J Radioanal Nucl Chem
DOI 10.1007/s10967-013-2597-5
Majolica ware in the New Spain: an evaluation through NAA
S. De la Vega • A. Castañeda-Gómez del Campo
M. Jiménez-Reyes • A. Tellez-Nieto •
D. Tenorio
Received: 12 April 2013
Ó Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013
Abstract The results of a study about Majolica ceramics
recovered from three sites located in Mexico City are here
presented. The set of 83 samples includes several local
ceramic-types dating from the Colonial Period, the nine-
teenth century and the present day, plus some foreign
specimens and clay samples from the Puebla area. Fourteen
chemical elements present in the samples were analyzed
and measured by means of neutron activation, and statis-
tically the following groups were established: two groups
that were presumably manufactured in Mexico City, two
from Puebla, one from outside the Mexican boundaries,
most probably Sevilla-Triana pottery, plus three more
groups from unidentified origins. It was also found out that
botijas were both imported and produced domestically.
These results are discussed against the relevant literature
on known provenance, chronology and manufacture stan-
dards of this kind of pottery.
Keywords Mayolica
New Spain
NAA
Introduction
The manufacture of the ceramic covered with a vitrified
mixture of lead and stain oxides arrived to the Iberian
S. De la Vega
A. Castañeda-Gómez del Campo

A. Tellez-Nieto
Escuela Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia, Calle Zapote s/n,
Delegación Tlalpan, 14040 Mexico, DF, Mexico
A. Castañeda-Gómez del Campo
M. Jiménez-Reyes

A. Tellez-Nieto
D. Tenorio (&)
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares,
Apdo. Postal 18-1027, 11801 Mexico, DF, Mexico
e-mail: dolores.tenorio@inin.gob.mx
•
Peninsula with Muslim potters and even after the demise of
the Caliphate of Cordoba the production of this kind of
pottery continued its development, now as an integral part of
the traditions of the Spanish reign, acquiring the name
Majolica due to its important trade in the Mallorca Island [1].
The importation of Spanish Majolica to the New Spain
started right after the Conquest [2]; nonetheless, the earliest
records of local production date also from the sixteenth
century, both in the Viceroyalty’s capital (at the present
Mexico City) as in the City of Puebla [3] (see Fig. 1). The
New Spain industry was initially dominated by Spanish
potters [4–6], whose first step must have been finding the
most suitable clays and glaze ingredients [4]. Those pro-
duction centers that developed from the sixteenth to the
nineteenth century were clustered in guilds [7–9], tightly
located in the west of the Viceroyalty’s capital and in
downtown Puebla [8, 10, 11].
Three stylistic influences are notoriously evident in the
Majolica from Puebla: the Moorish, the Spanish and the
Chinese, the latest in the dark blue designs with oriental
motifs made on white background [12]. Hoffmann [13]
dated four stylistic tendencies for the Majolica ceramics
from Puebla: (1) Hispanic-Moorish from 1575 to
1700/1735; (2) Talavera proper from 1600 to 1790; (3)
Chinese influence from 1650 to 1790; (4) Mexican or
Puebla style, from 1775 to 1860. Just like their colleagues
from the Viceroyalty’s capital, the potters from Puebla
mixed several clays in order to prepare the pastes. Cer-
vantes [3] wrote about the extraction of black clay from the
Loreto Hill surroundings, and of pinkish-white clay, known
as white clay, found near Teotimehuacan, some 42 km
from the City of Puebla; both were used for the manufac-
ture of Majolica.
The guilds were one form of socio-economic organiza-
tion that emerged in Spain in the XIII century [8] and was
123

Fig. 1 Map of the Mexican Republic. 1 Mexico City. 2 City of
Puebla
eventually established also in the New Spain. These guilds
were controlled by the so-called Ordinances, whose main
purpose was to put under written regulation the production
process and the internal organization of the workshops,
while also strengthen the quality control of the products.
Puebla’s potter guild was set up in 1653 [14], and that of
the Viceroyalty’s capital in 1677; both remained active up
until 1814, at the least [9]. The Ordinances of Mexico City
are considered less rigid than those of Puebla; probably
because its production was mainly focused on the more
common and simpler white pottery [11].
The Majolica manufacture process has remained prac-
tically unchanged through time: firstly, the sources of clays
must be selected; secondly, the mixture is subjected to a
decanting process and, once obtained an adequate plastic-
ity, shaping is done with a potter’s wheel; drying must be
slow in order to avoid any cracking. Two firings are usually
needed, the first one for biscuit-sintering and the second for
the glaze used as decoration. The kilns are built with
firebricks, which are fastened with three girths of iron; to
keep the vessels from sticking together during the firing
process, each one is put inside a cured-clay box. Glazing is
prepared with a mixture of glass-sand (silica-rich sand
usually from El Carmen Tequexquitla, Tlaxcala), lead, and
tin, and the painted decoration is done with metallic oxides
such as cobalt blue, iron oxide, and antimony oxide [3, 11,
15].
Past studies of Mexican Majolica pottery already have
made use of various archaeometric techniques, such as
neutron activation analysis (NAA) [1, 5, 9, 16–18], proton
induced X-ray emission (PIXE) and scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) [17]. The motivations behind these
studies range from determining the sources of raw mate-
rials and the local and regional dynamics of production,
123
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
consumption, exportation and importation, to compare
between what is written in the historical sources and the
ceramics themselves.
The materials analyzed in the present study are kept at
the Ceramic Storage Room of the National School of
Anthropology and History (ENAH); they belonged to three
different projects under the direction of the Division of
Rescue Archaeology of the National Institute of Anthro-
pology and History (INAH):
(A) The Santa Isabel Archaeological Project was carried
out between 1993 and 1994 due to the construction
of an underground parking lot just south of the Fine
Arts Palace in downtown Mexico City. That spot was
where the Santa Isabel convent was located between
the XVII century and 1861; the building was divided
and sold in parts used for stores and dwelling houses,
to be finally demolished in 1901. Domestic and
imported Majolica ceramics were recovered in the
excavations. The spatial distribution of these
materials shows that they were associated with
both closed areas of the inner part of the convent,
and used as filler in floor leveling. Association with
Pre-Hispanic materials was found in the deepest
excavation levels [19]
(B) The Hidalgo Complex Project began in 1979. The
site is located near downtown Mexico City, bound to
the south by Hidalgo Avenue and to the north and
west by the Reforma Promenade (Avenida Reforma)
and Valerio Trujano Street. The digging of test pits
showed that the ceramic material was associated
either to the remains of the San Juan de Dios
Hospital, built in 1582 and replaced in 1729 by the
San Juan de Dios Temple, or to remains of houses,
built in the lots given to Spanish families between
1527 and 1534 [20, 21]
(C) The Mexico City’s Subway Line 8 Project [22]
covered many kilometers between the city’s
downtown and eastern limits. It was divided in
several stretches, where everything from colonial
temples, hospitals, a cemetery, and a school building,
to a more recent military headquarter were found.
The materials now kept at the Ceramic Storage
Room of the ENAH, and chosen for the present
study, originally came from the archaeological
surveys of the spots where relevant archaeological
elements were found during the construction works
The identification of macroscopic and microscopic
attributes can help in the solution of various problems
related to the production, manufacture and use of the
Majolica ceramics. Hence, the goals of the present research
were: (1) to explore the relation between the source of the
raw materials and/or finding site and the current ceramic
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
typology, taking into consideration both production quality
and chronology; (2) with the support of multielemental
chemical analysis by means of NAA, and a multivariate
statistical analysis applied to such data, establish the dif-
ferent paste chemical compositions found among the
Majolicas produced in Puebla, Mexico City and overseas;
(3) likewise, to relate the Majolica’s physical and chemical
characteristics with the colonial ordinances, to check how
consistent is the relationship; (4) to clarify the origin of the
botijas.
Experimental part
Sample preparation
The sample selection criteria were based on the diagnostic
attributes of each one of the ceramic-types [6, 23, 24],
namely color and texture of the paste, decoration color and
motifs, and glaze. A total of 79 archaeological specimens,
plus one modern ceramic sherd from Puebla, and samples
of raw clays took from a workshop located at Quarter de La
Luz (Puebla) were selected; present-day clay sources on
the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley are the same to those exploited
in previous centuries [11]. A description of the samples and
their provenance is shown in Table 1, and pictures of some
of them are presented in Fig. 2.
All of the ceramic samples were drilled in order to
obtain ca. 600 mg of paste material free of surface con-
tamination. Every paste sample was then grounded with an
electric agate mortar (FRITSCH-Pulverisette) and the
resulting powder was dried out at 353 K for 24 h.
Nuclear activation analysis (NAA)
Irradiation was performed in a TRIGA MARK III nuclear
reactor at a thermal neutron flux of 1 9 1013 cm-2s-1.
Samples of 200 mg of ceramic paste, irradiated for 2 h,
were allowed to decay for 12–14 days, c-ray spectra being
recorded for 1 h. All radioactivity values were corrected
taking into account half-life and decay times. The certified
reference material used to calculate the elemental con-
centrations was Soil-7 certified by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Nuclear data of the isotopes
identified on the c spectra are given elsewhere [25].
Results and discussion
Macroscopic data
The criteria to evaluate the ceramic pastes are based on the
stipulations given by the colonial Ordinances, which
described several ceramic-types in agreement with the
regulations at that time [11]. To the Ordinances, ceramics
were grouped in Fine, Semi-fine and Common. Nowadays,
a ceramic classification is usually based on physical char-
acteristics such as type of paste, glaze, decorative motifs
and color.
Table 2 shows the Munsell Soil Chart equivalents for
the colors of Majolica ceramic pastes of the present
research. Pastes of different colors were observed for one
ceramic-type or variety. On the contrary, regarding the
glazes, the 5Y 8/2- Pale yellow was found in several types
(Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome, Puebla Polychrome,
Aranama Polychrome, Abo Polychrome, Mexico City
Green on Cream) and 5Y 7/2- Light gray in Fig Spring/San
Juan Polychrome and Puebla Polychrome.
The paste textures found on our analysis can be divided
into fine and semi-fine, the latter being slightly more por-
ous and having bigger inclusions particles than the first.
The pastes of semi-fine texture are usually rose to reddish
in color (see Table 2); their glazes are poor in quality and
have an inadequate use of colors in respect to what was
written about them in the respective Ordinances. Such is
the case of the following ceramic-types: Abo Polychrome,
Aranama, Mexico City Green on Cream, Fig Spring/San
Juan Polychrome, Puebla Polychrome and San Luis Blue
on White. On the other hand, fine pastes are light in color
(see for example Puaray and some varieties of Puebla Blue
on White in Table 2); ceramic sherds are completely
covered by glaze, in a color range between cream and
white. Excluding the Aranama type, decorations colors are
in agreement with the Ordinances guidelines. Due to what
is mentioned above, in the current study the identification
of ceramic-types was based in careful observations of the
paste, the design motifs and the glaze. The correlation
between the samples and their ceramic-type classification
is given in Table 1.
Chemical and statistical analyses
The elements measured by Neutron Activation Analysis
(NAA) were: scandium, iron, cobalt, rubidium, antimony,
cesium, lanthanum, cerium, europium, ytterbium, lutetium,
hafnium, thorium and uranium. The statistical calculation
was done by means of a multivariable program [26] in
order to identify groups with similar chemical composition.
Figure 3 shows the principal-component diagram obtained,
where eight groups are observed: G1 and G2 (Mexico
City), G3 (Puebla Polychrome), G4 (Puebla Blue on
White), G5 (imports), G6 (Romita Plain), G7 (San Luis
Polychrome) and G8 (San Elizario, Blue on White, and
Polychrome). The group assignment for every sample is
found in Table 1, and the chemical composition data for
each group is given in Table 3.
123
 J Radioanal Nucl Chem

Table 1 Specimens of Majolica ceramics Table 1 continued

a b
Site Key Ceramic-type Group Sitea Key Ceramic-type Groupb

A M 20 Abo Polychrome (tile) G1 M 53 Abo Polychrome G4

M 24 Tile Blue on White G1 M 55 Abo Polychrome G4
M 52 Botija G1 M 60 Huejotzingo Blue on White G4
M1 Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome G1 M 61 Huejotzingo Blue on White G4
M2 Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome G2 M 62 Huejotzingo Blue on White G4
M3 Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome G2 M 90 Puebla Blue on White G4
M4 Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome G2 M 91 Puebla Blue on White G4
M5 Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome G2 M 92 Puebla Blue on White G4
M 16 Mosaic G2 M 93 Puebla Blue on White G4
M 17 Mosaic G2 M 68 Botija G5
M 18 Mosaic G2 M 69 Botija G5
M 19 Mosaic G2 M 45 Romita Plain G6
M 57 Traza Polychrome G2 M 46 Romita Plain G6
M 48 Botija G3 M 63 San Elizario Blue on White G8
M 49 Botija G3 M 64 San Elizario Polychrome G8
M 50 Botija G3 C M 42 Tacuba Polychrome G1
M 51 Botija G3 M 13 Aucilla Polychrome G2
M 22 Puebla Blue on White G4 M 14 Aucilla Polychrome G2
M 23 Puebla Blue on White G4 M 15 Aucilla Polychrome G2
M 72 Foreign pottery, Green G5 M 31 Puebla Polychrome G3
M 73 Foreign pottery, White G5 M 32 Puebla Polychrome G3
M 74 Foreign pottery, Blue G5 M 33 Puebla Polychrome G3
M 75 Foreign pottery, Blue G5 M 34 Puebla Polychrome G3
B M6 Mexico City White G1 M 39 Puebla Polychrome G3
M7 Mexico City White G1 M 40 Puebla Polychrome G3
M8 Mexico City White G1 M 41 Puebla Polychrome G3
M 58 Mexico City White G1 M 35 Puaray Polychrome G3
M 86 Mexico City Green on Cream G1 M 36 Puaray Polychrome G3
M 88 Mexico City Green on Cream G1 M 43 San Luis Blue on White G3
M 89 Mexico City Blue on Cream G1 M 44 Puebla Blue on White G4
M 10 Mexico City Blue on Cream G1 M 37 San Luis Polychrome G7
M 67 Mexico City Blue on Cream G1 M 38 San Luis Polychrome G7
M 25 Santa Maria Polychrome G1 D M 77 White clay G4
M 26 Santa Maria Polychrome G1 M 78 Black clay G4
M 27 Santa Maria Polychrome G1 M 79 Prepared clay G4
M 28 Santa Maria Polychrome G1 M 80 Modern Talavera tile G4
M9 Tacuba Polychrome G1 a
A Santa Isabel project, B Hidalgo complex project, C Mexico City’s
M 65 Tacuba Polychrome G1 Subway Line 8 Project, D City of Puebla
M 70 Botija G1 b
Group according to the Principal Component Diagram (G1 and G2:
M 71 Flowerpot (XIX century) G1 Mexico City; G3: Puebla Polychrome, G4 Puebla Blue on White, G5
Imports, G6: Romita Plain, G7 San Luis Polychrome, G8 San Eliz-
M 47 Chamberpot Polychrome (XIX century) G1
ario, both Blue on White and Polychrome)
M 82 Abo Polychrome G1
M 83 Abo Polychrome G1 Regarding the chemical composition of the samples (see
M 54 Abo Polychrome G3 Table 3 and Fig. 3), it is worth noting that:
M 81 Abo Polychrome G3
(a) The pastes of those samples presumably manufactured
M 84 Aranama Polychrome G3
in Mexico City could be divided in two groups. The
M 85 Aranama Polychrome G3
main difference between them was their corresponding

123
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
Table 2 Colors of pastes of Majolica samples
Ceramic-type
Fig Spring/San Juan
Polychrome
Puebla Polychrome
Aranama Polychrome
Abo Polychrome
Mexico City Green on
Cream
Mexico City Blue on
Cream
Tacuba Polychrome
San Luis Blue on White
San Luis Polychrome
Santa Maria
Polychrome
Puaray Polychrome
Puebla Blue on White.
Variety lobes and
points
Puebla Blue on White.
Variety flower
Munsell soil chart equivalents for
colors of pastes
2.5 YR 6/6- Light red
2.5 Y 8/3- Pale yellow
10YR 8/2- Very pale brown
7.5 YR 8/4- Pink
10R 5/8- Red
5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
2.5 Y 8/2, 8/3- Pale yellow
7.5 YR 8/2- Pinkish white
7.5 YR 8/3- Pink
10 YR 8/2- Very pale brown
5Y 8/1- White
7.5YR 8/3- Pink
10YR 8/3, 8/4- Very pale brown
2.5YR 6/8- Light red
2.5YR 8/2- Pale yellow
10YR 7/3- Very pale brown
2.5Y 8/3- Pale yellow
7.5 YR 7/4- Pink
5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
2.5 YR 6/8- Light red
7.5YR 8/4, 8/3- Pink
7.5 YR 8/2- Pinkish white
2.5Y 8/2- Pale yellow
5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
10YR 8/3, 8/4- Very pale brown
7.5YR 8/3- Pink
7.5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
2.5YR 6/6- Light red
7.5 YR 8/4, 8/3- Pink
10YR 8/3, 8/2- Very pale brown
2.5Y 8/3, 8/2- Pale yellow
5YR 7/4- Pink
10YR 8/3- Very pale brown
2.5YR 7/6- Light red
5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
7.5 YR 8/3- Pink
10YR 8/2- Very pale brown
10YR 8/2- Very pale brown
7.5YR 8/4- Pink
5YR 6/8- Reddish yellow
2.5Y 8/2- Pale yellow
7.5 YR 8/4, 8/3- Pink
5YR 8/4- Pink
2.5YR 8/4- Pale yellow
2.5 YR 6/8- Light red
5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
7.5YR 8/4- Pink
Table 2 continued
Ceramic-type Munsell soil chart equivalents for
colors of pastes
Puebla Blue on White. 5YR 7/4- Pink
Variety vegetable 5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
motifs
2.5Y 8/3- pale yellow
2.5YR 6/8, 6/6- Light red
Puebla Blue on White. 5YR 8/4- Pink
Variety Chinese 5YR 6/6- Reddish yellow
motifs
10YR 8/4, 8/3- Very pale brown
2.5Y 8/2, 8/3- Pale yellow
Puebla Blue on White. 2.5 YR 6/8- Light red
Variety panels 5YR 8/3- Pink
10YR 8/2- Very pale Brown
5Y 8/2- Pale yellow
Puebla Blue on White. 5YR 7/6- Reddish yellow
Variety flowers 5YR 8/2- Very pale brown
Puebla Blue on White. 2.5Y 8/2- Pale yellow
Variety cobalt blue on 7.5YR 8/4- Pink
fake blue
concentration levels of antimony (mean values of 4.1
and 8 lg/g for G1 and G2, respectively) and cesium
(mean values of 5 and 10 lg/g for G1 and G2,
respectively); besides, G1 is chemically more
homogenous than G2. Elemental concentration values
for Majolicas of this origin are in statistical agreement
with those reported previously elsewhere [18], except
for cesium (2.46 lg/g)
(b) Ceramic pastes from Puebla also show marked
differences between them. Those Blue on White are
richer in several elements (mainly iron, cobalt,
lanthanum and cerium) and have less antimony than
the Polychrome ones. For the most part, the elemental
concentrations found by the present study agree with
those previously reported for Puebla Majolicas [18].
One thing to remark is that even if the iron content
(27.1 mg/g) of the Blue on White group (G4) is in
concordance with the literature data, it appears richer
in lanthanum and cerium than previously reported.
On the other hand, the Polychrome group ceramics
(G3) contain less iron (18.4 mg/g) than what is
showed in previous works
(c) Imported ceramics (G5) are richer in lanthanides and
actinides than the Mexico City and Puebla groups,
and their chemical composition is statistically
identical to the Sevilla-Triana and Sevilla potteries
[18, 28], according to a principal-component diagram
(figure not included)
(d) The paste of Romita Plain (G6) is clearly different
from the other groups: its content of iron, cobalt,
123

Fig. 2 Photographs of some
ceramic-types that were studied
in the present research (Scales:
10-cm). 1. Abo Polychrome.
2. Aranama Polychrome.
3. Mexico City Blue on Cream.
4. Mexico City green on cream.
5. Fig Spring/San Juan
Polychrome. 6. Puebla Blue on
White. 7. Puebla Polychrome.
8. San Luis Blue on White
Fig. 3 Principal component diagram of 83 Majolica ceramics. G1
and G2 Mexico City, G3 Puebla Polychrome, G4 Puebla Blue on
White, G5 Imports, G6 Romita Plain, G7 San Luis Polychrome, G8
San Elizario (Blue on White and Polychrome). Confidence interval of
ellipses: 0.9
lanthanides and actinides is higher than that of the rest
of the ceramics. It is possible that this pottery, defined
as pseudo-Majolica because its lacking of tin in the
glaze could have been manufactured in the Patzcuaro
Basin (Michoacan), as previously suggested [5]; it has
also been classified as an indigenous ceramic [6]
(e) The pair of samples of San Luis Polychrome (G7) is
rich in rare earth elements and thorium. They were
possibly manufactured with a high proportion of sand
in the clay mix. Likewise, the pastes of San Elizario
type, both the one with Blue on White decoration and
the Polychrome, are quite different from the rest and
even between them, due to the content of the
aforementioned elements
Based on these results and considering the sites where
the samples were collected, it is observed the following:
(A) The majority (13 out of 23) of the Santa Isabel Project
specimens were assigned to the Mexico City groups
123
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
(G1 and G2); six specimens belong to the Puebla
groups (G3 and G4), and four to the imports one (G5).
Common ceramic usually came to convents and
hospitals through donations, some of them resulting
from sanctions applied to the potters who failed to
observe the Ordinances [11] or was purchased.
Imported Majolica could only be acquired by those
of a high economic level [18]
(B) In the case of the Complejo Hidalgo excavation
project, where once there was a hospital, analyzed
specimens were apparently manufactured as much in
Mexico City (20 out of 39) as in Puebla (13 out of
39). There are also two imported botijas, and the rest
comes from other places; the only three Huejotzingo
Blue on White samples, also known as Hospital
Ware [27], were recovered at this site
(C) As for the specimens recovered by the archaeological
surveys of the Mexico City’s Subway Line 8 Project,
the majority was manufactured in Puebla (14 out of 17)
According to the data of Tables 1 and 3, the amount of
Mexico City specimens (G1 and G2) is virtually equal to
that of Puebla specimens (G3 and G4); however, G1 is
much more diverse in ceramic-types than the rest. G3 leans
towards quality products, since it is conformed by ceramic
considered as Fine (Puebla Polychrome and Abo Poly-
chrome) and Semi-Fine (San Luis Blue on White and A-
ranama), whereas both qualities, Fine (Puebla Blue on
White and Abo Polychrome) and Common/Semi-Fine,
(Huejotzingo Blue on White) are found in G4.
With respect to the botijas, the four recovered from the
Santa Isabel site belong to the G3 group (Puebla Poly-
chrome), whereas one that came from the Complejo
Hidalgo site corresponds with G1 (Mexico City) and two
are imports (G5). These results show that these containers
were both imported and manufactured in the New Spain, so
much in Mexico City as in Puebla.
Multi-elemental analyses results of the white and black
clays and of a clay mix specially prepared for the present
research (M77, M78 and M79, respectively) are very similar
J Radioanal Nucl Chem

Table 3 Results of multielemental neutron activation analyses of Majolica ceramics

Element G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8
n = 25 n = 12 n = 19 n = 16 n=6 n=2 n=2 M63 M64

Sc 10 ± 1 10 ± 2 9±2 11 ± 2 12 ± 2 19.3 ± 0.5 9.2 ± 0.3 20.2 ± 0.4 27 ± 0.5

Fe (mg/g) 22.5 ± 0.2 21.8 ± 0.3 18.4 ± 0.3 27.1 ± 0.6 26.1 ± 0.3 52.1 ± 0.2 17.4 ± 0.5 43.4 ± 1 37.7 ± 0.6
Co 10 ± 4 11 ± 3 8±2 16 ± 6 12 ± 5 12 ± 2 6.4 ± 0.2 19.2 ± 0.8 18 ± 2
Rb 47 ± 10 47 ± 8 36 ± 10 54 ± 9 70 ± 13 35 ± 3 54.6 ± 0.8 58 ± 4 53 ± 5
Sb 4.1 ± 0.9 8±3 3±1 1.6 ± 0.4 1.8 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.1 2.8 ± 0.1 10.5 ± 0.5 10 ± 1
Cs 5±2 10 ± 5 3±1 4±1 6±1 2.7 ± 0.2 10.6 ± 0.3 18.5 ± 0.1 24 ± 3
La 19 ± 3 17 ± 2 15 ± 2 20 ± 3 30 ± 2 32.6 ± 0.2 39 ± 0.03 19.4 ± 0.3 23 ± 4
Ce 34 ± 7 33 ± 9 25 ± 6 40 ± 5 59 ± 8 74 ± 2 82 ± 2 36.6 ± 0.9 48 ± 5
Eu 1 ± 0.2 1 ± 0.2 1 ± 0.2 1 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.3 1.3 ± 0.02 0.88 ± 0.03 1.05 ± 0.02
Yb 1.7 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.3 2.4 ± 0.2 3.4 ± 0.7 5.3 ± 0.9 2.8 ± 0.3 5.1 ± 0.3
Lu 0.26 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.06 0.28 ± 0.04 0.33 ± 0.07 0.43 ± 0.05 0.77 ± 0.04 0.39 ± 0.01 0.63 ± 0.02
Hf 5±2 5±2 3.5 ± 0.6 5±1 8±3 12 ± 1 7.4 ± 0.3 4.1 ± 0.1 9.2 ± 0.3
Th 4.9 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.6 3.9 ± 0.7 5.3 ± 0.8 10 ± 1 9±1 14.3 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 0.1 9.5 ± 0.1
U 1.7 ± 0.6 1.5 ± 0.3 1.5 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.5 3±1 4±1 4.6 ± 0.1 2.9 ± 0.2 5 ± 0.9
Mean ± S.D., in lg/g, excepting iron. G1 and G2 Mexico City, G3 Puebla Polychrome, G4 Puebla blue on white, G5 imports, G6 Romita Plain,
G7 San Luis Polychrome, G8 San Elizario (Blue on White and Polychrome)

among them apart from scandium levels, whose concen-
tration in the white clay is less than half (5.7 ± 0.6 lg/g) of
the value found in the others (ca. 12 lg/g). It is pertinent to
remark that the three of them are found represented in G4
ceramic-types, which indicates that, generally speaking, the
elemental composition of these types do not change in
relation with the firing temperature required for each clay/
type.
The ceramic pastes from both Mexico City and Puebla
maintained a diagnostic chemical fingerprint, both regional
and per type, from the XVII to the XIX centuries (see
Table 4). Mexico City’s G1 and G2 groups date from years
1500–1600 (La Traza Polychrome) up to the XIX century
(M47 and M71). The chemical composition of the Blue on
White types (Puebla 1675–1800; Huejotzingo 1700–1850)
remains the same up to the present, considering that the
paste of M80, a modern tile, corresponds to the same group
(G4). Similarly, the pastes of the Polychromes types
(Puebla 1650–1725; Aranama 1700–1850) show a similar
chemical composition between them. These observations
are apparently valid regardless of the ceramic quality.
These results agree with those previously reported (Four-
nier and Blackman, 2007).
A comparison with literature data [1, 5, 16, 17, 27, 29],
on the places of manufacture of the ceramic-types is found
in Table 4. The manufacture place of the types Mexico
City White, Mexico City Blue on Cream, Mexico City
Green on Cream, along Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome,
La Traza Polychrome and Santa Maria Polychrome, has
long been recognized to be from Mexico City. On the other
hand, Puebla Blue on White and Huejotzingo Blue on
White, as well as Puebla Polychrome, Aranama Poly-
chrome and Puaray Polychrome, have been traditionally
seen as Puebla’s manufactures. The results of the present
study are in accordance with literature data for these
ceramic-types.
According to our samples and results, Aucilla Poly-
chrome (M13, M14 and M15 of G2) and Tacuba Poly-
chrome (M9, M42, M65 of G1) were manufactured in
Mexico City, while our sole San Luis Blue on White
sample (M43 of G3) may well have Puebla origins; these
results agree only partially with what was previously
reported for these types [1, 5, 16, 17, 27, 29].
The chemical compositions of San Elizario Blue on
White, San Elizario Polychrome, San Luis Polychrome,
and Romita Plain, were quite different from the rest of
ceramics analyzed and were not assigned to any group;
furthermore, data in hand is not enough to suggest any
places of manufacture (see Table 3). The couple of San
Elizario samples here analyzed (Blue on White, M63;
Polychrome, M64) are different between them as they are
from the defined groups. Due to the external similarity
between San Elizario Polychrome and the black variety of
Puebla Blue on White, it has been suggested that the for-
mer was also manufactured in Puebla [27], but other
probably sources have been pointed out as well [5]. In the
case of San Luis Polychrome, both Puebla and Mexico City
have been suggested as its place of origin [1, 5, 16, 17, 27];
however, the pastes of the samples of this type (M37 and
M38) are different to those identified as manufactured in
these two cities. Regarding the Romita Plain type, also
several origins have been suggested: indigenous [27],

123
123
Table 4 Comparison between the places of manufacture of the ceramic-types
Present research Places according to the literature. References:
Type (Temporality) *Qualities Group nr. Places [1] [5] [16] [17] [27] [29]

Romita Plain (1500–1600)*1 6 NI – CP MC – I

La Traza Polychrome (1500–1600)*2 2 MC P P & MC MC MC MC –
Mexico City Blue on Cream (1540–1650)*1,2 1 MC – MC MC MC MC –
Mexico City White (1540–1650)*1,3 1 MC – – MC MC MC MC
1,3
Fig Spring/San Juan Polychrome(1540–1650)* 1, 2 MC MC & P P & MC MC MC MC –
Mexico City Green on Cream (1540–1775)*1 1 MC MC & P P & MC MC MC MC –
Tacuba Polychrome (1550–1600)*2 1 MC P P&O MC MC MC –
San Luis Blue on White (1550–1650)*1,2 3 P MC & P P&O MC MC & P MC P
Abo Polychrome(1650–1750)*3 1, 3, 4 P & MC P P&O P P P (prob.) –
1
Santa Maria Polychrome (1650–1760)* 1 MC – – – MC –
Aucilla Polychrome (1650–1700)*1 2 MC P P&O – MC P
Mosaic 2 MC – – – – –
Puebla Polychrome (1650–1725)*3 3 P MC & P – – MC & P P –
San Luis Polychrome (1650–1750)*1 7 NI MC & P P & MC MC MC MC –
Puaray Polychrome (1675–1700)*3 3 P – – – P –
3
Puebla Blue on White (1675–1800)* 4 P MC & P P & MC P MC & P P –
Aranama Polychrome (1700–1850)*2 3 P – – P P P –
Huejotzingo Blue on White (1700–1850)*1,2 4 P P P P & MC P P –
San Elizario Blue on White and Polychrome (1750–1850)*1,3 8 NI P P&O – P –
Foreign potters (Blue, White, Green) 5 S–T S–T – – – –
Botijas 1, 3, 5 MC, P & F – – – – –
Polychrome chamber pot (s. XIX) 1 CM – – – – –
Flower pot (s. XIX) 2 CM – – – – –
Tile, Blue on White 1 CM – – – – –
Modern talavera tile 4 P – – – – –
White, Black and prepared clays 4 P – – – – –
NI non-identified, I indigenous, MC Mexico City, CP Patzcuaro Basin, P Puebla, O Oaxaca specimens, S–T Sevilla-Triana. Qualities *1 common, *2 semi-fine, *3 fine
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
Mexico City [16] and the Patzcuaro Basin [5]; the samples
studied here (M45 and M46) are different of those manu-
factured in Mexico City.
The chemical compositions of the samples of San Luis
Polychrome, San Elizario Blue on White, San Elizario
Polychrome and Romita Plain were statistically compared
with Majolica from Oaxaca [18], considering the concen-
trations of the 11 shared elements with that report. No
sample resulted statistically similar to the Oaxaca ceramic
(principal-component diagram is not included).
Finally, it is important to remark that the chemical
composition (see Table 1) of Abo Polychrome samples
match well against the groups Mexico City (G1), Puebla
Polychrome (G3) and Puebla Blue on White (G4). Before
this study, only Puebla and Oaxaca had been suggested as
manufacture places for this ceramic-type [1, 5, 16, 17, 27].
The pastes of other ceramic-types, among them: Puebla
Polychrome, Puebla Blue on White, San Luis Blue on
White, San Luis Polychrome and Fig Spring, revealed that
they were manufactured in Puebla and in Mexico City as
well [1].
Manufacture techniques of Majolica has been usually
controlled; during the Colonial Period by the Guild Ordi-
nances and nowadays by the Mexican rules [30]. Coming
the background of Majolica from Spain, the chemical
composition of their pastes are quite different of those of
pre-Hispanic ceramics, even if the potter centers of ones
and others were not too distant (see for example: [31, 32]).
Conclusions
In the present study specimens were first classified accord-
ing to their design-based typology; then they were statisti-
cally grouped by their chemical composition obtained by
neutron activation analyses, to be finally assigned to places
of manufacture: Mexico City, Puebla, and quite possibly
imports from Sevilla-Triana, as well as some unidentified
ones.
The typological analysis showed that the Guild Ordi-
nances in force from the XVI to the XVIII centuries
ensured that specific design characteristics were in hand
with the quality of the ceramics. With the Mexican Inde-
pendence the Guilds were abolished and the product sys-
tem organization changed from one under Ordinances
stipulations to another with a lot more freedom. The
majority of the samples of the present study date between
the XVII and XVIII centuries, but a couple of XIX century
specimens were analyzed, as well as a modern one. Inter-
estingly, the pastes of the XIX century specimens are sta-
tistically identical to those of Mexico City (G1) even if
their designs are different; moreover, the paste of the
modern Talavera tile and the raw clays sampled were sta-
tistically identical to the Puebla Blue on White ceramic.
In relation to the quality, fine and (mainly) common
ceramics were manufactured in Mexico City, whereas
among the specimens manufactured in Puebla, G3 is con-
formed by fine and semi-fine ceramics and G4 by fine,
semi-fine and common ceramics.
The increasing finding of Majolica provenance sources
help towards the establishment of trade and consume pat-
terns of its products through history. Let’s remember that
Majolica ceramics were part of the goods that symbolized
the economical and social empowerment of the ruling class
in New Spain. In this way, nuclear activation and statistical
analyses have been of great utility.
Acknowledgments To Jesús Muñoz Lujano for his technical
support.
References
1. Fournier P, Blackman MJ, Ronald Bishop (2009) Empleo de
Análisis instrumentales de Activación Neutrónica (INAA) en el
estudio del origen de la mayólica en México. Arqueologı́a
42(Segunda época): 151–165
2. Sánchez Sánchez JM (1998) La cerámica exportada a América en el
siglo XVI a través de la documentación del Archivo de Indias (II).
Ajuares domésticos y cerámica cultural y laboral. In: Laboratorio de
Arte, Sevilla, Nr11, p 121–133
3. Cervantes EA (1939) Loza blanca y azulejo de Puebla. 2nd edn.
Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Secretarı́a de Cultura, Puebla, V
1–2
4. Gómez P, Pasinski T, Fournier P (2001) Transferencia tec-
nológica y filiación étnica: el caso de los loceros novohispanos
del siglo XVI. Amerı́stica 7:49–76
5. Fournier P, Blackman MJ (2007) Producción, intercambio y
consumo de lozas vidriadas en Nueva España: Conformación de
una base de datos de composiciones elementales mediante INAA.
FAMSIÓ (ed) www.famsi.org/reports/06014es/06014esFournier.
pdf. Accessed in 2013
6. Lister FC, Lister R (1982) Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in
the Valley of Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University
of Arizona 39. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson
7. Fournier P, Charlton TH (1998) La tradición de mayólica en
México (siglo XVI al XIX). In: Fernández E, Gómez S (eds)
Primer Congreso Nacional de Arqueologı́a Histórica. Memoria,
p 419–426. INAH, México
8. López Cervantes G (1976) Cerámica Colonial en la Ciudad de
México. Colección Cientı́fica. V 38 Arqueologı́a. Departamento
de Prehistoria. INAH, México
9. Fournier P, Castillo K, Bishop RL, Blackman MJ (2009) La loza
blanca novohispana: Tecnohistoria de la mayólica en México. In:
Garcı́a Targa J, Fournier P (eds) Arqueologı́a Colonial Latino-
americana, Modelos de estudio. BAR International Series 1988,
England, p 99–114
10. Huerta Jaramillo A (1992) La alfarerı́a poblana. Siglos XVI y
XVII. El gremio y sus ordenanzas. Gobierno del Estado de Puebla
México: Secretarı́a de Cultura y Comisión Puebla V Centenario
(ed)
11. De la Vega Doria S (1995) Patrones de la producción de lozas
vidriadas. Thesis ENAH, Mexico
123

12. Acuña PE (1987) Talavera de Puebla. Gobierno del Estado de
Puebla Mexico: Secretarı́a de Cultura (ed)
13. Hoffmann C (1918) La industria de Talavera en Puebla. Cosmos
Semanal (México) 1st year (26): 9–12
14. Castro Morales E (2004) Loceros poblanos, su gremio, orde-
nanzas y hermandad. In: Boletı́n de Monumentos Históricos.
Tercera Época. Coordinación Nacional de Monumentos Históri-
cos. CONACULTA, INAH, México
15. Velázquez Thierry LL (1989) Fabricación de la Talavera y origen
del término. In: Artes de México, Nr 3. Cámara Nacional de la
Industria Editorial Mexicana México, p 29–31
16. Monroy Guzmán F, Fournier P (2003) Elemental composition of
Mexican colonial Majolica using INAA. In: Nuclear Analytical
Techniques in Archaeological Investigations. Technical Reports
Series Nr 416, International Atomic Energy Agency, Austria,
p 147–161
17. Monroy Guzmán F, Fournier P, Smit Z, Miranda J, Ruvalcaba JL,
de la Torre J (2005) Técnicas de manufactura de vidriados en
mayólicas coloniales. In: Esparza R, Cárdenas E (eds) Ar-
queometrı́a. El Colegio de Michoacán, A.C. México, p 55–71
18. Blackman MJ, Fournier P, Bishop RL (2006) Complejidad e in-
teracción social en el México Colonial: identidad, producción,
intercambio y consumo de lozas de tradición Ibérica, con base en
Análisis de Activación Neutrónica. Cuicuilco ENAH, México,
pp 203–222
19. Escobedo Ramı́rez D, Bardeja Martı́nez JA, Ayala Ramı́rez M,
Gómez Martı́nez AE (1995) Proyecto Arqueológico Santa Isabel.
Informe técnico, Dirección de Salvamento Arqueológico INAH,
Mexico
20. González Rul F, López Palacios JA, Moreno Cabrera ML, Her-
nández Pérez JM, Martı́nez KN (1983) Proyecto Complejo
Hidalgo. Informe técnico, Dirección de Salvamento Arqueológ-
ico. INAH, Mexico
21. Beristain Bravo F (1988) La cerámica colonial y moderna pro-
cedente de las excavaciones en el Complejo Hidalgo, Ciudad de
México. In: Serra Puche MC, Navarrete Cáceres C (eds) Ensayos
de alfarerı́a prehispánica e histórica de Mesoamérica. Homenaje a
Eduardo Noguera Auza. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, México
22. Sánchez Vázquez MJ, Lam Garcı́a CS, Tenango Salgado G,
Cabrera Torres JJ, White Padilla A (1996) Proyecto Metro
123
J Radioanal Nucl Chem
lı́nea 8. Informe técnico, Volumen 1, Dirección de Salvamento
Arqueológico INAH, Mexico
23. Goggin JM (1968) Spanish Maiolica in the New World. Yale
Publications in Anthropology Nr. 72
24. Deagan K (1987) Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and
the Caribbean, 1500–1800. vol. I: Ceramics, glassware, and
beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., London
25. Jiménez-Reyes M, Tenorio D, Esparza-López JR, Cruz-Jiménez
RL, Mandujano C, Elizalde S (2001) Neutron activation analysis
of obsidians from quarries of the Central Quaternary Trans-
Mexican Volcanic Axis. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 250:465–471
26. Neff H (2008) GAUSS language routines for statistical analysis
of multivariate archaeometric data are available for free down-
load from the MURR. Website http://archaeometry.missouri.edu.
Accessed in 2013
27. Florida Museum of Natural History (2013) Website http://
www.flmnh.ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/Spanish/type_list_sp.
asp Accessed in 2013
28. Garcia Iñañez J, Speakman RJ, Buxeda i Garrigós J, Glascock
MD (2008) Chemical characterization of majolica from 14th to
18th century production centers on the Iberian Peninsula: a pre-
liminary neutron activation study. J Arch Sci 35:425–440
29. Olin JS, Blackman M (1989) Compositional Classification of
Mexican Majolica Ceramics of the Spanish Colonial Period,
Archeological Chemistry IV. Am Chem Soc p 87–112, In: Ref-
erence 16
30. Secretarı́a de Comercio y Fomento Industrial (2009). Norma
Oficial Mexicana NOM-132-SCFI-1998, Talavera-Especifica-
ciones. Diario Oficial de la Federación 28th December, Mexico
31. Tenorio D, Almazán-Torres MG, Monroy-Guzmán F, Rodrı́guez-
Garcı́a NL, Longoria LC (2005) Characterization of cermics from the
archaeological site of San Miguel Ixtapan, Mexico State, using NAA,
SEM, XRD and PIXE techniques. J Radioanal Nucl Chem
266:471–480
32. López Valenzuela R, López Palacios JA, Jiménez-Reyes M,
Cataño G, Tenorio D (2010) Characterization of ceramic orna-
ments of a theatre-like incense burner. J Radioanal Nucl Chem
283:409–415