# Commercial interaction at the port of Acapulco, Mexico, during the Viceregal period: A provenance study of ceramic containers and regional wares

S. Guerrero-Rivero, D. Tenorio, M. Jiménez-Reyes, R. Junco-Sánchez, M.C.

López-Reyes

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

S. Guerrero-Rivero, D. Tenorio, M. Jiménez-Reyes, R. Junco-Sánchez, M.C. López-Reyes. Commercial interaction at the port of Acapulco, Mexico, during the Viceregal period: A provenance study of ceramic containers and regional wares. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2020, 29, pp.102163. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102163. hal-05496761

HAL Id: hal-05496761

https://hal.science/hal-05496761v1

Submitted on 6 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Commercial interaction at the port of Acapulco, Mexico, during the Viceregal period: A provenance study of ceramic containers and regional wares

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

S. Guerrero-Rivero<sup>a,*</sup>, D. Tenorio<sup>b</sup>, M. Jiménez-Reyes<sup>b</sup>, R. Junco-Sánchez<sup>a</sup>, M.C. López-Reyes<sup>b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Botijas

Martabans

Glazed ware

Red ware

INAA

Pacific Ocean trade

Acapulco

Mexico

## ABSTRACT

This paper exposes the results of Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) on 46 pottery sherds, fragments of Spanish olive jars (*botijas*) and stoneware containers (*martabans*) recovered from archaeological interventions in San Diego fort and Acapulco historic sector, a shipwreck site in the western coast of Baja California peninsula, and shipwrecks beneath of Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea waves. The study was developed to obtain data on the geochemical-composition of pastes, lead-glaze and pitch coatings of the referred pottery sherds collection, with the aim of identifying the geochemical signature of each elementary composition of sherds. So, it was possible to propose a geochemical area of origin (manufacturing provenance) for the sampled ceramic vessels: according achieved results, many analyzed pottery sherds came from the Iberian peninsula, South America and Southeastern Asia, whilst other were locally-produced (namely the Acapulco Red Ware and Acapulco Glaze).

## 1. Introduction

Maritime archeology is a multidisciplinary, wide-scope field of study that allows approaching local, regional and global scale historical-cultural processes. Particularly significant for the New World, Western European seaborne expansion induced to early capitalism (mercantilism) and to the development of the Modern Ages. Due to this reason, the effort to characterize ceramic materials by means of archeometric studies helps to understand the dynamics of overseas trade networks, with all geographical areas and historical moments involved. The identification of these trade networks brings evidence about transoceanic trips and development of the complex exchange systems, related with the territorial expansion of European powers and the intensity of goods distribution.

In this context, the port of Acapulco was a key piece within the large-scale exchanges system of transpacific Spanish commerce, through the Manila Galleons (also called the Nao de China, the Nao from China). These Spanish trading ships crossed the Pacific Ocean from the Philippines to the New Spain for over 250 years, linking Manilla and Acapulco, the Far East with the Spanish Main. Goods coming from different ports of the Pacific Ocean were found in the Acapulco Trade Fair congregated every time the galleon arrived.

According to the historical and archaeological information, an inter-colonial trade, which possibly combined licit and illegal merchandise flows, was also developed at that time between Acapulco, Central America and Peru. The finding of Spanish olive jars (*botijas peruleras*) and stoneware storage vessels called *martabans* in the port of Acapulco reveals the flows of goods through the Pacific Ocean during Viceregal period (1521-1821). Fig. 1 shows a map with the main Spanish Colonial cities, the regions were *botijas* and *martabans* were manufactured and the shipping trade routes.

The archaeological contexts associated with maritime ports are especially interesting for understanding the intercontinental trade of that time. Several settlements on the coast of modern Guerrero State maintained commercial, technological and cultural contacts with far distant regions; for example, with the Andean region, by either land routes or by maritime navigation. The origin of the archaeological materials coming from these sites allows inferring about the flow of goods and people, the contact processes, the European and Asian expansion in the New World, and the dynamics of intercolonial trade (Ewen, 1990; Austral et al., 1999; Hamilton, 2000; Bianchi Villelli, 2009; Martínez Ruiz, 2018). The Spanish goods were usually transported in ceramic containers of Mediterranean tradition, which were generically named *botijas*. Asian goods, in the other hand, were

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Subdirección de Arqueología Subacuática (SAS-INAH), Col. Centro Histórico, Moneda N° 16, Ciudad de México, C.P. 06060</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup>Instituto de Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares (ININ), Estado de México, Carretera México Toluca-La Marquesa s/n, Ocoyoacac, C.P. 52750</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: saulalberto_guerrero@inah.gob.mx (S. Guerrero-Rivero).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Map of the main sites, ports, trade routes and ceramic production areas (map prepared by Elena González Manrique Romero, ENAH). (See above-mentioned references for further information.)</figcaption></figure>

transported in large *amphoras* of Chinese stoneware named *martabans*.

Regarding the port of Acapulco, it is relevant to stress: 1) the main ceramic production centers of diverse territories in Latin America, being under the dominion of the Hispanic Monarchy, Mexican Colonial and Republican Periods (16th–19th centuries); 2) the intercolonial trade routes; 3) the transpacific axial routes of the Manila Galleon and the possible illicit contacts between Mexico and Peru throughout the South Seas. That information may complement the archaeological and historical data of the ceramic production and intercolonial trade during Viceregal and Republican periods. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to contribute to the identification of the main production centers of the *botijas* and *martabans* recovered in the port of Acapulco, which were, in principle, intended for *trans-Pacific* trade from 16th to 19th centuries. Towards a comparison, *botijas* recovered in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the historic downtown of Mexico City, *martabans* of the Manilla Galleon and local wares of Acapulco were included in the present research.

The local wares found in Acapulco are the so-named Acapulco Red and Glazed. The first ones are of Pre-Hispanic-Early Colonial period and the second ones entirely of the Colonial Period. These potteries are useful for the observation and assessment of changes on traditional technology, due to the techniques and forms of Iberian pottery in the Pacific coast since the 16th century. Geographical environment and resources availability in Acapulco Bay, and nearby coasts, possibly influenced on the development of settlements in the region. However, the use of raw materials and the standardization of ceramic forms continued; that is the reason these ceramic types have been considered as local manufacture. They are usually associated with domestic and daily use and not with large scale, long-distance trading.

## 2. Historical background of trans-Pacific trade in the port of Acapulco

Exploration and overseas expansion were the engine of European economy. Throughout the 16th century, Spanish and Portuguese empires endeavored in a military, religious and economic mobilization, through exploration and discovery voyages and military conquests (Fig. 2). In this way, commercial capitalism (mercantilism) was

strengthened, and also the production, trade and consumption of goods of various origins (European, Asian, and from the New World) for both subsistence and luxury. At the same time, dependence of the peripheries increased with the development of hegemonic and imperial power centers (Gunder Frank, 2002; Wolf, 1987; Wallerstein, 2011; Gruzinski, 2010; Carmagnani, 2011, 2012; Hodos, 2016; Knapp and Demesticha, 2017). This transoceanic contact is evidenced by the archaeological record of maritime sites in different geographical areas throughout the Americas.

The geographical, political and economic situation of New Spain created a rivalry between the European powers about the raw materials and manufactured products from the New World. Therefore, the Spanish Crown reinforced its control over the vast New World territory with “strong points” (strongholds) disseminated through the network, useful for storage, service, arrival, and repairs of the “floating fortifications”, namely the squadron of galleons. The transpacific trade extended from Acapulco (New Spain) to El Callao (Peru) with alternative circuits by maritime and port systems (Zavala, 1968; Sanz Molina, 2002; Gutiérrez, 2005; Martínez Ruiz, 2018).

The main consequence of development of the geopolitical articulation of the imperial fleets was the monopoly of overseas commerce. Production of Consumer goods production was prohibited in the New World because it hampered the Spanish manufacturers. Trade between Peru and Mexico was also interdicted, preventing possible exchanges through the port of Acapulco.

The port of Acapulco was founded in the 1570s, and gradually acquired a small but permanent population of African descendants, mulatto, Philippine and some Spanish inhabitants. Climate and health conditions were not favorable, and apparently had no regular and constant occupation. However, during the colonial centuries, Acapulco was the second port in importance in New Spain and one of the most important in the configuration of the commercial circuit of the Pacific and South Seas. This port became the most outstanding market distributor of the world during Modern Ages (1450–1632). Products of the Far East arrived into the New World via Manila, as well as the precious metals from Peru and Chile, and the goods from Guatemala. Additionally, European products that arrived in the annual fleet of Spain, by Veracruz or Panama, were also distributed in Acapulco. This
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** A) Florentine Codex. Image illustrating the arrival of commercial fleets to the New Spain ports (Sahagún, 1994, Book 12, f. 100) and B) Map of Acapulco in the first half of the 17th century (By A. Boot. National Library of France/Gallica).</figcaption></figure>

privileged condition was the result of great activity as an importing and exporting hub at the Trade Fair (Gerhard, 1986; Sales Colín, 1996; Yuste, 2007; Bonialian, 2012; Fish, 2011; Dobado González, 2014).

The galleon of Manila, also called *Nao de China*, linked the port of Cavite, Philippines, with New Spain, year after year (between January and February). Spices, ceramics, earthenware, and porcelain were the predominating merchandise shipments (Zavala, 1968; Yuste, 1984, 2007; Suárez, 2001; Bonialian, 2012, 2014; Baena, 2016). The merchandise of the *Nao de China* could remain in New Spain or continue to Castile/Spain. On the other hand, a significant amount of goods were smuggled to Central and South America, especially to Peru. Towards the end of the 18th century, constant confrontation with English pirates (British sea power) and the growing independentism atmosphere weakened the *trans-Pacific* trade. These situations, together with the manufacturing of European porcelain, ceased the traffic of the Manila galleon to New Spain, leading the Spanish Crown to suppressed it in 1813 (Chaunu, 1974; Calderón Quijano, 1984; Flynn, et al. 2001; Ruiz & Morales, 2005; Baena, 2016). The history of Acapulco is complex due to the economic, political and social processes, with implications in the national and international scope, coupled with the conformation of current territory of Mexico. Thanks to its geographical location, access to local resources and the particular characteristics of ethnic formation, it has become a privileged site to study specific aspects of commerce and daily life.

# 3. Archaeological sites

## 3.1. The Fort of San Diego

The Fort of San Diego was the connection point of Oriental trade with the Pacific coast, and it was built at the beginning of the 17th century (1615–1617). The Spanish empire was essentially ultramarine; therefore, maintaining overseas communications, fortifying key ports and retaining the islands and provinces of the continent were priorities for the Empire. These forts were strategically located near favorable places for defense and with access to maritime routes. Moreover, major ports, such as at Cartagena, Havana, Santo Domingo, Acapulco, and Panama were fortified with walls and bastions as a defense against piracy and rival powers assaults, (Zavala, 1968; Flynn et al., 2001; Kluber, 2012). The Fort served as a defense for several years against the attacks of pirates to the port, since its strategic location within the Bay of Acapulco was visible to any ship that could approached and entered the port.

The Maritime Archeology Project of the Port of Acapulco (PAMPA) began in 2015. A 2 by 1 m stratigraphic pit was dug in an earth mound, outside southern parapet of Fort of San Diego. Due to the important

amount of materials found, more excavations and works were carried out within the vicinity of the Fort, which provided even more information about the daily life of the inhabitants of Acapulco (Junco et al., 2017). Currently, the aforementioned Project also includes other sites of the Port of Acapulco, as well as underwater excavations in the Santa Lucia Bay.

Among the recovered materials at the Fort of San Diego are bone, ceramic, shell, porcelain, glass, metal, English earthenware, 17th century coins, buttons, and lead bullets. Taking into consideration these objects, the area is assumed as a garbage dump; however, the diversity of materials and the continuous occupation that it had during several centuries aroused interest.

Pit 1 (2015) and the other three pits (also measuring 2 × 1 meters), which were later worked at Fort of San Diego are indicated in Fig. 3. Three stratigraphic layers were recorded. However, archaeological materials were observed only in the first two. A macroscopic classification of some ceramic pieces revealed different types and temporalities: pre-Hispanic, Colonial of indigenous tradition, glazed (local and foreign), *martabans* and *botijas* (Junco et al., 2016, 2017). The collection of the present research belong to these findings.

## 3.2. Baja California Western/Pacific coast

The archaeological site of the Manila Galleon extends through 11.5 km along the Pacific coast in the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico, between larges and dunesand the sea. Given the sea currents in the area, great debris comes ashore, and it is no wonder that the shipwreck occurred, as its is most likely that all hands on boardwere dead long before the ship hit the coast carried by the sea (Junco, 2016,104). One of them was lost in the late 16th century, near Ojo de Liebre Lagoon, in the modern state of Baja California. Archaeological remains, such as *botijas* and *martabans* sherds, were recovered by the Archaeology of Manila Galleon Project SAS/INAH (Subdirección de Arqueología Subacuática/Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia). During recent seasons, surface recognitions and excavations were systematically carried out on the coasts, in external and internal beach areas, and in some dunes contiguous to the site (Fig. 4). Some exemplars of the present research were found on surface and others by underwater archeology, and marine geophysics at 30 m deep, located close to the current wave breaker of the beach, near the Manuela Lagoon.

## 3.3. Other sites

Pottery sherds from underwater archaeological contexts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Mexican shore of the Caribbean Sea have been recovered by the projects: a) 1630–1631 New Spain Fleet and Inventory
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. A) Stratigraphic Pit A, southern wall of the Fort of San Diego. B) Archaeological excavation in a site of Madero Street, downtown Acapulco city.</figcaption></figure>

and Diagnosis of Submerged Cultural Resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and b) Inventory and Diagnosis of Submerged Archaeological and Historical Heritage in Chinchorro Bank Biosphere Reserve (Caribbean Sea). Recently, petrographic and mineralogical analyses of these samples identified the provenance area of raw materials (Seville, Spain) and revealed some technological details about the manufacturing of these *botijas* (Guerrero et al., 2016). Two sherds recovered in archaeological excavations in Mexico City historical downtown were included as well.

# 4. Ceramics analyzed

## 4.1. Botijas: Archaeological and archaeometric background

The model of these ceramic artifacts goes back to Canaanite, Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Medieval Spanish *amphoras*. Products of varied nature were stored in these containers, whether they were destined for commerce or for the consumption of the ship crews (Goggin, 1960; Peacock and Williams, 1986; Avery, 1997; Smith et al., 1998; Kingsley et al., 2014).

The typology and chronology proposed by Goggin (1960) is based on the silhouette of the vases and their mouths. Thus, three styles were established: Early (ca. 1500–1575), Middle (ca. 1580–1780) and Late (ca. 1780–1850), classified as A, B, C and D types. The oldest name for these containers is the *olive jar* that are considered generically as a type of ceramic (Holmes, 1903; Goggin, 1960). The Casa de Contratación located in Seville, called them *botija, botixuela* or *botijuela* and described them as liquid containers of several sizes (de Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez, 1991, 1993; Zunzunegui, 1965; Lister and Lister, 1976; Sánchez, 1996). The term of *botija perulera* derived from the trade between Seville and the Viceroyalty of Peru (Mena García, 2004).

Finally, the most general (generic) name is ceramic containers.

The *Recopilación de Leyes de Indias*, the *Ordenanzas de Sevilla*, and other documents inform about the wide use of jars for transatlantic transport, as well as their shapes, sizes and capacities. The *Ordenanzas de Granada* (17th century) specify that the resistant and light colored clay used in the manufacture of *botijas* typically comes from Andalusia. Meanwhile, regarding clay hue, the *botijas* of the free trade period with the Americas were more reddish. This diversity of colors and shapes allows to suppose during that free trade period, the origin of the containers was not only Andalusian, but had been also manufactured in ports franked by the Decree of 1765 (Zunzunegui, 1965). Azkarate and Núñez (1991) studied the shape of *botijas* and the chronology of clay deposits in modern day Basque Country, opening the possibility that containers had been manufactured at the main ports of that region. Nevertheless, southern Andalusia is commonly accepted as the main production area of *botijas* in accordance with numerous geochemical analyzes (Pleguezuelo and Lafuente, 1995). Petrographic analysis of raw materials from Cazalla and Jerez, both important wine producing centers, indicated that *botijas* were not produced in those areas, but in Seville and its hinterland (Avery, 1997). Apart from Jerez and Palos de la Frontera (Huelva), a local ceramic production or in the north of the Guadalquivir River has been developed. Perhaps Jerez was dependent on Seville or even, the start of export productions prior of *botijas* was deraired (Fernando Amores Carredano, personal communication, 2017).

Some doubts remain. In this regard, Early and Middle styles, as proposed by Goggin (1960), were manufactured in Spain, and even, possibly some ones of later periods were manufactured in the New World. However, it seems unlikely that empty containers had be taken to Spain to be filled and then shipped back; activity that normally took

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. A) Archaeological field survey in Guerrero Negro, Baja California State. B) Martaban sherd recovered on surface.</figcaption></figure>
place in Seville or Cádiz.

Regarding technology, the serial manufacturing was to the lathe, the pieces were cooked in oxidizing atmosphere, no decoration was applied on them, but some of them were lead glazed on the inner wall. Generally, these containers have circular mouth, high shoulder, and concave or flat bottom; the handles-less body can be spherical, elliptical, inverted conical, or cylindrical, and the neck can be short, cylindrical, or concave (these features were always added at the last stage of ceramic production). As aforementioned, the details changed over time (Goggin, 1960; Massone, 1980; Fournier, 1990; Sánchez, 1996; Avery, 1997; Pasinski and Fournier, 2014). The production of this type of containers, had variations or adjustments in the workshops according to the artisan knowledge of Iberian potters (Guerrero, 2018).

During the colonial period, the main use of *botijas* was the transport of wine and oil from Spain to the Indies, but they were reused in domestic and military contexts, for the storage of victuals and for packaging, such as pearls from Venezuela and balsam from Central America that were sent to Spain. A study of Arduengo García (2008) suggested the possibility of producing *botijas* in Cuba, the Caribbean islands, or New Spain. De la Vega et al. (2013) reported that the pastes of some *botijas* were similar to the Puebla polychrome and Mexico City types.

A secondary productive function of the wine industry was the manufacture of ceramics. Viti-viniculture began in Arequipa - Moquegua and in Ica - Pisco regions, Peru, in the mid-16th century and soon had an explosive growth. A large number of kilns for *botijas* have been found in the Moquegua Valley (Rice and van Beck, 1993) and Lucumbilla, from 17th century (Rice, 2011). More than 130 winery sites are reported with facilities for wine and brandy production, and for the manufacture of *tinajas* and *botijas* in those regions (Rice, 2011). Peruvian *botijas* containing wine were widely distributed in other Spanish colonies despite the Royal Decree prohibition (de Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez, 1991, 1993; Avery, 1997; Huertas Vallejo, 2004; Oland, 2017; Pasinski and Fournier, 2014). Therefore, Spanish and Peruvian *botijas* coexisted in that mentioned regions and beyond (Jamieson and Hancock, 2004).

Fragments of *botijas* were used as construction fillings, for example in the cloisters of Santo Domingo, Jerez de la Frontera (Barrionuevo, 2009), in the cathedral (López Torres, 2018) and buildings of Sevilla (de Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez, 1991, 1993), and in Mexico City as well (Terreros Espinosa, et al., 2019). In general, these potteries correspond to the Seville workshops of 15th–18th centuries. Fournier (1990) studied the importation, distribution and consumption of a great variety of ceramic materials (among them some fragments of *botijas*) in the New Spain. All these activities were the result of the European mercantilist development in New Spain.

Fragments of *botijas* from Santa María La Antigua del Darién, Panama, were analyzed and identified as coming from Seville and their cooking temperatures were estimated (Gomez Ferrer et al., 2013). Sherds of *botijas* were recovered in sites associated with the arrivals of the Spanish explorer Álvaro de Mandaña or Neyra (1595–1596) to the Solomon Islands. First, these *botijas* were considered as coming from Panama; however, the dating by U-Pb in zircones, and petrographic and neutron activation analysis revealed that they came from the Peruvian Coastal Batolith (Kelloway et al., 2014; Kelloway et al., 2016).

Iberian ceramic groups characteristic of Andalusia were identified by means of INAA for *botijas* found in Mexico City (Fournier and Blackman, 2008; Fournier et al., 2012). Petrographic and mineralogical studies about *botijas* found in Mexico and Sevilla showed some aspects related to the technology. The handling of raw materials by the Iberian potters was homogeneous; however, the colors of the paste varied with the cooking process and the presence of papules in the clay matrix was explained by deficiencies in the kneading work, perhaps due to the urgency of elaborating a large number of jars (Fournier, et al., 2017, Guerrero, 2018). Velasquez and Salgado Ceballos (2018) identified Seville-Triana as the geographical origin of fragments of *botijas* coming

from several colonial buildings at Campeche's Port. However, not enough evidence has yet been found to support contraband, in the city of Campeche, nor the most popular and alternative commercial routes for the Canary Islands.

Many reports have mentioned the finding of *botijas*, either as whole exemplars (de Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez, 1991, 1993; James, 1988; Martin, 1979; Avery, 1997; James, 1985; Marken, 1994) or as fragments (Sassoon, 1981; Carter, 1982; Moya Sordo and Reicher, 2010; Ford 2011; Luna Erreguerena, 1999), from either construction fillings or shipwrecks. *Botijas* found in Nagasaki and Osaka, from the shipwreck of the Spanish galleon San Diego (1600) were identified as Spanish or Portuguese (Kawaguchi, 2011). Other findings in maritime context were reported at Terranova, the Carolinas and in the Circum-Caribbean basin (Grafenstein, 2003), the Atlantic coast of Florida, Bahamas, the Guianas (James, 1985; Keith, 1987; Borrel et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1998; Bense, 1999; Benson, 2002; Grenier, et al. 2007; Kingsley et al., 2014) and the Iberian Peninsula (Escribano and Mederos, 1999). Some of these exemplars were dated between the early 16th and the 18th centuries.

Archaeometric studies about *botijas* recovered in maritime context are scarce. Williams et al. (1992) found a big fragment of *botija* in Haida Gwaii (former Queen Charlotte archipelago), Canada. Description and chemical composition were reported; however, the origin of that exemplar was not clarified. Hughes (2014) analyzed the chemical composition of *botijas* coming from the Tortugas Shipwreck (1622) and the author suggested Cordoba and Seville as the places of origin.

During the Contemporary era, the use of *botijas* apparently became a symbol of socioeconomic status, both in Mexico and Spain. The storage, conservation and transport of wine continued in *botijas*, as in the old days in Mediterranean countries, for example, the use of this containers in nuptial ceremonies in tows in the region of Guerrero, Mexico, where has acquire a new social use related to ritual performances (Celestino et al., 2018). Some of those containers are at the present ornamental pieces in public and private collections. In the bay of Acapulco, many exemplars of *botijas* with a great variety of types and shapes are found in private collections. However, the majority of these pieces lack of archaeological context, so it is difficult to do cultural associations and archaeological interpretations.

## 4.2. Martabans: Archaeological and archaeometric background.

Chinese ceramics can be placed in two broad functional and stylistic categories: 1) Stoneware containers of various sizes, brown in color, used to transport and store food and usually named martabans and 2) Tableware porcelain of various styles and shapes (handle-less teacups, spoons, large and small bowls for food) (Staski, 2009). The start of stoneware production around 1000 BCE represented an important technological marker in China (Grave, 1995).

The main characteristics of the specialized stoneware production were the following: 1) great transcendence for the start of the pre-capitalist and capitalist economy; 2) the achievement of a manufactured good from raw material; 3) production based on a minimum number of environmental variables; 4) integration into a regional economy; 5) production in several regional centers (potential for competition); and 6) organization of a social, political, and, economic context (Grave, 1995). Certainly, the stoneware was one of the first goods that had a cultural impact on a global level.

Stoneware was manufactured in the South Chinese archipelago, since the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE). The imperial economic policy of the Ming Dynasty (14th–15th centuries) affected Southeast Asia and the manufacturing industries increased during that time to satisfy the regional needs (Grave et al., 2000; Gutman, 2001). Production of Chinese ceramics peaked during the 17th century, due to the improvement in quality of ceramics, including the stoneware containers, and because of a demand increase in Europe. For the period that corresponds to the present research (16th–17th centuries),
containers from China, Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar have been found in wreck sites as a consequence of early globalization, aspects that help to understand fluctuating trade routes, merchant networks, port cities, and the trade items themselves (Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens, 2011; Li, 2013; Hoogervorst, 2016; Bentley, 2019).

Martabans are robust ceramic bodies, with solid foot, thick and non-
porous walls, and almost granite texture. Their color usually consists of
several gray shades, the surface is often enameled, and inner-walls are
glazed. The cooking temperature of a real stoneware normally oscil-
lated between 1250 and 1300 °C (Faltermeier, 2014). These containers,
usually of low quality and cost, were used in both on board ship and
domestic environments to store water, fruits, sugary citrus fruits, salted
meat, rice, honey, oil, pickles, wine, and even balls of opium, being also
themselves trade products. They were also suitable for transporting
small porcelain pieces due to their physical resistance (Gunn, 1971;
Guy, 1989; Aoyagi, 1992; Gutman, 2001; Harrison, 1986, 2003; Wood,
1999; Finlay, 2010).

Ceramic containers from Sawankhalok and Sukhothai, central-
northern Thailand, found in shipwreck and island sites confirm that it's
constituted part of the long-distance maritime trade network (Grave,
1995). Grave (1995) and Grave et al. (2000) studied technological as-
pects about the production of this pottery in Thailand (1000–1650 CE).
These authors inferred that the specimens recovered from archae-
ological excavations and shipwrecks at Sri Satchanalai, Thailand,
showed manufacture changes during the transition to the Modern Era.
Grave and Maccheroni (2009) proposed to Vietnam and the region
around Manila, in addition to Thailand, as the origin of ceramic con-
tainers for trading.

Sinopoli et al. (2006) carried out macroscopic and chemical ana-
lyses of a collection of dragon jars. They observed that each group of
dragon motifs has a different production method and that the color of
the paste is consistent with each proposed production center and with
the clay sources.

The port of Acapulco received around 40,000 to 60,000 Asian im-
migrants during more than two and a half centuries, due to the sea-
borne link between the Philippines and the New Spain. These people
possibly (probably) spread out along the current Mexican republic,
from Baja California to Yucatán (Slack, 2009). Therefore, the finding of
Asiatic ceramics is quite probable in maritime contexts as well as in-
land; nevertheless, only a few reports were/ have been found on this
subject (Fig. 5).

4.3. *Red wares and Glazed ceramic*

Polished red ceramic has been manufactured in the region of

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. *Botijas* (on the shelf) and *martabans* (on the floor). Historical Museum of Acapulco, Fort of San Diego.</figcaption></figure>

Acapulco from pre-Columbian and until recent times, probably with
local sources of clay. The *Acapulco Red* type is found as jars and bowls
with red slipped surfaces, smoothed or polished and is abundant in the
vicinity of Acapulco (Ekholm, 1948; Brush, 1969; Lister, 1971;
Manzanilla, 2006), for example in the Basin of Mexico have been
documented red wares had an important production during the colonial
period (Charlton et al., 2007; Guerrero, 2012, 2016) and probably re-
sembles to fine wares from the Iberian Extremadura region (Charlton
and Fournier, 2010), although for this age there are few pottery evi-
dences with Roman remnants. This ceramic type has been located in
several archaeological sites of Acapulco, Puerto Marques and La Sa-
bana. In the case of the port of Acapulco, from petrographic analysis,
the mineral components and technological characteristics of this type of
earthware are known (Guerrero et al., 2018).

The ceramics that are called yellow pottery, ordinary pottery, or
Glazed ware, can be simple, poor in quality, with a thin glaze, and with
shapes adapted for culinary activities. The varnish finishing is applied
after a first cooking and the objects are cooked again at 1100-1250 °C;
the usual techniques are molding and lathing, where technological
variants have been identified in other areas of Mexico (Cervantes, 1939;
López Cervantes, 1976; Lister and Lister, 1976; Fournier, 2008, 2012;
Fournier and Otis Charlton, 2019). Even the productive and technolo-
gical changes related to ceramic ecology have been studied with ar-
chaometric techniques (Guerrero, 2014). The Hispanic ceramic tech-
nology including wheel-lathe and glazing were unknown to indigenous
potters. Then, a technological transference occurred during the 16th
century, the use of lead oxide to achieve a vitreous surface on the
ceramic pieces. Until now it is unknown if the lead was extracted from
nearby sites or arrived to Acapulco by transoceanic trade. This tech-
nological innovation included the use of the lathe and the closed kiln
characteristic of European pottery, which allowed higher temperatures
and better control of the cooking process that allowed optimizing the
ceramic production.

**5. Materials and methods**

This study included 54 sherd exemplars. Thirty-five come from the
Fort of San Diego (twenty-seven *botijas* and eight *martabans*) and nine
from some civil buildings of the current historic center of Acapulco,
dating from Colonial and Republican periods (three Acapulco Red
wares and six Glazed wares). Five *martabans* come from the Manila
Galleon wreck in Baja California. Finally, six *botijas* come from the Gulf
of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and Mexico City (two of each site).
Figs. 6, 7 and 8 shows some exemplars.

Table 1 includes a description of the exemplars. Most fragments of *botijas* correspond to the Medium (ca. 1580–1780) and some to the Later (ca. 1780–1850) Styles proposed by Goggin (1960). The mouths and necks sherds are concave and some of them present residues of glaze on the inner wall. Some fragments of bodies are glazed and several present wheel-pottery marks others preserve remains of tar on the internal and external walls. The pastes form two large groups: 1) the brown ones of oxidizing cooking, with rocky fragments of sedimentary, and/or metamorphic origin and quartz fragments and 2) the reddish and gray ones, unglazed, with few inclusions of sedimentary rocks. The pastes are of homogenous cooking and with few inclusions, even if the colors and glazing may be different.

The outer layers (pitch and/or green glaze, if present) of the ex-
emplars were removed by means of a drill with a tungsten bit. The paste
colors were determined according to the Munsell Soil Color Chart
(GretagMacbeth, NY, USA, 1994).

The ceramic pastes reduced to powder were analyzed by nuclear
activation. Irradiations (2 h, 1 × 10¹³cm⁻²s⁻¹) were performed in the
TRIGA MARK III nuclear reactor of the Nuclear Center of Mexico; and
after a decay time, γ-ray spectra were recorded (1 h). Nuclear data of
the isotopes identified on the γ spectra are given elsewhere (Jiménez-
Reyes et al., 2001). The reference material for the calculation of 14
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Some exemplars of olive jars (botijas and botijas peruleras): A1 (Ecuadorian). A3, A4, A24 and A25 (Peruvian). A8, A2, A17 (Spanish).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Fragments of martabans. A28, A29, A30: Group Asian 1, Fort of San Diego. A34, A35: Group Asian 2, Fort of San Diego. A38 (Fujian style): Group Asian 2, Manilla Galleon. A36 (Singburi style), A37 (Sawankhalok style), A40 (Burna style): Group Asian 3, Manilla Galleon.</figcaption></figure>

elemental concentrations was: SRM 278 - Obsidian Rock, and the SRM 97b - flint clay let us to determine chromium and verify the results of several elemental concentrations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certifies both reference materials.

Bi-variate plots were done (figures not included) for Cr/Rb, and Cr/Th; and a dendrogram was plotted in order to identify groups (figure not included). Afterwards, principal component diagrams were obtained. These plots were done considering the elemental concentration data and using the MURR procedures for the statistical analysis of multivariate archaeometric data written in GAUSS language (Neff, 2008).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** Local ceramic of Acapulco. a) Fragments of Glazed ware; b) Fragments of Acapulco Red wares.</figcaption></figure>

In order to identify the origin of the specimens, the results were compared with archaeometric literature data concerning botijas, majolica, and Chinese porcelain and ceramic. These references were the following: Velasquez and Salgado Ceballos, 2018; Kelloway et al., 2016; De la Vega et al., 2013; Jamieson et al., 2013; Fournier et al., 2009; Grave and Maccheroni, 2009; Iñañez et al., 2008; Wasim et al., 2008; Sinopoli et al., 2006; Jamieson and Hancock, 2004; Myers et al., 1992.

Samples of the green glazed of the exemplar A8 was analyzed with scanning electron microscope Phillips XL-30 at 25 keV. Elemental concentrations were determined by means of Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy (EDS) with an EDAX DX-4 spectrometer; in order to obtain the X-ray spectra, a count rate of 2000 to 2500 cps, dead times of 25-30%, and a 150-second acquisition time were used. X-ray energy of Lα₁ line of lead (10.5 KeV) used for quantifying is very close to the Kα₁ line of arsenic. The sample A8 was also analyzed by neutron activation (5 min, 4.35 × 10¹² cm⁻²s⁻¹) and the radioactivity counting (1 h) was done after 2 and 7 days of irradiation. The standard reference material used for quantification was San Joaquin soil (NIST-2709a). Under these conditions, the concentrations of both arsenic and tin were determined. This last because some glazes contain this element as well.

A sample (ca. 100 mg) of the pitch coating of A25 was analyzed by FTIR with a Varian, 640-IR equipment.

## 6. Results and discussion

Fig. 9 shows the diagram of principal components obtained with the concentrations of 15 elements (Sc, Cr, Fe, Co, Rb, Sb, Cs, La, Ce, Eu, Yb, Lu, Hf, Th, and U) of the 54 ceramic pastes. Seven groups of ceramics were identified and one sample was ungrouped. Table 2 shows the mean values and standard deviations of the elemental concentrations of each identified group and the data corresponding to the ungrouped sample (A1).

Main differences between the P (Peruvian) and S (Sevillian) groups are antimony and cesium concentrations (both higher for the first one) and chromium concentration (higher for the second one). Whereas, the concentrations of chromium, rubidium and cesium of the ungrouped sample (A1) are notoriously low. The elemental concentrations of the local ceramic pastes, Acapulco red and Glazed pottery are quite different; probably the sources of clays changed over time. The samples with typological characteristic of Southern China ceramics conformed three groups (here named Asian 1, Asian 2, and Asian 3) with notorious chemical differences in their chemical composition. The richest in iron is the group Asian 1. The group Asian 2 is poor in iron but quite rich in
<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Description of the samples. Archaeological Rescues (AR): Fort of San Diego (FSD), Manila Galleon (MG), Acapulco City (AC), Gulf of Mexico (GM), Caribbean Sea (CS), and Mexico City (MC). Groups: Asian 1, Asian 2, Asian 3 (A1, A2, A3); Local, Glazed wares (GW); Local, Acapulco Red (AR); Peru (P); Seville (S); C: Cuenca. (\*1) *Martaban*, Wan Li period: 1563–1620. (\*2) *Botija*, Medium style: ca. 1580–1780. (\*3) *Botija*, Late style: ca. 1780–1850.

<table><thead><tr><th>Key</th><th>AR</th><th>Description</th><th>Color of the paste</th><th>Group</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A28</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions; lathe traces, inside</td><td>5YR 4/2, Dark reddish gray</td><td>A 1</td></tr><tr><td>A29</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>5YR 4/4, Reddish brown</td><td>A 1</td></tr><tr><td>A30</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>5YR 4/1, Dark gray</td><td>A 1</td></tr><tr><td>A31</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>5YR 4/2, Dark reddish gray</td><td>A 1</td></tr><tr><td>A33</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; sedimentary, metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; lathe traces inside; a dragon in relief outside; possibly Fujian style</td><td>—</td><td>A 2</td></tr><tr><td>A34</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>—</td><td>A 2</td></tr><tr><td>A35</td><td>FSD</td><td>Neck fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary inclusions</td><td>10YR 8/2, Very pale brown</td><td>A 2</td></tr><tr><td>A38</td><td>MG</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; sedimentary and quartz inclusions homogenous cooking; lathe traces, inside; a dragon in relief, outside; Fujian style</td><td>2.5Y 8/1, White</td><td>A 2</td></tr><tr><td>A39</td><td>MG</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; heterogeneous and reductive cooking; quartz inclusions; defective glaze; Burma style</td><td>1FOR GLEY 6/1, Greenish gray</td><td>A 2</td></tr><tr><td>A32</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and quartz inclusions</td><td>10YR 8/1, White</td><td>A 3</td></tr><tr><td>A36</td><td>MG</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; sedimentary and quartz inclusions; lathe traces, inside; Singburi style</td><td>5YR 5/4, Reddish brown</td><td>A 3</td></tr><tr><td>A37</td><td>MG</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; homogenous cooking; sedimentary inclusions; lathe traces, inside; Sawankhalok style</td><td>7.5YR 6/1, Gray</td><td>A 3</td></tr><tr><td>A40</td><td>MG</td><td>Body fragment<sup>(1)</sup>; few sedimentary and quartz inclusions; defective glaze; Burma style</td><td>2.5YR 7/2, Pale red</td><td>A 3</td></tr><tr><td>A9</td><td>AC</td><td>Vessel fragment, green glaze inside (Glazed pottery)</td><td>1FOR GLEY 4/, Dark gray</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A41</td><td>AC</td><td>Molcajete fragment; medium quality ocher glaze, inside; fine paste (Glazed pottery)</td><td>7.5YR 7/1, Light gray</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A42</td><td>AC</td><td>Edge of molcajete; good quality green glaze, inside, reductive cooking, polished outside (Glazed pottery)</td><td>2.5Y 5/1, Reddish gray</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A43</td><td>AC</td><td>Edge of molcajete; glaze, inside; fine paste horizontal and vertical traces (Glazed pottery)</td><td>7.5YR 8/3, Pink</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A44</td><td>AC</td><td>Body fragment; medium quality gaze, inside; reductive cooking: few inclusions (Glazed pottery)</td><td>2.5YR 6/1, Gray</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A45</td><td>AC</td><td>Body fragment; reducing cooking; medium quality green glaze, inside; few inclusions (Glazed pottery)</td><td>7.5YR 6/1, Gray</td><td>GW</td></tr><tr><td>A46</td><td>AC</td><td>Vessel fragment; red color, polished, outside; sedimentary and volcanic inclusions (Acapulco red)</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>AR</td></tr><tr><td>A47</td><td>AC</td><td>Vessel support fragment; red color, polished, outside; sedimentary and volcanic inclusions (Acapulco red)</td><td>7.5YR 6/3, Light brown</td><td>AR</td></tr><tr><td>A48</td><td>AC</td><td>Vessel neck fragment; red color, polished, outside; sedimentary and volcanic inclusions (Acapulco red)</td><td>5YR 5/1, Gray</td><td>AR</td></tr><tr><td>A3</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; green glazed inside; sedimentary inclusions. SSH letters on the lip</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A4</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions; lathe traces</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A6</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; sedimentary and quartz inclusions</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A7</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; sedimentary and quartz inclusions</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A21</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; sedimentary inclusions; pitch coating inside</td><td>7.5 YR 8/2, Pinkish White</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A23</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment, semi-globular; sedimentary, metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; lathe traces; pitch coating inside</td><td>5 YR 6/6, Reddish yellow</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A24</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth fragment<sup>(2)</sup>; quartz and sedimentary inclusions; pitch coating inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A25</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; sedimentary, metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; lathe traces; pitch coating inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A26</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; metamorphic and quartz inclusions; lathe traces; pitch coating inside</td><td>2.5YR 7/4, Light Reddish brown</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A27</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; pyrite?, metamorphic and quartz inclusions lathe traces; pitch coating inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>P</td></tr><tr><td>A2</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(2)</sup>; green glaze, inside; lathe traces; few sedimentary inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/2, Pinkish gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A5</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth<sup>(1)</sup>; green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic, and quartz inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/2, Pinkish gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A8</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; globular; good quality green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/3, Light brown</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A10</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 7/3, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A11</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A12</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 7/3, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A13</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; lathe traces; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/3, Light brown</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A14</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions; lathe traces, inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/3, Light brown</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A15</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions; crossed lathe traces</td><td>7.5YR 6/2, Pinkish gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A16</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; bad quality green glaze, inside; sedimentary and metamorphic inclusions; crossed lathe traces</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A17</td><td>FSD</td><td>Bottom fragment; ovoid; crossed lathe traces; quartz and sedimentary inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/3, Light brown</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A18</td><td>FSD</td><td>Bottom fragment; ovoid; crossed lathe traces; quartz and sedimentary inclusions</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A19</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; ovoid; sedimentary and metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; crossed lathe traces, inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/1, Gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A20</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; ovoid; sedimentary and metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; crossed lathe traces, inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A22</td><td>FSD</td><td>Body fragment; ovoid; sedimentary and metamorphic, and quartz inclusions; crossed lathe traces, inside</td><td>7.5YR 6/4, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>GM1</td><td>GM</td><td>Body fragment</td><td>—</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>GM2</td><td>GM</td><td>Body fragment</td><td>7.5YR 7/1, Light gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>CS3</td><td>CS</td><td>Body fragment</td><td>7.5YR 7/1, Light gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>CS4</td><td>CS</td><td>Mouth fragment</td><td>7.5YR 7/1, Light gray</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>MC5</td><td>MC</td><td>Body fragment</td><td>7.5YR 7/3, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>MC6</td><td>MC</td><td>Body fragment</td><td>5YR 7/3, Pink</td><td>S</td></tr><tr><td>A1</td><td>FSD</td><td>Mouth and neck<sup>(2)</sup>; cylindrical and concave; green glaze, inside; sedimentary inclusions</td><td>1FOR GLEY 4/, Dark gray</td><td>C</td></tr></tbody></table>

hafnium, lanthanide and actinide elements. The group with the highest content of Cr is Asian 3.

In order to a comparison among our values and literature data, statistical calculations were done considering 11 coincident elements (those aforementioned, excepting Yb, Lu, and U). Fig. 10 shows the principal component diagram obtained under these conditions.

The comparison of our data of group S (Seville) with those of the literature revealed similitudes with data concerning *botijas*, but not with majolica ceramics. The unglazed *botijas* J-22 and J-61 (Jamieson and Hancock, 2004) were recovered at sites of Cuenca, Ecuador of late 16th or early 17th centuries. The group of *botijas* here named V-OJ (glazed, slipped or not) were recovered in Campeche, Mexico

(Velasquez and Salgado Ceballos, 2018); a mean value of these data was used for this comparison. Data of a Spanish green-glazed *botija* sherd (found at Humberto, Ecuador) are also quite similar to data of the Sevillian group of the present research (Jamieson et al., 2013).

Several studies have been done about the chemical composition of some *botijas*, considered either Panamanian or Peruvian (Kelloway et al., 2016; Kelloway et al., 2018; Rovira et al., 2006; Jamieson and Hancock, 2004; Olin et al., 1978). The determination U-Pb dating of detrital zircons extracted from Red Earthenware suggested that the manufacturing centers of these ceramics was in Peru (Kelloway et al., 2014). Literature data about *botijas* (Kelloway et al., 2016, Rovira et al., 2006) and the mean value of seven samples of Kelloway et al., (2018)
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 9.** Principal component diagram calculated with 14 elemental concentrations. In ellipses: 54 samples of the present research. Ceramic groups. A1, A2, A3: Asian1, Asian2, Asian3. AR: Acapulco red. GW: Glazed ware, Acapulco. P: Peru. S: Sevilla and Ungrouped sample (U). Confidence interval of ellipses: 0.9.</figcaption></figure>

about glazed ceramics identified as Peruvian agree with data of the group Peru (P) of the present research. Sharratt et al. (2019) analyzed by a portable XRF equipment Peruvian earthenware vessels. The concentrations of coincident elements with the present research (Fe, Rb and Th) are in good agreement.

The data of ungrouped sample (A1) resulted similar to those of some *botijas* (RS-8, 9, 11 and 18) recovered in Cuenca (southern highlands of Ecuador), into colonial contexts of the 17th century. These specimens are unglazed, red slipped, and with relatively high Ca and Ba content (not analyzed in this research). In the opinion of the authors (Jamieson and Hancock, 2004), these ceramic containers were possibly manufactured at Cuenca itself, place where *botijas* and *tinajas* have been reported (Jamieson, 1996).

According to the comparison, the group Asian 2 was similar to one group (Group 2) of Asian sherds of dragon jar vessels recovered in the far south of the Philippine archipelago (Sinopoli et al., 2006). These sherds have gray paste and some of them are dense with small inclusions, such as those of the present research. The samples A33 and A39 (both of Fujian style) present figures in relief and in particular, that of A39 represents a dragon. The proposed chronology for these *martabans* goes from the 14th to 16th centuries and the manufacturing sites were possible the Guangdong region in China and Go San in Central Vietnam

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 10.** Principal component diagram calculated with 11 elemental concentrations. In ellipses: 54 samples of the present research. Filled circles correspond to the following references: Jamieson and Hancock, 2004 (J22, J61, RS8, RS9, RS11, RS18); Velasquez and Salgado Ceballos, 2018 (V-OJ); Kelloway et al., 2016 (K-G2, K-G4); Kelloway et al., 2018 (K-P); Rovira et al., 2006 (R-G2); Sinopoli et al., 2006 (S-G2). Confidence interval of ellipses: 0.9.</figcaption></figure>

(Sinopoli et al., 2006 and references therein).

Elemental concentrations of group Asian 3 were similar to the Group 4 reported by Kelloway et al., 2016. These authors associated their G4 with Thai-made ceramics, manufactured at Singburi or Mae Nam Noi kilns. The styles of A36 and A37, both of group Asian 3, were identified as Singburi and Sawankhalok, respectively. Burma style was present in both groups Asian 2 (A39) and Asian 3 (A40).

As mentioned before, data of Grave and Maccheroni (2009) were obtained by ICP-OES and the elements coincident with those of the present work are six (Sc, Fe, La, Ce, Yb, and Hf). Fig. 11 includes the data of these authors, of Kelloway et al. (2016), Sinopoli et al. (2006) and those of Asian groups, considering only these six elements. Group Asian 1 of the present research and G5 of Grave and Maccheroni (2009) are in good agreement regarding the concentrations of these six elements. These authors consider that the origin of jars of their G5 is the Philippines, likely near Manila. They also pointed out that the technical characteristics, chronological range, and occurrence in Spanish contexts of these *martabans*, may reveal that the manufacturing center was not so old nor short-lived. These jars were considered as rough emulations of a popular Chinese jar and an adaptation of stoneware technology to local resources. According to the same figure, the ceramic group Asian 2

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Results of multi-elemental analyses by neutron activation (mean ± s.d.), in µg/g, excepting Fe.

<table><thead><tr><th>Element</th><th>Seville (n = 21)</th><th>Peru(n = 10)</th><th>Cuenca(n = 1)</th><th>Asian 1(n = 4)</th><th>Asian 2(n = 6)</th><th>Asian 3(n = 4)</th><th>Glazed ware(n = 6)</th><th>Acapulco Red(n = 3)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sc</td><td>15 ± 1</td><td>16 ± 3</td><td>19</td><td>37 ± 1</td><td>11 ± 1</td><td>18 ± 2</td><td>4.9 ± 0.7</td><td>19 ± 2</td></tr><tr><td>Cr</td><td>100 ± 6</td><td>33 ± 11</td><td>12</td><td>95 ± 11</td><td>27 ± 8</td><td>118 ± 35</td><td>17 ± 3</td><td>65 ± 29</td></tr><tr><td>Fe (mg/g)</td><td>30.7 ± 1.6</td><td>34.5 ± 7.2</td><td>41.5</td><td>54.6 ± 0.5</td><td>14.4 ± 1.2</td><td>29 ± 0.7</td><td>12.3 ± 1.6</td><td>43.3 ± 5.2</td></tr><tr><td>Co</td><td>15 ± 1</td><td>16 ± 4</td><td>18</td><td>35 ± 12</td><td>5 ± 1</td><td>13 ± 2</td><td>5 ± 1</td><td>25 ± 5</td></tr><tr><td>Rb</td><td>126 ± 13</td><td>117 ± 12</td><td>25</td><td>31 ± 7</td><td>193 ± 40</td><td>146 ± 14</td><td>121 ± 7</td><td>64 ± 8</td></tr><tr><td>Sb</td><td>1.3 ± 0.4</td><td>2.9 ± 0.9</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.23 ± 0.01</td><td>0.59 ± 0.07</td><td>1.8 ± 0.3</td><td>3 ± 12</td><td>0.6 ± 0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Cs</td><td>7 ± 1</td><td>12 ± 4</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.1 ± 0.6</td><td>6 ± 1</td><td>13 ± 1</td><td>6 ± 4</td><td>1.9 ± 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>La</td><td>34 ± 4</td><td>28 ± 1</td><td>19</td><td>20 ± 7</td><td>74 ± 9</td><td>46 ± 10</td><td>36 ± 2</td><td>25 ± 1</td></tr><tr><td>Ce</td><td>70 ± 8</td><td>58 ± 6</td><td>45</td><td>45 ± 13</td><td>125 ± 12</td><td>94 ± 12</td><td>65 ± 5</td><td>55 ± 9</td></tr><tr><td>Eu</td><td>1.1 ± 0.2</td><td>1.1 ± 0.1</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.1 ± 0.2</td><td>1.2 ± 0.3</td><td>1.2 ± 0.5</td><td>0.79 ± 0.04</td><td>1.7 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Yb</td><td>2.6 ± 0.3</td><td>2.5 ± 0.3</td><td>2.8</td><td>3.1 ± 0.4</td><td>6 ± 1</td><td>3.4 ± 0.4</td><td>1.2 ± 0.2</td><td>3.3 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Lu</td><td>0.43 ± 0.05</td><td>0.4 ± 0.04</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5 ± 0.1</td><td>1 ± 0.2</td><td>0.5 ± 0.1</td><td>0.2 ± 0.03</td><td>0.5 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Hf</td><td>4.5 ± 0.7</td><td>5.3 ± 0.6</td><td>3.5</td><td>3.9 ± 0.7</td><td>11 ± 1</td><td>8 ± 2</td><td>5.7 ± 0.4</td><td>7.4 ± 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Th</td><td>11 ± 1</td><td>13 ± 2</td><td>6</td><td>4 ± 3</td><td>42 ± 8</td><td>22 ± 4</td><td>13 ± 1</td><td>7 ± 1</td></tr><tr><td>U</td><td>2.9 ± 0.6</td><td>3.5 ± 0.9</td><td>2</td><td>2 ± 0.3</td><td>13 ± 3</td><td>5 ± 1</td><td>2.4 ± 0.2</td><td>2.2 ± 0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

Sevilla: A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, A19, A2, A20, A22, A5, A8, GM1, GM2, CS3, CS4, MC5, MC6. Peru: A3, A4, A6, A7, A21, A25, A23, A24, A26, A27. Cuenca: A1. Asian1: A28, A29, A30, A31. Asian2: A33, A34, A35, A38, A39. Asian3: A36, A37, A40, A32. Glazed ware: A41, A42, A43, A44, A45, A9. Acapulco red: A46, A47, A48.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 11.** Principal component diagram calculated with six elemental concentrations. In ellipses 13 Asian samples of the present research. Filled circles correspond to the following references: Grave and Maccheroni, 2009 (G-G2, G-G5); Kelloway et al., 2016 (K-G4); Sinopoli et al., 2006 (S-G2). Confidence interval of ellipses: 0.95.

resulted similar to the groups G2 reported by Grave and Maccheroni (2009), which were assigned to an unspecified southern Chinese origin.

No similitude was found for any group with data obtained for Chinese porcelain (Wasim et al., 2008).

Analytical results of Acapulco red samples were compared with several pre-Hispanic ceramics. Similitude (except La and Ce) was found with pastes of some ceramic samples (R22, R23, R24, Black red-on-cream) from San Miguel Ixtapa (Mexico State), which were considered regional by the authors (Tenorio et al., 2005). The sources of raw materials were possibly in the same surrounding areas. According to a comparison with published data (de la Vega et al., 2013), Glazed ceramic pastes of Acapulco were quite different of majolica of New Spain, such as the exemplars manufactured in Mexico City and Puebla.

**Fig. 12.** shows the image and the X-ray spectrum obtained with the green glaze of A8 (Spanish origin). The analytical results (in percentage) were the following: C: 9 ± 1, O: 47 ± 4, Al: 2.7 ± 0.2, Si: 11 ± 1, and Pb: 31 ± 3 (mean values and standard deviations of 6 measurements in different points of the image). The concentration of arsenic in the glaze, obtained by neutron activation analysis is 6.1 ± 0.2 µg/g. This value is practically negligible respect to the lead concentration; then it did not interfere in the measurement of Pb by EDS. The lead content in the glaze is high. Schleicher, et al., 2008 analyzed ceramic sherds of the Shipwreck 31CR314 (North Caroline), remnants of the Queen Anne's Revenge and these authors found similar concentrations of lead in the glaze and scarce tin. According to the

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 13.** FTIR spectrum of the pitch coating of A23 (Peruvian).

neutron activation analysis of the green glaze of A8, tin concentration is < 20 µg/g (limit of detection of the technique), which indicate that the glaze of A8 practically lacks this element, whereas, lead oxide, alumina and silica were evident.

**Fig. 13** and **Table 3** display the results about FTIR spectrum of the pitch coating in the exemplar A25 (Peruvian origin). This spectrum resulted similar to the one obtained by Odegaard et al. (2014) (pitch of some baskets at the Arizona State Museum) and Prauchner et al. (2004) and Puchinger et al. (2007) (Eucaliptus tar pitch). All bands in **Fig. 13** are located at the same wavenumber than those published previously, even if the transmittance percentage are different in some bands. Due to the presence of a small quantity of ceramic in the sample, no other bands coming from organic compounds were clearly identified in the wavenumber region < 1100 cm⁻¹. The spectrum of **Fig. 13** seems to be typical of the pitch of triterpenoid resins that may be obtained from pines. Puchinger et al. (2007) studied through pyrolysis capillary gas chromatography the pitch behavior of several deciduous trees and conifers, and found remarkably differences among them. This means that it is not easy to identify the specific tree species when analyzing the pitch. The inside of the Peruvian exemplars A23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (possibly from the Moquegua region) are covered with pitch. Arakaki and Cano (2003) reported that in that region the dominant flora are herbs, while the trees are quite scarce. Therefore, the resin for the manufacture of the pitch could came from other places, possibly from the Peruvian Amazon. That other regional vegetation was used remains a possibility.

## 7. Conclusions

The analyzed ceramics of the archaeological sites of Acapulco (San

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 12.** Image (50X) and X-ray spectrum of the green glaze of the sample A8 (Spanish origin).
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Band Frequency and assignment of FTIR spectra of pitch from containers.</caption><thead><tr><th>Wavenumber, cm<sup>-1</sup>(*)</th><th>Functional groups</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3425 (s)</td><td>OH/COOH from phenol or carboxylic acids</td></tr><tr><td>2923 (s)</td><td>-C-H<sub>n</sub></td></tr><tr><td>2854 (s)</td><td>-C-H<sub>n</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1697 (m)</td><td>C=O</td></tr><tr><td>1618 (s)</td><td>C=C</td></tr><tr><td>1508 (w)</td><td>C=C</td></tr><tr><td>1456 (s)</td><td>CH<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>3</sub></td></tr><tr><td>1375 (m)</td><td>-CH<sub>3</sub></td></tr><tr><td>900-1100 (s)</td><td>Si-O + ...</td></tr><tr><td>400-800 (m)</td><td>Si-O + ...</td></tr></tbody></table>

Diego Fort and downtown city) come from several origins: Sevillian, Peruvian, Ecuadorian, and three Asian. The pastes of local ceramics, Acapulco red, and Glazed pottery are quite different from the other ceramics –and also among them. Regarding the five samples from the Manilla Galleon wreck, they are Asian. In addition, the samples from the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and Mexico City are Spanish.

Among the fragments of *botijas* from the Fort of San Diego, two large groups could be identified: One of Spanish origin (southern Andalusia) and another of Peruvian origin, both of Middle Style (1580–1780) (Goggin, 1960). One more exemplar is associated with Ecuadorian manufacture, probably from the same chronology.

Spain merged their international trade network from Spain to Philippines via New Spain with the already established international trade network of the Portuguese, from Europe to South Asia, and China via Africa and India. The main ports during the New Spain colonial period were Veracruz (Gulf of Mexico) and Acapulco (Pacific Ocean). This last port received goods, quite probably in *botijas*, coming from Veracruz, to be send in the *Nao de China* to Asian and also from the *Nao* to be send to Veracruz and finally to Spain. Therefore, remains of Spanish *botijas* are frequently found in Colonial period archaeological sites of Acapulco. Many *botijas* were lead-glazed in order to protect the goods.

The Spanish Crown prohibited olive trees cultivation and wine making in the territories under its rule, in order to protect the industries of the Iberian Peninsula. However, the wine industry flourished in the Viceroyalty of Peru where big *tinajas* and *botijas peruleras* were manufactured, for this purpose. These *botijas* arrived at Acapulco from Peru by sea both in legal shipments, or as smugglers cargoes. This could also be true for *botijas* coming from Cuenca, Ecuador, a traditional potters region. *Botijas peruleras* were covered with pitch, a pyrolysis residue of vegetal material.

Four *martabans* from Fort of San Diego were manufactured in Philippines, probably near to Manila. These rough manufacture, red-dish pastes stonewares are quite common in the archaeological contexts excavated in the port of Acapulco. Other three *martabans* from the Fort of San Diego are made out of gray pastes, and probably correspond to Fujian style; one of them have a dragon in relief. These were possibly manufactured in the Guangdong region (China) or Go San (Central Vietnam), between 14th to 16th centuries. Finally, one *martaban* is related to Thai-made ceramics and probably was manufactured in Singburi or Mae Nam Noi.

The analyzed *martabans*, recovered from the Manilla Galleon wreck, are related to several styles: Fujian, Burma, Singbury, and Sawankhalok (circa 1600). The paste of one *martaban* of Fujian style (with a dragon in relief) is chemically similar to other one of Burma style. Both *martabans* of grayish pastes were possibly manufactured in the Guangdong region (China) or Go San (Central Vietnam) (14th to 16th centuries). Fragments of *martabans* of Fujian and Burma styles are frequent in the coast of Northern Baja California. Other specimens, related to Thai-made ceramics (Singburi, Sawankhalok, and Burma styles), were manufactured in Singburi or Mae Nam Noi.

According to the results of the present research, the presence of ceramic containers manufactured in the region of southwestern China was clearly identified in both the port of Acapulco and Baja California. It is quite possible than the *martabans* arrived to the coast of New Spain and then spread to other regions.

The exemplars of the Gulf of Mexico (collections of 1630–1631 New Spain Fleet Project and Inventory and Diagnosis of Submerged Cultural Resources in the Gulf of Mexico) and those of the Caribbean Sea (collection of Inventory and Diagnosis of Submerged Archaeological and Historical Heritage in Chinchorro Bank Biosphere Reserve Project) were recovered in maritime context of shipwrecks, possibly dating to 17th century. The *botijas* on board these ships were Spanish, as were identified in the present research. In this case, the cultural and geographical origin determination of ceramic containers is a useful tool for the comprehensive study of archaeological contexts, with special relevance for dating and provenance estimation of the wrecked vessel. The finding of ceramics containers in non-Spanish territories or wreck sites reinforces the fact that intercolonial maritime trade of certain Hispanic foodstuffs was fluid, whether legal or not. On the other hand, the core point of the New Spain trade system was Mexico City, where large amounts of goods were stored and re-distributed. Certainly, many of these goods, particularly consumables and foodstuff, arrived in ceramic containers. For this reason, the finding of remains of Spanish *botijas* in Mexico City is common, and this analysis allowed locating the productive area and confirming the existence of a production monopoly held by the Spanish crown.

The compositional analysis of pottery fragments found in Acapulco allowed establishing a general panorama of consumer goods trade during the period of study, as well as the characterization of regionally-produced wares.

The pastes of Acapulco Red and Glazed types have different chemical compositions, suggesting that raw materials for their manufacturing came from different regional sources. The first ware, for culinary purposes, apparently flourished and developed specialization during the Postclassic period, but their manufacturing remained through the colonial period. On the contrary, the Glazed wares arose during the Viceregal times, inspired by Spanish technology, but adapted to the consumption needs of the port inhabitants. The differences between this earthenware, beyond the chemical composition, are defined by manufacturing techniques that consider the shape and function of the object. In this sense, those changes of technological traditions must be interpreted as the result of a complex system of economic relations, which explain and support them. The accessibility and availability of raw materials and fuels determined that the tradition has been preserved or not. Therefore, the daily production of ceramics in Acapulco was possibly the result of economic adaptation as a response to consumer demands; in this sense, the manufacturing of Acapulco Red wares remained in parallel with that of the Glazed wares.

The impact of Spanish, Peruvian, and Asian ceramic containers in the New World reveals important aspects, such as ceramic ecology, social requirements and geopolitics. The availability of raw materials depended on the natural environment, and technological decisions on specific trade patterns. Therefore, certain ceramic forms may be linked directly with an economic adaptation within the network of productive relationships of the societies.

Manufacturing of ceramic containers for the transport of goods (which were part of complex flows and commercial routes) was promoted in Asia, the Iberian Peninsula and the New World. The European overseas expansion process of illustrates the full integration of the New World territories in the commercial dynamics, which was undertaken in the early stages of Capitalism development, and may give new interpretations of cultural exchange in the Pacific Ocean area. This is particularly valid for the network of productive relationships of Colonial and Republican society of Acapulco. The Fort of San Diego was the most important military fortress in the region; and together with those of Real Felipe (Peru), and Valdivia (Chile), formed part of the Spanish

<footnote>(*) s: strong, m: middle, w: weak.</footnote>
defensive axis in the Pacific Ocean. Globalization in this coastal region of the Pacific Ocean is evident with the establishment of terrestrial and maritime routes of goods distribution, associated with complex regional and intraregional trade networks.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank the technical support of Mrs. E. Morales, the Nuclear Reactor TRIGA MARK III Staff, and SEM Department, of ININ. We also thank Dr. Patricia Fournier García, a few reference samples were used for this study from part of the Postgraduate Project in Archeology of the National School of Anthropology and History, being part of the Production and Exchange of Ceramics in the Internal Provinces of Northern New Spain Project. We appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to the text.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102163.

## References

* Aoyagi, Y., 1992. Asian trade ceramics in the Philippines ninth to sixteenth centuries. *J. Sophia Asian Stud.* 10, 144–175.

* Arakaki, M., Cano, A., 2003. Composición florística de la cuenca del río Ilo-Moquegua y Lomas de Ilo Moquegua, Moquegua. *Perú. Rev. Per. Biol.* 10, 5–19.

* Arduengo García, D.A., 2008. Las Botijas (Olive Jars). Su reutilización en tres construcciones coloniales habaneras. Ponencia inédita presentada en el VII Congreso Internacional Patrimonio Cultural: Contexto y Conservación, Centro Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museología.

* Austral, A., Rocchietti, A., Tamagnini, M., Lodeserto, A., Gili, M.L., Olmedo, E., Criado, R., 1999. Arqueología del Fuerte de Las Achiras (1832–1869) en la Línea de la Frontera Sur. Córdoba. In: Diez Marín, C., (Ed.), Actas del XII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina, La Plata, pp. 395–409.

* Avery, G., 1997. Pots as packaging: the Spanish botija and Andalusian transatlantic commercial activity, 16th-18th centuries (Inédited Ph.D. thesis). La Florida University, USA.

* Azkarate, A., Núñez, J., 1991. Colección de botijas y botijuelas ("Spanish Oliver jar" o "anforetas") procedentes de la ermita de San José (Elorrio, Bizkaia). *KOBIE (Serie Peloantropología)* 153–182.

* Baena, A., 2016. Reflexiones en torno al comercio de objetos de lujo en el Pacífico Siglos XVII y XVIII. In: Yuste López, C., Pinzón Ríos, G., (Eds.), A 500 años del hallazo del Pacífico. La presencia novohispana en el Mar del Sur (pp. 217-250). México: Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, UNAM.

* Barrionuevo, F.C., 2009. Loza quebrada del relleno de bóvedas de los claustros de Santo Domingo de Jerez de la Frontera. *Revista de Historia de Jeréz* 14 (15), 225–285.

* Bentley, T.H., 2019. Picturing Commerce in and from the East Asian Maritime Circuits, 1550-1800. Amsterdam University Press, Leiden.

* Bense, J.A., 1999. Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola. University Press of Florida.

* Benson, R.J., (Ed.), 2002. The Capitana Project. Final Excavation Report. Reporte científico no publicado. Caribbean Shipwreck Research Institute. http://duniamaya.96.lt/the-capitana-project-final-excavation-report-the.html.

* Bianchi, V.M., 2009. Cambio social y prácticas cotidianas en el orden colonial. Arqueología Histórica en Floridablanca (San Julián, Siglo XVIII). Ph.D. dissertation (FFyLUBA). BAR. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford. South American Archeological Series.

* Bonialian, M.A., 2012. El pacífico hispanoamericano: Política y comercio asiático en el imperio español (1680-1784). La centralidad de lo marginal.

* Bonialian, M.A., 2014. El Pacífico Colonial ¿Una Economía Mundo? In: Schottenhammer, A., (Ed.), Tributo, Comercio y Contrabando. Interacciones comerciales, científicas y humanas en el mundo de la Edad Media y Moderna, Wiesbaden, pp. 109–132.

* Borrel, B., Pérez Montás, E., Apestedgui, C., 1997. La aventura del Guadalupe: su viaje a La Española y su hundimiento en la Bahía de Samaná. Centro de Altos Estudios Humanísticos y del Idioma Español (UCSD)- Comisión de Rescate Arqueológico Submarino de la República Dominicana.

* Brush, C.F., 1969. A contribution to the archeology of Coastal Guerrero, Mexico. (Ph.D. Doctoral dissertation) Columbia University, USA.

* Calderón Quijano, J.A., 1984. Historia de las fortificaciones en Nueva España. España: CSIC.

* Carmagnani, M., 2011. El otro Occidente. América Latina desde la invasión europea hasta la globalización. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

* Carmagnani, M., 2012. Las islas de lujo. Productores exóticos, nuevos consumidores y cultura económica europea, 1650-1800. México: El Colegio de México (COLMEX).

* Carter, J., 1982. Spanish olive jars from Fermeuse Harbour, Newfoundland. Mat. Hist. Bull., Nat. Mus. Can. 16, 99–108.

* Celestino, E., Guerrero, S., Fournier, P., 2018. Permanencia y cambio en el uso de botijas en una comunidad indígena nahua del alto Balsas, Guerrero. Dimensión Antropológica 73, 7–37.

* Cervantes, E.A., 1939. Loza blanca y azulejo de Puebla. Secretaría de Cultura, México: 2 tomos.

* Charlton, T.H., Fournier, P., Otis Charlton, C.L., 2007. "La cerámica del periodo Colonial Temprano en la Cuenca de México. Permanencia y cambio en la cultura material". In: Merino Carreón, B.L., García Cook, A., (coordinates.), La producción alfarera en el México antiguo V. National Institute of Anthropology and History, INAH, pp. 429–496.

* Charlton, T., Fournier, P., 2010. "Pots and Plots: The Multiple Roles of Early Colonial Red Wares in the Basin of Mexico". In: Liebmann, M. and Murphy M.L., (Eds.), Enduring Conquests. Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas. School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico, pp: 127–148.

* Chauná, P., 1974. Las Filipinas en el Pacífico de los siglos ibéricos. Siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII (estadísticas y atlas). Instituto Mexicano de Comercio Exterior, México.

* de Amores Carredano, F., Chisvert Jiménez, N., 1991. Sevilla y América: interpretación del hallazo de un grupo de formas de azúcar del siglo XVI en la Cartuja de Santa María de las Cuevas (Sevilla). Segundo Seminario Internacional de La Caña de Azúcar en el Mediterráneo Occidental pp. 163–182.

* de Amores Carredano, Chisvert Jiménez, N., 1993. Tipología de la cerámica bajomedieval y moderna sevillana (s. XV-XVIII): I, la loza quebrada de relleno de bóvedas. SPAL: Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla (2), pp. 269–328.

* de la Vega, S., Castañeda-Gómez del Campo, A., Jiménez-Reyes, M., Tellez-Nieto, A., Tenorio, D., 2013. Majolica ware in the New Spain: an evaluation through NAA. *J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem.* 298, 1835–1844.

* Dobado González, R., 2014. La globalización hispán de el comercio y el arte en la Era Moderna. The Hispanic Globalization of Commerce and Art in the Early Modern Era. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 32, 13–42.

* Ekholt, G., 1948. Ceramic Stratigraphy at Acapulco, Guerrero. In: El Occidente de México, IV Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, pp. 95–104.

* Escribano, G., Mederos, M., 1999. Distribución y cronología de las botijas en yacimientos arqueológicos subacuáticos de la Península Ibérica, Baleares y Canarias. Cuadernos de Arqueología Marítima 5, 177–201.

* Ewen, C., 1990. The Archaeology of Spanish Colonialism in the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean. Society for Historical Archaeology, NAA. Albuquerque.

* Faltermeier, R.B., 2014. An Easy Guide to Care for Sculpture and Antique Art Collections. Springer.

* Finlay, R., 2010. The Pilgrim Art: Cultures of Porcelain in World History, 1st edn. University of California Press, Berkeley.

* Fish, S., 2011. The Manila-Acapulco Galleons: the Treasure Ships of the Pacific: With an Annotated List of the Transpacific Galleons 1565-1815. AuthorHouse.

* Flynn, D. O., Giráldez, A., Sobredo, J., (Eds.), (2001). European entry into the Pacific: Spain and the Acapulco-Manila galleons. Ashgate, Aldershot, U.K.; Burlington, VT.

* Ford, B., 2011. Coastal Archaeology. In: Catsambis, A., Ford, B., Hamilton, D.L., (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 763–785.

* Fournier, P., Blackman, M.J., Bishop, R., 2009. Empleo de Análisis instrumentales de Activación Neutrónica (INAA) en el estudio del origen de la mayólica en México. Arqueología 42, 151–165.

* Fournier, P., 1990. Evidencias arqueológicas de la importación de cerámica en México, con base en los materiales del Ex-convento de San Jerónimo. Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Historia, México.

* Fournier, P., Blackman, J.M., 2008. Production, exchange and consumption of glazed wares in New Spain: formation of databases of elemental composition through INAA. FAMSI.

* Fournier, P., Blackman, J.M., Bishop, R., 2012. La arqueología histórica, etnoarqueología y arqueometría aplicadas al estudio de las lozas vidriadas en México: Aproximaciones diacrónicas. In: Ladrón de Guevara, S., Budar, L., Lunagómez, R., (Eds.), Teoría, métodos y técnicas. Universidad Veracruzana, México, pp. 131–153.

* Fournier, P., Guerrero, S., Carpenter, J., Sedov, S., 2017. Caracterización arqueométrica en el estudio de tecnologías productivas: contenedores cerámicos en México y Andalucía durante el periodo vireinal. Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 27, 399–427.

* Fournier, P., Otis Charlton, C.L., 2019. "Postconquest Technological Innovation and Effect on Ceramic Traditions in Central Mexico". In: Alexander, R.T., (Ed.), Technology and Tradition in Mesoamerica alter de Spanish Invasion, Archaeological perspectives. University of New Mexico Press, pp: 35–51.

* Florentine Codex, 1979. Edición Facsímilar, Manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Mexico: Secretaría de Gobernación.

* Gerhard, P., 1986. Geografía histórica de la Nueva España 1519-1821. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México.

* Goggin, J.M., 1960. The Spanish botija. An introductory study. Yale University, New Haven.

* Gomez Ferrer, S., Buxeda i Garrígos, J., Iñañez, J., Amores, F., Adriana Alzate Gallego, L., 2013. Sevillian transport jars in early colonial America: the case of Santa María La Antigua del Darién (Colombia). Open Journal of Archaeometry; Vol 1, No 1 (2013): 38th International Symposium on Archeometry - May 2010 Tampa, Florida: Technology and Provenance, 1.

* von Grafenstein, J., 2003. Concepciones espaciales y visiones imperiales: el Caribe en la época del reformismo borbónico. Cuiculco 10 (29), 25–50.

* Grave, P.R., 1995. The shift to commodity: A study of ceramic production and upland-lowland interaction in northwestern Thailand 1000-1650 AD (Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy). University of Sydney, Australia.

* Grave, P.R., Barbetti, M., Hotchkis, M., Bird, R., 2000. The stoneware kilns of sisatchanalai and early modern Thailand. J. Field Archaeol. 27, 169–182.

* Grave, P.R., Maccheroni, M., 2009. Characterizing asian stoneware jar production at the transition to the early modern period (1550-1650 C.E.). In: McCarthy, B.E., Freer Gallery of Art, (Eds.), Scientific Research on Historic Asian Ceramics: Proceedings of
the Fourth Forbes Symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art. Archetype Publications in association with the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, London.

Grenier, R., Bernier, M.A., Stevens, W., 2007. The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay. Vol. II. Material Culture. Canada.

Gruziński, S., 2010. Las cuatro partes del mundo. Historia de una mundialización (Edición: 1a ed.). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Porras, A., Sorroche, M.A., Sánchez, S., Junco, R., Alcántara, A., 2018. Archaeometric characterization in the study of the productive technology of the contact ceramic of the Port of Acapulco, Mexico. 42nd International Symposium on Archaeometry Scientific Póstér.

Guerrero, S., Trejo, F., Sedov, S., Pi, T.P., Guzmán, J.T., Dorado, A.A., 2016. Archaeometric characterization of historical ceramics from shipwrecks in Mexicós Sea, Scientific Poster presented. INAH, CONACYT, IG-UNAM, México.

Guerrero S., 2018. Caracterización arqueométrica en el estudio de producción cerámica en México y Andalucía durante los periodos virreinal y republicano (Thesis for the degree of Doctorate in Archaeology) Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

Gunder Frank, A., 2002. La acumulación mundial 1492-1789. México: Siglo XXI.

Gunn, C.Ch., 1971. The Talking Jars. Catalogue of the Centennial Museum Vancouver, Vancouver.

Guerrero, S., 2012. Producción cerámica en las ciudades gemelas de Tenochtitlán y Tlatelolco durante el Posclásico Temprano y el Periodo Colonial Temprano. Utilizando técnicas arqueométricas para su clasificación. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México Thesis for the degree of Bechelor of Archaeology.

Guerrero, S., 2014. Producción cerámica de tradición indígena en lozas vidriadas en México durante los periodos Colonial y Republicano. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México Thesis for the degree of Master in Archaeology.

Guerrero, S., 2016. Análisis tecnológico de la producción cerámica a través del procesamiento digital de imágenes: aportaciones desde la Arqueología Histórica. In: López Camacho, M.L. (Ed.), Memorias del II Coloquio de Arqueología Histórica "Desenterrando fragmentos de historia, siglos XVI al XIX". Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, pp. 377-401.

Gutiérrez, R., 2005. Fortificaciones en Iberoamérica. Fundación Iberdrola y Ediciones, Madrid.

Gutman, P., 2001. The Martinban trade: an examination of the literature from the seventh century until the eighteenth century. Asian Perspect. 40 (1), 108-118.

Guy, J., 1989. Ceramic Traditions of South-East Asia. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hamilton, D.L., 2000. Port Royal Project. Retrieved from Nautical Archaeology Program, http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/.

Harrison, B., 1986. Pusaka. Heirloom Jars of Borneo. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Harrison, B., 2003. Ceramic trade across the South China Sea. J. Malayisian Branch R. Asiatic Soc. LXXVI, 99-110.

Hodos, T., (Ed.), 2016. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. Routledge, Abingdon.

Hoogervorst, T., 2016. Tracing maritime connections between Island Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean world. In: Hodos, T., (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. Routledge, Abingdon.

Holmes, W.H., 1903. Aboriginal Pottery of Eastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology.

Hughes, M.J., 2014. Chemical Analysis of Pottery from the Tortugas Shipwreck (1622) by Plasma Spectrometry (ICPS). Oceans Odyssey 4, 1622-1651.

Huertas Vallejo, L., 2004. "Historia de la producción de vinos y piscos en el Perú", Universita. Revista de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, 19, 44-61.

Iñáñez, J.G., Speakman, R.J., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Glascock, M.D., 2008. Chemical characterization of majolica from 14th-18th century production centers on the Iberian Peninsula: a preliminary neutron activation study. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35(2), 425-440.

James, S.R., 1985. The Analysis of the Conde de Tolosa and the Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe Botija Assemblage (Inédited MS thesis). Texas AandM University, USA.

James, S.R., 1988. A Reassessment of the chronological and typological framework of the Spanish olive jar. Hist. Archaeol. 22 (1), 43-66 Retrieved from JSTOR.

Jamieson, R., 1996. The Domestic and Material Culture of Colonial Cuenca, Ecuador, A.D. 1600-1800. (Inédited Ph.D. thesis). The University of Calgary, Canada.

Jamieson, R., Hancock, R., 2004. Neutron activation analysis of colonial ceramics from Southern Highland Ecuador. Archaeology 46, 569-583.

Jamieson, R., Hancock, R., Beckwith, I., Pidruczny, A., 2013. Neutron activation analysis of inca and colonial ceramics from Central Highland Ecuador. Archaeometry, 55.

Jiménez-Reyes, M., Tenorio, D., Esparza-López, J., L. Cruz-Jiménez, R., 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.

Junco, R., Manzanilla López, R., Estrada Apática, S.I., Hernández Bautista, I.R., Lara Tufiño, P., 2016. Informe de los resultados de la atención a denuncia realizada del 28 de julio al 11 de agosto de 2015 en el basurero adyacente al Museo Histórico Fuerte de San Diego, Acapulco [Inédited Report for the Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. INAH, México.

Junco, R., Manzanilla López, R., Piña Cetina, M., Lara Tufiño, P., Trejo Gutiérrez, C., 2017. Proyecto Arqueología Marítima del Puerto de Acapulco. Primera temporada [Inédited Excavation Report for the Consejo de Arqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. INAH, México.

Junco, R., 2016. On a manila galleon of the 16th century: A nautical perspective. In: Chunming, W. (Ed.), Early Navigationin the Asia-Pacific RegionA Maritime Archaeological Perspective. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 103-114.

Kawaguchi, Y., 2011. The newly found Olive Jars in Japan and their historical significance. Sokendai Rev. Cult. Social Stud. 7, 123-132.

Keith, D.H., 1987. The Molasses Reef Wreck. Texas AandM University-Institute of

Nautical Archaeology, USA.

Kelloway, S., et al., 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., et al., 2016. Sherds on the edge: characterization of 16th century colonial Spanish pottery recovered from the Solomon islands. Archaeometry.

Kelloway, S.J., VanValkenburgh, P., Iñáñez, J.G., Dussubieux, L., Quilter, J., Glascock, M.D., 2018. Identifying new world majolica from 16th-18th century sites on Peru's north coast. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 17, 311-324.

Kingsley, S., Flow, J., Gerth, E., 2014. Spanish Olive Jars from the Tortugas Shipwreck. Florida (1622).

Kluber, G., 2012. Arquitectura Mexicana del siglo XVI. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico.

Knapp, A., Demesticha, S., 2017. Mediterranean connections: Maritime transport containers and seaborne trade in the bronze and early iron ages.

Li, B., 2013. Inscribed Chinese stoneware storage jars from the 14th century Sinan wreck in Korea: the context of Asian ceramic trade and Japanese tea culture. National Museum of Korea 2012 Museum Network Fellowship Research Papers, National Museum of Korea, Ed., Seoul, pp. 87-104.

Lister, R.H., 1971. Archaeological synthesis of Guerrero, In: Wauchope, R., Ekholm, G., Bernal, I., (Eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indian, vols. 10 and 11. Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, pp. 619-632.

Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1976. A descriptive dictionary for 500 years of Spanish tradition ceramics (13th through 18th Centuries). Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publications, No. 1. Glassboro, Nueva Jersey.

Lister Cervantes, G., 1976. Cerámica colonial en la Ciudad de México. Colección científica. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

López Torres, P., 2018. Loza Quebrada procedente de la bóveda de la capilla de San Isidoro. Catedral de Sevilla. Revista de Prehistoria y. Arqueología 27 (1), 283-296.

Luna Erregeruna, P., 1999. Informe de actividades del Projecto Flota de la Nueva España de 1630-1631 e Inventory y Diagnóstico de Recursos Culturales Sumergidos en el Golfo de México, marzo 1998-febrero 1999. México: Archivo de la Subdirección de Arqueología Subacuática INAH.

Manzanilla, R., 2006. "La cerámica del Clásico en Guerrero". In: Merino Carreón, B.L., García Cook, A., (coords.), La producción alfarera en el México antiguo II. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, INAH. pp. 13-48.

Marken, M.W., 1994. Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500-1800. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Martin, C.J.M., 1979. Spanish Armada pottery. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 8, 279-302.

Martínez Ruiz, J.I., 2018. A global trading network. The Spanish empire in the world economy (1580-1820). Universidad de Sevilla. A G., España.

Massone, M., 1980. Un tipo cerámico diagnóstico del periodo colonial temprano de Chile y su presencia en la Patagonia meridional. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 63-74.

Mena García, C., 2004. Nuevos datos sobre bastimentos y envases en armadas y flotas de la Carrera. Revista de Indias 64, 447-487.

Moya Sordo, V., Reicher, R., 2010. El pecio Cuarenta Cañones. Joya arqueológica en el Caribe mexicano. Arqueología Mexicana 102, 70-75.

Myers, J.E., de Amores Carredano, F.J., Olin, J.S., Pleguezuelo Hernández, A., 1992. Compositional identification of Seville Majolica at overseas sites. Hist. Archaeol. 26, 131-147.

Neff, H., 2008. Gauss language routines for statistical analyses of multivariate archaeological data. http://archaeometric.missouri.edu. Accessed November 2017.

Odegaard, N., Pool, M., Bisulca, C., Santarelli, B., Neiman, M., Watkinson, G., 2014. Pine pitch: new treatment protocols for a brittle and crumbly conservation problem. Objects Specialty Group Postprints 24, 21-41.

Oland, M., 2017. The Botija in the shrine: situating spanish objects within a 15th-17th century Maya worldview. In: Cipolla, C.N., (Ed.), Foreign Objects: Rethinking Indigenous Consumption in American Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, pp. 127-142.

Pasinski, T., Fournier, P., 2014. Ceramics: The Ibero-American Shipping Container. In: Smith, C., (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology.

Peacock, D.P.S., Williams, D.F., 1986. Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide. Longman archaeology series, Longman, London.

Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens, M., 2011. The Brunei shipwreck: a witness to the international trade in the China Sea around 1500. The Silk Road, 5-7.

Pleguezuelo, A., Lafuente, M.P., 1995. Cerámicas de Andalucía occidental (1200-1600). In: Gerrard, C.M., Gutiérrez, A., Vince, A.G., (Eds.), Cerámica medieval española en España y en las Islas Británicas (1st edn.). British Archaeological Reports Oxford Ltd., Oxford.

Olin, J.S., Harbottle, G., Sayre, E.V., American Chemical Society, 1978. Elemental composition of Spanish and Spanish-colonial majolicaceramics in the identification of provenience. Archaeological chemistry II 199-229.

Prauchner, M.J., Pasa, V.M., Otani, C., Otani, S., de Menezes, S.M., 2004. Eucalyptus tar pitch pretreatment for carbon material processing. J. Appl. Poly. Sci. 91 (3), 1604-1611.

Puchinger, L., Sauter, F., Leder, S., Varmuza, K., 2007. Studies in Organic Archaeometry VII-Differentiation of Wood and Bark Pitches by Pyrolysis Capillary Gas Chromatography (PY-CGC). Annali di Chimica: J. Anal. Environ. Cult. Heritage Chem. 97 (7), 513-525.

Rice, P.M., 2011. Vintage Moquegua: History, Wine, and Archaeology on a Colonial Peruvian Periphery. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Rice, P.M., van Beck, S.L., 1993. The Spanish colonial kiln tradition of Moquegua, Peru. Hist. Archaeol. 27 (4), 65-81.

Rovira, B., Blackman, J.M., Zelst, L., Bishop, R., Rodríguez, C., Sánchez, D., 2006. Caracterización química de cerámicas coloniales del sitio de Panamá Viejo. Resultados preliminares de la aplicación de activación neutrónica. Canto Rodado,
101-131.

Ruiz, H., Morales, F., 2005. Piratería en el Caribe. Editorial Renacimiento, Sevilla.

Sales Colín, O., 1996. El movimiento portuario de Acapulco: un intento de aproximación (1626-1654). Revista Complutense de Historia de América, 22.

Sánchez, J.M., 1996. La cerámica exportada a América en el siglo XVI a través de la documentación del Archivo General de Indias. I. Materiales arquitectónicos y contenedores de mercancías. Laboratorio de Arte, 9, 125-142.

Sahagún, B., 1994. *à¢Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain*. Club Internacional del Libro, EspaA ± a Facsimile Edition.

Sanz Molina, S.E., 2002. Tres fortificaciones en nueva España. Estudio arquitectónico-constructivo. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), España.

Sassoon, H., 1981. Ceramics from the Wreck of a Portuguese Ship at Mombasa. Azania 16, 171-179.

Schleicher, L.S., Miller, J.W., Watkins-Kenney, S.C., Carnes-McNaughton, L.F., Wilde-Ramsing, M.U., 2008. Non-destructive chemical characterization of ceramic sherds from Shipwreck 31CR314 and Brunswick Town, North Carolina. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (10), 2824-2838.

Sharratt, N., deFrance, S.D., Williams, P.R., 2019. Spanish colonial networks of production: earthenware storage vessels from the Peruvian wine industry. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 1-27.

Sinopoli, C., Dueppen, S., Brubaker, R., Descantes, C., Glascock, M., Griffin, W., Speakman, R., 2006. Characterizing the stoneware «dragon jars» in the guthe collection: chemical, decorative, and formal patterning. Asian Perspect. 45.

Slack, E., 2009. The Chinos in New Spain: a corrective lens for a distorted image. J. World Hist. 20, 35-67.

Smith, R.C., Burns, J.M., 1998. University of West Florida, Archaeology Institute, and Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. The Emanuel Point ship: archaeological investigations, 1997-1998. Pensacola: Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Staski, E., 2009. Asian american studies in historical archaeology. In: Majewski, T., Gaimster, D., (Eds.), International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. Springer, NY.

Suárez, M., 2001. Desafíos transatlánticos: mercaderes, banqueros y el estado en el Perú virreinal, 1600-1700. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Instituto Riva-Agüero: Fondo de Cultura Económica: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.

Tenorio, D., Almazán-Torres, M.G., Monroy-Guzmán, F., Rodríguez-García, N.L., Longoria, L.C., 2005. Characterization of ceramics from the archaeological site of San Miguel Ixtapan, Mexico State, Mexico, using NAA, SEM, XRD and PIXE techniques. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 266 (3), 471-480.

Terreros Espinosa, D.T., Gutierrez-Rubio, E., Jiménez-Reyes, M., 2019. Transport jars from the Historical Center of Mexico City.

Velasquez, V., Salgado Ceballos, C.A., 2018. Spanish olive jars in Campeche: preliminary chemical characterization and provenance identification of early modern transport vessels in the Yucatán Peninsula (Mexico). J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 21, 1171-1180.

Wallerstein, I.M., 2011. Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Berkeley. Univ. of California Press, Calif.

Wasim, M., Arif, J.H., Fatima, I., 2008. Quantitative analysis of ancient Chinese ceramic using k 0-instrumental neutron activation analysis. Radiochimica Acta 96, 863-866.

Williams, H., Beasley, T., Huntley, D., Newton, W., 1992. Research notes: an eighteenth-century spanish jar from the Queen Charlotte Islands. BC Stud. Br. Columbian Q. 96, 90-99.

Wolf, E.R., 1987. Europa y la gente sin historia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Wood, N., 1999. Chinese glazes: Their origins, chemistry, and recreation. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Yuste, C., 1984. El comercio de la Nueva España con Filipinas, 1590-1785. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Departamento de Investigaciones Históricas.

Yuste, C., 2007. Emporios transpacíficos comerciantes mexicanos en Manila: 1710-1815. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México.

Zavala, S., 1968. El mundo americano en la época colonial. Porrúa, México.

Zunzunegui, A.P., 1965. Recipientes cerámicos utilizados en el comercio de Indias. Boletín Americanista 19 (27), 21-38.