Several historical texts have provided useful background information. Vere Trevalyn Daly's [1975] textbook covers the entire period from first European contact to the time of publication, and has been the most useful general historical text. Texts focussing on particular periods include Spinner's [1984] work on the mid to late 20th. century. The early colonial period is covered by a historical work of Thompson [1987], who focuses mainly on colonial issues during the time of Dutch occupation, 1580-1803, but incorporates such historical information on Amerindians at the time as is available. Guyanese historian Mary Noel Menezes has worked extensively on the situation of Amerindians during the 19th. century, though her work is also largely concerned with their relationships with the colonial regime [Menezes 1979].
Contemporary accounts of some ethnographic value began to emerge from diverse sources during the period covered by Menezes, and provide a useful complement to her work. Among the earliest of these are Robert Schomburgk's accounts of his extensive exploratory journeys [Schomburgk 1922, 1923]. These include numerous anthropological observations, the majority on the Macusi people with whom he spent the most time but covering several tribes, along with a wealth of information on natural history, and are refreshingly devoid of the ethnocentric arrogance typical of the age. This is not the case with William Brett's account of his missionary labours amongst numerous tribes [Brett 1868], although he also recorded information of significant ethnographic value, nor with the work of reputed champion of Amerindian causes William Hillhouse [Hillhouse 1979]. Everard Im Thurn's account of his anthropological expeditions into the interior is the earliest piece of writing of which I am aware which is based on specifically anthropological research; the writer's botanical inclinations make this, like Schomburgk's work, particularly useful in providing early documentation of human exploitation of wild species [Im Thurn 1883]. None of these are ethnographies in the modern sense, and all are highly prone to make unfounded generalisations across, and even among, tribes. Nonetheless, they are invaluable and unique records of life among Guyanese Amerindian people whose lifestyles had not yet undergone radical change in response to European contact. More comprehensive and in-depth studies were undertaken in the early decades of the twentieth century - the tireless efforts of Walter Roth resulted in the production of an epic account of Amerindian material culture [Roth 1924, 1929], and a large anthropological expedition of several years duration was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania [Farabee 1918, 1924]. These lack the rigour of modern ethnography - they are pre-Malinowskian in method (Farabee apparently relied largely on interviews with a small number of informants) and include little in the way of quantitative ethnographic data - but nonetheless remain of relevance in the present day.
Modern-day ethnographic study in Guyana began with Gillin's 6-month study of the Barama river Caribs [Gillin 1936], and continued with Iris Myers' wartime work on culture contact among the Macusi [Myers 1944], and later Audrey Butt's 2-year doctoral study of the Akawaio [Butt 1954]. The bias towards study of the Carib-speaking tribes continued in subsequent years, particularly after the establishment of missionaries in Wai-Wai country facilitated access by anthropologists to the last remaining Guyanese tribe living according to their traditional pattern. Two Wai-Wai studies quickly followed [Fock 1963, Yde 1965], and in the late seventies George Mentore conducted a comprehensive, largely structuralist analysis of Wai-Wai social organisation, producing several papers of interest in the present study [Mentore 1983-4, 1995]. The Wai-Wai remain the best-studied of Guyana's Amerindian tribes, but the country as a whole remained largely underattended, aside from Kathleen Adams' follow-up to Gillin's Carib research [Adams 1981]. This is reflected in the small amount of Guyanese data incorporated into several summary works which appeared over a short space of time. A compendium of research on Carib tribes included a little Guyana information [Basso 1977], as did a volume of Antropologica dedicated to Guianese Carib tribes, concluded and summarised by Butt-Colson [1984], and Peter Riviere's synthesis of the ethnography of the Guianas [Riviere 1984]. The Arawak tribes were even less well-attended, and remained barely studied throughout the Guianas as a whole. Two doctoral research projects focused on ethnicity and relations with broader Guyanese society among coastal Arawaks (Lokono) and 'true' Caribs on the Pomeroon river [Drummond 1977] and in the mixed Arawak-Warrau communities of the Correntyne [Sanders 1987]. These are of little direct relevance to the current project, particularly Sanders' monograph, a particularly poor example of Geertzian interpretivism, and condemned in the study community for its inaccurate portrayal of life there. More recently, Gloria Tang has produced a doctoral thesis concerning development in Region 9 of Guyana, based largely upon research conducted in the large Wapishana village of Aishalton [Tang 1995]. On the basis of extended interviews with Aishalton residents on their perception of and attitudes towards development, and case studies of two specific development initiatives in the area, she criticised the application of top-down development in the region. Despite the presence of a broad natural resource base, development projects in the area had floundered due to the lack of consultation with and participation of the local people, and deficiencies in the local infrastructure. She advocated the implementation of a bottom-up development strategy based on local natural resources, combining community-based initiatives with appropr.htmliate centrally-implemented schemes to improve infrastructure and enhance the functioning of the regional administration. The former point is a key feature of the present project, which aims to investigate the use of natural resources from an indigenous perspective with a view to assessing the potential for making this the basis of projects in community-based sustainable development.
The recent upsurge of academic interest in Guyana's Amerindians has occurred largely under the direction of the University of Guyana's Amerindian Research Unit, which began life as a purely linguistic project but now operates with a vastly broader remit. The ARU's own publications are the most important sources of recent information, most pertinent of which are a report on Wapishana material culture [ARU 1993], and background papers on various aspects of the Amerindian situation [Forte 1993, 1995a, 1995b]. Other relevant ARU material includes a survey of the status of Amerindian women and children [ARU 1993], a collection of papers concerning Amerindian use of forest resources [ARU 1995], and ongoing demographic studies in Amerindian communities throughout Guyana [Forte 1990a]. There has also been a relative proliferation of new publications concerning development issues in the country, including a summary of a government-sponsored investigation into how economic exploitation of forest resources may be reconciled with the need for conservation [Sizer 1996]. A recent book by Marcus Colchester is concerned with the issues surrounding development in Guyana's interior [Colchester 1997]; despite being less than objective in certain respects, this is of great use as the most up-to-date summary of the threats faced by the country's indigenous peoples. More balanced is a recent collection of papers, mostly by Guyanese writers, on development and land use in both coast and interior [Williams et al 1997], whose contrast in approach makes it complement Colchester's work well.
The literature on the Brazilian state of Roraima is very sparse, but includes a few items which are informative about the situation of Amerindians there, and of relevance to the present study. Most notable of these in the present context is Nancy Fried Foster's doctoral dissertation on Brazilian Wapishana identity [Foster 1990], which deals largely with relationships with Brazilian society, and includes more ethnographic information than the author gives herself credit for, although very little of this is quantitative. Peter Riviere's [1972] ethnography of Roraimense cattle ranchers includes some information on the position of acculturated Amerindians within the unique social system of the state; although the pace of change in Roraima over the thirty years since his study means it has dated rather rapidly, it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that many of the attitudes and perceptions governing interracial relationships still endure. A recent volume of papers on Roraima [Furley 1995] provides much-needed background information, some of which is relevant to the Rupununi; one chapter in this documents the history of Amerindian-settler relations, and updates Riviere's coverage of this somewhat {Hemming 1995].