lable at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e2704Contents lists avaiJournal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jasRomita pottery revisited: a reassessment of the provenance of ceramics
from Colonial Mexico by LA-MC-ICP-MS
Javier G. Iñañez a,b,*, Jeremy J. Bellucci c, Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría d, Richard Ash c,
William McDonough c, Robert J. Speakman a
aMuseum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Suitland, MD 20746, USA
bCultura Material i Arqueometria Universitat de Barcelona (ARQjUB), Facultat de Geografia i Història, Universitat de Barcelona, c/Montalegre, 6, 08001 Barcelona, Spain
cDepartment of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
dDepartment of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USAa r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 March 2010
Received in revised form
3 June 2010
Accepted 8 June 2010
Keywords:
Romita pottery
Pb isotopes
LA-MC-ICP-MS
Colonial Mexico* Corresponding author at: Museum Conservation
tution, Suitland, MD 20746, USA.
E-mail addresses: javiergarcia@ub.edu, inanezj@si
1 The authors disagreed on the name of this ware.
call it Indígena Ware, as seen in previous publication
Lister and Lister, 1982, 1987; Rodríguez-Alegría, 200
2003). Iñañez prefers to use the term Romita, as s
(Fournier et al., 2007; Fournier and Blackman, 2008
Loza Indigena, a close translation of Indigena Ware);
this particular ware and any “generic” indigenous cer
0305-4403/$ e see front matter 
 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.005a b s t r a c t
The origin of Romita pottery has been a controversial topic during the last three decades of Colonial
Mexico archaeological studies. Lead isotopic analyses of glaze coatings of Spanish and Mexican pottery,
and Romita ceramics unearthed from the archaeological site of the Metropolitan Cathedral in Mexico City
provide evidence that support a Mexican origin.

 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. Introduction
Romita pottery1, also known as Indígena ware (Lister and Lister,
1982) or Loza Indígena (Fournier et al., 2007), is found in greatest
abundance in Colonial period contexts in Mexico City (Lister and
Lister, 1982). Romita pottery is earthenware covered with a white
slip and a transparent Pb glaze, which results in a white and shiny
appearance that is visually similar to tin-glazed Spanish majolica.
Romita pottery occurs in many typological forms, such as porrin-
gers with leaf-shaped handles, compound-silhouette plates, bowls,
and other forms similar to the forms of Spanish, Italian, and
Mexican majolica serving vessels. The pottery has interested
scholars for decades (e.g., Fournier et al., 2007; Lister and Lister,
1982; Rodríguez-Alegría, 2002a, 2002b; Rodríguez-Alegría et al.,Institute, Smithsonian Insti-
.edu (J.G. Iñañez).
Rodríguez-Alegría prefers to
s (e.g. Deagan, 1987: 72e73;
2b; Rodríguez-Alegría et al.,
een in previous publications
; although they also refer to
to avoid confusion between
amics.
All rights reserved.2003) because it distinct from, yet similar to, traditional Spanish
majolica and other contemporary European glazed ceramics.
Although similar in many ways to Spanish majolica, Romita pottery
has been considered by some researchers to be an indigenous
imitation of Spanish tin-glazed ceramics (e.g., Lister and Lister,
1982; Fournier et al., 2007). Conversely, others consider Romita
pottery as a European import or produced by European potters and
imported to Mexico from Spain or other Spanish colonies outside of
Mexico (e.g., Rodríguez-Alegría, 2002a,b; Rodríguez-Alegría et al.,
2003). Because this ceramic is commonly believed to be an indig-
enous imitation of European tableware, it is considered important
in the study of technological change in colonial transculturation
processes, the adoption of European aesthetics among indigenous
people, and competition between colonizers and indigenous
people in the colonial market. The determination of whether
Romita pottery is an indigenous version of European wares, or
whether it was simply an imported ware that had little or nothing
to do with indigenous adoptions of European technologies is a key
step in better understanding technological change, trans-
culturation, socio-political, and economic issues in Spanish Colonial
Mexico.
The proposed origin of this pottery includes Italy (Lister and
Lister, 1976), Mexico (Lister and Lister, 1982; 1987; Magetti et al.,
1984) and Spain (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2002a,b; Rodríguez-Alegría
et al., 2003). It was initially argued that Romita pottery was an
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e2704 2699Italian ceramic, with two main variants named after Rome: Romita
Plain for the undecorated variant, and Romita Sgrafitto for the
decorated variant (Lister and Lister, 1976). Following their attribu-
tion of Romita pottery to Italy, Lister and Lister reconsidered and
argued that it was actually an indigenous imitation of European
tableware made in Mexico, based on manufacturing techniques,
vessel morphology, and decorative attributes of late Aztec period
along with possible European influenced motifs (Lister and Lister,
1982). These authors also reasoned that the white slip was added
before glazing to achieve the desired white surface color because
indigenous potters lacked the technology necessary to render the
Pb glaze opaque by the addition of tin. In addition, Romita Sgrafitto
has decoration outlined by carving through the white slip to expose
the red color of the paste and then filling the areas of the glaze with
green and orange pigments, giving theware its characteristic bright
colors. Decorative motifs exhibited on Romita sgraffito vessels
include characteristic decorative elements that may derive from
prehispanic indigenous traditions, such as corn or eagles. However,
the composition and layout of these designs are more similar to the
European renaissance style, including wavy valances, spirals, and
circular motifs (Fig. 1).
According to Lister and Lister (1982), among the types of Romita
ceramics the plain variant was the most represented in the Mexico
City archaeological excavations, with the sgraffito variant showing
a wider distribution throughout central and northern Mexico and
the southern United States. Thus, this latter type is archaeologically
documented inmultiple sites, not only inMexico City, but also in the
Valle del Mezquital (Hidalgo), in several historic settlements in
Michoacán (Pátzcuaro and Cuitzeo basins), in Balsas (Guerrero),
in Sinaloa, and in several sites near the Texan and Chihuahan border,
as well as in New Mexico (see Fournier et al., 2007, and references
therein). Archaeological and historical evidence suggests a lengthy
period of production and consumption for Romita pottery that
would have begun in the 16th century, and continued until mid or
even the end of the 17th century (Fournier et al., 2007).
2. Previous Archaeometric Research
Maggetti et al. (1984) provided the first insight into the chemical
and petrographical composition of Romita pottery pastes.Fig. 1. Romita ware plain aPetrographic studies of five Romita sherds unearthed from beneath
the Metropolitan Cathedral in Mexico City provided evidence
that the source materials for these samples was volcanic in
origin, likely from Mexicodin contrast to the more common sedi-
mentary sources for tempers seen in Spanishmajolica. Additionally,
Maggetti et al. (1984) proposed that Romita sgraffito was made
from different clays than those used to manufacture Valle Ware
(pottery likely produced in the Valley of Mexico), suggesting that
the production area lay outside the Valley of Mexico.
Approximately twenty years after Maggetti argued that Romita
Ware was made in Mexico, Rodríguez-Alegría conducted a stylistic
analysis and a chemical characterization study of the ceramics from
the Metropolitan Cathedral in Mexico City and concluded that it
was a European import or produced by European potters and
imported to Mexico from Spain or other Spanish colonies outside of
Mexico (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2002a, 2002b; Rodríguez-Alegría et al.,
2003). Moreover, the chemical composition of the Romita sherds
did not match the composition of any samples from Mesoamerica
nor any European ceramics. To support the hypothesis that it was
a European ceramic, Rodríguez-Alegría relied heavily on decorative
attributes and vessel form. The technique of carving decorative
motifs through a burnished white slip and then covering with a Pb
glaze had been used in Europe since the ninth century, peaking in
popularity between the twelfth and the fifteenth century
throughout Europe (Kuleff and Djingova, 2001), with no anteced-
ents to this technique in Mesoamerica (Rodríguez-Alegría et al.,
2003). Although this specific technology did not exist in Meso-
america, carved decorative motifs were not uncommon in earlier
Mesoamerican ceramics (for example, see Blomster et al., 2005, and
references therein).
A more recently challenge to European provenance hypothesis
came from the INAA study by Fournier et al. (2007). Based on
chemical analysis of numerous Romita ceramics specimens from
the Michoacán region, which have ethnographic and contempo-
rary ceramic production contexts, Fournier et al. (2007) conclude
that Romita pottery was produced in Mexico, most likely in the
Pátzcuaro Basin area. In addition, it was also observed that there
are two similar, yet distinctive composition groups of Romita
pottery shards based on their relative trace element abundances
(Fournier et al., 2007).nd sgraffito variants.
Fig. 2. Map of Mexico including sites mentioned in the text and relevant Pb deposits from (Cumming et al., 1979).
Table 1
LA-MC-ICP-MS analytical conditions for Pb isotope analysis at the Plasma Laboratory
of the University of Maryland.
Mass spectrometer
Instrumentation Nu Plasma MC-ICP-MS
Forward power 1300 W
Reflected power <10 W
Cones Ni
Acceleration voltage 4000 V
Gas flows
Coolant 13 L min1
Auxilary 0.8 L min1
Nebulizer 0.77 L min1
Aridus gas flows
Sweep gas 2.20 L min1
N2 0.15 L min1
Helium flow 0.4 L min1
Laser
Instrumentation Nu Wave UP 213
Standard NIST 610 Sample
Line width 150 mm 6e8 mm
Line length 350e400 mm 350e400 mm
Translation rate 7 mm s1 7 mm s1
Pulse frequency 7 hz 5e10 hz
Energy density 4e5 J cm1 4e5 J cm1
Typical 208Pb V 0.57 1e6
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e27042700In light of the recent and contrasting views of Fournier et al. and
Rodríguez-Alegría, we report here the Pb isotopic composition of
the glazes from Romita pottery sherds and compare these
compositions with those of source materials from the New World
and Europe. Importantly, Brill et al. (1987) and Joel et al. (1988)
reported on the Pb isotopic compositions of majolica pottery in
the Americas. These data along with that for Mexican Pb ores
(Cumming et al., 1979) provide a basis to assess the possible
provenance of these ceramics (Fig. 2).
3. The samples
In addition to the Romita ceramics, this study also incorporates
majolica and non tin-lead glazed ceramics from 16th and 17th
centuries Spanish and Mexican production centers in order to put
the Romita Pb isotopic data into an interpretable context that allow
us to assess the use of Mexican or Spanish Pb for Romita glazes. The
provenance and archaeological reliability of the ceramic paste
reference groups have been established and published elsewhere
(Olin and Myers, 1992; Blackman et al., 2006; Fournier et al., 2007;
Iñañez, 2007; Iñañez et al., 2008). In order to obtain better insight
on the Pb isotopic fingerprints of the Romita ceramics and its
correlation against the Spanish and Mexican ceramics, a sample of
8 Romita ceramics was selected for Pb isotope analysis. Addition-
ally, 5 majolica sherds attributed to Puebladone of the major
production centers in Colonial Mexicod3 glazed ceramics from the
Mexico City reference group, 5 majolica sherds from Talavera de la
Reina (Spain), and 5 majolica sherds from the production center of
Seville (Spain) were selected for analysis.
4. Analytical Methodology
Lead has four isotopes, 208Pb, 207Pb, 206Pb, and 204Pb; 204Pb is
invariant in nature, whereas 208Pb, 207Pb, 206Pb are daughter
products of the decay of 232Th, 235U, and 238U, respectively. There-
fore, variation in the Pb isotopic compositions of materials isa function of its initial U, Th and Pb concentrations, the starting Pb
isotopic composition, and the time-integrated growth of radiogenic
Pb. Due to dissimilarity in the chemical behavior of U, Th, and Pb,
the Pb isotopic compositions of materials can vary widely in nature.
These natural variations, therefore, make the Pb isotopic system an
ideal candidate to constrain the potential provenance of geologic
materials and the archaeological materials derived therefrom (e.g.,
Brill and Wampler, 1967; Pollard et al., 2007; Pollard, 2009; Stos-
Gale and Gale, 2009; Shortland, 2006, and references therein).
Table 2
Pb isotopic values for NIST 610 acquired by LA-MC-ICP-MS at the Plasma Laboratory of the University of Maryland.
NIST610 208Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 207Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 206Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 207Pb/206Pb 2s(mean) 208Pb/206Pb 2s(mean)
Block 1e1 37.827 0.013 15.787 0.006 17.266 0.007 0.91454 0.00005 2.1913 0.0002
Block 1e2 37.840 0.012 15.795 0.005 17.272 0.006 0.91427 0.00006 2.1908 0.0002
Block 1e3 37.703 0.012 15.745 0.005 17.230 0.005 0.91378 0.00008 2.1880 0.0002
Block 1e4 37.688 0.011 15.737 0.004 17.221 0.005 0.91388 0.00004 2.1883 0.0002
Block 2e1 37.703 0.013 15.711 0.004 17.205 0.006 0.91344 0.00008 2.1867 0.0002
Block 2e2 37.688 0.011 15.720 0.004 17.207 0.004 0.91358 0.00006 2.1869 0.0002
Block 2e3 37.624 0.011 15.703 0.005 17.194 0.005 0.91314 0.00012 2.1857 0.0003
Block 2e4 37.628 0.011 15.701 0.004 17.190 0.005 0.91342 0.00004 2.1857 0.0002
Block 3e1 37.624 0.013 15.711 0.004 17.205 0.006 0.91344 0.00008 2.1867 0.0002
Block 3e2 37.628 0.011 15.720 0.004 17.207 0.004 0.91358 0.00006 2.1869 0.0002
Block 3e3 37.581 0.011 15.703 0.005 17.194 0.005 0.91314 0.00012 2.1857 0.0003
Block 3e4 37.574 0.011 15.701 0.004 17.190 0.005 0.91342 0.00004 2.1857 0.0002
Block 4e1 37.581 0.011 15.703 0.005 17.194 0.005 0.91314 0.00012 2.1857 0.0003
Block 4e2 37.574 0.011 15.701 0.004 17.190 0.005 0.91342 0.00004 2.1857 0.0002
Block 4e3 37.619 0.011 15.721 0.004 17.210 0.005 0.91331 0.00006 2.1855 0.0002
Block 4e4 37.580 0.013 15.707 0.004 17.199 0.005 0.91311 0.00006 2.1850 0.0002
Block 5e1 37.632 0.016 15.721 0.005 17.212 0.004 0.91349 0.00010 2.1867 0.0005
Block 5e2 37.534 0.012 15.687 0.005 17.188 0.006 0.91289 0.00006 2.1839 0.0003
Block 5e3 37.535 0.008 15.689 0.004 17.188 0.006 0.91278 0.00008 2.1841 0.0002
Block 5e4 37.534 0.012 15.687 0.005 17.188 0.006 0.91289 0.00006 2.1839 0.0003
Block 6e1 37.535 0.008 15.689 0.004 17.188 0.006 0.91278 0.00008 2.1841 0.0002
Block 6e2 37.534 0.012 15.687 0.005 17.188 0.006 0.91289 0.00006 2.1839 0.0003
Block 6e3 37.602 0.012 15.709 0.004 17.204 0.006 0.91323 0.00006 2.1856 0.0002
Block 6e4 37.594 0.013 15.709 0.006 17.200 0.006 0.91321 0.00006 2.1852 0.0003
Block 7e1 37.602 0.012 15.709 0.004 17.204 0.006 0.91323 0.00006 2.1856 0.0002
Block 7e2 37.594 0.013 15.709 0.006 17.200 0.006 0.91321 0.00006 2.1852 0.0003
Block 7e3 37.586 0.012 15.706 0.003 17.195 0.004 0.91329 0.00008 2.1853 0.0002
Block 7e4 37.768 0.011 15.761 0.004 17.237 0.004 0.91443 0.00004 2.1911 0.0002
Block 8e1 37.586 0.012 15.706 0.003 17.195 0.004 0.91329 0.00008 2.1853 0.0002
Block 8e2 37.768 0.011 15.761 0.004 17.237 0.004 0.91443 0.00004 2.1911 0.0002
Block 8e3 37.618 0.029 15.712 0.009 17.199 0.008 0.91332 0.00020 2.1860 0.0008
Block 8e4 37.500 0.013 15.682 0.006 17.185 0.006 0.91253 0.00007 2.1822 0.0003
Block 9e1 37.618 0.029 15.712 0.009 17.199 0.008 0.91332 0.00020 2.1860 0.0008
Block 9e2 37.618 0.029 15.712 0.009 17.199 0.008 0.91332 0.00020 2.1860 0.0008
Block 9e3 37.498 0.013 15.678 0.006 17.181 0.006 0.91246 0.00004 2.1824 0.0002
Block 9e4 37.466 0.009 15.664 0.004 17.166 0.005 0.91249 0.00006 2.1824 0.0002
Block 10e1 37.498 0.013 15.678 0.006 17.181 0.006 0.91246 0.00004 2.1824 0.0002
Block 10e2 37.466 0.009 15.664 0.004 17.166 0.005 0.91249 0.00006 2.1824 0.0002
Block 10e3 37.581 0.027 15.697 0.008 17.206 0.012 0.91274 0.00029 2.1845 0.0008
Block 10e4 37.772 0.013 15.763 0.006 17.245 0.007 0.91421 0.00006 2.1905 0.0002
Block 11e1 37.581 0.027 15.697 0.008 17.206 0.012 0.91274 0.00029 2.1845 0.0008
Block 11e2 37.772 0.013 15.763 0.006 17.245 0.007 0.91421 0.00006 2.1905 0.0002
Block 11e3 37.768 0.012 15.760 0.005 17.249 0.006 0.91384 0.00010 2.1894 0.0003
Block 11e4 37.772 0.013 15.742 0.005 17.225 0.005 0.91391 0.00006 2.1893 0.0002
Average 37.62 15.71 17.21 0.91 2.19
2s 0.19 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.01
% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e2704 2701Lead isotopic compositions were determined in situ via laser
ablation, multi-collector, inductively coupled plasma-mass spec-
trometry (LA-MC-ICP-MS) employing a New Wave UP-213 laser
system and a Cetac Aridus desolvating nebulizer system coupled to
a Nu Plasma multiple-collector ICP-MS (Belshaw et al., 1998). The
New Wave UP-213 utilizes a frequency quintupled solid-state Nd-
YAG laser with a final output wavelength of 213 nm. Helium gas
was flushed through the ablation cell and used to entrain the
ablated particles. Before the plasma torch, the He gas from the laser
ablation cell was combined with an Ar and N2 gas-flow from the
Aridus nebulizer via a T-junction (see Table 1 for typical gas-flow
settings). During the analytical session, ultra-pure 18 MU (milli-Q)
water was flushed through the Aridus ensuring only Ar and N2
reached the plasma (see Table 1 for typical analytical settings).
Parallel faraday cups outfitted with 1011U resistors were used to
collect the simultaneous ion currents from masses 208Pb, 207Pb,
206Pb, 204Pb, and 202Hg. Before each sample analysis, an on-peak
background was taken for 45 s with the laser on and shuttered. The
Nu Plasma time-resolved software was used to establish the
average of the background for each analysis and to calculate eachratio using the background-corrected signals from each time-
resolved measurement. The integration time of each measurement
is 0.2 s. Typical ablation spectra were collected for w60 s. The
isobaric interference of 204Hg on 204Pb was corrected for by using
the background-corrected 202Hg signal and the natural isotopic
abundances of each Hg isotope (202Hg/204Hg ¼ 0.2299 (de Laeter
et al., 2003)). However, the Hg interference was insignificant
during our analyses due to the large amount of Pb (wt%) and
negligible amount of Hg (mg/g) in the ceramic glazes.
Isotopic fractionation corrections were performed using the
Exponential Law and NIST SRM610 values from (Baker et al., 2007)
by means of standard-sample bracketing (e.g., Jochum et al., 2006;
Kent, 2008; Paul et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2007). Our block analyses
consisted of two standard measurements (NIST SRM610) before
and after six sample measurements.
Replicate analyses (n ¼ 44) of NIST 610 during the day of anal-
yses yielded an external precision of 0.4% on 20xPb/204Pb ratios and
0.2% on 20xPb/206Pb (with x being 6, 7 or 8, as appropriate) (Table 2).
Due to the wt% Pb concentrations in the glaze of the ceramics, we
were able to measure their Pb isotopic compositions with a high
Fig. 3. Pb isotopic ratios of Mexican and Spanish ceramics and lead deposits from the
literature.
Fig. 4. Pb isotopic ratios of Mexican ceramics and lead deposits from Cumming et al.,
1979.
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e27042702degree of internal and external precision (based on triplicate
analyses of individual samples). Typical internal and external
precisions for 20xPb/204Pb of ceramic glazes are on the order of
0.05% and <0.1%, respectively. Analyses were conducted on the
exterior surface of the glaze of each sample.5. Results and discussion
The Pb isotopic compositions for the reference groups discussed
above and the Romita pottery are illustrated in Fig. 3. Accordingly,
Mexican Pb isotopic compositions are distinct from that of Euro-
pean produced Spanish majolicadan obvious consequence of the
different geological sources of Spanish and Mexican materials. As
expected, Mexican ceramics analyzed by Joel et al. (1988) show
close affinity with Mexican ceramics from Puebla studied in this
paper. Furthermore, Romita glazes have similar Pb isotopic
compositions to the Mexican materials used to produce Puebla
ceramics.
Lead used on the non-majolica glazed ceramics attributed to
Mexico City shows a different Pb isotopic composition than that for
Puebla majolica and Romita pottery. Conversely, majolica recently
sampled from the Spanish production centers of Talavera de la
Reina and Seville match the Spanish ceramics identified by Joel
et al. (1988). Interestingly, Spanish Pb isotopic compositions
cluster in two separate groups, both of which include ceramics
made in Seville and Talavera. These two groups, previouslydescribed by Joel et al. (1988), may suggest that Pb used in Spanish
majolica during the 16th and 17th centuries originates from at least
two very distinct sources. Lead isotopic compositions measured for
the upper group of Spanish majolica are consistent with three
possible provenances for Southeastern Spain galenas: Alcudia
Valley, Linares e La Carolina, and Pedroches (Santos-Zalduegui
et al., 2004), while the rest of the Spanish majolica samples
cannot be attributed to any known Pb deposit, although the rela-
tively small sample of artifacts from Spain included in the current
study suggests caution regarding the final provenance assessment
of these materials.
The provenance of Pb used in Romita ceramics is assessed in
Fig. 4 and Table 3 by comparing data for Mexican Pb ores (Cumming
et al., 1979) against our Pb isotopic data. Based on the Pb isotopic
compositions of each Mexican pottery materials, it appears that the
Pb used in Mexico City glazed ceramics was substantially different
than from the Pb used in Puebla and Romita pottery. Although the
Pb isotopic compositions of the Puebla and Romita glazes cluster
closely, it does not mean that pottery from these areas was
produced using the same source of Pb, just that these Pb deposits
are geologically similar. Additionally, Pb isotopic data for Puebla
and Romita ceramics suggest the existence of two different groups.
The group of ceramics having higher 206/204Pb ratios and lower 207/
206Pb and 208/206Pb ratios (Fig. 4) exhibits similar Pb isotopic
compositions to the Pb deposits of El Pavo, Cuale, and Cosala
(Cumming et al., 1979). These Pb-sulfide deposits, located in the
North and Northwest of Mexico (Fig. 2), were suggested by Joel
et al. (1988) as the most probable source of Pb used in Mexican
majolica. Additionally, two samples from Puebla (MXF187 and
Table 3
Pb isotopic values of the Romita ware and the lead glazed ceramics analyzed from Spain and Mexico. Value is an average of 3 analyses per sample.
Sample Type Provenance Country 208Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 207Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 206Pb/204Pb 2s(mean) 207Pb/206Pb 2s(mean) 208Pb/206Pb 2s(mean)
MTM103 Romita plain Romita Mexico 38.377 0.015 15.591 0.006 18.517 0.008 0.84191 0.00013 2.0725 0.0005
MTM122 Romita plain Romita Mexico 38.521 0.002 15.614 0.001 18.631 0.003 0.83815 0.00005 2.0679 0.0003
MTM128 Romita plain Romita Mexico 38.612 0.006 15.643 0.005 18.660 0.006 0.83830 0.00006 2.0691 0.0002
MTM130 Romita plain Romita Mexico 38.563 0.009 15.637 0.003 18.641 0.004 0.83884 0.00005 2.0690 0.0001
MTM153 Romita sgraffito Romita Mexico 38.423 0.006 15.607 0.002 18.568 0.002 0.84062 0.00005 2.0697 0.0004
MTM155 Romita sgraffito Romita Mexico 38.344 0.007 15.588 0.002 18.526 0.000 0.84155 0.00007 2.0700 0.0003
MTM159 Romita sgraffito Romita Mexico 38.549 0.013 15.630 0.003 18.651 0.002 0.83798 0.00009 2.0666 0.0006
MTM167 Romita sgraffito Romita Mexico 38.545 0.007 15.613 0.002 18.639 0.002 0.83760 0.00007 2.0680 0.0004
MXY003 Plain glazed Mexico City Mexico 38.677 0.010 15.646 0.002 18.755 0.002 0.83405 0.00008 2.0631 0.0004
MXY005 Plain glazed Mexico City Mexico 38.661 0.010 15.644 0.002 18.756 0.001 0.83386 0.00012 2.0619 0.0006
MXY007 Plain glazed Mexico City Mexico 38.663 0.006 15.643 0.002 18.751 0.002 0.83405 0.00005 2.0626 0.0003
MXF202 Majolica Puebla Mexico 38.418 0.011 15.595 0.004 18.608 0.004 0.83793 0.00003 2.0647 0.0002
MXF206 Majolica Puebla Mexico 38.471 0.010 15.613 0.003 18.615 0.003 0.83853 0.00010 2.0665 0.0004
MXF008 Majolica Puebla Mexico 38.542 0.022 15.627 0.006 18.650 0.005 0.83795 0.00014 2.0663 0.0002
MXF187 Majolica Puebla Mexico 38.532 0.006 15.632 0.003 18.618 0.003 0.83976 0.00005 2.0702 0.0002
MXF198 Majolica Puebla Mexico 38.535 0.011 15.635 0.003 18.588 0.004 0.84114 0.00012 2.0735 0.0006
MJ0177 Majolica Seville Spain 38.281 0.009 15.570 0.003 18.122 0.004 0.85913 0.00010 2.1125 0.0004
MJ0178 Majolica Seville Spain 38.345 0.014 15.610 0.005 18.238 0.005 0.85572 0.00011 2.1026 0.0004
TRI004 Majolica Seville Spain 38.347 0.018 15.574 0.006 18.457 0.006 0.84388 0.00009 2.0779 0.0005
TRI007 Majolica Seville Spain 38.251 0.019 15.582 0.007 18.350 0.008 0.84925 0.00008 2.0848 0.0003
TRI008 Majolica Seville Spain 38.465 0.022 15.642 0.008 18.453 0.007 0.84773 0.00017 2.0850 0.0009
TAL006 Majolica Talavera Spain 38.274 0.019 15.595 0.008 18.378 0.009 0.84867 0.00010 2.0831 0.0003
TAL011 Majolica Talavera Spain 38.314 0.013 15.601 0.005 18.409 0.005 0.84749 0.00008 2.0807 0.0004
TAL013 Majolica Talavera Spain 38.308 0.012 15.603 0.005 18.346 0.005 0.85053 0.00006 2.0884 0.0001
MJ0118 Majolica Talavera Spain 38.520 0.014 15.652 0.004 18.481 0.006 0.84677 0.00014 2.0836 0.0005
MJ0119 Majolica Talavera Spain 38.472 0.012 15.651 0.005 18.260 0.007 0.85718 0.00007 2.1077 0.0003
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e2704 2703MXF198), along with three samples of Romita ceramics (MTM103,
MTM153, and MTM155), cluster together closer to the Campo
Morado Pb deposit, located southeast of Mexico City (Fig. 2 and
Table 3). Therefore, the Campo Morado Pb also was used for glazed
ceramics in addition to the Pb from Northern areas of Mexico.
Likewise, Romita ceramic glazes were made using Pb that likely
came from, at least, two different regions according to their Pb
isotopic fingerprints.
It is not clear if the separation of Romita pottery Pb into two
different groups corresponds to different production locales or to
differential use of (and/or access to) Pb. In addition, the Pb used in
both groups that form Romita ceramics appears to have been used
indiscriminately for both variantsdSgraffito and Plain. Given that
one sample from Puebla, MXF198, is attributed to the 19th century,
it may indicate a temporal shift in Pb consumption at this
production center, especially given that oldermaterials from Puebla
seem to have used Pb from the other sources identified in the
literature.
The ceramics fromMexico City that form part of this study have
different Pb isotopic compositions than that of Puebla and Romita
pottery samples (Fig. 2 and Table 3). Unfortunately, none of the Pb
isotopic values found in the literature matches exactly the ceramics
from Mexico City, which might be due to many factors. The
compositional similarities in Pb isotopes of all of these local
materials, nonetheless defines the surrounding geological region as
the source deposits that were exploited in ancient times.
6. Conclusions
The present study provides direct chemical data from Pb
isotopic analyses of the Pb glazes that demonstrates a New World
origin for Romita pottery ceramics. Additionally, these data lend
support to the Fournier et al. (2007) hypothesis that the production
of Romita ceramics was conducted by Purépecha craftsmen, who
inhabited the Pátzcuaro area. The fact that Purépecha artisans
successfully combined different ceramic traditions, such as the use
of Pb glazing, in an effort to reproduce similar vessels than those of
European origin, such as Spanish majolica in this case, is of highimportance in acculturation studies of contact societies in New
Spain. However, it would be overly simplistic to assume that these
ceramics were merely low-cost copies of European majolica.
Instead, Romita pottery represents the birth of a new technology
created by the combination of different cultural identities, accom-
modating different technological traditions, and possibly exhibiting
decorations adapted from the Spaniards. Therefore, the success of
this new ceramic type, reflected in its wide distribution throughout
New Spain, is a reflection of the acculturation process in Colonial
Mexico.
The findings in this study lay the ground work for mapping out
themain production centers of Mexican pottery manufacturing and
distribution. The complementary nature of combining chemical
and isotopic analysis (including but not limited to Pb, Sr, Nd and
other isotopic analysis) provides important constraints for evalu-
ating the possible diachronic changes and strategies in Pb supply.Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Marie Curie International
Outgoing Fellowships program, endorsed by the European
Commission (“ARCHSYMB”, PIOF-GA-2008-223319). Lead isotope
analyses were carried out at the Plasma Laboratory of the Univer-
sity of Maryland. Non-Romita ceramics from Puebla, Oaxaca, and
Mexico City were provided by Dra. Patricia Fournier, Escuela
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México; Spanish majolica
ceramics from Sevilla and Talavera were provided by A. Sánchez
Cabezudo, and Maria Antonia Casanova from the Museu de la
Ceràmica de Barcelona. We gratefully acknowledge the comments
and suggestions made byM. James Blackman, Ronald L. Bishop, and
Patricia Fournier on an earlier draft of this manuscript.References
Baker, J., Peate, D., Waight, T., Meyzen, C., 2004. Pb isotopic analysis of standards
and samples using a Pb-207-Pb-204 double spike and thallium to correct for
mass bias with a double-focusing MC-ICP-MS. Chemical Geology. 211 (3e4),
275e303.
J.G. Iñañez et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 2698e27042704Belshaw, N.S., Freedman, P.A., O’Nions, R.K., Frank, M., Guo, Y., 1998. A new
variable dispersion double-focusing plasma mass spectrometer with
performance illustrated for Pb isotopes. Journal of Mass Spectrometry 181,
55e88.
Blackman, M.J., Fournier, P., Bishop, R.L., 2006. Complejidad e interacción social en
el México colonial: identidad, producción, intercambio y consumo de lozas de
tradición ibérica, con base en análisis de activación neutrónica. Cuicuilco 13,
203e222.
Blomster, J.P., Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 2005. Olmec pottery production and export in
ancient Mexico determined through elemental analysis. Science 307,
1068e1072.
Brill, R.H., Wampler, J.M., 1967. Isotope studies of ancient lead. American Journal of
Archaeology 71, 63e77.
Brill, R.H., Barnes, I.L., Tong, S.S.C., Joel, E.C., Murtagh, M.J., 1987. Laboratory studies
of some European artifacts excavated on San Salvador Island. In: Gerace, D.T.
(Ed.), 1st San Salvador Conference: Columbus and His World. CCFL Field Station,
Fort Lauderdale, pp. 247e292.
Cumming, G.L., Kesler, S.E., Krstic, D., 1979. Isotopic composition of lead in Mexican
mineral deposits. Economic Geology 74, 1395e1407.
De Laeter, J.R., Bohlke, J.K., Bievre, P.D., Hidaka, H., Peiser, H.S., Rosman, K.J.R.,
Taylor, P.D.P., 2003. Atomic weights of the elements: review 2000. Pure and
Applied Chemistry 75 (6), 683e800.
Deagan, K., 1987. Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean
1500e1800, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.
Fournier, P., Blackman, M.J., Bishop, R.L., 2007. Los alfareros Purépecha de la Cuenca
de Pátzcuaro: producción, intercambio y consumo de cerámica vidridada durante
la época virreinal. In: Fournier, Patricia, Wiesheu, Walburga, Charlton, Thomas
(Eds.), Arqueología y Complejidad Social. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, Ciudad de México, pp. 195e221.
Fournier, P., Blackman, J., 2008. Production, Exchange and consumption of glazed
wares in New Spain: formation of a database of elemental composition through
INAA. Research report Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican
Studies. http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014/index.html.
Iñañez, J.G., 2007. Caracterització arqueomètrica de la ceràmica vidrada decorada de
la Baixa Edat Mitjana al Renaixement dels principals centres productors de la
Península Ibèrica, Tesis Doctorals en Xarxa, 0205107-115739, Universitat de
Barcelona, Barcelona.
Iñañez, J.G., Speakman, R.J., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., Glascock, M.D., 2008. Chemical
characterization of majolica from 14the18th century production centers on the
Iberian Peninsula: a preliminary neutron activation study. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Science 35, 425e440.
Jochum, K.P., Stoll, B., Herwig, K., Willbold, M., 2006. Improvement of in situ Pb
isotope analysis by LA-ICP-MS using a 193 nm Nd:YAG laser. Journal of
Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 21, 666e675.
Joel, E.C., Olin, J.S., Blackman, M.J., Barnes, I.L., 1988. Lead isotope studies of Spanish,
Spanish-colonial and Mexican majolica. In: Farqubar, R.M., Hancock, R.G.V.,
Pavlish, L.A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Archaeometry
Symposium. University of Toronto Archaeometry Laboratory, Toronto, pp.
188e185.Kent, A.J.R., 2008. In-situ analysis of Pb isotope ratios using laser ablation MC-ICP-
MS: controls on precision and accuracy and comparison between Faraday cup
and ion counting systems. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 23,
968e975.
Kuleff, I., Djingova, R., 2001. Archaeometric investigation of sgraffito ceramics from
medieval Bulgaria. Archaeologia Bulgarica 5, 71e82.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1976. Italian presence in tin glazed ceramics in Spanish
America. Historical Archaeology 10, 28e41.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1982. Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley of
Mexico. In: Anthropological Papers Series of the University of Arizona, vol. 39.
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1987. Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain:
a Cultural Register from the Third Century B.C. to 1700. The University of Ari-
zona Press, Tucson.
Maggetti, M., Westley, H., Olin, J.S., 1984. Provenance and technical studies of
Mexican majolica using elemental and phase analysis. In: Lambert, Joseph B.
(Ed.), Archaeological Chemistry-III, Advances in Chemistry Series. 205. Amer-
ican Chemical Society, Washington, D.C, pp. 151e191.
Olin, J.S., Myers, J.E., 1992. Old and New World Spanish majolica technology.
Materials Research Society Bulletin 17, 32e38.
Paul, B., Woodhead, J.D., Hergt, J., 2005. Improved in situ isotope analysis of low-Pb
materials using LA-MC-ICP-MS with parallel ion counter and Faraday detection.
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 20, 1350e1357.
Pollard, M., Batt, C., Stern, B., Young, S.M.M., 2007. Analytical Chemistry in
Archaeology, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Pollard, A.M., 2009. What a long strange trip it’s been: lead isotopes and archae-
ology. In: Shortland, A.J., Rehren, Th., Freestone, I.C. (Eds.), From Mine to Micro-
scope. Studies in Honour of Mike Tite. Oxbow Books, London.
Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2002a. Food, Eating, and Objects of Power: Class Stratification
and Ceramic Production and Consumption in Colonial Mexico, PhD dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2002b. Indigena Ware: Spain to Valley of Mexico. In: Scien-
tific Archaeology for the Third Millennium Series. Praeger, Westport.
Rodríguez-Alegría, E., Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 2003. Indigenous ware or Spanish
import? The case of Indígenaware and approaches to power in Colonial Mexico.
Latin American Antiquity 14, 67e81.
Santos-Zalduegui, J.F., García de Madinabeitia, S., Gil Ibarguchi, J.I., 2004. A lead
isotope database: the los Pedroches-Alcudia area (Spain): implications for
archaeometallurgical connections across Southwestern and Southeastern Ibe-
ria. Archaeometry 46, 625e634.
Shortland, A.J., 2006. Application of lead isotope analysis to a wide range of Late
Bronze Age Egyptian materials. Archaeometry 48, 657e669.
Simon, J.I., Reid, M.R., Young, E.D., 2007. Lead isotopes by LA-MC-ICPMS: tracking
the emergence of mantle signatures in an evolving silicic magma system.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 71, 2014e2035.
Stos-Gale, Z., Gale, H., 2009. Metal provenancing using isotopes and the Oxford
archaeological lead isotope database (OXALID). Journal of Archaeological and
Anthropological Sciences 1, 195e213.