Kirat Era of Pashupatinath

Traditional chronicles credit the Kirat dynasty as Nepal’s first ruling house in the Kathmandu Valley, with a reign traditionally dated from roughly the 8th or 9th century BCE to around 300 CE — centuries before the earliest documented Licchavi-era temple construction at Pashupatinath. Founded, according to legend, by King Yalambar, the Kirat era is remembered less for any surviving structure at the temple site than for what it represents: the valley’s earliest attested period of Shaiva devotion, predating the physical Pashupatinath temple by a wide margin and giving the site’s sanctity a claimed antiquity that reaches back before Nepal’s documented political history begins at all.

This entry is part of our History guide, covering Pashupatinath’s recorded past from its earliest ruling dynasties through the present day. For the temple’s mythological founding, see Origin; for the period that follows and provides the first independently corroborated evidence of a physical temple, see Licchavi Era; for essential orientation on the temple today, see About Pashupatinath.

Quick Answer: The Kirat Era at a Glance

The sections below expand on each of these points, along with an honest look at how much of this account rests on chronicle tradition rather than independent corroboration.

Who Were the Kirat?

The Kirat (also written Kirata or Kiranti) are counted among the earliest documented peoples of the Himalayan foothills, referenced in Sanskrit literature as a mountain-dwelling population long before any political dynasty bearing their name is said to have ruled the Kathmandu Valley. Ethnically and linguistically, the Kirat belonged to Tibeto-Burman-speaking groups, distinct from the later Indo-Aryan-speaking Licchavi rulers who followed them. Today’s Rai, Limbu, Yakkha, and Sunuwar communities of eastern Nepal trace their ancestry to this same broad Kirat identity, and many still describe their religious and cultural practices as directly continuous with the pre-Licchavi Kirat period.

The term “Kirata” itself carries weight beyond Nepal’s own chronicle tradition — it appears across a range of ancient Indian texts as a general designation for Himalayan hill peoples, and, notably for a temple dedicated to Shiva, it is also the name Shiva himself takes on in one of Hindu mythology’s best-known episodes, discussed in detail further down this page. Before their arrival in the Kathmandu Valley proper, Kirat settlement is traditionally placed in the hills of eastern Nepal, in areas such as Dhankuta and Terhathum, from which they are said to have expanded westward into the valley’s fertile lowlands.

Before the Kirat: The Gopala and Mahishpala Dynasties

Nepali chronicle tradition does not actually begin with the Kirat. Two earlier dynasties, the Gopala (“cowherd”) and Mahishpala (“buffalo-herder”) lines, are described in the Gopal Raj Vamshavali as having ruled the valley before Kirat arrival, credited respectively with introducing cattle-herding and, later, water-buffalo husbandry to the region. The Gopala kings, beginning with a ruler named Bhuktaman, are described as followers of Shiva, while the Mahishpalas, said to have been founded by a chieftain named Bhul Singh or Bar Singh, are credited with a shorter reign of roughly 160 years before Kirat conquest.

Neither dynasty has any independent archaeological corroboration, and neither should be read as documented history in the way later Licchavi-era inscriptions are. Modern historical treatments of this period are consistent on this point: the Gopala and Mahishpala material functions as cultural memory of the valley’s gradual shift from loosely organized pastoral tribes toward more centralized rule, not as a chronicle entry with verifiable dates attached. The Kirat conquest that follows — traditionally credited to Yalambar’s defeat of the last Mahishpala or Abhira ruler — marks the point at which chronicle tradition begins treating the valley’s political history as continuous and countable, even if not yet independently verifiable.

Yalambar: The First Kirat King and His Mahabharata Legend

Yalambar is remembered in Nepali chronicle tradition as the founder of the Kirat dynasty, credited with uniting Yakkha, Khasa, and other regional groups into a centralized kingdom after defeating the last ruler of the preceding dynasty. Under his rule, the Kirat kingdom is said to have extended from the Trishuli River in the west to the Tista River in the east — a considerably larger territory than the Kathmandu Valley alone.

Yalambar’s legend does not stay confined to Nepali chronicle material; it reaches directly into the Sanskrit epic tradition of the wider subcontinent. He is popularly identified with Barbarik, a minor but pivotal figure in the Mahabharata, grandson of Bhima and son of Ghatotkacha, who is said to have vowed to fight on behalf of whichever side was losing the Kurukshetra war. Recognizing that this vow, if honored literally, would prolong the conflict indefinitely, Krishna is said to have intervened and beheaded Yalambar before the war began, granting him instead the boon of witnessing the entire eighteen-day battle from his severed head. This head, in Kathmandu tradition, is identified with the deity Akash Bhairav (“sky god”), still worshipped today at a dedicated temple in Indrachowk and honored each year during Indra Jatra, one of Kathmandu’s most significant annual festivals.

This layering of local dynastic founder, pan-Indian epic figure, and living deity is characteristic of how Kirat-era material tends to work throughout Nepali tradition: a single figure operates simultaneously as legendary king, epic character, and object of present-day worship, with little separation drawn between the three roles. For related epic-era material connecting the region to the Mahabharata more broadly, see Mahabharata in our Mythology guide.

The Kirat Dynasty’s Chronology and Kings

Reconstructing a precise Kirat-era chronology is genuinely difficult, and it is worth being direct about why. Different chronicle sources — most significantly the Gopal Raj Vamshavali and the account recorded by the 18th-century British resident William Kirkpatrick — disagree on nearly every specific figure: total reign length is variously given as roughly 1,100, 1,125, 1,225, or even 1,500 years; the number of kings ranges from 27 to as many as 33 depending on the source; and even the dynasty’s starting point shifts between roughly 900 BCE, 800 BCE, and 723 BCE across different retellings. None of these figures can be independently cross-checked against inscriptional or archaeological evidence in the way later Licchavi-era dates can.

What the chronicle tradition does agree on is a rough sequence of notable rulers and the events attached to their reigns. Among the best-remembered names: Yalambar, the founding king; Jitedasti, traditionally counted as the 7th king, during whose reign Gautama Buddha is said to have visited the valley; Sthunko, traditionally the 14th king, during whose reign Emperor Ashoka is said to have made his own pilgrimage; Jinghri, traditionally the 15th king, associated with an early visit connected to Jainism; and Patuka and Gasti, traditionally the 28th and 29th (final) kings, under whom the dynasty’s territory contracted under pressure from a rival power before its eventual end. These figures and the traditions attached to their reigns are examined in more detail in the sections that follow.

Religion and Worship During the Kirat Era

Kirat-era religious life, as chronicle tradition and later scholarship describe it, centered on animism, ancestor worship, and reverence for natural forces — forests, rivers, mountains, the sun and moon — alongside a belief in protective clan spirits. This is a meaningfully different religious framework from the Vedic Hinduism the Licchavi rulers would later bring with them, and it is part of why historians treat the Kirat period as religiously and culturally distinct from what followed rather than as an early, undeveloped version of the same tradition.

Within this framework, early Shaivism occupied a significant place. Kirat communities are described in several historical treatments as early practitioners of Shiva worship, alongside supportive engagement with Buddhist teaching once it arrived in the valley. This is the thread most directly relevant to Pashupatinath’s own history: the temple’s traditional association with pre-Licchavi religious activity rests substantially on this Kirat-era Shaiva current, and some historical accounts of the valley’s early religious architecture — including surveys of temples in the Patan area — identify a number of rectangular-plan shrines as originally Kirati in construction, later absorbed and rebuilt under subsequent dynasties. Archaeological finds of terracotta humped-bull figurines and mother-goddess sculptures from this general period are cited as further, if indirect, evidence of Shaiva and Shakta devotional practice among the valley’s pre-Licchavi population. For the fuller devotional and iconographic material connected to Shiva worship at Pashupatinath specifically, see Shiva and Lord Pashupati in Mythology.

Buddhism Arrives: King Jitedasti and the Buddha’s Visit

Chronicle tradition places one of the valley’s most significant early religious encounters during the reign of Jitedasti, traditionally counted as the 7th Kirat king. According to this account, Gautama Buddha traveled to the Kathmandu Valley with a group of disciples and visited several of its most sacred sites, including Swayambhu and Guhyeshwari, preaching his teachings during the visit. The Kirat rulers and population are described in these accounts as having welcomed the Buddha respectfully without adopting his doctrine outright — a detail chronicle sources present as evidence of the valley’s early religious pluralism rather than exclusive allegiance to any single tradition.

This episode matters to Pashupatinath’s own story indirectly but meaningfully: it places organized religious activity at Guhyeshwari — the shrine directly linked to Pashupatinath as its paired Shakti Peeth site — within the Kirat period itself, centuries before any documented physical structure at the main Pashupatinath temple. For more on this paired site, see Guhyeshwari in our Nearby Attractions guide, and for the fuller account of how Guhyeshwari connects to Pashupatinath’s founding legend, see Origin.

Ashoka’s Pilgrimage and the Founding of Devapatan

A second major visitor tradition attaches to Sthunko, traditionally counted as the 14th Kirat king. During his reign, the Mauryan emperor Ashoka is said to have traveled to the Kathmandu Valley accompanied by his daughter, Princess Charumati, reportedly commemorating his visit by having four stupas raised around Patan’s cardinal points, with a fifth at the center — structures still associated with the Patan area today.

More significant for Pashupatinath’s immediate surroundings, Charumati is said to have married a local prince, Devapala, and settled near the temple after his death, founding a settlement remembered as Devapatan in his memory. She is further credited with establishing a nunnery in the area now known as Chabahil, immediately adjacent to the Pashupatinath complex. Whatever the precise historical accuracy of these specific details, the tradition places organized settlement and religious institution-building directly beside Pashupatinath during the Kirat period, reinforcing the broader picture of the site as a center of activity well before the Licchavi era’s documented temple construction.

Jainism’s Brief Appearance

Chronicle tradition also records a third religious visitor during the Kirat period, attached to the reign of Jinghri, traditionally the 15th king. According to this account, Bhadrabahu, a disciple of the Jain teacher Mahavira, traveled to the valley to preach Jain doctrine. Unlike Buddhism, Jainism is not described as having taken lasting root in the region, and no substantial Jain architectural or institutional legacy from this period survives in the valley. The episode is nonetheless preserved in chronicle tradition as part of the broader picture of the Kirat-era valley as a crossroads for multiple emerging religious movements arriving from the Gangetic plains.

Society, Economy, and Governance Under the Kirat

Chronicle and later historical accounts consistently describe Kirat-era society as clan-based and relatively egalitarian, organized around kinship groups rather than the caste hierarchy that would later be introduced with Vedic Brahmanical influence under the Licchavis. Several modern historical summaries go further, describing Kirat society as notably progressive relative to many contemporary societies elsewhere on the subcontinent at the time: women are described as holding meaningfully higher social status than under later caste-structured systems, with practices such as sati and institutionalized slavery reportedly absent.

Economically, the Kirat period is associated with early advances in trade, art, and architecture, with the valley developing into a functioning urban center along regional trade routes connecting the Gangetic plains, Tibet, and the wider Himalayan region. Governance is described as having followed a loosely federated model, with a central ruler based in the valley overseeing outlying territories and tributary relationships rather than a fully centralized administrative state. Kirat rulers are additionally credited in several accounts with early urban planning in the valley, including the founding of settlements remembered in Tibeto-Burman place names still used today — Kathmandu itself is said to derive one of its older local names, Yambu, from this period, while Patan and Bhaktapur carry comparable Kirat-linked names in some historical treatments.

As with the dynasty’s chronology, these characterizations rest primarily on later chronicle description and comparative cultural memory rather than independently dated inscriptional evidence, and should be read with that caveat in mind. The picture that emerges even so is consistent: a settled, clan-organized society with functioning trade, land management, and religious institutions well before the valley enters the independently documented historical record under the Licchavis.

The Kirat Connection to the Pashupatinath Name Itself

One of the more striking threads connecting the Kirat era to Pashupatinath has nothing to do with dynastic chronology at all — it is a matter of scripture and etymology. In the Mahabharata’s well-known Kiratarjuniya episode, drawn from the epic’s Vana Parva, the Pandava warrior Arjuna undertakes severe penance in the Himalayas to obtain divine weapons ahead of the Kurukshetra war. Shiva, testing Arjuna’s resolve, appears before him disguised as a Kirata — a wild mountain hunter — accompanied by Parvati in the guise of a huntress. After a fierce dispute over a slain demon-boar escalates into single combat, Arjuna finally recognizes his opponent’s true identity and submits. Pleased by his devotion and courage, Shiva reveals himself and grants Arjuna the Pashupatastra — literally, “the weapon of Pashupati” — the single most powerful weapon described anywhere in the Mahabharata.

The resonance here is hard to overstate for a temple whose entire name derives from the epithet Pashupati: the very weapon named after “the Lord of Creatures” is granted in a story where Shiva himself takes on the identity of a Kirata, the same name later claimed by the dynasty that traditionally ruled the valley where Pashupatinath stands. Whether or not this scriptural episode had any direct bearing on how the historical Kirat people understood their own name or its connection to Shiva worship, the parallel has not gone unnoticed in later devotional and scholarly commentary on the site, and it adds a layer of scriptural texture to the historical claim that Kirat-era society was already substantially Shaiva in orientation. For the fuller telling of this episode and its place in Mahabharata tradition, see Mahabharata and Shiva Linga in Mythology.

Kirat-Era Traces at the Temple: Archaeology and Tradition

It is important to be precise about what can and cannot be claimed here. No surviving physical structure at Pashupatinath is independently dated to the Kirat era. The earliest reliably documented temple construction at the site is credited to Licchavi-era rulers roughly a century or more after the Kirat dynasty’s traditional end, discussed on our Origin and Licchavi Era pages. Wooden religious structures from the Kirat period, if they existed at this specific location, would not be expected to survive the valley’s humid climate across two and a half millennia in any recoverable form.

What tradition and indirect archaeological evidence do support is a picture of pre-Licchavi Shaiva religious activity in the broader valley, including specific reference in some historical surveys to a Kirat-associated Shiva linga — sometimes referenced as the Kirateshwar linga — near the Aryaghat cremation area beside the temple, alongside comparable early Shaiva material identified at other valley sites such as Patan. Historians examining this period are generally careful to frame such finds as evidence of general regional devotional continuity rather than proof of a specific, dated Kirat-era temple at the exact location of the present structure. This is the same cautious framing our own Temple Timeline page uses when addressing this period: reverence for the site is treated as considerably predating the first documented built structure, without claiming the two can currently be matched to a specific date.

The End of Kirat Rule and the Transition to Licchavi

Chronicle tradition describes the Kirat dynasty’s decline as gradual rather than sudden. Under Patuka, traditionally the 28th king, repeated pressure from a rival power identified in some chronicles as the Somavanshi is said to have forced a relocation of the Kirat capital from Gokarna to Shankhamul. The dynasty’s final ruler, Gasti, is described across nearly every chronicle source as comparatively weak, and is said to have been defeated by a ruler named Nimisha, traditionally credited as founder of a short transitional dynasty before Licchavi rule became firmly established in the valley.

A smaller thread within this chronicle tradition — considerably less commonly cited than the broader Kirat narrative, and best treated with real caution — credits this same post-Kirat ruler with repairing the Pashupatinath temple and installing its four-faced linga. This claim sits awkwardly beside the temple’s own better-attested Licchavi-era construction history and should be read as one strand among several competing chronicle traditions about the site’s earliest physical form, rather than as settled fact. What is more broadly agreed upon, including by modern reference sources, is that documented Nepali history in the fullest sense — meaning history supported by independently dated inscriptions rather than chronicle genealogy alone — begins only with Licchavi-era material, most notably the mid-5th-century Changu Narayan inscription associated with King Manadeva I. Following their defeat, Kirat populations are traditionally described as having withdrawn to Nepal’s eastern hills, dividing into three regional groupings remembered as Wallo Kirat, Majh Kirat, and Pallo Kirat — regions that remain closely associated with Kirat-descended communities today.

The Kirat Legacy Today

The Kirat era did not end with the dynasty’s political defeat. Today’s Rai, Limbu, Yakkha, and Sunuwar communities, concentrated in eastern Nepal’s hill regions, identify their ancestry and much of their religious and cultural practice as directly continuous with Kirat tradition, and many Kirat-descended communities maintain distinct festivals, oral histories, and religious frameworks separate from mainstream Hindu practice. Festivals such as Sakela, celebrated by Rai and Limbu communities, and the continued annual worship of Akash Bhairav — traditionally identified with the beheaded King Yalambar — during Kathmandu’s Indra Jatra festival represent living connections between the historical Kirat period and present-day Nepali religious life, well outside the specific bounds of Pashupatinath itself but part of the same broader cultural inheritance the temple sits within.

Why the Kirat Era Matters to Pashupatinath’s Story

The Kirat era’s importance to Pashupatinath does not rest on any surviving structure, inscription, or dated artifact directly tied to the temple. It rests on what the period represents in the site’s larger narrative: a claimed, chronicle-supported layer of Shaiva religious activity in the Kathmandu Valley that precedes the temple’s earliest documented construction by centuries, paired with a striking scriptural coincidence — the name “Kirata” attached both to the valley’s first ruling dynasty and to the disguise Shiva himself adopts in the very story that produces the Pashupatastra, “the weapon of Pashupati.”

Taken together, the Kirat material functions the same way the mythological origin material does on our Origin page: not as a competing claim to the historically documented Licchavi-era temple, but as an answer to a different question. Where the Licchavi inscriptions tell us when a physical temple can first be confirmed, the Kirat-era tradition tells us that the valley’s reverence for Shiva, under whatever name, very likely reaches back further still — into a period chronicle tradition remembers, even if the historical record proper cannot yet independently confirm it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where to Go Next

• Origin — the mythological founding legend of Pashupatinath and its scriptural roots
• Licchavi Era — the period providing the first independently documented temple construction
• Temple Timeline — the complete chronological history from legend through the present day
• Ancient Nepal and Ancient Records — broader context on the valley’s earliest documented past
• Mahabharata and Shiva Linga — the Kiratarjuniya episode and its connection to the Pashupatastra
• Guhyeshwari — the paired shrine visited, according to tradition, during the Kirat period
• About Pashupatinath — essential facts and orientation for first-time readers

This entry is part of our History guide, covering Pashupatinath’s recorded past from its earliest ruling dynasties through the present day.

The Pashupatinath is an independent devotional and cultural resource. It is not the official website of the Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) or the Government of Nepal. For official temple notices, consult PADT directly.