E d y 
iyacpan ARCHEOLOGY IN BRITISH GUIANA 329 
Farabee (1918, p. 14) reported that in 1913 he met old men whose 
fathers had told them about coming from the west. 
The only apparent contradiction to the conclusion that the arche- 
ological survey of the Rupununi found only Macusi sites is an account 
of Schomburgk’s visit to a Wapisiana village in the southern part 
of the Kanuku Mountains in 1836. He describes the ascent as follows: 
The path, Indian-like, led over fallen trees, between boulders of granite, and 
was often so steep that we had to use hands and feet. ... After a march of 
eight hours and a half, we reached a settlement of the Warpeshanas, where we 
intended to rest for the night... The height was between 2,300 and 2,500 
feet above the plain. [1836, p. 250.] 
This generalized description fits the approach and environs of R-36, 
but could also apply to other places in the mountains not explored by 
our survey. ‘The reason for suspecting that R-36 might be the village 
seen by Schomburgk is that its seriated position in the Rupununi Phase 
sequence suggests that it was inhabited at the time of his visit (table 
N). Thus, if R-36 is the Wapisiana village that Schomburgk saw, and 
not a Macusi site, the question again arises whether the Macusi and 
Wapisiana archeological remains really differ. In the south Rupu- 
nuni savanna the historical and archeological data do not permit a 
final answer at present. 
The north Rupununi savanna was visited by Im Thurn in 1878. He 
lived for several months at the Macusi village of Quatata, which he 
describes as “one of the Jargest settlements on the savannah, [which] 
consists of ten houses, all oval or round” (1883, p. 84). It was located 
on a high place, with a view across the plain to the Pakaraima Moun- 
tains (op. cit., p. 86). This description coincides well with that of 
R-9, and this site is also in the correct position in the seriated sequence 
to have been inhabited in 1878 (see table N). Although Im Thurn 
mentions trading with the Indians and observed them using European 
items, no trade goods were found at R-9. This situation emphasizes 
the fact that the absence of objects of European origin at a site does 
not necessarily indicate a precontact date. 
Although much of Im Thurn’s data are too general to use for com- 
parison, two comments he makes on the Rupununi are of interest in 
terms of the archeological record. He noted that “stone implements, 
though no longer used in Guiana, are to be found in greater or less 
abundance throughout the district” (op. cit, p. 39). If R-9 repre- 
sents the Quatata village he visited, then this observation is verified 
archeologically since stone axes were found at two sites (R-6 and 
R-19) that follow R-9 in the seriated sequence. Im Thurn also noted 
that “a large circular iron griddle or plate, of European manufacture” 
was used for baking cassava bread, and then he speculates that a stone 
slab was used earlier, suggesting that by the time of his visit pottery 
