550 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIX, 
rate the classes and classify them properly, as the different 
Brahmanical Acharyas, some of whom correspond to Acharyas 
and others are (8, 9, 10), probably connected with Jaisis. 
Generally, however, the absence of details in Lévi’s list makes 
closer identification impossible. Of the two wood-workers, 
the one mentioned as carpenter in both lists have been 
equated, leaving the Darukara and Yangkarmi, who have 
therefore been placed side by side. Similarly I have put, 
position in the list, which although not made clear, has some 
bearing as regards their place in the hierarchy. Both the 
weaver castes, however, are marked with queries, showing that 
Lévi is not sure of their profession. 
Of the castes of which the occupation is given in Lévi’s 
list, but which do not occur in Hodgson’s table, three are 
marked with notes of interrogation, and being speculations, 
may be left out. The Silpikara or artisans pure and simple 
may also be left out, as by itself it is a term for a group 
of castes, not a single caste name. The omission of the singer 
and actor is not serious as also of the regulator of weights and 
measures. The absence of plasterers and ivory-turners are 
the only important exceptions. It is quite possible, however, 
that Hodgson or his informant may have considered them 
equivalent to one of the numerous groups of carpenters and 
masons, and thus left them out. 
n spite of these discrepancies the general agreement is 
remarkably good, and as Hodgson had about as much facility 
to examine documents and people (and perhaps more) as 
Lévi, his list may be accepted as fairly accurate. The real 
importance of the lists is, however, in the light which they 
throw on the condition of the Newars, before the recent dis- 
turbances. It has become apparent from the discussions in 
the previous appendices that most of the arts were formerly 
practised by Buddhist Newars and are even now largely so. 
, Some striking exceptions have already been discussed. The 
evidence of these historical lists, so far as they go, cannot 
be said to run counter to this conclusion. For although 
ostensibly a classification of Hindu castes, the table of 
Jayasthiti Malla is really composite. Bandyas become Brah- 
mans, Jyapus are Sudras and so on. As no Buddhist rule 
or religious revival is known to have occurred in Nepal after 
this time, it is evident that the present Buddhists must have 
existed then as now to some extent at least. To judge from 
in the case of Earle’s list (App. D), the composite nature of 
the list is merely known but not shown in it. The other 
