92 Occasional Paper

20. PADeo, (1984). Nepal Urban Development Assessmell/. Planning andDeveloping Collaborate InternationaL Washing toll D.C.

21. Parajuli B.K. and Sharma Kalidas Timilsina. (1997). An Appraisal ofUrban Problem of Himalayan Tourist Ci~v: Pokhara. ResearchDivision. Tribhuvan Uni\ ersity. Kathmandu.

22. PA rA (1975). Pol../wl"a-Nepal Del'elopmcm of a S'enmclllfJDes/marion (Projcct Report). Pacific J\sw Travel Association(rATA) San Francisco. California.

23. rATA (1988). Poklwra-/9R8 (A Project Report). PATA Sanli·ancisco.California.

AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVEON SHIITING CULTIVATION:

A Case Study of Khoriya Cultivation III theAl"Un Valley of Eastern Nepal

31. World Bank. (1990). World Developmcnt Report.

Suresh Dhakal'

Shifting cuhivation. in general, is a system of farming inwhich fields are prepared by cutting down the natural vegetations.letting it dry and burning it off. This technique serves to clear the fieldand enrich the soil with nutrients from the ash. Shining cultivationfields are generally used not more than two years at a lime, after whichthe fanners move to a new area and repeat the ~ame process.

The practice of shifting cultivation is accepted as an earlystage of the agricultural evolution. This form of cultivation is stillwidely practised in different parts of the world. As this practice datesback to the earliest times, it is thus regarded as primitive and archaic.and thereby it is said to have 'survived longest' (Rolwey-Conl:wy1984:85).

The shifting field agriculture is characterised by il rotation of'fields rather than of crops, with short period of cropping alternatingand long fallow period, and clearing by means of slash-and-burI.1. Thepractice of shifting cultivation is also referred to as slash-::md-burl1.swidden agriculture and, so on. In contemporary anthropologicalwork, the term 'swidden' (An old English dcrivative of ·Swithen'.meaning to singe or to burn the surface) has been revived to replace'shifting cultivation' which connotes the nomadic nature ofswiddcllcrs.

(1996). Phewa Lake Conservation Action Plan. NPCS.in Collaboration \\ith IUCN-Thc World Const:nntion

PLCAPflUCHMGUnion.

25. PTPO (1981). I'ariolls Official Records. Pokham Town Planning Ollice(PTI'O). I'okhara.

26. SAle and New Era (1993). Environmental Projection Study ofPhewotal, Nepal. Final Report Prepared for Asirtn DevelopmentBank hy Science Applications International Corporation (SAle).USA and New Era. Kathmandu

24.

27. Shu)..!a. Manisha. (1993). 1~'II\1irol1lnenfill Pol/ulion alld Its Impact 011

I·oranosi. Ph.D Thesis. Dept of Geograph). B.II.l/.

2S. Subcdi. l3lJi. P. (1995). IJoprdatioll olld Ellviro/lmellt ill tile COlltex/ ofOel'fdolJllJeJl/ in Nepal. ill Population MOllllgnlph of Nepal ( 19()5)IIMG. NI'CS, CI'S. Nepal.

29. TeST (1992). DOHlI/ of /~·al'tll. The Cr.:ntcr rol' Science and Technology(TCS I'). New Delhi Sept. 5th. P. 4.

30. Van. i\rsdol: Maurie. D: Jr. Georses Sabagh amI Fnlllceca I\kxandcr( 1964). I?ealit,\/ and rile Perceptions of Environmental f/o=ards.Journal of Ilcalth and 1-ILIman Behavior. Vol. 4, Winter.

Mr. Surcsh Dhakal is an Alllhropologisl and has hcen assoeialcd \\ilh Ihe CemralDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology in the Capaeit) of Part-lime Lcctlllcr

94 Occasional Paper S. Dlwkal 95

In Nepal, the shifting cultivation' has various local names,such as Khoriya, bhasme, Ihose,jhl/m', and, so on. In this study, I haveused the local term 'Khoriya' and the general term 'shifting cultivation'interchangeably. In this article, I intend to review different approachesand perspectives to st~dy the shifting cultivation. Finally, 1 wouldpresent some arguments as the major findings of my own field study(Dhakal 1999) in the Arun valley of eastern Nepal'.

The study, as I expect, will shed some light on how tl ,

shifting cultivation has been approached and studied. It further inten,to enhance the way of understanding how possibly the practice 01

shifting cultivation might be approached in a particular context.

Background oflhe Study

Spencer (1966) observed that 'it is culture and culturalhistory, rather than physiography, which dictate the broadenvironmental location of shifting cultivation as a cropping system'(Spencer 1966:29). And many have argued and agreed upon lhat it is'a special stage in the evolution from hunting and food gathering tosedentary fanning' (Geertz 1974: 15), hence, it is an 'ancient','primitive system', therefore a 'remnant of the past...' (Spencer 1966:2,58, Found 1987: 2, Keesing & Strathern 1998: 89). Spencer furthermaintains that 'there are evidences to suggest that it spreadprogressively across almost the whole of southern and eastern Asia,Europe, and humid Africa in the early stage of settlement of theseregions by agricultural folk' (1966: 4).

Although there is a long history of the practice of shiftingcultivation, very little has been studied or explored in theanthropological context. Even up to the present, very lillie is knownabout the geographical range, characteristics, socio~cultural as well asideological contexts, and diversity and dynamics of shiningcultivation. This is because the studies of shifting cultivation have

I In this article. the term shining cultiv,uion should not h.: understood as erop shilling.i.e. a dillcrent crop is cultivated each year on the same ptOI. The term should neitherbe taken as the scUlemenl shining as in the case of the nomads who keep on movingfrom one place to 3nOlh.:r and finding new cultivation areas along with tht: newsettlemcnt. TIle term shifting cultivation in (his study relcrs to the way the permanentscltlers use dilTen:nt plots each year on rotation basis lor crop cultivation.

1 Italicised words refer to Nepalese or local Sherpa terms. However. these terms aredelillcd and explained in English as well. \~herevcr they an.: used for the first timl:.

1 The ficldwork was carrkd out in the Mudc of Num Village Development COlllmitteeof Sankhuwasabha district of E~lSlem Nepal. The data wer.: basically used for my MPhil thesis submitted in the Univcrsity of Bergen. Norway in May. 1999.

been limited to simple description of practices and its ecologicalconsequences. There has been very little attempt to compare. analyse,and classify them.

In Nepal very few studies have been carried out with regardto the shifting cultivation (Shrestha 1989, Bajracharya el. al. 1993,Subedi 1994). These studies are basically concerned with theecological and economic aspects of the shifting cultivation. Thesestudies hardly look shifting cultivation as an integral part of socialcultural practices with a cultural historical perspective. Therefore,efforts have yet to be made in order to understand shifting cultivationas a whole system ofderiving a living from a particular environment

Shifting Cultivation and Evolution of Agriculture: An Overview

It is certainly nol an easy task 10 trace its historicalbackground. However, it is argued that this type of agriculture was thesimplest form of agriculture and was practised by the e(irliest farmers.Today, such a different type of agricultural system can be observedthroughout the globe in the tropical areas. The practice, however,varies greatly from place to place and from one group of people toanother. Terry B. Grandstaff (1981) argues that the people who haveused this form of cultivation for a long time have developed a highlyrational system.

Generally, the practice of shifting cultivmion is viewed as 'atechnology that was practised in virtually every arable area of the earthduring earlier historical periods but today survives as a major food­producing method only in tropical region' (Padoch & Vayda1983:302). Some even view that in terms of land use pattern shiftingcultivation evolved to circumvent major problems of tropicalagriculture like soil erosion, low nutrient status and pest pressure(Spencer 1966). In defence of this line of logic. Subash-Chandranmaintains that Ihe brief period of utilisation. small size oflhe plots andfar-reaching preservation of the original surface roughness and soiltexture due to residual tree stumps, absence of levelling preventintensive erosion (Subash Chandran 1998:675).

Geertz summarised the distinctive features of shiftingcultivation as, i. it is practised on a very poor soils, ii. it represents anelementary agricultural technique which utilises no tool except the axeand the hoe. iii. it is marked by a low density of population. and, iv. itinvolves a low level of consumption (Geertz 1974: 15).

This type of cultivation is thus associated with traditionalsocieties of low population density in regions of low soil fertility, such

96 Oec,lsion,,1 Paper S. /JJ/fIkuJ 97

as the Amazon rainforest. Though recent theories have suggested Ihatthe system of shifting agriculture combined with hunting andgathering strategies may. in fact, permit much greater populationdensities and a greater degree of sedentarism and varying degree ofintensification of labour input than was previously believed (Found1987:3, Keesing & Slrathem 1998: I03).

However, shifting cultivators are considered to be one of theprimary agents for transforming the forested landscape into cullivableand cultural one. Historically, therefore, shifting cultivation has beenone of the processes transforming wild. forested landscape intocultural landscape.

In a strict epistemological sense, we can not understand thepast except via our present knowledge of process and events operatingin the present (Watson 1979:1). This does not mean that every traitthat existed in the past must have an analogy in the present.Nevertheless, the study like this can provide a wider socio-culturalcontext to analyse and explain archaeological data from sp~cific sites.In the similar manner, the study might be used as a case study to testthe hypothetical explanation of processes and procedures thought tohave occurred in specific prehistoric communities.

Shining Cultivation ltnd Ecological Issues

In ecological terms, shifting cultivation is said to be highlyintegrated into the natural tropical forest ecosystcm (Seymour & Sm ith1996:272). It has thus been described as a 'mimetic' system, withprinciples radically different from those of intensive agriculturalstrategies that acl 10 transform totally the natural landscape. However,it is the only ecologically viable agricultural strategy to have beendeveloped thus far on a large scale in thc lropical rain Forest or insimilar ecological conditions. And, attempts to apply intensiveagricultural techniques brought from other regions have gcnerally beenfailures, resulting only in the destruction of the ecological balance ofthe natural rainforest (Ibid).

The recent ecological studies have started appreciating theresource management system of [raditional societies (CF. SubashChandran 1998:689). Similarly, other numerous studies have shownthat in many instances swiddening does neither exhaust soil nutrientsnor leads to excessive erosion. Increasingly, new field studies suggestthat the shifting cultivation is a way of fanning pat1icularly well suitedto the conditions often characteristic of humid tropical areas: ratherinfertile soils, biotic stores of nutrients, intense competition of weed

species and attacks by pests and diseases and unflvailability of animalmanure as well as of chemical fertilisers and pesticides (Padoch &Viadya 1983:302).

Hence. the most distinctive positive characteristic feature ofswidden agriculture is that it is integrated into the pre-exiting naturalecosystem. It has been argued that the shifting cultivation practicemaintains a state of dynamic equilibrium with the natural environment(Geertz 1974: 16, Found 1987: 13, Keesing & Strathern 1998:91).According to Geertz, 'any form of agriculture repr~seJ1ts an effor! toalter: a given ecosystem in such a way as to increase the flo\\ of energyto man, but a swidden through a canny imitation of it' (1974: 16).Thus. in most of the cases, shifting cultivation is usually a highlyeffective and balanced ecological adaptation. It merely alters theindigenous ecosystem. but on the other hand. cfl'ons to introduceintensive agriculture in tropical forest hnve usually been disastrous.Ecological balance is crucially impon<lnt in swidden agriculture.

Anthropologic'll Perspectives on Shifting Culti, alion

Shifting cultivation finds many expressions among difkn;ntpeoples. There is thus no single best way to classify shiftingcultivation. II' is practised from sea levcl to 4,000 m above the sealevel elevation; in parts of south-eastern Tibet and the upper main landof Southeast Asia (Spencer 1966: 13). Therefore. classification I1S lVellas other subsequent studies lllust be done in relation to the problemidentified with each type.

From an anl'hropological perspective, however, two !2.cneralpoints of view can be made. First, the nonnative view, which rocllseson the negative aspects of shifting cultivation, i.e. low productivity,extensive lands requirement, and unwanted environmental effects.

And, second focuses on shifting cultivation as a ration,,1response to the prevailing ecological and cultural and economicconditions (Sandburkc n.d.). The two points of views need 110t becontradictory, as the first focuses on the desirabitit) and rationality ofshifting cultivation from society's view point. and the second focll~es

more on the rationality from the individual farmcr's vicw.On the basis of these viewpoints, thcr~ have been three

distinct approaches applied to the study of shirting cultivation (Found1987). They are ecological or environmental approach. cllltural­historical approach, and, as a response to economic factors.

The first approach, i.e. the common ecologicnl approach isbased on the premise that shining cultivation exisLS in a slate of

98 Occas;onal Paper S. DIII/lwl 99

balance with the natural environment (Found 1987: 13). Some areas ofSoutheast Asia have 'experienced shifting cultivation as productive,practical and adaptive to the physical environment (Spencer 1966:20).Many studies with this approach (e.g. Found 1987, Keesing &Strathern 1998, Spencer 1966) have been pointed out both negativeand positive consequences wi~h regard to the production in relation tolabour input and land requirement. and its impact on the ecology.

Anthropologists often study shifting cultivation with thecultural-historical viewpoint and relate shifting cultivation to types orstages of human culture. They point out that most shining-cultivatorsuse primitive tools, and that they belong to cultures that are otherwiseprimitive in a number of ways. Some view slash and bum agriculturemore as an ancient practice. rooted in history, than a contemporarymeans of coping with the need to produce food (Found 1987: 17-18).

It is possible. therefore. to explain the current extent andlocation of slash and burn agriculture through an analysis of theirhistory and culture. And, such people who have a long experience ofthe cultivation will have the appropriate tools. the organisation and theknowledge needed to operate effectively over the long periods(Grandstaff 1981 :28).

The third approach, i.e. economic analysis of shiftingcultivation, on both levels the entire land economy or on the individualfarmer/decision maker. Angelsen's economic model and case studiesfrom Indonesia can be presented as a good example of economicanalysis of shifting cultivation (see Angelsen: 1996). However. Iwould argue that a different but a combined approach could beappropriate to address the issue in question.

Researchers arc of lhe opinion that agricultural encroachmcntby shifting cultivators occupies a central position in the dcbate ontropical deforestation. Shifting cultivators are often seen as theprimary agents of tropical deforestation in developing countries:estimates of their share range as high as 45% (UNEP 1992) to 60%(Myers 1992) (c.f. Angelsen 1994:1). From 6.5.million ha. in 1964.the total forest area is estimated to have declined to around 5.5 millionha. in late 1980s. Thus, the current extent of shifting cultivation hasbeen calculated to be about 8.3 percent of the tropical land area(Found 1987: I). The practice is also increasing, by over one percentin land area per year, according to the FAO (Ibid.).

The higher rate of deforestation and degradation in Nepal isattributed to encroachment upon forested land for agriculture.

settlement and shifting cultivation. The deterioration of micro­biological conditions, surface runoff. ground water runoff and loss ofsoil fertility are said to be some of the obvious consequences of theslash-and- burn cultivation in Nepalese hills (Shrestha 1989:64).

Shifting cultivators are accused of the subsequent loss of bio­diversity maintenance and carbon storage (Angelsen 1994: I). And. ageneral attitude prevails that burning is just an ill practice. whichdestroys organic matter on the land (Found 1987:3). The practice ofshifting cultivation in Nepal is characterised by a highly labourintensive and land extensive form of cultivation. It is said to have beenmost detrimental to forest ecology and contributes to total extinctionof a large number of biological species (Shrestho 1989:63).

But arguments presented by Eckholm (quoted by Grandstarf1981) pointed out that in many areas of tropics "no alternative roodproduction system to shifting cultivation has yet biologically andeconomically proven workable" (Grandstaff 1981 :28).

The effects of shifting cultivation differ in accordance withthe varying practices. The lack of knowledge of the characteristics ofits several types has proved to be the principal obstacle in determiningthe extent of ecological problems caused by the shifting cultivation.Padoch and Vayda (1983) maintain that 'criticism of the traditionalresource use patterns in tropics as wasteful and inefficient waspredominant of the past, but in recent years there have been views topraise of the stability and conservativeness of these technologies. Suchrevised views of primitive man as conservator are not surprising andare at least partially justified. They reftect the realisation Ihattraditional resource users usually allowed tropical forest to survive orat least to regenerate largely, whereas modern fossil fuel·using man isexpected to destroy these forest within the next century' (30 I).

The specific form that a practice of shifting cultivation mayexhibit within a given geographical or cultural province depends onthe extent of available land. labour and capital; the local settlementpattern and the degree of political and social integration with the Olhersegments of the larger society. A large number of such varinbles, morespecifically agronomic variables, such as the kinds of principal cropsraised, type of crop associations and succession. crop fallow timerotations, the dispersal of shifting cultivation. the presence oflivestock, the use of specific tools and techniques including specialmethods of soil treatment. the vegetation cover of land cleared.

100 O('cwihJl1f11 Paper S, Dhakal 101

climate. soil conditions. and topography determine the types ofshifting cultivation (Conklin 1961 :27).

Shining cultivation is nevertheless a response of the tribalpeople of the hill areas to the problem of erosion of fenile topsoil fromsteep slope~. This technique is perhaps more practical than actualploughing and tilling on steep slopes, where any mechanicaldisturbances will result in washing away of the fertile top·soil. Besidesit has also been experienced by downhill farmers, that the slash-and­burn practice on mountain- tops enriches their fields (Shrestha: 1989).

However. it is not an attempt (Q overlook the fact the greaterthe increase in population. the greater the demands for fuel, the desireto extend cultivation. cutting down forests. And to a little extent thisparticular type of agriculture is being used as a transitional step toopening up land that should rationally be brought under permanentcultivation.

Hence, it is evident that the study and analysis of the complexrelation in shifting cultivation can profit greatly from a combinedethnographic and ecological approach. Therefore. it is appropriate toapproach the topic through an ecologically·oriented investigation in anethnographic context.

Mi:ljor Findings of the Case Study: Some Discussions

In the following paragraphs, I will present some of thefindings of my own study conducted in 1997-98 in the Arun Valley ofEastern Nepal (Cf Dhabi 1999). The data were collected in threesmall settlements of Sherpas. On the basis of empirical evidences, Ihave tried to understand the shifting cultivatioil practice in a broadersocia-cultural context of the Sherpas. In the course, of study cel1ainobservations appear prominent. These observations are, as they appearto me, of anthropological significance.

My intention 10 present these finding here, therefore, is toargue that shirting cultivation in Nepal. or <lny geographical area forthat matter, should be studied in its particularity and speciricity.

i. Limitation of Evolufion:uy Model of Agricullurc

The crop cultivmion could hnve entered into epal andconsequently to the study itrea some 2000 years ago at least from Iwa

frontiers: from the southern plain and the nOl1hern border (Sec Dhakal1999). The earliest stages of cultivation could have been shiftingcultivation, which was followed by a more complex technology of'cultivation known as the penn3nent cultivation.

As I have observed in the study area, there arc a few cases oftransforming the shifting cultivation land into the permanentcultivation land, which is not a common practice in the study area. Onthe other hand there are several cases of abandonment of oncecultivated ban' land, and is eventually used for Khoriya cultivation.

It is also possible that, as Rowley-Conwy (1984:89) arguesfor European case, slash-and-burn could be viewed as one of the seriesof technical solution to a particular problem. like, problems posed bytheir immediate ecology and so on, - not as a remnant from some once- un iversal stage of agricu lture.

Thus. the farmers not necessarily shift from one particulartype of cultivation practise to another in either way. The empiricalevidences in the study area show that the shifting cultivation as well asthe permanent type (rain-fed or and irrigated) of agriculture arepractised simultaneously by the same cultivators.

ii. Shifting Cultivation is not Necessarily a Function ofPopulation

Several anthropologists. for example, Boserup (1'165 &1981) and Geertz (1974) argue that the transition from shiftingcultivation to the intensification of agriculture is brought about by thegrowing population pressure, technological developmcllt and non­human environment.

Even though, pcople have been practising shifting cultivationin a particular area for generations, they may adopt other means orstrategies of coping to support their growing population over thecourse of time. Fanners incline towards cash crops, e.g. cardamomfarming in the study area, they keep herds of sheep or cattle as theirimportant economic activity and other seasonal wage labour and so on.

Thus, any particular farming community practising shiftingcultivation may seek the other alternative to cope with their growingpopulation. It is thus not necessarily true that they put more pressureon land, which ultimately compels them to abandon the shiftingcultivation or turn the field into permanent or intensive cultivation

field.Empirical evidences do not seem to validate the predominant

notion of unilinear advancement of agricultural development (Cf..Boserup: 1965& 1981, Geenz: 1974, Sherran: 1994. Whinle: 1994,Renfrew & Bahn: 1993 etc). According to the prevalent unilinearevolutionary model, the shifting cultivation is eventually outmodedand replaced by the permanent cultivation. technically, technologically

102 Occasional Pflper S. Dhakal 103

and historically. The empirical evidences in my study seem tocontradict with this model of explaining and understanding thedevelopment of agriculture.

iii. Two Types of Cultivation Systems uot Necessarily Have toHave Two Exclusively Corresponding Social Forms

Geertz (1974) has pointed out that two types of agriculturalsystems, shirting and permanent are essentially related to twoexclusively different forms of society. According to this approach,the communities practising shifting cultivation have primitive andelementary forms of technology and simple forms of socialorganisation. On the other hand, the communities with the permanentcultivation have the advanced form of technology and a complex formof social organisation. His studies tend to suggest that one form ofsociety excludes the practice of the oth~r type of cultivation, and viceversa.

It is evident in my study that the practice of these twodifferent types of agriculture has been carried out by the samecommunity at the same time. For instance, the same labourl socialinstitution, in particular the parma syslem, conduct the agriculturaltasks for both the permanent and shifting cuilivalion.

iv. Abolition of Communal Rights Over Lmd ::lnd Decliningof the Shifting Cultivation

The land tenure system in the area under study used to be acommunal land, or Kipal. There L1sed to be a common ownership ovcrlhe land but individual ownership of the crops, until very recently. Thegovernment decided to abolish the cOlllmunal right over the land in1964 AD, and ultimately lhe law was implemented effectively in thestudy area only after the latest land survey which was concluded in1995 AD, long time after its promulgation. According to the law,people could own only the limited amount of land.

For the people in the study area, Ihere used to be communalownership over the land. but the abolition of communal rights over theland made them limit their Khoriya. They think the land now may nolbe sufficient for the rotalion for the shifting cultivation. Therefore,many of them have already reduced their Khoriya cultivation land.Thus, not due to the technological, economic or population factors. butdue to tile state-led land tenure policy which limited the fanners' rightover tile land. reduced the shifting cultivation in the study area.

v. Socio-cultural and Ritual Contexts of Shifting Cultivatiol!

The evidences from the field show that shifting cultivation isnot only an agro-economic activity or utilisation pattern of resourceslike forest and land, rather it is also closely integrated with the widersocio-cultural systems.

Hence the shifting cultivation practice is bound to culturalpractices and beliefs. If we keep the cullural and social context aside,we cannot understand the shifting cultivation system fully. Here, Ishall discuss some of the socio-cultural contexts of the shiftingcultivation in general.

a. The Sherpa Time Scheme Corresponds to ShiftiugCultivation Activilies

According to the Sherpa time scheme. there is a cycle oftwelve years period. And. there used to be a fallow period of Iwelveyears corresponding to the twelve years cycle. Most of the elderlypeople even today recall their past events either connecting event withthe shifting cultivation plots they had cleared in that particular year orsimply associating the evenlS with the animals that stands for thatp811icular year.

The time scheme of Ihe Sherpas also regulates cerlainactivities in certain time period of the year. For examples, they are notallowed to clear their Khvl'iya plots during spring, because woodactivities, there by, cutting and slashing, are not allowed in spring.Similarly, burning activities are prohibiled in summer time. Thatmeans, they can neither clear, i.e. slashing and cutting, nor can theyburn their Khoriya plots during spring and summer respectively. Thusfor them activities are nOI only confined within space but also withintime (cf. DhakaI1999).

Thus, the phenomenon of shifting cultivation has remained asan integral part of their socio·cultural processes. As we observed thatshifting cultivation also is regulated and ritualised by their own limeschemes. Khoriya becomes the point of reference to other social andcultural as well as personal events. It is tempting to suggest thatshifting cultivation is not merely an economic (food) productionactivity, but also generates, enhance and maintains the culturalknowledge.

104 Occasional Paper S. Dlmlwl 105

b. KllOriya Pooja: Worshipping of Shirting Cultivation

The Khoriya Poo)a' (also called Bali poo)a) is a majoragricultural ritual among the Shcrpas. When asked different men andwomen to explain these rituals, different persons explained it indifferent ways. However, a common explanation was - olle has to begrateful towards the provider. the god of land. They explained thateven if we toil hard to produce something, there has to be someone(the god) to reward our hard work and to protect Ihe reward. the cropsin this particular case. For them, there is only the Lito, the gods ofland, who reward and guard their agricultural products. Therefore,they have to be thankful to the /..ha in one or another ways.

Even though, I have limited my discussion to agriculturalrituals, the other mundane activities of the Sherp<ls are also regulatedand dictated by similar rituals and symbolism.

The ritual of K"or~l'a Pooja (or Bali pooja) also has otherimplications. For example, they think everyone regardless of sex andage, are equal. This ideology is well manifested in the ritual contextsof Bali Poo)a (or Khori)'a Pooia). AII the members of Ihe community.regardless of age and sex, will have equal share of contribution in thepoo)a, and are distributed equally whatever prepared on thai day (Cf.Dhakal 1999). Thus. their egalitarian ideology not necessarily existsexplicitly in the practise, but are preserved in symbolic level in thecontexts of rituals.

Another noteworthy context' of ritual with regard to theshifting cultivation is rilual of apology (Cf Dhakal 1999). During theburning for the shifting cultivation, several animals and insects arekilled by fire. The Sherpas, being Buddhisl, have a profound beliefthat killing is an act of committing the sin. So, to gel rid of such n sin.they offer bUller lamps and ask for apology through a ritual ofapology.

~ Khonya paoja is perlbrmed in on~ of Ihe "Blldhabod' (Wednesdays) of month orAsahdh (June-July). For the Pooja the Lama (0 Buddhist priest) decides Ihc date andall Ihe hOllseholds of the scnlcmcnls an: inlonned \\1.:11 in adv;lllce. IJoo)(1 isperfomled in 0 open public place \\hich is nOI cullivllh:d. l'lul can he u~ed lor Hlherpurposes, On the day of pooja all the members of thc households llrc gmheredlogether from early in the morning. For the poo)a a sample of cvcl)'lhin:; Ihat isgrown in ones own land is hrought 10 om:r 10 the Jim. i.e. god of land. Pooja isperformed with drinking. merry makings. and somelimes making COlllfiICL" lor theland for the ~'''oriya lor the 10]10\\ ing year and olher communily matters

This observation to me is an indication of how the cultivationpractice has been incorporated within their religious and culturalpractices. This is just an example of how the people justify their actswith regard to shifting cultivation through the means of rilual ofapology.

c. The Sacred and Secular: the Symbolic COllstructions ofSpace

One major criterion for the site selection for (he cultivation isbased on cultural and religious practices of the people. For example.sacred groves and the plac~ for Kltur~l'a Poojo should not be broughtunder cultivation.

The sacred groves are considered to be absolutely sacred,utilisation of the area for other than religious purposes is notpermitted. Whereas place for Khon)'Q Pooja is originally a non-sacred(secular) place. The place is tumed into a sacred place during thePooja or the ritual events.

The, ritual spaccs appear to be in two categories, one absolutesacred place, which cannot be utilised for other normal activities. butreligious rituals, e.g. sacred groves. Where as other spaces arcprovisionally defined as a ritual place, e.g. the arca where A.·h()r~r(/

Pooja is performed.From this, it can be suggested that the provisional sacred

place can be both sacred or secular depending on whether the space isused for ritual performance. Thus a place is transgressed from s<lcred1"0 secul<lr or vice versa, through the religious cxpcricnc~s or thepeople or some specific ritual context. Therefor~, a sacred place ismore like a symbolically created space in a cenain contcxl in certaintime.

Conclusion

The empirical evidences from the Arlin Valley of EasternNepal indicate that the understanding and explaining or shiftingcultivation as the primitive, elementary <lnd earliest stage ofagricultural evolution, which is surpassed by the permanentcultivation, is inadequate.

Likewise, the study suggests. (in the similar line of logicpresented by Lansing: 1991. Spencer: 1966, Conklin: 1961) thaishiftino cultivation is not merely an agro-economic activity. It is anintegral part of the socio-cultural processes of that particular

106 OC('as;ollal Paper S. Dim/,ui 1117

community, and its rationale and meanings are inseparably interwovenwith the cultural and social practices.

However, it is not my intention to maintain that possibleimplications of the study can be generalised in all the contexts of thestudy of shifting cultivation. But, certainly 10 provoke the researchersto look at the different dimensions of shifting cultivation, who wish tocarry out a similar study in the future.

REFERENCES

Acharya. H. 1989 lire! Property Arrangements and the Management urForest and Pasture Resources in highland Nepal. DevelopnumtAnthropology Network. VoL7.No.2 (p. 125·138).

Almdid, B. 1989 A Survey of Traditional Production System in Sinol!Country, Liberia. Agricultural University of Norway.

Angelsen. A. 1994 Shifting Cultivation and "Deforestation" II Study fromSumatra, Indollesia. ChI'. Michelsen Institute.

Silifling Cliitimtiof/ bpansioll and Intensity of Production: TheOpen Economy Case. Chr. Michelsen Institute. l3ergen.

1995 From rice to rubber: the economics of shiliing cultivation anddeforestation in Sebrida. Sumatra. In 0yvind Sandbukt (cd.)Management of Tropical Forests: Towards all integratedPerspective. Occasional Papers. SUM. NO.1.

1997 nil! Erollllion of Private Propt'rty Rights in Traditional Agricultllre:Theories and a Stlldy ji-om Indonesia. ChI'. Michelsen institute.Bergen

Bajracharya, K.M. & eta!. 1993 Shifting Cultivation in SOllthern Gorkha.IIMG/GTZ Gorkha Dcvdopment Project. Barth. F.

1956 Ecological rdationships or ethnic groups in Swat. North Pakistan. inAmerican Anthropologist. VoL58.

1981 Process and Forms III Social Lifi.!. Selected Essays of Fredrick Barth.VoLI. Routledge & Kcgan PaliL London.

Bass. S. & Morrision. E.1994 Shifting ('lfllivcation in Thailand. Laos and/'ielllam: Regional ()\I('rview and Uecommendalion. liED. Lonuoll.

Berlin, 13. n.d. On the Making or a Comparative Ethnobiology. Birminghalll . .J.

1975 traditional Potters of the KathmiinuLI Valley: an i.:thnoarcbaeologicalstudy. Mall 10:370-386.

Boserup. E. 1965 The Condlliolls o[.·Jgricllltlll"lll (;roll/" 1\ llell and lin" ill.

London.

1981 Papllimioll and Technology. l3asil nlCll:k\\ ell. Oxford.

l3rower. 8.1\. 1995 Uwstock and Landscape: l'he .\'help{/ 1)(/,I'fOml \I'siemin sagaI'll/alI/a (MI. f\'erl'sf) Na/iollal I)al"( ,\/.'/101

Uniwrsity of California. l3crkeley.

CBS 1995 Population Monograph or Nepal. II.M.G. National 1'1<1Il111llgComission Sccretari:'lI. Ccntrall3ure<lu ufStatj~tics Kathm:llluu.

Con"'lin. II.C. 1961 The Slud} of Shillmg Culti\ ,Ilion. In Curr('lItAmropology. Vol. 2. n.l.

Oha"'aL S. 1999 Shifting Cltlth'tllion' "!"e£'lll1ologl('lIl lIml S·oclO-r..·lIlfltralcontext. A Case Srl/d)' from Arl/II "alley 0/ Euslem V"pul I\n t\1Phil Ihesis submilted llithc Dcp(lrtll1Clltol' I\n.:haeull)g.). lJllivcrsil)of Bergen. Norway.

1996 I3hcja as a Strali..:gic Cultural convcntion: COllllllunity RC~{lurl:l:

Management in Barlla t\lagarat. In On'us/wllIl PaJ1{'I"s in ."loclfl/o.10&./m!lropology \01.5. Central Department ufSociology/Anthropo1ng.~.Trihhu\ an Uni\ er~it)

1994 Adopti\'e Strateg;c.\ 0/ ,\ Jagars_ .. In Etlll1o-ec:ological ('(I.\"(, .\lUd\' Im/1/Kali Gondaki Nh'el' JJosil1. .\'oll'alpllrtlsi "epul. I\n unpllhlishl:d 0\1 \thesis. TU. Kathmandu.

Dove. M.R. 1989 The transilion from stolle 10 slcl:l in thl: pn:histurieswiddcll agricultural lechnology of the K,l11lU' of Kalimanlan.Indonesia. In llarris & llillm,lIl (cds.) Foragil/g Cllld FUI'II/II/g' n,eEvollllion of PIClllr IC,ploitation. lIn\\ in llylllCill. LOlldnll.

Flannery. K.V. 1965 The ecolog) orearl) 1{lud prodw.':lioll in Mesoputamia. InSciellce. Vol. 147. (pp. 1247-56).

Found. W.e. 1987 Shifting elfltimtioll III .Iamaicl1 ,I" illl'fsihie Ol!e1l1f11aDevelopmellt Discussion Paper. No.23K. Ilarvard In-.;titutc forInternational Dcn.:lopmenl. Han-ard Uni\l,~rsil).

Furer·llaimendorC C. V. 1988 /lill/lIlayan 1hulers Life ill I!Jghlallli '\l!jJal.Time !Jooks International. Nc\\ Delhi.

Geertz. C. 1974 Ag/'icultural 11/l'(J!Uliull: The Il/'ocess 0./ /-,'cologicl/l ( 'lwlJgl' 1/1

Illdollesia. Universil) ol"Calilurnia Prcss.lkl'klc).

Ghimirc. M. 1995 Tradition~ <Ind Religious Bclid" anHlIlg l'hepang.:-.lnl3hanari (cd.) C!lt'jJllIIg' IJOjJlllatlO1I {fnd Nesolln:es St\V &SECO\V. Kathmandu

108 Occasional PaperS. Dhakal 109

Gilmour. D.A 1989 Faresl Resources and Management in Nepal. EAPIworking paper. No.17. East West Centre. Iiollolulu.

GrandstafT. T.ll. 1981 Shining Cultivation: a reassessment of stralcgics. InCERES. 14 (4).

Higgs. E.S. & Jarman. M.R. 1972 The origins of plants and animal husbandry.In E.S. I-riggs (cd.) Papers in Economic PrehislOlJI. CambridgeUniversity Press. Cambridge.

Hillnlan. G. 1984 Reconstructing Crop II1Isbandry prncticcs li'olll CharredRemains or Crops. In R. McreeI' (cd.) Farming practice.~· ill I3ri/ishPre/lisIOlY. Edinburgh universilY Press. t::dinburgh.

Hodder. I. 1982 7'lle Present Pasi. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

1987 COl1h.:xtul archaeology an interprct:Hiol1 of Catal Ilu)'uk and adiscussion or tbe origins of agriculture. II/sti/lffe of ArchaeologyGolden Blllleli". No.24. University of London.

Jackson. T.L. 1991 Pounding Acom: Women's produL:tioll as Social andEconomic Focus.ln Gero & Conkey (cd.) Engendering Archaeology.Women and Prehistory. Black\\cll. Oxford UK.

Jacobson. D. 1991 Reading Ethnography. Slate University ofNt.:w York Press.

Jhonson. A. W. 1978 Research Methods in Social ..lnthropolo&.rv. Ed\\ardArnold Limited. London.

Gurung. 0.1', 1996 Cllslomary Systems of NotlEnd Resource ManagementAmong Taramai Magal's of Western Nepal. All Unpubli:-hcd Ph.D.Dissertation. Cornel University.

HAland. R. 1997 Emergence of scdcnlism: new \\ ilYS of living. new \\ a) s 01

symbolizing. In Aliqllity. Vo161. No.264. September.

}-Iarlam. J.R. 1989 The lropical African cereals.ln Ilarris & I Jillman (l:ds.)Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Explollafiofl.lhmillI-lyman. London.

Harris. D.R. 1989 An evolutionary continuum of people-planI inlcracliull. InI-Iarris & Hillman (cds.) Foraging and Farming: 111e I:\'olliliol/ ofPlallt £'Cploitatioll. Lhm in 1-1) man. London.

Haslorf. C.A. 1991 Gender. Space. and Food in PrihistOf)'. In Gem & Conkey(ed.) Engendering Archaeology. Women and PrehisfOJY.

Blackwell. Oxford UK.

Kajale. M.D. 1989 Mesolithic exploitalion of wild plallls in Sri Lanka:archaeolobotanical study at the cave sitc of lleli·Lclla. In Ilarris &Hillman (eds.) Foraging and Farming' The Evulution of /'Iallt£tpIOitation.Unwin I lyman. Londun.

KhanaJ. N.R.I 992 Study afGeo-Hydrology. Land lise and Poplllalion a/theMakalu·Barun Consen'alion Project Area. '111C Makalu·13arunConservalion Projecl Work.ing Paper Publication Series. Report. 14.

Keesing, R.M. & Strather 1998 (3rd. cd.) Cllltllral :llI1hropology: ../Contemporary Pen,pectlve. Harcourt Brace College Publication.

Kobylinski. Z. 1989 Ethno-archaeological cognition and cognitive clllI1o­archaeology. In I.Hodder (cd.) The Meaning of Things· MaterialCulture and Symbolic Expression. Ilarpcr CollinsAcademic. London.

Ladizinsky, G. 1989 Origin and domestication of Ihe SOUlh""cst Asian gminlegumes. In Harris & Hillman (cds.) Foraging and Farming: 711eEvolution of Plant £'Cploifation.Unwin Hyman. London.

Lansing, 1.S. 1991 Priest and Programmers: Technologies o[ Power in theEngineered Landscape of Bali. New Jersey. Prinston UniversityPress.

Moore, AM.T. 1989 The transition from foraging 10 farming in SoutlnvestAsia: present problems and future directions.ln Ilarris & Ilillman(cds.) Foraging and Farming: The Evolll/ion of Plant Exploifmiol1.Unwin' lyman. London.

Ortner, S.B. 1989 High Religioll: II C"IIlIral and PolilicalllistolY o/Slwl]JaBlldhism. Prinston University Press. New Jersey.

Padoch & Vaidya 1983 Pattern of Resource Use and I-Iuman Settlement illTropical Forest. In F.B. Golley (cd.) Tropical Rain ForestEcosystems: Structure and Function. Elsevier. Amsterdam.

Lynton. N. 1984 The usc of ell1l1oarchacology in Interpreting South AsiallPrehistory. In Kennedy & Possehl (cds) SlIIdif!s i/'l fhe A/'(:lw~olo,'O'

and PalaeoanlhrofJology o/Sollth Asisu. Oxford & 1011 PublishingCo. New Delhi.

Rappaprot. R.A 1979 Ecology, Meaning & Religion. North Atlantic Books.Berkeley.

Reddy. S.N. 1997 If the Threshing Flonr Could T.lk: Integrntion 01Agriculture and Pasloralism during the Late lIarappan in Gujarar.India. In Journal oJAn/ropological Archaeology. 16.( 162·187).

Cambridge.1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge Universily Press.

110 Occasional PaperS. Dlwlwl III

Regmi. M.e. 1978 L(IIul Tf!/II/re alld Taxatioll ill Nepal. Ratna PushlnkI3handar. Kathmandu.

1988 An I~collomic /liSIOJ:l' of .VejJltl 1846-1901. Nath Pllbli~hjng lIousl.:.Varanurashi.

Rerkasem. K. & Il. 1994 ShiftinK Clllli\'{}rioll in Thailand: liS L"urrenl sill/ationalld dynamics in the context of high/and dnelopmelll. liED.London.

R~nfre\lv. e. & 13hal1. P.1996 (2nd. cd.) Arclweologv: Theories, Melhods lindpraclice. Thames and Hudson. London.

Roh\c)-Col1\\). P. 1984 Slahs and Burn in th~ Tcmeratc Europcan N~olithic.

In R. Mercer (l'd.) Farming Praclice in Brilish Prelll:\·/OfY.Edinburgh Ini\crsil) Prl'ss. Edinburgh.

1994 Making lirst farmer ~ olinger the west European cvidence. In CurrentAnthropology. Vo1.36. No.2. April.

Sam. D.O. 199·1 Shifting elfllimlion in 1'iewam: liS social, economic andelll'ironmelltolwlllles relari\'t! 10 allernalive land lise. II ED. I.ondon.

Seymour-Smith. C. 1996 1\/ltC/l/il/an Dh:uollwy of .. lnlhropology. Macmillan.London.

Sharnw. C. & K.C.. l 1995 .\·Io.\'h and LJllm Agricullure in Makalll lIlld l"aplllt'"Drs ofMBCP. D.:partlm:l1( of National Parks and Wildlife

Conservation Project. IIMGfNcpal. The Moul1tainInstitute. Kathmandu.

Sherratt. i\. 1981 Plough alld pastoralism: aspects Of'lllC secondary productsn:.vullltioll. In Ian I[od(kr ct. al. (cds.) IJar/em oflhe Past. Sludics inhOllour or David Clarke. (pp. 261-3U7) Cambridge Univl.:rsity Pn.:ss.

199~ Thc 'l"ransition of [<lrl) Agrarian I~uropl.:: Thc later llcolith ic and CopperAges. 4500-2500 Be. In I3.CunlilTc (ed.) The Oxford IIIl/straledI'rehislOIY ofEllrofle. O:-.:ford University Prl'ss. Oxlorc!.

Shrcstha. 1'.13.1989 Development 1::Cology of Anl/l Basin ill Nepal.International Centre lor Intigratcd Mountain Dcvelopl11l.:111 (IeIMO).Kathmandu.

Souval1lhong. P. 1995 Shiftillg Culli\'oliol/ in Lao POI?.. An o\'erviell' of landlise lind policy illiliath'es. II ED: London.

Spcllcer. lE. 1966 .'·hifting CUllil'lllion ill SOllllteostern ASia. UlIi\i~rsit) orCalifornia Press. Bcr\.;eh:).

Sllbedi. I3.P. 1994 Shifting ('/llli1'Otio11' Its IJewrmUUI/IIS, [geels CllldAltema/ires/or Producti"it)', 1~/lIily and Sllslclinabili~~'ofHelle/ils tn

,\!Ohwanpl/r Dislricl, Nepal. Rl.:search Report. The Ilills LI.:i.lscholdForestr) and Forage Development Project. Nepal ur lhe U.N. Fuodand Agriculture Arganization.

Subcdi. l3.P. and Umans. L. 1995 Lensing Khoria clIlti'ation plots 10 l"annl..:rs:scope. opportunities and constraints. In Barnl. S.I{. (cd.) /Jal/koJankari. Ajournal orfon.:str) informatioll for Nepal. YoU. No.2.

Tamang. M.S. 1996 'll1digf!110lfS Kno\lle(~f{e SyslL'I/JS alld J)en'lojJlllenl ./nEthnological Case SI"{~\' o/\Iell'alwng flai from ./1'''" mllel' 111EtlSlern "'epal. An unpublished ~1.A Thesis. I .lI. Kathmandu

Thapa. S.lJ. 1995 Indigel/olls Kl/olI'le(~f!(' ill ,1;:roforesIlT ami So/lCOII:H!n.'{/lioll In \lid hill Ref.:lOlI oj -"elutl. An 11llJlllhlishl:d ~1 S.thesis. Chiang f\lai Univcrsity.

Tilley. C. 1989 Interpreting Material Culture.ln I.Ilodder (~d.) 711t! \ 1l'(/I11I/~ ofThings: i\!mcrial Cult/lre and .~v",holic L\.,II"l'sJioll. Ilarpcr Collin~

Academ ic. London.

Va)da. A.P. 1976 1ft/rill Ecological Perspecli\'£'. PklHlllll'ress. NI..:\\ Yor\.;.

1996 Alelhods lind £"plallalioll ill rhe Sf/l(~I' oj lIul/lIJ11 ,·!cIiOIl "lid Ihell"£/Ivironmemal Effecls. CIFOR/WWF Special l'ubliCl1Iion.

Whittle. A. 1994 The First Farmers. In B. Cunliffe (cd.) Tile OxfurdIIl/1slrated PrehislOry of Europe. The O.\ford Uniwl"sil) Press.Oxford.

Yell. D.E. 1989 The cloml:sticalion of Envirollll1Cnt.Jn Ilarris & Ilillman (cds.)Foraging a}/d Farllling: The E\'OllItioll of Plallt I~rploi({/tioll.

Unwin IIYl11an. Loncloll.

lohary, D. 1989 DOl1lestic<llion or Ihe Southwest Asian Nl:olithic (.;I"l)passt;mblage of cereals. pulses. and na.... : the .:vidcl1ee rrom th~ li\ ingplClnts.ln Ilarris & Ilillman (cds.) FOl'llgill,l.! aile! Fanning: 1111'Evollliioll of Plalll 1~\."loif{/lio/l.UIl\\ in II) Illan. l,ollllon.