useful for villagers and that I could use it to decorate my room in Kathmandu and that he would charge just Rs 100 for the same. I told him that I could give Rs 50 for the madhus and he could buy noodles, chewing tobacco and biscuits. He insisted that I should keep the nāso for a long memory. "Mit dai I need money to drink a bottle of raksi," he said. I asked if he was selling the item to drink raksi. I told him that I could not see him intoxicated. Hoke kept his turban and cap on my feet for negotiation to compel me to buy the madhus. At last, I agreed to buy his madhus for Rs 100. When I asked about how long the item would last, he said, "Maitdāi, chāndmā lekheko kurā kaslai thāhā huncha" –"who will know the fate". How many years can a man live? They may die any time. As there is no certainty of life, there is no durability of madhus," he said. Hoke gave āsik for the durability of madhus until the life of son and grandson.

The above case history shows a fake relation, circulation, demand and negotiation and largely

farmer-forager relation. Rāute solve their problems through the miteri relation, such as

problems of forest, campsite and use right. They strategically establish miteri relation with

banpāle-"forest guards", "FUG chairman" and "members", "government officials" and

"landowners" of their campsite.

They would say miteri hiteri is a best relation". Miteri relation with non- Rāute is only for the

purpose of "begging" and "negotiation". This is a way of their livelihood strategies since time

81

immemorial. They establish miteri relation through keeping tikā on the forehead of one

another. Rāute demand 20 feet long turban, cap, goats, and cocks on the day of their miteri

ties; in response, they give nāso, i.e., koshi and madhus. Miteri is the best method to build

affinal relations. The relations between miteri and gotra-"clan" are strong. Rām Bāhādur said

sāt saya miteri chāudha saya goteri- "Miteri relation for seven generations and clan relation

for the fourteen generations". They may invite one another on special occasions like marriage

and festivals where they can exchange jānd. Miteri relation may continue up to the seventh

generation. This relation is stronger than other kinds of affinal relation with the villagers. The

mit relation never prioritizes any caste, ethnicity and class. If two persons befriend each other

then this paves the way towards miteri relation.

5.4 Sharing, Resistance and Nomadism

Rāute resists three things: language, hunting strategies and pujā-"worship" with other people.

They consider this secret. "If we share these things we will no more be Rāute and who will

visit us. When these things are given up there is no more significance of our culture," says

Myan Bāhādur Shāhi. Their animistic nature and egalitarian social structure makes them

different. Sharing culture is part of their subsistence strategy. The sharing mechanism is

controlled by religious ideologies, cultural ethos, ancestral rules and regulations. This has

been mainly concerned with the notions of purity and pollution, sacred and profane. The

permission and prohibition of sharing goes with the ideologies of hunting-gathering. They

share the woodenwares, prey and donations within their society. Mukhiyā need to look after

the disabled and he should manage everything for the people's welfare. They do not only

provide commodities, but also support while trading and shifting their camp. The social

welfare mechanism makes their society egalitarian through equitable distribution of

resources. They believe that breaching the rules makes Surya Nārāyan- "sun god" unhappy.

82

They worship the same Hindu deities as villagers in their nomadic zone, such as dare masto

and dudhe masto which is private and outsiders are restricted to see. Rāute worship the gods

for the success of hunt, longevity and peace. According to them, the almighty god determines

the fate of Rāute. They go to the forest to hunt immediately after the birth of a baby. If they

are able to hunt monkeys they, assume that the life of the baby will be peaceful and

prosperous and they would share the hunted meat within their relatives and kin.

State agencies define the Rāute as a burden and try to persuade them to live a sedentary life.

The villagers define them as filthy and banmānche-"forest dweller", which makes the Rāute

unhappy. They avoid acculturation and intercultural relationship with villagers who are the

inhabitants of their nomadic area. They also refuse to adopt an agricultural mode of life and

domesticate animals. Five years ago Myan Bāhādur told me;

I may love to live a sedentary life, including living in a big castle, adopting agricultural mode of life, rearing animals, sending children to school for ka, khha, ga and a, b, c to make our children literate. However, my jantā–"people" refuse to live in the same place after the death of any member of our community. If we move from one place to another, what is the value of a castle, school and animals.

Rāute hide the reality and refuse the issue related with migration. For instance, at the end of

my fieldwork they migrated from Garbutā to Simpāni. When I asked Dhan Bāhādur Shāhi

why they had migrated, he replied that the place was too dirty. When I asked him why he did

not shift his camp even when all others migrated, he said, "Sir ji, I lost my basilā, I need to

find it. It is my right hand." It was not true. In fact, he had kept two big koshis and it was

difficult for him to carry them to the new campsite. Next day, I saw him go to Birendra Nagar

to trade the wooden-ware. I understood that if any family had any woodenware left to be

traded, they would first sell and then migrate to the new foraging ground. Three young Rāute

were also with Dhan Bāhādur, they supported him and, in response, he shared the food and

raksi with them to make them happy. The following case provides some evidences of

resistance concerned with migration:

83

I saw Rāute shift from Garbutā to Simpāni, only 25 minutes walking distance away. They were busy packing sacks of rice, gāboo-"net" and doko- "larger size bamboo basket". They move in different groups, bring down their camps and carry the necessary goods and idols of deities. First, they marked the place for camp with a stone and twigs of green plants.

All Rāute families do not migrate at the same time. First only a few families migrate, then the

rest of the other families follow them on the second, third and fourth days. The families who

already shifted help the newcomers. They pack foodstuffs, spices and vegetables from the

villagers before their migration. If any goods are difficult to find in their newly migrated

place they will buy it from the villagers.

Myan Bāhādur Shāhi said, “Rāute travel to different corners of the earth rather than live in

one place. We enjoy living in the forest. This place is too crowded, so we need to migrate.

Villagers disturbed us and our sikār-"prey" became polluted."

Rāute Mukhiyā Surya Nāryān says, "Due to the resource problem we split into three groups

and each group is led by Mukhiyā and assistant Mukhiyās. If we split into three bands it will

be easier to get resources and exchange commodities with grains to ensure the symbiotic

relations between men and forest resources." Chandramān said that the main reason for their

moving the camp was the problem of dhuwāsã-"smoke". Rāute shared four different reasons

for migration including to maintain cultural secrecy. In fact, their information was false. They

had hidden the reality of migration and were unwilling to share the truth. They have the

nature to live away from the villagers. I heard there was a death of child in their community.

To verify the reason, I asked if there was a death of a child in the community. He confirmed

this. "Yes, what you heard is correct. Surya Nārāyan-"sun god" had taken the soul. One day

everyone dies and no one is alive forever. This is a natural process. If we live in the same

place we may suffer from the memory of dead people, so some families left yesterday, some

are leaving today, and the rest will leave tomorrow".

84

When they travel to a new campsite they travel in a caravan style. On the day of migration,

young Rāute support their seniors in packing and carrying their luggage. In appreciation, the

seniors give them special food and fermented liquor. Myan Bāhādur gave special food to the

young boys in the campsite who were helping him shift. They shared the received food in the

same plates and drank the liquor from the same bowl. "What is the main reason of sharing the

same plates and bowl? I asked Shiva Rāj. He said, "We have a relation, thus we are sharing

foods and liquor together. If our soul unites we can share the food. The sharing and caring are

the main ideologies of our culture". This is the fundamental culture of nomadic life but it has

limitations. For instance, if anyone does not participate in hunting, the hunt would not be

shared. They could share the prey with the outsiders within the territory of hunting. They

must share prey if they meet someone within their hunting territory. It does not matter if the

person does not want to eat the catch. They consider it their tradition and have continued to

practice this since the time of their ancestor. "Therefore, we request villagers in the hunting

area to move away." Rāute believe that "the evil eye of outsiders makes the prey polluted."

They argue that their hunting god will be angry if anyone watches their hunting strategies.

Therefore, they never share their plan with the villagers. They don't even give any clue to

them and try to hide the prey from them. "We hunt only monkeys and langurs, which destroy

the villagers' crops," they say. Farmers never kill monkeys and langurs because they are

considered to be soldiers of Hanumān- "a mythical hero of the Rāmāyan". "We never kill

wild animals like tigers, deer, bears and rain deer, which are the portion of the villagers,"

Rāute say. They often talk about the equilibrium relationship between farmer-forager in terms

of resource use and prey.

Rāute sing Khām geet- "Khām songs" in different occasions such as māghi and other major

festivals. Both male and female share their songs within their community but it is restricted to

be shared with outsiders. In māghi, I observed male and female participate in Khām geet. I

85

asked the name of the songs, but they did not share with me, particularly their meaning and

reasons to sing. They just called it "Rāute geet", and that they sing these songs in leisure time,

mainly in festivals. "We have been practicing these songs since the time of our ancestors.

You villagers are not permitted to see and participate in the singing. It is a sacred song. I

think you do not understand these songs, why you are interested? You can listen from the

outside," they said when I expressed my curiosity about the songs. I observed that both male

and female equally participated in singing within the camp and there is no fixed number of

singers and their age. The Rāute of 15- 70 years old participated in the songs within the

camp. Bhadra Bāhādur was alone singing songs. Later his wives joined him. Rāute play

mādal to sing songs and they were sung in dialogic process. One group sings and the others

follow. I did not understand whether they are answering or following the same songs. The

beats of mādal and the rhythm of the songs were too slow, where each participant tried to

follow. The sacredness of the songs maintains their cultural secrecy, including language.

They gather in different groups in different camps. They choose camps of their kin groups

and mutual friends with whom they participate in singing. They split into two groups and sit

on both sides of the oven for singing. One Rāute plays the mādal. There is no difference in

the name of class, gender and age in the time of singing. I observed that most of the groups

were divided as per their age and relation. This is a form of sharing mechanism where they

gather in their own camp or a camp of peer groups or relatives to get entertainment through

singing. They shared foods, meat, jānd, githā and tarul with each other throughout the day. I

asked Prakāsh how he learnt these songs. "I learnt from senior people of our society. We sing

these songs in the name of god," he said. In Māghi they were singing throughout the five

days. There are no special folk artists to perform the songs. It is their private affair. This oral

tradition has been sustained over the generations as a part of their culture.

86

5.5 Verbal Art, Negotiation and Reciprocity

This section discusses "the art of speaking" through the use of proverbs for trading wooden-

wares, bargaining and the rights to use the resources, which they name as geet-"songs".

However, it is actually different from the geet prevailing in Nepali society. The verbal art is a

subject of study in Folklore, Anthropology, Linguistics, and Literary Criticism (Bauman

1975). I have concentrated on how the reciprocity and sharing practices are concerned with

verbal arts and co-exist with each other. In fact, this oral tradition of ukhān tukkā –"proverbs"

carries special meanings. This fascinating culture of Rāute society contributes to make their

economy affluent and sustainable. Rāute have been employing proverbs in different social

milieu. I had collected the proverbs and āsik while I was conducting ethnographic research.

Here, I would like to show the interlink between economic practices and verbal arts that are

handed down one generation to another. The verbal art is not only their way of

communication and interaction, but also a way to entertain others. The articulating of

proverbs is the best method to persuade non-foragers. The proverbs in their community are

not only literary genres and folk elements, but also the best element that articulates for

negotiation to achieve something from the outsiders. They use the proverbs in different

modes and contexts to convince their trade partners, which creates the atmosphere of

sympathy and emotion. There is no restriction to share such proverbs in the public domain.

They can share their art at any time with the villagers. They employ this strategy to persuade

their clients for negotiation and to beg to get maximum benefit in their traditional business.

The witty proverbs are employed for negotiation that have been concerned with livelihood,

including religion, nature, ethnicity, morality, love, pain and pleasure, occupations, and

nomadism (c.f. Luintel 2055 v. s. and Shāhu 2013). Villagers are interested in their artistic

way of expressing their proverbs. Villagers share them while they are trying to exchange

commodities. They carry both symbolic and metaphorical meanings. The verbal arts build

87

inter-ethnic relations, transforming the knowledge from Rāute to non-Rāute. They never

receive any formal training to articulate to their verbal art. They learn through their everyday

interactions. The verbal art is able to be sustained only through the inter-ethnic

communication, dialogue and bargaining. The Rāute who have the art to interact with

outsiders have a better chance to be selected as Mukhiyā and be able to trade goods quickly.

The form of verbal art is differing and it has been used as per time, contexts and situations.

This oral tradition is connected by kinship, leadership and gender division of labor, which is

taken as a source of knowledge. Society needs to work for the protection and preservation of

vernacular culture. Rāute employ ukhān-tukkā while bargaining, trading and receiving

assistance from the different agencies to meet their short-term needs and expectations. There

are no fixed spaces, rules and regulation to share ukhān-tukkā with the agro-pastoral

community. They are not only interesting to the villagers, but also help meet their demands

through the use of verbal skill. They have self-centered motives more than the objective of

mutual benefits. Rāute ukhān-tukkās are similar to those of the villagers in terms of rhyme

schemes, composition and meaning, which contain their knowledge and wit. They carry

different messages and meanings related to various dimensions of their life, such as

occupations, inter-ethnic relations, habits, pain and pleasures. Some ukhān-tukkā shows their

disposition with forest, nature and hunting-gathering strategies, beside their skills, fictive

relations and bartering mechanisms. These proverbs contain the latent meanings, moral

lesson, cultural dispositions, association with nature, and foraging identity (c.f. Fortier 2003).

The following proverb shows their identity, including nature and culture;

Kurā Pakā Khutā Jhutā

Strong in the words, weak in the feet

88

This one stanza ukhān is in rhyming form. The meaning of this proverb is close to the Rāute

identity, mainly their culture of nomads and bartering. The first two words of stanza Kurā

pakā indicate their commitments and habit that are concerned with ethnic identity and

cultural inclinations. Rāute are strong in their commitments and do not expect their trade

partners to go against their agreements in the trading process. There is a common belief

within the villagers that Rāute are pakā-"sure" on what they commit to do. They might extort

the committed goods if anyone breaches the commitments. They may even break their

woodenwares by themselves or leave the goods without any return if they feel that the

villager has breached a commitment. They are not interested to share any information about a

new journey of migration and hunting area, thus, they often say khutā jhutā. Dil Bāhādur

says, "There is no certainty about our journey. Yesterday, we were in one place, today we are

here; if anyone dies we will migrate tomorrow. How can we declare about the future? The

direction of our travel might not be fixed." They speak with short and sharpened words with

outsiders and use plenty of ukhān-tukkā to make the social atmosphere in their favor. They

will say jhār nikhāri phālnu Kurā tikhāri garnu- "weed the grass and speak with sharpened

words". This ukhān shows the close ties with nature-culture and moral lessons. This proverb

demonstrates the Rāute's mildness, coyness, straightforwardness, and introverted character.

They will not show their dual and cunning role in the negotiating process. They use ukhān to

escape or to end their conversations with the trade partners. To some extent, Rāute's proverbs

create an obligatory relation and make the environment under their control. Proverbs are

simply used to convince people to build mutual relations with the villagers. The negotiation

process is not simply for the selling of woodenwares, but also for the getting of grains

without investment. The ukhān-tukkās are employed to gain a favorable exchange. In

addition, they articulate proverbs for the begging of chickens, hens and the use of forest

resources. For the purpose of negotiation Rāute perform ukhān-tukkā by bowing their head,

89

touching other's feet and putting off their turban to compel others to buy their manufactured

goods. I have seen some elderly Rāute and widows engaged in begging in the village at local

tea shop and markets. If they fail to get something through begging, they might curse. I saw

a young Rāute request a local shopkeeper to sell a chicken for offering to clan deities in

Māghi. He used proverbs as milāune mukhai chha bujhāune titai chha–"mouth manages

better and returner manages bitter". The Rāute had known the shopkeeper for the past two

months and the owner of the chicken was not agreeing to sell his property. The young Rāute

bowed his head, put his cap at the feet of the shopkeeper and joined his hand to persuade him

but to no avail. At last the Rāute cursed him and said his chicken would die soon. Rāute love

carrots. They would beg for carrots from the local farmers and if unable to get them they

would forcefully steal them from their kitchen garden. They frequently say pir-"pain", mār-

"kill" and jār-"paramour or adulterer" are not good in society. Despite this, they frequently

engage in threatening and cursing the villagers.

I observed the manufacturing process of cauki-"a flat and big size woodenware", which is

used to roll phineroti and small "cauki- "a small size round shape woodenware used to roll

bread". The identity of Rāute is reflected by their long turban on the head, layers of Gādoo,

the style of their walking and a stick in their hand, whereas the female have varieties of

beads, flat bangles in their hand, uncombed hair and manually stitched clothes. They wear

blouses without buttons. The reciprocity relation between Chunārā and Rāute is also seen

mainly in the process of exchanging commodities. Rāute provide koshi, khāt and madhus to

get Theki from Chunārā for the purpose of fetching water or keeping liquor. They also buy

dooko from the sikarmi-"carpenter", which is normally used to carry necessary items while

they are shifting camps. They are industrious; therefore, they would say kām bhaye dām

budhi bhaye salām –"work gives us money and knowledge gives us respect". In the proverb

sharing processes, there is no restriction in the name of age, gender, caste, class and religion.

90

They would be interestingly sharing ukhān-tukkā in the common parbate language. The

performance of "verbal art" in Rāute society can be used as a means of advertisement in their

primitive economic system that bridges the relation with the villagers. Their dialogues are

mixed with ukhān-tukkā, where they include satire, pain, pleasure, appeal and humor that

draw the attention of the audience. Their ukhān has metaphorical meanings, which posses

similar features as songs in terms of composition, meanings and rhyme schemes. There might

be differentiation while they are articulating their verbal art with villagers. The differentiation

might be modified and some words may go missing. When they successfully trade their items

or get something from begging, they give āsik to the villagers. This contains the blessing for

the durability and prosperity of their life. They are found to be giving āsik not only to get

economic incentives, but also to maintain long-term social relations with non- Rāute.

5.6 A Tricky Negotiation

Tricky negotiation is applied to receive items from farmers and is usually contextual,

occasional and situational, designed for maximum benefit. They might create a fake relation

while they are negotiating. They are individualistic to get a profit from their trade partner.

The negotiation practice outside their social world seems diplomatic, tricky and by proxy,

which is temporary and concerned with current problems of their society. The temporary

relation is influenced by their nomadic culture, the nature of squander and their everyday

works. They create a humorous environment through strategic dialogue, which frequently

includes adages, songs and chatting with certain socio-cultural limitations. For instance, they

follow the principle of seniority and gender. The satirical, tricky, polite and witty words are

employed for persuasion. They might be polite or fierce and praise or curse while engaging in

negotiations for the exchange processes. To some extent, they conceal their reality and

demonstrate the problems of widows, age, children and sickness to meet their desires and

91

expectations. Their negotiation pressurizes and forces the villagers to give something. The

villagers should follow the commitments regarding what they have said they would like to

buy, to give or to exchange. If anyone breaches any rule, Rāute engage in quarrels until they

return to their previous agreements. The villagers say, "If we committed to give anything like

animals, chickens, then we would take at any cost. Therefore, we need to think before

making any commitment to Rāute." The fictive relation is a way to receive goods and money

from the villagers in an easy manner. The following case offers the strategies, negotiation,

commitment, expectation, desires and behavior of Rāute:

John Reinhard-a retired national geography researcher-visited Rāute while I was in the field. John had been occasionally visiting Rāute for the last forty-five years. He said to Hari Bāhādur, "former Mukhiyā Mān Bāhādur was my mit". "Oh! if he was your mit, you are my mit buwā- "mit father"," Hari said. John recalled his bygone days with his mit. "I think you [Hari Bāhādur] were not born then," John replied. He was interested to meet his mitini-"wife of mit". Hari told him that she had gone into the jungle for collecting firewood and he did not know where she went and she might return only in the evening. Hari Bāhādur requested him to take a koshi as nāso and charged the price Rs 300 for the same. John bought that khosi for Rs 200 after a brief negotiation. Later in the evening, Hari asked me when the foreigner [John] would visit the camp again. "Your mit baa?" I asked. Hari Bāhādur replied,"Buwā Chhandā Mit buwā marepachi keko mit buwā?"- "relation of mit father prevails until the life of mit".

This case shows the temporary relation between forager and non-forager, vested interests, and

selfishness, and the reciprocity, which has certain limitations and restrictions in terms of age,

gender and language. The cultural ethos demarcates the ethnic boundaries that bind them

together, and is reflected in their everyday conversation, interactions, rituals and cultural

practices. The informal authority to run the group is passed on to the community members in

terms of age, sex and power. Mukhiyā has the authority to deal with newcomers, government

officials and villagers. However, his initiations often go ahead in accordance with mutual

understanding. Mukhiyā must clearly express the villagers' voice to impress the non-foragers.

The community members have the right to express the problems and demands to fulfill the

common interest to run their day-to-day life. When one Rāute demand is fulfilled, then the

Mukhiyā negotiates for the next benefit. There would be layers of negotiations with outsiders.

92

They normally use "we" or "people" rather than "I" to show their socio-cultural

"collectivism" "constellation", "integrity" and "solidarity" within their ethnic boundaries.

They do not demonstrate any kind of honor, greeting and politeness with their negotiators as

other non-foragers do because they claim themselves as the Thakuri-"a high caste Hindu

ruling group of far western Nepal".

5.7 Women, Hunting-Gathering and Reciprocity

This section presents the gender division of labor in addition to the perception of women and

their social position both in the public and private domain. I have presented the distinct role

of Rāute women in the different social spheres. Such roles and responsibilities have been

influenced by patriarchal domination, including social restriction, purity and pollution. Rāute

women work under specific rules and regulations of their society. They often accompany

their male members in the daily work, mainly in gathering and trading processes. The

supportive role of male and female can be observed in felling trees, making logs, painting

woodenwares with red soil and trading in the village. Rāute women are mainly assigned to

perform domestic works. They need to remain silent in the presence of villagers. The sexual

division of works in Rāute society is based on cultural ethos and the norms of the society.

Rāute women, along with peer groups, relatives and family members, often visit villages

around their campsite for the begging of green vegetables, fruits and grains. Rāute's widows

normally engage in commodity exchange and begging necessary items. In fact, their activities

are guided under ethnic ideologies and religious faith. In Rāute society, there is a traditional

division labor for production since the origin of Rāute. In Rāute society both male and female

are equally engaged in collecting food for their family members through foraging. They

strictly follow the societal rules to maintain their hunting-gathering and trading practices.

Rāute women engage in foraging activities, go to the forest for gathering tubers, roots ,

93

berries, nuts, leaves, fruits, green vegetables and medicinal plants. Likewise at home they

husk the rice and grind grains in ghata-"water mills". Female Rāute keep themselves busy in

the kitchen chores and they share foods within the family members. They engage in gathering

tubers and roots, collecting firewood, twigs of plants for manufacturing camps, weaving nets,

fetching water from springs and washing utensils. Male Rāute engage in the manufacturing of

woodenwares and climbing trees and rocks to hunt langurs and monkeys. This risky behavior

is also one of the main reasons for their untimely death. These facts prove that male Rāute

engage in harder physical works than females. Rāute engage in a wide range of activities to

continue their foraging trend. Women have less mobility in comparison with their male

counterpart. I did not see women engage in reciprocity, trading and chanting āsik-"blessing"

as male Rāute do.

This research does not measure the value of their works in terms of wages, effort and time. I

observed both male and female equally take part in subsistence works such as hunting-

gathering and trading without anxiety. There are no pressures or imposition and exploitation

in the name of sex and age. I have seen both male and female punish one another in the case

of a breach of rules and play supportive roles both within and outside their camps. When

women beg in the villages they do so in a group of other women or with the male relatives.

Women are passive in major decision-making processes such as migration, demanding,

hunting and negotiating. The following case presents the women's position, role and presence

in front of the outsiders:

One day, I went to the Surkhet Bazār with Surya Nārāyan and Mayn Bāhādur with their wives, to exchange commodities with the villagers and to purchase goods for celebration of Maghi. On the way, we talked but their wives not speak even a single word. We took snacks in a local restaurant at Surkhet Bazār. Male Rāute demanded Chaumin-"fried noodles". Surya Nārāyan's wife shared the noodles with him. She just looked at me but spoke with her husband in kāmchi language. She asked for samosā and sweets. Surya Nārāyan requested me to buy them for his wife. I asked their [women's] name with Surya Nārāyan, he replied janiko nām hudaina-"women do not have names".

94

Young Rāute hardly share male and female relations with the villagers. Males disclose the

real name or tell a fake name of their wives with outsiders. Rāute may get angry when

outsiders speak and capture the photographs of their women without their permission. During

fieldwork male Rāute asked me several questions about my marital status, children and

family members. Likewise, they also asked similar questions to a woman who has been

working with them for the last six years. Mukhiyā Myan Bāhādur asked her:

Bhānji you always came alone in our camp, where is your husband? Why does he not come with you? I think he does not love you. If he loved you, then he should have come with you. Who will look after your husband and children in your absence?

He asked these questions as a senior in relation to discipline. For them, women must be safe

from sexual anarchy. They do not only ask such questions to women but to the male who is

found alone around their vicinity. For them, the notion of sexual purity and virginity is

essential. They are strict in the issues of marriage and sex and this helps them maintain their

unique identity. They don't desire to get married out of their caste nor let their daughters

marry out of caste. There are several rumors regarding their power concerning magic spells

that they employ to sway the women of the villagers. Rāute deny this spiteful talk. In fact,

they were not found to be engaging in long conversations with women villagers. They

address village women with words of respect like āmā, bahine, bhānji and miteni. The

following case which was narrated by a village woman shows the Rāute's respect for the

women of the village:

A Rāute was going to the workshop through the forest trail. I [a village woman] asked him where he was going. "I am going to sharpen my axe blade," the Rāute replied. "When I told him that he was taking the wrong path, he addressed me as bahini-"sister" and wished me good luck in my journey."

Likewise, one day Prakāsh and Lāl Bāhādur went to the village with young girls to exchange

goods. I asked about relations between boys and girls. They said, "They are our sisters and

have come with me to support trading." Male Rāute negotiated with me and said the two

girls would like to buy something in the market if I gave them money. The girls were quiet

95

there and nudged the males to move ahead. A few days later, I knew that those girls, whom

the men had said to be their sisters, were, in fact, their wives. I was surprised to see their age

difference. When I asked with Mayn Bāhādur Shāhi for the reason of age difference between

male and female, he answered; "There is not only unequal population ratio between male and

female, but also unequal population ratio within the different clans with whom we are eligible

to marry. Therefore, it would difficult to find marriageable partners within the community."

When girls are 12 years of age the negotiation for marriage begins through the support of

matchmakers. Marriage outside the ethnic boundaries is unacceptable, and is considered

impure. Thus, they have neither desire to get married to women of the village nor to give

them their own daughters to marry. In their understanding, assimilation with villagers through

marriage lead towards the sedentrazation processes. The notion of morality fastens them to

follow the rules of marriage within their own community.

Their strong cultural disposition contains the rules of laws, for instance, Rāute women have

neither any role in the worship of bhuyār-"main deities", nor are they allowed to observe their

images (see Bandhu 2044 v. s. and Luintel 2055 v. s.). Rāute women are not permitted to

wander in the village without the permission of their husbands. They do not have any right to

give āsik to their trade partners. Male Rāute say women are born without names. They say

Roti ko tāuko hundaina āimāi ko jāt hundaina- "bread has no head and the woman has no

caste". This metaphorical adage shows the inferior role of women. They can marry with any

caste group. In Nepali society, the surname of women transfers in the male line. The

hypergamy and their assimilation are determined through marriage. However, such practice is

not existent in Rāute society. There is a rumor within the village that, "Rāute may persuade

the women of the villagers through a magic spell." The Rāute refuse such blame. Pre-nuptial

sex is considered sin. There are reports about Rāute women being given a name and upon

96

insistence, the mukhiyā confided some names of Rāute women, including Kanāyo, Vasan,

Baldaiharā, Mansuti, Nāwsi, Sibin, Kalpan, Kalā, Khambā, Dhuni, and Mel (See Shāhu 2013

and Luintel 2055 v. s). Male Rāute normally go to the villages with their wives. Young male

Rāute sometime disclose their relation with females, for instance, Prakāsh and Lāl Bāhādur

told me Mel and Khambā were their sisters. In fact, they were their wives. There are several

reasons that Rāute women of their community have stayed away from the villagers. They fear

assimilation, inter-ethnic marriage and disorder in the societal system. They do not imagine

upward and downward mobility through the marriage with the sedentary people. These days

widow marriage is acceptable among Rāute. However, plural marriage, including polyandry

and polygamy, is prohibited. The widows are found to be discriminated against in society,

and they are not permitted to eat salt for rest of their life. They are blamed as the killer of

their husband. They would say nun khāne bhaye poi toki hai-"you killed your husband, how

can you eat salt?". Yet, this notion has completely changed within the people. Five years ago,

I saw widows camps been constructed in the opposite direction of other Rāute camps. Rāute

believe that seeing the face of a widow is an ill omen and that it would ruin their hunting.

Thus, they carry out their hunting journey without giving any clues to the widows and also

come back to their campsite in the late evening to save their prey from the widows, as Rāute

widows have the right to snatch prey. When I asked the reason for constructing the widows'

camps in opposite directions, I was told that it was their choice rather than pressure.

However, such practices are on the decline. Widows receive the leftover items such as

woodenwares and prey from the male members of their society. According to the villagers,

the hunters give the tail of monkeys and langur to women but the Rāute deny this. They need

to follow the males when they go out of their village. Rāute Mukhiyā gives the first priority

to the widows and paupers when sharing any items received from outsiders. The strong

cultural disposition, societal taboos and restrictions bind them to stay under the informal rule

97

of laws. I have seen a group of widows wandering in the village for begging and, among

them, one elderly Rāuteni began to bargain as follows:

"I am widowed and have nothing to eat. I expect grains and vegetables." A woman gave them one mānā cãmal, flour and chili. Widows pretend to be hungry and request for food. She was given rice with lentils and green vegetables. Villagers gathered to see them. When one woman asked her why she did not wear cloth like others, she just stared at them.

The interested Rāuteni can trade their woodenware for what they receive from other Rāute.

Male Rāute and their Mukhiyā have to work for their welfare and look after their people. A

women's role is confined within the domestic domain whereas the male role is in the public

domain to make the major decisions. Rāute women carry koshi and cauki with male

counterpart, but their husbands take the decision about selling woodenwares. They consider

women to be weak and assign them household chores, i.e., cooking, fetching water and

rearing children. There are restrictions and prohibitions on the basis of age and sex. Some

works are common for both male and female, i.e., weaving hunting net, cooking and

gathering firewood. Females are prohibited from engaging in hunting. When asked why

women were prohibited from hunting, Bhadra Bāhādur answered, "They are weak and unable

to chase monkeys and strike them on their head." Rāute consider women to be impure,

physically weak and passive. The social restriction hinders the equal sharing of their

everyday works, production and unable to form equitable society. The sexual division of

works is determined through religious ideologies and cognition, which is embedded with

cultural practice. The gender division of labor denies the equal participation of male and

female in the different spheres of their life.

In the paisari nāch the participation of Rāuteni is unlike their male counterparts. They inspire

the male while dancing but they don't themselves take part in dancing. Both male and female

wear new attire. Women wear pāuju, mugā ko mālā and majetro. Throughout the dancing

period women stand in the middle and encourage male partners to dance. I had observed

some difference between the young and old generation Rāute. For instance, I have seen

98

young women of their community drinking liquor and chatting with villagers in the absence

of males of their community. They are conscious about their cultural ethos and norms such as

language.

5.8 Global-local Relation: Transformation of Reciprocity

This section not only presents the global-local connection, but also local-global connections

in terms of flow of commodities, ideologies, technologies and knowledge over time. These

flows transform the values of traditional reciprocity particularly in circulation and

distribution both within and outside their ethnic boundaries. There are different arguments on

globalization, i.e., capitalist development (Wolf 1981), commodities (Mintz 1985 and Wolf

1981), imagination and fantasy (Appadurai 1996). The global consumerism culture and

development projects have affected Rāute's economic activities in their everyday life. The

traditional ethnographic method was located within the fixed community and thus its findings

may not be representative and the ethnographer may have failed to present multiple realities.

The modern ethnographies move from single-sited ethnography to multi-sited ethnography

(Marcus 1995). In this ethnography, I intend to focus on interaction between global and local

cultural practices. The process of globalization is not only subject to see the flow of the

economy, but also to observe the flow of global economic culture in everyday life. The media

flow and penetration of the world economy have eroded the system of reciprocity, the means

for surviving, modified technologies, bringing alternative foods and drinks and

transformation of mobile hunting-gathering practices. The global relation not only threatens

the indigenous culture of Rāute but also creates many opportunities in different episodes of

their life. The modern world imposes itself on ideologies and the views of the marginal

communities to enhance their development that transforms and sidelines the system of

production, reproduction, circulation, consumptions and exchange. The globalization

99

processes stress assimilation and homogenization of cultures through the media, education,

migration, internet and business policies. Anthropological debate looks at the influences of

globalization and its response from the local level. Since 1960 Rāute have had rapid

interaction with the other world due to the flows of capital, migration, market, and

conservation and bio-diversity policies, which have increased their relationship with the rest

of the world and make them interdependent. The global economic forces have integrated

Rāute with local economic systems, despite their continued resistance from below and their

nature to remain aloof from other communities.

The adoption of new consumerism culture has made their society more complex through new

forms of exchange. They have left their indigenized socioeconomic practices due to the

impact of the world economy. They have interconnectedness with the global economic

system that has resulted in alteration of their system of reproduction of cultures. This has

been largely associated with the development of world capitalism and trade mechanism.

Their relation is seen in the consuming, circulating and sharing of goods including liquor,

clothes and music. Rāute transmits their local values and ethos through different means and

methods as they receive from the other societies. The global integral relation has changed

their livelihood, where they frequently move from rural to urban areas for the purpose of

exchange and begging.

Rāute are "exotic" and subject of "romance" for others. Thus, they visit their campsites to

photograph them and record their life ways in audio and video form. In return, Rāute demand

money or other materials to run their daily lives. The recorded information has been used for

different purposes such as research, documentary films and personal amusements for the last

50 years. These days, Christian missionaries, Red Cross Society, NGOs/INGOs and state

officials have been supporting them in the name of welfare. These agencies are more loyal to

100

their donors than to the Rāute community. Hence, they fail in their objectives to provide the

service to them. The influence of globalization has introduced "hybridity" in their hunting-

gathering culture through the influence of media, education and technologies. There have

been significant changes in their foods, dresses, languages and exchange patterns. For

instance, I observed that Rāute began to sing folk songs after their Paisāri Nāch. I asked

Chandramān how they learned these songs? 'We learn these gāonle geet-"village songs"

through the radio. We hear these songs while we travel to market on the bus. We sing these

songs in the jungle for entertainment," he said. Rāute have transformed themselves from

"bilingual to multilingual" to articulate their views and forge better opportunities. Myan

Bāhādur used English words while he negotiates to sell his cauki in Surkhet Bazār. Similarly,

Surya Nārāryān told me:

I need to learn at least few English words because I have difficulties to understand while we are dealing with foreigners. As being a Mukhiyā, people of my community have given some responsibilities to deal with visitors to get maximum benefit. I need to visit adā-"office" and adālat –"court" to put forth our problems, where government officials speak English words. Today Korean journalists came here to take a video-graph of our life ways. We failed to negotiate due to language problems. So, I must learn English.

The regular assimilation and contact with an outer world creates the difficulty of keeping in

stationary form. Their trans-cultural and transnational relations invite fluidity in their

identities. However, it fails to sustain their culture. Rāute have a hard time to struggle with

global influence and to preserve their cultural values and ethos intact. The process of

globalization gradually dislocates and deterritorializes culture, which can be observed in their

use rights, productive system, consuming culture and trading mechanism. The state's

globalization policies are found to be ignoring indigenous and traditional knowledge. The

globalization processes began from grassroots level through the initiation of NGOs/INGOs

and missionary organizations, where we observe their imposition. The western imperialism

and reflection of post-colonial projects imposes upon the tribal and indigenous groups

without respect for their dignity and social recognition. Their projects further push marginal

101

societies towards extinction. The post-colonial projects produce educated elites and provide

space to form policies and planning to civilize them through newly introduced models of

development in their community that ignore land rights and ownership. The work carried out

in the name of modernization and industrialization universalizes their knowledge, ideas and

technologies of the western world that rarely promote the folk culture of any particular group.

It rather creates cultural suffocation. I observed non-government organizations providing

regular support to the Rāute community, mainly to civilize them. The imperialistic projects

lead the indigenous culture towards the path of destruction from its real grounds of hunting-

gathering. They are victimized by the bio-diversity projects, community forestry, illegal

poaching, logging the wood and timber by the sedentary population. Imperialistic projects

misrepresent the local knowledge, identities and economic practices. This might result in

social movement, particularly about their "use rights" and "ownership" over the resources

especially water, forest and land in their hinterland. In Nepal many indigenous and ethnic

groups such as Thāru, Rāji, Chepāng and Rāute are victimized through the modernity projects

such as roads, community forest projects, hydro electricity projects and wildlife and bio-

diversity conservation centers. Their culture is influenced by the capitalistic world and is

alienated from the world system including market and neoliberal policies. Their relations

extend to state and non-state mechanisms in the name of rights, incentives and demands that

broaden their association with the outer world. This relation does not only collapse the core

value of their culture, but also transform the forms of reciprocity, productions, and

consumptions. The extension of trade routes, media and commodity flow extends the global

relation. Before their exposure to the other world, they seemed to be mysterious and had

limited social, economic and political relation. They exchanged their productions with the

farmers, artisans and occasionally with villagers for survival. The explosion of media,

migration and development projects, e.g., roads and markets extended their relation with

102

other societies. The intervention of state and non-state agencies leads Rāute to neglect their

indigenous culture and pushing them to adopt modernity projects despite their continuous

resistance. The pressures from the outside bring crisis in their economic strategies, including

their livelihoods and adaptive technologies. Their global connection influences local culture,

including modes of production, distributions and consumptions. The development projects

intended to impose the hegemonic culture (Escobar 1995) and their notions loaded upon the

life of the locals who are treated as irrational. The modern development projects constructed

the hyperspaces such as airports, roads, hotels, bars and restaurants (c.f. Kearney 1995) that

deterritoralized the Rāute culture. From the last couple of years, hyperspaces have cultivated

a new consumerism culture and extended their trade territory of exchange that obligates

Rāute to leave their cultural ground. I observed that Rāute have adopted new transportations

to travel, consume market products, and use a cell phone to contact other communities that

extend their tie and intensify their interconnections and interdependent relation.

Arjun Appadurai (1996:33) has discussed five dimensions of global cultural flows that can be

termed as (a) ethnoscapes, (b) mediascapes, (c) technoscapes, (d) financescapes, and (e)

ideoscapes. The influence of these scapes can be observed in archaic economic exchange of

Rāute, where they regularly interface with other societies. Yet, they had relations with

national and international agents such as bureaucrats, politicians, social workers, tourists,

journalists and filmmakers. This has bewildered their ethnic ground. Since the last few

decades media like newspapers, photographs, television and radio have been circulating a lot

of information on the cultural practices of Rāute. Several books, articles and documentary

films have been produced. There includes vivid stories of their life. Media has increased its

interest at local, national and global levels through printing, cellular phones, television and

radio broadcasting and this has played a significant role in internationaling the Rāute culture.

Media concentration on Rāute does not only highlight their everyday problems, particularly

103

hunting-gathering and trading, but also contributes to the policy formulation to preserve the

cultural heritage, use rights and ethnic identity. The lives of hunter-gatherers are influenced

by the modernity projects, which have not only pressurized them to adopt a sedentary life, but

also contribute to bring different programs and policies for the promotion. The modernity

projects have introduced several ideas on welfare, use rights, social security, inclusion and

mainstreaming of their culture. However, their initiations have ignored their socio-cultural

history. The impact on the ideoscape is unable to sustain them in stationary form and has

forced them to follow the road of sedentarization. The five scapes play a role to disjuncture

the cultural life of Rāute from their origin.

The globalization processes have continuously eroded the traditional practices mainly their

behavior, social organizations and economic system such as distributions, and consumptions.

The modern inventions, innovation, mass media, and short-term migration have influenced

traditional exchange practices. The cultural hybridity can be observed in their trading system,

gift exchange, sharing and begging strategies. The flow of mass media, state and non-state

agencies has helped to transform the nomadic culture. Their influences have led to a diluting

of their culture and can be observed in food habits, dress patterns, and liquor consumptions.

The globalization forces have led to the Rāute culture towards extinction of hunting-gathering

practices. It, however, has increased the inter-ethnic interactions beyond their cultural

boundaries.

Within one month, I found journalists, researchers, film stars and NGOs/INGOs personnel

from around the world such as Austria, France and Korea visit them. This proves their global

connections. A few years ago Rāute considered touching money as pāp-"sin", because they

believed in work, labor and exchange rather than take money free of cost. Their trade routes

were limited within their nomadic zone, and avoided cash money and restricted outsiders to

104

see their camp sites (Nepal 2054[2040] v. s.). Now-a-days, these conceptions are blurred and

their interactions have increased and new cultural practices have been introduced. Their

interactions with villagers have forced them to adopt currencies and this has transformed their

conception of exchange. The sedentary Rāute simultaneously engage in government jobs and

business beside farming and livestock which shows their inclination to currencies, which

leads towards the erosion of reciprocity. Yet, Rāute neither completely avoid the cultural

ideology, nor solely accept the modernity projects. These days they have close links to state,

unlike the past, particularly to forge the ownership and use rights of the forest. The following

observation shows their network relation to state agencies.

Umesh Prasad Khanal, an LDO official, distributed a monthly allowance of Rs 1,000 as a social security allowance to 145 nomadic Rāute. I have known Rāute since the last fifteen years, said Khanal. While I was young they did not touch money but now they have easily accepted it. Simultaneously, they are adopting the culture of villagers such as wearing slippers, shoes and sweaters. They frequently visit the LDO office for cash and other incentives. The mobility of Rāute has increased and they have adopted new strategies and extended their market.

The consumptions, circulations and distributions of the commodities gradually promote the

monetary values due to the influence of globalization. This is connected to markets and

transportation facilities. This process enhances their social mobility. Their frequent mobility

towards the city and long distances for selling woodenwares means they have started

preferring currency. Rāute are found to have been purchasing goods from the market rather

than exchange in the village. The infinite demands of Rāute produce and reproduce culture

over time. They understand the value of money because of their global ties that force them to

change their traditional business beyond existing practices. These days money has become an

important means for purchasing, lending and selling commodities. The influence of currency

has broken their emotional attachment with widows, orphans and disabled of their own

society. Likewise, this has eroded trade relations with non-foragers. The global relation of

Rāute has opened new forms of social ties with state and non-state agencies. They demand

105

money from government officials, donor agencies and newcomers. They also seek for special

incentives like blankets, khāsis-"goat" and money. This shows their interdependencies and

interchangeable economic relations with other societies. In fact, Rāute are one part of the

world economy. We can observe hundreds of files and photographs of Rāute in Google

search engine. These days, there is wide coverage of Rāute in print media, television, online

news, printed books, journals and newspaper articles. Different agencies have uploaded their

information as a form of YouTube video on Rāute. They are widely covered in the

cyberspace, both in public and individual websites, as forms of videos, articles and photos

that give chances to see, watch and read about their everyday practice around the world.

These things prove that they are interdependent and part of the world economic system.

106

Chapter Six

Summary and Conclusion

6.1 Summary

"Bāndarko chalo chhopne Rāute koo dhāmilāi kheti chaina pāti chaina ke garnu hāmilāi"

Lets catch baby monkey for Rāute's Shaman, we have no land to farm what can we do.

- Rāute Saying

Bāndi khānu bākhro chiri khānu kānkro

Share the goat, slice the cucumber to eat.

-Bir Bāhādur Rāute

The first adage shows the intra-group reciprocity which signifies the "moral obligations",

"duties", "transitions" and "exchange practice" of Rāute economy. The role of Dhāmi-

"shaman" is important to relieve them from pain and evil eyes. Dhāmi plays the role as a

doctor and in response, Rāute share the prey with Dhāmi in recognition of his service. The

second adage shows the "give and take" relation, "sharing" and "caring" practices that binds

them and make the egalitarian society. These adages present their non-formal "agreements",

"kinship affiliation", and "moral obligation". I have shown "giving", "receiving" and

"returning" process, beside the "productions", "distributions", "circulations" and

"consumptions" within their socio-cultural milieu. The main objectives of the study are to

discuss forms of reciprocity and sharing practices related to customary rules, verbal and

performing art for the purpose of negotiation.

This study depends on the ethnographic research design in which I had employed

unstructured interviews, observation and case histories as techniques of data collection. I

used field diaries, field notes, audio and video recorders for data collection. This study, based

on an interpretative approach, draws from theories and methods to search the meanings

107

embedded in reciprocity and sharing practices. This study explains the lived experiences of

Rāute which combine their "utterance", "interaction" and "interdependent" relations over

time that explore the subjective meaning.

Dobilā Kholā of Surkhet District was selected as study area which is 7 km distance from

Birendranagar. The study area is a tribeni of three VDCs Jarbutā, Sātākhāni and Ratu, which

was an appropriate location to see the economic relation between forager and non-foragers.

The heterogeneous population composition in terms of caste/ethnicity helped to draw

information on reciprocity and sharing.

Here, I have summarized the findings of the study in the following points:

The ethno-history of Rāute proves that they have long-term interdependencies and

interchangeable relations with the sedentary groups in term of reciprocity which is presented

in myths and legends. These myths and legends trace out their origin, religious ideologies,

clan history, hunting-gathering strategy, bartering mechanism, migration and occupational

activities.

In Rāute society, there is "no free gift" similar to the argument of Marcel Mauss. To pay a

price of a commodity is essential for Rāute's trade partner and this is a "moral obligation" and

"generosity". Gift in Rāute society is based on "dyadic" and "reciprocal" relations while in

the act of circulating among one another, such reciprocity contains the "non-voluntary" and

"self-centered" characteristics.

I applied the Marshall Sahlins three models of reciprocity: The first, one is generalized

reciprocity, where one Rāute invests a certain amount and expects to return in the future;

however, there would be "delay repayment", "uneven flow" and "rare balance" between

givers and receivers. This reciprocity practice was found within the community members, kin

groups and descendants. The ideologies of "altruism", "welfare" and "moral obligation" force

108

the receivers to return. The second, "balanced reciprocity" is related to direct exchange or

"give to get back" or "equilibrium" relationship between Rāute and non-Rāute which is

determined through "time", "price" and "material flows". I found that balanced reciprocity is

based on "informal contracts", "agreements", "fictive ties" and "negotiation". The negative

reciprocity is associated with "begging", "snatch", "over-handed", "false assurance",

"cheating" "demanding", "little threat" and "curse". Likewise the "silent trade" is also a form

of "balanced reciprocity" which is completely extinct due to their regular contact with

villagers, penetration of a monetary economy, and extension of their trade routes.

The uneconomic Rāute are affluent in terms of "consuming foods and liquor", "sufficient

leisure for entertainment", "no stress of work and material pressure" and "no storage but

plenty". Despite these facts, they never face chronic problems such as "food scarcity",

"diseases" and "starvation" because of their "limited desire" and "expectation". They also

spend a few days for "production", "exchange" "begging", "over handed" and "sharing".

Sharing strategies that are based on the ideology of cooperation, contribute to make the Rāute

more egalitarian. It shows the "interdependent" and "interchangeable" relations. The sharing

ideology depends on "mutual understanding", and "kin affiliation" within the community

members which might be "occasional", "ceremonial", and "ritualistic". Rāute share foods,

clothes and liquor with their relatives on specific occasions. The intra-ethnic sharing

consolidates and binds the society together. This practice is based on the principle of

"morality", "prestige" and "dignity".

Rāute build the Miteri relation with non-Rāute for the purpose of commodity exchange and

begging in order to overcome the everyday problems. Their relationship seems to be "self-

centered", and "strategic" that support to trading their produced woodenwares. Rāute employ

their verbal art, including ukhān-tukkā and āsik for the negotiation and persuasion to trade

109

their commodities. Their verbal art carries the meaning of their "trade", "human nature",

"reciprocity", "occupations", "satire", "pain", "pleasure" and "sharing strategies". This kind of

negotiation seems to be "strategic", "occasional", "contextual", "diplomatic" and "proxy".

Yet, reciprocity practice is not limited within the certain geographical territory due to the

influence of transportation, media, NGO/INGOs, migration and monetary value.

6.2 Conclusion

"We love to live in this beautiful woodland for prey, gathering wild fruits and roots and

carving woodenwares; give us a chance to live our own world".

-Surya Nārāyan

The principle of reciprocity is influenced by the "moral obligation", "fairness", "justice",

"trust", "cooperation", "mutual understanding" and "interchangeable relation" which are

largely concerned with "emotions", "sentiments" and "affection". The interdependent

relationship of Rāute is observed in "rituals", "customs", "festivals" and "trade".

The reciprocity within or outside their community is purely self-centered; therefore, its

circulation and distribution is motivated by the notion of "no free gift". Gifting is not only a

material phenomena. It is connected with socio-cultural dimensions such as "kinship",

"marriage", "clan", "emotion", "sentiment", "power" and "prestige". The dyadic relation

between forager-farmer is concerned with "to give", "to receive" and "to return" that may or

may not be equal. They shape their economic mode of life through "begging", "negotiation"

and "fictive ties". The substantive economy of Rāute includes the social matrix such as

"norms", "values", "kinship", "rituals", "verbal art", and "customs". However, all these things

are not away from the globalized economy. The interpretation of Rāute economy is grounded

110

on the substantive economic models, particularly Malinowski's Kula exchange and Karl

Polanyi's substantivism.

The sharing practice in Rāute society contributes to form an egalitarian structure where they

share "commodities", "foods" and "money". They use "we" while they are negotiating with

outsiders for incentives. This signifies the "commonality", "solidarity", "integrity",

"conscience" "cohesiveness" and "collectivism". These things make the Rāute feel

"delighted", "cherished", and "peaceful". The intra-group sharing practices have voluntary

and altruistic characteristics that make their society affluent. I found that there are two forms

of sharing: first, which was observed during "rituals", "occasions" and "festivals" and the

second, which was observed with the "poor", "disabled" and "widows".

I looked at reciprocity through the Marshall Sahlins tripartite models on reciprocity:

generalized, balanced and negative. The generalized reciprocity occurs within the kinship,

community and family members. If one member invested for the other for a long period of

time, the return might be delayed and be non-equivalent. It would have altruistic

characteristics which could be associated with emotion and sentiment. The balanced

reciprocity mainly occurs between Rāute and non-Rāute, where the gift-giver expects an

immediate return in the equivalent form, for instance, Rāute demand grains as per size of

woodenwares. This is motivated by the notion of "self-centred" and "self-assertiveness". I

linked negative reciprocity with the process of "snatch", "over-handedness", "pilfer" and

"cheating" both within and outside their community.

Unlike other hunter-gatherers of Asia, Africa and Australia, Rāute do not store due to their

constant migration from one place to another. To deal with the primitive economic practice

James Woodburn argues as "there are no fixed dwellings, fixed base camps, fixed stores,

fixed hunting or fishing apparatus-such as stockades or weirs-or fixed ritual sites to constrain

111

movements (1982 :435). Likewise, Rāute have also high mobility, lack of saving and storage,

immediate returning practices and extensively sharing foods and liquors culture within their

community. They manage food scarcity through begging, sharing and temporary loans. The

limited desire enforces them to not only limit their production, but also to save their time to

take the rest at camp, where they amuse themselves by singing and dancing with full zeal.

They engage only a few days for foraging resources and spend the rest of the day by

entertaining themselves in their campsites. They are less "greedy", "luxurious", and "lustful"

than the villagers and follow the traditional methods to overcome obstruction, for instance; if

the resource is not sufficient they might divide into two to three different bands to balance

forage resources. They migrate to a new place which is normally 10 minutes to two hours

walking distance from the recent campsite. I conclude that even in the modern era, the

economy of hunter-gatherer people has yet to be governed by market policies. Rather, it is

determined through social and cultural capitals including kinship, community, traditional jury

and institution.

112

Appendix-I

Lists of Foods, Fruits and Vegetables Consumed by Nomadic Rāutes

Roman Nepali Scientific English

Ainselu P]F;]n' Rubus ellipticus Smith Golden evergreen

raspberry

Armale cd{n] Anagallis arvensis L. blue pimpernel

Bayar ao/ Zizyphus mauritiana Lam. Indian plum

Belauti a]nf}tL Psidium guajava L. Guava

Bethe a]Fy] Chenopodium album L. Lamb's quater

Bhayākur Eofs'/ Dioscorea deltoidea Wall. cush-cush yam

Bhui Ainselu e'O{ P]F;]n' Fragaria nubicola Lindl. Ex

Lacaita

Strawberry Alpine

strawberry

Bojho af]emf] Acorus calamus L. Sweet flag Calamus

root

Chutro r'qf] Berberis aristata DC. Barberry

Nepal barberry

Gitthā uL7f Dioscorea bulbifera L. Air potato

potato yam

Ghiu Kumāri l3p s'df/L Aloe vera (L.) Burm.f. Indian aloe

Gol Kānkri uf]n sf+qmL Coccinia grandis (L.)

Viogct.

Ivy gourd

Kavai fruit

Halale xnxn] Rumex nepalensis Spreng Toothed dock

113

Kāfal sfkmn Myrica esculenta Buch.-

ham. Ex D.Don

Box myrtle

Bay-berry

Kāuli sfpnL Brassica oleracea L. var.

botrytis L.

Cauliflower

Kerā s]/f Musa paradisiacal L. Banana

Khursāni v';f{gL Capsicum annum L. Capsicum chilly

Kuvindo s'le08f] Benicasa hispida (Thunb.)

Cogn.

White gourd

Koirālo sf]O{/fnf] Bauhinia purpurea L. Pink bauhinia

Laukā nf}sf Lagenaria siceraria

(Molina) Standl.

Calabash white

flower gourd

Mel d]n Pyrus pashia Buch.-Ham.

ex D. Don

Wild pear

Mewā d]jf Carica papaya L. Papaw

papaya

paw paw

Mulā d'nf Raphanus sativus L. Radish

Pālungo kfn'Ëf] Spinacia oleracea L. Spinach

Prickly seeded

spinach

Pharsi km;L{ Cucurbita pepo L. Pumpkin summer

squash vegetable

Pindālu lkF8fn' Colocasia esculenta (L.)

Schott.

Co-co Yam

Taro

114

Arum

Simi l;dL Dolichos lablab L. Lablab

Hyacinth bean

Bovavist

Sakhar Khand zv/v08 Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Sweet potato

Tarul t¿n Dioscorea sagittata Royle Yam

Tite ltt] Swertia nervosa (G. Don)

C. B. Clarke

Chiretta

Van Tarul agt¿n Dioscorea bulbifera L. Air potato

Potato yam

115

Appendix-II

List of Plant Species for Rāute Woodenwares and Camp

Roman Nepali Scientific English

Arjun ch'{g Terminalia arjuna White murdha

Bhalāyo enfof] Semecarpus

anacardium L.

Marking nut tree

Chāp rfk Michelia champaca L. Golden champa

Devdār b]abf/ Cedrus deodara

(Roxb. Ex.Don) G.

Don

Himalayan cedar

Gobre sallā uf]a|] ;Nnf Abies spectabilis (D.

Don) Mirb.

Fir

Falānt Kfmnf6 Quercus glauca

(Thunb)

Oak tree

Dāle Katus 9fn]s6'; Castanopsis indica Nepal chest nut

Khiro lv/f]{ Sapium insigne

(Royle) Benth. Ex

hook. F.

Milk Tree

Pāngar

kfFu/ Aesculus indica (Wall.

ex Camb.) Hook.f.)

Horse-chestnut

Phaledo

kmn]Fbf] Erythrina stricta

Roxb.

Indian coral tree

Sallā ;Nnf Pinus roxburghii Chir pine

116

sargent Himalayan long

leaved pine, Three

lived pine

Sānan ;fgg Desmodium

oojeinense (Roxb.)

Ohashi

Sandan

Simal

;Ldn Bombax Ceiba L. Silk cotton tree

Simal Tree

Tiju tLh' Diospyros

embryopteris Pers

Indian Persimon

Tuni 6'gL Toona ciliate M.

Roem

Cedrella tree

Utis pQL; Alnus nepalensis D.

Don

Alder, Nepal black

ceder

117

References

Appadurai, Arjun

1996 Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bandhu, Chudamani 2044 v. s. Rāute Haruko Sanskritik Adhyayan: Sankshyipta Pratibedan. Kathmandu:

Nepal Rajakiya Pragaya-Pratisthan.

Barnard, Alan

2007 Anthropology and the Bushman. Oxford, New York: Berg Publishers.

Bauman, Richard. 1975 Verbal Art as Performance. American Anthropologist 77(2): 290-311.

Binford, Lewis R.

1980 Willow Smoke And Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:1-17.

Bird-David, Nurit

1990 The Giving Environment: Another Perspective on the Economic System of Gatherer

Hunter. Current Anthropology 31(2):189-196.

1992 Beyond the Hunting and Gathering Mode of Subsistence: Culture-Sensitive

Observations on the Nayaka and Other Modern Hunter-Gatherers. Man 27(1):19-44.

Bista, Dor Bāhādur

1976 Encounter with the Rāute: The Last Hunting Nomads of Nepal. Kailāsh 4(4):317

327.

Carrier, G. James

1995 Gifts and Commodities Exchange and Western Capitalism Since 1700. New York: Rutledge.

118

Central Bureau of Statistics

2011 National Population and Housing Census (National Report).

Dalton, George

1961 Economic Theory and Primitive Society. American Anthropologist 63:1-25.

Denham, W. Woodrow

1979 Research Design and Research Proposal Checklists. Anthropology News 20(4):9-12.

Douglas, Mary

1990 Foreword: No Free Gifts. In The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Marcel Mauss, Pp. ix-xxiii. New York: Rutledge.

Dumont, Louis

1970 Homo Hierarchicus. The Caste System and its Implications. Trans. Sainsbury, M., L. Dumont, and B. Gulati. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellen, R. F.

1995 Research Methods in Social Anthropology Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. New York: Academic Press.

Escobar, Arturo

1995 Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.

Godelier, Maurice

1999 The Enigma of the Gift (Trans. Nora Scoot). Cambridge: Polity Press.

HMG/N

2041 v. s. Pichadiyekā Jāti tathā Janjātiko Samājik Tathā Ārthik Sarbechan Sambandhi Adhen Pratibedan [Text in Nepali]. Kathmandu.

119

Heady, Patrick

2005 Barter. In a Handbook of Economic Anthropology. James Carrier ed. Pp 262-274. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Herskovits, Melville Jean

1974[1940] Economic Anthropology the Economic Life of Primitive Peoples. New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing House.

Fortier, Jana

2000 Monkey's Thigh is the Shaman's Meat: Ideologies of Sharing Among the Rāute of Western Nepal. Senri Ethnological Series 53:113-147.

2001 Sharing, Hoarding, and Theft: Exchange and Resistance in Forager Farmer Relations. Ethnology 40(3): 193-2011.

2002 The Arts of Deception: Verbal Performances by the Rāute of Nepal. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n. s, Formerly Man) 8: 133-257.

2003 Reflections of Rāute Identity. Studies in Nepalese History and Society 8: 317-348.

2009a King of the Forest: The Cultural Resilience of Himalayan Hunter-Gatherers. University of Hawai'i Press.

2009b The Ethnography of South Asian Foragers. Annual Review 38: 99-114.

Isaac, Barry L.

2005 Karl Polanyi. A Handbook of Economic Anthropology. James Carrier ed. Pp 14-25. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kent, Susan

1993 Sharing in an Egalitarian Kalahari Community. Man (28) 3: 479-514.

Kearney, Michael

1995 The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547-565.

Köhler, Axel and Jerome Lewis

2002 Putting Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Relations in Perspective. A Commentary from Central Africa’. In Ethnicity, Hunter-Gatherers, and the ‘Other’: Association or Assimilation in Southern Africa? Susan Kent ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 276-305.

120

Kolm, Serge-Christophe

1992 (Summer) Reciprocity: The Newsletter of PEGS, (2) 2: 1, 5-6.

Laidlaw, James

2000 A Free Gift Makes no Friends. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6.4: 617-634.

Lee, Richard Barry and Irven DeVore (eds.)

1987 [1968] Man the Hunter. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Lee, B. Richard

1968 What Hunters Do for a Living, or, How to Make out on Scarce Resources. In Man the Hunter, eds. R. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 30-48. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

1992 Art, Science, or Politics? The Crisis in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. American Anthropologist 94 (1): 31-54.

Levi-Strauss, Claud

1987 [1950] Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss (Trans. Felicity Baker). London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul.

1969 [1949] The Elementary Structures of Kinship, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Luintel, Yuvaraj

2055 v. s. Bharmansil Rāute, Ke Samāj Sāstriya Adhyan. Kathmandu: Nepal Rājakiya Pragā Pratisthān [Text in Nepali].

Malinowski, Bronislaw

1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian. New Guinea. Rutledge.

1926 Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Kegan Paul.

Marcus, E. George

1995 Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95-117.

121

Marlowe, W. Frank

2010 The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. London: University of California Press.

Marshall, Lorna

1998 Sharing, Talking, and Giving: Relief of Social Tensions Among the! Kung. In Limited Want! Unlimited Mean! : A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment. John M. Gowdy (eds.) pp. 65-66. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.

Maurice, Godelier

1999 The Enigma of the Gift. University of Chicago Press.

Mauss, Marcel

1924 "Essaisur la Don. Forme Archaique de I'Echange,". Annee Sociologique n. s. 1, 30, 36.

2012 [1950] The Gift: The Form and Reason for exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: Rutledge.

Maxwell, A. Joseph

1998 Designing a Qualitative Study. Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Leonard Bickman and Debra J. Rog (eds.). California: Sage Publication pp. 69-100.

Messerschmidt, Donald A.

1982 Miteri in Nepal: Fictive Kin Ties that Bind. Kailāsh- A Journal of Himalayan Studies IX(1): 5:43.

Minnegal, Monica

1997 Consumption and Production Sharing and the Social Construction of Use-Value. Current Anthropology 38 (1): 25-48.

Mintz, Sidney Wilfred

1985 Sweetness and Power. New York: Viking.

Morrison, D. Kathleen and Laura L. Junker

2002 Forager-Traders in South and Southeast Asia Long Term Histories. United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press.

122

Morrison, D. Kathleen

2002 Pepper in the Hills: Upland-lowland Exchange and the Intensification of the Spice Trade. In Forager-Traders in South and Southeast Asia Long Term Histories. Kathleen D. Morrison and Laura L. Junker eds. Pp 105-128. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Morse, M. Janice, Michael Barrett, Maria Mayan, Karin Olson and Jude Spiers

2008 Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): 13-22.

Munck, Victor De

2009 Research Design and Methods for Studying Cultures. Altamaria Press.

Myers, R. Fred

1988 Critical Trends in the Study of Hunter-Gathers. Annual Review of Anthropology 17:261-282.

Narotzky, Susana

1997 New Directions in Economic Anthropology. London: Pluto Press.

Nepal, Purna Prakāsh 'Yātri'

2054 [2040] v. s. Rāute Lok Jibani. Kathmandu: Shree Panchako Sarkar, Schana Mantralaya[Text in Nepali].

Nettle, Daniel and Robin I. M. Dunbar

1997 Social Markers and the Evolution of Reciprocal Exchange. Current Anthropology 38:93–98.

Okada, E. Ferdinand

1957 Ritual Brotherhood: A Cohesive Factor in Nepalese Society. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13: 3: 212-222.

123

Peterson, Nicolas

1993 Demand Sharing: Reciprocity and the Pressure for Generosity among Foragers. American Anthropologist 95 (4): 860-874.

Polayni, Karl

1944 The Great Transformation the Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Parry, Jonathan

1986 The Gift, the Indian Gift, and the ‘Indian Gift’. Man (n. s.) 21: 453–73.

Peterson, Nicolas

1993 Demand Sharing: Reciprocity and the Pressure for Generosity among Foragers. American Anthropologist New Series 95(4): 860-874.

Powdermaker, Hortense

1966 Stranger and Friend: The Way of an Anthropologist. New York: Norton.

Raczek, Teresa P.

2011 Mobility, Economic Strategies, and Social Networks: Investigating Movement in the Mewar Plain of Rajasthan. Asian Perspectives 50 (1-2):24-52.

Reinhard, Johan

1974 The Rāute: Notes on Nomadic Hunting and Gathering Tribe of Nepal. Kailāsh 2(4):233-271.

Russell, H. Bernard

2006 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Altamira Press.

Sahlins, Marshall

1987 [1968] Notes on the Original Affluent Society. In Man the Hunter. Lee, Richard Barry and Irven DeVORE eds. Pp. 85-89. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Adine.

124

Shāhi, Krishna Bāhādur

2057 v. s. Raute Jati ek Choto Chināri [A text in Nepali]. Kathmandu: Grāmin Uthān Prathisthān.

Shahu, Man Bāhādur

2012 Nomadic Identity. Kathmandu Post, September 16.

2068 v. s. Bhramansil Raute ko Jātiya Pahichan ra JātiyaParibartan. Pragyā 105(1): 106-114.

2013 Cultural Dynamics of Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer of Himalaya. A Mini Research Project Report. Bhaktapur: University Grants Commission Nepal.

Sherry, F. John

1983 Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research 10(2):157-168.

Shrestha, Keshab

1998 Dictionary of Nepalese Plants. Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point

Singh, Nand Bahadur

1997 The Endangered Rāute Tribe: Ethno-biology and Biodiversity. Kathmandu: Global Research Carrel for Ethno-Biology.

Turner, R. L. and D. R. Turner

2007 A Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of Nepali Language. New Delhi: Adarsh Books.

Venkatesan, Soumhya

2011 The social life of a “free” gift American Ethnologist 38(1): 47–57.

Wilk, Richard R. and Lisa Cliggett

1996 Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: West View Press.

125

Wolf, Eric

1981 Europe and the People without History, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Woodburn, James

1982 Egalitarian Societies: Man, New Series 17(3): 431-451.

Yan, Yunxiang

2005 The Gift and Gift Economy. In a Handbook of Economic Anthropology. James Carrier ed. pp 246-261. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.