330 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 177 
TABLE N.—COorrelation of geographical and historical data on Rupununi Phase 
sites 
Environmental | Geographical 
Sites in Date from Recon- setting location 
seriated Btiropean™ if Structed || ten 2 ue awe et ee eee ers ee Remarks 
sequence trade time scale 
materials Forest | Savan-| North | South 
na 
1950 
R-20, Cave 3 Xx 
R-12 1820-1840? x x 
R-5 x x 
R-8 1880-1900-++ x x Inhabited in 1930? 
R-7 x x 
R-20, Cave 2 x 
a it =| ] | — --1- --- 
R-36 B 1890+ (X) x 
R-20, Cave 4 x x ol mest burial by inter 
ment]. 
R-19 1860-1900 Xx x [1879—stone axes still used; no 
pottery griddles}. 
R-6 1790-1830 x xX 
R-9 x xX Visited. by Im Thurn in 1878? 
R-20, Cave 1 x x 
—_—_————- —1850— | ————_— ]——_—_] ———_-| —_—_—_ a_i —__cxqx cr 
R-40 x? x Trade sherds from Taruma 
and Koriabo Phases. 
R-18 x x 
R-36 A (X) Nas Visited by Schomburgk in 
1836? ‘ 
R-17 1780-1830 26 x [By 1835, Wapisiana have re- 
R-27 x x placed Macusi on south 
R-37 (X) x Rupununij. 
R-3 1819-1850 x x 
R-2 x Ke 
R-22 x? x 
—1800— |————_— | rc —_|i—oqmmi uc 
R-28 dC x {1796—Introduction of cattle to 
R-31 Xx xX savanna]. 
R-24 (X) x 
R-29 x x 
R-32 x x 
R-28 (X) x 
R-30 x x 
R-26 x x 
R-25 (x) x 
—— —1750— |_| | _— cm cme —_\m —-— 
{1738—Wapisiana in Brazil, 
Macusi in British Guiana]. 
ere er near ae site area and probably is the effect of clearing so that the site may be classified 
Hiri data not referring to any specific site. 
griddles were already things of the past (op. cit., pp. 261-2).! The 
analysis of vessel shapes through time (Appendix, tables 38,39) shows 
that Form 4, griddles, is represented at only three sites following R-9 
and all three are marginal to the north savanna, two being in the 
Pakaraima Mountains (R-20, Cave 2 and Cave 3) and one in the 
southern Kanukus (R-386 B). Although pottery griddles were prac- 
tically obsolete, it seems strange that they would have been forgotten 
so soon, particularly in view of the fact that Farabee, who came 40 
years later, found them still in use. Indeed, Im Thurn’t wording sug- 
gests that he did not question the Indians but arrived at his conclusion 
by inference. A conclusion in keeping with both archeological and 
