Society for American Archaeology

Majolica in the Early Colonial Andes: The Role of Panamanian WaresAuthor(s): Ross W. JamiesonSource: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 45-58Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971756 .Accessed: 17/08/2011 21:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to LatinAmerican Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES: THE ROLE OF PANAMANIAN WARES

Ross W. Jamieson

As one of the most common artifact categories found on Spanish colonial sites, the wheel-made, tin-glazed pottery known as majolica is an important chronological and social indicatorfor archaeologists. Initially importedfrom Europe, several manu- facturing centers for majolica were set up in the New World by the late sixteenth century. The study of colonial majolica in the Viceroyalty of Peru, which encompassed much of South America, has received less attention than ceramic production and trade in the colonial Caribbean and Mesoamerica. Prior to 1650 the Viceroyalty of Peru was supplied with majolica largely produced in the city of Panama Vieja, on the Pacific. Panama Vieja majolica has been recovered from throughout the Andes, as far south as Argentina. Majolica made in Panama Vieja provides an important chronological indicator of early colonial archaeological contexts in the region. The reproduction of Iberian-style majolica for use on elite tables was symbolically important to the impo- sition of Spanish rule, and thus Panamanian majolicas also provide an important indicator of elite status on Andean colonial sites.

La ceramica vidriada hecha a torno y conocida generalmente como mayolica fue un elemento importante del colonialismo espanol en su fase inicial en Ame'rica Latina. Las mayolicas de estilo iberico fueron un importante simbolo del control colonial de Espana en el Nuevo Mundo. Como tal, la mayolica fue importada inicialmente desde Europa, pero hacia finales del siglo XVI ya habia varios centros especializados en la produccion de esta variedad de ceramica en diversos lugares del Nuevo Mundo. El virreinato de Nueva Espana fue provisto de mayolicas producidas en los centros coloniales establecidos en la ciudad de Me'xico y en Puebla. Lamentablemente, el estudio de la mayolica en el virreinato del Peru', que como se sabe comprendio gran parte de America del Sur, ha recibido poca atencion. Las mayolicas utilizadas a lo largo del virreinato del Peru habian sido provistas, en gran parte, por los centros poco conocidos que existian en Panama Vieja. Esto posiblemente resulto de la politica mercantilista de Espana que prohibia el intercambio de productos manufacturados entre un virreinato y otro. De este modo, Panama Vieja desempeno un papel muy importante en el oeste de Ame'rica del Sur. La ceramica vidriada producida alli tiene una pasta tipicamente oscura, rofiza, de grano fino, y con un vidriado fino que es generalmente de color crema o crema verdoso. Restos de esta variedad de ceramica han sido recuperados a lo largo del antiguo virreinato del Peru', llegando hasta Argentina. Tambie'n hay restos de esta variedad de mayolicas recuperados, aunque en menor cantidad, en el sur de Me'xico y en Ame'rica Central. En muchos casos, los especialistas no han tenido la experiencia necesaria para identificar los varios tipos de mayolicas, razon por la cual la producida en Panama sigue sin ser identificada en las colecciones provenientes de toda Ame'rica Latina. La fecha de la mayolica procedente de Panama Vieja tine un periodo de produccion limitado entre elfinal del siglo XVI y mediados de 1670. Por esta razon, hace de e'sta un indicador cronologico importante para fechar los contextos arqueologicos del periodo colonial inicial. La identificacion y clasificacion de las mayolicas h echas en Panama Vieja son por lo tan to un paso importan te hacia una mejor comprension de la arqueologia del periodo colonial en el oeste de Centro y Sudame'rica.

A rchaeologists propose that the domestic status and ethnic relations, but instead forms an inte- ;\ material culture ofthe Spanish colonial elite gral part of the creation and maintenance of these

w XintheNewWorldwaspredicatedonaworld- relations through daily practices such as dining view in which visible items in the household were (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984).Thepracticeofdin- an essential part of the maintenance of Spanish sta- ing in the Spanish colonies reinforced relationships tus and ethnicity (Deagan 1974, 1983). The mater- of power through the definition of polite behavior, ial culture of the dining table was one of the most which was partially predicated on the presence of important locations for the expression of these rela- proper table wares. tions. Material culture is not merely a reflection of One of the most important artifact categories in

Ross W. Jamieson * Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSA 1S6

Latin American Antiquity, 12(1), 2001, pp. 45-58 Copyright(C) 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

45

46 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 1, 2001

the study of Spanish colonial table wares is the tin- glazed ceramic known in Spain and its colonies as majolica. The dominant ceramic tableware in Renais- sance Spain, majolica became an essential symbol of Spanish ethnicity and status in the New World. Tin-glazed ceramics were developed in Europe in the thirteenth century by the addition of tin oxide to clear lead glazes, in order to create an opaque white glaze. Mineral solutions could be painted on top of the tin glaze before firing. These would fuse into the glaze, creating polychrome glazed majolica. In the first hundred years of Spanish New World colonization much of this majolica was imported directly from Iberia, in large part from the region surrounding Seville, in Andalusia. In the second half of the six- teenth century, Andalusian majolica was shipped to many major colonial centers. Within the Audiencia of Santo Domingo (comprising the Caribbean and the northern coast of South America), Andalusian majolica was sent to the ports of Santo Domingo, Havana, and Margarita Island. Majolica for the Audi- encia of Mexico was shipped to Veracruz, while that for the Audiencia of Guatemala came to Honduras. For the entire Viceroyalty of Peru, stretching south- ward through Andean South America, Andalusian majolica was shipped to Panama, and transferred overland to the Pacific for ships sailing south along the Pacific coast (Lister and Lister 1987:210).

With increasing emphasis over the last thirty years on colonial period archaeology throughout the for- mer colonies of Spain, we have a much greater under- standing of the role of majolica within the empire. Through work in Florida and the Caribbean (Dea- gan 1983; Ewen 1991), we have gained a picture of majolica as tableware signaling Spanish ethnicity, and related to the status of the households where it was used. These studies have generally concluded that the use of majolica was closely tied to wealth, suggesting that households with greater wealth could afford larger quantities of majolica. The wealthy colonial householder avoided the use of locally pro- duced earthenwares on their dining table, although ceramics associated with Native American manu- facturing techniques were certainly still present in the elite Spanish colonial house, whether as cook- ing vessels or servant's property (Deagan 1983; Charlton et al. 1995; Jamieson 2000).

If household wealth were the only factor in the use of majolica in colonial domestic contexts, then we would expect that households in wealthier parts

of the empire, and particularly in core areas of the Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru, would show greater percentages of majolica in their assemblages than are present in more "peripheral," and less wealthy, parts of the empire. Recent work in Andean South America suggests that this is not the case, as sixteenth- and seventeenth-century domestic archae- ological contexts there show lower percentages of majolica than are present in Florida and Caribbean samples (Smith 1991; Van Buren 1999). Several rea- sons for this could be proposed, including greater acceptance by Andean colonial elites of the use of Native Andean ceramics on the dining table. It seems most likely, however, that the reason for these dif- ferences lies in the trade and manufacture of colo- nial majolica, which affected its availability in various parts of the empire.

At the end of the sixteenth century, Spanish majolica exports declined dramatically and, at the same time, New World colonies began to produce their own tin-glazed wares. The Listers (1987:212) take a firm economic interpretation of this change, suggesting that the decline in production at Seville forced New World potters to fill the gap. At the same time that Andalusian majolica exports were falling off, the balance of power in the empire was shifting. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inka empires had greatly expanded the land base of the colonies and had shifted the centers of colonial power out of the Caribbean, to cities such as Mexico City, Lima, and Potosi.

It was in the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which included much of the Mesoamerican region during the early colonial period (Figure 1), that NewWorld majolica manufacturing became important. In Mex- ico City, majolica was probably being produced by 1550 and certainly predates 1573 (Lister and Lister 1982:S8). In the city of Puebla, Mexico the first majolica potters were recorded shortly before the end of the sixteenth century (Lister and Lister 1987:231). Both Mexico City and Puebla supplied a variety of wares to colonies throughout New Spain.

Several other colonial centers in the Viceroyalty of New Spain produced majolica of a lower quality, for local consumption. At what is now the city of Antigua, Guatemala, majolica was being produced for local consumption by about 1580 (Lister and Lis- ter 1974:25-26). There is some evidence of colonial majolica manufacturing at Comayagua in Honduras (Cruxent 1979:22), although the dating ofthis indus-

MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES 47 Jamieson]

Figure 1. Locations mentioned in the text.

try is still undefined. In the Caribbean, majolica man- ufacturing was minimal, although there is some evi- dence of an industry in what is now the Dominican Republic, for the supply of the island's population (Cruxent 1979:22).

The Development of a Majolica Industry at Panama Vieja

The Viceroyalty of Peru was the second center of

colonial power in the Spanish New World and demonstrates a very different colonial trajectory of majolica trade and manufacturing. The city of Panama Vieja played an important role in this process. Panama Vieja was founded in 1519 on the Pacific coast of what is now the nation of Panama. Pizarro's expedition to conquer the Inka was launched from that city, which became a major early colonial transshipment point for goods coming from

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY 48 [Vol. 12, No. 1, 2001

Europe for delivery throughout the Viceroyalty of Peru. Goods were shipped to the Caribbean coast of Panama, hauled overland to Panama Vieja, and then placed on ships for transport south to the major ports of Pacific South America (Borah 1954). Majolica ceramics were no exception to this, and in the six- teenth century the majority of supplies of Andalu- sian majolica for the Viceroyalty of Peru were shipped through Panama Vieja.

The location of Panama Vieja on the shipping routes from Iberia for the supply of the Viceroyalty of Peru no doubt played a major part in the logic of setting up majolica production in the city. Potters cre- ating wares for sale here could undercut the cost of shipping ceramics from Iberia, creating a local sup- ply for the Peruvian market. The location of Panama Vieja within the Viceroyalty of Peru meant that trade between the city and the rest of the viceroyalty was unrestricted, while trade between viceroyalties vio- lated the mercantilist policies of the Crown.

Majolica production at PanamaVieja began some- time in the late sixteenth or very early seventeenth century, in the same time frame as the major majolica production centers in New Spain (Deagan 1987:71; Lister and Lister 1974:45; Rovira 1983:10). Thus Panama Vieja was one of several centers created toward the end of the sixteenth century to supply colonists with symbolically essential tablewares repli- cating those available from their Iberian homeland.

Archaeologists first recognized evidence of colo- nial majolica production in Panama Vieja in the early 1960s. A team led by John Goggin excavated a kiln and several domestic contexts at Panama Vieja, on the outskirts of modern Panama City (Baker 1968; Cruxent 1979:28; Long 1964, 1967), leading to the initial archaeological definition of Panamanian wares. Majolica ceramics from Panama are easily recognized by their paste, which is variously described as "a bright brick red" (Lister and Lister 1974:44) or "a dark brick red containing mineral temper" (Deagan 1987 :48, 91).

Panamanian pieces have been classified accord- ing to their surface treatments and decoration. Panama Plain majolica has a thick and evenly applied tin glaze that varies from a white to pale green tint. The glaze often has imperfections, including craz- ing, pinholing, crawling, and bare spots (Deagan 1987:92; Long 1964: 107). Panamanian potters also produced Panama Blue on White, built from the same paste, with a pale cobalt blue decoration on the off-

white background. This has a variety of designs, most commonly with curvilinear brushstrokes and thick petal or leaf forms (Deagan 1987:92; Rovira 1997:77). The blue is less "dense" and has less relief than that of Mexican Puebla majolica (Lister and Lis- ter 1974:44).

Panama Blue is a third variation, consisting of a solid matte-blue exterior glaze and a greenish inte- rior glaze, on the typical Panama paste. Panama Blue is so far known only from excavated contexts at PanamaVieja (Rovira 1997:68) and at St. Augustine, Florida (Deagan 1987:92). Beatriz Rovira (1997:68) has recently reported a Panama Blue on Blue type, consisting of dark blue decoration on a lighter blue background glaze.

Finally, Panama Polychromes consist of the same paste and off-white background glaze, but with poly- chrome decoration. The decorative colors include black (or manganese), green, blue, and brown (Gog- gin 1968: 163- 165; Long 1964: 107). Styles of deco- ration include swirling fronds, asterisks, and dots, and are reputed to be similar to the decorative styles of majolica from Teruel in Spain, and of the Fajalauza barrio of potters in late sixteenth-century Seville (Cruxent 1979:29; Lister and Lister 1974:45). Kath- leen Deagan (1987:91-92) has defined a second polychrome as Panama Polychrome "B," consisting of a lace-like pattern imitating European Talavera wares, and similar to Puebla polychromes. In the Panama examples the "lace" is usually pale blue or green. These decorative motifs are well illustrated by Deagan (1987), the Listers (1974), and Rovira (1997), with Deagan providing a useful color plate.

The decoration on Panamanian majolica is chronologically significant. At the kiln site outside Panama Vieja the wasters consisted of both Blue on White and Polychrome examples, but no Panama Plain sherds were encountered (Long 1964:105), suggesting that Panama Plain wares may have been produced at a separate kiln, and perhaps earlier. In Goggin's excavations of domestic contexts within the city of Panama Vieja, the early contexts contained Panama Plain majolica in association with majolica from Seville (Long 1964:107). These included Columbia Plain, Ichtucknee Blue on Blue, andYayal Blue on White sherds. If we accept that both Ich- tucknee (or Sevilla) Blue on Blue and Yayal Blue on White faded from use by 1640 (Deagan 1987:58,64; Goggin 1968:139), then contexts in Panama Vieja with only Panama Plain sherds date to the late six-

Jamieson] MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES 49

teenth or early seventeenth centuries. Recent exca- vations in Panama Vieja provide further confirma- tion of this sequence. Beatriz Rovira (1997) reports that a context immediately predating 1644 contained a greater percentage of Panama Plain vessels, with a small quantity of Polychrome. A context dated to the end of Panama Vieja's occupation in the third quarter of the seventeenth century showed reduced quantities of Panama Plain, and an increased pres- ence of Blue on White and Polychrome vessels (Rovira 1997). In a recently excavated context thought to date to the sixteenth century, Panama Plain was the only locally produced majolica recovered (Rovira 1997:Note 13).

The Panama Blue on White and Panama Poly- chrome sherds were concentrated in the upper lev- els of the site and are therefore thought to date to the latter part of the occupation of the city (Long 1964:107; Rovira 1997). This chronology is con- firmed by the presence of several pieces of Panama Plain and Blue on White on the 1622 Atocha wreck in the Florida Keys, probably picked up by the ship in Portobello (Marken 1994:231-232). The absence of Panama Polychrome on the Atocha suggests that polychrome decoration may not have been produced at Panama until later than the 1620s. Increasing evi- dence confirms that Panamanian production at first concentrated on plain vessels for the New World market, relying on Spain for the supply of decorated polychrome majolica, and only producing poly- chrome vessels in the latter part of the occupation of Panama Vieja.

Excavations at the Native contact period site of TorataAlta, in the MoqueguaValley in Peru, provide further evidence. The site is thought to date to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and several sherds of Panama Plain majolica were recov- ered there. Excavations in later contexts at wineries in the valley recovered Blue on White and Poly- chrome Panamanian sherds (Rice 1997: 176; Van Buren 1997:156).

A painting of Santa Lucia in the Conceptas Museum in Cuenca, Ecuador, painted in Quito in 1652, depicts the saint holding her eyes on a platter (Figure 2). The floral decoration of the platter arranged in panels around the rim is very similar to examples of Panama Blue on White majolica illus- trated by Rovira (1997:Figure 6). This suggests that Panama Blue on White was available in the Audi- encia of Quito around 1650.

Figure 2. Santa Lucia (1652), by Tomas Castillo. Museo de las Conceptas, Cuenca, Ecuador.

The end of Panama majolica production can be accurately dated to the assault on the city of Panama by the buccaneer Henry Morgan. Panama was not fortified, and in 1671 Morgan and his men took the city from the Spanish after traveling overland and by canoe from the Caribbean side of the Isthmus. The city burned to the ground just after Morgan's attack. He remained there for a few weeks, and then aban- doned the ruined city. Panama City was not rebuilt in its original location, as it was militarily indefen- sible. Instead a new location was chosen ten kilo- meters west of the original, on an easily fortified peninsula (Ward 1993:172-175).

The sacking of the city marked the end of majolica production at PanamaVieja. Excavations in colonial contexts at the new location of the city have revealed typical Panama majolica in the initial 1670s contexts. French Faience replaced these, however, in the later seventeenth-century contexts. It would seem that

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY 50 [Vol. 12, No. 1, 2001

some pieces of Panamanian majolica were carried to the new location and used there, but no new pro- duction kilns were set up. Thus the Panamanian majolica industry ended in the 1670s with the destructionofPanamaVieja(Rovira 1984:286-287).

The Extent of the Panama Majolica Trade

Spanish mercantilist policies frowned on direct trade between colonial viceroyalties, as this was seen as a threat to imperial control. In the seven- teenth-century Panama was part of the colonial Viceroyalty of Peru, and therefore could legally provide locally manufactured goods, including ceramics, to other cities in the Peruvian viceroy- alty (Figure 1). Importation of majolica into the Viceroyalty of Peru from other viceroyalties, such as the products of Puebla, in New Spain, was frowned on. Puebla majolica was exported to Peru in exchange for raw tin at least once (Goggin 1968:215), but this may have been an isolated event. European majolica originating from Iberia could have been legally imported to Peru, but production centers in Europe were distant from the Andes. European and Mexican majolica sherds thus make up a very small proportion of imported wares in excavated colonial contexts in the Andes.

Panamanian sherds can easily be distinguished from locally produced wares in mostAndean archae- ological contexts. This makes their identification a valuable tool in identifying colonial contexts that predate 1650 in the Andes. In colonial contexts in Cuenca, in the southern highlands of Ecuador, for example, the paste of locally produced majolica is reddish yellow to pink (7.5YR 8/6 to 7.5YR 8/4), and the glaze is thinly applied, with a very low tin colltent that gives the appearance of a wash. Among these sherds the Panamanian imports are distinct, with a much thicker, crazed glaze, and a light red (1OR 6/8) to red (lOR5/8) paste (Munsell Color Com- pany 1975). In the Moquegua Valley, Prudence Rice (1997:176) reports that the reddish-brown paste of local southern Peruvian majolica is similar to that from Panama, but the opaque white glaze of Pana- manian sherds is easily distinguished from the thinly glazed local majolica.

Twenty-five years ago the Listers (1974:45) pro- vided a summary of the known places where Pana- manian majolica had been archaeologically recovered. There is now a much better understand- ing of the extent of the early colonial trade in these

wares (Table 1 and Figure 1), which have been reported from archaeological contexts throughout Andean South America, as far south as Buenos Aires. Some northward trade is indicated by Panamanian majolica found in the Soconusco region of Mexico, as well as in Costa Rica and Guatemala.

Not all archaeologists analyzing colonial ceram- ics have been able to recognize wares as Panaman- ian, although published descriptions are consistent with Panama as a source. The early colonial levels excavated at the Casa de Osambela in Lima, for example, had green lead-glazed, plain white tin- glazed, and polychrome majolica vessels, all with a fine dark-red paste. Vessel forms included plates with annular ring bases, small curved-walled bowls, deep plates with concave bases, and small bowls with angular sides (escudillas). Many appear to be Pana- manian, although it is difficult to determine whether all of these were Panamanian pieces, or whether some were locally produced in Lima (Flores Espinoza et al. 1981 :4s42,52).

Excavations at the Santo Domingo Monastery in Quito, Ecuador, have recovered a variety of colonial majolica fragments that are very likely Panamanian, although the excavators did not identify them as such. These had a darker paste than local Quito majolica, and a thick white glaze. All were glazed on both inte- rior and exterior. Pieces includedplato hondo (deep plate) forms with blue decoration on the interior, one with the emblem of the Dominican order, and a sec- ond with the "IHS" insignia. Other plates had poly- chrome interior decoration in blue and brown. Several bowl fragments were also recovered, deco- rated in Blue on White on both interior and exterior, in floral and geometric patterns (Buys 1997; Buys et al. 1994:175-176).

The analysis of colonial contexts from the Moquegua Valley of Peru identified majolica from Panama as the most common non-Andean majolica recovered, found in many of the seventeenth-century winery contexts. These included Blue on White, Plain, and Polychrome "A" varieties (Rice 1997: 176; Smith 1991:307).

At Tarapaya in Bolivia, Mary Van Buren has exca- vated an elite recreational residence beside a lake out- side Potosl, dating to the first half of the seventeenth century. Majolica ceramics made up 3 percent of the total artifact assemblage at Tarapaya, with almost the entire majolica collection made up of Panamanian wares (Van Buren 1999: 116) .

Table 1. Known Distribution of Panamanian Majolica in the New World.

Decoration Location Green Lead Plain White Blue on White Polychrome Blue Reference St. Augustine, Plorida X X Deagan 1987:92; Fairbanks 1972:160, 162 Atochawreck(1622) X X - Marken 1994:231-232 Santo Domingo, Doniinican Republic Lister and Lister 1974:46 Soconuscot Mexico Gasco 1987:31v316 Costa Rica Arrea Siennann 1989:461 Anfigua, Guatemala X X X TonyPasinski, (personal communication 1999) PanamaVieja, Panama X - X X X X I)eagan 1987:92; Goggin 1968:4849; Long 1964; Rovira 1984;

Rovita 1997 SanLorenzo, Panama X Goggin 1968:49 Madden L*e, Panama X Goggin 1968:49 Cartagena, Colombia X Goggin 1968:47, 165; Lister and Lister 1974:45 Quito, Ecuador X X Buys et al. 1994:179176; Buys 1997:117 Cuenca, Ecuador X X X X Jamieson 2000:187-190 Santa Elena, Ecuador X Bushnell 1951:126; Goggin 1968:48; Lister and Lister 1974:45 Baeza (Amazon region), Ecuador Lister and Lister 1974:45; Porras 1974 Lima, Pelu X X X X CardFnasMartin 1971;FloresEspinozaetal. 1981:40 52;

Lister and Lister 1974:45 MoqueguaValley, Peru X X X Rice 1997:176; Suiith 1991:307 Tarapaya(Potosi),Bolivia X VanBuren 1999:11S118 Buenos Aixs, Santa Fe, Catanlarca, Schavelzon 2000:46 47. Mendoza and NeuquEn, Argentina

=* v

o

-

:t

o r

-

z

I m

:X

o r Oz

:t r

z

m cn

n

20 cm

a < t 9 * brown m blue

b \ -1--

28 cm

c \ I /

28 cm

d\ /

1 16cm

k 14cm

fe [ t

o 5cm

52 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 1, 2001

Panamanian Material from Cuenca, Ecuador

Ongoing excavations at urban domestic sites in

Cuenca, Ecuador regularly encounter Panamanian

majolicas (Jamieson 2000). Cuenca was formally

founded as a Spanish city in 1557 on the ruins of the

Inca center of Tomebamba, and remained the main

regional urban center throughout the colonial period.

The urban population controlled trade from a rural

hinterland that provided livestock, grain, and textiles

to the regional market, and as far south as Lima

(Andrien 1994; Palomeque 1982). These urban exca-

vations are the first published examples of colonial

archaeology in the city. An Ecuadorian government

salvage project in the colonial cathedral of Cuenca

(Carrillo 1998) has also encountered scatteredexam-

ples of Panamanian majolica. Excavation at urban domestic sites in Cuenca is

providing evidence of status, ethnic, and class dif-

ferences in the material culture of the colonial city.

Different urban groups created and maintained a web

of caste relations (Boyer 1997) in the city. House-

hold material culture was an important part of these

relationships, providing the material framework in

which relationships were reproduced daily in prac-

tice. By combining archaeological excavations with

detailed research in the Cuenca Notarial Archives,

we are able to study the ways domestic material cul-

ture was used to reinforce identity by different caste

groups in the colonial city. Three urban and three rural houses have been

archaeologically tested so far (Jamieson 2000). Pana-

manian majolica was not recovered in any of the

rural contexts. In contrast, Panamanian majolica has

been recovered from all urban excavations, although

largely in later, chronologically mixed, contexts

(Jamieson 2000:186-190). One urban site, at 9-20 Calle Bollvar, half a block

west of the main colonial plaza of Cuenca, has pro-

vided an intact early colonial context with Panama

Plain majolica. The property is an urban house that

has been occupied continuously since the late six-

teenth century. Documents from the Cuenca Notar-

ial Archives show that prices for property on this

block for the mid-to-late seventeenth century ranged

from 600 to 2,300 pesos, and, despite subdivision of

the urban properties in the first half of the eighteenth

century, prices remained in the range of 400 to 1,900

pesos. All property owners on the block were veci-

nos, or citizens of Cuenca, implying full rights in

Figure 3. Panamanian majolica recovered in Cuenca,

Ecuador: (a) brimmed plate; (b) and (c) ptato hondo; (d)

ponchero; (e) and (f) porringer.

colonial society (Jamieson 2000: 155-156). This con-

trasts sharply with more peripheral areas of the city,

where prices in the range of 60 to 150 pesos for a

house in the seventeenth or eighteenth century were

more the norm (Jamieson 2000:85). Initial excavation of an elite colonial residence at

9-20 Calle Bollvar, consisting of a 1 m square exca-

vationin 1994, has been described in detail elsewhere

(Jamieson 2000: 143-l SS). A two-by-two meter area

excavated on the same property in 1999, 4 m south

of the previous unit, encountered the same early colo-

nial context. Material from this excavation is still

undergoing analysis, but analysis of the recovered

Panama majolica from the context is included here.

Deposits in the upper portion of the stratigraphy were

chronologically mixed, but beginning at 92 cm below

surface a compact black midden deposit in both units

contained domestic refuse with large quantities of

animal bone and ceramics. This context extended to

Jamieson] MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES 53

Figure 4. Panamanian majolica recovered in Cuenca, Ecuador.

a depth of over 2 m below surface, and is thought to be the result of midden deposition in a stream bed.

The lack of locally made majolica and the pres- ence of Panama Plain majolica in the midden con- text indicates that this sealed deposit dates to the very late sixteenth or first half of the seventeenth cen- tury. There were 962 artifacts in this context from both excavations, excluding faunal remains and architectural fragments. Of these artifacts 36 were majolica ceramic fragments, making up 3.74 percent of the total. One of the majolica sherds was Sevilla White, while the remaining 35 were all PanamaPlain sherds (Figure 4). The lack of any sherds of Panama Blue on White or Panama Polychrome vessels indi- cates that the context dates to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century.

There were three identifiable Panama Plain ves- sel forms from this context: deep plates (plato hondo) (Figures 3b and c), a serving bowl (ponchero) (Figure 3d), and porringers (or lug-han- dled escudilla) (Figures 3e and f). These forms match well with other late sixteenth-century or early seventeenth-century examples (Deagan 1987:55; Marken 1994: 142-157). The presence of porringers

in this assemblage reflects a focus on very traditional vessel forms in Panamanian exports to Cuenca. The porringer shape was common in medieval Europe and in fifteenth-century Andalusian wares, which were dominated by drinking bowls, footless plates, and porringers (Lister and Lister 1982:44, 88; Lis- ter and Lister 1987: 109,112). That porringers were still made in the early seventeenth century inAndalu- sia is clear from the Columbia Plain porringer recov- ered from the wreck oftheAtocha (1622), along with several silver examples of this vessel form (Marken 1994:153-155). The white-glazed porringer was also a common product of the sixteenth-century majolica industry in Mexico City (Lister and Lister 1982:22).

Stray fragments of Panama majolica have been recovered in chronologically mixed contexts at the other two urban sites excavated in Cuenca's urban core. These include green-lead glazed, Panama Plain majolica, Blue on White, and Polychrome "A" majolica. One example of a Panama Polychrome "A" brimmed plate rim (Figure 3a) is of interest in that it matches the decorative motif illustrated by Deagan (1987:Figure 4.52a).

54

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Aguirre 1991:34; Idrovo

Uriguen 1990:29).

I have [Vol. 12, No. 1,2001

The Replacement of Panama Majolica with

Locally Produced Andean Wares

A synthesis of colonial Andean majolica production

has yet to be written, and would require research in

many Andean repositories, and cooperation with a

wide variety of researchers. As a first step in that

direction, it is important that all researchers dealing

with Andean colonial archaeology be able to recog-

nize majolica produced in Panama. Panamanian

majolica is a chronological indicator of early colo-

nial Andean contexts, and was traded extensively

throughout the Andes.

Archaeologists currently have little information

on the production centers for colonial period majolica

in the Andes. It is possible, as Florence and Robert

Lister suggested (1974:47-48), that the end of

majolica production at PanamaVieja in 1671 was the

impetus for the expansion of local majolica manu-

facturing centers in the Andes. They suggested that

the earliest Andean majolica production occurred in

the mid-eighteenth century, but there is some evi-

dence that majolica was produced in Andean centers

before that date. The recovery of majolica sherds in association

with Inkaic vessels and a late sixteenth-century coin

in the vicinity of Quito suggests an early date for ini-

tial majolica production in Quito (Fournier Garcia

1989:63), although these pieces might be imported

Panamanian wares (Rice 1997: 177). Documentary

evidence shows that the Jesuits were producing loza

(glazed ceramics) in Quito by 1635, and that there

was a great regional demand for them (Vargas

1987: 131). The term "loza" could however refer to

lead-glazed wares rather than tin-glazed majolica.

Archaeologically recovered majolica in Quito colo-

nial contexts has an "orange" paste with few inclu-

sions, a thin and uneven tin glaze, and green

decoration. The vessel forms included the plato

hondo, bowl, lebrillo (straight-sided everted bowl),

and olla. It seems clear that these were produced

locally, but the beginning date for the industry is

unknown (Buys 1997).

The date of the introduction of majolica ceramic

production in Cuenca, Ecuador is also still unclear.

The earliest known reference to a neighborhood

where glazed ceramics were manufactured in Cuenca

isfrom 1858(Villavicencio 1858:429),anditisonly

in the last twenty years that this neighborhood has

ceased to be a focus of ceramic production (Gonzalez

been unable to locate documentary evidence for

majolica production in Cuenca in the colonial period,

although Florence and Robert Lister (1974:4748)

suggest that such production began in Cuenca by the

mid-eighteenth century. Locally made majolica from

Cuenca has been recovered at all domestic sites in

the region and is fully described elsewhere (Jamieson

2000). The paste of Cuenca materials is reddish yel-

low to pink in color (7.5YR 6/8 to 7.5YR8/4), with

few visible inclusions. The background tin glaze is

thin and unevenly applied, with green and/or brown

decoration. It seems clear that majolica ceramics were pro-

duced in Lima during the colonial period (Acevedo

1986), but details of the chronology and varieties of

Lima majolica are very sketchy. John Goggin

(1968:165) suggested that Panamanian majolica,

with its distinctive red paste, might actually have

been manufactured in Lima and exported northward

to Panama. This hypothesis has now been disproved

through our greater knowledge of the majolica indus-

try at Panama Vieja, so we are left with little under-

standing of the majolica industry in colonial Lima.

The excavations of the Osambela House in Lima

uncovered considerable quantities of majolica. Isabel

Flores Espinoza compared these ceramics to a sur-

face collection from Panama Vieja, and stated that

the polychrome majolica from Lima is "exactly the

same" as the Panamanian sherds "except in the color

ofthe paste" (Flores Espinozaetal.1981:52). Unfor-

tunately there is no description of how the pastes dif-

fer. With the current published evidence it seems

likely that similar polychrome majolica was pro-

duced in Lima and Panama Vieja in the seventeenth

century, but that the pastes were distinct.

The extensive excavation of colonial wineries in

the Moquegua Valley of Peru revealed two distinct

majolica wares proposed to have been made locally

in southern Peru. Contisuyu Tin-Enameled ware has

either a cream to bluish green or bright greenish yel-

low background glaze, with green and black poly-

chrome decoration. Mojinete Glazed and Enameled

ware is on the same paste, but combines lead glaz-

ing with the tin glazes (Rice 1997:175). Both were

recovered from contexts dating after 1600, and were

common by the late eighteenth century. Vessel forms

were most commonly plates and bowls, with some

jars, cups, andacandleholder(Smith 1991:253). The

source of these wares is still unknown, although Rice

MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES 55 Jamieson]

(1997:174) suggests they may have been produced in Pupuja, Bolivia. The development of majolica manufacturing in Bolivia is poorly understood, although there is documentary evidence for the exis- tence of a glazed ceramic industry in the town of Pupuja by 1797 (Tschopik 1950:202).

A 1588 contract from Cuzco, Peru refers to the establishment of a workshop to make glazed earth- enwares (Acevedo 1986:21), although once again this may refer to lead-glazed wares. Cuzco majolica from museum collections is described with low tin content in the glaze, and usually only glazed on one side of the vessel. Some Cuzco products were not actually majolica, but in fact a lead-glazed ware with a white slip under the glaze to imitate the opacity of tin glazes. The decoration was in brown and green (Lister and Lister 1974:48).

The Need for Chemical Sourcing of Andean Majolica

The use of physical techniques to identify sources of Panamanian and South American majolica will give us greater ability in the future to answer many questions about the manufacture and trade of these ceramics.

Over the last twenty years several physical tech- niques have been used to characterize the origins of New World majolica through the study of their pastes. Petrographic study, optical-emission spectrography, and most successfully, neutron activation analysis have all been used. A dozen samples of Panama Poly- chrome recovered from several sites in Panama have been analyzed using gamma-ray-induced thermolu- minescence, and all had a consistent thermolumi- nescence curve that was distinct from samples from Puebla, Mexico and from Spain (Vaz and Cruxent 1978:290). Neutron activation analysis has been used to differentiate majolica manufactured in Mexico from that made in Spain (Maggetti et al. 1984; Olin and Sayre 1975; Olin et al. 1978), and to differenti- ate Mexico City production from that of Puebla (Olin and Blackman 1989).

For South American colonial majolica, the use of neutron activation analysis has so far been minimal, with one study comparing three majolica sherds from PanamaVieja, two sherds from Cuzco, Peru, and one sherd from Quito, Ecuador. Sherds from each of the three locations had a distinct signature, suggesting that a larger study would clarify the NAA signatures for majolica made in each of these colonial centers

(Olin et al. 1978:22>227). None of these sherds was from well-dated archaeological contexts, which makes it difficult to characterize how representative they are. In order to undertake a serious study of majolica trade for western South America in the Spanish colonial period, a large sample of excavated sherds from various colonial centers in Panama and western South America needs to be analyzed for physical comparison of the pastes. Steps toward this goal in the near future will include chemical char- acterization of the pastes of majolica recovered in the Moquegua Valley of Peru (Rice 1997:180 note 1), and the chemical characterization of majolica recovered in Cuenca, Ecuador by the author.

Conclusions

The act of dining in the Spanish colonies, as in other contexts, actively redefined social relations on a daily basis (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984). Majolica ceramics reproduced Spanish ethnicity and status in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century New World (Deagan 1974, 1983; Ewen 1991). The supply of such wares, however, varied in different parts of the empire at different time periods. In the first half of the sixteenth century, majolica came from Spain, and particularly Andalusia, exported by ship to the Caribbean to supply all of the New World Spanish colonies. New World products became available in the second half of the sixteenth century and the begin- ning of the seventeenth. Proximity to Iberia, and later to the industries of Mexico City and Puebla, meant that within the Viceroyalty of New Spain majolica was relatively common in archaeological assem- blages (Deagan 1983; Ewen 1991). In the Viceroy- alty of Peru, however, the situation was different.

Recent excavations have revealed that majolica may generally form a smaller part of domestic archaeological assemblages in Andean contexts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it does in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. This contrast is very likely due to restricted access to majolica in the early colonial Andes, both because of the immense distance in transporting majolica from Spain, and restrictions on trade with the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Smith 1991 :318; Van Buren 1999: 119).

These external factors also led to differences in majolica manufacturing and trade within the two viceroyalties. From some time in the sixteenth cen- tury until 1671, the city of Panama produced lead- glazed and majolica ceramics that supplied the

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 1,2001 56

Viceroyalty of Peru. It was a city far from the major urban centers of the viceroyalty such as Quito, Lima, and Potosi. The later replacement of Panamanian wares by locally produced majolica in the Andes is still poorly understood. The Listers suggested that Andean majolica largely postdates the mid-eigh- teenth century, but some evidence for earlier prod- ucts does exist. In highland centers such as Quito, Cuenca, and Cuzco, however, local majolica is uni- formly described as thinly glazed, with low tin con- tent in the background glaze, and decorations in green and brown. It appears to have been created to supply local markets, in contrast to the situation in New Spain, where high-quality majolica from Mex- ico City and Puebla supplied wide areas of the empire. It may be some time before we can clearly distinguish between the majolica produced in dif- ferent Andean centers, a task that will be greatly aided by the use of physical analysis such as ther- moluminescence and neutron activation.

If fine-quality majolica for regional distribution were produced in Andean South America during the colonial period, the Lima industry would appear to be the most likely candidate. Current evidence sug- gests that Lima majolica is distinct from the high- land products. Lima may have produced a high-quality material very similar in appearance to Panama, with a similar decorative style and palette (Acevedo 1986; Flores Espinoza et al. 1981), but evidence for this is still very tentative. Only further comparison of archaeologically recovered ceramics, and physical analysis of their sources, will be able to clarify the types of majolica produced through- out the Andes in the colonial period. Accomplish- ing this task will lead to a much greater understanding of the colonial archaeology of the Viceroyalty of Peru, one of the core areas of the Spanish New World empire.

Acknowledgments. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada provided financial assistance for the completion of this research, in the form of both doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships, and by the University of Calgary, Canada. Excavations in Cuenca were undertaken with the per- mission of the Instituto Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural del Ecuador. Three anonymous reviewers provided many useful suggestions to improve this paper. Carla Giles Soares translated the abstract into Spanish. I would also thank Jose-Luis Espinoza and Laurie Beckwith for their invaluable assistance and support in the completion of this work.

References Cited

Acevedo, Sara 1986 Trayectoria de la ceramica vidriada en el Peru. In Vidri-

ados y mayolica del Peru, by Francisco Stastny and Sara Acevedo, pp. 19-29. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru.

Andrien, Kenneth J. 1994 The Kingdom of Quito, 1690-1830: The State and

Regional Development. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK.

Arrea Sierman, Floria 1989 La mayolica: arqueologia Colonial. In Historia general

de Costa Rica, vol. 2, edited by Maria Nassar Perez and Enrique Sallares, pp. 447-475. Euroamericana, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Baker, Henry A. 1968 Archaeological Excavations at Panama La Vieja, 1968.

Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Borah, Woodrow 1954 Early Colonial Trade and Navigation between Mexico

and Peru. Ibero-Americana No. 38, Berkeley. Bourdieu, Pierre

1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Boyer, Richard E. 1997 Negotiating Calidad: The Everyday Struggle for Status

in Mexico. HistoricalArchaeology 31(1): 64 73. Bushnell, Geoffrey H. S.

l The Archaeology of the Santa Elena Peninsula in South- western Ecuador. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Buys, Jozef 1997 Monumentos y fragmentos: arqueologia historica en el

Ecuador. In Approaches to the Historical Archaeology of Mexico, Central and SouthAmerica, edited by Janine Gasco, Greg C. Smith, and Patricia Fournier-Garcia, pp. 1 1 1-1 19. The Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Buys, Jozef, Byron Camino, Alfredo Santamaria, and Pilar Zam- brano

1994 La arqueologEa del Convento Santo Domingo, Quito: informe final, vol. 1. Proyecto de Cooperacion Tecnica Ecu- atoriano-Belga, Quito.

Cardenas Martin, Mercedes 1971 Huaca Palomino (valle del Rimac): fragmentaria vidri-

ada fina con decoracion en colores. BoletEn del Seminario de Arqueologfa (Pontifica Universidad Catolica, Lima) 10:6147.

Carrillo B., Antonio 1998 Informe de la prospeccion arqueologica realizada en

la Catedral Vieja en Cuenca: temporadas 1996-1997. Sub- mitted to the Instituto Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural, Direccion Regional del Austro, Cuenca.

Charlton, Thomas H., Patricia Fournier, and Juan Cervantes 1995 La ceramica del periodo colonial temprano en

Tlatelolco: el caso de la loza roja brunida. In Presencias y encuentros: Investigaciones arqueologicas de salvamento, pp. 135-155. Subdireccion de Salvamento Arqueologico, Instituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia, Mexico, D.F.

Cruxent, Jose M. 1979 Elementos decorativos de la mayolica colonial

panamena: reconstruction tentativa, siglos XVI-XVIIT. In Curso de restauracion de bienes muebles especializado en ceramologEa historica (precolombina y colonial), pp. 13- 103. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Direccion Nacional de

Jamieson] MAJOLICA IN THE EARLY COLONIAL ANDES

57

Patrimonio Historico, Panama City Deagan, Kathleen

1974 Sex, Status and Role in the Mestizaje of Spanish Colo- nial Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. Academic Press, New York.

1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800. Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Ewen, Charles R. 1991 From Spaniard to Creole: TheArchaeology of Cultural

Formation at Puerto Real, Haiti. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Fairbanks, Charles 1972 The Cultural Significance of Spanish Ceramics. In

Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby, pp. 141-174. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Flores Espinoza, Isabel, Ruben Garcia Soto, and Lorenzo Huer- tas V.

1981 Investigacion arqueologica-historica de la Casa Osam- bela (o de Oquendo)-Lima. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima, Peru.

Fournier Garcia, Patricia 1989 20 Tiestos de mayolica procedentes de Ecuador. In Tres

estudios sobre ceramica historica, edited by Patricia Fouloier Garcia, Maria de Lourdes Fournier, and Eduardo Silva T., pp. 6246. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City, Mexico.

Gasco, Janine 1987 Cacao and the Economic Integration of Native Society

in Colonial Socunusco, New Spain. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Giddens, Anthony 1984 Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Struc-

turation. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Goggin, John M.

1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Six- teenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 73, New Haven.

Gonzalez Aguirre, Ivan 1991 Cuenca:barriosdetierrayfuego. FundacionPaulRivet,

Cuenca, Ecuador. Idrovo Uriguen, Jaime

1990 Siglos XVI y XVII: la desarticulacion del mundo andino y sus efectos en al alfareria indigena del austro Ecuatoriano. In Ceramica colonial y vida cotidiana, edited by Jaime Idrovo Uriguen and Alexandra Kennedy Troya, pp. 21-38. Fundacion Paul Rivet, Cuenca, Ecuador.

Jamieson, Ross W. 2000 Domestic Architecture and Power: The Historical

Archaeology of Colonial Ecuador. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York.

Lister, Florence C., and Robert H. Lister 1974 Maiolica in Colonial Spanish America. Historical

Archaeology 8: 17-52. 1982 Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley of Mex-

ico. Anthropological Papers No. 39, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

1987 Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A Cul- tural Registerfrom the Third Century B.C. to 1700. Univer- sity of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Long, George A. 1964 Excavations at Panama Vieja. Florida Anthropologist

17(2): 10v109.

1967 Archaeological Investigations at Panama la Vieja. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Uni- versity of Florida, Gainesville.

Maggetti, Marino, Harold Westley, and Jacqueline S. Olin 1984 Provenance and Technical Studies of Mexican Majolica

Using Elemental and Phase Analysis, In Archaeological Chemistry III, edited by J. B. Lambert, pp.151-191. Amer- ican Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Marken, Mitchell W. 1994 Pottezy from Spanish Shipwrecks, 1500-1800. Univer-

sity Press of Florida, Gainesville. Munsell Color Company

1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, Baltimore. Olin, Jacqueline S., and M. James Blackman

1989 Compositional Classification of Mexican Majolica Ceramics of the Spanish Colonial Period. In Archaeologi- cal Chemistry lV, edited by Ralph O. Allen, pp. 87-112. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Olin, Jacqueline S., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre 1978 Elemental Compositions of Spanish and Spanish-Colo-

nial Majolica Ceramics in the Identification of Provenience. InArchaeological Chemistry Vol. 11, edited by Giles F. Carter, pp.200-229. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

Olin, Jacqueline S., and Edward V. Sayre 1975 Neutron ActivationAnalysis of Majolica from Spanish

Colonial Sites in Meso-America. Bulletin of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 15(2):57-61.

Palomeque, Silvia 1982 Historia Economica de Cuenca y de sus relaciones

regionales. In Ensayos sobre historia regional: la region centro sur, editedby Claudio Cordero E., pp.117-177. Insti- tuto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador.

Porras, Pedro 1974 Historia y arqueologla de la ciudad espanola Baeza de

los Quijos. Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador, Quito.

Rice, Prudence M. 1997 Tin-Enameled Wares of Moquegua, Peru. InApproaches

to the Historical Archaeology of Mexico, Central and South America, edited by Janine Gasco, Greg C. Smith, and Patri- cia Fournier-Garcia, pp. 173-180. The Institute of Archae- ology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Rovira, Beatriz E. 1983 Ceramica historica en el Istmo de Panama. Instituto

Nacional de Cultura, Direccion Nacional de Patrimonio Historico, Panama City.

1984 La ceramica historica en la Ciudad de Panama: tres con- textos estratigraficos. In Recent Developments in Isthmian Archaeology, edited by Frederick W. Lange, pp. 283-315. BAR International Series 212, Oxford, U.K.

1997 Hecho en Panama: la manufactura colonial de mayoli- cas. Revista Nacional de Cultura (Panama) 27:67-85.

Schavelzon, Daniel 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Buenos Aires. A City at

the End of the World . KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Smith, Greg C. 1991 Heard it through the Grapevine:Andean and European

Contributions to Spanish Colonial Culture and Viticulture in Moquegua, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Tschopik Jr., Harry 1950 AnAndean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective.

American Antiquity 15: 19S218.

58

Van Buren, Mary ology, edited by David L. Browman, pp. 277-290. Mouton 1997 ContinuityofChange?:VerticalArchipelagosinSouth- Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.

ern Peru during the Early Colonial Period. In Approaches to Villavicencio, Manuel the Historical Archaeology of Mexico, Central and South 1858 Geografla de la republica del Ecuador. R. Craighead, America, edited by Janine Gasco, Greg C. Smith, and Patri- New York, New York. cia Fournier-Garcia, pp. 155-164. The Institute of Archae- Ward, Christopher ology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1993 Imperial Panama: Commerce and Conflict in Isthmian

1999 Tarapaya: An Elite Spanish Residence near Colonial America, 1550-1800. University of New Mexico Press, Potosi in Comparative Perspective. Historical Archaeology Albuquerque. 33(2): 108-122.

Vargas, Jose M. 1987 La economla polltica del Ecuador durante la colonia.

Biblioteca Basica del Pensamiento Ecuatoriano, Banco Cen- tral del Ecuador, Quito.

Vaz, J. Eduardo, and Jose M. Cruxent 1978 Majolica Pottery: Determination of Its Provenience Received June 2, 2000; accepted October 7, 2000; revised

UsingThermoluminescence. InAdvancesinAndeanArchae- November 28, 2000.

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 12, No. 1, 2001