Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Identifying New World majolica from 16th–18th Century sites on Peru's T

north coast
Sarah J. Kellowaya,⁎, Parker VanValkenburghb,⁎, Javier G. Iñañezc,d, Laure Dussubieuxe,
Jeffrey Quilterf, Michael D. Glascockg
a
XRF Laboratory, Solid State and Elemental Analysis Unit, Mark Wainwright Analytical Centre, University of New South Wales, Chemical Sciences Building (F10),
Kensington 2052, Australia
b
Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Box 1921, Providence, RI 02912, USA
c
IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao 48011, Basque Country, Spain
d
Ramón y Cajal Researcher, Department of Geography, Prehistory and Archaeology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz 01006, Basque
Country, Spain
e
Elemental Analysis Facility, The Field Museum, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA
f
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
g
Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Colombia, MO 65211, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study presents the results of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), laser ablation-inductively
Ceramic characterisation coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and thin-section analysis of 74 majolica sherds from 16th–18th
INAA Century sites in the Zaña Valley and Magdalena de Cao Viejo, Peru, and Panama Viejo, Panama. The majority of
LA-ICP-MS majolica samples from Peru are chemically associated with Panamanian reference groups, indicating their
Thin-section
production in Panama; however, the remainder appears to be Andean-made, based on their distinct chemical
Petrography
Majolica
signatures. These latter vessels seem to have been produced in Peru and build upon our understanding of co-
Peru lonial majolica manufacture in South America. Furthermore, the presence of blue-series decoration makes im-
Spanish colonial period portant contributions to our understanding of the Andean sphere of loza production.

1. Introduction
Majolica (or mayolica) is among the most ubiquitous types of
ceramics found in Spanish colonial assemblages in the Americas,
readily recognised by its opaque tin‑lead-based glaze. Primarily re-
presented by tableware, majolica has served as a source of valuable
information about patterns of trade, industry, and social identity in the
New World (Goggin, 1968; Iñañez et al., 2008; Jamieson, 2001;
Jamieson and Hancock, 2004; Lister and Lister, 1974; Rice, 2013a,
2013b; Rovira, 2001; Rovira et al., 2006). Originally inspired by cera-
mics produced in Persia and China, it was manufactured in Spain and
Italy by the 10th Century and arrived in the Americas following the
onset of Spanish colonisation, where it has long been interpreted as a
“symbol of Spanish ethnicity and status” (Jamieson, 2001: 46).
By the late 16th Century, numerous production centres of tin-lead-
glazed ceramics had been established in the Americas and extensive
scholarly research has outlined how they developed both in Mexico and
Panama (Deagan, 1987; Goggin, 1968; Iñañez et al., 2016a; Lister and
Lister, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1984; Long, 1964, 1967; Maggetti et al.,
1984; Olin and Blackman, 1989; Olin and Myers, 1992; Rovira, 2001;
Rovira et al., 2006). Such studies often also refer to tin-enamelled ware
and loza for this type of ceramic, depending on context (the term ma-
jolica is used here to emphasise continuity of production across the
Atlantic). Documentary sources (discussed below) have long suggested
that majolica was also made in Andean South America, but its pro-
duction history has been poorly documented and some scholars con-
tinue to debate where the majolica found in Andean archaeological
sites was actually manufactured (Mogrovejo Rosales, 1996; Rice,
2013b). Studies by Jamieson, Rice and colleagues have shed light on
the production of majolica in the colonial Andes through macroscopic
and chemical analysis, identifying products from Cuenca, Quito and
Riobamba, Ecuador, and Moquegua, Peru (Jamieson, 2001; Jamieson
and Hancock, 2004; Rice, 1997, 2012, 2013a). Majolica manufacture
has also been identified in Colombia (Therrien et al., 2002; Martín
et al., 2007). Yet relatively little is known about other areas of Andean
production and circulation of these ceramic materials between Ecuador
and Moquegua – a critical region of the Viceroyalty of Peru that in-
cluded not only its largest administrative centre (Lima) but the trade

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: sarah.kelloway@unsw.edu.au (S.J. Kelloway), parker_vanvalkenburgh@brown.edu (P. VanValkenburgh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.008
Received 27 April 2017; Received in revised form 15 September 2017; Accepted 5 October 2017
2352-409X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.J. Kelloway et al.
networks that tied it to a series of other major coastal and highland
settlements.
This paper presents the results of the analysis of majolica excavated
from archaeological sites in Peru's north coast region. Using the results
of instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and laser ablation-
inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) supported
by thin-section analysis, the provenance of 55 samples of majolica from
Peruvian sites is determined, falling into two groups: one with chemical
signatures associated with samples made in Panama Viejo, and one that
is chemically similar to ceramics from Peru. The archaeological con-
texts of these latter sherds indicate their production in Peru between the
late 16th and 18th Centuries, and their decoration presents interesting
contributions to the Andean sphere of loza production (Rice, 2013a,
2013b; Rice and Natt, 2013).
2. Previous research on majolica production in Peru
2.1. The documentary record
Archival evidence for the manufacture of Spanish-style glazed
ceramics in Peru dates variously from the mid- to late 16th Century and
offers limited clues about the locations and types of ceramics produced
within the Viceroyalty (Acevedo, 1986: 19–22). Court documents and
other historical sources dating to the late 16th to mid-17th centuries
make frequent references to the production of loza (var. loça), a term
that appears to refer to unglazed and glazed earthenware in general
rather than specifically majolica (de Covarrubias Orozco, 1979: 94). In
Lima, records indicate that ceramic workshops were active in the city
by 1577, when litigants denounced a craft guild of olleros (potters and/
or sellers of pottery) for selling loza at high prices (Acevedo Basurto
et al., 2004: 24; Frothingham, 1969). Related documents also mention a
series of materials used that were unavailable locally, such as almártaga
(lead monoxide), tin, lead and powder for the mixing of glazes
(Acevedo Basurto et al., 2004: 20). All of these materials may have been
used to produce majolica. Glazed ceramic architectural adornments and
tiles were likely produced even earlier, by 1554 (Acevedo, 1986: 19;
Harth Terré, 1957; Harth Terré and Marquez Abanto, 1958). Written
sources also register the manufacture of Spanish-style ceramics in the
highland city of Cusco by the late 16th Century, with a contract for the
supply and fabrication of loza dating to 1588 (Cornejo Bouroncle, 1960:
247–249, 335–336; Acevedo, 1986).
Several other centres of glazed ceramic production are listed in
Andean historical records dating to the 16th and 17th centuries. The
city of Cajamarca in the northern Peruvian highlands appears to have
produced blue-on-white and blue-and-black-on-white loza during the
17th Century, although the production dates are unknown (Rice,
2013b: 261, Stastny, 1981). In the southern Peruvian city of Arequipa,
records indicate that loza prices were regulated in the 17th Century
(Acevedo, 1986: 21; Stastny, 1981: 99; Tschopik, 1950). Acevedo
(1986: 19, citing Vargas Ugarte, 1968) also suggests that the southern
highland cities of Huancavelica and Puno, and the northern coastal
settlements of Zaña (founded in 1563) and Guadalupe (site of an Au-
gustinian convent dating approximately to 1555) may have been sites
of glazed ceramic production from the beginning of the 17th century,
including tiles. Glazed pottery was also apparently produced in more
rural locations, including the town of Santiago de Pupuja in the Lake
Titicaca basin, whose loza was favourably compared to Talavera in the
late 18th Century (Tschopik, 1950: 202).
2.2. The archaeological record: typology, chemical characterisation and
spheres of production
Although excavations at colonial period sites in Andean South
America have been conducted since the middle of the 20th Century
(Jamieson, 2005; Mogrovejo Rosales, 1996; Pedrotta and Gómez
Romero, 1998; Van Buren, 2010), it is only relatively recently that the
312
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
archaeology of such sites in Peru has been the subject of sustained re-
search programs. Consequently, early scholarship on Peruvian colonial
ceramics was highly speculative about the sites of ceramic production
and circulation.
In the 1960s, Goggin (1968: 163–165) suggested that Panama
Polychrome could have been produced in Lima, in keeping with that
city's status as one of the two largest metropolises of the colonial
Americas. Since the late 1960s, however, extensive excavations at Pa-
nama Viejo have left little doubt that Panama Polychrome and related
ceramic types Panama Plain, Panama Blue-on-white, and Panama Blue
were produced in Panama (Deagan, 1987; Long, 1964, 1967; Rovira,
2001; Rovira et al., 2006). The results of chemical and petrographic
characterisations of Panamanian types and their comparisons with
ceramics produced in other regions have demonstrated that the these
types are indeed Panamanian (Dickinson, 2007; Kelloway, 2014;
Kelloway et al., 2013, 2016; Maggetti et al., 1984; Olin et al., 1978;
Olin and Sayre, 1975; Rovira et al., 2006; VanValkenburgh, 2009).
Other scholars have also suggested that majolica may have been
produced in Peru. During the 1980s, Flores Espinoza et al. (1981: 326)
noted that loza unearthed during excavations at Casa Osambela in
downtown Lima (blue-on white [L-3] type and polychrome over green
[L-5] type) were comparable to Panamanian majolica, but possessed a
different paste similar to that of Peruvian-made azulejos (Flores
Espinoza et al., 1981: 34–46, 52). Based on their illustrations, Rice
(1997: 177) later suggested that these ceramics are probably Panama-
nian in origin. Acevedo (1986: 25–27) also lists a set of distinctive
colours used to decorate majolica in colonial Peru at different times,
and Oberti Rodriguez (1999) records 16th Century majolica from Cusco
with green and black/brown designs. Gutiérrez Samanez (2016) has
also recently published a review of colonial majolica produced in
Cusco.
Research by the Moquegua Bodegas Project during the 1980s pro-
vided a systematic archaeological identification of Andean-made ma-
jolica and other glazed wares (Rice, 1994, 2012, 2013b; Rice and
Smith, 1989; Rice and Van Beck, 1993; Smith, 1991). Through mac-
roscopic analysis, Rice (1997) identified two distinct varieties of ma-
jolica – Contisuyu ware (tin-enamelled) and Mojinete ware (glazed-and-
enamelled), both of which are subdivided based on surface decoration
(Rice, 1997). The colour schemes and decorative patterns of Contisuyu
and Mojinete ware clearly distinguish them from Panamanian majolica
(Rice and Natt, 2013). The recovery of one Contisuyu sherd at the site of
Locumbilla Bodega below ash layers associated with the eruption of the
Huaynaputina volcano in 1600, indicates that such ceramics were in
production in the 16th Century (Rice, 2013b: 263). Sherds similar to
Mas Allá Polychrome were also recovered alongside Inka-style ceramics
at the site of Aqnapampa, Cusco, suggesting distribution beyond Mo-
quegua (Chatfield, 2007, 2010; Rice, 2013b: 263). Based on these
patterns and the historical documentation of ceramic production, Rice
suggests that these ceramics were likely made in Cusco itself (Rice,
2013b: 263).
Chemical analysis of Contisuyu and Mojinete ware sherds using INAA
has shown that these types are chemically distinct from materials ex-
cavated at Panama Viejo (Rice, 2012). Rice and Natt have also put
forward that the production of these types was influenced by morisco/
mudéjar traditions common among Aragonese potters in the 15th and
16th centuries, based on a hierarchical design-structure analysis
(HDSA) of Andean loza, as well as Spanish (Aragón/Teruel), Panama-
nian, indigenous southern Peruvian pre-Hispanic and early colonial
ceramics, and pottery from New Spain (Rice, 2013a, 2013b; Rice and
Natt, 2013). The authors suggest that the Spanish colonial Americas
might be divided into two ceramic “spheres of production” – a southern
sphere centred on the Andes and the east-central Pacific basin, and a
northern sphere centred on New Spain, the Caribbean and the south-
west United States of America, with both spheres overlapping in Pa-
nama (Rice and Natt, 2013; Rice, 2013a: 677–678). The two different
spheres of loza production are evident in decorative colour and spatial
S.J. Kelloway et al.
distribution, as well as vessel forms and execution: the north associated
with the use of cobalt blue, and the south with the use of copper green.
For the southern Peruvian loza, a range of influences were apparent,
namely Spanish (Aragon), Panamanian, and indigenous. Rice and Natt
interpret the dominance of green decoration in Contisuyu and Mojinete
ware as associated with morisco/mudéjar traditions, with the use of
green probably a continuation of green-brown decorative traditions
from Aragon, not a lack of blue pigment, which could be made from a
copper-zinc mixture.
Archaeological and historical research has shown that glazed cera-
mics, including majolica, were produced in the Andes by the end of the
16th Century – particularly in urban areas, where both imported and
locally-made glazed wares became important elements of household
assemblages in a colonial environment where social identities and
statuses were being constantly negotiated (Jamieson, 2001). Yet sur-
prisingly little is known about materials from Peru's largest urban
centre, Lima, and the axis of maritime and overland trade that con-
nected it to the Isthmus of Panama (Iñañez et al., 2012). To approach
issues related to majolica and political and social economy in detail and
potentially scale up interpretations of colonial ceramic production and
circulation in the Americas beyond individual sites, it is vital that we
address their movement in coastal Peru. The first step in this process is
to better identify the materials themselves.
3. New contexts: archaeological research in the Zaña, Chamán
and Chicama Valleys, Peru
Recent excavations at 16th to 18th Century archaeological sites on
the Peruvian north coast provide a basis for examining ceramic pro-
duction and circulation in this key region of the Viceroyalty.
VanValkenburgh and colleagues' research on sites in the lower Zaña and
Chamán Valleys focused on the excavation and survey of multiple sites
dating variously from this time period (Fig. 1). Three of these sites are
included in this study: Mocupe Viejo (C74), Carrizales (C123) and
Puerto de Chérrepe (C142). Quilter and colleagues' excavations at the
site of Magdalena de Cao Viejo, Chicama Valley, have produced a large
collection of glazed ceramics from an indigenous village occupied be-
tween the late 16th and early 18th centuries (Fig. 1). With a large
ceramic assemblage recovered from multiple sites across three valleys,
a combined Magdalena and Zaña/Chamán sample set offers an oppor-
tunity to determine the provenance of majolica based on typological
and chemical analysis, potentially even enabling the identification of
Peruvian-made sherds.
Mocupe Viejo and Carrizales were both reducciones established
sometime between c. 1566 and 1573, based on documentary references,
site plans and material culture (VanValkenburgh et al., 2015b). The
stratigraphy at Carrizales is shallow and ceramics are characteristic of
late 16th Century assemblages on the Peruvian coast, with cooking and
storage vessels comprised largely of local paddle-stamped wares and
some Early and Middle Style olive jar sherds, as well as a handful of
fragments of Panama Plain majolica, Ming porcelain, Sevilla Blue-on-
Blue majolica, provincial Inka polychrome, and a rare type of lead-glazed
pottery labelled Early Green-glazed (EGG) ware (VanValkenburgh, 2012;
VanValkenburgh et al., 2015a). Alongside the ceramic assemblage, the
site's shallow stratigraphy suggests that it was occupied for 30 to
40 years.
Based on documentary references, Mocupe Viejo was abandoned in
c. 1652, when its residents moved up-valley to avoid dunes encroaching
on their residences and for greater fresh water access (BNL A310; AGN
Ucupe 30: 26r-26v). The site has high levels of deflation, challenging
definition of its stratigraphy but exposing a great diversity of ceramic
remains on its surface (VanValkenburgh, 2012). Mocupe Viejo's
ceramic assemblage includes a dazzling diversity of types that draws
attention to the wide-ranging access that this indigenous village had to
diverse imported tablewares. Ceramics from Mocupe Viejo include the
three dominant types of Panamanian majolica (Plain, Blue-on-White,
313
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
and Polychrome Type A), Ming porcelain, Swatow ware, Sevilla Blue-
on-Blue majolica, stoneware, EGG ware, and a variety of fragments of
unidentified tin-enamelled wares.
Located along the coast, the port of Chérrepe was established c.
1563 to allow ships to dock near the villa of Zaña. Its remains consist of
a small site covering 3.5 ha, which documentary sources indicate was
continuously inhabited by a small indigenous fishing community that
also serviced the port until c. 1795 (AAT 1784 Visitas; ANC Virreyes 14;
ADL Intendencia 435/3500). Together with Mocupe Viejo and
Carrizales, the variability in the termini ante quem of these three sites
(approximately 1600, 1652, and 1795) provides valuable chronological
control over local colonial ceramic sequences.
Quilter (2011) argues that the town of Magdalena de Cao Viejo was
founded in c. 1578 as a secondary reducción after an El Niño flood de-
stroyed its first foundation near the Chicama river, and abandoned in
the early 18th Century (Castañeda Murga, 2006). Excavations revealed
a well-preserved settlement whose lower levels of occupation contain a
characteristic 16th Century ceramic assemblage, including EGG ware
and Middle Style olive jars. Surface remains from the site and materials
in its upper levels include an abundance of majolica, particularly in the
church sector, where excavations in the cloister and midden areas
produced large fragments of majolica plates. Much of this material has
been identified, macroscopically, as being Panamanian; however, the
assemblage includes majolica of unidentified affiliation, some of which
are included here.
4. Experimental methodologies
A total of 74 majolica sherds underwent chemical analysis, with 68
samples undergoing analysis by LA-ICP-MS and 34 sherds by INAA. A
subset of these populations (n = 9) was also thin-sectioned. The sample
set for LA-ICP-MS included a reference set of sherds from Panama Viejo,
and the results from INAA were compared with earlier analyses of
ceramics originating in Spain, Panama, Mexico and South America.
4.1. Samples
The samples in this study derived from sites in the Zaña and
Chicama Valleys, as well as Panama (Tables 1 and 2): 21 from Mag-
dalena de Cao Viejo; 34 from the above three sites in the Zaña Valley as
well as the Iglesia la Merced, a church in the town of Zaña constructed
in the 17th Century (Caleta de Chérrepe (n = 7), Carrizales (n = 1),
Zaña (n = 1) and Mocupe Viejo (n = 25)); and 19 from Panama Viejo.
Samples were selected from both town and church associated contexts
as equally as possible. All samples possess a brick red paste and tin-lead
glaze, with most from Peruvian sites macroscopically identified as Pa-
namanian (including Panama Plain, Panama Polychrome Type A and
Panama Blue-on-White) and a small subset of unidentified origins.
Many sherds are quite small and so some types could not be visually
identified with complete certainty. Of the total sample set, 28 out of 34
sherds from the Zaña Valley and all of the sherds from the Chicama
Valley and Panama Viejo underwent analysis by LA-ICP-MS. Only those
from the Zaña Valley (n = 34) were subjected to INAA.
4.2. INAA
Samples were prepared and analysed at the Archaeometry
Laboratory at the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)
(Glascock, 1992: 199; Glascock and Neff, 2003). A subsample of ap-
proximately 1 cm2 was removed from each sample and abraded using a
silicon carbide burr in order to remove surface treatments and adhering
soil, to reduce the risk of contamination. The specimens were then
washed in deionized water and allowed to dry in the laboratory. Once
dry, individual fragments were ground to a powder in an agate mortar.
Samples were then prepared and analysed as detailed by Glascock and
Neff (Glascock, 1992; Glascock and Neff, 2003; Neff, 2000), along with
S.J. Kelloway et al.
in-house standard, Ohio Red Clay, and certified reference materials
from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (coal fly
ash SRM-1633b, basalt rock SRM-688 and obsidian rock SRM-278). A
total of 32 element concentrations were determined: Al, Ba, Ca, Dy, K,
Mn, Na, Ti, V, La, Lu, Nd, Sm, U, Yb, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Eu, Fe, Hf, Ni, Rb,
Sb, Sc, Sr, Ta, Tb, Th, Zn and Zr. Samples were submitted in two se-
parate batches, analysed at different times, due to the nature of ob-
taining samples and other concurrent projects using INAA. The first
submitted batch included majolica samples 5-26, 139-31 and 40-22, as
well as ceramics forming part of a wider characterisation study of Zaña
and Chicama Valley material. The second batch focussed largely on
expanding a majolica study and as such included the remaining majo-
lica samples presented in this study, plus duplicates of samples 5-26 and
139-31 as checks.
4.3. LA-ICP-MS
LA-ICP-MS was carried out on sample glazes at the Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago, USA, using an Analytik Jena Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer connected to a New Wave UP213
314
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in text.
laser for direct introduction of solid samples. Helium was used as a gas
carrier in the laser, and scan line analyses conducted. To clean the
surface of the glaze, a pre-ablation was conducted with a laser beam
diameter of 100 mm, a speed of 70 mm/s and at a pulse frequency of
20 Hz. The laser beam diameter for the actual ablation was 65 mm and
samples ablated using a speed of 5 mm/s and a frequency of 15 Hz. For
each glaze sample, the average of four measurements corrected from
the blank was considered for the calculation of concentrations. The
isotope Si29 was used for internal standardization. Concentrations for
major elements, including silica, were calculated assuming that the sum
of their concentrations in weight percent in glass is equal to 100%
(Gratuze, 1999). Two different series of external standards were used to
measure major, minor and trace elements. The first series of external
standards were standard reference materials (SRM) manufactured by
NIST: SRM 610 and SRM 612 (soda-lime-silica glass doped with trace
elements in the range of 500 ppm (SRM 610) and 50 ppm (SRM 612)).
Undecorated areas were selected for sampling, to avoid contamination
by paints and pigments. A total of 48 element concentrations were
determined: Li, Be, B, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Cu, Zn, As, Rb, Sr, Zr,
Nb, Ag, In, Sn, Sb, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Ta, Au, Y, Pb, Bi, U,W, Mo, Nd, Sm,
 Table 1
Results of analysis of ceramic bodies by INAA (ppm).

Sample Colour- Site Area As La Lu Nd Sm U Yb Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe Hf

decoration
S.J. Kelloway et al.

139-31 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 12.3 30.9 0.4 27.9 6.2 3.5 2.8 64.3 15.4 41.9 7.2 1.3 45,085.3 6.8
139-31 duplicate Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 16.1 29.9 0.4 30.3 6.2 3.4 3.2 62.1 15.5 40.8 7.0 1.2 46,318.3 7.1
150-16 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 22.0 32.8 0.5 29.7 6.5 3.4 3.2 68.6 16.7 43.3 7.6 1.4 46,683.2 6.4
209-02 Plain cream Carrizales (C123) Church Exterior 47.5 28.7 0.3 25.5 5.4 2.8 2.0 59.7 16.6 26.9 49.6 1.2 47,369.9 5.2
229-04 Green-on- Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 12.5 30.6 0.4 29.0 6.1 2.9 2.6 64.5 14.1 32.7 9.8 1.3 41,709.1 5.5
white (C142) area
250-01 Brown-on- Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 76.2 27.2 0.3 23.1 4.9 2.8 2.1 56.4 16.3 24.0 29.9 1.2 47,040.2 4.7
white (C142) area
250-39 Green-on- Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 46.2 29.1 0.4 21.4 5.6 3.5 2.4 61.9 20.4 22.6 47.9 1.3 52,292.6 4.2
white (C142) area
253-21 Green-brown- Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 54.0 29.7 0.3 26.3 5.7 2.9 2.1 60.9 18.7 26.3 35.4 1.3 49,204.7 4.7
on-white (C142) area
253-26 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 30.6 25.9 0.3 23.6 5.2 3.2 2.4 56.1 18.4 21.9 39.6 1.2 49,044.3 4.8
(C142) area
253-29 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 52.9 29.7 0.3 25.7 5.6 3.3 2.5 60.6 18.5 25.9 35.7 1.3 48,705.3 4.6
(C142) area
253-05 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe Central, colonial 75.6 26.1 0.3 23.1 5.0 3.2 1.7 54.2 17.2 24.9 33.2 1.1 46,597.1 4.5
(C142) area
29-15 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 16.1 32.7 0.4 27.3 6.1 2.9 2.8 67.6 13.8 38.6 7.8 1.4 47,989.1 7.3
29-22 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 43.5 29.9 0.3 25.2 5.7 2.9 2.1 61.0 20.7 32.4 49.6 1.3 48,068.3 4.3
29-51 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 64.5 28.3 0.3 28.3 5.5 3.1 2.1 58.1 16.9 27.2 92.0 1.3 45,513.8 5.0
40-22 Black-on-green Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 37.5 27.3 0.3 26.1 5.5 3.1 2.1 55.6 17.2 24.7 56.6 1.2 48,741.5 5.1
470-10 Plain cream Zaña (C305) Iglesia La Merced 38.1 27.5 0.3 24.1 5.6 3.2 2.2 56.6 16.9 22.4 38.5 1.1 43,397.4 5.7
Exterior

315
5-26 Blue-and- Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 24.5 31.0 0.4 26.2 5.9 2.3 2.9 63.6 15.1 30.5 7.8 1.3 43,134.9 5.4
brown-on-
white
5-26 duplicate Blue-and- Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 21.9 30.3 0.4 25.4 6.0 2.4 2.6 62.5 15.0 30.8 7.8 1.3 43,318.9 5.0
brown-on-
white
5-48 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 39.8 30.0 0.3 26.4 6.0 3.6 2.6 61.5 20.4 32.0 53.3 1.3 49,221.4 4.6
51-04 Green-brown- Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 51.6 30.1 0.4 26.8 5.9 2.7 2.3 63.2 21.9 32.7 38.0 1.3 53,609.6 4.4
and-grey-on-
white
51-05 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 58.6 28.8 0.4 28.3 6.2 7.9 2.1 61.8 20.9 28.2 97.0 1.3 49,454.9 4.6
54-12 Brown-on- Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 31.7 26.1 0.3 21.5 4.9 2.5 1.9 54.9 16.1 23.5 28.3 1.2 43,882.7 4.9
white
74-1-55 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 50.1 28.0 0.5 25.7 5.8 15.1 2.5 57.5 14.2 23.3 59.2 1.0 37,840.9 4.9
74-1-11 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 36.5 28.2 0.4 22.2 5.2 3.6 2.3 57.7 15.5 23.8 35.6 1.1 41,942.7 5.2
74-1-47 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 44.9 27.4 0.3 24.1 5.0 2.7 1.8 55.6 16.5 22.1 26.4 1.2 42,373.8 4.2
74-1-51 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 70.1 27.1 0.4 21.7 5.9 4.5 2.3 59.2 22.4 24.5 79.2 1.3 51,551.4 4.2
74-1-58 Blue-and- Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 56.7 27.4 0.3 23.4 5.5 3.0 1.8 56.1 16.9 23.2 28.8 1.2 43,207.4 4.1
brown-on-
white

(continued on next page)

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
 Table 1 (continued)

Sample Colour- Site Area As La Lu Nd Sm U Yb Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe Hf

decoration
S.J. Kelloway et al.

74-1-65 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 56.7 29.0 0.3 26.8 5.5 3.3 1.9 58.2 17.7 24.1 32.5 1.3 45,292.5 4.5
77-13 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 48.3 28.7 0.4 24.7 5.6 7.3 2.5 59.8 18.3 24.2 54.8 1.1 44,558.6 4.9
77-73 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 30.6 27.2 0.3 22.2 5.3 3.9 1.9 56.7 13.8 24.9 61.6 1.1 36,356.5 5.6
77-77 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 41.3 27.0 0.4 22.8 5.3 4.6 2.1 55.9 18.7 24.2 44.4 1.1 44,868.2 5.0
99-17 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 16.2 29.5 0.4 24.4 5.5 2.3 2.6 61.6 14.5 29.8 6.9 1.2 40,855.7 5.2
99-18 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 21.9 31.2 0.4 27.0 6.3 2.8 2.6 66.6 16.4 42.2 7.4 1.3 45,726.1 6.7
99-23 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 57.2 28.9 0.4 25.6 6.0 4.4 2.1 58.4 14.8 26.4 63.2 1.3 39,460.0 5.3
99-33 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 43.7 26.9 0.3 24.3 5.2 3.9 2.4 57.2 16.1 23.9 58.2 1.2 43,093.6 5.4
99-37 Black-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 30.1 28.5 0.3 26.6 5.6 3.0 2.0 60.1 16.7 25.8 35.3 1.3 42,338.0 4.4

Sample Rb Sc Sr Ta Tb Th Zn Zr Al Ba Ca Dy K Mn Na Ti V

139-31 85.6 17.5 234.2 1.0 0.9 10.9 110.0 161.2 90,154.6 499.0 27,847.0 4.3 18,811.9 1001.7 11,788.7 6115.3 124.9
139-31 duplicate 82.8 17.2 252.7 0.9 0.7 10.7 118.9 159.3 94,153.0 422.0 26,711.1 4.7 19,995.7 937.0 11,709.4 5440.4 135.1
150-16 88.6 18.5 251.7 1.0 1.2 11.3 126.2 166.6 89,445.9 464.3 23,507.5 3.9 18,366.8 1009.5 13,692.4 4736.5 141.9
209-02 136.6 16.7 326.8 0.8 0.9 12.5 162.7 154.9 94,736.5 622.1 17,388.8 4.1 23,518.1 655.6 16,413.9 6951.2 142.5
229-04 86.2 16.2 232.3 0.9 0.8 9.6 109.0 135.3 80,848.6 490.7 42,476.8 4.0 19,486.6 982.4 10,685.3 4287.5 123.3
250-01 126.7 14.8 301.1 0.7 0.7 11.3 154.5 129.5 91,157.5 610.1 30,970.9 3.1 20,698.7 892.8 17,185.2 4827.2 125.5
250-39 130.0 19.1 230.5 0.7 0.7 16.6 170.1 106.7 96,629.2 681.9 23,075.7 3.5 18,353.2 1305.1 17,493.6 3999.3 144.1
253-21 143.5 17.5 327.2 0.8 0.9 12.3 177.4 130.2 88,123.1 739.9 28,322.0 3.4 26,583.4 1006.3 17,626.1 4611.0 119.7
253-26 135.1 17.9 303.5 0.7 0.7 14.4 134.7 101.1 92,782.8 623.4 21,459.6 3.4 22,653.7 1153.7 19,657.5 4327.2 113.9
253-29 148.4 16.6 291.7 0.7 0.7 13.1 178.0 110.9 93,207.4 696.0 27,471.3 3.1 25,223.4 955.0 17,516.9 5166.6 107.8
253-05 133.6 15.0 254.8 0.7 0.6 11.7 161.2 83.3 88,511.7 731.2 42,575.8 2.7 27,555.7 1161.3 16,809.1 3365.0 142.0
29-15 88.9 20.3 254.4 0.9 1.1 11.4 125.6 183.4 97,580.5 484.5 18,588.4 4.6 19,307.0 1075.1 11,789.6 5958.6 155.8
29-22 140.9 17.0 245.1 0.8 0.7 11.9 201.5 107.0 100,933.9 546.8 29,161.5 4.0 26,807.2 719.0 14,078.7 5700.5 146.1

316
29-51 145.6 17.5 350.1 0.8 0.8 13.6 166.4 142.7 91,533.1 643.2 19,631.4 3.9 18,116.7 967.8 16,524.7 5361.0 132.2
40-22 138.0 17.2 305.3 0.7 0.7 14.4 148.6 107.7 94,842.6 644.3 19,443.8 3.8 21,238.4 865.5 17,302.8 5051.0 136.7
470-10 127.7 16.9 303.9 0.8 0.7 14.1 133.1 124.3 95,175.0 693.8 21,361.1 4.2 24,294.4 782.9 17,924.6 6289.5 152.5
5-26 77.9 16.8 334.5 0.9 0.9 9.8 93.8 117.4 90,103.7 510.2 45,440.8 3.9 18,955.3 1080.8 18,915.6 4813.3 119.5
5-26 duplicate 79.5 16.8 299.5 0.8 0.8 9.6 92.6 132.1 90,076.8 505.2 48,475.0 3.4 17,102.9 1102.3 19,105.9 4436.2 117.4
5-48 148.2 16.7 279.1 0.7 0.6 12.1 197.8 123.9 98,695.1 531.2 23,318.8 3.4 24,277.5 744.5 13,062.6 5077.9 140.3
51-04 133.6 19.0 304.8 0.8 0.8 13.0 194.7 134.6 95,293.6 566.5 25,421.4 3.4 25,825.9 987.6 13,936.9 5322.4 146.5
51-05 159.8 18.8 248.9 0.8 0.7 15.3 199.4 136.4 99,889.4 626.8 21,179.4 3.9 24,530.4 1191.1 14,219.9 4571.3 172.4
54-12 122.6 14.6 352.8 0.7 0.6 10.7 187.0 130.3 90,537.1 715.2 43,869.1 2.7 22,659.7 1038.9 16,352.6 4458.2 137.4
74-1-55 137.8 17.5 294.5 0.8 0.5 15.2 119.6 176.2 95,671.2 621.6 18,756.8 3.2 24,562.6 836.6 16,414.2 5488.7 167.6
74-1-11 126.2 17.7 304.4 0.7 0.9 13.4 123.7 131.3 92,542.0 747.2 20,932.3 2.9 24,058.3 712.7 17,696.8 6141.6 145.4
74-1-47 119.9 14.2 415.4 0.7 0.6 11.0 152.6 104.7 81,373.7 666.5 48,354.0 3.2 24,567.3 965.1 17,562.7 4457.6 118.0
74-1-51 151.7 19.5 366.1 0.7 0.7 15.1 177.0 105.2 97,231.5 679.4 22,344.5 3.9 23,098.0 1218.0 14,829.7 4498.7 133.1
74-1-58 127.5 14.6 400.7 0.7 0.7 11.1 170.4 115.7 83,461.8 664.4 48,357.6 3.7 25,787.4 1005.1 16,602.1 5607.8 99.0
74-1-65 132.2 14.7 382.5 0.8 0.6 11.2 176.4 114.1 91,009.1 598.8 43,008.6 3.4 23,307.9 1170.9 17,942.7 5040.5 105.7
77-13 140.7 20.2 333.8 0.7 0.9 16.3 144.7 149.2 99,681.0 698.0 19,408.6 3.5 22,704.1 1046.5 15,368.3 5208.2 151.7
77-73 121.6 16.4 359.3 0.7 0.7 12.8 134.9 143.7 87,916.2 624.3 30,537.3 3.2 22,742.1 767.8 15,193.0 5183.1 128.4
77-77 128.3 19.3 272.4 0.8 0.6 16.1 151.0 111.1 97,676.9 677.7 17,254.1 3.5 22,081.5 880.1 14,506.4 6048.4 149.8
99-17 76.7 16.1 441.5 0.8 1.0 9.9 92.3 117.5 79,018.1 431.7 53,801.5 3.8 18,393.1 1047.9 21,055.1 3618.7 100.7
99-18 88.3 17.3 290.7 0.9 0.8 11.3 118.8 163.0 87,736.6 496.8 24,170.9 4.3 16,866.8 1044.0 14,139.7 6008.5 153.0
99-23 140.8 18.2 328.0 0.8 0.9 14.4 135.8 174.7 95,296.4 571.7 16,164.9 3.7 24,380.0 712.5 15,515.7 6634.4 144.7
99-33 130.5 16.9 304.6 0.8 0.9 14.5 154.6 134.9 90,869.1 684.4 26,723.9 3.8 22,901.9 894.3 17,381.4 4951.8 138.9
99-37 140.2 15.0 385.5 0.8 0.7 11.3 202.5 98.8 94,610.3 639.3 28,111.7 3.6 28,502.2 619.4 18,810.1 4916.6 111.8
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
S.J. Kelloway et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324

Table 2
Results of LA-ICP-MS analysis of glazes (ppm) following the removal of Sn and Pb from the dataset and recasting back to 100%.

Sample Colour-decoration Site Area Si Al Ca Mn Fe

139-31 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 890,282 25,737 14,944 585 18,282
209-02 Plain cream Carrizales (C123) Church Exterior 639,537 158,316 53,836 1001 18,168
250-01 Brown-on-white Caleta de Chérrepe (C142) Central, colonial area 808,202 78,505 28,344 1763 20,092
250-39 Green-on-white Caleta de Chérrepe (C142) Central, colonial area 784,415 84,799 31,542 745 21,868
253-26 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe (C142) Central, colonial area 773,255 75,633 25,403 545 21,771
253-29 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe (C142) Central, colonial area 811,557 74,910 27,766 289 13,602
253-05 Plain cream Caleta de Chérrepe (C142) Central, colonial area 811,152 66,228 23,406 648 20,655
29-22 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 776,687 104,036 32,766 665 12,364
29-51 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 653,192 159,029 34,043 408 12,288
40-22 Black-on-green Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 703,460 102,045 31,096 368 8811
470-10 Plain cream Zaña (C305) Iglesia la Merced Exterior 734,296 91,462 43,654 494 12,192
5-48 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 767,670 73,206 31,498 340 8871
51-04 Green-brown-and-grey-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 740,941 97,896 32,106 305 7477
51-05 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 688,234 91,087 26,179 279 9474
54-12 Brown-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Town 671,918 124,768 54,066 2275 73,796
74-1-55 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 693,312 104,359 65,552 722 16,753
74-1-11 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 761,938 105,358 40,373 253 9659
74-1-47 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 758,846 108,257 34,115 260 12,758
74-1-51 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 755,378 112,090 40,773 963 22,450
74-1-58 Blue-and-brown-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 773,203 100,246 29,232 220 7266
74-1-65 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 764,094 100,597 29,833 171 7383
77–73 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 608,947 26,777 22,487 1748 266,897
77-13 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 775,574 105,924 25,953 283 14,309
77-77 Blue-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Midden 784,811 102,631 38,385 244 9814
99-17 Blue-on-White Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 837,813 35,196 11,802 335 11,079
99-18 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 809,413 31,399 20,629 715 25,130
99-33 Plain cream Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 732,795 103,697 27,551 384 12,971
99-37 Black-on-white Mocupe Viejo (C74) Church Exterior 734,188 99,170 40,893 289 13,055
A11331A Plain cream (greenish tint) Panama Viejo n/a 633,239 123,245 47,077 640 15,653
A11331B Plain cream (greenish tint) Panama Viejo n/a 714,653 126,558 39,189 269 5881
A7128-012 Blue-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 713,146 87,600 32,150 306 7438
A7128_028 Green-brown-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 803,082 87,997 33,933 299 12,418
A7128_029 Plain cream Panama Viejo n/a 801,188 84,108 24,315 247 13,119
A7128_033 Plain cream Panama Viejo n/a 734,493 93,009 26,410 322 12,233
A7128_043 Blue-and-brown-and-green-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 792,959 85,725 42,052 647 19,004
A7128_044 Plain cream (greenish tint) Panama Viejo n/a 707,813 127,781 51,991 1258 28,663
A7128_051 Plain cream Panama Viejo n/a 746,285 64,627 30,460 809 14,198
A7128_094 Brown-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 750,468 112,334 43,610 662 17,584
A7128_143 Plain cream Panama Viejo n/a 790,295 98,333 24,968 237 14,470
A7128_152 Blue-and-brown-and-yellow-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 747,646 106,527 31,657 432 16,450
A7128_209 Blue-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 786,167 100,232 32,874 643 17,430
A7128_317 Blue-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 781,373 100,078 31,710 228 11,061
A7128_504 Green-brown-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 777,135 67,437 35,565 500 16,207
A7128_523 Green-brown-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 769,760 111,320 35,883 320 10,445
A7128_524 Plain cream Panama Viejo n/a 691,922 119,338 47,801 669 13,971
A7128_541 Blue-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 772,339 116,610 32,624 261 10,360
A7128_546 Blue-on-white Panama Viejo n/a 762,577 105,480 22,513 214 12,946
PVV020_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 748,295 125,951 37,919 288 7949
PVV021_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 29 747,870 114,151 38,302 382 15,773
PVV022_1 Blue-and-brown-and-green-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 29 788,156 83,171 33,619 259 11,493
PVV023_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 762,928 84,557 44,114 382 15,782
PVV024_1 Blue-and-brown-and-green-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 28 723,639 86,358 43,168 483 11,993
PVV025_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 775,223 33,176 16,548 366 15,674
PVV026_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 28 689,961 108,014 54,899 790 14,231
PVV027_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 693,955 24,393 17,184 292 6975
PVV028_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 793,753 84,367 36,998 151 6493
PVV029_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 799,029 75,790 36,163 229 3085
PVV030_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 28 730,103 92,013 44,564 515 9590
PVV032_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Interior 760,758 59,347 40,861 373 8654
PVV033_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 805,977 78,728 29,736 512 14,302
PVV034_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 29 764,747 99,805 37,630 418 12,032
PVV035_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Unit 28 810,015 77,205 35,443 280 9488
PVV036_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Town - Surface collection 760,856 105,955 33,561 237 5942
PVV037_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo n/a 702,135 101,595 50,348 530 8788
PVV038_1 Blue-on-white Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 769,294 96,596 35,228 1348 10,831
PVV039_1 Green Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church Interior 796,263 34,009 43,148 342 10,367
PVV040_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 788,916 96,060 27,005 206 6388
PVV041_1 Plain cream Magdalena de Cao Viejo Church - Convent Area 79,488 32,769 528 8491

317
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf and Th. Further analytical details
are provided in Dussubieux et al. (2009).
4.4. Thin-section analysis and scanning electron microscopy
The samples identified as Andean in origin (n = 9, Fig. 2) were
further analysed petrographically (optical microscopy) and by
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and compared with existing thin-
section collections of Panamanian-made majolica from other projects
from the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and the Solomon
Islands collections (Dickinson and Green, 1973; Kelloway, 2014;
VanValkenburgh, 2009). Thin-sections were prepared at the Thin-sec-
tion Laboratory, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sci-
ences, University of New South Wales (UNSW). For SEM, the thin-sec-
tions were carbon coated and analysed using a Hitachi S-3400N SEM at
high vacuum, operating at 20 kV, 40 mA, at the Electron Microscope
Unit, Mark Wainwright Analytical Centre, UNSW. Spot analyses and
mapping were performed to verify the chemistry of inclusions and areas
of interest.
4.5. Data analysis
Principal components analysis (PCA) was performed for each che-
mical dataset, along with the analysis of elemental biplots, cluster
analysis, discriminant analysis and the mean and standard deviations
for groups. Both non-transformed data (as elements in ppm), log10-
transformed and isometric log-ratio-transformed (ILR) data were used
variously prior to analysing the datasets by classical and robust PCA
(Filzmoser et al., 2009). The resultant provenance associations were the
same for all treatments, with the log10-transformed PCA results pre-
sented here. During the analysis of data obtained by INAA, Ni and Sb
were excluded - Ni was below detection level for most specimens, and
Sb was a potential glaze contaminant. Where Sr values were below the
detection limits, values 0.55% of the estimated detection level were
substituted. The resultant chemical data were compared with chemical
data of ceramics from other regions in the MURR chemical database,
including those from Peru, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Panama and Spain. Analyses were also conducted with and
318
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
Fig. 2. Majolica sherds identified as Peruvian-made based on the
chemical characterisations presented in this study. Top (left to right):
29-15, 99-18 and 229-04; Middle (left to right): 99-17, 5-26 and 139-
31; Bottom (left to right): PVV027 and PVV025. The reverse sides are
undecorated where a glaze is present.
without Na, K and Rb, when comparing the majolica chemical dataset
with high Ca ceramics from Spain due to the crystallization of analcime
(Buxeda and Garrigós, 1999; Buxeda et al., 2002; Schwedt et al., 2006;
Iñañez et al., 2008). Arsenic and Co were also excluded for comparison
with Spanish ceramics from Talavera, Manises and Sevilla. Further
inter-laboratory comparative analyses were carried out using results
from Rovira et al. (2006), Jamieson et al. (Jamieson and Hancock,
2004; Jamieson et al., 2012), Fournier et al. (2009) and Olin and
Blackman (1989). Prior to the statistical analysis of the data obtained
by LA-ICP-MS, Sn and Pb were removed from the dataset due to the
high variability of their concentrations, and the dataset re-summed to
1,000,000 ppm (100%) before further treatment. Tin and Pb are major
constituents of majolica glazes and are present in variable amounts
from one production site to another and sometimes within the same
production site. By removing these elements the analyses focus on other
aspects of the glaze recipe. For statistical analyses, Au was excluded due
to low concentrations and detection limits, as well as Sb, Cu and Co
because of potential contamination from decorated areas. Statistical
analyses were performed using Statistica (v7.0), R statistics (v.3.3.2)
using the robCompositions package (Templ et al., 2016) and Microsoft
Excel 2007, with JMP (v.10.0.0) used to create figures.
5. Results
5.1. INAA
Table 1 presents the results of analysis of sherds by INAA. This
dataset was compared with chemical data from sherds made in Spain,
South America, Mexico and Panama, from both colonial and pre-colo-
nial periods. Fig. 3 shows the plot of the first three principal compo-
nents (PCs) resulting from PCA of the results of INAA of sherds in this
study, as well as colonial period ceramics from the Zaña Valley typo-
logically identified as locally-made, Spain and sherds of Panamanian,
Peruvian (and likely Peruvian) and Spanish origins recovered from sites
in the Solomon Islands (SI chemical groups, associated with Alvaro de
Mendaña's Peruvian-based 16th Century expedition (Kelloway, 2014;
Kelloway et al., 2014, 2016)). The Spanish comparative ceramics also
include majolica from Seville, Talavera and Manises (Iñañez et al.,
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Fig. 3. Plot of the first, second and third principal components resulting from principal
components analysis of the combined chemical dataset resulting from INAA of majolica
from Peru's Zaña Valley (PAZC), locally-made ceramics from the Zaña Valley, sherds
recovered from the Solomon Islands (SI) and ceramics of Spanish origin from Manises,
Seville and Talavera: (a) scores and (b) loadings. The ellipsoids represent 90% confidence
intervals.
2007, 2008). The first five PCs account for 90.3% of the variability in
the dataset. As indicated in this figure, most of the majolica in this study
groups with known Panamanian-made samples (SI group 1).
Inter-laboratory comparisons with Rovira et al.'s (2006) dataset also
support these provenance assignations. A subset of the majolica col-
lected from north coast Peru clearly does not group with the Panama-
nian material but is chemically similar to the locally-made Zaña Valley
pottery, SI group 8 and SI outliers, indicating a Peruvian origin: 5-26,
139-31, 99-18, 29-15, 99-17, 229-04 and 150-16 (including duplicates,
Figs. 2 and 3). Peruvian- and Panamanian-made sherds are significantly
319
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
distinguishable from each other by their Cs and As concentrations, with
Panamanian-made sherds higher in both Cs and As than Peruvian-made
sherds (Kelloway, 2014; Kelloway et al., 2016). Spanish-made ceramics
are largely distinct from the former two groups by higher Ca and Cr
concentrations. The chemical composition of sherds in this study is also
distinct from majolica recovered from 18th Century contexts in Po-
payán, Colombia (Glascock, 2017), which are chemically similar to
other Colombian samples (results not presented here). Inter-laboratory
comparisons with Olin and Blackman’s (1989) and Fournier et al.’s
(2009) study of Mexican majolica also demonstrate that the samples
from Peru’s north coast are not chemically similar to the ceramics made
in New Spain.
Inter-laboratory comparisons amongst samples identified as
Peruvian-associating in this study and Jamieson and Hancock's (2004)
and Jamieson et al.'s (2012) studies of Ecuadorian colonial majolica
show some chemical similarities but overall comparisons present too
many poor to average matches for a same source to be likely. Compared
with the chemical signature of Cuenca Polychrome majolica (Jamieson
and Hancock, 2004), the subset of nine samples are generally higher in
Ca, Mn, Na and Eu. The Quito Polychrome, Quito Blue-on-white and
Quito Plain (Jamieson and Hancock, 2004) sherds are generally lower
in Mn, As, Cs, and Eu compared with the Peruvian-associated samples
in this study, with Sm also a poor match. Sherds that Jamieson et al.
(2012) identify as a Riobamba group also do not match the latter, due
to differences in K, As, U, Cr, Cs and Ta.
Aside from the comparisons with colonial period ceramics above,
the sherds in this study were also compared with over 6000 sherds in
the MURR “Ceramics of Indigenous Cultures of South America” data-
base (Glascock, 2017), largely pre-colonial (not presented here). This
includes ceramics from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador
and Peru. The results of comparisons with the ceramics from this en-
ormous database and the majolica in this study support the various
Panamanian and Peruvian provenance determinations described above.
Furthermore, there is a strong compositional similarity amongst the
Peruvian-identified majolica here and pre-colonial sherds recovered
from Peru's north coast.
5.2. LA-ICP-MS and thin-section analyses
Initially, the sample set analysed by LA-ICP-MS for statistical ana-
lysis was restricted to only those same samples that underwent INAA.
This was done to identify the elements potentially most significant in
discriminating majolica made in Panama from those found to be
Peruvian by analysis of INAA-obtained data. A range of elements that
provided good discrimination between the Panamanian and Peruvian-
associating ceramics were determined using biplots. The majors suc-
cessfully discriminated between these sample sets, in particular a
combination of Al, Fe, Mn, Si and Ca (Table 2). Principal components
analysis (PCA) using these elements also successfully discriminated the
two groups.
PCA was subsequently carried out on the entire dataset resulting
from LA-ICP-MS analysis using Al, Fe, Mn, Si and Ca as variables. The
first three PCs account for 95.7% of the variability in the dataset. Fig. 4
presents the plot of the first three PCs of PCA, indicating that two ad-
ditional samples also appear to be Peruvian-made, namely, PVV025 and
PVV027 from Magdalena de Cao Viejo. The remaining samples as-
sociate with the sherds from Panama Viejo and the known Panama-
made sherds found on the Peruvian sites as determined by the INAA
study. Higher Al and Ca concentrations readily separate out the Pana-
manian samples from the remainder. Iron and Mn contribute to the
spread of these two groups, but are particularly significant in dis-
criminating two Panamanian outliers. Both of these sherds (5–48 and
77–73) are known to be Panamanian based on the analysis of results
from INAA. Although attempts were made to avoid decorated areas, the
high Mn and Fe concentrations of one of these outliers could be partly
due to colourants, as the sherd presents brown designs. The other
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Fig. 4. Plot of the first, second and third principal components resulting from principal
components analysis of the chemical dataset resulting from LA-ICP-MS of majolica from
Peru's Zaña Valley, Magdalena de Cao Viejo and Panama Viejo, showing separation of
Panamanian- and Peruvian-made majolica: (a) scores and (b) loadings. The red symbols
represent sherds identified as Peruvian-made and the blue symbols Panamanian-made.
Sherds from the Zaña Valley are represented by triangles, sherds from Madgelanda de Cao
Viejo by squares, and those from Panama Viejo by circles. The ellipsoids represent 90%
confidence intervals. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
sample is undecorated and the Fe and Mn differences could be due to
other glaze ingredients. As there are only a few Peruvian samples in this
study, these results are somewhat tentative although promising, and the
analysis of more samples of Peruvian-made majolica should enhance
our understanding of chemical differences.
Following the analysis of the results of LA-ICP-MS, the nine cera-
mics associated with Peruvian reference groups were thin-sectioned to
investigate the determined chemical differences. A comparison with
320
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
Panamanian-made majolica indicated that some of the Peruvian sherds
presented particularly high amounts of temper grains in their glazes,
based on optical microscopy: 139-31, 05-26, 150-16 and 99-18 (Fig. 5).
Iñañez et al. (2007, 2016b) have reported the use of temper to com-
pensate for a lack of tin in majolica from 17th–19th Century Catalan
and Basque centres but more samples would be needed to explore this
idea further in this case and no such conclusions can be drawn here yet.
Analysis also indicated that many of the temper grains in the Peruvian-
associated glazes appeared to be quartz with some feldspars present,
but that in comparison generally feldspar grains occurred more fre-
quently than quartz in the Panamanian samples. This was supported by
SEM analysis of a subset of samples (most Panamanian sections are
cover-slipped and so unable to be analysed by SEM), with Fig. 5 also
presenting an example elemental map of majolica sample 150-16. This
mineralogical difference helps to partly explain why the two groups are
distinguished significantly by their Si, Ca, and Al concentrations, in
conjunction with potential differences in other components of the glaze
recipes, such as clays.
6. Discussion
Most of the majolica samples in this study (46 out of 55 sherds)
collected from archaeological sites in Peru's north coast region are
identified as Panamanian in origin, based on comparative analysis of
results from INAA and LA-ICP-MS. In addition to identifying
Panamanian majolica, nine fragments were also identified as chemi-
cally distinct from Panamanian-made samples, based variously on
ceramic body and glaze chemistry. Based on analysis of the results of
INAA, these sherds were also chemically different from majolica made
in Spain, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador. Rather, chemical associations
were made with locally-produced sherds retrieved from the Zaña
Valley, Peruvian ceramics recovered from the Solomon Islands, and pre-
colonial Peruvian ceramics in MURR databases. As such, an Andean and
further a Peruvian origin is likely for this group of nine majolica sherds.
These provenance results in conjunction with typological analysis of
associated site collections show that Panamanian majolica was the
dominant type of glazed tableware used at Mocupe Viejo (C74) and
Magdalena de Cao Viejo (VanValkenburgh, forthcoming). This pattern
underscores the degree to which people in these two indigenous com-
munities were engaged with the networks that tied north coast Peru to
Panama and the Caribbean in the early to mid-17th Century. This in-
cluded trade driven by the movement of agricultural and pastoral
products (sugar, wheat, hides, and soap) from northern Peru to Panama
and the movement of slaves, manufactured goods and other agricultural
products in the other direction. Economies of scale in production in
Panama and the social value of Panamanian versus Andean-made ma-
terials doubtless had a large impact on the processes of majolica dis-
tribution, even if the exact nature of these processes is unclear.
Alongside enslaved Africans, forcibly resettled indigenous people living
in reducciones during this period provided the vast majority of labor for
both agro-pastoral production and the movement of goods between
processing facilities and ports (Burga, 1976; Ramírez, 1986, 1996). As a
result, they likely regularly interacted with traders bringing Panama-
nian wares on boats from the Isthmus and enhanced demand for these
goods in northern Peruvian markets. The lack of Andean-made majolica
in these assemblages could be related to the ease with which Pana-
manian majolica was transported down the Peruvian coast, which
possibly limited import costs, as well as the desire to obtain foreign
ceramics. Although the exact origin of the Peruvian-made sherds is
unclear, if produced inland, the dominance of Panamanian majolica
could indicate that transportation of Peruvian-made wares to the coast
was difficult and/or more expensive.
The question of whether and how these artifacts reflect changing
identities is beyond the scope of this paper, but excavations at both
Magdalena de Cao Viejo and Mocupe Viejo underscore significant
changes not only in ceramic assemblages during this period, but also
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Fig. 5. Top: plane-polarised images of glazes from Panamanian sample A7128-29 from the FLMNH (left) and majolica sherd 139-31 from this study (right) showing the difference in
number of inclusions and their distribution, with quartz inclusions dominating the glaze of 139-31. Scale bars indicate 100 μm. Bottom: SEM image and Si elemental map from glazed area
of sample 150-16 showing quartz inclusions in the glaze. Scale bars indicate 40 μm.
foodways (Kennedy and VanValkenburgh, 2016; Vazquez et al., forth-
coming). As indicated by Tables 1 and 2, in this study Panamanian
majolica was found in both church and town/central site colonial
contexts in roughly equal proportions. Given the high numbers of Pa-
namanian majolica here, this association is likely strongly influenced by
sampling. More telling is the analysis of ceramics across types at these
two sites, which shows that majolica was recovered from all sectors of
Mocupe Viejo and Magdalena de Cao Viejo, but in particularly high
numbers among assemblages recovered in immediate association with
the churches at both sites, suggesting that the type retained some pri-
vileged association with domestic activity in ecclesiastical zones
(VanValkenburgh, 2012; VanValkenburgh, forthcoming). Interestingly,
Peruvian-made majolica in this study was also recovered from both
church and domestic town contexts in roughly equal portions. This is
unlikely to be strongly related to sampling as the numbers are small.
Although the entire collections were not sampled, this suggests the
possibility that Andean-made majolica was used in both settings re-
gardless of production, perhaps because the quality or social value was
comparable. The abundance of Panamanian majolica might then point
more firmly to access to goods and price as primary (although not ex-
clusive) reasons for the lack of the former.
The decoration and archaeological contexts of the nine Peruvian-
made sherds identified here provide additional information about
where and when they may have been made and how the vessels they
were once part of may have been circulated. The sherds include brown
and blue designs on a white/pale blue background (n = 1), blue-on-
white/cream (n = 4), plain cream (n = 3) and green decorations on a
cream background (n = 1). The plain cream sherds are small and could
easily be from vessels that had decoration, in particular 29-15. Blue-
series decoration is the most common in this group followed by plain
cream, and the single green-series sherd (229-04). The latter was col-
lected from the surface of the youngest site in the study (Caleta de
Chérrepe), with a typology that does not match any sherds recovered in
excavations at either of the older sites in the Zaña/Chamán region
321
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
(Mocupe Viejo and Carrizales), probably produced in the 18th Century.
All of the remaining samples are from Mocupe Viejo (n = 6, c.
1572–1652) and Magdalena de Cao Viejo (n = 2, c. 1578–1720). Based
on these occupation patterns, ceramics of this type were likely pro-
duced and circulated from the late 16th Century to the end of the 18th
and we suspect that the heyday of their production could date to the
first half of the 17th Century. If this is the case, Peruvian production of
this majolica would overlap with peak production of majolica at
Panama Viejo before its abandonment in 1671.
The decorative types identified as Peruvian-made here also indicate
that in cases where sherds are small with little to no decoration, it is
possible that sherds Peruvian in origin are and have been mistaken for
Panamanian-made sherds. Indeed, in this study, some sherds initially
thought to be Panamanian in provenance were identified as Peruvian.
Without chemical analyses this is naturally a difficult problem to solve
for small sherds and until Peruvian majolica patterns are identified, the
potential uncertainty remains even where there are bigger sherds with
which to work; however, it could mean that more Peruvian majolica
exists in collections than previously thought and re-examination could
help reveal more about this industry. An examination of the glaze re-
sults presented here also indicates very different glaze recipes and raw
material selections for Panamanian and Peruvian majolica. In addition
to LA-ICP-MS, Pb-isotope analysis is also currently underway to further
explore the issues of raw materials selection in these two production
regions.
Based on the current sample, we are unable to suggest exactly where
these materials were produced within Peru. Acevedo (1986: 21) has
noted that production in Zaña is recorded as starting in the 17th Cen-
tury and indeed, there is a chemical similarity between the Peruvian
majolica in this study and the Zaña Valley local material as analysed by
INAA but more samples would be needed to explore this notion. The
ceramic compositional similarity of these samples in general with those
from the north coast of Peru hints at a possible North Peruvian pro-
duction site(s). Farther south, blue-on-white and plain cream sherds
S.J. Kelloway et al.
have been excavated in Lima and suggested as Peruvian-made, but they
have not been confirmed chemically or otherwise. Flores Espinoza
et al.'s (1981: 34–46,52) recovery of possible Peruvian blue-on-white
sherds from Casa Osambela have not been proven as Peruvian in origin,
and Cárdenas Martin's (1971, 1973) reported finds of blue-decorated
and plain cream coloured sherds in colonial contexts (16th to 17th
Centuries) at Huaca Palomino, Lima, have been suggested by Rice
(1997: 177) as Panamanian or Mexican based on illustrations. These
illustrations present designs that are different to those on the Peruvian
majolica presented in this paper. Fhon Bazán (2016) has also recently
presented the incredible diversity of 17th and 18th Century materials
from excavations at the Casa Bodega y Cuadra, Lima, and although
these too are yet to be formally chemically studied, an analysis of these
and the above collections could prove highly valuable in the identifi-
cation of Peruvian majolica and the understanding of its distribution.
The presence of blue-series ceramics does suggest a production
centre(s) utilising colours distinct from those made in the south of Peru,
typically greens and browns. As such, it also suggests some important
contributions to the southern sphere of loza production described by
Rice and Natt (2013), primarily associated with the use of copper green,
although both acknowledge the presence of blue-on-white ceramics as
well. The southern dominance of green is suggested as related to mor-
isco/mudéjar potters/influence. Potentially, the use of blues on the
north coast could be related to a range of influences, including the use
of cobalt linked to silver production, a lack of morisco/mudéjar potters/
influence, influences from Panamanian potters, and the imitation of
porcelains arriving by the late 16th Century due to the Manila galleon
trade. It might be that in the Peruvian north coast, blue and white
decorations played a larger role than in the south, with the area in close
proximity to Panama, which produced blue-on-white series during the
17th Century, had close trade ties with north coast Peru and where the
two spheres of loza production overlap (Borah, 1954; Deagan, 1987;
Rice, 2013b: 304; Rovira, 2001). It is possible that the overlap of the
two spheres extended to northern Peru or that a sub-sphere might exist
within the southern sphere of loza production. The presence of blue-on-
white and plain white majolica in other northern Peruvian and Ecua-
dorian centres may more generally be a sign of the socio-economic
differences that set this region apart from the networks that tied to-
gether Moquegua, Potosí, Cuzco, and northern Chile and Argentina; it
may highlight the degree of economic integration between the northern
regions and the Isthmus. The recovery of sherds from 17th Century
Casco Viejo in Panama (not presented here) that are chemically similar
to the Peruvian-made ceramics presented in this study could further
underscore the ties between north Peru and Panama, and along with
future finds has the potential to offer exciting new insights into aspects
of colonial socio-economics and Andean majolica production that have
yet to be explored. Blue-on-white and plain white majolica have been
identified as a Quito 17th and 18th Century product by Jamieson et al.
(2012) and historical sources also hint that blue-on-white and blue and
black-on-white majolica was produced in the northern highland city of
Cajamarca during the colonial period (Acevedo, 1986: 21). It should be
noted, however, that the differences in the two production spheres
explored by Rice and Natt (2013: 304–305) also extend to vessel shape
and skill of design execution, aspects unable to be determined from the
sherds in this study. It is hoped that future studies able to identify
Andean-made majolica will be able to flesh out in more detail these
aspects and allow for further contributions to the southern loza pro-
duction sphere.
7. Conclusions
This study identifies majolica of apparent Peruvian origin, and
provides new data further demonstrating that potting communities in
colonial Peru did indeed produce majolica; suggesting that they did so
at least from the late 16th Century. The decorative patterns on the
samples in this paper in conjunction with previous findings indicate
322
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
clearly that blue-series majolica was produced in the Andes during the
colonial period. Historic references to ceramic production in Zaña and a
chemical similarity to ceramics produced in northern Peru make it
possible that some of the samples here were produced in that region.
Further research, particularly in the remains of colonial Peruvian urban
centres, will hopefully provide additional data that may allow us to
pinpoint these distinct centres and begin to understand how their
products were exchanged. The presence of blue-series Peruvian majo-
lica provides additional detail to Rice and Natt's (2013) spheres of loza,
potentially indicating a greater overlap of the two loza spheres than
previously known or a Peruvian sub-sphere quite different from 16th to
18th Century southern Peru and possibly related to a number of socio-
economic and political factors. The identification of Peruvian-made
majolica in this paper is one of the first steps in the Peruvian north coast
to understanding the various pressures and influences that led to de-
velopment of this industry, from the raw materials used to forms and
decoration types and execution, and to its distribution within in Peru
and beyond. The abundance of Panamanian majolica at the Zaña Valley
sites in this study also underscores the role of trade in these areas. The
sites were inhabited by indigenous communities, which appear to have
had regular access to Panamanian majolica. They were not isolated
from the colonial economy but thoroughly enmeshed in it.
Abbreviations
AAT Archivo Arzobispal de Trujillo, Trujillo, Peru
ADL Archivo Departamental de Lambayeque, Trujillo, Perú
AGN Archivo General de la Nación, Lima, Perú
ANC Archivo Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
BNL Biblioteca Nacional de Lima, Lima, Perú
Acknowledgements
Samples from the FLMNH were generously provided by Kathleen
Deagan and Gifford Waters. Funding for LA-ICP-MS analysis was pro-
vided with the support of an NSF major instrumentation grant to the
Analytical Research Facility at the Field Museum (BCS 0818401). INAA
was funded by the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of
Vermont (to VanValkenburgh), through subvention from the National
Science Foundation to the University of Missouri Research Reactor
(Grant 1415403) and in part by the Carlyle Greenwell Research Fund,
University of Sydney (to Kelloway). Funding for the excavations and
field research that recovered samples was provided through an
International Dissertation Research Fellowship from the Social Science
Research Council (to VanValkenburgh) and a National Endowment for
the Humanities Collaborative Research Grant (RZ5115010, to Quilter).
SEM work was undertaken at the Electron Microscope Unit at the
University of New South Wales. Cody Roush provided analytical assis-
tance at MURR and Joanne Wilde prepared the thin-sections. We also
thank Karen Privat for help with SEM setup (EMU, UNSW), Martin Van
Kranendonk and Georgia Soares for access to a camera-equipped optical
microscope (BEES, UNSW), Ryan Williams, Matthew Piscitelli, Cristian
Mesia Montenegro, Regulo Franco Jordan, Carmen Gamarra, Carol
Rojas Vega, Rocío Torres Mora, and Rosabella Alvarez-Calderón. Iñañez
is indebted to Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (HAR2013-
46853-P). The authors would also like to thank Dr. Prudence Rice and
an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on this paper.
References
Acevedo, S., 1986. Trayectoria de la cerámica vidriada en el Perú. In: Stastny, F.,
Acevedo, S. (Eds.), Vidriados y Mayólica Del Perú. Museo de Arte y de Historia,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, pp. 19–31.
Acevedo Basurto, S., Torres, F., Alayza, P., 2004. La loza de la tierra: cerámica vidriada en
el Perú. Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima.
Borah, W., 1954. Early Colonial Trade and Navigation Between Mexico and Peru.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, Ibero-Americana.
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Burga, M., 1976. De la encomienda a la hacienda capitalista: el valle del Jequetepeque del
siglo XVI al XX, Estudios de la sociedad rural 4. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.
Buxeda, i, Garrigós, J., 1999. Alteration and contamination of archaeological ceramics:
the perturbation problem. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 295–313.
Buxeda, i, Garrigós, J., Mommsen, H., Tsolakidou, A., 2002. Alterations of Na, K and Rb
concentrations in Mycenaean pottery and a proposed explanation using X-ray dif-
fraction. Archaeometry 44, 187–198.
Cárdenas Martin, M., 1971. Huaca Palomino (valle del Rímac): Fragmentería vidriada
fina con decoración en colores. Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología (Instituto Riva
Agüero de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú). 10. pp. 61–67.
Cárdenas Martin, M., 1973. Cerámica de transición: Huaca Palomino (valle del Rímac).
Boletín del Seminario de Arqueología (Instituto Riva Agüero de la Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú). 14. pp. 30–34.
Castañeda Murga, J., 2006. Etnohistoria de Magdalena de Cao, Informe de Investigación.
Ethnohistorical Research Report prepared for Jeffrey Quilter. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA.
Chatfield, M., 2007. From Inca to Spanish Colonial: Transitions in Ceramic Technology
(Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara.
Chatfield, M., 2010. Tracing firing technology through clay properties in Cuzco, Peru. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 37, 727–736.
Cornejo Bouroncle, J., 1960. Derroteros de Arte Cusqueño. Ed. Garcilaso, Cusco, Peru.
de Covarrubias Orozco, S., 1979. Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. Turner,
Madrid.
Deagan, K., 1987. Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean,
1500–1800. Volume 1 - Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Dickinson, W.R., 2007. Petrography of Sand Tempers in Historic Sherds of Red
Earthenware From Spanish Panama. (Unpublished report).
Dickinson, W.R., Green, R.C., 1973. Temper Sands in 1595 A.D.: Spanish Ware from the
Solomon Islands. J. Polynesian Soc. 82, 293–300.
Dussubieux, L., Robertshaw, Glascock, M.D., 2009. LA-ICP-MS analysis of African glass
beads: laboratory inter-comparison with an emphasis on the impact of corrosion on
data interpretation. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 284, 152–161 (Special Issue on Art and
Cultural Heritage).
Fhon Bazán, M., 2016. Espacios públicos y domésticos: transformaciones de la casa
Bodega y Quadra en relación a la traza urbana de Lima (Siglos XVI–XIX). In:
Traslaviña Arias, T.A., Chase, Z., VanValkenburgh, P., Weaver, B. (Eds.), Arqueología
Histórica En El Perú. PUCP, Lima.
Filzmoser, P., Hron, K., Reimann, C., 2009. Principal component analysis for composi-
tional data with outliers. Environmetrics 20, 621–632.
Flores Espinoza, I., Garcia Soto, R., Huertas, V.L., 1981. Investigacion Arqueologica-
Historica de la Casa Osambela (o de Oquendo) - Lima, Lima, Instituto Nacional de
Cultura Centro de Investigacion y Restauracion de Bienes Monumentales.
Fournier, P., Blackman, J.M., Bishop, R.L., 2009. Empleo de Análisis Instrumentales de
Activación Neutrónica (INAA) en el estudio del origen de la mayólica en México.
Arqueología 42, 151–165.
Frothingham, A.W., 1969. Tile Panels of Spain, 1500–1650. Hispanic Society of America,
New York.
Glascock, M.D., 1992. Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron
activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In: Neff, H.H. (Ed.), Chemical
Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison,
Wisconsin, pp. 11–26.
Glascock, M.D. (Ed.), 2017. Ceramics of Indigenous Cultures of South America,
((Database of INAA results). http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/data-
sets.html).
Glascock, M.D., Neff, H., 2003. Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in
archaeology. Meas. Sci. Technol. 14, 1516–1526.
Goggin, J.M., 1968. Spanish majolica in the New World: types of the sixteenth to eight-
eenth centuries. In: Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 72. Dept. of
Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven.
Gratuze, B., 1999. Obsidian characterization by laser ablation ICP-MS and its application
to prehistoric trade in the Mediterranean and the Near East: sources and distribution
of obsidian within the Aegean and Anatolia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 869–881.
Gutiérrez Samanez, J.A., 2016. Rescate de la cerámica vidriada colonial cusqueña.
Ministerio de Cultura, Cusco.
Harth Terré, E., 1957. Azulejos Criollos y de Castilla. El Comercio, Lima.
Harth Terré, E., Marquez Abanto, A., 1958. El azulejo criollo en la arquitectura limeña.
Revista Museo Nacional Lima XXII. pp. 411–440.
Iñañez, J., Schwedt, A., Madrid i Fernández, M., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Gurt i
Esparraguera, J.M., 2007. Caracterización arqueométrica de los principales centros
productores catalanes de cerámica mayólica de los siglos XVI y XVII. In: Molera, J.,
Farjas, J., Roura, P., Pradell, T. (Eds.), Avances en Arqueometría 2005. Universitat de
Girona, Girona, pp. 97–107.
Iñañez, J.G., Speakman, R.J., Buxeda, i, Garrigós, J., Glascock, M.D., 2008. Chemical
characterization of majolica from 14th to 18th century production centers on the
Iberian Peninsula: a preliminary neutron activation study. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35,
425–440.
Iñañez, J.G., Martín, J.G., Coello, A., 2012. La Mayólica del Convento de Santo Domingo
(Siglos XVI-XVII), Lima (Perú). In: Teixeira, A., António Bettencourt, J. (Eds.), Velhos
e Novos Mundos Estudos de Arqueología Moderna. volume 2. Centro de História de
Além-Mar, Lisboa, pp. 837–846.
Iñañez, J.G., Bellucci, J.J., Guillermo Martín, J., Ash, R., McDonough, W.F., Speakman,
R., 2016a. Pb Isotopic Composition of Panamanian Colonial Majolica by LA-ICP-MS.
In: Dussubieux, L., Golitko, M., Gratuze, B. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Laser Ablation
ICP-MS for Archaeology. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, pp. 343–358.
Iñañez, J.G., Calparsoro Forcada, E., Arana, G., Solaun, J., Escribano-Ruiz, S., Rodríguez-
323
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
Miranda, A., Valle-Melon, J.M., 2016b. From inland to the coast: dry port customs,
pottery and kilns in Basque Country (17th to 19th centuries). In: Paper Presented at
the Eighth World Archaeological Congress (WAC8), Kyoto, Japan.
Jamieson, R.W., 2001. Majolica in the early colonial Andes: the role of Panamanian
wares. Lat. Am. Antiq. 12, 45–58.
Jamieson, R.W., 2005. Colonialism, social archaeology and lo Andino: historical ar-
chaeology in the Andes. World Archaeol. 37, 352–372.
Jamieson, R.W., Hancock, R.G.V., 2004. Neutron activation analysis of colonial ceramics
from southern highland Ecuador. Archaeometry 46, 569–583.
Jamieson, R.W., Hancock, R.G.V., Beckwith, L.A., Pidruczny, A.E., 2012. Neutron acti-
vation analysis of Inca and colonial ceramics from central highland Ecuador.
Archaeometry 55, 198–213.
Kelloway, S.J., 2014. On the Edge: A Study of Spanish Colonisation Fleets to the West
Pacific and Archaeological Assemblages from Solomon Islands (Doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kelloway, S.J., Gibbs, M., Craven, S., 2013. The sherds of Conquistadors: a petrological
study of ceramics from Graciosa Bay and Pamua, Solomon Islands. Archaeol. Ocean.
48, 53–59.
Kelloway, S.J., Craven, S., Pecha, M., Dickinson, W.R., Gibbs, M., Ferguson, T., Glascock,
M.D., 2014. Sourcing olive jars using U-Pb ages of detrital zircons: a study of 16th
century olive jars recovered from the Solomon Islands. Geoarchaeology 29, 47–60.
Kelloway, S., Ferguson, T.J., Iñañez, J.G., VanValkenburgh, Roush, C.C., Gibbs, M.,
Glascock, M.D., 2016. Sherds on the edge: characterisation of Spanish Colonial pot-
tery from the Solomon Islands. Archaeometry 58, 549–573.
Kennedy, S., VanValkenburgh, P., 2016. Zooarchaeology and changing food practices at
Carrizales, Peru, following the Spanish invasion. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 20, 73–104.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1974. Maiolica in colonial Spanish America. Hist. Archaeol. 8,
17–52.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1978. The first Mexican majolicas: imported and locally pro-
duced. Hist. Archaeol. 12, 1–24.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1982. Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley of Mexico.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1984. The Potters' quarter of colonial Puebla, Mexico. Hist.
Archaeol. 18, 87–102.
Long, G.A., 1964. Excavations at Panama la Vieja. Fla. Anthropol. 17, 104–109.
Long, G.A., 1967. Archaeological Investigations at Panama la Vieja (Masters thesis).
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Maggetti, M., Westley, H., Olin, J.S., 1984. Provenance and technical studies of Mexican
majolica using elemental and phase analysis. In: Archaeological Chemistry-III.
American Chemical Society, pp. 151–191.
Martín, J.G., Caicedo, A.S., Etayo, B., Garcés, A., Sanabria, 2007. Producción y
comercialización de cerámicas coloniales en los Andes: el caso de las mayólicas de
Popayán. Gabinete Arqueol. 6, 28–39.
Mogrovejo Rosales, J.D., 1996. Arqueología urbana de evidencias coloniales en la ciudad
de Lima. In: Cuadernos de Investigación. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Instituto Riva-Agüero, Lima.
Neff, H., 2000. Neutron activation analysis for provenance determination in archaeology.
In: Ciliberto, E., Spoto, G. (Eds.), Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 81–134.
Oberti Rodriguez, I., 1999. Cerámica Colonial Cuzqueña. Rev. Univ. 138, 139–152.
Olin, J.S., Blackman, M.J., 1989. Compositional classification of Mexican majolica cera-
mics of the Spanish Colonial period. In: Archaeological Chemistry IV. American
Chemical Society, pp. 87–112.
Olin, J.S., Myers, J.E., 1992. Old and new world Spanish majolica technology. MRS Bull.
17, 32–38.
Olin, J.S., Sayre, E.V., 1975. Neutron activation analysis of majolica from Spanish colo-
nial sites in Meso-America. Bull. Am. Inst. Conserv. Hist. Artist. Work. 15, 57–62.
Olin, J.S., Harbottle, G., Sayre, E.V., 1978. Elemental compositions of Spanish and
Spanish-colonial majolica ceramics in the identification of provenience. In: Carter,
G.F. (Ed.), Archaeological Chemistry. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 200–229.
Pedrotta, V., Gómez Romero, F., 1998. Historical archaeology: an outlook from the
Argentinean Pampas. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 2, 113–131.
Quilter, J., 2011. Cultural encounters at Magdalena de Cao Viejo in the early colonial
period. In: Liebmann, M., Murphy, M.S. (Eds.), Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the
Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas. School of
Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 103–126.
Ramírez, S.E., 1986. Provincial Patriarchs: Land Tenure and the Economics of Power in
Colonial Peru. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Ramírez, S.E., 1996. The World Upside Down : Cross-cultural Contact and Conflict in
Sixteenth-century Peru. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Rice, P.M., 1994. The kilns of Moquegua, Peru: technology, excavations, and functions. J.
Field Archaeol. 21, 325–344.
Rice, P.M., 1997. Tin-Enameled Wares of Moquegua, Peru. In: Gasco, J., Smith, G.C.,
Fournier García, P. (Eds.), Approaches to the Historical Archaeology of Mexico,
Central and South America. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles, pp. 173–180.
Rice, P.M., 2012. Vintage Moquegua: History, Wine, and Archaeology on a Colonial
Peruvian Periphery. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Rice, P.M., 2013a. Political-ecology perspectives on new world Loza (majolica). Int. J.
Hist. Archaeol. 17, 651–683.
Rice, P.M., 2013b. Space-Time Perspectives on Early Colonial Moquegua. University Press
of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Rice, P.M., Natt, W., 2013. Ceramic spatialization: southern styles. In: Rice, P.M. (Ed.),
Space-Time Perspectives on Early Colonial Moquegua. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder, CO, pp. 281–308.
S.J. Kelloway et al.
Rice, P.M., Smith, G.C., 1989. The Spanish colonial wineries of Moquegua, Peru. Hist.
Archaeol. 23, 41–49.
Rice, P.M., Van Beck, S.L., 1993. The Spanish colonial kiln tradition of Moquegua, Peru.
Hist. Archaeol. 27, 65–81.
Rovira, B.E., 2001. Presencia de mayólicas Panameñas en el mundo colonial: algunas
consideraciones acerca de su distribución y cronología. Lat. Am. Antiq. 12, 291–303.
Rovira, B.E., Blackman, J., van Zelst, L., Bishop, R., Rodríguez, C.C., Sánchez, D., 2006.
Caracterización química de cerámicas coloniales del sitio de Panamá Viejo. Canto
Rodado 1, 101–131.
Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., Zacharias, N., Buxeda, i, Garrigós, J., 2006. Analcime crys-
tallization and compositional profiles—comparing approaches to detect post-de-
positional alterations in archaeological pottery. Archaeometry 48, 237–251.
Smith, G.C., 1991. Heard It Through the Grapevine: Andean and European Contributions
to Spanish Colonial Culture and Viticulture in Moquegua, Peru (Doctoral
Dissertation). University of Florida.
Stastny, F., 1981. Las artes populares del Perú. Edic. Edubanco, Madrid.
Templ, M., Hron, K., Filzmoser, P., 2016. Package ‘robCompositions’, version 2.0.2.
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robCompositions/index.html.
Therrien, M., Uprimny, E., Lobo-Guerrero, J., Salamanca, M., Gaitán, F.E., Fandiño, M.,
2002. Catálogo De cerámica colonial y republicana de la Nueva Granada: producción
local, materiales foráneos (Costa Caribe, Altiplano Cundiboyacense- Colombia).
FIAN-Banco de la República, Bogotá.
Tschopik, H., 1950. An Andean ceramic tradition in historical perspective. Am. Antiq. 15,
324
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17 (2018) 311–324
196–218.
Van Buren, M., 2010. The archaeological study of Spanish colonialism in the Americas. J.
Archaeol. Res. 18, 151–201.
VanValkenburgh, P., 2009. Thin Section Analysis of Majolica From Panama la Vieja
(Unpublished report). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
VanValkenburgh, P., 2012. Building Subjects: Landscapes of Forced Resettlement in the
Zaña and Chamán Valleys, Peru, 16th–17th Centuries C.E (Doctoral Dissertation).
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
VanValkenburgh, P., 2017. Consumption and commerce at Magdalena de Cao Viejo
through the lens of ceramic analysis. In: Quilter, J. (Ed.), Magdalena de Cao: An Early
Colonial Town on the North Coast of Peru, (forthcoming).
VanValkenburgh, P., Kelloway, S.J., Dussubieux, L., Quilter, J., Glascock, M.D., 2015a.
The production and circulation of indigenous lead-glazed ceramics in northern Peru
during Spanish colonial times. J. Archaeol. Sci. 61, 172–185.
VanValkenburgh, P., Walker, C.P., Sturm, J.O., 2015b. Gradiometer and ground-pene-
trating radar survey of two Reducción settlements in the Zaña Valley, Peru. Archaeol.
Prospect. 22, 117–129.
Vargas Ugarte, R., 1968. Ensayo de un Diccionario de Artífices de la América Meridional.
Imprenta de Aldecoa, Burgos.
Vazquez, V., Rosales, T., Quilter, J., 2017. Plants and animals. In: Quilter, J. (Ed.),
Magdalena de Cao: An Early Colonial Town on the North Coast of Peru, (forth-
coming).