When the spire came down in 2015, the response at Boudhanath was unlike the response at almost every other damaged heritage site in Nepal.
The dating problem
Newar chronicles claim a fifth-century origin under Licchavi kings. The present structure most likely dates from the fourteenth century, consistent with rebuilding after an incursion.
These do not reconcile, and there is no reason to pretend they do. Tradition and archaeology give different answers, and the entry says both rather than choosing the flattering one.
What it became after 1959
Boudhanath's present character is recent. After 1959, Tibetan refugees settled around the stupa in numbers, and more than fifty gompas have been built in the surrounding streets since.
All four Tibetan schools are represented (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug), which is unusual. In Tibet itself the schools were geographically and institutionally separated; exile compressed them into a few square kilometres.
The daily practice is kora: circling the dome clockwise at dawn and dusk, turning the prayer wheels set into its base. The crowds doing it are largely Tibetan and Nepali, not visitors.
April 2015
The earthquake cracked the spire badly enough that the entire structure above the dome had to be dismantled and rebuilt.
The rebuild
Across Nepal, earthquake reconstruction was slow, contested and dependent on foreign money and government process. Some sites waited years.
Boudhanath reopened in November 2016, about nineteen months.
It was funded almost entirely by private donation from the Buddhist community itself: roughly two million dollars and more than thirty kilograms of gold, gathered from Tibetan and Nepali Buddhists and from practitioners abroad. The Boudhanath Area Development Committee ran the work, with representatives of all four schools involved together.
The state did not rebuild it and neither did a heritage body. The people who walk around it every morning did.
Why that matters
It is the clearest case in this atlas of a living site being restored by its own users at their own expense and on their own timetable.
Compare it with the sites in these entries whose custodians have to petition a government, or a court, or a conservation authority for permission to repair what they use. Boudhanath had a community with the means, the motive and the undisputed right to act, which is rarer than it should be.