I must emphasize that none of these connections could have been made from archaeological evidence alone, or from metallographic studies of the artifacts. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence does have a part to play in the story of guanín.

Commercial documents of the Colonial period repeatedly state that the Taíno (for reasons already discussed) valued both guanín and brass aboye pure gold, and were willing to trade at what - in hispanic terms - were inflated prices.  In the early years of contact the exchange rate reached 200:1 in favour of guanin over gold (Szaszdi 1982: 17). European brass items are easily identifiable and are not uncommon on Colonial Tamo sites (Vega 1979), but the status of the few guanin objects from the islands is more difficult to assess.

Fig. 6(c). Metal items from Guyana and Cuba. Figure-pendant from Yaguajay, Cuba; height 4.8 cms. Redrawn from Alonso 1950.

Given the unequal exchange rate, the Spanish found it worthwhile to import native guanín objects from the mainland and from the Venezuelan is lands to barter for Taíno gold in Hispaniola and Cuba (Rivet and Arsandaux 1946: 64; Vega 1979: 28). Documents in the Casa de Contratación, in Seville, describe eagles and frogs of guanín, and explain that these items were accumulated in storehouses in Santo Domingo to be exchanged with the Indians for gold dust and nuggets (J. Sued Badillo, personal communication). Since we know that the Spanish term oro de rescate referred to artifacts taken from looted archaeological cemeteries as well as from living indians (Bray 1978: 12-13), it is likely that the guanín objects brought to the Antilles had diverse origins and were of many different styles and ages.

The problems are exemplified by two metal items from Cuba. They are not in the local Taíno style, and must have been manufactured outside the is lands. The cast figurine (Fig. 6c), made of 10 carat gold (guanín), is a surface find from Yaguajay in eastern Cuba (Alonso 1950), and belongs to a category well-known from Caribbean Colombia (compare Falchetti 1995, fig. 45). The second item is a Taíno necklace, with metal plaques and a cast bird head, from the cemetery of Chorro de Maíta (Fig. 6b). From the colour photograph published by Dacál Moure and Rivero de la Calle (1996: 70) the bird seems to be made of guanín and it, too, is Colombian in style. The cemetery which yielded one European skull as well as numerous indigenous skel etons, probably belongs to the initial period of contact between Taínos and Spanish.

What are we to make of these items? Are they, and the Mazaruni pectoral, indicators of a poorly documented prehispanic trade route along which the Taíno obtained guanín jewellery from Colombia by way of Venezuela and Guyana (Szaszdi 1982; Whitehead 1996)? Or are these artifacts hispanic imports into Cuba, perhaps by sea from Cartagena to La Habana, designed to take advantage of the difference between European and native American value systems? We have no way of knowing. In spite of my remarks about the limitations of archaeological evidence, what we need if we are to answer questions of this kind is more precise archaeological and contextual information.