Political-Ecology Perspectives on New World Loza (Majolica)

Political-Ecology Perspectives on New WorldLoza (Majolica)

Prudence M. Rice

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Political ecology, with its focus on twenty-first century power relations andresource access, also provides a perspective on commodity production in thesixteenth- and seventeenth-century emergent global economy. The focus here is onmajolica pottery (tin-enameled ware; loza) and the spread of its technology fromSpain to the Americas. Topics discussed include: the formation of business clustersand cluster regions, and their shifting patterns of decline, survival, and adaptability;access to resources used in making the vessels, the enamel, and decorative pigments(especially cobalt); the role of Muslim artisans; and the sources of innovation andentrepreneurship in loza production.

Keywords Majolica . Spanish-colonial Americas . Political ecology. Global economy

Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.

George Orwell (1946)

Introduction

The early twenty-first century’s knowledge-based, globalized economy is deemed aunique outgrowth of today’s instant communications, hyper-connectivity, and wide-spread access to computers, the internet, and wireless technologies. However, slowervariants of technology- and knowledge-based global economies developed centuriesago and constituted part of the foundation for the modern, industrial-capitalist worldsystem.

One commodity circulating in this system was majolica, a relatively high-firedearthenware ceramic covered with an opaque, tin-lead glaze or enamel and brightly

Int J Histor ArchaeolDOI 10.1007/s10761-013-0238-x

P. M. Rice (*)Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USAe-mail: [email protected]

painted decoration. Majolica was used for architectural tiles and hollow wares—tableservice (loza), chamber pots, candlesticks, ink wells, drug jars, etc.—in domestic,religious, and medical contexts. High-status goods in the pre-modern Mediterraneanworld, European majolicas have their roots in ancient Near Eastern Islamic traditions,which in turn were influenced by China. Tin-enameled wares, along with productiontechnologies and associated decorative styles, spread across the Atlantic as part of thesixteenth- and early seventeenth-century, Spanish-dominated, emergent globaleconomy.

Spanish majolica imports and New World products have been most studied inNorth America (the southeast and southwest United States), Mexico, and the Carib-bean (see, e.g., Deagan 1987; Fournier-García 1989; Goggin 1968; Lister and Lister1974, 1982). The internal spread of the tin-enameled ceramic industry throughoutMexico, and its “mega-cluster” development by the nineteenth century, are beyondthe scope of this essay (see, e.g., Fournier and Blackman 2008, p. 6). Only relativelyrecently have investigators focused on tin-enameled (and “hybrid”) wares in Guate-mala, El Salvador, and elsewhere in Central America (e.g., Card 2007; Fowler 2007;Gasco et al. 2006; Rodríguez Girón 2008; Rovira 2001; Rovira et al. 2006; Sampeck2007; see also Goggin 1968; Long 1967; Luján Muñoz 1975) and in Andean SouthAmerica (Buys 1992, p. 32; Fournier-García 1989, p. 63; Jamieson 2000; Jamiesonand Hancock 2004; Londoño 2001; Rice 1997, 2012, 2013; Therrien et al. 2002; seealso Holm 1971, p. 268; de Lozoya 1945, p. 623).

In this essay I employ a political-ecology approach in considering the movementof this technology from Europe to the Americas. Centers of manufacture wereestablished throughout Spain’s colonies, the products varying as newly arrivedpotters and painters adapted to local raw materials and skills of indigenous craftsper-sons. The concepts and perspectives of political ecology shed light on these earlytechnology transfer processes, especially resource access and use in unfamiliar,diverse environments, and on the role of Spain’s complex and often inimical policies,particularly as they relate to Muslim potters.

Political Ecology and Production Clusters

Political ecology is a young, hybrid field that combines study of “the political”(power relations and political economy) with “the ecological” (the environment andits productive resources) in contextualizing human behavior in a socially constructed“natural” world (Greenberg and Park 1994, p. 1; Robbins 2004; Vihemäki 2009).Here, I consider “power” to refer to asymmetrical social relations constructed, in part, onthe distribution of resources, including the costs and risks associated with exploitingthem. “Politics” concerns the practices through which such power is negotiated, appro-priated, and manipulated.

Political ecology—sometimes called environmental politics—is closely related tocultural ecology and political economy, and is well informed by multiple disciplines,including the social sciences. (Eric Wolf (1972) used this term in the title of hissummary comments on a symposium on Alpine land ownership, but did not define ordiscuss it in his text.) Broadly defined, the field is concerned with the exercise ofpower underlying decisions and policies about definitions of natural resources and

Int J Histor Archaeol

how, by whom, and/or for what they may be used. More specifically, political ecologyresearch investigates environmental usage, change, conservation, and associatedpolicies in today’s underdeveloped countries as they relate to resource exploitation,sustainability, and amelioration of social inequalities. Not surprisingly, given thefield’s hybridity, considerable debate exists concerning the location and authenticityof, and the balance between, the political (e.g., Paulson et al. 2003; Walker 2006) andthe ecological (e.g., Vayda and Walters 1999; Walker 2005; Zimmerer 2006) in theoryand practice.

A political-ecology concept of interest here is that of “clusters” of producing unitsin a particular field, also known as agglomerations or industrial districts; a relatedconcept is cluster region (or “territorially embedded production system”; Whitfordand Potter 2007). The primary advantages of clustering similar businesses in today’seconomic climate are framed in terms of two main goals: increased productivity andinnovation. Clusters and cluster regions are communities of practice defined by theirspatial dimensions and their products.

Production clustering itself is hardly innovative. A vast archaeological literature hasdocumented the spatial concentration or “clustering” of various kinds of craft workers inindividual household compounds, in residential sectors or wards within a site, or in distinctcommunities within larger settlement systems.

Spatially, clusters can be considered “geographic concentrations of interconnectedcompanies and institutions” or “critical masses—in one place—of unusual compet-itive success” (Porter 1998, p. 78). They are related, co-located but not co-owned,economic entities (Whitford and Potter 2007, p. 5). Despite the salience ofspatial dimensions and boundaries, these attributes are poorly defined andhighly contentious in terms of the proximity of and interactions among the“firms” of a cluster or cluster region. Size or scale may range from a city to aprovince or state, or it may transcend political boundaries and refer to group ofcountries (Porter 1998, p. 79; also see Reid et al. 2008). Also poorly specifiedare the roles of cluster communities within the larger regions of which they area part (Whitford and Potter 2007), permitting considerable latitude (but alsoimprecision) in applying these concepts.

The products of business clusters are sometimes referred to as “local collectivecompetition goods,” a clumsy but mnemonically useful bit of jargon highlighting thefact that the goods are produced by a local and proximate collective arrangement,within which the constituent units operate in some degree of competition, althoughthey may also collaborate or cooperate. Importantly, clusters “often extend down-stream to channels and customers and laterally to manufacturers of complementaryproducts” (Porter 1998, p. 78). Thus, clusters develop horizontal and vertical dimen-sions, each with pros and cons for such localized production systems (Bathelt et al.2004, pp. 36–37). The horizontal dimension inter-relates firms making similar prod-ucts that exist in competition with each other, but which have the advantage of sharedand compared knowledge of product quality and cost factors; rivalry leads to inno-vation and product differentiation. The vertical dimension is stimulated by horizontalinnovation and increased production differentiation, as firms demand specializedsupplies and services.

Exemplified in the United States by Silicon Valley in the 1980s, Hollywood’sentertainment industry, and Wall Street finance, the clustering of like firms confers


advantages and disadvantages that may be viewed from varied perspectives (Graf2010; Reid et al. 2008). Advantages include (see Porter 1998, pp. 81–84):

& Attractiveness to potential employees: “A growing cluster signals opportunity,and its success stories help attract the best talent” (Porter 1998, p. 84).

& Improved employee training.& Improved knowledge production and transfer of information. Particularly in

today’s urban areas, clusters create an industrial atmosphere that stimulatesinternal exchanges, formal and informal, dubbed local “buzz.” More distantconnections, interactions, and partnerships are referred to as pipelines or globalpipelines (Bathelt et al. 2004, pp. 38–39, 40–44).

& Improved “complementarities” among related goods or services, including mar-keting. Think of today’s wine tourism.

& Improved motivation and productivity through local rivalries.& Attractiveness and incentives to suppliers (especially of specialized inputs) for

local outsourcing: the firms in clusters constitute “important markets . . . supplierscan gain economies of scale and distribute large parts of their production at low . .. transaction and transportation costs” (Bathelt et al. 2004, p. 37).

& Improvements over earlier systems emphasizing vertical integration.& Enhanced synergy and climate for creating and implementing innovations, entre-

preneurship, and spin-off companies.

In sum, spatial concentrations of businesses enhance social or interpersonal com-munication and foster positive feedback loops, creating competitive advantages andincreased productivity. The outcome of clustering is a “robust organizational formthat offers advantages in efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility” by, for example,allowing “each member to benefit as if it had greater scale or as if it had joined withothers formally” (Porter 1998, p. 80, emphasis in original). And, paradoxically,clusters underscore the role of the local: “the enduring competitive advantages in a globaleconomy lie increasingly in local things—knowledge, relationships, motivations—thatdistant rivals cannot match” (Porter 1998, p. 78).

Over time, some products, producers, and clusters/regions of producers decline,while others thrive and exhibit long-term adaptability and recovery in the face ofstresses. Consequently, cluster-related concepts have spawned a large and fairlyrecent literature in economic geography (or “geographical political economy;”Sheppard 2011) and similar fields, particularly as related to the concept of resilience(Christopherson et al. 2010; Tonts n.d.). Documentary and archaeological datapertaining to the formation and functioning of early majolica-production clusters,the above advantages, and the shifting patterns of decline, survival, and adaptabilityof these clusters, are the focus of this essay.

Early Majolica Production in Spain: Political Ecology Perspectives

Majolica or tin-enameled pottery—particularly tablewares and varied hollow warecontainers—was for centuries an important indicator of elevated status in the pre-modern Mediterranean world. The technology underlying majolica manufacture wasbased on the addition of powdered tin oxide (SnO2) to a clear lead glaze to create an


opaque, whitish coating or enamel over an earthenware body. This practice, known inthe Near East since the eighth or ninth centuries, spread to the western Mediterraneanwith Islamic expansion, and tin-enameled–ware manufacturing was introduced to thesouthern Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal) in the tenth century (Gavin2003). Early decoration featured motifs painted in copper green and manganesepurplish-brown/black (verde y morado), perhaps in emulation of wares produced inT’ang China and traded to Persia (Flecker 2001; Rouguelle 1996).

From its early production center in Córdoba (Fig. 1), this Ibero-Islamic traditionbecame more widespread in the early eleventh century when potters abandoned thatcity after dynastic collapse. In the following centuries the decorative style andtechnology of tin-enameled ware expanded through Iberia as the political and eco-nomic fortunes of successive caliphates fluctuated owing to internal as well asexternal circumstances (especially Christian Reconquista, reconquest). These dias-poras led to the formation of production clusters as Muslim potters brought theirtradition to the southern cities of Málaga, Granada, and Sevilla, and also to the northand northeast. Known among archaeologists today as Hispano-Moresque ware, verdey morado-decorated majolica flourished in the states of Catalonia, Valencia, andAragón in the eastern kingdom of Aragón.

Fig. 1 Spain, showing major pottery-making centers discussed in the text


The long-lived Hispano-Moresque style is particularly identified with the city ofTeruel, in southern Aragón, but it was also made in Paterna and Manises in Valenciaand Barcelona in Catalonia. (For more on the history and spread of Medieval and latertin-enameled wares in these cities, see Alvaro Zamora 1981, pp. 113–116; Casanovas2003, p. 50; Glick 1979, p. 241; Molera et al. 2001, p. 332; Pinedo and Vizcaino1979, pp. 23–24, 26; Pleguezuelo 2003a, pp. 26, 28; Sánchez-Pacheco 1981; Zozaya1981, pp. 42–45.) Produced in both the Iberian peninsula and Italy, decorated tin-enameled pottery came to be known as mayólica/maiólica (Anglicized to majolica),and these western Mediterranean countries constituted an early “cluster region” ofhigh-quality manufacture and export.

Although the analytical focus here is on majolica production in the sixteenth andearly seventeenth centuries, consideration of its manufacture should be situated in abroader temporal and political-economic context. Unfortunately, however, the eco-nomic history of early modern Spain is not well understood, partly as a consequenceof the country’s varied geography and its regional political and demographic histories(Phillips 1987, p. 532). Spain’s primary production included textiles (wool and silk),iron working, and shipbuilding, and these sectors grew, along with the population, inthe sixteenth century. But that growth was punctuated by multiple crises in the ruralagricultural sector. Malnutrition, famine, and epidemics led to declines in bothpopulation and manufacturing, and the “unraveling of commercial networks” (Phil-lips 1987, pp. 546–547). Weak internal markets are to blame for the apparent lack ofinnovation and entrepreneurial outlook among merchants, but recovery began beforemajor governmental efforts to stimulate the economy in the late seventeenth century(Phillips 1987, pp. 544, 549).

It is within this context that early Spain’s majolica production must be considered.Political ecology perspectives on this business activity and the transfer of itstechnologies—including introductions from northwestern Italy into Spain, and ex-pansion from Spain to the New World colonies—provide further insights.

Resources

Although the Iberian Peninsula boasts varied metals and non-metallic mineral re-sources, many of the materials needed for majolica production had to be imported.Plastic clay, of course, is the primary resource for potters. Many Spanish majolica-production centers, including Talavera de la Reina, employed a mixture of two claysfor the earthenware body: one rich in calcium (Ca) or lime and firing to a light orwhite color, and the other non-calcareous and red-firing (Barber 1915a, p. 7; Caiger-Smith 1973, p. 200; Hughes 1991; Jornet et al. 1985; Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 256–257; Magetti et al. 1984; Molera et al. 1996, 2001, p. 336). Potters in Sevilla used ahigh-lime marine clay from the lower west bank of the Río Guadalquivir, opposite thecity, which fired to a cream or light “buff” color (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 41, 49,73, 75, 102–103, 222). Calcium-rich pastes are also typical of Italian maiólicas andluster wares (below), the clay having as much as 15–25 % lime (Thornton 1997, p.117). Calcareous clays have numerous advantages for glazed wares, chiefly lighten-ing the color of the body and reducing the likelihood of crazing of the glaze (Moleraet al. 1996, 2001, p. 339; Thornton 1997, p. 169; Tite 1992, pp. 126–127). To remove


large lime inclusions that could damage the wares, the clays were likely carefully pre-processed by levigation, fine-screening, or sieving, in some cases through silk (Listerand Lister 1982, p. 87).

For the tin-lead enamel or glaze on these wares, both local and imported ingredi-ents were used, with different practices among production centers in the two majorcluster regions, Spain and Italy (see Iñañez et al. 2009; Kingery and Aronson 1990, p.230; Mason and Tite 1997, p. 57; Molera et al. 2001, p. 339; Thornton 1997, pp. 117–119). In Spain, lead (as galena: lead sulfide, PbS) and manganese were relativelyabundant but tin, the essential opacifying ingredient, had to be imported fromPortugal or Cornwall, England (Lister and Lister 1982, p. 85; Pleguezuelo 2003b,p. 109). Alkalis to promote fluxing (“melting”) of the glaze were either potassium (K)from wine lees (the residue of wine-making), as in Italy or, in Islamic areas wherewine and alcohol were proscribed, sodium (Na) or soda ash was used. In Sevillapotters obtained soda ash from burned marsh grasses, rather than using potassiumfrom winemaking in the region’s abundant vineyards. (This is rather surprising,because potters in some quarters of Sevilla were Christian and Andalucía increasinglyengaged in wine production.) Raw ingredients for pigments were often byproducts ofother local industries: copper (Cu) was obtained from cauldron makers and iron (Fe)from blacksmiths (Pleguezuelo 2003b, p. 109); rust (hydrated iron oxide) from ships’anchors was said to be preferred by Italian painters (Lister and Lister 1982, p. 25).Blue pigment, however, was produced from rare and expensive imported cobalt oreor oxide (CoO), and is discussed separately below.

A study of mid fifteenth-century contracts in Valencia reveals that “Saracen”(Muslim) potters and their products were under the jurisdiction of, and controlledby, the Christian lord of the region (Van de Put 1911, p. 13). These documentsindicate that a potter’s payment might be made in money, but more often in kind,including “cobalt, lead and tin, the constituents of ceramic decoration and enamel; ingrain and other articles of diet; in horses and mules; in textile fabrics and garments”(Van de Put 1911, p. 14).

Policies

Consideration of the political, or better said the ethno-political, context of early Spainis important to understand the expansion and productivity of the majolica enterprise.The spread of manufacture involved numerous politicized social, economic, andenvironmental processes such as movement of technical knowledge, access to re-sources, and migration. Most significantly, policies in medieval and post-medievalSpain were directed toward what would be called “ethnic cleansing” today. Thecenturies-long north-to-south Christian re-taking of the Iberian Peninsula from theMuslims, known as the Reconquista, resulted in growing persecution of non-Christians.

In many parts of the southern and eastern peninsula, craft production and artisanryin general, including pottery making, became concentrated in the hands of Muslimsor individuals with a Muslim ethno-religious heritage (for Andalucía, see Lister andLister 1987; Zozaya 1981. For Aragón, see Alvaro Zamora 1981). Newly powerfulCastilian elites and overlords increasingly disdained manual labor within an emerging


status system that continuously produced and reproduced the differentials in identityand power of Christians vis-à-vis their Muslim vassals. Under these circumstances,the contributions of non-Christians to the economy and social comforts of multi-ethnic but increasingly Christian Iberia were essential and valued. For example, whenValencia, a primary producer of Hispano-Moresque pottery, came under Christianrule in 1238, the victorious king ordered the protection of the potters, their wares, andtheir kilns (Pinedo and Vizcaino 1979, pp. 23–24).

But as reconquest advanced southward, a cascade of edicts beginning in the earlythirteenth century mandated religious conversion. Muslims (also Jews) were forced tochoose between converting to Christianity (those Muslims who did so were known asmoriscos: ‘Moorish’) or hoping to continue to practice their faith in recently con-quered Christian areas (mudéjars). Nearly half the population of Valencia and Aragónwas mudéjar (Harvey 1990, pp. 3, 6–7) and for a time eastern Spain was moreaccommodating toward non-Christians than were other parts of the peninsula. Furtherstrictures focused on spatially segregating non-Christians in towns or parts of towns(morerías, juderías), the goal being to reinforce socio-religious distinctions betweenChristians and others. Additional decrees segregated—clustered—workers by craft:in 1248 the king of Castile ordered that Muslim and Christian craftsmen in Sevillashould live and work together in walled sectors or barrios, for example the Trianadistrict (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 68, 73–74). More oppressively still, policiesbegan to be developed favoring “old” Christians, those whose families had practicedthe faith for generations and thus could boast limpieza de sangre: “clean”—which isto say Christian—blood. The goal was the creation of a homogeneous, purelyChristian, politico-religious state.

Scant information is available on horizontal or vertical divisions of labor in thepottery-producing clusters. Internally, the traditional Muslim system was a caste-likehierarchy of masters, journeymen, and apprentices (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 288),plus slaves and day laborers. Potting and painting were distinct activities: “One bodyof artisans was made up of those men who actually operated the potteries and formedthe vessels. Their efforts were concentrated on producing the best possible back-grounds for the decorators, to whom the bisque [−fired] ceramics would be passed”(Lister and Lister 1982, p. 69). In addition, cadres of workers in Sevilla, unattached tospecific workshops, were horneros, responsible for loading, firing, and unloading thekilns (hornos), and paid according to the numbers of objects they handled (Lister andLister 1984, p. 91).

The common need for some level of “governance” in business clusters (seeWhitford and Potter 2007, pp. 6–10) was met in Spain’s pottery-making centers byguilds (gremios), which were repositories of codified (as opposed to tacit) knowledgeand well-established rules and regulations for procedures, learning, ingredients, andquality control. Informal organizations of Muslim craft workers developed rules andpractices and relied on one of their own for oversight (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 288).Among Christians, guilds were derivatives of and complements to religious brother-hoods (cofradías, hermandades; confraternities) dedicated to particular saints, andwere encouraged—and dominated—by crown policy after 1474 (Lister and Lister1987, pp. 288–292). Separate guilds may have been formed for fine vs. common wareproducers, or by vessel form, or by task. These organizations were not popular inearly Sevilla, doubtless in part because they were organized along Christian ethno-


racial lines. In Barcelona, however, long a center of labor strength, guilds enjoyedconsiderable political power and four potters’ confraternities were represented on thegoverning Council of One Hundred (Corteguera 2002, pp. 199–200). In Talavera, thefirst potters’ gremio, dedicated to Saints Justa and Rufina, Sevillian sisters andpotters, was not organized until 1657 (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 41). To be a member apotter had to be an old Christian and not from a family of innkeepers; to become amaster, throwers were required to have six years of apprenticeship and painters seven.

Cluster Locations

The locations of early majolica-producing clusters are of interest, and illustrateMichael Porter’s (1998, p. 78) point that in early times, when competition was“driven heavily by input costs,” places with important natural endowments such asharbors enjoyed decisive and persistent competitive advantages. Thus in early Iberiaadvantage long accrued to major eastern port cities, for example Málaga, Barcelona,and Valencia, which facilitated maritime shipping of these fragile wares in theMediterranean trade. The same is true for Sevilla on the Río Guadalquivir, whichnot only benefited from its vast beds of light-firing clays but was also a key Atlanticport (later moved downriver to Cádiz) for Spain’s new commercial orientation to thetransatlantic trade. Another majolica-producing cluster, comprising the towns ofTalavera de la Reina and Puente del Arzobispo, lay in the interior near Toledo andMadrid in Castilla. This siting favored patronage by the royal courts but meant addedtransport and tax costs to consumers in more distant areas.

Over the centuries, potters from other Mediterranean countries, such as today’sEgypt and Italy, had chosen Spain’s coastal production cities—early “industrial”clusters—as migration destinations, an example of the advantages noted in themodern cluster model. One can imagine that a lot of “buzz,” albeit far moresluggishly moving than that of today, accompanied the development of these long-distance pipelines for the movement of artisans and other craftspeople.

Innovations: Products and Processes

The twenty-first–century business climate is heavily focused on creativity and inven-tiveness, especially technological, as the drivers of success. The emphasis is on whatis called “heuristic” behavior (free-style, open-ended, individualized) as opposed to“algorithmic” (standard, routinized, step-by-step) procedures. Novelty in both pro-duction technologies and products—distinguished as process innovation and productinnovation, respectively—involves the exercise of individual agency and decision-making by the producers who conceive the idea for the new item, whether in thetwenty-first century or the twelfth, and among the consumers who accept and adoptthe novelty and thereby admit it into the corpus of available and desirable goods. (Forarchaeologists’ views on innovation, see van der Leeuw and Torrence 1989. For adiscussion of agency and innovation in painted pottery decoration in the pre-HispanicNew World see Hegmon and Kulow 2005. For broader views of innovation andadoption or diffusion, see Lane et al. 2009; Robinson 2009.)


It is not clear to what extent innovation was viewed as important, either byproducers or consumers, in pre-modern Spain. The Latin root of innovation,innovare, means “to renew, alter” rather than connoting novelty or additive variety,such as new and different consumer goods. The term was used primarily andnegatively in a religious sense to indicate a departure from religious dogma andorthodoxy, and was “practically synonymous with heresy . . . . In politics, innovation[was] almost tantamount to rebellion and revolution” (Girard 1990, p. 7). The word“innovation” itself was not widely used until the sixteenth century, coinciding withthe beginnings of capitalism and a global economy, and also with numerous Catholicecclesiastical convocations (Council of Trent) convened to try to rein in the threat ofheterodoxy, for example in religious art (Rodríguez G. de Ceballos 2010). Thus thesocial, economic, and religious climate in early modern Europe shunned innovationand imitation was highly esteemed (Berg 2002). Under these circumstances, it wouldhardly be surprising if the Spanish crown strove to suppress any form of innovationand novelty. But non-religious and commercial artistic creativity, particularly withrespect to quotidian commodities, likely was progressively exempt from these reli-gious constraints, as secular matters of aesthetic taste and status reinforcementbecame ever more important.

Over the centuries, waves of external innovations, particularly from the Islamicworld, flowed into Iberian majolica production through the Mediterranean port cities.In the late twelfth century, for example, Muslim potters emigrating from Egypt afterthe collapse of the powerful Fatimid dynasty brought reflejo metálico or “luster ware”technology. This is a combination product and process innovation involving atechnically complex and expensive decorative style featuring gold or pinkish-goldpaint with a metallic sheen (Canby 1997, p. 112; Gavin 2003, p. 5; Lister and Lister1987, pp. 87–89; Pleguezuelo 2003a, p. 27; Thornton 1997, p. 119).

Two documents from Muel (Aragón), dating to 1585 and 1785, describe themaking of luster paint (Barber 1915a, pp. 17–21). Ingredients including silver,copper, vermilion (cinnabar), red ochre, and “earth” (clay?) or scoriae (slag?) werecombined, heated, and ground to a powder in several steps, then mixed with vinegarand applied to the twice-fired glazed ware with a feather. Decorated vessels were fireda third time using only dried rosemary as fuel.

Financial backing for luster ware and related elite wares was provided by theemirates (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 118). In the thirteenth century, Málaga became themost important Iberian center of luster ware production, but by the fifteenth centuryValencia enjoyed that status (Hughes 1991, p. 59; Van de Put 1911).

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, product innovations included newmajolica vessel forms (Rosselló Bordoy 1992, p. 100), likely reflecting more spe-cialized uses and changes in dining practices in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Forexample, in Sevilla a plate form for individual servings might have distinguishedChristian versus Muslim foodways, and varied glazes and colors were increasinglyemployed (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 75). Commoners gained access to potterytablewares instead of traditional wooden eating utensils (Pinedo and Vizcaino 1979,pp. 24, 36) and dining practices became more ritualized, allowing “middle classconsumers to imitate the dining habits of the elite” (Gaimster 1999, p. 2). Thesechanges in majolica production and “consumption” illustrate the role of socialattitudes and customs in technological innovation.


In the late fifteenth century, two very different kinds of introductions appeared inmayólica wares. Sevilla had grown to such an extent that the considerable urbandemand for tableware led to a new product known by archaeologists as “Moriscoware.” This was a mass-produced, common-grade loza with thick walls, traditionalMuslim forms, and simple decoration, manufactured through the early seventeenthcentury (Deagan 1987, pp. 55–61; Goggin 1968, pp. 207–208; Lister and Lister 1982,pp. 45–65, 83–90, 1987, p. 113). At the high end of the decorative scale, stylistic andother novelties introduced from Italy rapidly transformed Spanish majolica produc-tion. This new Italianate or “Renaissance” style featured expensive, imported, cobaltblue paint, frequently combined with luster decoration, in intricate motifs. Elabora-tion of the style in Spain is credited to Francisco Nicoluso, an entrepreneurial painterfrom northern Italy attracted by the Sevilla cluster’s growing buzz, whose richlyornamented tiles and vessels were decorated in blue, orange, yellow, green, andmanganese (Sánchez-Pacheco 1981, p. 95). Italianate-style majolica is especiallyassociated with Sevilla and Talavera de la Reina (see Seseña 1981).

Unfortunately, the broader socio-economic context of pottery production andattitudes toward innovation in Spain are poorly known and seem rather ambivalent.The development of migratory streams or pipelines is not understood, but waspresumably much like non-industry–specific migration in general (see, e.g., Anthony1990). The sequestration of artisans in barrios was not motivated by modern eco-nomic principles for stimulating innovation and productivity through cluster devel-opment, although that might have been a fortuitous outcome. The Spanish crown didimplement some economic policies to improve quality and spur inventiveness,including, in 1484, 10-year grants of tax exemption to encourage Italian and Flemishartisans to relocate and introduce their knowledge into Spain (Lister and Lister 1982,pp. 13, 75, 1987, p. 118). The crown also dispatched at least one Sevillian potterypainter and colorist to Talavera to improve that center’s decoration (Gómez et al.2001, p. 44; Lister and Lister 1987, p. 149). These efforts suggest state-sponsoredattempts to create pipelines to enhance overall market competiveness, but they couldnot have been especially efficacious given the era’s limited transportation andcommunication technologies.

At the same time, copying and imitation, particularly of Italian maiólica styles,was common and seems rooted in long-standing European aesthetics, tastes, andattitudes toward luxuries (Berg 2002). Some of this is evident in multicolored, floralpainted decoration, but it can also be noted with respect to the plain, white-enameledFaenza White type, popular in the last half of the sixteenth century, which was widelycopied in Sevilla and also in the new colonies in Mexico (Mexico City White type;Lister and Lister 1982, pp. 76–78, 92) and Panama (Panama White). In addition,considerable counterfeiting was practiced, with the products of one locale attributedto another center of higher status (Pleguezuelo 2003b, pp. 111–112). For example,Renaissance-style loza produced in interior cities, such as Talavera, was moreexpensive for shippers because of the added costs of transport to coastal ports aswell as a multitude of taxes, thus stimulating the manufacture of imitations closer tothe transshipment points (Pleguezuelo 2003b, p. 114).

Little information is available concerning early production technology, although itis thought that a pit wheel was used in Muslim pottery workshops: the flywheel andaxle arrangements were set into trenches in the floors, such that the throwing head on


which the potter worked was at ground level (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 49–51).Kilns were hornos arabes: round, double-chambered, updraft kilns, open at the topand with the firing chamber below the level of the ground surface (Lister and Lister1987, pp. 51–53). Protective containers called saggars were not used, vessels beingseparated with either small tripods (cockspurs) or fired clay rods creating shelves(Lister and Lister 1987, p. 54). Later Italian influences on Spanish majolica wentbeyond style to include technology: above-ground wheels, rectangular enclosed kilns,and possibly saggars (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 147–149).

In sum, over the centuries early Spanish mayólica producers developed newtableware forms to accommodate new dining patterns among the masses, but themajority of innovations were in the area of decorative processes and styles for eliteconsumers. Moreover, these novelties were imported—primarily from Italy—ratherthan home-grown (except for counterfeiting) within pottery clusters. They resulted inhorizontal business diversification beginning in the fifteenth century and were mostevident (or, at least, best studied) in Sevilla. Later refinements accompanied greaterproduct innovation and vertical differentiation represented by an expanding variety offorms along with sizes, decoration, and standards of wares. One consequence was theintensification of task specialization: “divisions between makers of several grades ofwares, between throwers and decorators, [and] between craftsmen operating potter’swheels and those rolling and cutting tiles” (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 167).

Mobility

The early urban- and ethno-religious–based ceramic traditions of southern and easternSpain were neither unique to nor bounded by these cities and regions. Potters,whether Muslim or Christian, were generally poor with little capital investment intheir professional or personal lives. They rented rather than owned their workshops(casas de ollería, locerías; Arabic alfares), which in Triana were owned by thenearby monastery of the Carthusian Order, and they also worked small agriculturalplots with fruit trees, vineyards, and other crops (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 73, 282).Ceramic containers for domestic and commercial uses were universally in demandand, except for kilns and certain ingredients in surface treatments, the materials andmethods of manufacture were widely available and/or easily transported (e.g., pot-ters’ wheels). Except for royal, military, and religious elite consumers, until the latefifteenth century there had been minimal impetus for new forms or styles (productinnovation) among the rural populace, and most potters’ products were primarilyintended to meet the needs associated with traditional, simple, agrarian lifestyles (Listerand Lister 1987, pp. 73, 100–102). In this environment, pottery-making in pre-modernSpain (and elsewhere in western Europe) was a fairly mobile occupation, with skilledpotters and other artisans moving among cities where potential elite patrons andsponsors resided (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 33–34). Although later guilds issued rulesand regulations regarding raw materials, final products, and personnel, potters weregenerally able to come and go as they wished (Pleguezuelo 2003b, p. 111).

But most of the mobility of morisco potters was politically forced and involuntary,especially after the late fifteenth-century installation of the “Catholic kings,” Isabelaof Castilla and Ferdinand of Aragón, who intensified the abuse of Jews and Muslims


through the infamous Inquisition (Kamen 1997). The earlier option to convert toChristianity was replaced by policies of compulsory baptism, beginning in Valencia in1520 and extending throughout the south and east. Finally even converts—known as“new” Christians, whether formerly Muslim (moriscos) or Jewish (conversos)—facedresettlement, exile, or enslavement (Kamen 1997, pp. 215–227). This persecution led tomultiple ethno-religious diasporas that contributed to the expansion of some existingpottery-producing clusters. For example, after a rebellion in Granada in 1568, theregion’s moriscos fled to Sevilla (Pike 1972, pp. 154–155). In the early seventeenthcentury, new decrees of expulsion forced about 300,000 moriscos into exile, beginningonce again in Valencia in 1609 (Kamen 1997, p. 227) and in 1610 some 7,500moriscoswere expelled from Sevilla (Lister and Lister 1974, p. 45).

Spain’s Transatlantic Empire and Majolica “Tech Transfer”

Where did the expelled moriscos, many of them highly skilled craftsmen, go? It islikely that some—perhaps many—went to Spain’s new colonies across the AtlanticOcean. This possibility is generally given only perfunctory attention, however (cf.Gómez et al. 2001, p. 56; Lister and Lister 1974, pp. 44, 45), as if the torrent ofofficial prohibitions successfully prevented such migration from occurring.

Spain’s transatlantic conquest and settlement was an ambitious enterprise, under-taken in concert with sponsorship by the Catholic Church and having two primarygoals: to extend Christendom and the Holy Roman Empire over a vast territory ofheathens, and to enrich the imperial coffers. Achieving these ends entailed myriadharsh, protectionist policies. Economically, the policies dictated that only Spanishgoods could be shipped to the colonies, only in Spanish vessels, and only to certainports of entry, the intent being to protect the homeland’s products and producers. Withrespect to emigration, the policies for extending Christendom were more restrictivestill: only “old” Christians were officially permitted to travel across the Atlantic. NewChristians were repeatedly forbidden to make the journey, violations being punish-able by death. The aim was to establish, as in Spain itself, a pure Christian domainuntarnished by the blood of infidels, whether indigenous or immigrant.

These über-protectionist policies meant that the state played a heavy-handedgatekeeper role in restricting immigration and trade, which “either killed initiativeor promoted circumvention of the law” (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 290). It is evidentfrom both textual and material data that policies were often counterproductive,weakly enforced, and easily and sometimes flagrantly violated. Would-be emigrantswere required to secure an official license from the Consejo de Indias, whichnecessitated testimony from three unrelated witnesses upholding their “old-Christian”status (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 45), and their names and occupations were dulyregistered in records of passage from Spain and in censuses of the new colonialtowns. The full extent of lies of omission and commission in these bureaucraticexercises will probably never be known, however. Careful planning, mendacity, andfinancial incentives (bribes) meant that contraband reached the colonial shores andethno-political undesirables did as well. The fact that crown prohibitions against new-Christian (and specifically Muslim) migration were regularly reiterated, with escalat-ing punishments, is further indication of a significant level of clandestine activity.


By the 1530s, the economic impact of Spain’s transatlantic explorations, con-quests, and colonization was felt in Sevilla and environs, leading to a mid-centuryboom. In the commercial sector, merchants themselves no longer traveled to thecolonies but instead funded an agent (or “factor”), often a family member, to handlebusiness affairs (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 121). Trade, previously scorned because ofits historical associations with Muslims (see, e.g., Banaji 2007; Labib 1969), becamea more acceptable occupation as evidenced by the growing numbers, importance, andwealth of middlemen and entrepreneurs (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 124). Imperialexpansion also impacted the ceramic industry, with a new potters’ quarter begun inSevilla (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 282). Perhaps the greatest surge of production wasin ceramic shipping containers: the amphora-like forms, known by a profusion ofterms, made in various sizes and shapes in the Mediterranean region since antiquity(Avery 1997; Marken 1994). Container manufacture expanded and differentiatedbecause of the pressing need to supply wine, oil, and other goods to the colonies,as well as to provision the sailors onboard the ships. As part of this process, thebotijas, botijos, jarras, and so on became more standardized in form, size, capacity,and especially weight—an obvious concern for ships’ cargo. The Casa deContratación issued an ordinance in 1542 specifying how many containers of eachsize comprised a tonelada or ton (Avery 1997, pp. 181–182). In the mid sixteenthcentury pottery-making in Sevilla “was ranked eighth in importance” among 53 localoccupations, and by the end of the century potters were the third largest group ofartisans in the city, numbering some 5,000 residents (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 124,131, 160).

Resources and Technologies

Resource procurement and use is a key topic of theorizing in political-ecologystudies, and of immense practical interest in colonization enterprises. To supportthe establishment of Christian colonies and lifestyles in the new American landscapesand to enrich the homeland, Spanish activities focused not only on religious prose-lytizing for salvable souls but also on politico-economic prospecting for naturalresources. The earliest adventurers set about identifying deposits of gold and silver,the two precious metals (“capital”) that had fueled European exploration and mer-chant capitalism since the fourteenth century (Banaji 2007) and that were, along withother minerals (copper, tin, lead) sources of personal and state wealth throughcommodity production. Explorers also sought good agricultural and grazing landsthat would allow colonists to reproduce the Spanish agro-pastoral domestic economybased on grains, fruits, and animal husbandry.

The outcomes of these successful endeavors included Spain’s being drawninto—indeed leading, for a time—the emerging international or global capitalisteconomy, despite the anti-capitalist policies of Ferdinand and Isabela. Participationwas accompanied by technology transfer on a massive scale, as Spanish technologieswere imported to mine and refine raw minerals and to establish, frequently withsophisticated irrigation systems, the homeland economic base. In addition, through-out the colonies but especially in the wealthy, distant Peruvian viceroyalty, therealities of supply and demand quickly revealed that the colonists’ desire for familiar


material goods, especially those considered luxuries, could not be met by the slowand unreliable Spanish fleet supply system. Thus various commodity productionarrangements, including manufacture of ceramic containers and tablewares—fragile,heavy, and uneconomical to transport—were also imported. Imported goods werealso uneconomical to purchase: the price for Spanish mayólica was 400–800 %higher in Mexico than in Spain, for example (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 50). And forthe highest elites in Mexico and Peru, majolica was not even the desired ware fordining: silver, far more costly, was much preferred.

The introduction to the New World of the Old World ceramic complex—thewheel-made, glazed, and kiln-fired ceramics, the potters and painters who producedthe goods, and their knowledge of the resources and technologies of production—is agood example of the tech transfer that accompanied sixteenth-century globalization.The process debuted with a load ofMorisco ware bowls shipped across the Atlantic in1508 (Lister and Lister 1974, p. 20), followed by an ollero and a load of loza (typeunspecified) from Valencia the following year (Gavin 2003, p. 8). New manufacturesin the colonies included tin-enameled table service and architectural tiles, oftenpreceded by simple lead-glazed ware and pseudo- or “falsa mayólica” (lead glazingover a white slip).

Resource procurement was of singular importance to the development of colonialloza production centers. Necessary raw materials included suitable clays—relativelyrefractory clays that could withstand firing at the higher temperatures and timesneeded to mature the glaze (see Chatfield 2010, p. 227)—and other minerals andmetals for temper, enamel, and decoration. Much has been learned about the chemicaland mineralogical resource composition of both Spanish mayólicas and their NewWorld emulations from physicochemical analyses, particularly instrumental neutronactivation analysis (INAA) of the clay bodies beginning in the 1970s (Olin et al.1978; also Magetti et al. 1984). These studies revealed not only a clear separation ofgoods produced in Spain from those of the colonies, but also differences amongwidely separated early New World production centers (Mexico, Panamá, Peru),indicating multiple loci of manufacture. More recently, laser ablation-inductivelycoupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) has been used to investigate thechemical composition of the pigments used in decoration.

Viceroyalty of New Spain: Mexico City

Tin-enameled ware manufacture was introduced to the Americas in the centralhighland intermontane basin that became the core of the Viceroyalty of New Spainand the location of modern Mexico City (Fig. 2). Dominated by a now-drained lake,the basin was home to the island capital of the “Aztec” Triple Alliance, with heavyindigenous populations around the lake shores. After the 1521 conquest, a variety oftechnologically composite “colono-wares” were produced. Spanish potters first in-troduced glazing technology to their indigenous counterparts, resulting in an earlyware called loza amarilla (Blackman et al. 2006). For the first few decades in post-conquest Mexico, ceramic production was a fusion of new technologies (wheel-throwing; lead glaze) and forms (candle holders, chamber pots) with native methods(use of molds) and shapes, such as tripod bowls (Fournier and Blackman 2008, p. 7).


Although it was thought that the earliest potters in what is now Mexico City werefrom Andalucía (Lister and Lister 1982, 1987), more recent research has revealed therole of Talavera de la Reina. Around 1550 a Spanish potter named Diego Vargas Pinamoved to the viceregal capital, but left after 5 years because he was unable to find theproper raw materials, particularly siliceous sand, to reproduce Talaveran majolica(Gómez et al. 2001, pp. 36, 45). In 1555 Juan de la Talavera, a potter from Alcalá deGuadaira near Sevilla, paid a considerable sum of money to travel to New Spain, butit is not known where he settled (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 54); the large outlay mightindicate that he was morisco. Two years later, in 1557, Bartolomé Carretero, a potterfrom Talavera, petitioned to emigrate to Mexico. In his petition he noted that theresidents of the new capital wanted and needed fine ceramics but because mostpotters were morisco or mudéjar they were not allowed to travel (Gómez et al.2001, p. 35). He claimed to be one of only four old-Christian potters in all of Spain.

Perhaps the most complex of Spain’s introduced ceramic technologies was that ofmaking the tin-lead enamel and the pigments for the painted decoration, which arebased on knowledge of specific pyrochemical reactions of multiple ingredients in

Fig. 2 North, Central, and South America, showing major pottery-making centers discussed in the text


varying preparations. Thus finding suitable resources for replicating majolica was alimiting factor to early development of the industry in Mexico. A proper source ofsand was located 260 km from the capital in the mountains of what is now Veracruz(Blackman et al. 2006, p. 209). Lead came from galena, with sources to the west andsouthwest of Mexico City (Joel et al. 1988, p. 189). Tin (cassiterite) for opacificationwas a serious problem. Sources were known near Taxco, and it was mined by theSpaniards as early as 1524 in what is now Guerrero, western Mexico, although notheavily until the late eighteenth century (Foshag and Fries 1942, p. 103; Gómez et al.2001, p. 47; see also Lister and Lister 1982, pp. 85, 87, 1987, p. 222). Alternatively,tin might have been imported from the same sources in England, Flanders, andPortugal used by Spanish potters (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 47) or from Peru. The latteris indicated by a 1694 purchase of loza from Puebla to be shipped to Peru, with partialpayment in tin (Goggin 1968, p. 216), suggesting continuation of remunerationpractices documented a century earlier in Valencia. As in Sevilla, a locally obtainedsodium alkali fluxing agent was used in central Mexico instead of potassium: this wasa rocklike edible salt called tequesquite obtained from the saline lake beds of northernLake Texcoco and elsewhere (Lister and Lister 1974, p. 25, 1982, pp. 87–88; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequesquite). Mining of copper in Puebla and Jalisco hadbegun by 1556 (Lister and Lister 1982, p. 94). Yellow was produced from a mixtureof antimony and iron oxide.

Compositional analyses of early tin-enameled ware have revealed similarities anddifferences in production techniques between Spain and central Mexico. For exam-ple, tin-enameled wares of Mexico City and nearby Puebla (see below) followed theSpanish practice of mixing two clays, one calcareous, a practice evidenced by thepinkish (rather than red) color of the fired ware as well as guild ordinances specifyingthe quantities of each clay (Lister and Lister 1982, p. 14, 1987, pp. 257, 345n124,347n11). When calcium was mathematically excluded from the chemical analyticaldataset, it was found that the composition of some Mexican loza was similar to that ofpre-Hispanic indigenous pottery and some of the local clays contained volcanicmaterials (Joel et al. 1988, p. 188; Magetti et al. 1984, p. 179), which doubtlesshelped them withstand higher-temperature glaze firings.

These compositional data support documentary data attesting that, in introducingtheir new technologies, Spanish potters interacted with indigenous practitioners of anextant pottery technology and worked with their local raw materials, thus developinglocal pipelines. Doing so requires “that actors at both ends of the pipeline have somemix of similar and non-similar knowledge” but “the degree of overlap in capabilitiesand knowledge assets is not too great” (Bathelt et al. 2004, p. 44). These initialteaching and learning processes must have involved a good deal of demonstrationalexchanges, because of language limitations, but they were ultimately successful.Italian decorative influences also were introduced to Mexico, accompanied by morecareful processing of raw materials and improved workshop organization, includingthe use of above-ground wheels, expanded toolkits, and refined kilns (Lister andLister 1982, pp. 13, 70, 88–91, 1987, pp. 49–54, 149, 256–258).

Potters’ guilds were not established in the viceregal capital until 1677. Guildregulations (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 53) specified three grades of pottery, común,entrefina, and fina, and the amounts or ratios of ingredients for paste and glaze foreach. For example, the lead-to-tin ratio (in pounds) in the enamel for common grade


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequesquite

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequesquite

ware was 25:2, for middle grade it was 25:4, and 25:6 for fine. The guild alsospecified the colors and decorative motifs on each: a small berenjena (eggplant) orblue motifs in the center of common ware; loops, dots, and branches on entrefina; andblue and black decoration, plus the master’s mark, on fine ware. Green decorationwas prohibited from use on fine wares for being impermanent (“por no ser depermanencia”).

Viceroyalty of New Spain: Puebla de los Angeles

The early history of loza production in Puebla de los Angeles provides a singularillustration of the principles of political ecology in colonial Spanish America.Founded in 1531 in a valley a short distance southeast of the capital, Puebla lay onthe main route between Mexico City and the officially sanctioned port of Veracruzand was the center of production of goods associated with that trade (see Lister andLister 1987, pp. 230, 254–255). Tin-enameled pottery began to be made in Pueblasometime after production began in Mexico City, perhaps around 1580, its introduc-tion variously attributed to immigrant potters from Talavera, Dominican monks fromthat city, or simply the desire to copy Talavera’s famous wares (Barber 1915b, p. 5;Pineda Díaz n.d.). The Listers (1982, p. 69, 1987, p. 233) strongly oppose thesuggestion of Dominican/Talaveran foundations of the Puebla industry, which theyconsider to be more strongly morisco in historical orientations. (Comments aboutPuebla pottery by Barber (1915b) should be taken advisedly, because he was seem-ingly unaware that loza was also produced in Mexico City.) As more potters movedinto the valley and established workshops, the area became a second viceregalpottery-producing cluster—the Listers (1987, p. 255) use the expression “clusteringsystem” to describe it—and part of the larger central highland cluster region.

Puebla potters mixed two clays, one white and the other red, in equal parts; bothwere obtained from hills near the village of Totomehuacán about 5 km away (Barber1915b, pp. 9–10). The enamels for fine wares were composed of 24 % tin (to lead),whereas in common grade wares only 8 % tin was used. Major improvements in thequality of Puebla’s products occurred in the seventeenth century in response tocompetition with Italian wares and Asian porcelains (Lister and Lister 1987, p.267; see Deagan 1987, pp. 77–87). The distinctive lace-pattern decoration of theseventeenth century, probably copied from a Talavera style, is associated with a newsource of cobalt pigment which, whether singly or in a mixture for application,yielded a clear, intense blue that rose slightly above the glaze surface (Lister andLister 1987, pp. 238–240).

Puebla’s spatial organization is described as “rigidly structured” (see Lister andLister 1984), with the segregation of the potters’ quarter echoing that of the Spanishhomeland. This both supports and contradicts some of the considerations of behaviorin modern business clusters: “peer pressure arising from the constant observation thatcame with close daily association effectively curbed social and aesthetic deviationfrom established norms . . . . Did the potters passively acquiesce in this clusteringsystem for reasons of mutual support, for camaraderie, for the purpose of sharingfacilities or stocks of raw materials, for exploiting a market not available otherwise?”(Lister and Lister 1987, p. 255). Regardless of the answer to this question—which is


probably “all of the above”—and the alleged suppression of innovation, Puebla’ssuccess in loza production can be credited to the networks of knowledge productionand exchange through social or interpersonal communication that are inherent tobusiness clusters.

The Listers considered the potters of Puebla to have been Muslims/moriscos andsaw major continuities with Ibero-Islamic practices. For example, Puebla’s potters’guild, formed late in the city’s history in part because of an “ultraconservativeacceptance of a rigid societal management,” followed traditional Spanish Muslim,rather than Christian, organization (Lister and Lister 1987, pp. 288, 296–301).Assessments of the decoration on Puebla pottery diverge wildly: the Listers maintainthat, despite a heavy influence of Chinese porcelains, Muslim influence continued tobe important, reflecting what they see as an “entrenched” and “ingrained allegiance toSpanish Muslim design grammar” (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 235; see also pp. 42–54). They describe some lacework decoration as neo-mudéjar, part of “a mysteriouslast burst of mudéjar creativity merged with a powerful but naive orientalization”(Lister and Lister 1987, p. 252). An opposing view identifies Chinese influences inthe “shapes, compositional formulas, and design motifs” of Talavera pottery, includ-ing “pagodas, phoenixes, [and] servant boys,” especially in the late seventeenth andearly eighteenth centuries (Kuwayama 1997, pp. 24–25).

Conservatism can be seen, on the one hand, as an inflexible adherence to tradi-tional methods and values and resistance to change. On the other, it can be parsed intosmaller elements that, by being retained or changed incrementally, reflect resilience,adaptability, and adaptivity. The Listers see Puebla as the end of the line of conser-vative Islamic influence on tin-enameled pottery: a “great diffusionary tide that forcenturies had welled up out of western Asia and rolled relentlessly toward the settingsun came at last to its final resting place at the foot of Popocatepetl” volcano (Listerand Lister 1987, p. 234). But it came to bloom there, not to die. Today, Puebla isagain widely known for its ceramics (Mauldin 2003), highly regulated and marketedas Talavera Poblana, its blue-painted decoration still exhibiting low relief. In short,highland central Mexico became an early Spanish-colonial, tin-enameled–ware pro-duction cluster; later it became the core of a cluster region, broadening to include notonly Mexico City and Puebla, but also Oaxaca to the south, Michoacan to thenorthwest, and other indigenous population nodes. Later centers developed fartherto the south in the Audiencia of Guatemala and elsewhere in Central America.

Panamá La Vieja

Spain’s protectionist, mercantilist trade policies caused enormous logistical problemswith respect to supplying goods to Andean South America. Only the port of Nombrede Diós, on the Atlantic side of the Isthmus of Panamá, was allowed to receiveSpain’s annual supply fleet with goods bound for the Viceroyalty of Peru. Thesegoods were loaded onto mules for the dangerous overland journey to Panamá LaVieja on the Pacific side, then shipped south along the coast of South America toCallao, the official port of Lima, capital of the viceroyalty.

This long journey from Spain to Lima was a supplier’s nightmare, as a range ofgoods competed for limited space in the unpredictable fleet sailings, and fragile,


bulky, and easily spoiled items, such as wine and pottery, ranked low in priority. Thisprompted local and regional solutions to both supply-side and demand-side problems.In the case of wine, the dry coastal environment of present-day Peru and Chile wasconducive to the successful establishment of a complex viticulture-based agro-industry by the late-mid sixteenth century (see Rice 2011). Its success was owed inpart to the fact that growing grapes and making wine was a traditional task pursued inChristian Spain by both commoners and religious houses. Pottery-making, by con-trast, was more specialized.

A review of published sixteenth-century shipping records appears to indicate thatno majolica hollow wares were shipped from Sevilla to the Viceroyalty of Peru(Borah 1954, pp. 80–88; Chatfield 2007, pp. 121–124). Thus the establishment ofpottery kilns at the Pacific port town of Panamá La Vieja by some entrepreneurialindividual(s) in the late sixteenth century would have been a welcome innovation forPeru’s pottery consumers. Products of these kilns included plain white-enameledpottery and wares decorated with blue, green, and black-brown, singly or in combi-nation (Goggin 1968; Jamieson 2001, pp. 48–49; Long 1967; Rovira 2001; Roviraet al. 2006). Panama Polychrome “B” type emulates the lacy decoration of Talaveraand Puebla (Deagan 1987, p. 92). Panamá La Vieja’s potters might have been moriscorefugees from the 1568 Granada rebellion, who employed firing methods and tech-nology typical of Sevillian/Genoese potters (Lister and Lister 1974, pp. 44, 45). ThePanamá kilns ceased production in 1671 when the city was sacked by the Englishbuccaneer Henry Morgan.

Viceroyalty of Peru

In the central Andean core of the Viceroyalty of Peru, as in New Spain, the Spaniardstook advantage of existing communities of potters to introduce their new ceramicproducts and technologies. From the perspective of political ecology, early colonialorganization of production of various goods bore the stamp of both the indigenousInka state and the conquerors, and this is evident in two ways.

First, pre-Hispanic Inka imperial expansion had included a practice that wasessentially cluster formation: moving artisans from one newly conquered settlementto another craft-making area already in the Inka orbit (see Hyslop 1993, pp. 341–342). It is not clear what economic or artistic benefit (increased productivity?knowledge transfer? innovation?) might have accrued from this “business concentra-tion,” and it is generally assumed that resettlement was intended to facilitate paymentof tribute obligations (Julien 1983, p. 78) or reduce the likelihood of rebellions.Regardless, the Spaniards’ introductions of glazed ceramic manufacture into thesepre-conquest production clusters allowed them to take advantage of existing knowl-edge of resource locations and properties, local skills and networks, and “buzz.”Second, fabrication of various goods, including pottery, was intensified through theSpanish policy of encomienda: rewarding (lit. entrusting to) the earliest participantsin successful conquest with grants of native laborers. In this case, skilled laborerswere forced to work producing for the new Spanish overlords, a practice thatresembled more benign indigenous customs of providing community labor and goodsfor indigenous rulers. In political-ecology lingo, it can be seen as helping solve the


problem of finding suitable “partners” in developing “pipelines” for commodityproduction systems and exchange networks (Bathelt et al. 2004, pp. 43–44). Bothpractices, cluster formation and encomienda, combined with the Spanish impositionof slavery (including enslavement of native Andeans), facilitated co-optation ofexisting artisans and goods, as well as imposition of new technologies.

But “the political” threatened to derail efforts to establish the new industries. Thefirst few decades of administration of the viceroyalty were marked by infightingamong the Spaniards and wars and rebellions among indigenous groups, as well asdecimation of the latter by overwork and introduced diseases. The year-long siege ofCusco, the Inka capital, may have meant that pottery production in the area wasslowed (see Chatfield 2007, pp. 89–94) although it is doubtful that it ceased.Metalsmiths had fled Cusco for other “newly established Spanish cities to ply theirtrade; only the potters and carpenters remained working in a native context”(Cummins 2002, pp. 33–34).

Spanish-style ceramics (and other goods) were produced in multiple colonial citiesthat developed in populous administrative centers of the former Inka empire, thusforming a central Andean tin-enameled–ware cluster region of production and supply.Outside the Inka imperial core of modern Peru and Ecuador—to the north in what arenow Colombia and Venezuela, to the south in Chile and Argentina, and also inPortugal’s colonies in Brazil—several loza-producing clusters developed, some ofwhich are in an Atlantic rather than Pacific supply zone, but the details of the historiesof their products are beyond consideration here. In present-day Ecuador, loza wasmade in Quito and Cuenca (Buys 1992, p. 32; Fournier-García 1989, p. 63; Holm1971; Jamieson 2000). Varied goods were produced in what is now Peru, withpotters’ guilds present in Lima by 1577 (Frothingham 1969, p. 78), although neitherworkshops nor their output have been securely identified there. Peruvian centersinclude Cajamarca in the north (Stastny 1981, p. 99) and the Puno region—thenorthern Lake Titicaca basin—in the south (see Tschopik 1950, pp. 199–205).Contemporary production of glazed hollow wares in Pucará (Paredes Eyzaguirre1989) doubtless retains many elements introduced to this pre-Hispanic pottery-producing community in the Colonial period.

Cusco, the former Inka capital in the south-central Peruvian highlands, wasanother production center (Oberti Rodríguez 1999). A four-year contract to establisha loza workshop in Cusco was executed in 1588 (Acevedo 1986, p. 4) and a colonialkiln was identified on the city’s edge (I. Oberti, pers. comm.). Cusco would have beenan especially convenient location for tin-enameled ware manufacture. Not only werethere several indigenous potting communities outside the city (Stastny 1986, p. 9),but the Inkas controlled and mined various ore deposits as part of their metallurgicaltechnologies: these include tin (cassiterite) sources in Bolivia and northwesternArgentina (Zori 2011, p. 167); lead (galena), used extensively in silver purification(Van Buren and Mills 2005; Zori and Tropper 2010); and copper in the large Pacificcopper geological belt in southwestern Peru. In addition, currently recognized mineralresources in the Cusco area include virtually all needed for loza manufacture: silver,copper, lead, antimony, zinc, and tin (http://mineral-resources.findthebest.com/d/d/Peru), although it is not known if any were used in the early Colonial period. Sourcesof alkali for the glaze, whether potassium (wine lees from the coastal valleys?) orsodium (high altitude grasses?), have not been identified.


http://mineral-resources.findthebest.com/d/d/Peru

http://mineral-resources.findthebest.com/d/d/Peru

Andean tin-enameled products are markedly different from those of Mexico. Onedifference is in the pastes: pottery analyzed visually and physicochemically hasgenerally coarse, brick-red paste with volcanic and/or granitic inclusions, and givesno indication of the addition of calcareous clay (Magetti et al. 1984, pp. 159–160, fig.8). Another difference is in colors: early decoration is primarily the traditional verde ymorado of Hispano-Moresque ware, with blue, either alone or with green, beingrelatively rare and late. The most common loza around Quito, for example, featuresgreen or green-and-manganese decoration (Jamieson 2000, p. 190; see also Goggin1968, p. 9; Holm 1971, p. 268; Jamieson and Hancock 2004), and Cuenca’s productsinclude green and/or brown decoration on a yellow to “mustard” background color(Jamieson 2000, p. 193). Similarly, Cusco’s pottery is decorated in green andpurplish-black-brown and only Cajamarca, a late production center, was known forblue-and-white and blue-and-black-on-white–decorated loza (Stastny 1981, p. 99,figs. 45, 89).

Cobalt

An important question, from a political-ecology perspective, concerns the presenceand absence of blue paint in the colonial Mexican vs. Andean cluster regions,respectively. Blue was produced primarily by cobalt, a widely occurring but rareelement in the earth’s crust. A by-product of mining for other metals, especiallysilver, cobalt was first imported into Spain as an arsenical compound from Persia(Iran/Iraq) or possibly from closer sources in the Levant or Morocco (Lister and Lister1987, pp. 74–75, 88, 223, 325–326n177; Pleguezuelo 2003b, p. 109). Sometime inthe late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, Spain began importing cobalt from theErzgebirge Mountains of Saxony, Germany, a source that emerged out of a silver-mining boom that began in the twelfth century (Pérez-Arantegui et al. 2008; Zucchiatiet al. 2006, pp. 132–133). LA-ICP-MS analysis of cobalt blue pigments on Valencianpottery revealed chronological variations in the combinations of elemental constitu-ents, suggesting sequential changes in sources of raw materials, in processing theores, or both (Pérez-Arantegui et al. 2008). A major shift occurred around 1515–20throughout the southwestern European majolica cluster region (Italy, Spain, Portugal,France) when cobalt was transformed from simply a by-product of smelting silver“into a real industrial product, with a specific production process” for roasting the ore(Zucchiati et al. 2006, pp. 150–151). This can be seen as an example of thecommoditization of natural resources accompanying the exploitative economiesassociated with the beginnings of capitalist/global economies. (An example of theneed for, and value of, rare cobalt can be seen England’s offer of a prize for finding aBritish source of the mineral in the mid eighteenth century; Berg 2002, pp. 17, 20.)

Chemical analyses suggest different sources for the cobalt used in Spain comparedwith Mexico (Padilla et al. 2005), and also between Mexico City and Puebla. It isassumed that Spain’s cobalt from Saxony was exported to the colonies to support thefledgling ceramic-ware industry. In the seventeenth century, however, Puebla beganusing a new cobalt source that came packaged “in boxes in dry powder form,” amarketing practice that, according to the Listers (1987, pp. 239–240, 345n124) mighthave represented new non-Muslim suppliers. (It is not clear why these suppliers were


unlikely to have been Muslim, given the putatively strong morisco influences onPuebla’s ceramic industry, according to the Listers.) Scarcity forced improvisation,however: a “dull, washed-out” blue on common-grade wares in Mexico City wascreated not with cobalt but by a mixture of copper and zinc, the copper possiblycoming from melted scrap or coins (Lister and Lister 1982, p. 25). Yet a differentmaterial might have been used at Panamá La Vieja (Lister and Lister 1974, p. 45).Regardless, none of these minerals was regularly shipped to Lima. The absence ofearly blue decoration and the lack of cobalt in Peru might have been a consequence ofSpain’s repeated prohibitions of inter-colony trade or an indication of Panama’s ownprotectionism.

Given cobalt’s desirability, sources might have been discovered in the Americas orsought elsewhere. For example, small veins are said to exist in Mexico (Lister andLister 1982, p. 88) and significant quantities of cobalt are mined today in eastern Cuba(http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/update-on-cuba-nickel-and-cobalt-production/),but it is unknown if either source was identified by early Spanish explorers. Alternatively,after the 1565 beginning of the East Indies trade with Manila, traders might have hadaccess to internal Chinese cobalt sources (Nilsson 1998–2010) or other resources used byporcelain producers in southwest Asia. For example, tin for early Near Eastern enameledwares had been imported from southern Burma andMalaysia (Molera et al. 2001, p. 332).This material could have been shipped legally to Pacific ports in New Spain, such asAcapulco, but because of numerous edicts restricting commerce between Mexico andPeru (Borah 1954, pp. 124–127) the cobalt (and other goods) would have had to come aspart of the lively contraband trade, perhaps through Panamá La Vieja.

Different sources of raw materials, such as cobalt, and degrees of refinement led todifferent costs passed from suppliers to pottery producers; similarly, different quali-ties and quantities of the resources led to differences in the fired colors. And all ofthese factors contributed to different degrees of aesthetic appeal and final costs of thefinished products, which were passed along to consumers. Additional overseastransport expenses, and perhaps Spanish policies controlling cobalt’s export, likelymade it a rare and extremely high-priced resource, and thus in Mexico cobalt wasused only on fine-grade wares.

Discussion

I have tried here to apply concepts and perspectives from the young, multi-disciplinary field of political ecology to majolica manufacture in Spain and its spreadto Spain’s transatlantic colonies. Such an exercise—applying theories and concepts,themselves contentious, of late twentieth- and early twenty-first–century economicgeography to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe and Ibero-America—is notwithout its pitfalls. Models drawn from industrialized countries may not be appropriatefor those undergoing development: the models are products of contingent historicalcircumstances, industrialized countries tend to exhibit high degrees of productivespecialization, and the successful integration of such specialties can often be problematic(Whyte 1968). Also, these concepts tend to obscure the key roles of individual agentsand decision-making, cloaking everything in an institutional framework. Unfortunately,the lives and works of potters—individually and in aggregate—are all too rarely deemed


http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/update-on-cuba-nickel-and-cobalt-production/

worthy of extended investigation in historical studies. Acknowledging these concerns,my application is intended to be exploratory and perspectival with respect to theorganization of, and innovation in, production of a single commodity at the beginningsof a pre-modern global knowledge economy, rather than definitive in terms of conclu-sions about imperial or colonial production, or individual or class consumption, of thatgood. And, as is frequently the case in such exploratory efforts, more—and new andinteresting—questions than answers emerge. What insights are gained by applying theseperspectives?

This exercise demonstrates that the beginnings of economically successful pro-duction, whether or not of commodities or within twenty-first-century industrialcapitalism, share certain elements that can be analyzed and described under the rubricof political ecology. Although this new field is laden with jargon, terms like clustersand pipelines and buzz are applicable to sixteenth-century organizational principles,processes, and products, as is examination of the roles of specialized knowledge,innovation, and technology transfer. Indeed, analytical concepts such as clusters andespecially cluster regions appear, from this preliminary effort, to be applicable toefficient commodity production for large and expanding markets, regardless ofwhether they are literally global.

Innovation and State Power

Many intriguing questions concern the role of the state in fostering innovation. Intoday’s global economy, innovation is the “be all and end all,” but its valuation isculturally specific and was never a universal humanist or economic goal. In somecultures, for example in Asia (e.g., Bolton 1993), innovation traditionally was notencouraged and imitation of existing works was considered the norm and a sign ofrespect. In early modern Europe, too, innovation—at least the use of that particularword—was to be avoided (Girard 1990, p. 7). Artistic creativity was valued but it wascouched, at least in the eighteenth century, in an aesthetic that prized copying andimitation, especially in goods for the middle class (Berg 2002, pp. 12–16). In today’sWestern business and scholarly (and other) fields, such practices are negativelycharacterized as plagiaristic or lacking in vision, creativity, or imagination: “algorith-mic” rather than “heuristic.”

Studies exploring the relations among innovation, internal organization of firms,and “government’s” role have identified variations that change with time over thetrajectory of the technological development process. When a state lies at a distancefrom the technology frontier (as in the case of developing countries today, and Spain’scolonies in the sixteenth century), imitation and vertical integration are preferred overinnovation and horizontal integration, which are more important closer to the frontier(Acemoglu et al. 2002). Moreover, the leadership in either location can fosterdevelopment by centralizing economic and political control. But as developmentproceeds, centralized control must relax in favor of greater autonomy for local andregional actors (Mahmood 2005, p. 338) and vertical integration must give way togreater investment in technologies (Acemoglu et al. 2002).

In the case of imperial Spain, the crown held too tightly and for too long to thatcentralized politico-economic power, and failed to make capital and statutory investments


toward innovation. Spain’s mercantilism epitomizes the barriers that Porter (1998, p. 86)identifies in intrusive governments’ working against cluster formation in developingnations today: “Protecting local companies from competition leads to excessive verticalintegration and blunted pressure for innovation, retarding cluster development” by limit-ing education and training, technological capacity-building, and access to capital andrestricting inter-colony trade. This heritage of stifling colonial economic policies meantthat “import substitution industrialization” of the kind beginning elsewhere in the eigh-teenth century was not initiated as a development strategy in Latin America until the mid-twentieth century (Berg 2002). The extent of both horizontal and vertical integration in thefledgling colonial pottery industries would be useful to investigate more intensively.

It also would be of interest to know to what extent production in sixteenth-centurySpain was restructured and rescaled to meet new global markets, or to “leveragelocalities against one another in a competition for scarce capital investment”(Whitford and Potter 2007, p. 3). In 1518, for example, only 44 persons worked inthe ceramic industry in Talavera de la Reina, including 20 potters, 2 painters, 7 kilnworkers, and 6 general laborers in the workshops (Gómez et al. 2001, p. 41). In midsixteenth-century Sevilla there were 50 pottery workshops (Lister and Lister 1982, p.45), and by the boom years of the transatlantic colonization enterprise the city housedthousands of potters, painters, and other workers in five barrios (i.e., clusters). Evenin 1721, after Spain’s decline, Sevilla still had 82 glazed-ware kilns staffed by 346workers (Sánchez-Pacheco 1981, p. 99). At such densities, the rivalries in producingthese “local collective competition goods” might have been intense. Was the empha-sis on the “collective” or on the “competition”? Were the pottery productionclusters—including the new centers in the colonies—and the consumer bases largeenough to create internal competition to produce new goods at lower prices? Wereprofits reinvested in the business (as in true or industrial capitalism), for example, ordid older practices of expenditures in social promotion continue?

Import Substitution

Issues relating to “import substitution” are of interest with respect to imperial Spainand its colonies. Import substitution refers to modern governmental interventions toestablish “domestic production facilities to manufacture goods which were formerlyimported” (Baer 1972, p. 95). The goals are to protect domestic producers andindustries from a flood of cheap imports and, in under-developed countries, toachieve economic growth and modernization through industrialization. ClearlySpain’s economic policies with respect to its colonies were directed toward protectionof homeland industries, rather than development of transatlantic competition.

However, the crown waffled on what might be considered a version of importsubstitution. Spain was required, under its agreement with the Roman CatholicChurch that allowed exploration of the new lands, to establish settlements that wouldbring not only spiritual salvation but proper civilized life to the pagan indigenes. Butsupplying those new settlements with the necessities of civilized life—clothing,household furnishings, food and drink—was well beyond the functional capabilitiesof Spain’s transport systems and the imaginations of anyone in the role of economicplanner. Taking as an example wine, needed for both the holy sacrament and domestic


consumption, more than 150 years of self-contradictory royal cédulas plagued theestablishment of new vineyards and the wine trade in the colonies (Rice 2011, pp.150–151, table 8.3). After entrepreneurial settlers in Peru and Chile defied the bansand established successful viticultural agro-industries, new edicts imposed heavytaxes on sales and shipments: in other words, bans on inter-colony “import substi-tutes” for the home product.

Thus, instead of directly assisting the economic development of its colonies, thecrown implemented varied strategies intended to impede it. Nonetheless, these mayhave inadvertently promoted such development: “protective tariffs and/or exchangecontrols” are among the strategies recognized as promoting import substitutionindustrialization today (Baer 1972, p. 98). Only the colonists’ pragmatic solutionsto solve massive supply problems led to “industrial” development of commodityproduction systems, and this, in at least one case of viticulture (Moquegua, Peru), ledto upstream (or “backward”) vertical integration (Rice 2011, pp. 209, 276–277).

Innovation and Information/Knowledge

According to the Listers’ (1987, p. 283) assessment, loceros in Sevilla failed to takeadvantage of the growth opportunities opened by the transatlantic trade and a literalnew world of consumers, whether by creating new forms or decorations or bymarketing the wares themselves. They blame the lack of industrialization of the city’sceramic production on a host of psychological factors as well as a lack of “aggressivecommercialism, the mounting governmental interference, the lack of capital, and theabsence of mercantile wisdom” (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 284). Instead, in their view,whatever entrepreneurial advances did occur, for example in products such as archi-tectural tile, were introduced from outside by immigrant northern Italians (Lister andLister 1987, pp. 137–149). In particular, much of the resilience of Andalucía’senterprise was credited to the Genoese who, despite a history of operating primarilyin the financial sector, apparently became involved in pottery production. Thus theGenoese/Ligurians are considered responsible for a “revitalization of the nearlymoribund tableware branch of the ceramic craft, having introduced improved tech-niques and equipment” to replace centuries-old Muslim practice (Lister and Lister1987, p. 305).

It is unfortunate that we do not thoroughly understand the mechanisms by whichnew information, whether from the Italians or others, entered ceramic productionsystems. A least two instances of what might be called industrial espionage arereported. In fourteenth-century Spain, the closely guarded secrets of producingexpensive luster ware were acquired by Peter Boil (or Buyl), the influential lord ofmuch of Valencia, loza patron and sales entrepreneur, and diplomat to the Muslimcourt in Granada (Lister and Lister 1987, p. 92; Pleguezuelo 2003a, pp. 28–29; Vande Put 1911, p. 13). He divulged this information to the potters of Manises and theresultant new industry flourished. A second case is from mid sixteenth-centuryMexico City: a Spanish judge reported that “Indians hid on roof tops over Spanishworkshops, bored a hole through the ceiling so they could spy on the activities below,obtained an idea of how the glaze was concocted,” and replicated the wares for sale(Lister and Lister 1982, p. 98). Except for these few and possibly apocryphal


entrepreneurial spies, however, we cannot yet flesh out the roles played by early“gatekeepers” and “boundary-spanners” (Bathelt et al. 2004, pp. 44–45) in the spreadof majolica manufacture.

New World Production

With respect to the New World, the successful establishment of loza productionillustrates Porter’s (1998, p. 78, 2000) observation, noted earlier, about the paradox-ical importance of the local. For increasingly global markets, immigrant Europeanpotters in the colonies manipulated the competitive advantages of local knowledgeand resources of existing communities of potters and, especially in the Andes,exploited indigenous expectations and motivations concerning labor relations andobligations. The successful spread of the new production technologies throughout thecolonies resulted from both the creation of spin-off workshops and workshop clusters,and the establishment of new pipelines and maintenance of old ones, as settlersencouraged relatives and colleagues back home to join them. Perhaps sixteenth-century migrating potters could be compared to non-US workers in Silicon Valley,dubbed “the new Argonauts”: in their movements to and from their home countriesthey created “social networks that enable[d] even the smallest producers to locate andmaintain mutually beneficial collaborations across great distances and facilitateaccess to foreign sources of capital, technical skills, and markets” (Saxenian 2002,p. 185, 2011).

Available evidence suggests that central Mexico and the central Andes constitutedvery distinct cluster regions, each with its own individual production clusters. Fromthe demand-side viewpoint of consumers, the relations between loza (both fine andcommon) and class need to be examined more closely in the context of emergingdistinctions and power relations in the early viceroyalties, and their complex social,political, and economic circumstances vis-a-vis Spain. For example, studies ofColonial-period ceramics recovered in excavations throughout Mexico revealeddistinct patterns of consumption in urban as compared to rural areas, high qualityand imported wares being more common in the former (Fournier-García 1997). Ourunderstanding of the overall success of such colonial endeavors is bounded by ourcurrently limited knowledge of sixteenth-century economic activity, but clearly closerattention to the “political” aspects of production and trade, such as policiesconcerning resource access, will be informative.

From the supply side, loza production in Spain’s colonies exemplifies the contin-gent circumstances and contested politics of regional commodity production, partic-ularly the exercise of power in conflicts about resources and their use. The question ofcobalt is of considerable interest. As I have discussed elsewhere (Rice 1997, 2012,2013), there appear to have been two broad spheres (or mega-cluster regions) ofproduction and circulation of tin-enameled ware in Spain’s American colonies duringthe early colonial period. One centered on North America, the Caribbean, andMexico, with an emphasis on blue painted decoration on fine wares. The other wasfound in Andean South America, where early decoration displayed traditionalHispano-Moresque green-and-manganese, with blue becoming common only later.There may be political as well as economic motives underlying the early scarcity or


absence of blue decoration in Pacific South American wares, given the context ofprevailing aesthetic valuations with reference to copying and imitation of foreignluxury goods: in this case, Chinese blue and white porcelain. It will take significantlymore research into Andean loza to understand the technological and historicalreasons—the migrations and pipelines—behind the existence of these two spheres,and the important participatory role of Panamá La Vieja in both.

Final Thoughts

My studies of tin-enameled ware recovered from the rural wine estates of Moquegua(Peru) have made me aware that Muslim contributions to the ceramic history of Ibero-America have been under-emphasized and under-theorized in historical archaeolog-ical studies, as they have been in Spanish-colonial history in general (e.g., BorrásGualis 1993, p. 15; Rice 2013). In part this bias might be a consequence of the factthat the better-studied New World loza is from the Caribbean-Mexico area, whichmight, objectively, have had a more Christian orientation than that of Peru. But inmajor works such as Florence and Robert Lister’s (1987) Andalusian Ceramics inSpain and New Spain, Muslims and Muslim potters are consistently negativelycharacterized as mired in tradition and resistant to change, in contrast to the positivelyevaluated Christian-based, especially Italian-influenced, pottery industries that wereprogressive, open to change, and actively pursued innovation. Muslim influence onPuebla’s pottery and guild, for example, is described as “ultraconservative,” “rigid,”“ingrained,” and “entrenched,” displaying “naive orientalization” (Lister and Lister1987, pp. 235, 252, 297) and resulting from “subversive morisco infiltration” after theexpulsions from Spain (Lister and Lister 1982, pp. 80–90).

It is highly likely, however, that despite—or as revealed by—Spain’s repeatedpreventive legislation, many morisco potters (and other craftsmen) made the journeyto the colonies and established themselves there. Simple logic suggests this: if it istrue, rather than self-serving hyperbole, that in the middle of the sixteenth centuryonly four potters in all of Spain were old-Christian, then who—other than potters ofthe religious orders—could have established the colonial industries? Although I havenot attempted to tally the presumed initiation of all loza-production centers, it seemsstriking that so many throughout Spanish colonies—e.g., Puebla and Oaxaca inMexico; Antigua, Guatemala; Panama La Vieja; Lima and Cusco in Peru—seem tohave been established around 1580, give or take a decade. This was shortly after amajor expulsion of moriscos from Granada to Sevilla. Another pulse of ceramicindustrial development seems to have occurred in the second quarter of the seven-teenth century, perhaps a consequence of the morisco purges of 1609–10. If futuredocumentary studies indicate that these two apparent periods of establishment oflocerías in the colonies—particularly those producing verde y moradadecoration—are real historical phenomena, and not simply illusions caused by scarcedata, then they constitute two dramatic instances of the role of “the political” in thepolitical ecology of New World loza.

In post-Reconquista Spain, Muslims and morisco artisans are correctly portrayed asvictims of relentless religious bigotry, lacking the power to participate in decisions andpolicies concerning (amongmany other things) how resources are defined and used. But


as studies of victims of oppression have so often revealed, the oppressed Spanishmorisco potters were not completely silenced. Their voices are heard in colors.

Acknowledgments I am extremely grateful to two anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for IJHA,whose careful reading and thoughtful suggestions contributed immensely to the improvement of theoriginal.

References

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., and Zilibotti, F. (2002). Vertical Integration and Distance to Frontier. NationalBureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 9191. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/17787/1/17787.pdf.

Acevedo, S. (1986). Trayectoría de la cerámica vidriada en el Perú. In Stastny, F., and Acevedo, S. (eds.),Vidriados y mayólica del Perú, Museo de Arte y de Historia, Universidad Nacional Mayor de SanMarcos, Lima, pp. 19–31.

Alvaro Zamora, M. I. (1981). Aragón. In Sánchez-Pacheco, T., Giral, M. D., Zozaya, J., Seseña, N., AlvaroZamora, I., Ainaud de Lasarte, J., Casanovas, M. A., and Martínez Caviró, B. (eds.), Cerámicaesmaltada española, Editorial Labor, Barcelona, pp. 111–126.

Anthony, D. W. (1990). Migration in archeology: the baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:895–914.

Avery, G. (1997). Pots as Packaging: The Spanish Olive Jar and Andalusian Transatlantic CommerialActivity, 16th-19th Centuries. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Baer, W. (1972). Import substitution and industrialization in Latin America: experiences and interpreta-tions. Latin American Research Review 7: 95–122.

Banaji, J. (2007). Islam, the Mediterranean and the rise of capitalism. Historical Materialism 15(1): 47–74.Barber, E. A. (1915a). Hispano-Moresque Pottery in the Collection of the Hispanic Society of America,

Hispanic Society of America, New York.Barber, E. A. (1915b). Mexican Maiolica in the Collection of the Hispanic Society of America, Hispanic

Society of America, New York.Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., and Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines

and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography 28: 31–56.Berg, M. (2002). From imitation to invention: creating commodities in eighteenth-century Britain. The

Economic History Review 55: 1–30.Blackman, M. J., Fournier, P., and Bishop, R. L. (2006). Complejidad e interacción social en el México

colonial: identidad, producción, intercambio y consumo de lozas de tradición ibérica, con base enanálisis de activación neutrónica. Cuicuilco 13(36): 203–222.

Bolton, M. K. (1993). Imitation versus innovation: lessons to be learned from the Japanese. OrganizationalDynamics 21(3): 30–45.

Borah, W. (1954). Early Colonial Trade and Navigation Between Mexico and Peru, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Borrás Gualis, G. (1993). El arte mudéjar: estado actual de la cuestión. In Henares Cuéllar, I., and LópezGuzmán, R. (eds.), Mudéjar Iberoamericano: una expresión de dos mundos, Monográfica Arte yArqueología, Universidad de Granada, Spain, pp. 9–19.

Buys, J. (1992). La cerámica colonial. Paper presented at the 1992 Conference on Historical andUnderwater Archaeology, Jamaica.

Caiger-Smith, A. (1973). Tin-glaze Pottery in Europe and the Islamic World: The Tradition of 1000 Yearsin Maiolica, Faience and Delft Ware, Faber, London.

Canby, S. R. (1997). Islamic lusterware. In Freestone, I., and Gaimster, D. (eds.), Pottery in the Making:Ceramic Traditions, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 110–115.

Card, J. J. (2007). The Ceramics of Colonial Ciudad Vieja, El Salvador: Culture Contact and SocialChange in Mesoamerica. Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Casanovas, M. A. (2003). Ceramics in domestic life in Spain. In Gavin, R. F., Pierce, D., and Pleguezuelo,A. (eds.), Cerámica y cultura: the story of Spanish and Mexican mayólica, Museum of InternationalFolk Art, Santa Fe, pp. 49–75.

Chatfield, M. (2007). From Inca to Spanish Colonial: Transitions in Ceramic Technology. Doctoraldissertation, University of California Santa Barbara.


http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/17787/1/17787.pdf

Chatfield, M. (2010). Tracing firing technology through clay properties in Cuzco, Peru. Journal ofArchaeological Science 37: 727–736.

Christopherson, S., Michie, J., and Tyler, P. (2010). Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical perspec-tives. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3: 3–10.

Corteguera, L. R. (2002). For the Common Good: Popular Politics in Barcelona, 1580–1640, CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca.

Cummins, T. B. F. (2002). Toasts with the Inca: Andean Abstraction and Colonial Images on QueroVessels, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

de Ceballos, A. R. G. (2010). Image and counter-reformation in Spain and Spanish America. In Kasl, R.(ed.), Sacred Spain: Art and Belief in the Spanish World, Indianapolis Museum of Art and YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, pp. 15–35.

de Lozoya, J. C. (1945). Historia de arte hispánico, vol. 4, Salvat, Barcelona.Deagan, K. A. (1987). Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500–1800, vol. 1,

Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Flecker, M. (2001). A ninth-century AD Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesia: first evidence for direct

trade with China. World Archaeology 32: 335–354.Foshag, W. F., and Fries Jr., C. (1942). Tin Deposits of the Republic of Mexico: Geologic Investigations in

the American Republics, 1941–42, GPO, Washington, DC, pp. 99–176.Fournier, P., and Blackman, M. J. (2008). Production, Exchange and Consumption of Glazed Wares in New

Spain: Formation of a Database of Elemental Composition Through INAA. Report to FAMSI. http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014/06014Fournier.pdf.

Fournier-García, P. (1989). 20 tiestos de mayólica procedentes de Ecuador. In Fournier, P., de LourdesFournier, M., and Silva, E. (eds.), Tres estudios sobre cerámica histórica, Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 62–66.

Fournier-García, P. (1997). Tendencias de consumo en México durante los períodos colonial eindependiente. In Gasco, J., Smith, G. C., and Fournier-García, P. (eds.), Approaches to the HistoricalArchaeology of Mexico, Central and South America, Institute of Archaeology, University of California,Los Angeles, pp. 49–58.

Fowler, W. R. (2007). The end of pre-Columbian Pipil civilization, Ciudad Vieja, El Salvador (withcontributions by J. Card). http://www.famsi.org/reports/02091/02091Fowler01.pdf.

Frothingham, A. W. (1969). Tile Panels of Spain, 1500–1650, Hispanic Society of America, New York.Gaimster, D. (1999). Maiolica in the north: the shock of the new. In Gaimster, D. (ed.), Maiolica in the

North: The Archaeology of Tin-Glazed Earthenware in North-West Europe c. 1500–1600, BritishMuseum Press, London, pp. 1–3.

Gasco, J., Neff, H., and Evins, G. (2006). Postclassic and Colonial Ceramics in the Soconusco: Patterns ofProduction and Exchange. Paper presented at the 71st meeting of the Society for American Archae-ology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Gavin, R. F. (2003). Introduction. In Gavin, R. F., Pierce, D., and Pleguezuelo, A. (eds.), Cerámica y Cultura:The Story of Spanish and Mexican Mayólica, Museum of International Folk Art, Santa Fe, pp. 1–23.

Girard, R. (1990). Innovation and repetition. SubStance 19(2/3): 7–20.Glick, T. F. (1979). The ethnic systems of premodern Spain. Comparative Studies in Sociology 1: 157–171.Goggin, J. M. (1968). Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,

Yale University Publications in Anthropology, New Haven.Gómez, P., Pasinski, T., and Fournier, P. (2001). Transferencia tecnológica y filiación étnica: el caso de los

loceros novohispanos del siglo XVI. Amerística 4(7): 33–66. http://www.academia.edu/947016.Graf, H. (2010). Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35(1):

173–198.Greenberg, J. B., and Park, T. K. (1994). Political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology 1: 1–12.Harvey, L. P. (1990). Islamic Spain, 1250–1500, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Hegmon, M., and Kulow, S. (2005). Painting as agency, style as structure: innovations in Mimbres pottery

designs from southwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12: 313–334.Holm, O. (1971). La cerámica colonial del Ecuador (un ensayo preliminar), Separata no. 116 del Boletín

de la Academia Nacional de Historia (Julio-Diciembre 1970), Quito, pp. 265–278.Hughes, M. J. (1991). Provenance studies of Spanish Medieval tin-glazed pottery by neutron activation

analysis. In Budd, P., Chapman, B., Jackson, C., Janaway, R., and Ottaway, B. (eds.), ArchaeologicalSciences 1989, Oxbow Press, Oxford, pp. 54–68.

Hyslop, J. (1993). Factors influencing the transmission and distribution of Inka cultural materials through-out Tawantinsuyu. In Rice, D. S. (ed.), Latin American Horizons, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, pp.337–364.


http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014/06014Fournier.pdf

http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014/06014Fournier.pdf

http://www.famsi.org/reports/02091/02091Fowler01.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/947016

Iñañez, J. G., Speakman, R. J., Buxeda i Garrigós, J., and Glascock, M. D. (2009). Chemical character-ization of tin-lead glazed pottery from the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands: initial steps towarda better understanding of Spanish colonial pottery in the Americas. Archaeometry 51: 546–547.

Jamieson, R. W. (2000). Domestic Architecture and Power: The Historical Archaeology of ColonialEcuador, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

Jamieson, R. W. (2001). Majolica in the early colonial Andes: the role of Panamanian wares. LatinAmerican Antiquity 12: 45–58.

Jamieson, R. W., and Hancock, R. G. V. (2004). Neutron activation analysis of colonial ceramics fromsouthern highland Ecuador. Archaeometry 46: 569–583.

Joel, E. C., Olin, J. S., Blackman, J. M., and Barnes, I. L. (1988). Lead isotope studies of Spanish, Spanish-Colonial, and Mexican majolica. In Farquhar, R. M., Hancock, R. G. V., and Pavlish, L. A. (eds.),Proceedings of the 26th International Archaeometry Symposium, Archaeometry Laboratory, Depart-ment of Physics, University of Toronto, pp. 188–195.

Jornet, A., Blackman, J. M., and Olin, J. S. (1985). 13th to 18th century ceramics from the Paterna-Manisesarea (Spain). In Kingery, W. D. (ed.), Ancient Technology to Modern Science, Vol. I, The AmericanCeramic Society, Columbus, pp. 235–255.

Julien, C. (1983). Hatunqolla: A View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Region, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Kamen, H. (1997). The Spanish Inquisition, a Historical Revision, Yale University Press, New Haven.Kingery, W. D., and Aronson, M. (1990). On the technology of Renaissance maiolica glazes. Faenza 66:

226–235.Kuwayama, G. (1997). Chinese Ceramics in Colonial Mexico, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los

Angeles.Labib, S. Y. (1969). Capitalism in medieval Islam. Journal of Economic History 29: 79–96.Lane, D., Pumain, D., van der Leeuw, S. E., and West, G. (2009). Complexity Perspectives in Innovation

and Social Change, Springer, New York.Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1974). Maiolica in colonial Spanish America.Historical Archaeology 8(1): 17–52.Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1982). Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley of Mexico,

Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1984). The potter’s quarter of colonial Puebla, Mexico. Historical

Archaeology 18: 87–102.Lister, F. C., and Lister, R. H. (1987). Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain. A Cultural Register

from the Third Century B.C. to 1700, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Londoño, W. (2001). Hacia una interpretación antropológica de la cerámica vidriada de Popoyán. Revista

de Antropología y Arqueología 13: 49–60.Long, G. A. (1967). Archaeological Investigations at Panama Vieja. Master’s thesis, University of Florida,

Gainesville.Luján Muñoz, L. (1975). Historia de la mayólica en Guatemala, Serviprensa, Guatemala City.Magetti, M., Westley, H., and Olin, J. (1984). Provenance and technical studies of Mexican majolica using

elemental and phase analysis. In Lambert, J. B. (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry III, AmericanChemical Society, Washington, pp. 151–191.

Mahmood, I. P. (2005). Government’s dilemma: the role of government in imitation and innovation.Academy of Management Review 30: 338–360.

Marken, M. W. (1994). Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500–1800, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Mason, R. B., and Tite, M. S. (1997). The beginnings of tin-opacification of pottery glazes. Archaeometry

39: 41–58.Mauldin, B. (2003). The revival of Puebla mayólica in the twentieth century. In Gavin, R. F., Pierce, D., and

Pleguezuelo, A. (eds.), Cerámica y Cultura: The Story of Spanish and Mexican Mayólica, Museum ofInternational Folk Art, Santa Fe, pp. 270–295.

Molera, J., García-Valles, M., Pradell, T., and Vendrell-Saz, M. (1996). Hispano-Moresque pottery productionof the fourteenth-century workshop of Testar del Molí (Paterna, Spain). Archaeometry 38: 67–80.

Molera, J., Vendrell-Saz, M., and Pérez-Arantegui, J. (2001). Chemical and textural characterization of tinglazes in Islamic ceramics from eastern Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 331–340.

Nilsson, J.-E. (1998–2010). Cobalt on Chinese pottery and porcelain. http://www.gotheborg.com/glossary/?http://gotheborg.com/glossary/cobalt.shtml.

Oberti Rodríguez, I. (1999). Cerámica colonial cuzqueña. Revista Universitaria 138: 139–152. Cuzco.Olin, J., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E. V. (1978). Elemental compositions of Spanish and Spanish-Colonial

majolica ceramics in the identification of provenience. In Carter, G. F. (ed.), Archaeological ChemistryII, American Chemical Society, Washington, pp. 200–229.


http://www.gotheborg.com/glossary/?http://gotheborg.com/glossary/cobalt.shtml

http://www.gotheborg.com/glossary/?http://gotheborg.com/glossary/cobalt.shtml

Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html.Padilla, R., Schalm, O., Janssens, K., Arrazcaeta, R., and Van Espen, P. (2005). Microanalytical charac-

terization of surface decoration in majolica pottery. Analytica Chimica Acta 535: 201–211.Paredes Eyzaguirre, R. (1989). La cerámica vidriada de Pucará, Puno. Boletín de Lima 61: 35–37.Paulson, S., Gezon, L. L., and Watts, M. (2003). Locating the political in political ecology: an introduction.

Human Organization 62: 205–217.Pérez-Arantegui, J., Resano, M., García-Ruiz, E., Vanhaecke, F., Roldán, C., Ferrero, J., and Coll, J. (2008).

Characterization of cobalt pigments found in traditional Valencian ceramics by means of laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Talanta74: 1271–1280.

Phillips, C. R. (1987). Time and duration: a model for the economy of early modern Spain. The AmericanHistorical Review 92: 531–562.

Pike, R. (1972). Aristocrats and Traders. Sevillian Society in the Sixteenth Century, Cornell UniversityPress, Ithaca.

Pineda Díaz, P. (n.d.). La historia de la Talavera. In Velázquez, L. de L. (compiler), Artes de México. LaTalavera de Puebla, http://www.artshistory.mx/banco/index.php?id_nota=19072004142048.

Pinedo, C., and Vizcaino, E. (1979). La cerámica de Manises en la historia, Editorial Everest, Madrid.Pleguezuelo, A. (2003a). Centers of traditional Spanish mayólica. In Gavin, R. F., Pierce, D., and

Pleguezuelo, A. (eds.), Cerámica y Cultura: The Story of Spanish and Mexican Mayólica, Museumof International Folk Art, Santa Fe, pp. 25–47.

Pleguezuelo, A. (2003b). Ceramics, business, and economy. In Gavin, R. F., Pierce, D., and Pleguezuelo,A. (eds.), Cerámica y Cultura: The Story of Spanish and Mexican Mayólica, Museum of InternationalFolk Art, Santa Fe, pp. 102–121.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76(6): 77–90.Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global

economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14: 15–34.Reid, N., Smith, B. W., and Carroll, M. C. (2008). Cluster regions: a social network perspective. Economic

Development Quarterly 22: 345–352.Rice, P. M. (1997). Tin-enameled ceramics of Moquegua, Peru. In Gasco, J., Smith, G., and Fournier-

García, P. (eds.), Approaches to the Historical Archaeology of Mexico, Central and South America,Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 167–175.

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

Rice, P. M. (2012). Andean loza from Moquegua, Peru. Paper presented at the International Global PotteryConference, Barcelona.

Rice, P.M. (2013). Space-Time Perspectives on Early ColonialMoquegua, University Press of Colorado, Boulder.Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford.Robinson, L. (2009). A summary of diffusion of innovations. http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_

Diffusion_Theory.pdf.Rodríguez Girón, Z. (2008). Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Convento de Santo Domingo, Antigua

Guatemala, parte II: los materiales arqueológicos. Utz’ib 1(8), Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City.Rosselló Bordoy, G. (1992). The ceramics of al-Andalus. In Dodds, J. D. (ed.), Al-Andalus, the Art of

Islamic Spain, The Metropolitan Museum, New York, pp. 97–103.Rouguelle, A. (1996). Medieval trade networks in the western Indian Ocean (8–14th centuries): some

reflections from the distribution pattern of Chinese imports in the Islamic world. In Prabha Ray, H., andSalles, J.-F. (eds.), Tradition and Archaeology: Early Maritime Contacts in the Indian Ocean, StatePublishers, New Delhi, pp. 109–114.

Rovira, B. E. (2001). Presencia de mayólicas panameñas en el mundo colonial: algunas consideracionesacerca de su distribución y cronología. Latin American Antiquity 12: 291–303.

Rovira, B. E., Blackman, J., van Zelst, L., Bishop, R., Rodríguez, C. C., and Sánchez, D. (2006).Caracterización química de cerámicas coloniales del sitio de Panamá Viejo. Canto Rodado 1: 101–131.

Sampeck, K. E. (2007). Late Postclassic to Colonial Landscapes and Political Economy of the IzalcosRegion, El Salvador. Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Sánchez-Pacheco, T. (1981). Paterna y Manises. In Sánchez-Pacheco, T., Giral, M. D., Zozaya, J., Seseña,N., Alvaro Zamora, I., Ainaud de Lasarte, J., Casanovas, M. A., and Martínez Caviró, B. (eds.),Cerámica esmaltada española, Editorial Labor, Barcelona, pp. 53–72.

Saxenian, A. (2002). Transnational communities and the evolution of global production networks: the casesof Taiwan, China and India. Industry and Innovation http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/INDUSTRY%26INNOVATION.pdf.


http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

http://www.artshistory.mx/banco/index.php?id_nota=19072004142048

http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_Diffusion_Theory.pdf

http://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_Diffusion_Theory.pdf

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/INDUSTRY%26INNOVATION.pdf

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/INDUSTRY%26INNOVATION.pdf

Saxenian, A. (2011). The New Argonauts. http://diasporamatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Diaspora-Toolkit-Booklet-1.pdf.

Seseña, N. (1981). Talavera y Puente del Arzobispo. In Sánchez-Pacheco, T., Giral, M.D., Zozaya, J.,Seseña, N., Alvaro Zamora, I., Ainaud de Lasarte, J., Casanovas, M. A., and Martínez Caviró, B.(eds.), Cerámica esmaltada española, Editorial Labor, Barcelona.

Sheppard, E. (2011). Geographical political economy. Journal of Economic Geography 11: 319–331.Stastny, F. (1981). Las artes populares del Peru, Ediciones Edubanco, Madrid.Stastny, F. (1986). Introducción. In Stastny, F., and Acevedo, S. (eds.), Vidriados y mayólica del Perú,

Museo de Arte y de Historia, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, pp. 5–6.Therrien, M., Uprimny, E., Lobo Guerrero, J., Salamanca, M. F., Gaitán, F., and Fandiño, M. (2002).

Catálogo de cerámica colonial y republicana de la Nueva Granada: producción local y materialesforáneos (Costa Caribe, Altiplano Cundiboyacense – Colombia), Banco de la República, Bogotá.

Thornton, D. (1997). Maiolica production in Renaissance Italy. In Freestone, I., and Gaimster, D. (eds.),Pottery in the Making: Ceramic Traditions, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 116–121.

Tite, M. S. (1992). The impact of electron microscopy on ceramic studies. Proceedings of the BritishAcademy 77: 111–131.

Tonts, M. (n.d.). Space, scale and time in regional economic resilience. http://www.rsis.edu.sg/CENS/PDF/Think%20Pieces.pdf (retrieved 6/16/12).

Tschopik Jr., H. (1950). An Andean ceramic tradition in historical perspective. American Antiquity 17:196–218.

Van Buren, M., and Mills, B. H. (2005). Huayrachinas and tocochimbas: traditional smelting technology ofthe southern Andes. Latin American Antiquity 16: 3–25.

Van de Put, A. (1911). Hispano-Moresque Ware of the XV Century, Art Worker’s Quarterly, London.van der Leeuw, S. E., and Torrence, R. (eds.) (1989). What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of

Innovation, Unwin Hyman, London.Vayda, A. P., and Walters, B. P. (1999). Against political ecology. Human Ecology 27: 167–179.Vihemäki, H. (2009). Political ecology. In Perkiö, M. (ed.), Perspectives to Global Social Development,

Tampere University Press, Finland, pp. 177–186.Walker, P. A. (2005). Political ecology: where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29: 73–82.Walker, P. A. (2006). Political ecology: where is the policy? Progress in Human Geography 30: 382–395.Whitford, J., and Potter, C. (2007). The state of the art: regional economies, open networks and the spatial

fragmentation of production. Socioeconomic Review 2007: 1–30.Whyte, W. F. (1968). Imitation or innovation: reflections on the institutional development of Peru.

Administrative Science Quarterly 13: 370–385.Wolf, E. (1972). Ownership and political ecology. Anthropological Quarterly 45: 201–205.Zimmerer, K. S. (2006). Cultural ecology: at the interface with political ecology—the new geographies of

environmental conservation and globalization. Progress in Human Geography 30: 63–78.Zori, C. (2011). Metals for the Inka: Late Prehispanic Transformations in Social Organization and Metal

Production in the Quebrada Tarapacá, Northern Chile. Doctoral dissertation, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles.

Zori, C. M., and Tropper, P. (2010). Late pre-Hispanic and early Colonial silver production in the Quebradade Tarapacá, Northern Chile. Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 15: 65–87. Santiago.

Zozaya, J. (1981). Cerámica andalusí. In Sánchez-Pacheco, T., Giral, M. D., Zozaya, J., Seseña, N., AlvaroZamora, I., Ainaud de Lasarte, J., Casanovas, M. A., and Martínez Caviró, B. (eds.), Cerámicaesmaltada española, Editorial Labor, Barcelona, pp. 37–50.

Zucchiati, A., Bouquillon, A., Katona, I., and D’Alessandro, A. (2006). The “Della Robbia blue:” a casestudy for the use of cobalt pigments in ceramics during the Italian Renaissance. Archaeometry 48: 131–152.


http://diasporamatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Diaspora-Toolkit-Booklet-1.pdf

http://diasporamatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Diaspora-Toolkit-Booklet-1.pdf

http://www.rsis.edu.sg/CENS/PDF/Think%20Pieces.pdf

http://www.rsis.edu.sg/CENS/PDF/Think%20Pieces.pdf

Documents

Political-Ecology Perspectives on New World Loza (Majolica)