Ceramic

Ceramic Production in Early Hispanic California
Florida A&M University, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers Florida International University, Miami
Florida State University, Tallahassee New College of Florida, Sarasota
University of Central Florida, Orlando University of Florida, Gainesville
University of North Florida, Jacksonville University of South Florida, Tampa
University of West Florida, Pensacola
Ceramic
Production
in Early
Hispanic California
Craft, Economy, and Trade
on the Frontier of New Spain
RUSSELL K. SKOWRONEK,
M. JAMES BLACKMAN,
AND RONALD L. BISHOP
With contributions by
Eloise Richards Barter
Julia G. Costello
Glenn Farris
D. Larry Felton
Robert L. Hoover
Michael H. Imwalle
Sarah Peelo
Ruben Reyes
Barbara L. Voss
Jack S. Williams
University Press of Florida
Gainesville/Tallahassee/Tampa/Boca Raton
Pensacola/Orlando/Miami/Jacksonville/Ft. Myers/Sarasota
Copyright 2014 by Russell K. Skowronek, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop

All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America on recycled, acid-free paper
This book may be available in an electronic edition.
19 18 17 16 15 14
6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Skowronek, Russell K., author.
Ceramic production in early Hispanic California : craft, economy, and trade on the
frontier of New Spain / Russell K. Skowronek, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop
with contributions by Robert L. Hoover, Eloise Richards Barter, Julia Costello, Glenn
Farris, D. Larry Felton, Sarah Peelo, Michael H. Imwalle, Ruben Reyes, Jack S. Williams,
Barbara L. Voss.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: The presidios, missions, and pueblos of both Spanish and Mexican California have provided a rich trove of ceramics materials; however, sparse analysis of the more
remote areas of New Spain left an incomplete picture of economies. This volume rectifies
this gap by examining the 18th and 19th century ceramic production in Alta California.
ISBN 978-0-8130-4981-6
1. PotteryCaliforniaHistory. 2. Pottery, SpanishCaliforniaHistory. 3. Pottery,
MexicanCaliforniaHistory. 4. CaliforniaAntiquities. 5. MissionsCalifornia.
I. Blackman, M. James, author. II. Bishop, Ronald L., author. III. Title.
NK4025.C2.S56 2014
666.'609794dc23 2014003467
The University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University,
Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University, Florida State University,
New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of
North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida.
University Press of Florida
15 Northwest 15th Street
Gainesville, FL 32611-2079
http://www.upf.com
This volume is dedicated to

Dr. Lambertus Van Zelst, retired director of the
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education
and
Marie Lagattuta Brancati, assistant to the dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences at Santa Clara University, who for
more than a decade, from its inception in 1998 to its fruition,
was always ready to further the project and to facilitate student
involvement. She is the sort of colleague everyone should have.
Contents
List of Illustrations
ix
List of Tables
xv
Foreword xix
Preface xxiii
Acknowledgments xxix
Conventions Used in This Book
xxxv
Part I. A Study of Pottery
1. A Global Perspective
2. Creating a New Europe in the New World
12
Part II. Tradition and Transformation of Alta California
21
3. Craft and Commodities of Early California
23
4. Incorporation into New Spain: Presidio Jurisdictions
39
Part III. The Creation of Ceramics
67
5. A Typology of Mission Pottery: Drawings and

Descriptions of Low-Fire Earthenwares from
Mission San Antonio de Padua, California
Julia G. Costello
69
6. Fabrication and Replications: A Potters View

Ruben Reyes
93
7. Ceramic Firing Technology in Alta California

Michael H. Imwalle
114
Part IV. Assessing Variation in Ceramic Composition
133
8. Selected Approaches to Ceramic Characterization
135
9. The Mineralogy of California Plain Wares:

Technology and Social Reproduction in the
California Spanish Missions
Sarah Peelo
152
10. The Chemical Characterization of California Pottery
170
11. Anchoring Ceramic Production: Bricks, Tiles, and

Plain Ware
178
12. Native American Ceramics Found at Old Town

San Diego: Trade or Local Manufacture?
D. Larry Felton, Glenn Farris, and Eloise Richards Barter
218
13. Supplying Glazed Ceramics to Alta California
242
Part V. Pottery as an Active Component of Colonial Economics 281

14. Losa Surtida: Historical and Archaeological Perspectives
on Imported Ceramics in Alta California
Barbara L. Voss
283
15. Reconstructing Maylica Use Patterns from Colonial

Sites in Southern California
Jack S. Williams
301
16. Concluding Comments: Pottery and the Transition

from Colonial Life
314
References 325
About the Authors and Contributors
369
Index 375
Illustrations
Figures
3.1. Map of New Spain indicating selected Spanish sites
25
3.2. Location of presidios and missions in Alta California
27
3.3. Map of general locations of contact period Native

American culture/language groups
28
3.4. Ceramic vessel attributed to the Luiseo of southern

California 31
3.5. Ceramic vessel attributed to southern Yokuts manufacture
37
4.1. Alta California jurisdictions and missions
44
5.1. A portion of the casco of Mission San Antonio de Padua,

California 70
5.2. Section drawings of bowls Type B1B3
77
5.3. Section drawings of bowls Type B4B5 and pots and lids
Type PL1PL2
80
5.4. Section drawings of pots and jars Type PJ1PJ5
83
5.5. Section drawings of pots and jars Type PJ6PG8 and

miscellaneous 86
5.6. Section drawings of wheel base Type WB1WB4 and hand
base Type HB1HB2
88
x Illustrations
5.7. Section drawings of hand base Type HB3HB5 and large

base Type LB1LB3
90
6.1. Throwing from the mound was one fabrication technique

observed in the archaeologically recovered sherds
99
6.2. Base of a bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio

with marks indicating it was thrown from the mound
100
6.3. A bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio
101
6.4. A basket form pot; wheel-thrown vessel recovered at

Mission San Antonio
101
6.5. A shallow plate or bowl made using an anvil found at

Mission Santa Clara
102
6.6. Wedging clay to remove air bubbles
104
6.7. Reproduction of the wheel-thrown basket vessel found at

Mission San Antonio
106
6.8. Using an anvil to make a bowl
107
6.9. Replica shallow bowl made using an anvil
108
6.10. San Elizario Polychrome replica plate
110
6.11. Sagger with replica San Elizario Polychrome plate
111
6.12. Reproductions of the range of forms identified in the

archaeological record
112
7.1. Cutaway view of a sagger with clavos and clay rods

supporting glazed ceramics
117
7.2. Charles C. Pierce photograph of Santa Barbara Mission

kiln (18711875)
118
7.3. Demonstration kiln at El Presidio de Santa Barbara

State Historic Park
121
7.4. Drawing of the Monterey Presidio (1791) by Jos Cardero
124
7.5. 1938 drawing of the tile kiln at the Santa Barbara

Mission
125
7.6. Scale model of San Antonio Mission kiln with

fired-tile arches
128
7.7. Interior of the pottery kiln at Mission La Pursima

State Historic Park
129
Illustrationsxi
7.8. Sketch and photograph of the Rancho San Marcos tile kiln
130
8.1. Manhattan Project scientists at Los Alamos, New Mexico
144
9.1. Map of mission and presidio sites and surrounding

indigenous ethnolinguistic groups
154
9.2. Relative percentages of fine, medium, and coarse/very coarse

inclusions in plain ware produced at El Presidio de San
Francisco and Missions Santa Clara de Ass, San Juan
Bautista, Carmel Borromeo del Ro Carmel, and
San Antonio de Padua
164
11.1. Base groups of pottery samples from Mission San Diego,
San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey
188
11.2. Projection of plain ware onto base groups of Figure 11.1
188
11.3 Tizon Brown Ware shown relative to base groups

of Figure 11.1
189
11.4. Pottery sample groups from the Santa Barbara jurisdiction
193
11.5. Separation of Santa Barbara bricks, tiles, and plain ware
194
11.6. Bivariate plot of samples from Santa Barbara, La Pursima,

and Santa Ins
195
11.7. Texture differences in ladrillo
195
11.8. Bivariate plot showing divergence of San Luis Obispo

samples
199
11.9. Bivariate plot showing dispersion of ceramics of the

Monterey jurisdiction
200
11.10. Bivariate plot of compositional groups for Monterey,

Soledad, Carmel, and San Antonio
201
11.11. Bivariate plot showing dispersion of San Luis Obispo

compositional subgroups
201
11.12. Bivariate plot comparing San Antonio and San Juan

Bautista pottery to that from Monterey
202
11.13. Bivariate plot comparing compositional groups for Missions

San Antonio, San Luis Obispo, and San Miguel
203
11.14. Bivariate plot of base groups for Mission Santa Clara
206
11.15. Bivariate plot of base groups for San Francisco
207
xii Illustrations
11.16. Bivariate plot of San Francisco 1 group relative to groups

from San Juan Bautista, Santa Clara, San Jose and Santa Cruz
207
11.17. Bivariate plot of pottery from Mission and Pueblo

San Jose relative to groups from San Francisco,
Santa Clara and Santa Cruz
208
11.18. Bivariate plot showing relationship of Santa Cruz pottery

groups to groups from San Francisco, Santa Clara, Carmel,
and Monterey
211
11.19. Bivariate plot of Patayan pottery analyzed at MURR
214
11.20. Bivariate plot of flume tile from the San Diego reference
group and the SD1 and SD2 compositional groups of
Patayan ceramics
216
12.1. Map showing residents of Block 408, San Diego, ca.

1830s1840s
221
12.2. General vessel forms recovered in historic Old Town

San Diego
229
13.1. Early three-component plot showing chemical separation

of Mexican and Spanish maylica
248
13.2. Three-component plot showing differentiation among

maylica manufacturing centers in Spain
249
13.3. Three-component plot demonstrating divergence of

Spanish Granada maylica from other manufacturing
centers
250
13.4. Bivariate plot showing correlation among chemically

defined Puebla groups and maylica types
251
13.5. Bivariate plot showing separations among maylica

from Spain, Mexico City, and Puebla
252
13.6. Bivariate plot showing chemical differences among

several of the recognized compositional groups
representing maylica manufacturing centers
253
13.7. Map showing selected areas from where maylica has

been analyzed
260
13.8. Bivariate plot showing lead-glazed pottery manufactured

in Alta California relative to main Mexican groups
264
Illustrationsxiii
13.9. Expanded view of figure 13.8 after removal of the

ellipse representing San Francisco production
264
13.10. Small clusters of glazed ceramics relative to the main

glaze groups
271
13.11. Glazed ceramics representing production from major

Mexican centers and the GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 groups 271
13.12. Additional small clusters of glazed ceramics relative to the
main glaze groups
272
13.13. Bivariate plot illustrating the local attribution of

lead-glazed ceramics of the San Diego jurisdiction
274

lead-glazed ceramics of the Santa Barbara jurisdiction
274

lead-glazed ceramics of the San Francisco and
Monterey jurisdictions
275
13.16. Bivariate plot illustrating the local attributions of some

(but not all) of the lead-glazed pottery from Santa Cruz
275
13.17. Bivariate plot showing distribution of burnished ceramics

relative to the main Mexican combined group, GLZ-123
278
14.1. Examples of imported ceramic ware types typically

found in Spanish colonial Alta California sites
284
14.2. Decorated Galera tableware sherds found at

San Francisco Presidio
289
14.3. Bruida de Tonal sherds showing common decorative

motifs found at San Francisco Presidio
291
Plates
Plates follow page 172
1. Photomicrographs from each mission and presidio examined
2. Examples of lead-glazed ceramics manufactured in Alta California
3. Examples of group GLZ-1 glazed-ware ceramics
xiv Illustrations

8. Examples of burnished ceramics
9. Green-glazed olive jar sherds from Mission Santa Barbara, GLZ-16
10. Puebla Blue on White bowl and plate designs
11. Puebla Blue on White varieties: a) Wavy Rim; b) Huejotzingo;
c) San Agustn; d) San Antonio
12. Puebla polychrome types: a) Lacy Puebla Polychrome; b) San
Elizario Polychrome; c) Ziga Polychrome; d) Green Variety
13. Ab/Aranama polychrome types: a) Orange Band Polychrome;
b) Monterey Polychrome; c) San Diego Polychrome; d) San
Ignacio Polychrome
14. Ab/Aranama polychrome types: a) Santa Cruz Polychrome
plates; b) Tubac Polychromebowl; c) Tucson Polychromeplates
15. Other polychrome types: a) Huejotzingo Green on White and
Orange on White; b) Wavy Rim Green on White; c) Tumacacori
Polychrome; d) Mexico City Yellow Polychrome
Tables
3.1. Ceramic-making cultures in Alta California
38
4.1. Spanish jurisdictions and missions in Alta California
45
5.1. Summary of ceramic types: Low-fired earthenwares from

Mission San Antonio, California
73
5.2. Munsell color readings on selected sherds
76
9.1. Sample of plain wares from Spanish colonial sites in Alta

California
159
9.2. Summary description of mineral components of thin

sections of ceramics from Missions San Antonio de Padua,
Santa Clara de Ass, San Carlos Borromo del Ro Carmelo,
San Juan Bautista, and El Presidio de San Francisco
162
11.1. California mission project sampling matrix by presidio

jurisdiction: San Diego
182

jurisdiction: Santa Barbara
183

jurisdiction: Monterey
184

jurisdiction: San Francisco
185
11.5. California mission project sampling matrix: Miscellaneous
186
11.6. Sampling matrix for San Diego jurisdiction: Plain wares
187
xvi Tables
11.7. Ceramic class by site in the San Diego jurisdiction

reference groups
190
11.8. Ceramic class by site in the San Diego jurisdiction

reference groups: Outliers
190
11.9. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for

San Diego jurisdiction reference groups
191
11.10. Sampling matrix for the Santa Barbara jurisdiction:

Plain wares
193
11.11. Ceramic class by site in the Santa Barbara jurisdiction

reference groups
196

reference groups in the Santa Barbara jurisdiction
197
11.13. Sampling matrix for Monterey jurisdiction: Plain wares
198
11.14. Ceramic class by site for Monterey jurisdiction

reference groups
204

Monterey jurisdiction reference groups
205
11.16. Sampling matrix for the San Francisco jurisdiction
206
11.17. Ceramic class by site for the San Francisco jurisdiction

reference groups
209

San Francisco jurisdiction reference groups
210

Tizon Brown Ware comparative groupings
213
12.1. Old Town ceramic collection
227
12.2. Vessel form and rim diameter (centimeters)
237
13.1. Sampling of lead-glazed pottery from Alta California
246
13.2. Sampled maylica ceramics from Alta California missions
255
13.3. Maylica samples assigned to compositional

reference groups
257
13.4. Membership of maylica in reference groups for

Puebla 1 and Puebla 2 by jurisdiction and site
258
13.5. Means and coefficients of variation for maylica reference

groups used for attribution of Alta California ceramics
259
Tablesxvii
13.6. Glazed ware (non-maylica) sampling summary
263
13.7. Means and coefficients of variation for selected

glazed-pottery reference groups
266
13.8. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery in

Mexican and California reference groups, San Francisco
jurisdiction
267
13.9. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery

samples in Mexican and California reference groups,
San Diego jurisdiction
268

Santa Barbara jurisdiction
269

Monterey jurisdiction
270
13.12. Finish color in Mexican and Alta California lead-glazed

reference groups
276
14.1. Tableware ceramics (MNVs) recovered from the building

13 midden: Correlation between ware type and vessel form 298
15.1. Archaeological contexts and excavation periods: San Diego
Presidio, Mission San Diego, and Mission San Luis Rey
305
15.2. Stratigraphic sequence observed in the north wing of the

San Diego Presidio
307
15.3. Frequencies of maylica types at the San Diego Presidio
308
15.4. Summary of maylica from archaeology at the

San Diego Presidio
308
15.5. Early versus late maylica complexes at the San Diego

Presidio
309
15.6. Ceramics at the San Diego Presidio
311
16.1. Documented ceramics at the Santa Barbara Presidio,

17791810 319
16.2. Ceramics at Mission Santa Clara, 17771820
321
Foreword
California has always been a land of contrasts, both internally and when
compared with other areas of North America. The early Spanish explorers and settlers remarked how like their homeland it was. Iberian agriculture and architecture adapted to the California coastal environment with
ease. The populous and relatively peaceful native population contrasted
sharply with tribal groups encountered in the interior provinces. But in
spite of its uniqueness, Californias coastal location allowed it to play a
role in the developing world economy at an earlier date than Texas or the
southwest through maritime trade. California Indians in general proved
to be such quick and enthusiastic learners of European skills that the
Spanish government sponsored the establishment of various Hispanic
craftsmen in the missions in the 1790s to facilitate further training in
a wide variety of occupations. Of these, potters proved to be one of the
most useful.
Pottery, that all-important human cultural material since Neolithic
times, had a rich history of development on the Iberian Peninsula. Production was transferred directly from Seville to such New World locations as Puebla and Mexico City and then diffused by trade to the markets of the northern frontier. With the establishment of the mission
communities, ceramic use and production became an important part of
the process of Hispanization of the local neophytes. While a few tribes
to the far south already had ceramic traditions based on techniques of
coiling and paddle-and-anvil shaping, pottery use was a new experience
for the coastal tribes north of the Los Angeles Basin. The potters wheel
xx Foreword
was completely unknown in the New World before European contact.

The introduction of pottery seems to have been accompanied by a corresponding decline in the variety and use of basketry, which had earlier
been used for many of the same purposes as ceramic vessels. Ceramic
bricks and tiles also revolutionized the architecture and water management of Spanish California.
Pottery clays result from the decomposition of feldspars from the
granite and gneiss which are found in three-quarters of the world to form
hydrated aluminum silicates that are plastic in nature. Such clays are absent only from sandy deserts or coral islands. While not unknown as a
sculpting material earlier, pottery became economically advantageous in
the first sedentary farming communities. As fragile substances, pottery
vessels were best suited to sedentary societies where clay and fuels for
firing were present. Vessel shapes were already present in stone bowls
and gourds. In this respect, early ceramic containers were copies (skeuomorphs) of vessels made of other earlier materials. Once fired, ceramics
were impervious to water or heat, making boiling more efficient, liquid
storage easier, and brewing possible. They became cheap, common, and
indispensable to human culture.
This volume makes important new contributions to the study of Hispanic California in a number of ways. Drawing on a rich knowledge of
locally made and imported ceramics, the authors make major contributions to our understanding of social change and economics. Encompassing the research and observations of a number of leading archaeologists
specializing in the Hispanic period of Alta California, the contributions
provide perspectives from the entire length of the province; from the
missions, presidios, and pueblos; and from the global to the site-specific
in details. Some chapters deal with traditional classification, providing us
with useful time markers at archaeological sites. Other chapters focus on
form as a reflection of function.
Two eminent archaeological scientists and several archaeologists using cutting-edge techniques of chemistry and physics break new ground
in revealing information about source, manufacture, and trade in early
California. The sophistication of their techniques makes relevant contributions toward informing the historical context.
Two other important chapters differ from past site-specific archaeological research. A master potter provides an insiders perspective on
various collections and his own experiments in duplicating historic vessels from local clays. He is uniquely qualified to answer detailed questions
Forewordxxi
of production technology and sophistication. A second chapter explores

in detail the firing process and what we know about Hispanic kilns and
details the experimental results of firing in a variety of ways. As a result
of their research, we now know a great deal more about ceramic forms
and the techniques used in manufacture through the process of replication. We better understand the complex skills of the potter from the clay
selection process through the firing of the vessels. The replicas produced
can now be used for educational and interpretive purposes.
Finally, another group of scholars focuses on economics, trade, and
the overall role of ceramics in the development of Alta California. The
question of whether each mission produced its own ceramic vessels or
whether only some that specialized in pottery production and traded
with their sister missions did so has long been a question that has perplexed archaeologists. In spite of the fact that overland transport of fragile pottery in ox carts or on pack animals over primitive trails would not
appear practical, many still believed that pottery was widely traded between missions. The overwhelming evidence from clay chemical signatures provided in this volume now indicates that virtually every Hispanic
mission produced its own unglazed utilitarian earthenware for its own
use and that of nearby presidios and pueblos. The situation for glazed
ceramics is not so clear, but there is good evidence that some glazing
was done in California. Most maylica continued to be imported from
Puebla. The origins of red lead glazed pottery from one or more sites in
western Mexico need to be researched further. Like all good research, the
answering of initial questions leads to further paths of inquiry for future
research.
This volume contains a wealth of new information that will be useful
for years to come. Utilizing the efforts and knowledge of a wide variety
of experts of differing backgrounds, interests, and methodologies, it provides a valuable cultural synthesis of Hispanic California. After a spate
of site-specific studies, it is time to pause and pool our knowledge in
order to understand the broader picture of cultural development. Only
after doing this can we sweep away the mist that obscures the past. This
volume is a landmark in that regard.
Robert L. Hoover
Preface
The Beginning of a Beautiful (Project) Friendship

It was the middle of June 1998 and it was hot! In an office on the third floor
of an un-air-conditioned, stairs-only 1911 building, stacks of ungraded
papers and final exams were teetering on the edge of a desk that was
cluttered with the detritus of faculty meetings and family life and seemingly countless uncompleted research projects. The place was California
at a small private undergraduate university that is at once cosmopolitan
as it is located in Silicon Valley and provincial because it lacks graduate
students. Without the latter to support and drive a project forward, research becomes a secondary concern to be picked at around other commitments using undergraduate students and the platform provided by
the classroom. Known as the teacher-scholar model in academia, it
can be a wonderful experience for interested students and a huge time
commitment on the part of the professor with the very real possibility
that the results will be unusable. That said, this is called life, and we have
to get used to it. Nonetheless, one project concerning ceramic production, supply, and exchange in Spanish California had begun to germinate. While senior colleagues such as Julia Costello and Ron May had laid
the groundwork for these studies in the 1980s through their analyses of
ceramics recovered in missions, presidios, and ranchos, there were still
many questions to be asked, including a basic one, Where were the ceramics made? Some were imported from Mexico and beyond, but what
of the more mundane plain and lead-glazed ceramics: where did they
xxiv Preface
originate? Finding the answer to these questions would take finding the
support of a research institution with the know-how and tools that was
also interested in being part of this project.
In California the historical archaeology of Spanish and Mexican California was, until the recent addition of Barb Voss (a contributor to this
volume) at Stanford, conducted by federal and state agencies (Glenn Farris, Larry Felton and Eloise Bartercontributors to this volume), cultural
resource management firms (Julia Costello and Jack Williamsboth contributors to this volume), and a small number of undergraduate institutions, including Cabrillo College (Rob Edwards), California Polytechnic
State University (Robert Hoovera contributor to this volume); CSUMonterey Bay (Ruben Mendoza), and Santa Clara University. Although
the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Barbara have produced
many PhDs whose research has focused on this era, none of the faculty
have such an ongoing focus. As a result, none of those who were conducting the research had either the budget or the time to obtain grant money
to explore the larger questions about ceramic production and exchange.
Lets face it, just how sexy is it to study glorified fragments of undecorated low-fired earthenware pots that are only some 200 years old
and were part of the material culture of a literate society? It would take
a miracle to put together all the pieces for this study. This is where the
nascent project sat that hot June day. And then, the telephone rang with
a call from Ron Bishop at the Smithsonian to Russ Skowronek asking if
there were any interesting projects in which instrumental neutron activation analysis might be used. The rest, we can say, is history, or perhaps
more accurately, history rewritten.
In 1999 the project team conducted a pilot study involving ceramics
and architectural earthenware from the Santa Clara mission. The chemical composition of 105 samples was determined using instrumental
neutron activation analysis. It was found that some of the potsherds are
chemically identical to bricks and tiles found at the site. This, of course,
suggested that the same source of clay was used for both and that they
were both made at Santa Clara. Interestingly, however, chemical differences among some of the pottery suggested the possible influence of
technological differences or, of course, the potential presence of traded
specimens. The encouraging findings from these analyses gave reason to
expand the study to other locations throughout California.
If there is a ubiquitous artifact on the Spanish/Mexican sites of Alta
California, it would be fragments of architectural earthenwaresbricks
Prefacexxv
and tiles, or ladrillos and tejas. Tons of these have been excavated and
curated or sometimes thrown away or sold because they were seen as
undiagnostic by archaeologists and curators. Then, beginning in 1999,
this project demonstrated that these artifacts could play an important
role in the interpretation of ceramic production, supply, and exchange. It
was noted that intermission trade in roof and floor tiles would have been
extremely impractical due to the sheer weight of these earthenwares (a
single roof tile may weigh between eight and fifteen pounds). It would
have been necessary, therefore, for each mission to possess the technology to make their own tile, if not on site then in very close proximity to it.
Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) could be used to identify their chemical makeup, which in turn would provide evidence for
localized procurement of clays for the production of pottery. The project
became popularly known as Russs tile project.
Over the past dozen years Russs tile project has analyzed some
2,000 samples of ceramics and architectural earthenwares dating from
ca. 1790 to 1840. It is one of the largest projects using INAA to consider
pottery from locations in the United States. The ceramics have come
from twenty-seven different Spanish- and Mexican-period sites from
San Diego to San Francisco, California. This project has documented
that all sites appear to have been producing utilitarian pottery to fill their
own needs and may have also supplied pottery to other nearby missions,
pueblos, and presidios. On the basis of our research, not only can we
identify local production and exchange but we can also propose the longdistance supply of the region with ceramics.
The initial site-specific findings were presented in nineteen reports,
fifteen conference papers and presentations, and fifteen publications
from newsletters and conference proceedings to blind-peer-reviewed
journal articles. The research team coauthored many of these reports,
papers, and publications with undergraduate students from Santa Clara
University, including one who is a contributor to this book (Sarah Ginn
Peelo), who had an internship at the Smithsonian as part of this project
and went on to earn a doctorate in anthropology.
Replicative Studies: Experimental Archaeology
The success of the archaeometric portion of the project led us to an investigation of the forms that were manufactured and the techniques used
to fabricate ceramics. Prior to this project, the most in-depth studies of
xxvi Preface
ceramics made in Hispanic California had been done by Julia Costello

and Jack Williams (both contributors to this volume).
Beginning in 2003, the project began its study of the manufacturing
techniques associated with locally made ceramics. The replication study
serves three purposes. First, radiographs of these vessels of a known
method of manufacture were made so they can be compared with radiographs of archaeologically recovered sherds to test our assumptions
regarding manufacturing technique. Second, examples of the vessels can
be provided to institutions that have cooperated with the larger project
to use for interpretation. And, third, through the replication we can develop a better understanding of the skills associated with the fabrication
process from identification of clay sources through firing.
Master potter Ruben Reyes (another contributor to this volume) of
San Jose, California, joined the project in 2004. Mr. Reyes had worked
with traditional potters in Mexico and was well versed in the use of the
wheel and the identification and preparation of the raw materials for the
production of ceramics. The fabrication of replica forms provides other
researchers and the general public with a clearer picture of the sophistication of Californias colonial potters.
In the spring of 2006, the project joined Mike Imwalle (a contributor
to this volume) and the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation at
El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park to examine the firing
technologies associated with the fabrication of ceramics and architectural earthenwares in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Officials
at the park felt that the fabrication of a two-chamber updraft demonstration kiln would be a valuable addition to its public interpretation of life
on the Spanish colonial frontier. The manufacture of replica ceramics and
their public firing in a historic kiln would result in objects that could be
used for interpretation and would provide a venue for conducting experiments in the efficiency of different fuels.
A pottery kiln and a model brick and tile kiln were constructed by Imwalle and Reyes. Experimental firings of these kilns and in simple open pits
have provided insights into the efficiency of different fuels and the manner
of stacking the kiln and the success rates of different firing techniques.
Sharing the Findings with the Profession and the Public
In November 2009, an exhibit titled Ceramics Rediscovered: Science
Reshapes Understanding of Hispanic Life in Early California opened at
Prefacexxvii
El Presidio de Santa Brbara State Historic Park. Developed in cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution and the Santa Barbara Trust for
Historic Preservation, the exhibition brings the findings from our eclectic partnership of scholars, artisans, and historic site specialists into the
public eye, spotlighting how the methods of nuclear science, field archaeology, and experimental archaeology have come together to enhance our
understanding of ceramic production, supply, and exchange in Hispanic
California.
Visitors to the exhibition learn how variations in form, material composition, and decoration can tell researchers how, where, when, by whom,
and for what purpose ceramics were made. They learn how instrumental
neutron activation analysis can provide more information about the ceramics through the chemical analysis of their paste or material makeup.
Visitors learn that pottery made in areas where similar clays and preparation methods are used results in ceramic vessels with a similar chemical makeup. The specific combination of chemical elements in any paste
serves as a fingerprint that can help identify the source of clay from
which a vessel is made. Visitors also learn that even sites in close proximity to one another have distinct fingerprints that can provide information on the distribution of ceramics in the province as a whole, because
our research has demonstrated a sophisticated and far-flung ceramic
industry associated with the Spanish and Mexican periods. The second
segment of the exhibition shows how pottery, tiles, and bricks were made
and fired, sharing the artistic sophistication of the Indian and Hispanic
potters and the technologically sophisticated nature of their kilns with
the public.
This book represents the culmination of the scholarly portion of our
research. The elemental concentration data and the descriptive information regarding provenience, operation, finish, color, and so forth for
the California plain wares will be made available at a downloadable site
(archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/datasets.html). Other datasets will
be uploaded to that site as results are published. We hope this will provide a platform for other scholars to continue this research.
Acknowledgments
The members of our research team wish to acknowledge the staff of the
Center for Neutron Research at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology for their cooperation and assistance throughout this decadelong project, while noting that it could never have been completed without the support of colleagues along the length of the California coast,
north to south, who supplied the thousands of samples on which the
study was based.
We begin by thanking the people at Santa Clara University who supported this research from its inception. They included Stephan Privett,
SJ, then vice president for academic affairs and now president of the University of San Francisco; Peter A. Facione, at the time dean of the College
of Arts and Sciences, Santa Clara University, and now senior researcher
at Insight Assessment; Amy Shachter, associate provost for research initiatives, and Marie Lagattuta Brancati, both of the Santa Clara University
College of Arts and Sciences, for their support of this project. Special
thanks are extended to Don Dodson, emeritus professor of communication and senior vice provost at Santa Clara University, who shared his
childhood memories of parties hosted by his parents for J. Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Sayre, Gerhart Friedlander, and the other nuclear
chemists working at Brookhaven in the 1950s.
Thanks are extended to the many Santa Clara University students who
worked on various aspects of this project through the years. Sarah (Ginn)
Peelo first worked on this project using the atomic absorption technique
in 1999. She was the first of a dozen undergraduate interns at the Smith-
xxx Acknowledgments
sonian Center for Materials Research and Education. Sarah also was
coauthor on a number of papers and publications and has gone on to
earn her PhD in anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz,
where her dissertation focused on ceramics in Alta California. Others
who served as interns at the Smithsonian include Linh Pham, Mateo Carrillo, Kathleen Breiling, Erin Orazem, Alvaro Galvis, LumOr Chet, Sarah
Friend, Leslie Rice, Kareem Raad, Aroba Hafeez, and Kelly Greenwalt.
In 2005, students in Skowroneks class on Spanish colonial California worked on background information for the reports for each of the
studied sites. They included Jason O. Allen, Richard Carlson, Jelena Radovic Fanta, Abigail T. Fox, Nicole Fox, Yessica Islas, Courtney Thiesen,
Kenny Jocewicz, Vanessa Koons, Dinelle Luchesi, Nicole Marshall, Kelly
Richards, Shuryn Riggins, Emily Johnson, Carmen Rosas, Michael J.
Skaug, James Templeton, Marisa Tsukiji, Erin White, and Kelly Greenwalt. Each was listed as a coauthor at that time. Jelena Radovic Fanta and
Kelly Greenwalt also were coauthors on a number of related papers and
publications.
Our experiments in the training of neophyte potters and the making and firing of pottery began in 2005. Ruben Reyes worked with Kelly
Greenwalt to obtain and prepare clay, throw and model vessels, and fire
them. In the context of a 2008 Santa Clara course sixteen students
Jessica Barnett, Sabrina Brett, Tyler Burks, Marisela Cardona, Anastasia Gandarilla, Aaron Green, Colin Guidi, Robert Kozak, Noah Levine,
Jeanette Moritz, Anne Murphy-Hagen, Anrew Nicchitta, Daniel Pursley,
Robert Raymond, Natalia Rodriguez, and Hailey Trefethenlearned the
basics of making and firing vessels in one very long day.
Our collaborators made this project possible by providing materials
from their collections. The following, we hope, is an exhaustive listing.
Thank you one and all.
Samples from Mission San Francisco were provided by Andrew Galvan, curator of Mission Dolores; Barbara Gualco, project developer for
Mercy Housing California; and Richard Ambro from the Notre Dame
Plaza site project. The National Park Service and the San Francisco Presidio Trust graciously shared collections from the Presidio of San Francisco. In particular we wish to thank Leo Barker, Mary Gibson Scott, Eric
Blind, and Sannie Osborn along with our Stanford University colleague
Barbara Voss, who provided us with a copy of her UC-Berkeley dissertation on the Presidio of San Francisco.
Acknowledgmentsxxxi
For Mission San Jos, we would like to thank the Alsion Montessori
Middle and High School; Michael Leahy and Dolores M. Ferenz of the
Committee for the Restoration of Mission San Jose; Richard Thompson
of Archaeor; Andrew Galvan, curator of Mission Dolores; and Professor
George P. Rodgers at Ohlone College. For materials from the Pueblo of
San Jos, we wish to acknowledge History San Jos and James Quinn of
the Archaeological Collections Facility; Sonoma State University for providing access to the collections from the Plaza San Antonio site project;
and Charlene Duval and Jan Whitlow for providing samples from the
Amesquita Adobe site.
Ruben G. Mendoza, director of the Institute of Archaeological Science, Technology & Visualization at the Center for Social and Behavioral
Sciences of California State University Monterey Bay, provided materials
from Mission San Juan Bautista, as did Larry Felton and Glenn Farris of
the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Rob Edwards and Char Simpson-Smith of the Archaeology Technology Program at Cabrillo College and Larry Felton and Glenn Farris of the
California Department of Parks and Recreation provided collections for
Mission Santa Cruz, including the ceramics studied by Vance Gritton in
the 1970s.
Julianne Burton-Carvajal put us in touch with Lou Sanna, director of
facilities at Carmel Mission, who in turn gave us access to samples collected by Harry Downie. Materials from the excavation conducted by
Sylvia Broadbent in the 1950s were graciously supplied to us by Leslie
Freund of the University of California-Berkeley. Rob Edwards and Char
Simpson-Smith of Cabrillo College provided materials from the Presidio
of Monterey.
Materials from Mission Soledad were provided by Paul Farnsworth
and Laurie Wilkie of the Department of Anthropology, University of
California-Berkeley and by Mrs. Nick Bianchi, curator at Mission Soledad,
and Thomas Wheeler of the California Department of Transportation.
Robert Hoover, professor emeritus, California Polytechnic University
in San Luis Obispo, provided ceramics from his decades of work at Mission San Antonio. Brother Bill Short, OFM, and Roberta S. Greenwood
of Greenwood and Associates provided access to materials from Mission
San Miguel. Samples from San Luis Obispo were supplied by Betsy and
Luther Bertrando of Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, John
Parker, and Robert Hoover.
xxxii Acknowledgments
Kristina W. Foss, museum director at Santa Barbara Mission, provided ceramics excavated by Jack Williams. Other materials from Mission Santa Barbara and La Cieneguitas village site were kindly made
available by Dr.John Johnson, curator of anthropology at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History with assistance from Michael Imwalle
of El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park, who not only also
provided ceramics from the Presidio but coordinated our efforts in the
Santa Barbara area and helped us repeatedly with finding references during our writing periods in Maryland.
Julia Costello and Elizabeth Sutton, assistant curator of the Repository
for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections for the Department of
Anthropology at the University of California Santa Barbara, provided
materials from Mission Santa Ins. Robert Jackson and Shyra McClure
of La Pursima Mission State Historic Park provided materials from the
first and second locations of that mission. Ceramics from San Buenaventura Mission were supplied by Roberta S. Greenwood of Greenwood and
Associates, along with Richard Senate and G. Jeanne Scott, manager of
the Albinger Archaeological Museum.
Dolores Schiffert and the late Harry Francisco provided ceramics from
Mission San Juan Capistrano that yielded the first evidence of locally
made lead-glazed ceramics in Alta California. Glenn Farris and Larry
Felton of the California Department of Parks and Recreation provided
materials from Old Town San Diego. Jack Williams shared his discoveries
from the Presidio of San Diego, and Ronald V. May of Legacy 106, Inc.
provided ceramics from Fort Guijarros. Mission San Diego curator Janet
Bartel and Jack Williams provided samples from Mission San Diego and
Mission San Luis del Rey.
Last, we gratefully acknowledge the support of the Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab (SCUARL) and Ms. Linda Hylkema
for this research from its inception through 2009. Materials analyzed
from Mission Santa Clara de Ass were from the excavations conducted
by David Huelsbeck in the 1980s and some materials from work conducted by the SCUARL from 1994 through 2009, when Skowroneks
tenure as campus archaeologist ended. Since that date their continued
work on the site of Mission Santa Clara has revealed many new ceramic
artifacts, including two nearly intact vessels which unfortunately we were
unable to showcase in this volume. We are certain future scholars will
wish to consider these discoveries in their studies of Californias Hispanic
ceramics.
Acknowledgmentsxxxiii
In 2009, an exhibit detailing some of the findings of the project opened

at El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Park. It provides ongoing outreach to
the community about our discoveries and their significance in Hispanic
California. The year 2009 also brought a change of venue for one of the
team, from Santa Clara University to the University of Texas-Pan American. We also extend thanks to Dean Dahlia Guerra; Dean Van Reidhead,
now provost at East Stroudsburg University; Dean Walter Diaz; and the
faculty and staff of the anthropology and history programs of the University of Texas-Pan American for their support of Skowroneks research.
Also from Texas we wish to thank Emmy Garcia and E. Olga Skowronek
for their help creating some of the figures in this book.
Turning to the actual creation of this book we wish to thank Meredith
Morris-Babb, director of the University Press of Florida, for serving as
the acquisitions editor. It has been a pleasure working with her on this
and other projects. The book was made better with the insights provided
by Dra. Patricia Fournier of the Escuela Nacional de Antropologa e Historia of Mexico (ENAH) and Dr. Wes Stoner of the Missouri Research
Reactor facility. Thanks also to Kate Babbitt, who, has done a masterful
job copyediting this manuscript.
Finally, a debt of gratitude is extended to President David Bolton and

the board of the California Mission Studies Association for their ongoing
interest in our research and the generous subvention for the color plates
and excellent index made by our friend Anita Cohen-Williams, which
add significantly to the value of this volume.
Russell K. Skowronek, Edinburg, Texas
M. James Blackman, Leicester, North Carolina
Ronald L. Bishop, Washington, D.C.
Conventions Used in This Book
The power of words is not to be taken lightly. When English-speaking

people publish in English concerning the Spanish colonial empire there
will be issues with spelling, usage, and conventions of meaning. These
issues were brought into bold relief by the addition of the contributed
chapters that supplement the reporting of our analytically based project. Choices about using English or Spanish words, use of accents, and
so forth had to be made, and we frequently chose to substitute the En
glish word in place of the Spanish. For example, the Spanish word teja,
meaning here a curved roof tile, and ladrillo, or Spanish-style brick used
to pave floors, line irrigation canals, and build arches, are often simply
called tile or brick.
We had to choose among the terms used to refer to tin opacified leadglazed earthenware. Usage has changed through the years, at times reflecting an authors understanding of the words origin or history. Initially,
majolica was the preferred term (e.g., Goggin 1968). This posed a problem because there was a long-lived pottery tradition known as English
majolica that was made in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Others (e.g., Lister and Lister 1982) turned to the word maiolica,
which is used frequently to refer the tin-glazed Italian ceramics. After
much wrangling, we have chosen to use maylica in this book because
it emphasizes the Spanish derivation of the art form (see Gavin 2003,
2) and because of its frequent use in Mexico by specialists in historical
archaeology (e.g., Fournier-Garca 1990; Fournier-Garca, Blackman, and
Bishop 2007; Fournier-Garca et al. 2009).
Part I
A Study of Pottery
1
A Global Perspective
For ten millennia pottery has been a part of the material culture of humankind. From bricks and tiles to ceramics for the preparation, presentation, and storage of comestibles these are tangible aspects of material culture associated with sedentism and the domestication of plants. Over the
past century, archaeologists and ceramic scholars have studied pottery
as one means of deciphering past cultures. The base constituent of pottery, clay, is a plastic medium that can be manipulated into myriad forms
and decorated with a vast array of surface treatments, including glazing,
painting, engraving, and burnishing. These decorative and formal traits,
which are variably expressed by social groups, extend beyond those necessary for meeting basic functional requirements and become stylistic
properties that reflect the cultural preferences of the society that created
them. Once the clay objects are fired they are transformed into hardened
shapes and decorations that have encoded within them information regarding their method of manufacture, their function, the locally situated
practices of those who made them, and their place of manufacture.
Research using ceramic data has been carried out on prehistoric societies, literate societies from the ancient world, and those of the early
modern era. Many might wonder about the efficacy and value of studying
these materials from historic cultures when documents would seemingly
illuminate the past. Unfortunately, for all of the information that can be
teased from the analysis of such documentary artifacts, the reality is that
4 Part I. A Study of Pottery
for the early modern era, information on ceramicsincluding that relating to their manufacture and distributionrarely is found in the documentary record in sufficient detail to explain their place in the societies
that produced and consumed them. Spanish- and Mexican-era California is one locale where such information is lacking.
Alta California was occupied in the last third of the eighteenth century, some fifty years before the demise of Spains 300-year occupation of
mainland America. In California, north of what today is Los Angeles the
Spanish encountered mostly seminomadic foraging peoples and in the
south they encountered settled horticulturalists. During the half-century
of Spains control, 28 communities were established that included three
civilian pueblos, four military presidios, and 21 missions. Through these
agents of the Crown, Alta California was transformed into a facsimile of
the rest of New Spain. In the mid-1790s, a quarter of a century after the
founding of the colony, craftsmen that included carpenters, masons, tanners, leatherworkers, smiths, and potters were sent to missions the length
of the province to teach their crafts to the neophyte inhabitants (Costello
1990, 305; Engelhardt 1924, 121; Guest 1973, 302, 306, 336; Kenneally
1965, 260; Tays 1941, 429; Voss 2008a, 221; Webb 1952, 126). This, according to Tays (1941, 428), was after years of buying and moving pottery
from Diegueo and Luiseo peoples in southern Alta California.
Using documentary accounts of visiting craftsmen early scholars began to disparage the Native Peoples and their abilities. For example, Kurt
Baer, a twentieth-century art historian, said that California Indian arts
were unusually primitive; pottery was almost unknown (1959, 23, emphasis added). He went on to note:
It is indeed a curious fact that although the neophyte learned pottery making from the Franciscans, there are very few examples bearing decorations
with the Indian motifs. Most of the mission pottery was plain, rather coarse,
and undecorated in any manner. In the sixty odd years of mission influence
there remain only a pitifully few examples of Indian art (Baer 1959, 44).
It was these sorts of racist views that would color the view of Spanish Alta
California for decades. What evolved was a commonly held belief that
missions with resident Mexican craftsmen specialized in those crafts and
that the production of these craftsmen was distributed to other communities. This was a problematic conclusion.
A Global Perspective5
From north to south in what is today modern California archaeologists have recovered from former Spanish and Mexican period missions,
presidios, and pueblos millions of fragments of architectural earthenwares, including roof tiles, bricks, and pipes, and potteryunglazed and
glazed coiled, wheel-thrown, and hand-molded. Some researchers suggested that pottery industries might or might not have been present or
fully producing at these sites and that these differences might account
for variations in trade with other sources (e.g., Costello 1990, 371). That
trade may have included some locally made pottery, but the majority of
this commodity was thought to have been consumed at the point of manufacture (Tays 1941, 432; Voss 2008a: 221).
Beyond the architectural earthenwares, a broad functional spectrum
may be observed in the pottery assemblage ranging from storage and
preparation to presentation and consumption. Close similarities have
been observed among earthenwares found hundreds of miles apart.
The similarities might be explained as the result of intermission trade
and supply. But while this may be reasonable to assume within the confines of the Spanish colonial system, the reality could be far different.
Changes in economy, technological transfer, and other aspects of trans
culturation suggest that while trade and supply did occur, most of the
ceramic presentation and storage wares were undoubtedly locally produced andused.
Approaches to the Past
In the following study an interdisciplinary and multisided Cubist approach is applied to the Alta California colony (Thomas 1989, 69).
While the archaeological record for this area is additive and constantly
being refined, a growing body of information is being produced from
excavations at sites situated along the length of California. Study is hampered, however, by bias in the documentary record and in poor, nonexistent, or unavailable access to reports. Additionally, preservation of
the artifactual record is uneven through time. Nonetheless, the ceramic
remains are essential for understanding Alta California society as they
represent reflections of rich and poor, male and female, young and old,
European and Native American alike. While these material objects are
interesting to consider as simple examples of craftsmanship, it is their
patterned physical interrelationship in the earth that makes them useful

for revealing the past.
Cultures have their own distinctive economies, social organizations,
and ideologies that allow for efficient adaptation to local social and natural
environment. The material objects associated with each of these aspects
of culture are used and disposed of in patterned ways. However, when
these cultural environments are altered it will be reflected in changes in
the precontact patterns of the material record. Through the comparison
of these changes with prehistoric patterns and postcontact documentary,
ethnohistoric, and ethnographic data, a more balanced and accurate, albeit not complete picture of the past emerges.
Documentary Information and Ethnohistory
Documentary information regarding the production and distribution of
ceramics in Alta California is limited and often lacking in detail. Annual
reports by Spanish colonial administrators reveal the construction and
firing of tile kilns (Skowronek with Thompson 2006, 148) and the construction of pottery shops and kilns (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 190; Whitehead 1996, 147148) across the province. Account books and invoices
provide evidence of the purchase of ceramics from China, Puebla, and
Guadalajara (Perissinotto 1998, 208, 216, 250). Baptismal records may
record the occupation of a godparent as a potter (e.g., Schuetz-Miller
1994, 99), while letters may note the labor involved in the fabrication
of architectural earthenwares (e.g., Engelhardt 1912, 560562). One of
the most fruitful categories of documentary evidence concerning pottery can be found in illustrations and photographs, as they often capture
kilns, tile roofs, and pottery vessels as incidental artifacts in a larger
composition (e.g., Webb 1952, 120, Geiger 1963, 24). For example, tile
kilns are shown in Jos Carderos 1791 sketch of the Presidio of Monterey
(see chapter 7, figure 7.4).
Jos Cardero was a Spanish draftsman who participated in a five-year
voyage of scientific inquiry (June 1789 through September 1794) that
circled the globe to the far reaches of Spains colonial empire. The crew,
which was led by Captain Alejandro Malaspina, included naturalists,
hydrographers, ethnographers, and artist-illustrators. In addition to visiting ports the length of South America and Mesoamerica, the navigator
in Malaspinas two ships, the Descubierta and the Atrevida, made a stop
at Monterey in Alta California, then traveled as far north as Nootka on
the west coast of Vancouver Island. Carderos voyage continued across

the Pacific to Guam and the Philippines before returning to Iberia. While
some of Jos Carderos illustrations and observations have been published (e.g., Cutter 1990; Driver 1990; Madulid 1987), the complete report of the circumnavigation has only recently been made available in
Spanish through the Museo Naval de Madrid (Rodriguez 1985). Similarly, Otto von Kotzebue, captain of the Russian ship Rurik, is famous for
his descriptions of California Franciscan missions of the San Francisco
Bay region and, later, Guam (Carano and Sanchez 1964, 127133; Choris
1822). Illustrator Louis Choris was a passenger on his vessel. His artwork
and that made earlier by Jos Cardero form an indispensable part of the
documentary record of the era.
Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnoarchaeology is an approach to understanding the past using combinations of oral histories, documentary history, ethnography, and archaeological investigation. The findings of these lines of investigation frequently serve to form explanatory models for human behavior. One of the
largest ethnoarchaeological projects was conducted by the University of
Arizona among the Kalinga of Luzon in the northern Philippines (Long
acre and Skibo 1994). Based on 20 years of research, it presents at several
scalesthe pot, the household, the community, and the regionstudies
involving pottery production; the use life, breakage patterns, form, and
function of ceramics; and the regional exchange of ceramic products. In
this study, the team explored how human behavior and material culture
variability are linked, often in ways that are testable in purely archaeological contexts. Such studies provide much-needed insights into continuity
and change in earthenware traditions in societies that are on the cusp
of the early modern industrializing world (Skowronek 1998, 100103).
When ethnohistorical information is used in conjunction with archaeological data, a more complete and accurate interpretation of the past can
emerge.
Materials Analysis
Over the past 75 years a small number of researchers worked to describe the ceramic materials of Alta California and to understand their
significance on the frontier. Efforts have included descriptive studies of
the ubiquitous fragments of roof tiles and bricks (e.g., Broadbent 1954;
Costello 1985a, 1997; Harrington 1938; Parker 1944), the colorfully decorated tin-lead glazed maylicas (e.g., Blakeney 1980; Cohen-Williams
1992; Costello 1983; Feller 1983; Krase and May 1987; May 1972, 1974,
1975, 1976, 1987; Pilling 1952, 1955), and a limited number of studies of
plain undecorated storage, preparation, and serving ceramics (e.g., Barter and Felton 2005; Costello this volume, 2007; Euler and Dobyns 1958;
Evans 1969; Love and Resnick 1983; Schulz and Barter 1985; Snow 1984;
Van Camp 1979; Wade 1989, 1991, 1999; Williams 1983). Even fewer researchers undertook studies involving analytically based approaches involving petrography or chemical analysis by means of atomic absorption,
X-ray fluorescence and neutron activation in an attempt to understand
larger questions about the production and distribution of these materials
(e.g., Flint 1990; Gritton 1990; Gritton and Magalousis 1978; Michel and
Asaro 1982). The intensity of research changed, however, in December
1999, when a partnership was established between Santa Clara University and the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education
to support a major research project on Spanish and Mexican period
California. The project involved the use of neutron activation analysis
to compositionally characterize a significantly large sampling of earthenware paste from multiple mission sites to address issues pertaining to
where these ceramics were made. Applied with attention to maintaining
high analytical precision, such chemical measurements might be able to
differentiate pottery made from closely spaced but geochemically different raw material resources.
Previous Research
In an early pioneering study Vance Gritton, a professor of chemistry

at Chapman University, used atomic absorption analysis (Gritton and
Magalousis 1978) to measure the chemical similarities among the plain
earthenwares from four northern California missions. His findings led
him to conclude that while pottery from Mission San Juan Capistrano
was found to be chemically different from the other pottery analyzed,
there was compositional overlap among the plain ceramics at Missions
San Juan Bautista, San Antonio de Padua, and Santa Cruz, which may
have been the result of trade. In reporting the study, he noted that the
dataset was difficult to interpret because of similarities in elemental concentration for the soils (clays) that were analyzed from each site. These
problems were further compounded due to the small number of sherds

(5) analyzed from each site.
Because of its great sensitivity, high analytical precision, and ease of
sample preparation using a ground powder of ceramic paste, instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) has been used to study ceramics
variably situated across the Spanish colonial world (e.g., Arnold, Neff,
and Bishop 1991; Monroy-Guzman and Fournier 2003; Olin et al. 1978;
Weigand, Ward, and Harbottle 1981; Myers et al. 1992; Rodrguez-Alegra,
Neff, and Glascock 2003). The technique had been applied previously in
California and elsewhere (e.g., Carlson and James 1995) to study pottery
from both prehistoric (Orange County; Hurd et al. 1990) and historic
periods (Aros-Serrano Adobe in Riverside County and Ontiveros Adobe
and Old Plaza Church in Los Angeles County; Michel and Asaro 1982;
Frierman 1987). Nearly 100 clay and pottery samples of prehistoric pottery were analyzed to demonstrate local manufacture of these ceramics.
The study of pottery from the historic sites focused strictly on potsherds
and natural ceramics. Some 20 samples were analyzed, including Asianmade porcelain, fine Southern California Brown Ware, coarse Southern
California Brown Ware, maylica, and lead-glazed earthenwares. But,
similar to Grittons initial study, small sample size and the fact that pottery was gathered from limited geographic locations made it difficult to
draw any firm conclusions regarding manufacturing source.
The project that provides the chemical database for this book began
in the summer of 1999 with the analysis of 150 samples from Mission
Santa Clara de Ass. We did not attempt to establish a compositional
background profile by analyzing regional clays but rather used the analysis of relatively heavy architectural ceramicsbricks and tilesas surrogates for clay deposits to determine the chemical composition for the
sites studied. Additionally, pottery may differ chemically from the clays
of which it is made as a result of preparation, including the addition of
tempering materials. Thus, in the absence of extensive raw material processing of the earthenwares, the use of the architectural pottery may provide a more valid indicator of local resources than would an extensive
program of regional clay analysis.
Some of the potsherds were chemically identical to bricks and tiles
found at the site, thereby allowing one to conclude that the same source
of clay likely was used for both and that they were both made at Santa
Clara. Interestingly, however, chemical differences among some of the
pottery suggested the influence of technological differences or an indication of possible traded pottery. These findings, reported in Skowronek
et al. (2001 and 2003), encouraged us to expand the study to other locations throughout California and to consider the production, supply, and
exchange of ceramics in this far corner of the Spanish colonial world.
About This Book
This book examines the place of ceramics in the world of Spanish and
Mexican period Alta California. In it we and our colleagues explore several issues: Who made ceramics? Where were they made? What did they
look like? How were they used? And what did they signify? It brings together the most prominent scholars actively pursuing these studies today
for this geographically and culturally diverse dataset. From these perspectives a cogent, humanistic and scientific whole emerges that sheds
new light on an unknown aspect of Alta California history.
The present study should be seen as an examination and synthesis of
the more tangible aspects of this scholarship. It describes how archaeological, documentary, and ethnographic information can be used in combination with objective, scientifically derived analytical data to create a
balanced and less biased perception of one aspect of life in Alta California. This multifaceted approach is based on a constellation of data and
not built on anecdotes or unquestioned assumptions. We consider how
scholars have abandoned the old idea of the one-way acculturation of the
Native American populace. Instead, there is evidence that accommodation, syncretism, and transculturation permeated Native American and
Spanish-colonial cultural interactions. This investigation considers these
transformations in Alta California during its initial occupation and its
later colonization as part of Spains New World empire and, later, its successor in North America, the Republic of Mexico.
The volume is divided into five sections. Part I contextualizes the
province of Alta California in the larger economic system of the Spanish colonial empire, focusing on issues of ceramic production, supply,
and exchange in the area between San Diego and Sonoma in what is today California. Part II focuses on the cultural transformations that were
wrought upon the indigenous peoples as a result of being incorporated
into the empire. Part III considers the steps associated with the mak-
ing of ceramics, including resource selection, form and fabrication techniques, and firing. Part IV assesses the variation that can be discerned
using such analytical techniques as petrography and neutron activation.
The last section, Part V, returns to the subject of pottery as a component
of colonial economics.
2
Creating a New Europe
in the New World
Prior to the era of European colonial expansion, people lived and largely
interacted in a single region (e.g., Wallerstein 1974; Wolf 1982). Large
land-based empires existed (e.g., China, the Inca), but in every case, their
lands were largely contiguous and they were the dominant political and
economic entities in their respective regions. In these empires and in
smaller-ranked or egalitarian polities, anthropologists have traditionally been able to examine a specific site or community largely as a selfcontained entity with minimal superregional connections. Yet beginning
five centuries ago, the world changed as superregional empires began to
form that girdled the globe. Each settlement in every geographical area
that comprised these early modern empires was shaped through three
factorsexternal systemic concerns, internal colonial constraints, and
technological and geographical limitations. For scholars studying these
entities, this meant that their focus of research could not be confined to
either site-specific or strictly regionally focused investigations because
such a methodology would result in a skewed perspective on life in terms
of the relative importance or position of the area in a colonial system. Research on the early modern era had to consider the larger system of which
the area was a part to properly situate the observations in the context of
the colonial system. Only then can the significance of research findings
be better understood. Such a task, however, becomes rather daunting,
quickly exceeding ones ability to adequately integrate all the disparate
Creating a New Europe in the New World13
pieces of information that might be available. Thus we resort to the use of

a general model for the formulation and maintenance of the Spanish colonial world. Using this framework, we can more accurately situate Alta
California as a very remote peripheral borderland of New Spain.
The pattern and functions of settlement systems reflect the social
structure of the cultural system of which they are a part. When members of a complex cultural system colonize new lands for the purpose
of founding economically specialized areas to provide goods to the parent state, the new patterns associated with these colonial areas are not
unvarying clones of the motherland or of previously founded colonies.
Certain aspects of a colonial areas settlement pattern and function may
grossly reflect that of the parent state. A larger hierarchy, however, exists in the colonial system that serves to differentially separate each area
from the motherland and is based on access to desired resources and
an economical means of communication with the homeland (Skowronek 1989). This chapter examines this premise relative to the Spanish colonial empire, a nascent expression of the modern world economy
(Wallerstein1974).
Background
Historians of economic systems have pointed to the early modern era or
age of European expansion as the birthplace of the world economy (e.g.,
Stavrianos 1981; Wallerstein 1974, 1989; Wolf 1982)a Eurocentric view
that placed Asia at the periphery of the emerging global economy. Asia
was perceived to be an area that had had its own insular economic focus
that later was incorporated into a Western juggernaut. Others (e.g., Frank
1995, 173, 189; Bergesen 1995, 201) have challenged this view and argued
for an Afro-Eurasian world economic system of 5,000 years duration.
In this Asian-centered view of history, Europe is seen as the periphery.
European states wanted to participate as equal players in the Asian core
but were economically, militarily, and politically too weak to challenge
the East through Eurasia or southern Asia. In order to overcome these
deficiencies, contact was sought to the west, and Europes capture of the
Americas was seen as a prelude to the elusive prize of Asia.
While the British, Dutch, French, Portuguese, and Spanish traveled
to establish colonial enclaves in South, Southeast, and East Asia, China
remained aloof and closed to the Europeans for the next three and a half
centuries (1480s1830s). The Chinese limited contact to the regulated

exchange of luxury goods at specific ports, a situation that left Europe at
the periphery of Asia.
Manifestations of the European-Centered World Economy
The complex societies of early modern Western Europe were set apart
from their predecessors by their growing economic linkages beyond the
political and cultural boundaries of the region. The evolving Europeancentered world economy was established first on the importation of
luxury items and later on bulk production of goods (Wallerstein 1974,
1563). At its base were the European core states economic capture
and/or political control of peripheral areas that produced these desired
commodities. In this system, the inherently unequal economic relationships of producers and consumers that characterized these complex societies were forcefully extended, through colonialism and imperialism, to
include a growing periphery of producers for the elite consumers of the
core (Wallerstein 1974, 67129, 301344; Wolf 1982, 8388, 101157).
From the perspective of Europe, the colonies existed primarily to produce commodities for European consumers, to facilitate their transport,
or to defend the sources of the commodities (Steffen 1980, xiixviii).
Previous reported research on these issues by Skowronek (e.g., Skowronek 1989, 2002, 2009) situates the Spanish colonial world in an economy that was inherently hierarchical, with elite consumers at one end,
producers at the other, and various sorts of middlemen between. Not
all colonies or colonial areas occupied the same level in the hierarchy;
that is, although all colonies might be part of the periphery, there was
hierarchy within the periphery. Within the periphery, the colonial hierarchy is defined in terms of the value and amount of commodities exported from each colonial area; areas that exported large volumes of valued commodities ranked highest in this hierarchy. In the case of Spains
sixteenth-through-nineteenth-century colonial empire, this hierarchy is
discernible among its far-flung colonies through the different economic
roles each played in the system.
Settlements in colonial areas may be characterized by emphases on
particular activities. Production activities such as mining, lumbering,
farming, ranching, and fur trading (Steffen 1980, xiiixv) were the highprofile, lucrative aspects of the colonial enterprise. These settlements
were protected and supported by the military, missions, and commercial activities (Lewis 1984, 264268) that existed in various settlements.
The unequal economic relationships that characterized the core societies
were accentuated in their colonial extensions. The peripheral colonies
that produced goods for the markets of core consumers or were central
to transport enjoyed a higher frequency of commercial contact with the
motherland than did those whose role was more protective. Thus, because the nascent world economy was based on mercantilism, colonies
that produced desired commodities for the motherland attracted a constant stream of merchant vessels. Colonies that produced no exportable
goods did not attract investors or settlers and thus such outside contact
was limited to the infrequent arrival of supply ships.
An areas position in the economic hierarchy of a colonial system was
closely related to its function in the system. Here, the systemic function
is defined in terms of the production of desired commodities. Colonies that produced revenues or profits in excess of the costs of supporting their associated governmental, religious, and military infrastructure
were considered to be productive and were therefore of greater value
to the motherland (Skowronek 1989, 205206; Skowronek 2009, 471
474). Colonies whose returns failed to outweigh expenditures attracted
fewer colonists and enjoyed less contact with the mother country and are
termed protective, as their value to the motherland and thus their position in the colonial hierarchy of the system was low.
Even with variable economic contact, the focus of both productive
and protective colonies was on the motherland. This contact tethered
the colonies closely to the political and social demands of the motherland
and created what Steffen (1980, xiixiii) has called a cosmopolitan frontier. Thus, even in these physically remote peripheral settings, the view of
the inhabitants was cosmopolitan and was focused outward on the core,
or mother country. A hallmark of this outward view was the creation of
societal and ecological New Europes (Crosby 1986, 146149). By importing animals, plants, technologies, and other material aspects of the
Old World, the colonists transformed their new home environment into
a cultural and natural facsimile of their idealized cosmopolitan homeland (Crosby 1986, 172). While this transformation was most successful in temperate areas, which were climatically more similar to Europe,
the transformation of the tropical environment was successful enough
to attract permanent settlers (Crosby 1986, 6, 134, 172194). In Spanish America, this transformation was known by George Fosters (1960)
concept of conquest culture, in which he noted a regional homogeneity in settlement plan, architecture, foodways, and other cultural traits.
That said, what was created was something new. America was not Spain,
it was Spanish America. The Philippines, California, Texas and Florida
were all part of the viceroyalty of New Spain, but each had unique aspects
shaped by local culture and environment.
In the European cosmopolitan colonization model, the economic position of any colonial area plays an important role in the settlers ability
to alter the new setting into an acceptable replication of the motherland.
As stated earlier, the creation of a New Europe can be accomplished by
physically altering the environment of the area and/or by importing material goods in a finished form directly from the Old World. Areas that
produce more goods for the core enjoy greater contact and are better
able to replicate Europe than are areas with less contact. Therefore, the
ability of a cosmopolitan colonial area to transform itself into a New
Europe can be seen as a reflection of the success of the colony in the
commercial system of the founding state.
In the colonial world, the settlement pattern is dictated by access to an
economical means of communication and transportation to the motherland. Coastal settlements or entrepts require safe harbors and proximity to sea lanes, while interior settlements are located near exploitable
exotica on convenient trails or navigable rivers. If the settlement pattern
in cosmopolitan colonies is dictated by access to an economical means
of communication with the motherland, it would be reasonable to expect
that a main street or corridor would develop from the entrept into the
hinterlands.
Just as the settlement pattern of a colony was dictated by an economical means of internal transportation, so too was communication within
the larger colonial system. No colony stood alone; each was linked by a
combination of terrestrial and waterborne lines of trade and communication into a larger system. Water routes are particularly important in
considering the development of any colonial area. At best, colonial-era
roads were abysmal affairs, constructed and traveled with great difficulty
around such hostile impediments as mountains, deserts, and swamps.
Even in the European core countries, the majority of commerce moved
by water whenever possible.
In the development of the larger colonial system, sea lanes developed
like roads given the available technology. They avoided dangerous near-
shore features such as reefs and shoals and followed the prevailing winds
and currentsthe routes of least resistanceto safe deep-water harbors
or colonial entrepts at the heads of interior lines of communication.
These sea lanes effectively became main streets of communication that
afforded a safe and economically viable means of transportation and
helped dictate which lands bordering these lanes would be exploited.
These port settlements were sited to facilitate communication with both
the interior and the external main street. Other secondary settlements
were sited near desired commodities and were linked to the entrept by
a convenient line of communication.
When we consider colonial expansion into the hinterlands of the
Americas, our operative image of frontier life is one of self-reliance.
Taaffe et al.s (1963) model for the cosmopolitan colonization of West
Africa outlines a sequence for the development of a settlement hierarchy
based on settlement function and access to the motherland. In this model
settlement, function is defined in terms of economic, political, and religious activities. Of course this means that the more remote a settlement, the fewer associated functions and the fewer physical trappings of
the core colonizer are present. The entrept is home to a wide variety of
activities and enjoys greater contact with the motherland. Intermediate
settlements, in turn, have fewer functions and fewer physical reminders
of outside contact.
Regularities characterizing the decline in associated function and
availability of imports to colonial settlements, from the entrept to the
furthest hinterland settlement, have been observed in the modern settlement of Ecuador (Casagrande et al. 1964). Settlement there was based
not on subsistence farming but on the production of plantation crops
such as sugar cane and the harvesting of timber for the market economy
(Casagrande et al. 1964, 291, 299). Although much of the produce was
being locally consumed, the ultimate goal of this colonization effort was
to meet the demands of the market. In the case of Ecuador, Casagrande
et al. (1964, 311316) recognized a continuum based on settlement function that extended from the entrept for the region to secondary frontier towns, less complex nucleated and semi-nucleated villages, and,
ultimately, to single-activity, dispersed settlements. At this furthest end
of the continuum, female colonists were extremely rare and the local Indian population became linked to the market economy (Casagrande et al.
1964, 299300). Coincident with this decrease in functional variety, they
note that as one moves away from the metropolitan area and toward the
frontier and as the links with national institutions become more tenuous,
fluidity increases and social and cultural attrition is more evident.
Alta California
The productive/protective economic model outlined above is useful for
understanding how the larger systemic issue of maintaining a far-flung
noncontiguous empire affects colonial development. When these economic issues are viewed in the context of the communication technology of the era, the economic remoteness of the Spanish Pacific and of
New Spains northern frontier colonies is obvious. Given these parameters, Alta California, the coastal area of California from San Diego to
just north of San Francisco Bay, was one colonial area that clearly fell
on the protective end of the colonization gradient. In the last third of
the eighteenth century Alta California was annexed to New Spain in an
attempt to forestall the seemingly inexorable expansion of Great Britain
and Imperial Russia south along the Pacific coast of North America. This
annexation was effected using three distinct forms of settlement type:
missions, pueblos, and presidios. Missions operated by the Franciscans
were to be the nexus for the conversion and transformation of indigenous peoples into loyal supporters of the Spanish crown. These were to
be largely self-sufficient agrarian communities that would become the
primary suppliers of foods and goods to civilian pueblos and military
presidios (Lightfoot 2005, 55, 58, 59). Pueblos were agrarian civilian
communities whose populace was largely made up of retired soldiers and
their families. The men served as the colonys reserve militia and their
households and ranches helped supply the presidios (Moorhead 1975,
234). Presidios were garrisoned forts that served as the center for the
administration of civilian, Indian, and military affairs and justice (Faulk
and Faulk 1988, 3; Moorhead 1975, 87; Williams 2004a, 16). They were
dependent on Mexico, the missions, and the pueblos for supplies and
labor (Archibald 1978).
Through time Alta California came to be divided into four presidio
jurisdictionsSan Diego (1769), Monterey (1770), San Francisco (1776),
and Santa Barbara (1782). All of these jurisdictions were located adjacent to deep water anchorages appropriate for maritime traffic and so
might best be seen as the entrepts for the province as they were most
closely tied to Mexico because of their proximity to seaborne communication. In addition to their administrative function they represented the
effective limits of a presidios garrison for military purposes. When established, each jurisdiction consisted of a paired presidio and mission to
which other missions or pueblos might be added (Lightfoot 2005, 55). A
tangible facsimile of old New Spain (Mexico) was created in this new setting. However, although the presidio districts shared visions of the new
creation, each retained their individuality through more locally defined
economic and political interaction.
In the colonization of California, settlers transformed the region into
an extension of old Mexico through the creation of communities inhabited by farmers, ranchers, and craftspeople. Spain attempted to provision the nascent colony with the manufactured goods needed by their
mestizo colonists to aid them in the creation of their new New Spain.
The seaborne supply line was inadequate to meet the residents needs,
leading many to turn to illicit trade with foreigners (Archibald 1978, 115,
123, 131141). But need is a slippery term and is very different from
desire. As Braudel (1973, 123) put it, Man is a creature of desire and not
of need. For example, expatriates living in the hinterlands of a colonial
system do not go native if they have other options.
Located at the margins of New Spain, the colonial inhabitants of Alta
California were relatively isolated from their cousins in Mexico. Yet in
terms of architecture, agriculture, animal husbandry, foodways, and
other aspects of material culture, the peoples of Hispanic California were
virtually indistinguishable from those of Mexico (Rodrguez-Alegra
2005). Some of these similarities are attributable to local production,
long-distance supply, or the local exchange of goods or a combination
of the three. One way to evaluate these similarities is through a study of
pottery, which provides a means of detecting cultural and technological
continuity, change, and contact.
Part II
Tradition and Transformation
of Alta California
Pottery has long been associated with plant domestication and being
sedentary. Prehistoric coastal California was no exception. South of what
would become Los Angeles, Native peoples grew corn, beans, and squash;
lived in permanent villages; and made pottery vessels to prepare, present,
and preserve these foods. Only the Yokut-speaking peoples of the southern Central, or San Joaquin, Valley who lived in permanent villages near
what was Tulare Lake made pottery. Others depended on containers of
basketry and stone.
Beginning in 1769 and continuing for the next three-quarters of a
century, this region was transformed into the province of Alta California, a new part of New Spain. This was a facsimile of old Mexico created through the movement of settlers, soldiers and priests. The latter
not only helped the colonists but also served as missionaries, the point
men, if you will, for the transformation of Native peoples into gente
de razon; that is, people of reason who spoke Spanish, were devoted
Roman Catholics, were loyal to Spain, and were engaged in agriculture,
animal husbandry, and the trades. The trades practiced on the Alta California frontier included leather tanning and working; weaving and clothing manufacture; blacksmithing; carpentry and joinery; masonry work,
including brick and tile making; and pottery making. At the 21 mission
communities that were founded, Native peoples learned new skills that
they often applied at neighboring communities and forts. The result was
22 Part II. Tradition and Transformation of Alta California
an increasing homogeneity for California and the incorporation of that

region into the Spanish world system.
In chapters 3 and 4 the areas and resident peoples of Alta California
who felt Spanish colonization are presented in the precontact and postcontact eras.
3
Craft and Commodities
of Early California
Four hundred and seventy years ago, in 1542, Californias prehistoric

veil was briefly lifted when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and the crews of his
three small ships, the San Salvador, the Victoria, and the San Miguel,
first navigated the often-fog-shrouded littoral of what would come to be
called Baja and Alta California. Searching for lands rich with valuable
minerals and filled with people to extract wealth, Europeans gazed for
the first time upon San Diego Bay, the Channel Islands, Monterey Bay,
and the Mendocino coast and met the Chumash of the Santa Barbara
area, among other peoples.
For the Spanish, Alta California was not the end of the earth. One
could, however, see it from there. Cabrillo and those who followed him
for the next three centuries missed the gold and silver found by later
generations and instead encountered a hostile rock-strewn shoreline
punctuated by fabulous protected deep-water bays. Cabrillo found one
of these natural harbors, which he named San Diego. Otherwise, from
the evidence found on this expedition, California was perceived to be
an impoverished land of few rivers occupied by semi-sedentary, nonagricultural peoples. The area was perceived to be of no real interest to
the Spanish or other European colonial nations for the next two centuries
(Fagan 2003, 359).
Nonetheless, the coast of this terra incognita was gradually brought
into cartographic reality over the next 60 years as four other Europe-
ans expeditions came to the area. Three visited the Miwok north of San
Francisco Bay. These included Francis Drake, who stopped to make repairs on the Golden Hind in 1579, and two Spaniards. The first, Pedro de
Unamuno, was sent in 1587 to reconnoiter the coast for safe harbors for
the Acapulco-bound vessels of the Manila galleons on their long eastward voyage to Mexico from the Philippines (Wagner and de Unamuno
1923). The second, Sebastin Rodriguez Cermeo, was the survivor of
the San Agustn, a Manila galleon that was lost in Drakes Bay in 1595.
Finally, in 1602 Sebastin Vizcano, following up on the earlier reports
of Unamuno and Cermeo, made his way to Monterey Bay and there
met the ancestral Ohlone. Few observations regarding the Native peoples
were recorded from these visits (Fagan 2003, 35759). There were a few
comments about clothing, weapons, housing, boats, and foods, but the
most telling observation was that this place was very remote and seemed
to be bereft of precious commodities. Interest in the physical occupation
of the region waned for the next 167 years, until the last third of the eighteenth century and the arrival of the Sacred Expedition of 1769.
Why California?
During Spains brief participation (17611763) as an ally of France and
Russia in the Great War for Empire (aka the Seven Years War; 1756
1763), it suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of Great Britain. British
naval expeditions captured two of Spains most valued portsHavana,
Cuba, and Manila in the Philippines. Spain regained these ports only
after ransoming them through the evacuation and ceding of Spanish
Florida and the payment of reparations (Gatbonton 1985, 12; Wright
1971, 108). These catastrophic defeats underscored the vulnerability of
Spains far-flung empire and caused its rulers to reconsider the occupation of California.
With the defeat of France in the same conflict on battlefields in Europe, India, the Caribbean, and North America, Great Britain became a
global empire. The Pacific Ocean, once a Spanish Lake, now facilitated
the growing presence of the Russian empire in America and the unchallenged expansion of British fur-trading interests across Canada to the
shores of the Pacific. There was a realization that if California was not occupied by Spain it would most assuredly be occupied by one of the other
colonial powers, which would result in a strategic loss that would jeop-
Craft and Commodities of Early California25
ardize Mexico, the valued productive portion of New Spain (Williams

2009). To forestall these potential interlopers the region would have to
be quickly and economically occupied. This occupation consisted of a few
hundred soldiers, civilians, and Christianized Indians and a few dozen
Roman Catholic priests from the mendicant Order of Friars Minor, the
Franciscans, in order to establish a growing military and civilian presence that would be concentrated through the creation of missions. At the
missions, the plan was to transform indigenous peoples into Spanishspeaking, Roman Catholic, and tax-paying loyal subjects of the Spanish
Crown. The man who orchestrated this action was Jos de Glvez.
In the wake of the military setbacks, King Carlos III acted to reinvigorate his moribund colonial empire, where the statement Yo obedezco
pero no cumplo (I obey but I do not comply) had been the mantra for
a century (Weber 1992). The result of this was a corruption-filled and
inefficient mercantile system. Reforms came quickly. In 1764, Jos de
Glvez was made visitador to New Spain. This was a plenipotentiary
position that allowed him to act independently of the viceroy and the
extant colonial bureaucracy in order to transform commerce and politi-
San Francisco
Alta Monterey
California
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Baja
California
Santa Elena
Santa Catalina de Guale
Mobile
Tallahassee
Chihuahua
St. Augustine
Fort St. Louis

Loreto
Mexico
Havana
San Blas
Mexico City
Puebla
Veracruz
Santo Domingo
Antiqua
Figure 3.1. Map of New Spain indicating selected Spanish sites.
cal control. Over the next eight years, in concert with wishes of Madrid
to promulgate free trade, he reformed customs collections and imposed
new taxes (Fisher 1985, 9). Galvez also reorganized Spains frontier military presence, creating the provincias internas, and in 1767, he expelled
the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) from their missions in northwest New
Spain (Sonora, Sinoloa, and Baja California) for their increasingly independent activities that were perceived to be detrimental to the political
power of the Crown. Within a year, San Blas on the Gulf of California
was chosen as the home base for a new naval and supply department and
as thestepping-off point for the colonization of Alta California (Kessell
2002, 262).
The Sacred Expedition of 1769
The physical occupation of Alta California began when a combined landand-sea expedition that is known as the Sacred Expedition of 1769
founded a presidio and mission in what is today San Diego. It was occupied by some sixty soldiers who were commanded by Captain Gaspar de Portol; fifty Christian Indians; and four Franciscan priests, led
by Junpero Serra. In six weeks two land parties traversed the 250 miles
to San Diego from Mission San Fernando Rey de Espaa de Velicat in
Baja California with a herd of 200 cattle and some 160 pack mules. The
seaborne portion of the expedition began at La Paz, located on the Gulf
of California near the end of the Baja peninsula. Of the three vessels dispatched only two completed the voyage to San Diego, and these experienced such poor sailing conditionscontrary winds and currentsthat
it took them 110 and 54 days to make the one-way trip to the new settlement, which was only some 1,200 miles away.
Over the next 15 years, until his death in 1784, Serra oversaw the establishment of eight more missions between San Diego and San Francisco Bays: San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel Archangel, San Buenaventura, San Luis Obispo, San Carlos Borromeo, San Antonio de Padua,
Santa Clara de Ass, and San Francisco de Ass. These were joined in the
following 40 years by another dozen settlements that ranged as far north
as Sonoma. In addition to these missions, or religious communes, three
more presidios and three civilian communities were founded among the
Kumeyaay, Acagchemem, Quechnajuichon, Chumash, Salinan, Esselen,
Ohlone, and Miwok peoples.
Figure 3.2. Location of presidios and missions in Alta California.
Native Cultures at Spanish Contact in California

Prior to 1769, the Native cultures of Alta California exhibited great linguistic, social, and economic diversity. At the extreme south end of this
region, people augmented their gathered, fished, and hunted fare with
cultivated Mesoamerican cultigenscorn, beans, and squash. All others
relied on favorable locations that drew on resources from the foothills
of the California Coast Ranges and the Pacific Coast. Foraging was the
basic subsistence activity. For example, in the spring and summer, flowers, fruits, grain, seeds, stems, bulbs, and roots were gathered from the
valleys, canyons, and foothills (Ladastida and Caldeira 1995), whereas
in the fall many of the groups gathered and processed acorns. Dietary
Figure 3.3. Map of general locations of contact period Native American

culture/language groups. Boundaries after Heizer (1978, ix).
meat was provided by mountain sheep; deer; antelope; rabbits; ground

squirrels; wood rats; mice; birds such as quail, doves, and ducks; fish;
and mollusks, among others (see, for example, Ladastida and Caldeira
1995 for the Kumeyaay), and, depending on circumstance, occasional sea
mammals.
Below, we briefly sketch the groups of people that were initially affected by the Spanish occupation of Alta California. These groupings
are anthropological constructs, largely based on linguistic similarities
and distinctions. They do not, however, associate specific social groups
with distinct territories (Lightfoot 2005, 3638). Nonetheless, these distinctions are commonly used as ethnic monikers when discussing the
resident populace of the colonial communities.
Kumeyaay (Diegueo and Kamia)
The original inhabitants of the San Diego region were the Kumeyaay people, which is the contemporary name used to describe the Diegueo and
the Kamia. The Kumeyaay spoke a Yuman language divided into Ipai, the
northern dialect, and Tipai, the southern dialect. They lived in territorial communities of between 200 and 1,000 persons (Luomala 1978, 592;
Ladastida and Caldeira 1995), each controlling approximately 20 miles
of river drainage.
The Kumeyaay relied on various wild grasses for seeds and other
plants; transplanted cactus, elderberries, and oak; and burned large areas
to encourage healthy regeneration of these foods (Luomala 1978, 599
601; Ladastida and Caldeira 1995). They also planted domesticated beans,
corn, squash, and other food sources in the desert and in the mountains,
where running springs, summer rainfall, or the Colorado River overflow
made such planting feasible (Luomala 1978, 600601; Ladastida and
Caldeira 1995). Ladastida and Caldeira (1995) report that the Kumeyaay
seasonally collected acorns and pion nuts in the Laguna Mountains and
the mountains of Baja California and hunted deer and dried the meat.
Kumeyaay material culture included objects made of grasses, wood,
stone, shell, and bone. Wooden rabbit sticks were used for killing small
game (Ladastida and Caldeira 1995). The bow and arrow was their principal weapon for hunting and defense. Bows were made of willow boughs
and the bowstrings from deer ligaments (Campo-Kumeyaay 2004). Arrows were made from willow with stone or wooden arrowheads. Ku
meyaay also use soapstone (steatite) to manufacture charm stones and
bowls, fragments of which have been recovered from archaeological sites

throughout San Diego County. Soapstone charms served as a spiritual
medium facilitating curing and ceremonial aspects of Native American
life. Ground soapstone was used as paint to decorate the human body for
participation in ceremonies (Parkman 1985).
Kumeyaay homes were circular in floor plan and were constructed
of a willow framing structure overlain by brush, tule, or tree branches,
depending on what was available. The willow poles were set into the
ground, curved toward the center, and tied together using yucca twine.
The exterior of the home was thatched (Campo-Kumeyaay 2004). The
Kumeyaay also constructed shade structures known as ramadas, which
were built on willow or cottonwood rectangular frames with brush or
willow branches laid across the top.
Cooking took place in pits outside the home (Royo 1999), using pot
tery vessels and baskets (Loumala 1978, 600). Grass or willow was used to
make a variety of baskets, from loosely woven granary baskets to tightly
woven for ones for cooking, carrying water, leaching tannins fromacorns,
and sifting pottery clay. Hats and skirts were also woven from these materials (Campo-Kumeyaay 2004; Ladastida and Caldeira1995).
Native American groups in southern Alta California shared a tradition
of making ceramic vessels with peoples from what is Arizona and Mexico
today. It is thought that pottery was introduced between AD 1200 and
1600 (Sparkman 1908, 201). The clay used by the Kumeyaay women was
made from decomposed granitic rocks (Rogers 1929) and was personally collected from specific deposits. Any other clay was thought not to
like her, and pottery made from it would be likely to crack. Some clays
were so highly regarded that women would travel many miles to obtain
them (Van Camp 1979, 48). Daughters inherited these clay deposits
and learned manufacturing techniques from their mothers, fashioning jars, canteens, ollas for storing water and food, cooking bowls, food
bowls, scoops, cups, plates, parchers, and rattles (Van Camp 1979, 54).
Ceramic vessels were also used for the long-term storage of acorn flour
and even for cremains (Ladastida and Caldeira 1995). Handmade ceramics were fashioned using slab building, coiling, and paddle-and-anvil
techniques and were fired in open pits. Pottery was mostly undecorated,
although in some cases red iron oxide was used to make geometric designs that included dots, lines, and on occasion stars (Van Camp 1979,
6264).
Figure 3.4. Ceramic vessel attributed to the Luiseo of southern California. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Accession no. E018896. Photograph by Erin L. Sears.
Quechnajuichon (Luiseo) Culture

To the north of the Kumeyaay lived their enemies, the Quechnajuichon,
who inhabited the homeland of Quechla. These people were called the
Luiseos by the Spanish in reference to their presence in the area of Mission San Luis Rey. According to Pablo Tac, a Quechnajuichon born at the
mission, the Luiseos were constantly at war with the neighboring group
to the south (the Diegueos). The enemies would paint themselves, attack at night, and kill women, children, and old people (Tac 1835, 17).
The Quechnajuichon relied on hunting and gathering for subsistence.
Hunting was performed alone and in groups. For larger game, such as
deer, a bow was often used with fire-hardened arrows tipped with a stone
point. Smaller game could be hunted with a throwing stick similar to
that used in warfare. Gathering relied primarily on acorns, which were
ground and then leached with water to remove the tannic acid. Wild
seeds, such as grasses, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, and pine nuts
were also collected and ground with a flat hand stone on a metate. Different wild greens were also collected, among them thistle, lambs quarters,
miners lettuce, and white sage. The greens were used in versatile ways;
they were eaten raw, cooked, or dried for storage. The Quechnajuichon
also collected roots and wild fruit such as wild grapes, elderberries, wild
strawberries, and cactus fruit (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Coiled and twined baskets were constructed in different sizes and
weaves. They could be made small for collecting eggs and berries or large
and shallow for winnowing chaff and sorting ground meal. According to
Pablo Tac, baskets could be woven sufficiently tight to hold water (Tac
1835, 33). They were also woven with an open pattern to use for leaching
acorn meal. Soapstone could be acquired through trade and was used for
bowls or plates. Fine utensils (e.g., cooking paddles, brushes, tongs, and
tweezers) were made of wood, whereas tools for heavy use (such as those
for cutting, prying, grinding, and chipping) tended to be fabricated from
stone. Pottery manufacture may have been introduced to the Quechnajuichon from southern neighbors, such as the Kumeyaay. Known to archaeologists as Tizon Brown Ware, or Southern California Brown Ware,
items in this largely undecorated ceramic tradition were made using the
paddle-and-anvil technique. Sparkman notes that certain wide-mouth
earthen vessels were used for cooking food and other narrow-mouth
vessels were used to store water. There were also flat, plate-like earthen
vessels for serving food (Sparkman 1908, 201202).
Acagchemem (Juaneo)
North of the Quechnajuichon, between Laguna Beach (possibly as far
north as Newport Beach) and Encinitas in northern San Diego County
lived the Acagchemem, a Takic-speaking people (McLean 2001, 24). It
is estimated that 10,000 Takic-speaking peoples were scattered among
some fifty villages in this area (Bean and Shipek 1978, 557558). Subsistence was based on a combination of gathering, hunting, and fishing, depending on what could be obtained within a days journey from the permanent villages. Indirect evidence of the dietary importance of nuts and
seeds can be seen in the villages. Inside their circular semi-subterranean
thatched homes were large baskets and pottery storage vessels that could
hold several bushels of nuts or seeds, and surrounding their dwellings
were granaries, bedrock, and hopper mortars (Bean and Shipek 1978;
McLean 2001, 2636). As has been shown elsewhere in California, during the late prehistoric period, economies became focused on certain key
local resources. This included an increase in fishing and in the hunting of
sea and land mammals and intensified gathering of vegetable foods. The
manufacture of ceramics was common in the area after AD 1500 (Cameron 1999; McLean 2001, 4). Forms include shallow dishes, bowls, and
wide- and narrow-mouthed jars (Bean and Shipek 1978, 553).
Kumivit (Gabrielino and Fernandio)
In what is today the Los Angeles basin and on the nearby islands of
Santa Catalina, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Barbara lived the
Kumivit. Missions San Gabriel and San Fernando built on these sites.
These peoples welcomed both Cabrillo in 1542 and Vizcano in 1602
(Bean and Smith 1978; Pauley and Pauley 2005, 2531). The Kumivit diet
was based on both land and sea resources. The former included deer and
rabbits taken with bows, throwing sticks, and snares. Hooks and lines,
fish traps, nets, bows and arrows, and poison were used to fish along
streams and on the shoreline. Sea mammals were hunted with spears and
spear throwers. Plank boats sealed with asphalt were used for deep-sea
fishing and for travel to the islands (Bean and Smith 1978).
Food was prepared in vessels made of soapstone (steatite), and baskets
were sealed with asphalt to make them water tight. Asphalt was also used
to mend broken steatite pots. The Kumvit also used bark platters, wooden
bowls, and abalone shells for the presentation and consumption of food.
Pottery vessels were made using coiling and paddle-and-anvil techniques
(Blackburn 19621963; Bean and Smith 1978, 542). Importantly, this is
the most northerly coastal example that has been documented of prehistoric pottery manufacture in California. except for small quantities found
among the Yokuts (see below).
Chumash
Chumash settlements extended over 7,000 square miles of territory,
spanning 200 miles of coastline and extending inward to the San Joaquin
Valley (Greenwood 1978, 520; Miller 1988, 11). There were also settlements on the four Channel Islands off the coast of Santa Barbara: Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel. Missions San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Ins, La Pursima Concepcin, and San Luis
Obispo were built among the Chumash.
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Chumash made their cooking
and storage vessels out of basketry, wood, and stone (Blackburn 1986;
Miller 1988, 49). Baskets used for water storage were usually lined with
tar to prevent leakage (Grant 1978, 515516; Miller 1988, 52). Carved
wooden vessels were used as serving bowls and storage jars. Wood was
also used to create a variety of utensils for food preparation and eating
(Miller 1988, 59). Steatite was used in the creation of cooking bowls and
frying pans (Grant 1978, 514). Other stones were used for grinding implements and surfaces (Miller 1988, 6164). One oral history account suggests that Chumash used red clay vessels to hold tar before the arrival
of the Spanish (Blackburn and Hudson 1986, 195). However, research
carried out by Love and Resnick (1983, 1) at the Chumash village site of
Muwu found no evidence of Chumash pottery making prior to the establishment of the areas missions.
Salinan
Some 3,000 Salinan people that spoke three principal Salinan dialects
(Playao, Antoniao, and Migueleo) inhabited the area between San
Luis Obispo and Soledad when the Spanish arrived in the last third of the
eighteenth century. Missions San Antonio de Padua, San Miguel Archangel, and Soledad were built here. The Salinans traded with the Yokuts of
the central valley, the Chumash, and the Ohlone (of the central California
coastal region) (Hester 1978, 500). Trade with Yokuts involved obtaining
permission to pass through one anothers territory for the purpose of
inland fishing and gaining access to coastal resources and material goods
such as shell beads, abalone shell, obsidian, salt, and antelope hides (Margolin 1997, 5).
Similar to the other coastal groups, the Salinan were a subsistencebased society, engaging in seasonal journeys to hunt animals and water
fowl and collect fish and shellfish (Margolin 1997, 6). According to a document by Pedro Fages, an early visitor to Mission San Antonio, their diet
relied heavily upon gathering such resources as three kinds of acorns,
fruits such as red plum and cherry from trees, red berries from madrones
shrubs, chia seeds, pine nuts like those of Spain, a kind of very small
white seed, a yellow seed, and sugar (Margolin 1997, 6). Acorns were an
essential staple food that were obtained through a form of land management that involved burning off the brush under the oak trees to expose
the ground where the acorns fell in the autumn (Taylor 2004). They were
supplemented with wild grasses (Williams 1983, 168). Herbs and plants
for medicine and food were often transplanted near living quarters for
easy access.
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, food preparation involved the use
of woven baskets for cooking. These were produced by women (Hester
1978, 501; Williams 1983, 174; Margolin 1997, 10; Iversen 2006, 2). Many
other forms of basketry were woven (Margolin 1997, 6).
Esselen
To the north of the Salinan lived the Ohlone and the Esselen of Californias central coastal area. The Esselen are poorly known in the ethnographic record (Hester 1978, 496). They occupied a 580-square-mile area
between Point Lobos and Lopez Point and into the coastal range as far as
Junipero Serra Peak and the southerly upper reaches of the Carmel River.
They fished in local streams and gathered shellfish and crustaceans along
the shore. They gathered seeds, roots, and nuts, including acorns, and
hunted a variety of mammals, reptiles, and migratory waterfowl. They
made winnowing baskets and basketry bottles and other containers. After the arrival of the Spanish, the Esselen concentrated at Mission Carmel, although smaller numbers went to Mission Soledad.
Ohlone
In 1770, the territory of the Ohlone extended from the southern edge
of Carquinez Strait to the lower Carmel, Sur, and Salinas rivers (Levy
1978, 485). At least one researcher suggests that at this time there were
about 10,000 Ohlone who spoke eight distinct but related languages.
They lived along Californias central coast in some fifty separate and politically autonomous units. Eventually Ohlone people came to live at Missions San Francisco de Ass, Santa Clara de Ass, San Jose, Santa Cruz,
San Juan Bautista, Soledad, and Carmel.
The Ohlone were a semi-sedentary people who seasonally took advantage of their proximity to coastal, bay, and riverine resources to forage
for such comestibles as fish (salmon, sturgeon, and lampreys), shellfish
(oysters, mussels, and clams), marine mammals, and migratory waterfowl and interior resources such as grass seeds, acorns and deer, bear,
antelope, elk, and other mammals. But, of course, the single most important food remained the acorn (Levy 1978, 491492).
They left their villages of hemispheric tule-reed dwellings and traveled to nearby resource procurement camps to obtain these foodstuffs,
following a sexual division of labor (Culleton 1950, 207208; Parkman
1994, 48; Levy 1978). While the Bay Area is naturally rich in a wide variety of edible native plants and animals, the Ohlone ensured a sustained
yield of these resources through the controlled burning of extensive areas
of grass and forested lands to promote the growth of seed-bearing annuals that were attractive to both humans and animal prey and to increase
acorn productivity (Lewis 1973; Mayfield 1978).
While men hunted, fished, and collected shellfish, women collected a
number of items in these managed areas, including materials for making
baskets that were used to carry and store such foods as seeds (Culleton
1950, 197) and for cooking or activities involving the sifting, winnowing,
and parching of seeds and acorns and the leaching of acorn and buckeye
meal (Levy 1978, 493).
Miwok
The Coast Miwok lived from north of the Golden Gate to north of Bodega
Bay and some thirty miles into the interior. Just as did their neighbors to
the south, the Miwok relied on a combination of coastal and terrestrial
foods, including fish, shellfish, kelp, marine mammals, crustaceans, migratory waterfowl, rabbits, deer, elk, bear, a variety of grass seeds, and
the ubiquitous acorn. Baskets were used to store and prepare these comestibles. Two missions were built among them at San Rafael and at San
Francisco Solano (Sonoma) (Kelly 1978, 415417).
Yokuts
Many of the aforementioned groups had some contact with interior
groups that involved the exchange of a number of items that included
shells and shell beads, asphalt, salt, obsidian, pion nuts, hides, and
steatite (Arkush 1993). In the nineteenth century, some other Native
American peoples lived in the mission, civilian, and military communities of California (e.g., Milliken 2002; Skowronek with Thompson 2006).
These included other Miwok people from the bay and the interior and
Sierra and Yokut people from the San Joaquin Valley.
The Southern Yokuts lived at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley surrounding Tulare Lake and its associated marshlands. Some joined
Missions Soledad, San Luis Obispo, San Antonio, and San Juan Bautista
at the end of the first decade of the nineteenth century (Wallace 1978a,
460). They fished, hunted waterfowl and a variety of mammals, and gathered freshwater shellfish, edible seeds, and roots (Wallace 1978a, 449
450). Woven baskets were used for the procurement, transportation,
preparation, cooking, and presentation of foodstuffs. They may also have
made pottery, as did the adjacent Foothill Yokuts (Ferkins 2001; Gayton
1929, 249; Spier 1978, 474; Weaver 1986). The vessels were naturally tempered and were always made by women using the coiling technique (Gayton 1929, 242243). Gayton (1929, 247) studied 34 examples of Yokuts
pottery and noted their flat bottoms, curveless sides, and pinched rims.
The pottery seems to have been rarely exchanged except in the interior
or between the occupants of the central valley and the Chumash (Arkush
1993; Davis 1961, 39, 41, 43).
At the north end of the San Joaquin Valley lived the northern valley
Yokuts. Basketry met their need for containers and cooking vessels, as
the northern valley Yokuts did not make pottery (Olsen and Payen 1968,
5556; Pritchard 1970, 17; Wallace 1978b, 465). Beginning in 1807 and
Figure 3.5. Ceramic vessel attributed to southern Yokuts manufacture.

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C., Accession No. E386731. Photograph by Erin L. Sears.
Table 3.1. Ceramic-making cultures in Alta California

Culture Grouping (South to North)
Kumeyaay (Diegueo and Kamia)

Quechnajuichon (Luiseo)
Acagchemem (Juaneo)
Kumivit (Gabrielino and Fernandio)
Yokut (InteriorCentral Valley)
Chumash
Salinan
Esselen
Ohlone (Costanoan)
Miwok
Ceramic
Aceramic
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
continuing for the next two decades, many Northern Yokuts were recruited to work in the pueblo of San Jose (Milliken 1991, 29799; 1995,
213). Others were baptized and joined Missions San Jos, Santa Clara,
Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and San Antonio (Skowronek with Thompson 2006, 193; Wallace 1978b, 468).
As this very brief and very general synopsis of pre-contact California
peoples should indicate, diversity was the norm. Social complexity and
population varied in direct relationship to resource density and location.
We find that pottery making was widely practiced south of modern Los
Angeles in association with the use of domesticated plants and among
the Yokut peoples of the central valley (Table 3.1). To the north of Los
Angeles, basin steatite and baskets were the vessels of choice. As we shall
see in the next chapter, much of this variation was erased in fewer than
fifty years, when California was joined to the nascent economy of the
modern world through Spanish colonization. In this setting disparate
peoples and their environs were transformed into a facsimile of New
Spains interpretation of the Spanish motherland.
4
Incorporation into New Spain
Presidio Jurisdictions
In the last third of the eighteenth century, Alta California was annexed to
New Spain in an attempt to forestall the seemingly inexorable southward
expansion of Great Britain and Imperial Russia along the Pacific coast of
North America. This annexation was effected using three distinct types
of settlements: missions, pueblos, and presidios. Missions, operated by
the Franciscans, were to be the nexus for the conversion and transformation of indigenous peoples into loyal supporters of the Spanish Crown.
These were to be largely self-sufficient agrarian communities that would
become the primary suppliers of foods and goods to civilian pueblos and
presidios (Lightfoot 2005, 55, 5859). Pueblos were agrarian civilian
communities whose populace was largely made up of retired soldiers and
their families. The men served as the colonys reserve militia, and their
households and ranches helped supply the presidios (Moorhead 1975,
234). Presidios were garrisoned forts that served as the center for the
administration of civilian, Indian, and military affairs and justice (Faulk
and Faulk 1988, 3; Moorhead 1975, 87; Williams 2004a, 16).
When we consider the expansion of Anglo-America into the hinterlands of the Atlantic seaboard, the prevailing image of frontier life has
been one of self-reliance. The settlers transformed the backwoods into
an extension of the extant colonies through the creation of communities
inhabited by diverse collections of farmers, ranchers, and craftspeople.
The Spanish colonial world was no different. Expatriates living in the
interlands of a colonial system do not go native if they have regular

h
communication with and supplies from the mother country to aid in their
transformation of their new homes. They were dependent on Mexico, the
missions, and the pueblos for supplies and labor (Archibald 1978).
The Spanish supply system, however, was consistently unable to provide the manufactured goods their colonists needed, causing the residents of Spanish America to turn to other options, specifically illicit trade
with foreigners to meet demands (Archibald 1978, 115, 123, 131141). To
think that none of the Spanish colonies in America could adequately
subsist by relying on legal supply systems raises the question of what was
adequate.
Driving the issue of self-sufficiency was the very real issue of supply.
Except for an eight-year period from 1774 to 1781, Alta California, for all
intents and purposes, was an island. During that period, Captain Juan
Bautista de Anza blazed a trail from Tucson, Arizona, across the Colorado River at what is today Yuma, Arizona, and on to Mission San Gabriel in the Los Angeles Basin. Across this trail came the priests, soldiers,
and settlers who would establish the Presidio of San Francisco, Missions
San Francisco and Santa Clara de Ass, and the pueblo of San Jos in 1776
and 1777. The crossing and the trail were permanently closed in 1781,
when the twin mission settlements of San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuer
and La Pursima Concepcin were destroyed by the Yuma people, leaving
communication with the capital of New Spain, Mexico City, restricted to
the sea. Transport by sea, however, could be difficult, as the 1,000-mile
trip from New Spain to San Diego could take as long as three months.
The voyage took longer than usual because of prevailing westerly winds
that forced mariners to beat far out to sea and then tack back to the
coast. In contrast, return trips usually took no more than a few weeks.
The stepping-off point for the voyage was San Blas, located on the coast
of what is today Nayarit, Mexico.
San Blas, located some 125 miles south of Mazatln on the mainland
side of the mouth of the Gulf of California, was founded in 1768 as a
shipyard and naval depot. It was the main point of embarkation in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for such supply ships as the San
Carlos and the Nuestra Seora de los Remedios (known commonly as
La Favorita) and served both Baja and Alta California (Archibald 1978;
Perissinotto 1998; Weber 1992). Supply ships carried many of the materials that made this largely overlooked corner of the empire a familiar
place for its expatriate residents. Study of existing account books reveals
Incorporation into New Spain: Presidio Jurisdictions41
that the harshness of life on the frontier was lessened through the importation of textiles, pharmaceuticals, tools, weapons, church fixtures,
foods, and a wide range of kitchen paraphernalia that included copper
cooking vessels, iron comales, Chinese porcelains, and Mexican-made
lead and tin-glazed ceramics (Perissonotto 1998; Skowronek, Fanta, and
Moralesn.d.).
Transformation: Missions as Trade Schools
The Native American peoples who were drawn to the growing Spanish colonial enclaves in Alta California had been predominantly semisedentary gatherers, hunters, and fisher folk. As they congregated at
the missions, they encountered a new architecture, new fauna and flora,
a new social hierarchy, and a new set of social norms. The Franciscan
missionaries worked to transform these new arrivals into loyal Spanish
Catholicsa transformation that encompassed all aspects of their lives,
from ideology to language, clothing, and diet (Skowronek 1998).
The transformation of Alta California into a part of New Spain was
predicated on animal husbandry and agriculture of both Old World and
New World plants and animals. So successful was this transformation
that through time activities shifted from participation in a peripheral,
subsistence-oriented economy to the production of hides and tallow for
the global marketplace (Archibald 1978, 115, 124126, 132141; Hornbeck 1989). The shift to farming and ranching also led to a shift in diet to
one focused on domesticated fauna and flora. These new foods required
new ways of preparation and consumption. In the case of California
wheat, vegetable and meat-based stews (atole and posole) were preferred.
Basket cookery was not appropriate for such foods. Instead, these foods
were cooked in large copper cauldrons imported from Mexico and were
served in ceramic bowls and plates (Webb 1952, 4042). It was reported
that at Mission San Diego, the Fathers kitchen has three small copper
pots, several plates of pewter, and three others of Guadalajara chinaware,
six cups, six saucers of the same material, one and a half dozen common
plates and six metates (Engelhardt 1920, 91). In Alta California, porcelains, plain, lead-glazed, and tin-glazed ceramics were used for dining.
Documentary evidence clearly indicates that some of the ceramics
used in Alta California were produced in Mexico and Asia. The manufacturing origin for the plain earthenwares remains more ambiguous. Gen-
erations of scholars have noted that there were extraordinary similarities

among the earthenwares found the length of Alta California (Skowronek
et al. 2006). Some have explained these similarities as the result of intermission trade (Gritton and Magalousis 1978). However, this interpretation tends to be problematic, especially because most mission sites were
located inland. Without connecting waterways, overland transport was
required. This meant that ceramics would have had to have been moved
long distances over dirt roads in carts or in mule trains, the only transportation technologies available at that time. Breakage would have been
expected, given the nature of the heavy, low-fired ceramics. An excellent analogy may be found in recent ethnoarchaeological work among
the earthenware-making Kalinga of the northern Philippines. This work
shows that 64 percent of the earthenwares made today are exchanged
within only a 10 kilometer (5 mile) radius of their point of production
(Stark 1994, 187; see also Arnold 1985, 1993). This small area of distribution may be attributed to a poor transportation network and the low mechanical strength of pottery that is much like what was made in colonial
California.
To supply an entire mission population with ceramics made at a remote location would have been an expensive and time-consuming task.
In terms of labor expenditure, it would have been far more economical for missions to produce their own ceramics rather than import them
from other sites. Such economic reasoning must have been clear to Father
Lasun, president of the California missions, who in the 1790s arranged
for a number of artisans and craftsmen to be recruited from Mexico to
teach the neophytes skills. The artisans were sent to different missions
throughout California (Bancroft 1884, 615; Kenneally 1965, 260; Webb
1952, 126). The recently converted (neophytes) would be sent to the locations where the artisans were based to learn specific trades. For example,
in the San Diego jurisdiction, missions were requested to send each four
or five Indians to the presidio to learn stonecutting and bricklaying from
retired sergeant Don Manuel de Vargas (Engelhardt 1920, 147). Further
north, Mission Santa Clara received Cayetano Lopez, a carpenter and
millwright, and Miguel Sangrador, a master tanner, leather finisher, and
shoemaker. Francis Guests (1973, 302, 306, 336) biography of Padre
Fermn Francisco de Lasun states that in 1796 Santa Clara sent neophytes to Monterey to learn tailoring and pottery making from Mariano
Tapia (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99). According to Engelhardt (1924, 121), the
potter Jos Antonio Romero, who was also a soldier at the San Francisco
Presidio, visited Missions San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz in
1796 (Johnson 1985, 54; Langelier and Rosen 1992, 87; Schuetz-Miller
1994, 91). If these accounts of mission residents as apprentices are accurate, we have all the ingredients necessary for the manufacture of ceramics at each mission that made fired-clay bricks and tiles.
Thus, though they were located at the margins of New Spain and
relatively isolated from their cousins in Mexico, the colonial-era inhabi
tants of Alta California were able to transform the province in a matter of years. In terms of architecture, agriculture, animal husbandry, and
other aspects of material culture, the peoples of Hispanic California were
virtually indistinguishable from those of Mexico. These similarities are
attributable to local production, long-distance supply, and the local exchange of goods.
As part of the periphery of the Spanish empire, Alta Californias position as a protective colony was the result of both external systemic
concernsthat is, economic contact with the motherland and concerns
about competing colonial nationsand internal colonial constraints
that included the initial contact and subsequent European interactions
with the environment and the aboriginal occupants of the area (e.g., Bilsky 1980; Meinig 1986, 6576; Skowronek 1989, 16; Taaffe, Morrill, and
Gould 1963, 503505). A snapshot of the communities at presidios, missions, and pueblos and attention to how they evolved provides a framework for evaluating production, supply, and exchange in terms of their
unique qualities, for these communities were anything but all peas in a
pod (Costello 1992). Comments vary considerably, reflecting in part the
relative richness of the documentary record.
Presidio Jurisdictions
Alta California was divided into four presidio jurisdictionsSan Diego
(1769), Monterey (1770), San Francisco (1776) and Santa Barbara (1782).
In addition to their administrative function, the jurisdictions represented
the effective limits of a presidios garrison for military purposes. When
established, each jurisdiction consisted of a paired presidio and mission,
to which other missions or pueblos might be added (Lightfoot 2005, 55).
In this new setting a tangible facsimile of New Spain was created. And
Figure 4.1. Alta California jurisdictions and missions.
although the presidio districts shared visions of the new creation, each
retained their individuality through more locally defined economic and
political interaction.
San Diego Jurisdiction
San Diego de Alcal
The first mission established in Alta California was founded on Sunday,

July 16, 1769, among the Kumeyaay at the village of Colsoy. It was named
San Diego de Alcal, and the first missionaries there were Fathers Jun
pero Serra and Fernando Parron. Six years later, the mission moved to
Table 4.1. Spanish jurisdictions and missions in Alta California

Jurisdiction/Mission/Order Established
Date Established
El Presidio San Francisco1

San Francisco de Ass (6)2
Mission Santa Clara (8)
Mission Santa Cruz (12)
Mission San Jos (14)
Mission San Rafael (20)
Mission San Francisco Solano (21)
El Presidio Real de Monterey
Mission San Carlos Borromo (2)
Mission San Antonio de Padua (3)
Mission San Luis Obispo (5)
Mission Nuestra Seora
de la Soledad (13)
Mission San Juan Bautista (15)
Mission San Miguel Arcngel (16)
El Presidio Real de Santa Barbar
Mission San Buenaventura (9)
Mission Santa Barbara (10)
Mission La Pursima (11)
Mission San Fernando Rey (17)
Mission Santa Ins (19)
El Presidio Real de San Diego
Mission San Diego de Alcal (1)
Mission San Gabriel (4)
December 17, 1776

June 26, 1776
January 12, 1777
August 28, 1791
July 11, 1797
December 14, 1817
August 25, 1823
June 3, 1770
June 3, 1770
July 14, 1771
September 1, 1772
October 9, 1791
Mission San Juan Capistrano (7)

Mission San Luis Rey (18)
November 1, 1776
June 13, 1798
June 24, 1797

July 25, 1797
April 12, 1782
March 31, 1782
December 4, 1786
December 8, 1787
September 8, 1797
September 17, 1804
July 16, 1769
July 16, 1769
September 8, 1771
Founder
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Francisco Palu
Junipero Serra
Fermin Lasun
Fermin Lasun
Vicente de Sarria
Jos Altimira
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Junipero Serra
Junipero Serra
Junipero Serra
Fermin Lasun
Fr. Fermin Lasun

Fr. Fermin Lasun
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Fr.
Junipero Serra
Fermin Lasun
Fermin Lasun
Fermin Lasun
Estevan Tapis
Fr. Junipero Serra

Frs. Pedro Cambn
and ngel Somera
Fr. Junipero Serra
Fr. Fermin Lasun
Notes: 1. Data for presidio jurisdictions taken from http://www.californiamissionguide.com/

residios/california_presidios.html. Dates for establishment of missions taken from http://www
.mtycounty.com/pgs-missions/the21missions.html.
2. Numbers in parentheses indicate order of establishment.
a new site, called Nipaguay (Engelhardt 1920). Over time, some of the
Kumeyaay joined the mission and were baptized, married, and buried
as Roman Catholics. These neophyte Christians also became involved
in the large-scale production of wheat, barley, kidney beans, and corn
(Brandes et al. 1966). They also tended herds of horses, cattle, and sheep.
The women learned to make European-style clothing from the wool. Father Francisco Palou wrote in his journal:
Inasmuch as this mission already had some convert Indians doing work, I
assigned to it only one of the neophyte families that had come from lower
California, in order that the woman might teach these female Indians how
to spin and weave the wool which was already being gained from the sheep
that the mission possessed. (Engelhardt 1920, 47)
The missions first structures were built at the Kumeyaay village of Cosoy in 1769. They were made of wood with roofs thatched with tule reeds
(Brandes et al. 1966). Adobe construction began two leagues away at the
second site in 1774 (Luksic and Kendziorski 1999; Schuetz-Miller 1994,
152153). The following describes the buildings constructed and their
materials:
A church made of poles and roofed with tule reeds, measuring 17 53feet;
one adobe house roofed with tule reeds, 56 12 feet, living spaces for the
padres; flat-roofed adobe house, 36 14 feet, a granary; a building of palisades roofed with tule reeds, 14 11 feet, for muleteers and shepherds;
adobe house with a flat roof, 14 11 feet, for a smithy; a structure of tule
reeds and poles, 17 9 feet, for servants; thirteen structures similar, to be
inhabited by Indians; a corral of the same material for mares and horses, in
Rancho San Luis. (Engelhardt 1920, 5657)
The walls of the mission were plastered. The floors were of stamped
earth and later of fired tile. The larger outer walls were constructed from
adobe bricks and a thin layer of clay and, occasionally, sandstone (Bartel
1991). Fired roof tiles and bricks began to be made in 1793 (Schuetz-Miller
1994, 153). The heavy adobe walls and tile roofs required the support of
timber. This was obtained by teams of Kumeyaay from Smith Mountain,
approximately sixty miles east (Brandes et al. 1966). Because of the growing size of the mission population, a granary was built in 1793, which
measured approximately 30 varas by 8 varas (a vara is 0.8359 meters,
or 32.9 inches; Barnes et al. 1981, 68) and had a tiled roof. Two buildings
located along the arroyo were enlarged in 1776 and plaster was applied
to their walls. In 1797, water was brought to the mission via a 400-vara
ditch. Also in 1797, four tiled houses, each 52 varas long and 5 varas
wide, were built to house the sick (Brandes et al. 1966; Schuetz-Miller
1994, 153154).
San Diego Presidio
The presidio, like the mission was established at the village of Cosoy in
1769. When the mission was moved eastward two leagues to Nipaguay
five years later, the presidio remained at the original site. By the 1790s,
the original presidio construction of wood and thatch had been replaced
with adobe structures with tile roofs. Some of the construction timbers
were shipped from Monterey (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 149150). The construction teams were made up of Diegueos from the mission. The site
was abandoned in 1837.
Old Town
Below the site of the presidio was a community of retired soldiers and
their families. Known today as Old Town, it dates to the era of the Mexican republic and the early years of California statehood. Adobe structures are present that date from the 1820s and 1830s.
Fort Guijarros
Fort Guijarros was a Spanish military installation situated on Cobblestone Point on the east side of Point Loma (Whiting and Whiting 1960).
To protect San Diego Bay from seaborne attack, a cannon battery was
built that faced the entrance of the harbor (May 1995). The battery
mounted ten guns (Denger 2004) and was manned by soldiers from the
unit of Catalonian Volunteers based at the San Diego Presidio (Colston
1982, 66). The fort was designed by Spanish engineer Alberto de Cordoba and was initially built using adobe (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 150152).
In early 1795, Governor Diego Borica requested 1,410 wooden planks,
50 wooden beams for the esplanade, six beams for the barracks, 100
boards for doors and windows, and 300 stones to construct the powder house and barracks foundations for the battery at Punta de Guijarros
(May 1995). Native Americans served as laborers for the construction of
carts and flatboats and for transportation of fired-clay bricks and tiles
(May 1995). The bricks and tiles were fabricated at the San Diego presidio and were carried to the construction site (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 150).
Some of the timber for the construction was shipped from as far away as
Monterey and Santa Barbara. Fort Guijarros was not completed until the
beginning of the nineteenth century. It was abandoned in 1838.
La Misin de San Luis, Rey de Francia
On June 13, 1798, La Misin de San Luis, Rey de Francia, named in honor
of King Louis IX of France, was founded 35 miles north of San Diego
and four miles east of what is today Oceanside. This land was occupied
by Quechnajuichon, who came to be known as the Luiseo. Padre La-
sun traveled north with Padres Norberto de Santiago and Antonio Peyri,
the detachment of soldiers to the site, and a group of Juaneo (formerly
Acagchemem) neophytes from the neighboring San Juan Capistrano mission (Newcomb 1925, 126127). According to Bean and Shipek (1978, 558),
although agriculture, orchards, and animal husbandry were introduced,
the traditional hunting and gathering subsistence regimen continued.
Construction of the mission began shortly after the site was dedicated.
During the first year, a guard house, a temporary chapel, and quarters
for the padre and corporal of the guard were constructed of adobe and
roofed with tule-reed thatch. During the second year, building continued with the construction of a convento, or living quarters for the girls;
a house for the boys; a weaving room; a room for wool storage; and two
additional structures (Newcomb 1925, 128).
In 1801, three years after arriving at the site, fired-clay roof tiles were
made to replace the tule-thatch roofs (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 159). The
tiles used were made at the mission using small kilns. A large granary
was constructed in 1801, and in 1802 work was begun on the first church.
The latter was comparatively small, measuring only 138 feet long and 19
feet wide. Four more granaries were established and the main patio was
enclosed in 1804. There is also evidence that bricks began to be used in
construction (Newcomb 1925, 128). In the following four years, building
expansion continued; a large nunnery was built with its own patio as well
as a corral for horses with housing for their keepers.
In 1811, plans for the present mission church were drawn up, the foundations were laid (Newcomb 1925, 131), and a master carpenter named
Jos Antonio Ramrez was hired from Zapotln el Grande (Schuetz-Miller
1994, 159). According to comments made in 1827 that are attributed to a
French visitor named Duhaut-Cilly, Father Peyri was assisted in executing the plans by a very skillful man (Newcomb 1925, 135). Ramrez may
have been the skillful man, but it is Father Peyri who is given credit for
the church plans. By 1812 the walls were up to cornice level, and in 1815
the church was completed and dedicated.
The church at Mission San Luis Rey was similar to the one at San
Juan Capistrano, having a patio at the center with a fountain. The church
was separated from the secular areas, and the patio was surrounded by
archways with an imprint in a cruciform shape (Newcomb 1925, 131).
Later, Master Salvador Bjar was hired in 1817 to fix the leaking tile
roofs (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 159). An elaborate water system was also
constructed that provided filtered water to a laundry used by the Native
Americans. A brick archway led to a wide staircase that went down to the
laundry terraces.
La Misin San Juan Capistrano
Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded among the Acagchemem, a

Takic-speaking people, on October 30, 1775, by Father Fermin Lasun.
Within weeks, things went terribly wrong and the mission was temporarily abandoned as San Diego was wracked by indigenous unrest. A year
later, on November 1, 1776, Junipero Serra rededicated the site for the
mission at Arroyo de la Quema. The initial wood and thatch complex
was abandoned two years later and relocated two miles away at its current site at El Trabuco (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 157; Weber 1976, 199200).
There the Juaneos began to construct adobe structures with thatched
roofs. Tiles were first made in 1788 (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 157), and in
1806 stone was quarried for a new church. In 1812, a major earthquake
destroyed San Juan Capistranos church and killed forty of its resident
population of 1,300 (Boule 1988; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 157).
The original Juaneos were joined at the mission over time by other
Takic-speaking peoples from more remote villages. They were instructed in
Spanish and Roman Catholicism and were taught a multitude of European
crafts, including carpentry, blacksmithing, candle and soap making, tanning, tile making, shoe making, and weaving (Edgar and Edgar 2000, 27).
They also raised livestock, grew domesticated Old and New World plants,
and tended orchards that contained peaches, walnuts, figs, oranges, pears,
olives, dates, and grapes. While the documentary record is far from complete, it is worth noting that there is no evidence of a non-Juaneo master
potter being in residence at San Juan Capistrano (Schuetz-Miller 1994).
In 1834, San Juan Capistrano was secularized. Many Juaneos left to
work at nearby ranches or sought refuge among inland groups (Bean and
Shipek 1978, 558).
La Misin del Santo Gabriel Principe el Arcngel
Mission San Gabriel Arcngel was established in September of 1771

among the pottery-making Kumivit. It was originally built of wood and
thatch. With the help of the Gabrielinos, a chapel, a convent, boys and
girls dormitories, workshops and storerooms, and corrals were constructed. The mission was moved to its present location in 1775. A number of adobe buildings were erected over the next decade. These were
roofed with fired-clay tiles in 1789 (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 154157).
Pueblo de Nuestra Seora la Reina de los ngeles
Also in the land of the Kumivit, Pueblo de Nuestra Seora la Reina de

los ngeles was founded in 1781 by settlers hailing from Sonora and Sinaloa. It was the second civilian community of Alta California near the
Los Angeles River. Structures such as the Franciso Avila home, which
dates to 1818 and stands on Olvera Street, were made of adobe blocks
with wooden roofs sealed with asphalt from the nearby La Brea tar pits.
Evidence suggests that some of the Gabrielinos interacted with the community and supplied it regularly with pottery (Kealhofer 1991).
Santa Barbara Jurisdiction
Santa Barbara Presidio
The Presidio of Santa Barbara was established in 1782 on the lands occupied by the Chumash. Missions Santa Barbara, Santa Ins, La Pursima,
San Buenaventura, and San Fernando were eventually built within its jurisdiction. Within two years adobe edifices began to be erected at the
presidio. Because appropriate timber was lacking in the Santa Barbara
area, wooden beams for roof construction were shipped from Monterey
(Scheutz-Miller 1994, 187; Tompkins 1967, 10). In 1786, the Gabrielino
Kumivit workers arrived to manufacture roof tiles and 20,000 adobe
bricks (Scheutz-Miller 1994, 191; Tompkins 1967, 10). While bricks and
tiles were being produced on location, documentary evidence suggests
that ceramic goods were imported from other parts of New Spain, including Puebla, Guadalajara, and Chinese porcelains from that far-flung
corner of New Spainthe Philippinesvia the Manila galleon (e.g.,
Perissinotto 1998, 24, 105, 155, 175, 209, 217).
La Misin San Buenaventura
Mission San Buenaventura was also built among the Chumash. The mission was founded on March 31, 1782, and the inhabitants began erecting
adobe structures within five years. These buildings began to be roofed
with tiles in the mid-1790s (Weber 1977, 56). In 1810 and 1811, buildings for pottery making were constructed at the site (Schuetz-Miller
1994,190).
La Misin de La Seora Brbara
Mission Santa Barbara was founded adjacent to the Chumash village, or

rancheria, Tay-nay-an late in 1786 (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 191; Tompkins
1967, 14). The following year adobe structures began to be erected; these
were covered with fired tiles in 1788. In 1808, a building for the manufacture of pottery was built next to the church (Engelhardt 1923, 90). At
the nearby Chumash village of Kaswa, known as La Cieneguita, a series
of adobe and tile roofed houses and the chapel of San Francisco Xavier
were constructed in the early years of the nineteenth century (Forsyth
1961; Johnson 1990; Rogers 1929).
Mission La Pursima
The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or La Pursima

Concepcin de Mara Santsima, was founded among the Chumash in
1787 near what today is the city of Lompoc. It was the eleventh mission
established in Alta California (Engelhardt 1932, Preface). Within a year
of its establishment the missions original buildings of wood and thatch
began to be replaced with adobe structures (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 196).
In 1790, a tile kiln was constructed. For two decades the mission stood at
this site until a large earthquake destroyed the original complex in 1812.
It was moved several miles away and was rebuilt over the next decade.
La Misin del Seor Fernando
Mission San Fernando de Espaa was founded in 1797 on the Encino

River among the Kumivit. Within two years, tile-roofed adobe structures
were being constructed at the site by the neophyte Fernandios (Engelhardt 1927, 15).
La Misin de Nuestra Santa Ins
In 1804, the last community founded in the Santa Barbara presidio jurisdiction was Mission Santa Ins. It was founded among the Chumash.
Within months of its establishment, adobe structures were under construction; they were roofed with tiles the next year (Berger 1948, 211;
Schuetz-Miller 1994, 199).
Monterey Jurisdiction
Monterey Presidio
San Carlos Cathedral was established in Monterey, an Ohlone coastal

territory, by the Franciscans under the direction of Father Serra on
June3, 1770, as part of the Mission and Royal Presidio San Carlos Borromeo (Geiger 1963, 310; King 1956, 5152; Weber 1988, 27). This was
the second mission established in Alta California, and it served as the

capital and general military headquarters of the province (Edwards,
Simpson-Smith, and Lnnberg 1994, 22; King 1956, 51). The mission and
the presidio were founded by a combined clerical and military contingent
that included Father Junpero Serra; Father Juan Crespi, Gaspar de Portol; Lt.PedroFages; six Catalonian Volunteers; four cuera, or leatherjacketed soldiers; and approximately 60 soldiers and sailors from the
Spanish ship San Antonio (Breschini 1996; King 1956, 51; Schuetz-Miller
1994, 161170).
The original presidio was constructed of pine logs from the forests
surrounding the area, with walls sealed using mud and earth (Beebe and
Senkewicz 2001, 162; Breschini 1996; Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and
Lnnberg 1994, 65; Rolle 2003, 4142). The existing San Carlos Cathedral is the fourth chapel located on the site of the original presidio of
Monterey (Clark 1991; King 1956, 52; Weber 1988, 27). The chapel was
originally constructed within the presidio grounds. The first two chapel
structures were made of pole and brush, and a third structure was constructed of adobe with a stone foundation (Breschini 1996; Clark 1991).
In a September 29, 1773, report to the viceroy, Lt. Pedro Fages, one of the
founders of the Monterey presidio and the commander of the military
at the fort, wrote that there were approximately 30 buildings inside the
presidio walls, some of which were made of poles and earth. The church,
the commandants quarters, the jail, the storerooms, and the guardhouse
were all made of adobe on a stone base. Most of the doors were made of
pine or redwood (Beebe and Senkewicz 2001, 162166; Breschini 1996).
In 1771, Father Serra was granted permission to relocate the mission
to Carmel, a short distance north from the Monterey presidio. He had
asked for this move because he did not want the neophytes to remain in
close contact with the military and he wanted to establish the mission
in an area that had better resources to support farming and agriculture
(Beebe and Senkewicz 2001, 167168; King 1956, 5253; Repplier 1934,
9394).
The presidios third chapel, which was made of stone and adobe, was
known as the Church of the Royal Presidio. It continued to be used by the
military and neophytes living within the compound (Beebe and Senkewicz 2001, 167168; Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and Lnnberg 1994, 65;
King 1956, 53). This chapel burned down in 1789 when a gun salute to
honor the Spanish ship San Carlos ignited a thatched roof within the
presidio compound; the fire destroyed half of the presidio buildings (Breschini 1996; Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and Lnnberg 1994, 12; SchuetzMiller 1994, 161).
A master mason from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Manuel Estevan Ruiz, arrived in Monterey in 1791 and proceeded to design and supervise construction of a stone presidio chapel (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 9394, 162
163). Construction on the fourth chapel began in 1791 and was completed
in 1794. This new chapel was built of native sandstone quarried from the
Carmelo River and the nearby Santa Lucia mountains (Schuetz-Miller
1994, 4345, 9394, 161166).
The construction and expansion of the presidio chapel and Mission San
Carlos introduced new skills to the indigenous population. After completion of the chapel in 1794 and of the new San Carlos mission church in
1797, Ruiz extended his contract for an additional eighty days in order to
continue to train the San Carlos mission neophytes in techniques of masonry (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 94). Schuetz-Miller (1994, 105125) identifies 22 Indian artisans as masons, one who works or builds with brick.
Mariano Tapia, a master potter and tile maker from Puebla, Mexico,
arrived in Monterey on June 19, 1795, for a five-year contract to teach
his trade to the colonists and neophytes of the Monterey presidio (De
Nevi 1971, 6; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99). Prior to this time, there is no
evidence that the community of the Royal Presidio of Monterey made
pottery; earthenware found at central and northern California sites was
more likely to be from Spanish or Mexican sources (Edwards, SimpsonSmith, and Lnnberg 1994, 151, 156). Tapia died in 1796, a year and a half
after his arrival in Monterey, and the soldier-potter Jos Antonio Romero
assumed responsibility as a teacher of the pottery and tile-making trade
(Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99).
In 1800, most of the population of Monterey, estimated to have been
about 370 persons, lived at the presidio or at the mission in Carmel. The
population there had grown to approximately 400 people by 1815 (Bre
schini 1996). From the time of the presidios establishment until about
1820, most of the population lived within its walls. Around that time
several families moved outside, some as grantees claiming land that
was given to them by the pueblo government established in 1791 (Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and Lnnberg 1994, 65). On November 20, 1818,
Hiplito (Hippolyte de) Bouchard, a French-born privateer for the United
Provinces of the Ro de la Plata (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay) who was
in command of the 40-gun frigate La Argentina, attacked Monterey and

sacked the fort (Beebe and Senkewicz 2001, 298303; Breschini 1996;
Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and Lnnberg 1994, 65). Pablo Vicente de Sol,
the governor of Alta California, reported the devastation that Bouchard
inflicted to the viceroy. Inadequate military defenses and the destruction
of the Royal Presidio contributed to the eventual decline of the presidio
as a center of town life (Breschini 1996; Edwards, Simpson-Smith, and
Lnnberg 1994, 65).
La Misin de San Luis Obispo de Tolosa
Mission San Luis Obispo was built at the northern edge of Chumash territory in 1771. The first structures at San Luis Obispo were built of wood
and thatch (Engelhardt 1933, 16). Within a day of Father Serras departure,
Father Cavaller set the Indians to work cutting timber for the construction of a little chapel . . . and for the dwelling of the Fathers (Engelhardt
1933, 17). Father Serra reported two years later that a new mission building at San Luis Obispo was under construction: A 20 by 8 vara church of
adobes awaited cessation of the rains to be roofed (Schuetz-Miller 1994,
171). This structure used about 500 cut cypress beams. Also constructed
during this time were two granaries with post walls and a tule-thatched
roof, a six-by-four-vara kitchen and carpentry room also made of post
walls, and a corral with enclosures for livestock.
After a disastrous fire in 1776 that was ignited by flaming arrows, most
of the buildings were destroyed. Only the church and the granary were
spared (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 172). To prevent a similar fire in the future,
the fathers resorted to tiling the roofs of the mission building (Engel
hardt 1933, 19). Over the next three years the mission was expanded,
using adobe construction and roof tiles. The expansion included a friars
house, a workroom, a guardhouse, and a barrack (Schuetz-Miller 1994,
172). Masons Salvador Rivera and Pedro Alcantara Ruiz, master blacksmith and armorer Pedro Gonzalez Garcia, blacksmith Jose Maria La
rios, and master carpenter and millwright Cayetano Lopez all contributed to thiswork.
In addition to those improvements, a water-powered mill was built
in 1784. The mill was only the second of its kind created in California
until 1798. It is reported that this mill had a fine stone floor. Duflot de
Mofras saw this mill when he visited the mission in 1841 and remarked
the millrace served to irrigate the fields, the vineyards, and the orchard
(Webb 1952, 154).
La Misin del Gloriossimo Prncipe Arcngel, Seor San Miguel
Mission San Miguel Archangel was founded on July 25, 1797, among the
Salinan people. It was the sixteenth mission established in Alta California
and the third founded in the summer of 1797. The mission is situated
between Missions San Antonio de Padua and San Luis Obispo de Tolosa
along the El Camino Real. Following the building of the initial small jacal church, a residence was constructed for the priests, as well as dwellings for the Indians, and the church was enlarged. Mission San Miguel
functioned in its original capacity until 1806, when a fire destroyed the
roof of the nearly completed adobe church. Several other buildings and
a great quantity of produce and equipment were also lost. With the aid
of neighboring missions, however, Mission San Miguel recovered from
this catastrophe within one years time. Roof tile manufacture is noted
as beginning in 1805, and a kiln for firing tiles was added in 1809
(Scheutz-Miller 1994, 174). In that year, 16,000 additional tiles were
made (Engelhardt 1929, 12). The stone foundation for a new church was
constructed in 1816. The mission, which was completed in 1818, survives
to this day (albeit heavily damaged by an earthquake in December 2003).
At the height of its population, in 1814, there were 1,076 neophytes at
Mission San Miguel. By 1831 the population had fallen to fewer than 700
(Hester 1978, 503). The site was totally deserted by 1849 (Schuetz-Miller
1994, 174).
Misin de Mara Santsima Nuestra Seora de la Soledad
On the ninth day of October 1791, Mission de Mara Santsima Nuestra

Seora de la Soledad was founded among the Salinan peoples (Tibesar
1956, 2, 141, cited in Farnsworth 1987, 197). The name La Soledad likely
was used to refer to the general Salinas Valley but ultimately became
linked with the mission itself (Farnsworth 1987, 202).
In 1791, several temporary structures were built using posts and
mud with roofs of tule and packed earth. A church, an office, a granary,
a kitchen, rooms for the padres, and dormitories for the single Native
American women soon followed (Farnsworth 1987, 202). The first permanent building, which was constructed of adobe and had a straw roof,
was completed in 1792. Several more permanent adobe buildings were
constructed in 1793, including an animal-powered mill (Farnsworth
1987, 213). According to Farnsworth, no new construction of buildings
was reported between the years 1810 and 1832. There is evidence of floor
tiles and iron bars being prepared in 1828 to repair various damaged
buildings at Mission Soledad (Farnsworth 1987, 239). During this period, Yokut peoples from the San Joaquin Valley began to move into the
mission system, joining the Soledads existing Salinan congregation and
other missions in the northern part of the province.
La Misin de San Antonio de Padua
San Antonio de Padua, the third mission established in Alta California (after San Diego and Carmel) (McCumsey 1993), was founded on
July 14, 1771, by Father Junpero Serra (Margolin 1997, 8). At its height
1,296 Northern Salinan people were in residence (Margolin 1997, 9), and
were involved in constructing buildings and irrigation systems; planting wheat, beans, and corn; horse, cattle, and sheep husbandry; making
wine; and tanning leather (Garretson 2000). In the second decade of the
nineteenth century, the resident Salinans were joined by Yokuts from the
San Joaquin Valley. The first mission structures were makeshift shelters
constructed using brush (Margolin 1997), but by 1776 building began
with adobe (Hoover and Costello 1985, 7). New structures were added
that included grist mills; wine presses; storage granaries; a tannery; a
shop where saddles, shoes, and harnesses were made; blacksmithing and
carpentry shops; structures that included rooms for carding and spinning wool and for weaving; laundry and cooking facilities; dormitories
for Native American residents, quarters for the Franciscans; barracks for
the soldiers; accommodations for the gardener and for guests; and adobe
walls that sectioned off areas for livestock corrals, gardens, and a cemetery (Margolin 1997, 8; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 170171). By 1781, structures included fired-roof tiles. According to mission documents, the potter, Mariano Tapa and the tile maker, Mariano Mendoza, were present at
the site in the 1790s (Williams 1983, 89), placing the likely beginning of
pottery making shortly before 1800.
La Misin San Carlos Borromeo del Ro Carmelo
San Carlos Borromeo del Ro Carmelo mission was founded in 1770

on Ohlone lands adjacent to the presidio in what is now Monterey. The
Ohlone were joined shortly thereafter by the nearby Esselen. A few
months after the first Masses were said, the mission was moved to more
arable lands across the Monterey Peninsula to the Ro Carmelo, now
Carmel, California. As earlier, Father Serra sought to separate the mission population from the soldiers in the presidio (Engelhardt 1934, 29).
Initial harvests were poor, resulting in the need to obtain some supplies
from Mission San Antonio de Padua and others shipped from Mission
San Diego de Alcal. After the relocation to the Rio Carmelo, the mission became more self-sustaining; residents produced wheat, corn, and
grapes and maintained herds of cattle, sheep, and horses.
The first buildings were of wattle-and-daub construction with a
thatched roof. These included a small chapel, living quarters for the padre, a room serving as a granary, and a combined kitchen and dormitory,
all of which were enclosed in a stockade (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 167). In
1774, Serra described the buildings in a letter:
The mission has a stockade of rough timbers, thick and high, with ravelins
in the corners. The main house is seven varas wide and fifty long. . . . The
walls are of rough timber, plastered over with mud. Those of the principal
rooms are white-washed with lime. One of these rooms serves for the present as a church. Near to this building is the barracks and guardhouse of the
soldiers, and, adjoining, their kitchen. All these buildings have flat roofs of
clay and mud. There are various little houses for the Indians, with roofs of
hay or straw. All these buildings are enclosed by the stockade. (Hawthorne
1942, 45)
In 1774, the first adobe structures were erected. La Perouse noted in

1786 that there were some 50 round and thatched huts where the neophytes
lived and that buildings of more durable materials had been constructed
of brick [adobe] and mortar (quoted in Schuetz-Miller 1994, 169).
Pottery was introduced in the Monterey region upon the arrival of the
Spanish. Mariano Tapia, who was from the pottery center of Puebla in
central Mexico, arrived at Monterey in June 1795. He signed a five-year
contract to work at Carmel Mission but died within eighteen months. He
was replaced by soldier Jos Antonio Romero (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99).
More than a decade later Yokuts from the San Joaquin valley joined the
Ohlone and Esselen as part of the missions congregation.
La Misin del Glorios Precursor de Jesu Cristo,
Nuestro Seor San Juan Bautista
Mission San Juan Bautista, the 15th mission in Alta California, was
founded on June 24, 1797, on lands associated with the Ohlone (Newcomb 1925, 283). Within its first year, an adobe church was built in addition to the ministers quarters, a granary, a kitchen, and a guardhouse.
By Christmas, a provisional 17-by-42-foot chapel was finished. By 1800,
over 500 Indians were living at the mission (Newcomb 1925). It was
reported that the still-standing larger church which was completed on
June 23, 1812, could hold a congregation of as many as 1,000 (Newcomb
1925). Given the size of this structure, this claim was no doubt hyperbole
driven by the zeal of the missionaries in their reports to their superiors in
Mexico and the Old World.
According to Schuetz-Miller (1994, 173174), four artisans were involved with early nineteenth-century mission construction. The first was
Jose Maria Larios, a soldier, blacksmith, and millwright, who served as
majordomo in 1803. The second was Manuel Rodriguez, a soldier and
carpenter. He was chosen to be corporal of the escort from 1801 to 1806.
He probably designed and was responsible for the early construction of
the new church, which was taken over in 1809 by Leocadio Martinez.
Another artisan to arrive was Jose Maria Frano, who in 1796 was involved
in the construction of the water power mill in Santa Cruz. He may have
been employed at Mission San Juan Bautista to do the same job. SchuetzMiller (1994) does not identify a resident potter or tile maker.
In 18231824 the mission experienced a large increase in population
that was aided by the many Yokuts from the San Joaquin Valley who continued to move into the mission populations. The population reached its
highest in 1823, when there were 641 males and 607 females (Engelhardt
1931, 36). Twenty-two adobe dwellings for the Indians were built thatyear.
Adobe walls for the buildings were constructed on foundations made
of stone and mortar. The Indians made the adobes by molding them with
wooden frames and letting them dry enough to support their own weight.
It is unclear when brick began to be fired, although one can estimate that
brick making began in the early years of the nineteenth century. According to Engelhardt, the church started using brick tiles to pave the church
in 1816, and then a lime kiln was built for burning tiles and bricks (Engelhardt 1931, 29). However, no specific date is mentioned.
San Francisco Presidio Jurisdiction
In 1776, the San Francisco Bay Area became the northernmost bastion
of New Spain. Captain Juan Bautista de Anza led some 250 soldiers, civilians, and priests with their personal belongings and their associated
livestock on a 1,000-mile overland trek from Sinaloa and Sonora through
Arizona, across the Colorado River, and north through California to the
Bay Area. There, the Presidio of San Francisco was constructed at the
mouth of the bay near what is now the Golden Gate Bridge. Members
of this expedition also established Mission San Francisco de Ass (1776),
Mission Santa Clara de Ass (1777), and the Pueblo of San Jos (1777).
These four outposts would form the nucleus of the San Francisco Presidio jurisdiction. Later they were joined by the villa of Branciforte (1797)
and Missions Santa Cruz (1791), San Jos (1797), San Rafael (1817), and
San Francisco Solano (1823) (Schuetz-Miller 1994).
La Misin San Francisco de Ass
Mission San Francisco de Ass (aka Mission Dolores), which was founded
on June 29, 1776, was the sixth mission founded in Alta California. It was
sited near a Chutchui (Ohlone) village. The first structures erected at the
site were made of wood and tule thatch (Engelhardt 1924, 47, 51, 55).
These included barracks for the soldiers and their families (Ambro 2003,
28; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 178180).
An adobe church was completed in 1791 that still stands today (Ambro 2003, 28; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 178179). Adobe brick production
began in 1783, but the firing of roof tiles, or tejas, did not begin until
1794, when tejas were added to cover the roof of the church (Geiger 1967,
200; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 179).
Pottery production at Mission Dolores probably occurred after 1794,
when the first tiles were fired, but definitely before August 30, 1796. The
assumption that pottery production began sometime in 1794 is based on
the date when mission residents began firing tejas. However, in a letter
dated August 30, 1796, Comandante Jos Daro Arguello wrote to Governor Borica that
I have forwarded to the Rev. Missionary Fathers of the Missions of Santa
Clara and Santa Cruz the paper drawn up by the soldier Lorezo [or
Lorenzo], in which he notified them that he would give instructions for
the making of pottery, so that, while he is concluding his work at San Francisco, they might collect the materials for brick, adobe, and other requisites
in order that he might perform the same work at Santa Clara. (Engelhardt
1924, 121)
This implies that Lorenzo had been teaching pottery making at San Francisco before the date of the letter.
By June 19, 1795, the Spaniard potter Mariano Tapia was in the Mon
terey area and presumably was making pottery throughout the bay area
(Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99). Later, Jos Antonio Romero succeeded him.
The latter enlisted at the Presidio de San Francisco on June 21, 1796
(Schuetz-Miller 1994, 91). Also another soldier, by the name of Casero,
was sent to help the missionaries at Santa Clara and Santa Cruz in setting
up portable manufacturing elements to make earthenware (Langelier
and Rosen 1992, 87).
The Presidio of San Francisco
The San Francisco presidio was founded on March 28, 1776. Home to
a diverse population of some 200 people, el Presidio de San Francisco
was a military village populated by soldiers and their families, agrarian
settlers, craftsworkers, servants, and Native Californian laborers (Voss
2002, 133).
First, a chapel, a guardhouse, barracks, and twenty-one houses for the
troops were built of wood and thatch (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 175). The
main quadrangle was constructed not only of adobe but also of jacal,
palisade, and stone architecture. It seems that colonists single-mindedly
ignored the local climate in their architectural decisions. A mud-brick
building technique would be ideal in a desert community, but in the
foggy and stormy climate of the San Francisco Bay, mud-brick construction was a colonial folly (Voss 2002, 237). The Presidio of San Francisco
is perhaps unique in the annals of Spanish colonial California regarding
the production and use of tiles for roofing. Rather than producing their
own tiles on site using the labor of the presidial troops, they looked to the
missions for help. Schuetz-Miller (1994, 176178) provides documentary
evidence for the movement of workers and materials (including timber,
adobes, and tiles) from Mission San Francisco. Clearly this was an expensive and unwieldy approach as she notes that through the second decade of the nineteenth century most of the structures were roofed with
thatch.
By July 1806, the only house covered with a ceramic tile roof was that
of the commandant, while the barrack had only half a roof. All the roofs
in what is built of the Presidio are of zacate [straw] and tule and are very
much exposed to fire, as far as authorities can realize it. Commander Sal
noted that the thatched roofs had to constantly be attended to because of
hurricane-like winds (Langelier and Rosen 1992, 31).
La Misin Santa Clara de Ass
Santa Clara was founded in January 1777 on the banks of the Guadalupe
River at the south end of San Francisco Bay. At first, it was home to ancestral Ohlone peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area. Forty years after the
establishment of the mission, the original Clareos were joined by central valley Yokut peoples and, by 1830, by Miwok peoples from the Sierra
foothills (Milliken 2002). For some 40 years, from the 1790s to the mid1830s, Mission Santa Clara was home to more than 1,000people. It was
visited by trained potters and it sent some of the Clareos to other missions to learn pottery making and other trades. It operated for 70years,
during which time the mission complex was repeatedly relocated due to
floods and earthquakes. Four years into its operation, the mission was
rebuilding for a third time on the site of what would become Santa Clara
University. There, buildings were constructed of adobe. In 1795, 18 years
after it was founded, Mission Santa Clara began producing roof and floor
tiles (Skowronek with Thompson 2006, 168; Spearman 1963, 49).
The Pueblo of San Jos de Guadalupe
The settlement that came to be known as El Pueblo de San Jos de Guadalupe was founded on November 29, 1777, on the east side of the Guadalupe River (Skowronek 1999, 2). It was the first European settlement in
Alta California not associated with a religious or military outpost.
Researchers feel that the first structures built on the original site of
San Jose de Guadalupe were not made of adobe (Skowronek 1999, 4). The
reason behind this thinking is that adobe structures would have required
far too much labor for the small adult population (there were only 15 men
and 51 women and children), especially with the a quickly approaching
rainy season. Instead it is believed that this first site was built out of wood
and tule reed and that no adobe structures were constructed until after
the pueblo moved to its current location in the 1790s.
Not surprisingly, among the first things built by the new inhabitants of
the pueblo were homes and a dam and irrigation ditches in anticipation
of the planting of agricultural field (Skowronek 1999, 5). Just two years
later, however, in 1779 a flood destroyed the dam and did considerable
damage to these homes (Skowronek 1999). Although nearby Mission
Santa Clara was moved to a new location, the pueblo remained where
it had been established until 1797, when it was moved to its current location, approximately one mile south. Once the mission was in its new
location, its buildings were constructed of adobe, as can be seen in the

oldest remaining adobe in the area, the Peralta Adobe.
Historic photographs of adobe structures indicate that many of those
in San Jos de Guadalupe were roofed with wooden shingles. Although
there is no documentary evidence for the fabrication of bricks, tiles, or
ceramics in the community, these fired objects have been found in archaeological deposits dating to the nineteenth century (Cartier et al.
1979; Johnson 1985; Skowronek 1999).
La Misin la Exaltacin de la Santa Cruz
Misin la Exaltacin de la Santa Cruz (Mission of the Exaltation of the

Holy Cross) was founded on September 25, 1791, among the Ohlone people along the banks of the San Lorenzo River (Edwards, Simpson-Smith,
and Hampson 1999; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 183). In the second decade of
the nineteenth century, northern valley Yokuts from the central valley
joined the mission and became Cruzeos (Allen 1998, 13). As mentioned
above, the northern valley Yokuts were not pottery makers but those
of the southern valley were (Gayton 1929, 249; Olsen and Payen 1968,
5556; Pritchard 1970, 17; Wallace 1978a, 452; 1978b, 465). The first
buildings were jacal structures that were plastered with clay and roofed
with tule reeds. The following is an excerpt from the annual report of 1791:
There has been built a house of palizada [wattle and daub] twenty six
varas long and six varas wide, suitably partitioned into living quarters for
the fathers and necessary workshops, and the Church of palisades which
is twenty varas long by six wide with sacristy six varas long by four wide.
(Allen 1998, 1011)
The original site was abandoned the following year due to flooding. The
mission was moved to what today is called Mission Hill.
The local environment provided abundant raw materials. Both redwood for lumber and a local mudstone for foundations were used. According to Schuetz-Miller (1994, 183), The first building to be erected
at the new site was a large building for the padres built of adobe with
a flat roof made of ladrillos sealed with mortar and bitumen. If these
truly were bricks it raises the question of why tiles were not made and
used. Perhaps the reference was to a flat roof or azotea of unfired adobe
bricks, which would have had to be sealed with mortar and bitumen.
This conjecture is borne out shortly thereafter in the historic record,

which informs us that a permanent church of adobe blocks was erected.
The cornerstone of limestone rock was laid for the new church in 1793.
It was completed in 1794. Its adobe walls were nearly five feet thick (Edwards et al. 1990). The padres described in the annual report a roof that
was vaulted and made of tule. Later the roof was replaced with one of
tiles made by the Indians. In 1811, the azotea (flat roof ) was replaced with
one of tiles (Kimbro, Ryan, and Jackson 1985). Mardith Schuetz-Miller
(1994, 185) believes that tile kilns were built sometime between 1799 and
1809. In 1796 Engelhardt (1924, 121) reports that the potter Jos Antonio
Romero, who was a soldier at the San Francisco presidio, visited Missions
San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz (Johnson 1985, 54; Langelier
and Rosen 1992, 87; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 91). And according to Langelier and Rosen (1992), in the 1790s a soldier by the name of Casero was
sent to help the missionaries at Santa Cruz set up portable manufacturing elements to make earthenware.
La Misin del Gloriossimo Patriarca Seor San Jos
La Misin del Gloriossimo Patriarca Seor San Jos (The Most Glorious Patriarch Lord St. Joseph) was established in June 1797 next to the
Ohlone village of Oroysom. Mission San Jose became known as the land
of a thousand gardens. At its maximum population in 1820, 1,754 people
lived at the mission (Holmes 1997). In addition to residents engaged in
agriculture and animal husbandry, carpenters, blacksmiths, masons, and
millers lived at the site (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 186).
The original structures at the complex were built of wood and thatch
or jacal structures. In the first five years of the nineteenth century, residents began building with adobe blocks. By 1811, 84 structures had been
built (Holmes 1997; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 186). Currently it is unknown
when Mission San Jos began firing tiles. Thompsons (2003) work on
mission-era housing units suggests that the date of production is early in
the nineteenth century.
La Misin del Gloriossimo Prncipe San Rafael, Arcngel
Founded north of the Golden Gate in December of 1817, Mission San

Rafael was built among the Miwok but also was home to Ohlone from
the San Francisco area. The first buildings were constructed of adobe
(Schuetz-Miller 1994, 186187).
La Misin de San Francisco Solano
In 1823, the last mission built in California, San Francisco Solano, was
founded among the Miwok in what is today Sonoma, California. During
the first two years of its existence a wooden church, a granary, a convent,
and a guardhouse were built. These were replaced over the next eight
years with tile-roofed adobe constructions (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 187).
The Significance of Ceramics in the Spanish Colonial World
The foregoing presentation of the missions, presidios, and pueblos in
Alta Californias four presidio jurisdictions in no way pretends to provide
more than a brief statement about the founding of the settlements and
what little we know about the emergence or existence of ceramic craft
manufacture at specific locations. Ceramics, however, are an important
part of everyday life. They are used for the preparation, presentation, and
storage of foodstuffs and to construct durable buildings. As ceramicists
will attest, in the preindustrial world, ceramics were produced in similar ways and in similar forms around the world, but nuances in forms,
fabrication techniques, and decoration may be so distinct that they can
be associated with specific production locales. When items are found
outside of the locations where they were produced, they can be taken as
de facto evidence of either exchange or supply. Such was the situation in
California in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. There,
pottery was previously unknown to all but the southernmost groups in
California; the rest of the residents of the region relied primarily on an
extremely well-developed basket-making tradition for their cooking,
storage and transportation needs. But true Spaniards did not cook in or
eat out of baskets. That meant that the ceramic needs of the settlers, soldiers, missionaries, and those Native Peoples who joined the missions
had to be made locally or imported.
To summarize, the documentary record indicates that bricks and tiles
were made at every community in the region, and there is evidence that
pottery was being made at some sites. There is also ample evidence of the
supply of the colony from Mexico. At first glance, a local/nonlocal determination might seem as simple as examining the plain and lead-glazed,
low-fired, porous ceramic earthenwares that are found the length of Alta
California. However, even at a cursory level, it soon becomes clear that
there are extraordinary similarities among earthenwares found hundreds
of miles apart. For some scholars, these similarities have been explained
as the result of intermission trade. Others felt that most of these utilitarian ceramics were manufactured and used locally. Thus there were two
dominant beliefs, and the substantiation of one over the other would
have a significant impact on how emerging economies were interpreted.
In the balance of this study, we address this issue of local/nonlocal
manufacture through the formation processes use to modify raw material resources and form and fire the plain earthenware pottery. We use an
instrumental means of characterizing the elemental constituents of the
ceramics paste so it is possible to differentiate pottery made from closely
spaced but geochemically different raw material resources. In so doing,
we emphasize what we know and the need to understand the historical
setting for what is not.
Part III
The Creation of Ceramics
Documentary evidence shows that ceramic items were produced

throughout the province of California, seemingly making them ubiquitous. Yet we know almost nothing about who made them, how they were
made, and what forms were made. Obviously the forms of architectural
earthenwares are well known, but that is not the case with what was presumably commonplace potteryfor the preparation, presentation, and
storage of foods in Spanish colonial California. Rarely have these ceramics survived in identifiable forms. As we have shown, precontact California was largely occupied by aceramic peoples who left generations of
archaeologists only artifacts of shell and stone.
What then do you do when confronted with a huge collection of ceramic fragments and few semi-complete or complete vessels to indicate
form? If you meet the problem head on, you begin to sort and glue. This
is the task that confronted Julia Costello with a kitchen assemblage from
Mission San Antonio, as she describes in chapter 5. Fresh from sorting
and analyzing pottery in the Middle East, Costello knew that classifications are an essential starting point for understanding ceramic variation
in many archaeological projects. This painstaking work then allows for
comparisons of similarly treated collections across time and space. Costellos typology is illustrated here with the hope that it will serve to structure the processing and understanding of materials recovered at other
California sites.
68 Part III. The Creation of Ceramics
The handling of a large number of sherds reveals something about the

forming technologies and recipes involved in making the pottery, but the
attempt to fabricate vessel forms focuses scrutiny on how potters drew
from the raw materials available and manipulated them to yield successfully to hold a ceramic form. In chapter 6, master potter Ruben Reyes
writes of how he handled scores of fragments, extracted and prepared
hundreds of pounds of clays, and experimented with his understanding
of throwing and modeling clay in order to replicate forms that he inferred
from the same San Antonio sherds and forms that Costello (this volume)
and Williams (1983) discuss. Reyes, who spent two decades troubleshooting silica components in the high-technology computer industry
of Silicon Valley, also brings decades of experiences working with traditional potters in Mexico. Taken together they provide for him a platform for better understanding the creation processes, or getting into
the heads of the mission potters. His reproductions of forms provide
an intellectually and mechanically informed perspective on Californias
locally made pottery.
Once pottery is formed and dried, it must be fired in the proper conditions of temperature and atmosphere to be transformed into a durable object. Mike Imwalle describes the use of kilns in Alta California in
chapter 7 for firing both pottery and architectural ceramics. His analysis
of archaeologically studied Spanish colonial-era kilns using both scale
models and a fully functioning two-chamber updraft kiln at the Santa
Barbara presidio has shed new light on the technology associated with
ceramic manufacture on the California frontier. Through their collaboration, Imwalle and Reyes have been able to develop a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the entire ceramic process from clay extraction
through firing. This section answers the questions regarding who made
the ceramics, how the ceramics were made, and what forms were made
in Alta California.
5
A Typology of Mission Pottery
Drawings and Descriptions of Low-Fire Earthenwares
from Mission San Antonio de Padua, California
Julia G. Costello
Discussion of the Typology

The Howard Collection
Excavations in 19691971 were carried out at Mission San Antonio by
Donald M. Howard and were summarized in a report and in two popular
articles (Howard 1969, 1972, 1973). Among the materials recovered was
an enormously rich collection of locally made low-fire earthenwares from
what was designated as Site II (figure 5.1). He described the Mission San
Antonio site as the largest and deepest of the mission locations he tested.
Its surface area was about 116 by 126 feet, it reached 52 inches deep,
and it had a very high artifact yield. Because of these facts, Howard concluded that Site II was the community kitchen for the entire ranchera
(Howard 1972, 2).
Site II was located at the northern end of the eastern Indian residence
wing, on its exterior (eastern) side (figure 5.1) and was the focus of 22units
measuring 5 5 square meters. The site was excavated in arbitrary sixinch levels, and the soil was passed through one-eighth-inch screens.
Reports noted the abundance of locally made earthenware ceramics,
which Howard named San Antoino Plainware Pottery. Fragments of
glass, shell, bone beads, stone points, scrapers, drills, and worked flakes
were also found. Also recovered were two coins (a 1797 Spanish real and
Figure 5.1. A portion of the casco (quadrangle or headquarters) of Mission San Antonio de Padua, California.
an 1831 Mexican two-real), several prehistoric-style tools manufactured

from glass and porcelain, and fragments of pestles, manos, mortars, and
possible comals. Completing the inventory were myriad . . . iron and
copper pieces . . . nails, spikes, buckles, buttons, coins, copper sheathing,
iron pot pieces, knives, forks, etc. (Howard 1972, 48). No summary
tables or catalogue were produced, although dietary remainsparticularly marine shell and seedsreceived a detailed analysis. Large quantities of bone and roof tiles were described as being present in the deposit,
although neither of these categories of material was collected. Artifacts
from the excavation were stored in boxes at Mission San Antonio, organized in bags marked with their excavation provenience of grid square
and depth from surface.
A Typology of Mission Pottery71
Developing the Typology

I was introduced to the Howard Collection when serving as lab director during the first three years (19761978) of the long-running Mission
San Antonio de Padua archaeological field school, directed by RobertL.
Hoover of California State University, San Luis Obispo (Hoover and
Costello 1985). I had recently moved to Santa Barbara, California, from
Lebanon, where I worked for two years as a ceramic analyst on pottery
collections from the Bronze Age, the Iron Age (Phoenician), and Roman
periods. As the new archaeologist for the Royal Presidio of Santa Barbara, I turned my attention from the Middle East to Spanish Colonial
California.
Classification is a usual early step in attempting to understand observed variation in archaeological materials. The abundance of pottery
Howard recovered offered an opportunity to evaluate the range of potters practices in creating the plain earthenware. Numerous field school
students volunteered to help with the analysis of the Howard Collections
low-fired ceramics; Lynn Bremer Smith served as key assistant. Setting
aside the imported ceramics from New Spain, England, and China, we
focused on the simple utilitarian low-fired pottery that appeared to have
been made at the mission itself. Taking over an empty room next to our
field school laboratory, we laid out all of the sherds (over 1,800) on large
tables made of sheets of plywood. Cross-mending between units and levels resulted in our assembling a large collection of partial vessel forms,
which we catalogued with sequential numbers prefixed by H (for Howard). A summary record sheet was filled out for each unit level that itemized their ceramic contents and classified all diagnostic pieces of pottery
by type (rims, bases, handles, and body carinations). It was hoped that
this classification system could standardize identifications for future ceramic analysis at Mission San Antonio and provide a basis of comparison
for archaeologists working at other Spanish- and Mexican-period sites.
The ceramic typology developed during these years followed established formats being used at that time in the Middle East. Attributes of
formand of paste, manufacture, function, and decorative treatments
determined the type categories, and measured section drawings were
made of representative vessels. During the course of this work, some
initial type designations were condensed into more inclusive categories
as later examples clarified classifications. The typology presented below
includes the renaming of some of the original types.
Despite these extensive efforts, after 1978 the data sheets, drawings,
and analysis notes on the Howard Collection study were buried in my
file drawer. In 2003, however, when I was preparing for a presentation
on mission-period ceramics at the annual meeting of the California Mission Studies Association, I exhumed these papers and completed the inking of many of the drawings. In 2007, I roughly organized the material
into a manuscript of limited distribution (Costello 2007), a process that
required some improvements in type designations. These changes have
been incorporated in this publication.
Discussion
In all, 1,821 sherds were examined and 859 diagnostic pottery elements
were classified (Table 5.1). Major vessel forms (identifiable from diagnostic fragments) are referred to by their key letters: B = Bowls; PL =
Plates and Lids; PJ = Pots and Jars; WB = Wheel Base; HB = Hand Base;
LB = Large Base; and H = Handles. Variations within these forms are
given sequential type numbers (i.e., B1, B2, etc.). Each type is represented
by profile drawings of representative examples, referred to by their catalogue numbers (i.e., H-23, H-45, etc.).
Bowls, cooking pots, and jars dominate the collection. These exhibit a
wide range of manufacturing techniques and pottery-making expertise.
The skilled hand of the artisan is visible on wheel-made vessels that
are clearly European in design, such as Type B1 bowls (figure 5.2), Type
B4 bowl H-72 (figure 5.3), Type PL1 soup bowls (figure 5.3), and Type
PJ8 jar H-137 (figure 5.5). Efforts of beginners are also evident in many of
the hand-modeled Type B5 bowls (figure 5.3). Occurrences of wheel- and
hand-modeled vessels are about equal in the collection. However, there
is also ample evidence of mixed techniques: there are vessels which have
molded bases and coiled sides, molded bases and wheel-made sides,
wheel-made bodies with applied ring bases, hand-modeled vessels, and
coiled vessels with and without paddle-and-anvil finishing (Costello
1985a, 32).
The low numbers of identified imported ceramics in the Howard Collection support Howards conclusion that Site II was a midden from the
missions cocina, or kitchen. The total sherds of maylica (n = 14), leadglazed ware (n = 22), Chinese wares (n = 8), and English wares (n= 5)
constitute less than 3 percent of the Howard Collection. This contrasts
Table 5.1. Summary of ceramic types: Low-fired earthenwares from

Mission San Antonio, California
Type
Description
Bowls: Open hollow forms with rim the largest diameter

B1
Flaring sides, articulated rim; wheel made
B2
Flaring sides, plain rim; wheel made n = 82,
hand-made n = 11
B3
Nearly vertical sides, plain rim; wheel made
n = 34, hand-made n = 3
B4
Incurving sides, articulated rim, opposing
horizontal handles on wheel-made versions;
wheel made n = 12, hand-made n = 19
B5
Small pinched bowl; hand-made
B
Fragments
Plates and Lids: Low, open forms including soup plates and
lids for pots
PL1
Soup plate with interior carination; wheel made
PL2
Plain sides and rim, hand and wheel made
PL
Fragments
Pots and Jars: Closed, rounded forms with rim smaller than
largest body diameter; evidence of heavy exterior burning
indicates cooking pots
PJ1
Cooking pot with everted rim, strap handles,
burnishing, white slip decoration; hand-made
PJ2
Tall, thin, nearly vertical neck, opposing
handles; wheel and hand made
PJ3
Cooking pot with flared rim, opposing strap
handles, burnishing; hand made
PJ4
Tall, plain incurving vessel walls and rim;
burnishing; most are cooking pots; wheel
made n = 11; hand-made n = 13
PJ5
Cooking pot with everted rim with exterior
thickening; wheel made
PJ6
Plain, sharply flared rim, medium to large;
crudely made; some are cooking pots; wheel
and hand made
PJ7
Jar forms with straight neck over rounded body,
rim plain or flattened; wheel made
PJ8
Round body, articulated shoulder,
vertical rim, some burnished; wheel made
Miscellaneous
Juglets
Small hand-pinched vessels
Comales
Flat hand-made slabs with one highly
burnished surface
Figurines
Hand-made human and animal forms
Marbles
Hand-made
Other
Miscellaneous items
Totals
248
39
93
37
31
21
27
34
9
19
6
275
128
37
17
24
9
17
28
15
24
7
5
4
2
6
(continued)
Table 5.1. (continued)

Type
Description
Wheel Base: Base manufactured on a wheel or formed in a

mold and finished on a wheel
WB1
Thin, convex base, no articulation
WB2
Thin, flat base, exterior articulation
WB3
Ring base
WB4
Slightly concave base, no articulation
WB
Fragments
Hand Base: Base modeled by hand
HB1
Rounded, unarticulated
HB2
Flat, unarticulated, gently flaring sides
HB3
Flat, unarticulated, nearly vertical sides
HB4
Flat, articulated, flaring sides
HB5
Flat, unarticulated, flaring sides
HB
Fragments
Large Base: Large, heavy hand-made bases for vessels such
as basins and storage jars
LB1
Flat, unarticulated
LB2
Flat, articulated
LB3
Flat, concave
LB
Fragments
Handles: Appendages attached to vessels; hand made
H1
Horizontal, two coils
H2
Vertical, strap or two coils
Total Diagnostic Pieces
Body Sherds
Total
Totals
106
15
56
8
9
18
104
27
22
20
8
16
11
37
15
13
5
4
31
10
21
962
859
962
1,821
with the ceramic distribution from three Indian residence rooms at the
mission, where over 50 percent (n = 87) of the recovered ceramics were
imported. In these Indian residence rooms, all of the imported ceramics
represent vessels used on the table, while over 80 percent of the locally
made pottery is associated with cooking (Costello 1985a, 3335).
Decorative finishes were not common on the Howard Collection
pottery. The remarkable exception is cooking pot Type PJ1 (figure 5.4),
which often has white-slip designs on rims. Utilitarian burnishing occurs
as a surface treatment on several types of cooking pots and jars (PJ1, PJ3,
PJ4), probably to improve their water-retention qualities. Examination of
broken sections of cooking pots revealed that the heavy soot buildup on
exteriors frequently penetrated well beneath the surface, and bases were
typically badly deteriorated from extended exposure to fire.
Study of sherd sections also revealed that while some ceramic pastes
were smooth and well cleaned, others were crude and contained abundant inclusions, suggesting that methods of clay preparation varied and/
or that there may have been different sources of raw material. The Howard Collection sherds also exhibited a wide range of firing conditions with
abundant incompletely oxidized cores, indicating both poorly controlled
kiln conditions and a tolerance for less than optimal quality on the part
of both potters and users.
Notes on the Typology
The Howard Collection from Mission San Antonio de Padua is one of the
largest and most diverse assemblages of locally made earthenware vessels
recovered from any Spanish or Mexican period context in California. This
typology of vessel forms and types can provide a common vocabulary for
comparing similar ceramics from other locations. The proportional occurrence of forms and types from this kitchen refuse deposit may also
serve as a baseline for measuring functional and regional variations exhibited in ceramic collections from other sites and contexts.
The typology is presented by general categories, such as Bowls, followed by distinctive types. Diagnostic sherds that are not large enough to
classify in one of the types may at least be identified by category. In what
follows, line drawings of example vessels appear on the page facing their
descriptions. Where several diagnostic attributes are represented on one
vessel, the drawing and description are presented under the rim type, and
associated base and handle types are referred back to that entry.
The caption for each type includes a general description, information about manufacturing methods, data about rim or base diameters,
and catalogued examples. Wheel made distinguishes vessels with
predominant evidence of the use of a potters wheel in its manufacture,
although other techniques may also be present, such as the common
use of a molded base (the clay pressed into a pre-formed mold). Handmade encompasses both simple pinching and modeling of the clay and
more complex coil techniques (sometimes smoothed on the wheel or
by paddle-and-anvil finishing). Diameters (rim and base) are measured
from the exterior of vessels. All diameters that could be obtained from
type examples are presented to document the types range.
While every effort was made to cross-mend sherds throughout the
collection, the counts indicate the total occurrence of that diagnostic
Table 5.2. Munsell color readings on selected sherds

Example
Munsell Color
Vessel Type
H98
H139
2.5 YR
2.5 YR
5.5/8
5.5/8
H73
H59
5 YR
5 YR
5/4
5/6
H109
5 YR
6/7
PL1: soup plate; wheel made

LB3: large hand-made concave
base
B1: open bowl; wheel made
B3: straight-sided hollow form;
hand-made
WB4: wheel-made base
form and not the minimum number of vessels (MNI) represented in the
collection.
Munsell soil colors (Munsell Color Company 1975) were read from a
fresh break and taken from just under the surface. Lighting conditions
were controlled following instructions in the Munsell guide (Table 5.2).
The results of test-firing local clays suggest that the ceramics were fired
with kiln temperatures of about 1,100 to 1,200C (Costello 1985b, 133).
Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2
Bowls (n 248)
Open hollow vessels with rims the largest body diameter.
Type B1 (n 39)
Description: Open bowl with flaring sides, everted rim, and articulated interior rim; exterior burning sometimes present. Manufacture: Wheel made; rim
may be folded to exterior. Rim Diameters: 15, 20, 22, 22, 24, 24, 24cm.
Associations: Curved and flat wheel-made bases (Types WB1 and WB2).
Examples: H-73: Rim diameter 23.5 cm, wall thickness below rim 0.5cm;
height ca. 7 cm (figure 5.2a). H-87: Rim diameter 22 cm; base diameter
13cm, center base thickness 0.6 cm (Type WB2); wall thickness below
rim 0.5 cm; height 5 cm (figure 5.2b). H-90: Rim diameter 15cm; base
diameter 5 cm, center thickness 0.2 cm (type WB1); wall thickness below
rim 0.7 cm; height 4.5 cm (figure 5.2c). H-104: Rim diameter 20cm; wall
thickness below rim 0.5 cm (figure 5.2d). H-162: Rim diameter 24 cm; wall
thickness below rim 0.4 cm (figure 5.2e).
Type B2 (n 93)
Description: Open bowl with flaring sides; plain rim, no articulations, although one rim was squared (H-52); similar to Types PL1 and PL2 but walls
are more vertical.
Manufacture: Wheel made (n 82)
Coils may have been used to form walls. Rim Diameters: 17.5, 19, 19.5,
20, 21, 21.5 cm. Associations: Curved and flat wheel-made bases (Types
WB1 and WB2). Examples: H-47: Rim diameter 21 cm; wall thickness below
rim 0.7 cm; estimated height 67 cm (figure 5.2f). H-52: Rim diameter
19cm; rim is squared on top; base diameter 8.5 cm, center thickness
0.4cm (Type WB1); wall thickness below rim 0.4 cm; height 5.2cm (figure5.2g). H-92: Rim diameter 17.5 cm, wall thickness below rim 0.5cm
(figure5.2h). H-105: Rim diameter 20 cm, wall thickness below rim 0.4cm
(figure 5.2i). H-116: Rim diameter 19.5 cm; base diameter 7cm, center
base thickness 0.6 cm (Type WB2); wall thickness below rim 0.4 cm; height
6.5 cm (figure 5.2k). H-142: Rim diameter 21.5 cm; wall thickness below
rim 0.65 cm (figure 5.2n).
Manufacture: Handmade (n 11)
Rim Diameters: 24, 29, 30 cm. Associations: Large, hand-made bases (Type
LB1). Examples: H-126: Rim diameter 24 cm; base diameter ca. 13cm,
center thickness 1.4 cm (Type LB1); wall thickness below rim 1.0 cm;
height 11 cm (figure 5.2l). H-131: Rim diameter ca. 30 cm; wall thickness
below rim 1 cm (figure 5.2m). H-148: Rim diameter 29 cm, wall thickness
below rim 0.7 cm (figure 5.2j).
Type B3 (n 37)
escription: Hollow form with nearly vertical sides; plain rim, one wheelD
made example has pinched spout, likely a pitcher (H-140, figure 5.2r); rim
finish similar to Types PL1 and PL2 but vessel walls are vertical.
Rim Diameters: 11, 20+, 30+ cm. Examples: H-59: Rim diameter 20+cm;
wall thickness below rim 0.4 cm (figure 5.2p). H-65: Rim diameter 30+cm;
wall thickness below rim 0.9 cm (figure 5.2o). H-140: Rim diameter
11.25cm, wall thickness below rim 0.8 cm, pinched spout; as for a
pitcher; estimated height 1718 cm (figure 5.2r).
Manufacture: Hand made (n 3)
Rim Diameters: 15 cm. Example: H-94: Rim diameter 15 cm; wall thickness
below rim 0.5 cm (figure 5.2q).
Figure 5.3
Type B4 (n 31)
Description: Well-made bowl with incurving sides and articulated rim.
Rim rolled to interior to thicken edge and then usually flattened; two
opposing horizontal handles (Type H1). Rim Diameters: 2028, 25 cm.
Associations: Horizontal handles (Type H1); thin concave base (Type WB4).
Examples: H-71: Rim diameter ca. 25 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.4cm
(figure 5.3b). H-72: Rim diameter 2028 cm; base diameter 17.5 cm, center thickness 0.5 cm (Type WB4); wall thickness below rim 0.7 cm; height
7.5 cm (figure 5.3c).
Manufacture: Hand made (n 19)
Articulated interior rim edge. Rim Diameters: 19, 20 cm. Examples: H-46:
Rim diameter 20 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.9 cm (figure 5.3a). H-103:
Rim diameter 19 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.6 cm (figure 5.3d)
Type B5 (n 16)
escription: Small, hand-formed dish or bowl, slightly flaring to vertical
D
sides; plain rim, no articulations; spouted dishes (H-57, H-117); may be
lamps. Manufacture: Hand modeled or pinched. Rim Diameters: 4.25, 7,
9, 10, 10, 11, 11.5, 12.5, 13.5 cm. Associations: Hand-made base Types
Figure 5.3
HB1, HB2, and HB3. Examples: H-41: Rim diameter 10 cm; base diameter 9.25cm, center thickness 0.6 cm (Type HB3); wall thickness below
rim 0.8cm; height 3.5 cm (figure 5.3e). H-57: Rim diameter 15.0 cm, rim
spout; base diameter 13.5 cm, center thickness 0.7 cm (Type HB3); wall
thickness 0.7 cm at 3.5 cm above ground (figure 5.3g). H-64: Rim diameter
10 cm; base diameter 4 cm, center thickness 1.4 cm; wall thickness below
rim 0.9 cm; height 4.5 cm (figure 5.3f). H-66: Rim diameter 10.9cm; base
(Type HB1) diameter 5.8 cm, center thickness 0.4 cm (Type HB3); wall
thickness below rim 0.5 cm; height 4 cm (figure 5.3h). H-77: Rim diameter
11.4 cm; base diameter 8.9 cm, center thickness 1.0 cm (Type HB3); wall
thickness below rim 0.6 cm; height 3.8 cm (figure 5.3i). H-86: Rim diameter
4.3 cm; base diameter 1.5 cm, center base thickness 1.0 cm (Type HB1);
wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm; height 5.0 cm (figure 5.3j). H-111: Rim
diameter 7.0 cm; base diameter 2.3 cm, center thickness 0.6cm (Type
HB2); wall thickness below rim 0.3 cm; height 2.2 cm (figure 5.3k). H-114:
Rim diameter 9.1 cm; pinched spout; base diameter 0.3cm, center thickness 1.1cm (Type HB1); wall thickness below rim 0.8cm; height 4.0 cm
(figure5.3l). H-117: Rim diameter 12.5 cm, pinched spout; base diameter
2.0cm, center thickness 1.8 cm (Type HB1); wall thickness below rim
1.2cm; height 7.3 cm (figure 5.3m). H-134: Rim diameter 13.7 cm; base
diameter 10.0 cm, center thickness 1.0 cm (Type HB3); wall thickness
below rim 0.8cm; height 4.8 cm (figure 5.3n).
Plates and Lids (n 34)

L ow open vessels including soup (deep) plates and possibly lids for pots.
Rim form is similar to Type B2 but stance is wider. Because of their similar
profiles and stances, plates and lids can be difficult to distinguish from
each other as fragments.
Type PL1 (n 9)
escription: Low open form with plain rim and articulated interior carinaD
tion. Manufacture: Wheel made. Rim Diameters: 2025, 2025. Examples: H-89: Rim diameter 2025 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.4 cm (figure5.3o). H-98: Rim diameter 2025 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm
(figure5.3p).
Type PL2 (n 19)
escription: Low open form with plain sides and rim. Manufacture: Wheel
D
and hand made. Rim Diameters: 1215, 2030 cm. Examples: H-75: Rim
diameter 1215 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm (figure5.3q). H-76:
Rim diameter 2030 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm (figure 5.3r).
Figure 5.4
Pots and Jars (n 275)
losed hollow vessels with rim diameters smaller than the largest body
C
diameter; those associated with cooking usually have evidence of heavy
burning with bases deteriorated from exposure to fire and soot deposits
penetrating exterior surfaces.
Type PJ1 (n 128)
escription: Round body and shoulder, no neck, everted rim with interior
D
andexterior articulations; opposing strap handles (Type H2) from rim
toshoulder; interior and exterior burnish; some with white slip decorations (n = 63); all are cooking pots with heavy burning. Manufacture:
Handmodeled; three-part construction (base, body, neck/rim). Rim Diameters: 8, 11, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 17, 18, 20, 20, 20, 20,
22, 22, 22, 22, 23, 24, 24, 29, 30 cm. Surface Treatment: All interior and
exterior burnished; white slip decoration: exterior (n = 13), rims (n = 35),
rim and exterior (n= 13); interior-exterior glaze (n = 2). Associations: Type
HB1, most bases burned out; strap handles (Type H2). Examples: H-500:
Rim diameter 18 cm; base diameter 3.3 cm, center thickness 0.7cm
(TypeHB1); wall thickness below rim 0.7 cm; height 11 cm (figure 5.4a).
H-501: Rim diameter 18 cm; base diameter ca. 3 cm, center thickness
0.4cm (Type HB1); wall thickness below rim 0.9 cm; height 17 cm (figure5.4b). H-502: Rim diameter 17 cm; base diameter ca. 2 cm, center
thickness 0.7 cm (Type HB1); wall thickness below rim 0.7 cm; height 9 cm
(figure 5.4c).
Type PJ2 (n 37)
escription: Round body with tall thin neck; opposing strap handles
D
(TypeH2) from rim to just above shoulder; rim plain and nearly vertical with exterior fold; all cooking pots with heavy burning. Manufacture:
Coil and wheel methods; wheel-made base and body with coils added
at shoulderand pulled up to rim. Rim Diameters: 18, 20, 20, 20, 25,
28 cm.Surface Treatment: Interior burnish (n = 26). Associations: Strap
handles (Type H2). Examples: H-507: Rim diameter 18 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.8cm; opposing strap handles; estimated height 20 cm
(figure5.4d).
Type PJ3 (n 17)
escription: Small round body and shoulder, plain flared rim; opposing
D
straphandles (Type H2) from rim to shoulder with center groove; interior
and exterior burnish; all cooking pots with heavy burning. Manufacture:
Hand modeled; two-part construction (base to shoulder, shoulder to
Figure 5.4
rim). Rim Diameters: 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 cm. Surface Treatment:
All interior and exterior burnished. Associations: Strap handles Type H2.
Examples: H-504: Rim diameter 10 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm;
estimated height 6cm (figure 5.4e). H-505: Rim diameter 13 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.5 cm; estimated height 6.5 cm (figure 5.4f). H-506: Rim
diameter 15 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.4 cm; estimated height 9 cm
(figure 5.4g).
Type PJ4 (n 24)
escription: Tall thin vessel walls with plain incurving rim; most are heavily
D
burned cooking pots; two examples not burned.
Some vessels have opposing strap handles (Type H2). Rim Diameters:
1519, 38 cm. Examples: H-91: Rim diameter 1519 cm; rim folded to
exterior and squared; wall thickness below rim 0.9 cm (figure 5.4h). H-163:
Rim diameter 38 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.7 cm; (figure 5.4j)
Manufacture: Hand modeled (n 13)
Likely two-part construction. Rim Diameters: 16.5, 24 cm. Surface Treatment: All have interior burnish; one example with interior and exterior
burnish. Examples: H-119: Rim diameter 24 cm; wall thickness below
rim0.8cm (figure 5.4i). H-508: Rim diameter 16.5 cm; wall thickness
below rim 0.6 cm; opposing strap handles; estimated height 16 cm
(figure5.4k).
Type PJ5 (n 9)
escription: Round body with smaller mouth; everted rim with exterior thickD
ening; opposing strap handles (Type H2); all cooking pots with heavy burning. Manufacture: Wheel made; two-part construction; rim folded to exterior
with slight interior groove. Rim Diameters: 20, 22 cm. Associations: Strap
handles Type H2. Examples: H-503: Rim diameter 20cm; wall thickness
below rim 0.6 cm (figure 5.4l).
Figure 5.5
Type PJ6 (n 17)
escription: Medium to large pot with closed mouth, rim sharply flared to
D
exterior; heavy hand-molded base; some examples have burned exteriors
andwere likely used for cooking. Manufacture: Crudely wheel made; perhaps
coils laid and smoothed on a wheel; molded base. Rim Diameters: 16.5,
18, 19, 26, 28 cm. Associations: Heavy hand-molded Type LB3. Examples:
H-55: Rim diameter 19 cm; wall thickness below rim 1.2 cm (figure 5.5a).
H-80:Rim diameter 17 cm; wall thickness below rim 1.0 cm (figure 5.5b).
H-82: Rim diameter 18 cm; wall thickness below rim 1.1 cm (figure 5.5c).
H-129: Rim diameter 26 cm; wall thickness below rim 0.7 cm (figure 5.5d).
H-135: Rim diameter 28 cm; base diameter 12 cm, center base thickness 1.2 cm (Type LB3); wall thickness below rim 0.8 cm; height 21 cm
(figure5.5e).
Type PJ7 (n 28)
escription: Medium to large wheel-made pot or jar with straight rim and
D
neck; lip on one vessel (H-164) turned to exterior and flattened; opposing
strap handles (Type H2) may be present. Manufacture: Wheel made. Rim
Diameters: 15, 15, 11.8, 18.5 cm. Associations: May have opposing strap
handles (Type H2). Examples: H-42: Rim diameter 18.5 cm; wall thickness
below rim 0.6 cm; height of neck 5.2 cm (figure 5.5f). H-84: Lower neck and
upper body; diameter at bottom of neck 15 cm; estimated height 1719cm
(figure 5.5g). H-118: Rim diameter 11.8 cm; wall thickness below rim
1.0cm; height of neck 4.8 cm (figure 5.5i). H-121: Rim diameter 15 cm;
wall thickness below rim 0.75 cm; height of neck 4cm (figure 5.5h). H-164:
Rim diameter 15 cm; lip of rim turned to exterior and flattened on top; wall
thickness below rim 0.4 cm (figure 5.5j).
Type PJ8 (n 15)
escription: Rounded body, articulated shoulder, straight to slightly flaring
D
neck and rim; lip on one vessel (H-137) with single strap handle (Type H2).
Manufacture: Wheel made. Rim Diameters: 10, 20, 24 cm. Surface Treatment:Some have exterior burnish. Associations: Single strap handle (Type
H2). Examples: H-99: Rim diameter 20 cm; wall thickness of neck 0.7 cm;
height of neck/rim 7.0 cm (figure 5.5k). H-130: Rim diameter 24cm; wall
thickness of neck 1.0 cm; height of neck/rim 7.0 cm (figure5.5l). H-137: Rim
diameter 10cm; wall thickness of neck 0.7 cm; height of neck/rim 8.5cm;
attachments for large strap handle on one side, from mid-neck to body
(figure5.5m).
Miscellaneous (n 24)
Juglets (n 7)
escription: Small hand-pinched vessel with rounded bottom. Manufacture:
D
Hand modeled. Maximum Diameters: 3.8, 8.3 cm. Examples: H-86; H-102;
H-122.
Figurines (n 5)
and modeled. H-154: Quadruped. H-155: Figurine. H-157: Fish figurine
H
with perforated mouth. H-156: Human effigy with perforations.
Figure 5.5
Marbles (n 2). Examples: H-153; H 152

Dipper (n 1)
escription: Small hand-pinched bowl with handle attachment on side.
D
Manufacture: Hand modeled. Examples: H-110: Rim diameter 3.5 cm; base
diameter 2.9 cm; height 3.5 cm (figure 5.5n).
Figure 5.6
Wheel Base (n 106)
essel bases made on a wheel or by pressing into a mold and finishing on
V
a wheel.
Type WB1 (n 15)
escription: Thin and well made; slightly convex base; no exterior articulaD
tion; flaring sides. Manufacture: Wheel made; exterior scraped; interior
hand smoothed; Exterior Base Diameters: 12.515.5 cm. Associations: Bowl
Types B1 and B2. Examples: H-52: Bowl Type B2 (figure5.2g). H-90: Bowl
Type B1 (figure 5.2c). H-124: Base diameter 14.5 cm, center thickness
1.4cm; wall thickness 0.4 cm at 3 cm above ground (figure5.6a).
Type WB2 (n 56)
escription: Thin and well made; flat; exterior articulation; flaring sides.
D
Manufacture: Wheel made; interior hand smoothed. Exterior Base Diameters: 7.8, 10.5, 11.5, 13.2 cm. Associations: Bowl Types B1 and B2.
Examples: H-87: Bowl Type B1 (figure 5.2b). H-115: Base diameter 10.5 cm,
center thickness 0.9 cm; wall thickness 0.5 cm at 2.5 cm above ground
(figure 5.6b). H-116: Bowl Type B2 (figure 5.2k). H-125: Base diameter
11.5cm, center thickness 0.6 cm; wall thickness 0.5 at 3 cm above ground
(figure 5.6c). H-136: Base diameter 7.8 cm, center thickness 0.7 cm; wall
thickness 0.4 cm at 5.5 cm above ground; straight flaring sides; may be
formed in a mold (figure 5.6d).
Type WB3 (n 8)
escription: Ring base; flat bottom; flaring sides. Manufacture: Wheel
D
made; hand-smoothed interior; base ring added as a separate coil, flattened or rounded foot. Exterior Base Diameters: 8.4, 9.0, 9.5, 11.5 cm.
Examples: H-48: Base diameter 9.0 cm, center thickness 1.0 cm; wall
thickness 0.6cm at 4.2 cm above ground (figure 5.6e). H-128: Base
diameter 11.5cm, center thickness 0.8 cm; wall thickness 0.8 cm at 3 cm
above ground (figure 5.6f). H-141: Base diameter 8.4 cm, center thickness
0.8cm; wall thickness 0.3 cm at 6 cm above ground (figure 5.6g).
Figure 5.6
Type WB4 (n 9)
escription: Slightly concave; no articulation; possible cooking pot. ManuD
facture: Wheel made. Exterior Base Diameters: 17.5, 18 cm. Associations:
Bowl Type B4. Examples: H-72: Bowl Type B4 (figure 5.3c). H-109: Base diameter 18.0 cm, center thickness 0.6 cm; wall thickness 1.2cm at 2.5cm
above ground (figure 7.6h).
Hand Base (n 104)

Vessel bases made by hand.
Type HB1 (n 27)
escription: Rounded unarticulated base; diameter measurements are
D
approximations. Manufacture: Hand pinched; interior burnished; exterior
unsmoothed. Exterior Base Diameters: 0.3, 1.5, 2.0, 4, 4.5 cm. Associations: Small hand-modeled dishes (Type B5). Examples: Small dish Type B5:
H-64, H-86, H-114, H-117 (figures 5.3f, j, l, m). H-68: Base diameter 4.5 cm,
center thickness 1.5 cm; wall thickness 0.6 cm at 4.0 cm above ground
(figure 5.6i).
Type HB2 (n 22)
escription: Hand-modeled bases; flat; unarticulated; low flaring sides.
D
Manufacture: Hand modeling; no surface smoothing. Exterior Base Diameters: 2.3, 2.5, 5.5, 9, 16 cm. Associations: Small hand-modeled dishes
(Type B5). Examples: H-60: Base diameter 9.0 cm, center thickness 0.7cm;
wall thickness 0.7 cm at 1.5 cm above ground (figure 5.6j). H-107: Base
diameter 16 cm, center thickness 1.2 cm; wall thickness 1.0 cm at 2.5cm
above ground (figure 5.6k). H-111: Figure 5.7 Type B5 (figure 5.3k).
Figure 5.7
Type HB3 (n 20)
escription: Hand-modeled bases; flat; unarticulated; nearly vertical sides.
D
Manufacture: Hand modeled. Exterior Base Diameters: 8.8, 8.9, 9.25, 10.0;
11.4, 11.5, 12.5, 13.5, 13.7 cm. Associations: Small dishes Type B5; tall
hollow forms such as H-120; closed pot forms such as H-127. Examples:
Small dish Type B5: H-41, H-57, H-77, H-134 (figures 5.3e, i, g, n). H-120:
Base diameter 11.5 cm, center thickness 0.8 cm; wall thickness 0.7 cm
at9.5 cm above ground (figure 5.7a). H-127: Base diameter 12.5cm,
center thickness 1.0 cm; wall thickness 0.5 cm at 8 cm above ground
(figure5.7b).
Figure 5.7
Type HB4 (n 8)
escription: Flat articulated base with flaring vessel sides. Manufacture:
D
Hand-modeled base; sides may be wheel made. Exterior Base Diameters:
15.8 cm. Examples: H-97: Base diameter 15.8 cm, center thickness
1.0cm; wall thickness 0.8 cm at 3 cm above ground (figure 5.7c). H-113:
Base diameter 1620 cm, center thickness 1.0 cm; wall thickness 0.8 cm
at 4 cm above ground (figure 5.7d).
Type HB5 (n 16)
escription: Round form with flat hand-modeled unarticulated base; flaring
D
walls. Manufacture: Molded base; body possibly coil constructed. Exterior
Base Diameters: 1618, 16.5 cm. Associations: Small dishes (Type B5);
closed pot forms. Examples: H-50: Base diameter 1618 cm, center thickness 0.7 cm; wall thickness 0.5 cm at 3.8 cm above ground (figure5.7e).
H-54: Base diameter 16.5 cm, center thickness 1.0 cm; wall thickness
1.0cm at 2 cm above ground (figure 5.7f).
Large Base (n 37)

Thick hand-made bases for large vessels.
Type LB1 (n 15)
escription: Heavy flat base, unarticulated; may be slightly convex; vessel
D
walls slightly flaring. Manufacture: Coil and hand modeling, hand smoothed.
Exterior Base Diameters: 11, 11.5, 13 cm. Associations: Bowl Type B2.
Examples: H-160: Base diameter 11 cm, center thickness 1.5 cm (figure5.7g). H-126: Bowl Type B2 (figure 5.2l).
Type LB2 (n 13)
escription: Heavy, crude, hand-modeled construction; flat articulated base;
D
vertical to flaring sides. Manufacture: Slab base with coiled sides. Exterior
Base Diameters: 16.5, 17.8 cm. Examples: H-161: Base diameter 17.8
cm, center thickness 1.5, wall thickness 1.2 cm at 7 cm above ground
(figure5.7h).
Type LB3 (n 5)
escription: Large, hand molded, concave base; smooth exterior; slightly
D
flaring to flaring sides. Manufacture: Molded base with coiled sides. Exterior
Base Diameters: 3.75, 5.5 cm. Associations: Pot Type PJ6. Examples: H-61:
Base diameter 8.5 cm, center thickness 1.5 cm; wall thickness 1.5cm at
5 cm above ground (figure 5.7i). H-135: Pot Type PJ6 (figure5.5e). H-139:
Base diameter 13 cm, center thickness 1.4 cm; wall thickness 2.4 cm at
2.3 cm above ground (figure 5.7j).
Handles (n 14)
Added to the exterior of pots and pinched on to the body.
Type H1 (n 10)
escription: Horizontal handle; laid along the rim. Manufacture: Hand modD
eled. Associations: Bowl Type B4. Examples: H-72: two coils joined and laid
parallel along the rim; maximum width 0.8 cm (figure 5.3c).
Type H2 (n 4 not attached to catalogued vessels)
escription: Strap handle laid vertically from the rim or neck to the body;
D
often in opposing pairs. Manufacture: Hand modeled. Associations: Cooking
pot Types PJ1, PJ2, PJ3, PJ4, and PJ5. Examples: H-118: Pair of opposing
handles on jar from rim to shoulder; diameter 0.6 cm (figure 5.5i). H-137:
Single handle on jar, from neck to body (figure 5.5m). H-500: Opposing
handles on cooking pot, exterior groove likely indicating manufacture by
pressing two coils together; diameter 0.8 cm (figure5.4a). H-502: Opposing handles on cooking pot; ovoid section measures 1.5 0.8 cm
(figure5.4c). H-503: Opposing handles on cooking pot; ovoid section
measures 0.6 2.2 cm (figure 5.4l). H-506: Opposing handles on cooking
pot, exterior groove as in H-500; maximum diameter 1.0 cm (figure 5.4g).
H-505: Opposing handles on cooking pot; diameter 0.8 cm (figure 5.4f).
H-507: Opposing handles on cooking pot, exterior groove likely indicating manufacture by pressing two coils together; section measures 1.0
2.1cm (figure 5.4d). H-508: Opposing handles on cooking pot, exterior
groove as in H-500; maximum diameter 0.8 1.5cm (figure 5.4k).
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Robert Hoover for accommodating my study of
the Howard Collection; Lynn Bremer Smith for being my willing lab assistant; Alice Olmstead for carefully inking the drawings; James Arrons
for laying out the graphically complex figures; Russ Skowronek for encouraging me to finally publish this decades-old research; and Martha
Sharp Joukowsky and Patricia Maynor Bikai for passing on to me their
enthusiasm for pottery analysis.
6
Fabrication and Replications
A Potters View
Ruben Reyes
Visitors to the restored French fortress of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia or

to Plimoth Plantation and the replicated Mayflower in Massachusetts,
Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia, and other English colonial
and early American sites are asked to leave their contemporary world
behind and be transported back hundreds of years. After more than half
a century of interpretation the curators of these sites have learned that
the desired goal of capturing the imagination of visitors lies in a combination of lively and active interpretation by living historians who are
knowledgeable about their subject and the accuracy of the material world
they re-create. They have learned that good enough does not work for
a generation brought up on the History Channel. For even the best firstperson interpretation will fail if the actor is wearing polyester period
clothing, is shod in sneakers, and is drinking from a plastic cup or other
inappropriate vessel.
At these sites the lifeways of the past are slavishly reconstructed. From
chapeau to shoe, interpreters are dressed in accurate clothing. Structures based on archaeological excavations are furnished with antiques
or replicas based on those depicted in contemporary paintings. These
in turn are complemented with accurately replicated glass bottles and
drinking vessels or myriad ceramics, all based on recovered forms. Of
course, this sort of accuracy requires a combination of formal analysis of
recovered material culture by archaeologists and the skills of the artisan

interested in and capable of making accurate replicas. Obviously, such
replicas are inherently expensive because of the research and experimentation required to make these items to the exacting standards of a living
museum.
Historic sites in California that date before the annexation of the area
by the United States in 1848 are limited to about 100 adobe-block structures associated with a few score ranchos, and the three pueblos, four
presidios, and twenty-one missions of the Spanish and Mexican eras.
With a few exceptions, the most notable of which are the Presidio of
Santa Barbara and Mission La Pursima Concepcin de Mara Santsima
(or The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary), most are
administered by municipalities or the Roman Catholic Church. In the
first two named sites, reconstructed buildings are often bereft of accoutrements that would provide texture to visitors experiences there.
At one, a reconstructed pottery shop is filled with crudely made vessels fabricated from commercially purchased clay. There, one visitor was
heard to remark, I made better stuff in kindergarten. Interpretation at
the latter sites is frequently haphazard: archaeologically recovered, broken, or dented artifacts and donated objects of unknown provenience
are displayed next to items purchased in Tijuana or other Mexican cities
because they look close enough. This inaccuracy may be due to a simple
ignorance of the material culture of the era or to the erroneous belief
that there are no differences between the objects of the past and modern
Mexican-made items. There may be a deeper and darker interpretation
that may underscore a shallowly buried scorn for the Californios and
other Hispanic residents of California, be they Christianized Indians or
Mexicans. The residents of Alta California are often thought of as living in quaint simplicity enhanced only through products brought from
Europe. Showing largely empty rooms with few, poorly made, broken,
dented, or dirty artifacts sends a not-so-subtle message that Californias
real potential would be realized only after annexation by the United
States of America.
Beginning to rectify this message and so turn Hispanic Californias
historic sites into learning nodes that celebrate the rich lives created in
Alta California should be an important aspect of all research projects
focused on this era. The SmithsonianSanta Clara ceramics project was
initiated in 1999 to study ceramic supply, exchange, and production in
Fabrication and Replications: A Potters View95
Alta California. A second component of this investigation focused on the

techniques used to fabricate the ceramics and on making this information available for the interpretation of historic sites. Some might wonder
why it is desirable to engage in experimental archaeology at this stage
of the project. In part it is to test assumptions regarding manufacturing
technique. Second, examples of the vessels are provided to institutions
that have cooperated with the larger project to use for interpretation.
And, third, through this replication it becomes possible to understand
the skills associated with the fabrication process, from identification of
clay sources through firing. Simply put, this research has found a high
level of technological and artistic sophistication in Hispanic California,
and that information needs to be shared not only with professionals but
also with the public.
Was Pottery Made in Colonial California? Previous Research
Prior to the arrival of the Spanish in Alta California in 1769, ceramics
were largely unknown to the aboriginal occupants of the region north
of the Los Angeles Basin. By the end of the century, buildings from San
Diego to San Francisco were roofed and floored with tiles and bricks,
and they were fitted out with ceramic table, utilitarian, and storage
wares.
Few researchers questioned the origin of the pottery. Most recognized
the glazed ceramics as having been imported from Mexico; Mexican
potters fabricated plain, unglazed pottery at a handful of production locales. This conclusion was based on documentary evidence dating from
the 1790s, when Father Lasun, president of the California missions,
arranged for a number of artisans and craftsmen to be recruited from
Mexico to teach their skills to the residents of the province. The artisans
were distributed to different missions throughout California (Kenneally
1965, 260; Webb 1952, 126). The thought was that the finished vessels
made at certain sites were then supplied or distributed to nearby missions, pueblos, or presidios. This interpretation was troubling to others
as it discounted the abilities of the local inhabitants to learn pottery making and transfer that knowledge to their home communities. That, and
the simple fact that it did not make sense to move these materials in the
context of transportation that existed in the era.
Earlier, Hoover and Costello (1985) noted that intermission trade in

roof and floor tiles would have been extremely impractical due to the
bulk and relative fragility of these earthenwares (a roof tile weighs about
8 to 15 pounds). It would have been necessary for each mission to possess
the technology to fire their own tile. Documentary evidence supported
the theory of local production. And since pottery, bricks, and tiles are
basically the same materialthat is, earthenwarea more straightforward answer was that each site was a node of production for all of these
related materials.
If local production of both pottery and architectural earthenware was
to be conclusively demonstrated, it was necessary to match the two materials to each other and to a site. Ideally, that would mean identifying a
single clay source and matching that to the ceramics and earthenwares.
Of course, after more than two centuries, the identification of the clay
source for a site was problematic. Instead, based on the premise that
bricks and tiles were locally produced and consumed, they were treated
as samples of the clay source. Instrumental neutron activation analysis
(INAA) was used to compare the pottery and the bricks and tiles and was
considered to be sufficiently sensitive to differentiate clay resources from
within a fairly small geographical area.
Characterization of architectural earthenwares within the jurisdiction
of the Santa Barbara Presidio using INAA revealed local manufacture of
tiles and bricks at Missions San Buenaventura, Ins, La Pursima, and
Santa Barbara, while a similar study of plain and glazed ceramics from
Missions San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara and the Presidio of Santa
Barbara showed that tin/lead glazed ceramics originated from Puebla,
Mexico. Other lead-glazed ceramics were derived from another unknown
location, currently presumed to be in Mexico. The remaining lead-glazed
and plain ceramics matched the elemental chemical signatures derived
from the tiles and bricks from their respective sites. It was clear that pottery manufacture was widespread throughout Hispanic Alta California
(see Skowronek et al. 2009).
Who Made the Pottery?
Ask most people what happened at the Franciscan missions that were
built in Alta California and they will answer simply, Christianity. Of
course, that answer is only partially correct because missions were not
simply places where people learned about Roman Catholicism. At missions a new ideology, language, social organization, and economy were
introduced, and from this transformation a new corner of New Spain was
created. In many ways they were like modern trade schools where people
go to learn new technologies and specializations.
In the 1790s, a quarter of a century after the founding of San Diego,
Father Lasun recruited a number of Mexican artisans and craftsmen
to teach their skills to the residents of the missions. These specialists included carpenters, millwrights, masons, blacksmiths, tanners, weavers,
tailors, painters, potters, and tile makers. Instead of housing the craftsmen at a single mission, the artisans were distributed across the province (Kenneally 1965, 260; Webb 1952, 126). Residents of other missions
were sent to learn the specific trades and then bring that knowledge back
to their own communities. For example, we know that in 1796 the Santa
Clara mission sent some of its residents to Monterey to learn pottery making from Mariano Tapia (Guest 1973, 302, 306, 336; Schuetz-Miller 1994,
99). While Tapia died shortly after his arrival, we know from a letter dated
February 5, 1799, that a certain Maestro Jos Antonio found good mud
from which he was able to make large and small pieces of pottery at Mission San Francisco (Jos de la Cruz to the governor of California, Feb.5,
1799, MS 182, Alexander Taylor Collection, Archdiocese of San Francisco).
This probably was Jos Antonio Romero, who is known to have been at the
Presidio de San Francisco as early as June 21, 1796 (Schuetz-Miller 1994,
91). Mardith Schuetz-Millers monumental study of Hispanic Californias craftsmen lists 37 known Indian artisans at Missions La Pursima,
San Fernando, and Santa Barbara (1994, 105111, 113115, 120121).
They no doubt learned their trades from these and other craftsmen who
were brought to California and Santa Barbara as part of the military in
the 1780s. They included weaver Antonio Henrique, carpenter Jos Boronda, and blacksmith Santiago Moreno (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 187, 191).
At this time in Mexico, potters and tile makers were usually males.
Women may have worked in some workshops decorating ceramics, but
we have no evidence that they were involved in the fabrication of ceramics in these settings. On the borderlands of New Spain a very different situation existed among the Native peoples of the region. From the
Apalachee in Florida and the Puebloan peoples of New Mexico and Arizona to the Kumeyaay, Gabrielino, and Luiseo peoples of the area south
of modern Ventura, California, women were potters (Bean and Shipek
1978, 542, 553; Luomala 1978, 600).
In our initial examination of the California ceramics, we noted that

there were extraordinary similarities between earthenwares found hundreds of miles apart. These similarities likely are attributable to the introduction of ceramic technology to central and northern coastal California
by the Spanish. This homogeneity may have been further intensified by
the possibility that there were few teachers of this trade. Currently, there is
documentary evidence of the presence of only two male potters in California. Master potter and tile maker Mariano Tapia and his wife and daughter
hailed from Puebla de los Angeles, Mexico. He arrived with his family in
Monterey in June 1795 with a four-year contract to teach his trade. Tapia
died in November of the following year (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 99). Jos
Antonio Romero, a soldier, filled Tapias position in April 1797 (SchuetzMiller 1994, 91). While no Indian artisans have been identified as potters,
there is no reason to doubt that, as in other trades, they were involved in
this production. It is worth noting that Schuetz-Miller (1994, 105125)
identifies 22 Indian artisans as masons. Even the most basic definition of a
mason is a person who works or builds with brick. In his book on Mexican
brick culture in Texas, Scott Cook (1998, 22) found 25 entries for brick
masons in the 1850 U.S. census but no brick makers for three counties
bordering the Rio Grande River and thus Mexico. He feels that it is reasonable to assume that in addition to working in brick construction, these
individuals may also have been involved in brick making. Perhaps these
were people like Mariano Tapiabrick and tile makers and potters.
To better demonstrate the transfer of this new technology and specialization, as a ceramic artist and master potter, I joined the Smithsonian
Santa Clara project in 2004. As part of that project I agreed to teach
Ms. Kelly Greenwalt, then a Santa Clara University undergraduate major in art and anthropology and a former Smithsonian intern, how to
make pottery. She had never made pottery before this project. In fewer
than 40 hours, this neophyte learned how to prepare clay and make
the pottery forms found in California. There should never ever again be
a question about who made the pottery, because the answer is simply
those who learned the trade (figure 6.1). A related question concerns the
gender of the Chumash potters of the Santa Barbara presidio jurisdiction. Because potting using the wheel is associated with males in Mexico,
an argument might be made that Barbareo males were the main practitioners. On the other hand, the prowess of Chumash women as basket
makers is well documented (Grant 1978, 516). They may well have participated in the potting process as well.
Figure 6.1. Throwing from the mound was one fabrication technique observed in the archaeologically recovered sherds.
What Did Locally Made Pottery Look Like?

Prior to the SmithsonianUniversity of Southern California Pottery Project, the most in-depth studies of locally made ceramics had been done
by Julia Costello (2007, 1985a, b, c, this volume), Ron May (1985), and
Jack Williams (1983). Costello (2007) and Williams (1983) independently
examined a collection of more than 1,800 fragments of plain unglazed
c eramics excavated by Donald M. Howard at Mission San Antonio de

Padua in 1972 (Howard 1972). Costello (2007) created a formal typology
and made measured drawings of diagnostic sherds, while Williams (1983),
working from the sherds, extrapolated forms. Both Costello and Williams
identified bowls, cups (figures 6.2, 6.3), plates, cooking and storage pots,
and comales, or griddles. There are also some storage vessels that bear an
astounding resemblance to locally made basketry (figure6.4). The 1,600
chemically analyzed ceramics considered in this project were visually analyzed and categorized as to their function and method of manufacture
at the Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Laboratory. There,
a broad functional spectrum was observed, ranging from pottery vessels used for storage and preparation to those used for presentation and
consumption. Furthermore, the similarity in observed forms across the
sites was noteworthy.
Figure 6.2. Base of a bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio with
marks indicating that it was thrown from the mound.
Figure 6.3. A bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio.
Figure 6.4. A basket form pot; wheel-thrown vessel recovered at Mission San Antonio.
How Were Locally Made Ceramics Fabricated?

Costello (2007), Williams (1983), and, most recently, Ginn (2009) used
the same collection of ceramics excavated at Mission San Antonio to
describe a number of manufacturing techniques. These included coiled,
paddle-and-anvil (figure 6.5), and wheel-thrown techniques. It is worth
noting that in a number of recent projects on the site of Mission Santa
Clara, 63.7 percent of the 394 locally made plain sherds were made on
Figure 6.5. A shallow plate or bowl made using an anvil found at Mission
Santa Clara.
the wheel (Skowronek 2005a, b, c, d). Beginning in 2003, we began the

study of the manufacturing techniques associated with locally made ceramics by making radiographs of replicated vessels with known methods of manufacture. These were then compared with radiographs of archaeologically recovered sherds. Observed variations using this objective
method serve as another measure to differentiate fabrication techniques.
We also worked with Sarah (Ginn) Peelo to identify other qualitative differences that may be detected through tactile manipulation or simple observation. Examples include uneven thickness and regularity in form.
Replicating Vessel Form and Fabrication
I joined the project in 2004, bringing my expertise in the ceramic arts
to the project. In 1975, I studied with traditional potters in Mexico.
Through the 30 years of my experience, I have become well versed in
the use of the wheel and in the identification and preparation of the raw
materials for the production of ceramics. As a result of my work with the
project, I became immersed in the archaeological literature pertaining to
Spanish- and Mexican-era ceramics and ceramic production. As a master potter, I was able to add an important dimension to the project, which
was otherwise lacking regarding ceramic technology. Archaeologists understand that the past is gone and that the only evidence of the behaviors associated with the past is to be found in the discernible patterns of
remaining material culture. Bridging the gap between the living world
system and the archaeological record requires the use of analogous lines
of evidence to better understand the past. In the past 40 years, archaeologists have turned to a number of different lines of research. These have
included ethnoarchaeology, or the study of living cultures that are still
engaged in traditional economies; the study of paintings, photographs,
or documents that record past behaviors; replicative studies, sometimes
known as experimental or action archaeology, where archaeologists
undertake projects that will help them better understand the formation
of the archaeological record; and work with modern practitioners of an
industry, for example a glassblower, a blacksmith, or a potter to obtain an
emic, or insiders, view of that specialization. As part of the team, my
expertise and experience helped create that bridge to the past that has allowed us to evaluate the sophistication of the potters and their produce.
The replications started with raw materials. Instead of using commercially mined clay and since none of the original clay deposits have been
identified, I identified local clay beds based on the perceived qualities
of local clay for throwing and modeling. Test firing of samples revealed
the strengths or shortcomings of specific clay deposits. It was clear from
these experiments that specific clays were selected for their unique qualities before large quantities were mined.
Examining the pottery sherds and then experimenting with procuring
clay and making vessels allows me to speculate about the colonial-era
potters. It would seem that after the first test, a potter would then decide
if blending clay was needed and if sand, grog, or other organic material was needed to improve the body for the specific use (wheel work,
coil, paddle-and-anvil, slab, bricks, tiles). Of course, a journeyman potter might be able to put a ball of clay in his hand, roll a coil, bend it, and
decide on the fly what was needed to shorten the testing process and
begin work. In my experiments, I added neither blending nor temper to
the paste, as the clays seemed to be forgiving and worked well. Certainly
augmentation would have improved the yield of the clays. Such experiments will be the next step for whoever takes this study to the next
level.
Once a suitable clay source was identified, it was then mined. Individuals involved in this procurement process came to appreciate the difficulties associated with hand mining and carrying buckets of clay from
often-remote deposits in streambeds and then transporting it to the
studio. The clay was prepared by breaking it up into small-size particles
and then adding water. This solution was allowed to sit for a couple of
days. When it could be stirred into a creamy slip, it was poured through a
screen to remove larger pebbles and organic materials. Next it was poured
into a large wooden form lined with a cotton sheet to help wick out the
water. When the clay had reached its desired consistency, it was wedged,
or repeatedly folded over to remove air bubbles and to ensure that it was
consistently mixed (figure 6.6). Only then could pottery be made.
An appreciation for resource selection can be gleaned from our work.
In an experiment using clay from a source near Mission San Jos in the
San Francisco Bay Area, a 50-pound sample of clay was allowed to age
for six months, and I noted that it worked better than expected. A second
Figure 6.6. Wedging clay to remove air bubbles.
batch of about 300 pounds was processed and was not given any time to
age. While the clay threw fine, one had to work with it much faster and
not use much water when throwing it.
My observation of modern potters in Mexico helps put colonial production in perspective. Today clay is pugged and de-aired and sits in plastic bags for weeks before a potter uses the clay. Colonial potters could
have made clay and made pottery the same day, once the clay had been
pounded and cleaned of stones and then small amounts of water had
been added and mixed until the clay could be wedged to give the clay
work the even moisture constancy needed to throw or create anvil and
coil forms or brick and tiles. This clay process is still being used today
in small villages in Mexico. As recently as 2007 in Concordia, Mexico,
I observed potters processing clay in this manner for hand building. My
goal in this project was to create pottery from local clay to see if it was
possible and to get a feel for some the problems potters might have had in
making pottery. As a ceramicist, I chose a process that would have suited
both wheel work and hand construction. Brick and tile work would have
used a faster clay preparation process.
Replicas of identified forms were made using the techniques identified
by Costello (2007), Williams (1983), and Ginn (2009) and through my
own observations (Skowronek et al. 2006). Through the kind cooperation of Dr. Robert Hoover, I was able to examine the same collection of
materials Costello (2007), Williams (1983), and Ginn (2009) had studied
as well as other vessels excavated during the past 35 years. I could tell
that the potters of the missions were very skilled and understood the
ceramic process, including the technique known as throwing from the
mound. As a result of my observations, I have been able to replicate several common forms that are similar to forms found in colonial Mexico
and other corners of New Spain. These include wheel-made forms such
as brimmed plates or bowls, small cups, large storage jars, comales, and
chocolateros, or chocolate pots. Another wheel-thrown vessel that was
recently excavated at Mission San Antonio may be based on a basket
form (see figure 6.4 above). It has also been replicated (figure 6.7).
Another main fabrication technique involved the use of a pottery anvil. A pottery anvil is basically a positive or negative mold over which a
disk of clay is beaten, either with a wooden paddle or the palm of the hand
(figure 6.8). This is one of the ways pottery is currently made in Mexico
(Edson 1979) and is how it was made by the Kumeyaay people of the San
Diego area (Luomala 1978, 600) and across Spanish colonial California.
Figure 6.7. Reproduction of the wheel-thrown basket vessel found at Mission San Antonio.
These molds are sometimes made of ceramic. Gourds are sometimes also
used as the form or mold. Even unskilled workers can rapidly make shallow bowls using this technique (figure 6.9). In experiments conducted in
conjunction with the project, untrained middle school- and college-aged
neophytes were making these vessels less than 30 minutes after receiving instructions.
Replicating Maylica
Maylica ceramics were not made in Alta California, but they were an
important part of everyday life in this distant borderland of New Spain
from the 1770s through the 1840s. On the frontier, socioeconomic position was outwardly marked with displays of material culture. A study
of eighteenth-century Spanish St. Augustine, Florida, found that even
when other less expensive tin- and lead-glazed ceramics made in En
Figure 6.8. Using an anvil to make a bowl.
gland or France were available, those made in Mexico were often selected ( Skowronek 1984). Yet in museums interpreting Spanish colonial
and Mexican California (and elsewhere in the borderlandsArizona,
New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana) the dining rooms that are replicated
generally are fitted out with modern Mexican-made tin-glazed ceramics or with antique or replica English-made Staffordshire-style ceramics.
While the English ceramics would not be out of place in displays focused
on the nineteenth-century Mexican republican period, those hoping
Figure 6.9. Replica shallow bowl made using an anvil.
to interpret the earlier era of Spanish rule are forced to make do with
inaccurate modern materials that resemble period designs or a handful
of archaeologically recovered and partially restored pieces. Given this
observation, I believe it is important to accurately portray life at these
interpretive sites and at the same time gain an appreciation for the artistry and craftsmanship that maylica imbues. At the Presidio of Santa
Barbara, this goal coming to fruition.
Re-creating the Commandants Dining Room
The Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation is charged with the
reconstruction, operation, and interpretation of the Presidio of Santa
Barbara. This interpretation often includes the accurate furnishing of
rooms in the reconstructed presidio. The commandants dining room
was sparsely furnished. There was a desire to set the dining-room table
with ceramics matching those excavated at the site. Modern ceramic
workshops in Mexico were uninterested in replicating those designs.
Fortunately, I was already working with the SmithsonianUniversity of
Southern California Pottery Project to replicate the plain ceramics that

were made and used in the Spanish and Mexican periods. Supported
with a grant from Dr. Robert Hoover, professor emeritus from California
Polytechnic University, I took on the challenge of replicating these decorated ceramics, from creating their forms to supervising their decoration
using lead-based glazes to firing them in a replicated Spanish kiln. Vessel
forms chosen for the glazing project included soup plates, or soperos;
bowls and cups; and apothecary jars.
Re-creating the Glazes and Paints
Maylica used on the Alta California frontier during the Spanish colonial and Mexican republican eras was made with lead-based glazes. Such
glazes are known for their distinctive luster and also for their associated
health hazard. As a result of this risk, lead has been virtually eliminated
from commercial and craft ceramic production in the United States and
Mexico in the past few decades. This of course made it difficult to obtain
lead for our experiment and it meant that it is illegal to resell vessels
decorated with the glaze because they are unsafe for use in preparation,
consumption, or storage of food. All of the replicas made as part of this
experiment were marked in a way that made it clear that they could not
be used for serving foods.
Much of the background information on the fabrication of maylica
was derived from Lister and Listers Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and
New Spain: A Cultural Register from the Third Century B.C. to 1700 (1987,
262263). They document the use of frits (sometimes spelled fritt) during the Spanish colonial period, a ground glass or glaze used in pottery.
Some materials have to be fritted before they can be used because they
are insoluble.
The frit used for this project was a commercial frit (3403) chosen for its
ready availability and a melting temperature range (1,350F1,855F) that
would produce the best result for temperatures that could be achieved by
wood firing the kiln. It contains 67.79 percent lead (flux), 28.10 percent
silica (glaze), 2.30 percent alumina, 1.40 percent potassium, 0.30 percent
sodium, and 0.10 percent calcium. The glaze recipe used for the 2007
glazing and painting experiment consisted of 85 percent commercial frit
(3403) and 15 percent tin oxide. This recipe was used to try to accurately
reproduce glaze textures, colors, and designs characteristic of maylica
wares present in Alta California during the Spanish colonial period.
Figure 6.10. San Elizario Polychrome replica plate (compare with Plate 12b).
Oxides used for painting the designs on the vessels included iron oxides (black, brown, and yellow), cobalt oxide (blue), and copper oxide
(green). Some of the iron oxides were developed by processing soils excavated from the presidio site. Historically, oxides were not as clean as the
commercial oxides in use today. Oxides used during the Spanish colonial
period would have likely contained impurities that would affect color and
performance with other minerals during firing (figure 6.10). The painting
oxides were mixed with a small amount of frit for ease of application. A
small amount of water-soluble gum was added to glazes as a suspension
and/or brushing agent. The addition of gum helped keep the powdering
of the lead frit down and made it easier to paint the designs on the surface of the vessels.
Replicating the Designs
Designs for the glazing and painting project were primarily derived from
Reconstructing Maiolica Patterns from Spanish Colonial Sites in Southern California (Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004). Additionally, the
Fernando VII pattern was developed from archaeological examples at El
Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park and La Pursima Mission
State Historic Park.
Maylica patterns were painted by Russell Skowronek, Robert Hoo

ver, Lee Goodwin, Karen Anderson, Toni Clark, and Terri Imwalle over
a two day-period in May 2007. Patterns reproduced during the glazing and painting project include Ab Aranama Polychrome, San Diego
Polychrome, Santa Cruz Polychrome (Portly Eunuch motif ), Viva Fernando VII, Tucson Polychrome, and Wavy Rim Blue-on-White. Other
patterns commonly recovered in Alta California were also produced including San Elizario Polychrome.
Firing
Glazed and painted vessels were fired in the two-chamber updraft demonstration kiln at El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park in April
2007 (see figure 7.2). The glaze firing reached a peak temperature of approximately 1,700 F over a period of 24 hours. In order to experiment
with changes in atmosphere during the glaze firing process, some wares
were placed in saggers (figure 6.11) while others were left unprotected
from the licking flames and gasses in the chamber As expected, vessels
Figure 6.11. Sagger with replica San Elizario Polychrome plate.
fired in the saggers were exposed to a completely oxidized atmosphere

in which carbon was completely consumed. These vessels exhibited a
very glassy, opaque white glaze, while vessels fired outside the saggers
exhibited a dull, dark gray finish due to an atmosphere that was not fully
oxidized. The gray appearance in the glaze is the result of carbon and
ash being trapped in the glaze before it has a chance to burn off. Within
the kiln some areas were more affected by the flames than others. Controlling the atmosphere within the wares chamber was difficult due to
extremely high winds on the evening of the firing. As a result of the wind,
the saggered vessels were satisfactorily glazed and unsaggered vessels
were poorly glazed.
Results
This project was successful in identifying tin-and-lead glaze recipes
that would perform satisfactorily in a wood-fired, Spanish colonial-style
updraft kiln. It was also successful in identifying the oxides needed to
Figure 6.12. Reproductions of the range of forms identified in the archaeological record.
re-create colors used in decorative patterns popular with consumers of

maylica wares during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
in Alta California. Finally, experimentation with the use of saggers during
the glaze firing process provided useful information for future firing experiments. Future experiments will concentrate on developing non-leadbased glazes and paints that will have the same qualitative appearance as
the lead-based glazes and frits used during the colonial period and can
be used to safely produce accurate replicas of early maylica patterns for
museum furnishings and for resale to other educational and historical
organizations (figure 6.12).
A Clearer Picture of the Past Is Emerging
Todays successes often are built on yesterdays failures. For example, the
glass vessels that visitors to the glasshouse at Jamestown could purchase
in the 1960s were produced in inauthentic ways. In those days, the blowers stirred the molten glass to introduce large numbers of visible bubbles
that were thought to enhance the beauty of the flower vases, even though
such glass does not appear in the archaeological record. Today, after
watching glass blowers at work, visitors can purchase bottles, decanters,
and drinking glasses based on forms excavated at the site dating from the
1670s. These forms are on display at the visitors center.
Similarly, at Plimoth Plantation in Massachusetts, visitors today see
costumed interpreters using accurately decorated replica English slipware pottery fashioned and fired on site by Irma Starr and others. Many
go home with a cup or plate as a souvenir of their encounter with the
seventeenth century. A similar experience is now within grasp of visitors
to the missions and presidios of California.
I believe that the fabrication of replica forms provides researchers and
the general public with a clearer picture of the sophistication of Californias colonial potters (Skowronek et al. 2006). From such studies we can
begin to bridge the gap to the past and in turn create a more satisfying
picture of the era to the public.
7
Ceramic Firing Technology
in Alta California
Michael H. Imwalle
Ceramicswhether tableware, bricks and tiles, or pipesare a ubiquitous part of our everyday lives. At their most basic level they are comprised of a simple combination of clay and water transformed by fire to
a stone-like hardness. Of course the products vary based on the nature
of the clay used, any other surface modifications of the material, and the
temperature of their firing. The temperature and atmosphere in which
the objects are fired may be adjusted with the use of different fuels and
firing chambers. Two hundred years ago in what is today modern California, ceramic technology was introduced by representatives of the
Spanish empire to the peoples of the central and northern portion of the
central coast.
For some 70 years between 1776 and 1848, both architectural and
table ceramics were made in what was then called Alta California. The
first documented use of fired tile in Alta California was at Mission San
Antonio in 1776 (Schuetz-Miller 1994, 42; Webb 1952, 108). It is reported
that almost a decade later, on August 9, 1785, roof and floor tiles were
being produced at the Santa Barbara presidio (Whitehead 1996, 129).
Recent research using instrumental neutron activation analysis has conclusively demonstrated that both plain and lead-glazed ceramics were
produced throughout the region, from San Diego to north of San Francisco (Skowronek et al. 2001, 2003, 2009). With this information, re-
Ceramic Firing Technology in Alta California115
searchers from the SmithsonianSouthern California University Pottery

Project research team joined the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation to examine the firing technologies associated with the fabrication
of these ceramics. This team was comprised of a master potter, archaeologists, and a chemist. The goal for this aspect of the project was to
conduct experiments using a variety of techniques that would not only
shed light on past production practices but would also serve as a vehicle
for producing ceramics for interpretation at the Presidio of Santa Barbara and other sites while creating a public setting for demonstrating and
interpreting the technologies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The appropriateness of this undertaking at the Santa Barbara presidio is
further underscored in the documentary record. On July 27, 1796, Governor Diego de Borica wrote to the commandant of the Santa Barbara
presidio, Felipe de Goycoechea, that he should have 10,000 bricks made
for a pottery kiln and that as soon as the potter in Monterey was finished
with his work, he would be transferred to Santa Barbara. Shortly there
after, Goycoechea reported to Borica that the kiln was under construction (Whitehead 1996, 147148).
Temperature, Durability, and Color
Ceramic tableware, bricks, and roof tiles are basically the same mate
rialthat is, earthenwareand generally would have been fired at temperatures above 660C, or 1,220F (Lackey 1982, 116122). By way of
analogy, a simple campfire can exceed 1,300F (600850C). Shallowly
dug (3151 centimeters or 12 20 inches) open-pit firings in Mexico have
reached temperatures as high as 1,550F (850C) (Edson 1979, 7071). A
simple Mohs scale scratch test of sherds of plain pottery from a number
of sites shows a variation in hardness that is indicative of variations in
firing temperature. Experimental firings of ceramic vessels in open pits
are providing insights into the efficiency of different fuels, the manner of
stacking the pit, and the success rate of this firing technique. Often the
presence of firing clouds, or incomplete oxidation, is cited as evidence
for open-pit firing. This is not always the case, as reduction can be found
in both kilns and pit-firing conditions.
Pottery Kilns
Experiments conducted as part of the project have demonstrated that
plain or bisque ceramics could have been adequately fired using the
open-pit technique. But a more sophisticated kiln would have been required for making glazed ceramics. Instrumental neutron activation
analysis has provided evidence for the production of lead-glazed ceramics at sites the length of California; these include San Francisco, Santa
Clara, San Juan Capistrano, Carmel, San Francisco, and Santa Barbara
(Skowronek et al. 2009; Skowronek, Blackman, Bishop, and Koons 2005;
Skowronek, Blackman, Bishop, Riggins, and Johnson 2005). Fabrication
of glazed ceramics is a two-step process. First a green vessel must be fired
to bisque it.
After it has cooled, the lead-based glazing compound is applied to the
bisqued vessel. It then must be fired a second time. This second firing
melts the lead and fuses it to the bisque. A kiln is required for this technique for three reasons. First is the need to achieve the temperature necessary to melt the glaze. Next is the need for a controlled atmosphere between oxidation and reduction to control surface color. The atmosphere
in a kiln can be controlled by adjusting the intensity of the heat in the
firebox by adding fuel and by restricting the size of the flue to regulate the
flow of heat and gasses within the kiln. The atmosphere could be further
regulated with the use of saggers. Saggers are large ceramic chambers in
the kiln into which the glazed vessels are placed to protect them from
licking flames, smoke, and ash.
Finally, specialized kiln furniture is needed to allow for efficient stacking without the danger of fusing vessels together. One such item is the
cock spur, or caballito (Edson 1979, 76). This is a simple bisque-fired
three-armed trivet that is placed directly on the glazed surface to separate it from the next vessel in the chamber of the kiln. After the kiln is
unloaded, the cock spur is popped free from the glazed surface, leaving
three small marks in the glaze.
Although the use of caballitos was a common method for separating
glazed vessels during firing, several other techniques have been documented by Lister and Lister (1987). One such method is the use of nails
(clavos) inserted through the walls of saggers to separate glazed vessels
during firing. A similar method employs triangular fired-clay rods to
support the vessels (figure 7.1). Both methods separate the glazed vessels
by supporting them from their undersides. The archaeological indica-
Figure 7.1. Cutaway view of a sagger with clavos and clay rods supporting
glazed ceramics. Photograph by Michael H. Imwalle.
tions of the use of this method (besides the presence of kilns and kiln
furniture) would be the presence of marks or scars in the glaze on the
underside of the vessels. In contrast, the use of caballitos leaves scars in
the glaze on both the interior and exterior of the central portions of the
vessels.
Clearly pottery kilns must have existed in Alta California, but none
have ever been archaeologically identified. The only indirect evidence we
have of this technology is a fragment of a cock spur found at Mission
San Francisco (Ambro 2003; Skowronek, Blackman, Bishop, Riggins,
and Johnson 2005; Skowronek et al. 2009) and a late-nineteenth-century
photograph (figure 7.2) of a roofed two-chamber updraft kiln at Mission
Santa Barbara (Webb 1952, 120; Geiger 1963, 24). Other unroofed twochamber kilns are known to have been built and used in California as late
as the 1940s to make pottery.
Brick and Tile Manufacture
Bricks begin as a mixture of clay and water mixed to the proper consistency to hold a shape while drying. A rectangular or square wooden
Figure 7.2. Charles C. Pierce photograph of Santa Barbara Mission kiln

(18711875). Copyright C. C. Pierce and Co.; used by permission.
mold dusted with sand serves as the receptacle for a dollop of the clay.
In modern Mexico, the molds can be made of metal that matches the tapered form of the tiles. Once in the mold, the clay is pounded to remove
trapped air and the excess is cut away with a wire (Edson 1979, 128). It is
then smoothed by hand or with a piece of wood or metal.
According to Tays, who observed the making of tiles by the Civilian
Conservation Corps for the restoration of Mission La Pursima Concepcin during the early 1940s, the mud had to be very thick and almost
dry, and this was laid over the mould (Tays 1941, 424). In order for the
tiles to be removed from the molds during the manufacturing process the
clay needs to be stiff enough to retain its shape. Because the clay used for
making bricks is relatively stiff, it needs to be pressed with considerable
force into the appropriate molds. This is even more critical when forming curved roof tiles. Recent replication of roof tiles at the Santa Barbara
presidio has demonstrated this. Experimentation demonstrated that tiles
formed with wet clay tended to collapse under their own weight when
removed from the mold.
Next the green brick is tipped out of the mold and onto the ground or
a rack to dry. In Hispanic California the floor tiles or bricks were usually
square and averaged 28 28 5 centimeters (11 11 2 inches). Roof
tiles are about 4060 centimeters in length with the larger end some
1635 centimeters across and the narrower end 1225 centimeters (24
10 8 inches) (Costello 1997, 206; Edson 1979, 128). Depending on the
raw materials, these tiles can weigh as much as 25 pounds wet and 8
15 pounds dry.
Modern tile makers can reportedly make one tile every two minutes
and sometimes even more for short periods of time (Edson 1979, 128). A
report written on October 30, 1800, by Fathers Estvan Tpis and Juan
Corts of Mission Santa Barbara provides a picture of the workload of the
tejeros, or tile makers.
Sixteen young men, and at times as many more middle-aged men, with two
women who bring the sand and straw, make 500 tiles a day. The troughs
with the clay are close by and always filled. These neophytes accomplish
their task before eleven oclock in the morning. (quoted in Engelhardt 1912,
560561)
In the same document, the priests reported on what was expected

with regard to tile making at the nearby Santa Barbara presidio. On the
surface it was the same activity, but on closer examination it was much
more onerous.
They had made 500 tiles, but had to dig out the clay, throw it into the
troughs, and draw water from a well fifteen yards deep or from a laguna
some distance away. Moreover, they had to fetch the sand from the beach
one-eighth of a league away, procure the straw, [and] knead the clay.
(quoted in Engelhardt 1912, 562)
Brick and Tile Firing

Brick making is more complex than it first appears. Our knowledge of the
activities associated with traditional Mexican brick making is informed
through the work of ethnographers (Cook 1998, 1819). From it we learn
that brick making involves not only strength and endurance but also a
working knowledge of science and artisanry. There must be knowledge
of local climate conditions and the properties of the clay, as these play a
direct role in the making, drying, and firing of brick. The stoker, or quemador, who is in charge of firing the brick, was the single most important
master brick maker, as he had to know the material perfectly and fire it at
the proper temperature. Firing was the most important procedure in the
fabrication of bricks. Badly fired bricks were not just a waste of labor and
fuel, they could also be dangerous if used in the construction of buildings
as they might structurally fail.
Brick works must always have a nearby source of clay (known as a
pozo or barranco), water, an area for molding and drying the bricks and
tiles, a kiln (obrador, cocedor, or horno), fuel, and a storage area. Ideally a
brick works will be located immediately adjacent to or in near proximity
to the construction site, as transportation of this inherently heavy item is
expensive even today in an era of trucks and forklifts (Cook 1998, 160
166). In the colonial period in Alta California, the only practical means
of moving fuel to the brick works and the finished product to the construction site would have been in an ox-drawn cart known as a carreta
(Costello 1997, 204).
Reconstructing a Spanish Pottery Kiln
In order to learn more about kiln technology in the spring of 2006, the
SmithsonianSouthern California University Pottery Project joined with
the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation at El Presidio de Santa
Barbara State Historic Park to examine the firing technologies associated
with the fabrication of these ceramics in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. In Santa Barbara, a two-chamber updraft demonstration kiln
was constructed as a valuable addition to its public interpretation of life
on the Spanish colonial frontier (figure 7.3). The manufacture of replica
ceramics and their public firing in a historic kiln resulted in objects that
could be used for interpretation and provided a venue for conducting
experiments in the efficiency of different fuels.
Prior to this project the only interpretation of a pottery shop and kiln
in a California mission was at La Pursima Concepcin. The original reconstruction program at Mission La Pursima was part of the National
Park Services National State Park Emergency Conservation Program
from 1934 to 1942. The National Park Service provided state park departments with technical assistance and guidance that coincided with the
Civilian Conservation Corps work program. The National Park Service
Figure 7.3. The updraft demonstration kiln at El Presidio de Santa Barbara

State Historic Park before, during, and after glaze firing. Photographs by
Michael H. Imwalle.
and Civilian Conservation Corps programs were canceled in 1942 because of World War II. After the war, when funding became available,
Chief Ranger Arthur Sill led the project to continue the reconstruction
in the 1950s. The Pottery Shop and Kiln, which were reconstructed during 19511954, were the first reconstructions at La Pursima Mission
State Historic Park that were done entirely by state park staff members.
Park staff conducted the excavations, made the adobe blocks, and reconstructed the shop building, the pottery wheel, and the kiln.
The foundations of the structure which would later be called the
pottery shop were investigated by California State Park archaeologists
in 1951. A building was reconstructed by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation on the foundations of this structure. Based on the
archaeological evidence it was originally interpreted to be a tile shop because of the discovery of unfired clay pipe, tile, and two large mill stones.
It was later interpreted to the public as a pottery shop. The Pursima kiln
was built to aid in this interpretation.
A nonfunctioning kiln was added to the reconstruction of the Pottery Shop on the recommendations of the La Pursima Mission Advisory
Committee in March of 1951. According to the minutes of the meeting,
the Subcommittee for Structures recommended construction of a kiln
for the firing of pottery at the north end of the building, if after archaeological reconnaissance, foundations for such a kiln are not found elsewhere in the vicinity. The kiln is to be square, similar to or duplicating
that shown in Mrs. Webbs photograph of the kiln at Santa Barbara Mis-
sion (La Pursima Mission Advisory Committee 1951, 3). At the same
meeting the Advisory Committee recommended the addition of the pottery wheel for interpretive purposes. The plan for the kiln, which was not
drawn until 1954, does not indicate whether the kiln was intended for
pottery or tile.
The kiln that I and master potter Ruben Reyes constructed was based
on the nonfunctional replica kiln at Mission La Pursima Concepcin,
the historic photograph of a pottery kiln at Mission Santa Barbara, and
other sources (e.g., Edson 1979; Lister and Lister 1987). Test firing of this
replica kiln in April 2006 demonstrated that in seven hours a temperature of more than 1,700F could be successfully achieved. Temperatures
during an experimental glaze firing in April 2007 were carefully monitored over a period of 24 hours. Results from this and other experimental firings of ceramic vessels in this kiln are being compared with those
conducted in open pits and are providing insights into the efficiency of
different fuels, and the success rates of different firing techniques. These
studies also show that how the kiln is stacked can affect the firing.
Modern Insights on Brick and Tile Making
Action (or experimental) archaeology was developed in the 1970s by
archaeologists seeking to assess assumptions about how activities were
performed in the past. All too often historic documents are assumed to
be factual accounts of what transpired. Of course, we have all heard our
share of big fish stories, and it would appear that Fathers Tpis and Corts were telling one when they described tile production.
Master potter Reyes broke down the production of the tiles into understandable numbers. These are revealing. He found that fired roof tiles at
both Mission San Antonio de Padua and the Presidio of Santa Barbara weigh
about 15 pounds after firing. The wet clay for each weighed 25 pounds.
This means that the wet clay to produce 500 roof tiles would have weighed
6.2tons. If the sixteen men the priests mentioned did all of the work, each of
them would have had to wedge 781 pounds of clay and then create 31.2tiles
in the same six-hour period. Reyes further notes that if the work of digging
the clay, crushing the clay, and cleaning unwanted material from the clay
was done in a single day, this would subsequently cause problems in drying
and firing. By way of example he notes that when he has made clay from
scratch with a team of four potters with modern tools, they were able to
make a ton of clay in about six hours. All they had to do is move the materials in 50-pound bags from a truck using a forklift, then rip open the bags,
dump the contents into a mixer, and remove the clay from the mixer.
Another dubious fact reported by the priests stems from their claims
that water had to be drawn from a well 15 yards deep or from a laguna.
An aqueduct capable of delivering more than 35,000 gallons of water per
day (Bent et al. 1990, 3136) to the site of the presidio quadrangle was
completed by Comandante Francisco Ortega in 1784 (Whitehead 1996,
105107).
Brick and Tile Kilns
Two types of kilns are associated with brick and tile making, one permanent and the other temporary. Both may be characterized as updraft
kilns. While both may be rectangular or round in shape, have a fire chamber or tunnel for stoking, and have a chamber for loading the green brick,
they differ in their outer walls. Permanent ones are built of mortared
fired bricks or adobes. The temporary ones have walls made of unfired or
green bricks and are sometimes known as Scotch or clamp kilns (Cook
1998, 288; Costello 1997, 199). In the latter case, the kiln is destroyed after firing and the fired bricks are removed. Cook believes that this sort of
kiln was in use in the colonial period and spread throughout New Spain
(Cook 1998, 18, 288).
Many modern updraft kilns in Mexico are small, averaging a 1 1 meter chamber, and are fired with wood (Edson 1979, 73). It is also reported
that larger kilns with 4 4 meter chambers capable of holding 3,000
roof tiles are used. These are sometimes fired with wheat straw. Temperatures with this fuel can reach 1,050C, or 1,920F (Edson 1979, 72).
A kiln of this variety was used during restoration of Mission San Miguel
during the early 1940s. A similar kiln was used by a Native American
community in San Luis Obispo County called Redwind to fire brick and
tile during the early 1980s. The Redwind kiln was constructed of unfired
adobe blocks, where the first courses of adobe blocks were laid on their
sides to form the firing chambers.
In addition to the rectangular-shaped clamp-style kilns, there is evidence that circular volcano-style and open-topped, kilns were also used
in Alta California (Edson 1979, 73). The volcano-style kilns are similar
to those described in England as bottle kilns and are characterized as
having restricted necks or flues (Dawson and Kent 2008, 201226). Archaeological evidence of such a kiln has been documented at Mission
San Juan Capistrano (Williams 1996, 13; Macko 1999, 2024; Padon
etal. 1990). It has been suggested that this type of kiln may have served
the dual purpose of functioning as a lime kiln.
The second type of circular brick and tile kiln is the open-topped variety. According to archaeological and documentary research, these were
the most common type of tile kiln in use during the Spanish colonial and
Mexican period in California. They are characterized by straight or vertical walls with an open top. After the kiln was loaded from the top, it was
covered with tile wasters or adobes to aid in the retention of heat during
firing. In contemporary Mexican tile kilns of this variety, sheets of corrugated metal are often used to close the tops of the kilns during firing. Two
examples of open-top circular kilns have survived at Mission San Luis
Rey. Kilns very similar to the larger of the two Mission San Luis Rey kilns
can be seen in the 1791 sketch of the Monterey Presidio by Jos Cardero
(figure 7.4). Circular kilns were also used to fire roof tiles during the 1920s
restoration of the San Bernardino Asistencia of Mission San Gabriel.
Archaeological evidence of a circular tile kiln was identified by M. R.
Harrington at the site of Mission La Pursima Concepcin in 1940. The
Figure 7.4. Pen-and-ink drawing of the Monterey Presidio in 1791 by Jos

Cardero. Note the presence of the three large circular tile kilns dug into the
hillside on the left side of the drawing. Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Used by permission.
base of a circular kiln was excavated at the foot of a slope that is suspected
as being the source of clay for tiles. This location is also near the building
identified as the tile shop. Although Harrington interpreted this feature
as a tile kiln (Harrington 1940, 13), the top was subsequently fitted with
a basin and interpreted as a tallow vat. Harringtons field notes contradict
this interpretation. The structure also differs in scale and design from the
nearby features identified as tallow vats.
A map of the grounds of Santa Barbara Mission made in 1833 indicates the presence of four circular structures northwest of the mission
quadrangle. While the largest of the four features has been interpreted
as a threshing floor, the smaller three have been identified as tile kilns
(Allen 2000). A detail of a tile kiln (figure 7.5) was drawn by Franciscan
Friars during their 1930s survey of the Santa Barbara Mission water system (Lynch 1938, 4146; OBrien 1938, 146147). Presumably these kilns
were used to fire the tiles that line the miles of aqueducts that carried
water between the Mission Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon dams and
the mission. Although they are not labeled as tile kilns on the plan, their
Figure 7.5. Drawing made by Rev. Oliver Lynch, OFM, and Fr. Eric OBrien,
OFM, in 1938 during a survey of the Santa Barbara mission water system.
Santa Brbara Mission Archive-Library. Used by permission.
placement near the tile-roofed buildings of the quadrangle and away

from the pottery suggests that they were used to fire bricks and tiles.
Because the tops of these kilns are usually left partially open during
firing, the bricks fired therein may be unevenly heated. Often those on
the bottom would vitrify while those on the top would remain unfired.
According to Gurcke (1987, 32), often more than a quarter of the bricks
are not fired successfully in these kilns. Tays provides a detailed description of the use of bricks removed from the kilns after firing:
As the bricks were removed from the kiln, they were sorted into three
grades. One was the very heavily burnt brick which had turned a deep
brown or almost black, and was very hard and brittle, ringing like a flint
when struck with a hammer. These bricks were the ones in the lower layers
which were next to the fires, and came in direct contact with the flames.
Another and the best grade was made up of the bricks which lay between the lower and the top layers. These bricks were burnt to a clear deep
red-orange by the hot gases; but did not have direct contact with flames.
They were strong and tough and had a good clear ring when struck. The
third and poorest grade of bricks came from the top layers, where they
were under done, as the gases had lost much of their heat by the time they
reached the top layers. These bricks were of a dull grayish-yellow color,
were not very strong and gave a muffled wooden sound when struck.
The three grades of brick were usually kept in separate stacks, and were
used for different purposes. The hard very burnt bricks were used in such
places as fountains, tanks, aqueducts, and such other construction as was
constantly exposed to water and moisture, since that type of bricks were almost impervious to water. The second and best grade of bricks was used in
walls and floors, where strength and durability were essential qualities. The
third, half-burnt and under-done bricks were used for making fireplaces in
the kitchens, or for the tallow vats, also for inside walls and such purposes
where little structural strength was required. (Tays 1941, 422423)
Mission San Antonio de Paduas Brick and Tile Kiln

The pioneering study of brick and tile kilns in Alta California was written by Julia Costello (1997). Until recently she was also the only person
to have partially excavated a kiln at Mission San Antonio, which she did
in 19761977 (1985b). Costello (1997) suggests that this was a clamp-
style single-chamber kiln. To test that assumption a 1/10th scale operational model of this kiln was built in 2006. The model was based on the
published archaeological plan maps of the structure. Experiments with
that model have led to a reconsideration of the structure. It is now proposed that it may have been a two-chamber kiln (Imwalle, Skowronek,
and Reyes 2007).
As scale modelists will attest, three-dimensional replication may clarify operational details of poorly understood technologies. This in turn
may lead to new interpretations of how the technologies were meant to
function. This was the case with the San Antonio kiln. Review of the archaeological evidence shows that the kiln structure was 13 7 feet. It
also had an oddly shaped or splayed entryway. If this was the original configuration of the kiln, the size of the structure and the odd shape
of the doorway would have created problems with stacking and firing
the kiln. It is possible that the structure was adaptively reused and the
doorway was rebuilt after the kiln was abandoned. If this were a single
chamber kiln, it would have been easy to load but would have been
virtually impossible to stoke the length of the 13-foot chamber. Singlechamber kilns that size are typically stoked from more than one source
point.
Based on this reasoning, it is conceivable that this too was a twochamber open-topped updraft kiln. Without a roof it would have been
easy to load and unload tiles and bricks from the top. With an arched firing chamber beneath the vessel chamber it would be much easier to stoke
the fire with large metal pokers, moving the hot coals around to evenly
spread the heat. This firing chamber would allow for a higher yield in
production because of the heat distribution in the second chamber and
also because the tile stacking could be done in a way that would enhance
heat distribution and increase production.
Further evidence for this line of reasoning was obtained from the
19761977 excavations. Columns of fired brick were embedded at regular intervals in the adobe walls of the kiln. It is likely that these fired
bricks are the remnants of arches that once spanned the seven-foot width
of the structure and were then tied to the back wall and to each arch
(figure7.6). These likely formed a brick grate that was the floor for the
second chamber. A good example of this can be seen in the kiln at Mission La Concepcin Pursima (figure 7.7). This sort of enclosed updraft
kiln was being built in Spain and New Spain before the establishment of
the Alta California colonies (Lister and Lister 1982) and continued to be
Figure 7.6. A 1:10 scale operational model of a Mission San Antonio kiln
based on archaeological site plans. Photographs by Ruben Reyes.
built by traditional potters and ladrilleros (brick makers) and tejeros in

Mexico into the 1970s (Edson 1979, 7174).
Another example of a mission-era kiln was recorded at Rancho San
Marcos by an archaeological field class from the University of California, Santa Barbara, under the direction of Roderick McIntosh (McIntosh
1978). The top of the kiln was circular and approximately 1.3 meters in
diameter. The kiln at Rancho San Marcos was first reported in the 1818
account books for Mission Santa Barbara. Subsequent cultural resource
studies identified the kiln as a pottery kiln, but recent investigations do
not support this description.
Figure 7.7. Interior of the pottery kiln at Mission La Pursima State Historic Park. Note the grate in the floor of the vessel chamber created by the
arches that form the underlying fire box. Photograph by Michael H. Imwalle.
While documenting the current condition of the kiln for a preservation plan for the Rancho San Marcos adobe, I documented that the kiln
was a two-chamber updraft kiln with slightly constricted walls of firedclay tile and an open top (Imwalle and Stone 2011). It was built into a
north-facing slope above a reliable source of water and clay. The upper
chamber, or vessel chamber, was supported by a grate formed by a series
of fired tile arches. The lower chamber, or fire chamber, was accessed
from an arched opening located at the bottom of the kiln (figure 7.8).
The fact that only roof tile fragments were recovered from the interior
Figure 7.8. Sketch and photograph of tile kiln at Rancho San Marcos,
Santa Barbara County, California. Sketch and photograph by Michael H.
Imwalle.
of the kiln and that no locally made earthenware pottery was recovered
from the test excavations of the adobe in 1971 further supports the theory that this kiln, despite its relatively small size, was dedicated to tile
production.
Summary and Conclusions
The experimental firings conducted during this project have provided
valuable data for the interpretation of ceramics recovered from Spanish
colonial archaeological sites throughout New Spain. The construction of

the two-chambered updraft kiln has also enabled the Santa Barbara Trust
for Historic Preservation to accurately interpret the entire ceramic production process for visitors to El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic
Park. Student interns process raw clay excavated during reconstruction
projects on site. The clay is used for wheel-thrown pottery and handmodeled pottery production, and the vessels produced are fired in kiln
and pit-fire demonstrations. Understanding the process of converting
raw materials into utilitarian pottery and architectural ceramics during
the Spanish colonial period in California gives researchers and the general public a greater appreciation of the skilled artisans who produced
these products that are often taken for granted today.
Our knowledge of ceramic production technologies on the Alta California frontier will continue to grow through ongoing experimentation
and research. These nascent efforts came only through decades of previous study and a focused expertise. As modern development continues to
encroach on both urban and rural California mission sites, opportunity
for further documentation and analysis of brick and tile production technology in Alta California continues. Grading for a recent development in
the vicinity of Mission San Miguel encountered the remains of a feature
that may represent a late eighteenth-century tile kiln (Greenwood and
Foster 2004, 56, 3132, A1A5). During a presentation of the findings
at the 2011 California Mission Studies Association, John Foster presented
images of a rectilinear structure composed of burned adobe bricks that
was built into the base of a slope (Foster 2011). This appears to be another
example of a semi-subterranean rectangular adobe kiln similar to the one
documented more than 30 years ago at Mission San Antonio de Padua.
When study of this feature is completed, the next chapter will be written
in the story of brick making in Spanish California.
Part IV
Assessing Variation in
Ceramic Composition
Ceramics are multi-component systems of natural raw materials selected

and prepared according to social practices and technological requirements, ultimately transformed into finished products for use in a wide
variety of social contexts. Because they are made of a combination of
clays, silts, sands, grasses, and so forth and are crafted to serve different
needs that include building materials, cookware, and tableware, there is
variation in the processes used to create them that can exceed the natural
variation in mineralogical components or elemental abundances. Analytical procedures that provide objective parameters, including mineralogical identification and quantifying elemental constituents, provide
ways of modeling the variation within a particular delimited recovery
area (e.g., kitchen, site, subregion) and comparing that variation to another similarly considered body of ceramic materials. This provides one
basis for assessing the nature and extent of group interaction.
Chapter 8 provides a historically situated discussion of methodological approaches and techniques for characterizing ceramics. In chapter9,
Sarah Peelo illustrates how mineralogical characterization is done using
thin-section petrography. Chapter 10 provides a more in-depth discussion of chemical characterization, with an emphasis on instrumental
neutron activation analysis as applied to our study of elemental variation
with the California pottery and architectural ceramics. This chapter offers the background for the presentation of findings from the analysis of
134 Part IV. Assessing Variation in Ceramic Composition
the projects sampled bricks, tiles, and plain wares and establishes which
mission or mission-presidio complex was the site of manufacture for
each item at each mission or mission-presidio complex. D. Larry Felton,
Glenn Farris, and Eloise Richards Barter consider the issue of trade or
local manufacture in greater detail for pottery from Old Town San Diego
in chapter 12.
Lead-glazed ceramics found throughout early Alta California generally were assumed to have been imported from Mexico because of their
greater complexity and the requirements of the glazing technology used.
Chapter 13 presents the results of instrumental neutron activation analysis to characterize the glaze wares, over one-half of which we acknowledge were imported from Mexico, most likely from a single manufacturing center. Despite a large database of comparative analyses of Mexican
and republican period glazed wares from Mexico, this site is yet to be
identified.
8
Selected Approaches to
Ceramic Characterization
Pottery making may have begun as early as 25,000 years ago, depending on how one interprets the figurines recovered from what is now the
modern Czech Republic (see Vandiver et al. 1989). Fired and unfired figurines depicting pregnant, wide-hipped females with pendulous breasts
were found at the site of Doln Vstonice. However, there is the possibility that unfired figures may have been thrown into the fire while still in
a wet state as part of a ritual event and that thermal shock caused them
to loudly break. If so, it might be that the fired figures recovered by
archaeologists millennia later were not purposely fired.
There is more agreement about the antiquity of pottery from the Early
Jmon period of Japan. Fiber-tempered pottery with plain or cord impressions and ceramic figurines have been dated to between 10,000 and
6,000 years ago (Aikens 1995; Harris 1997). Even earlier dates have been
obtained for pottery from China, the Russian Far East, and elsewhere in
Japan (Nakamura et al. 2001). This is considerably earlier than the oldest
pottery recognized for the New World, where ceramics made with plant
fibers are reported to have been recovered in Colombia, South America, dating approximately 5,900 years ago. Closer to Alta California, the
beginnings of pottery are tenuously identified. Two competing models
pertain to the Purron complex of the Central Highlands of Mexico and
the Bara complex of the Soconusco coastal region (ca. 1850BC) (Lesure
1998, 21). Extensive discussions of the origins of pottery and theories
about its developmental context can be found in Barnett and Hoopes

(1995) and Rice (1999).
Native groups of Alta California were generally considered to lack pottery except for groups in the extreme south and among the Yokuts and
Western Mono (Drover 1975; Gayton 1929; Kroeber 1922). The southern pottery that is most often discussed was termed Tizon Brown Ware
and is thought to relate to Arizonas Lower Colorado Buff pottery despite
major differences in color and types of clays and tempers (Colton 1939;
Lyneis 1988). Not without controversy or uncertainty, Tizon Brown Ware
is said to date from about AD 700 to about AD 1890 (Euler and Dobyns
1958; Oppelt 2007). However, much earlier pottery, perhaps as early
as 5,000years ago, has been found in an Orange County shell midden
(Drover 1975) and on Santa Catalina Island (Porcasi 1998). Despite its
rather long history in parts of southern California, pottery making was
generally not practiced by tribes to the north.
The Scientific Study of Pottery
Scholarly interest in old objects likely began sometime during that burst
of curiosity that became part of the intellectualism of the Renaissance
(ca. AD 14501600). More specific attention to antiquities, however, can
be traced back to 1774, when, under the rule of Britains King George III,
two bronze swords were assayed to determine their composition (Craddock 1991, 11). Earl Caley (1949) found that one of the earliest scientific
investigations of antiquities is the work of eighteenth-century German
scientist Martin Klaproth, who became known as the father of analytical chemistry. Klaproths early analyses of Roman glass and Roman and
Greek coins were guided by questions that drive many contemporary investigations of artifacts today: What is the nature of the composition?
and What are the similarities and differences? French mineralogist
Augustin Alexis Damour (b. 1808) is credited with the explicit intention
of using chemical and petrographic methods to determine the composition and physical characteristics of Celtic-area hard-stone axes to cast
new light on the migratory movements of people in prehistoric times
(Harbottle 1982, 14; Lucas and Sick 2009). Damours research methodology involved the comparison of the composition of recovered artifacts
with raw materials from suspected or possible sources of manufacture.
In other words, his method required an inference to be made about the
Selected Approaches to Ceramic Characterization137
physical or chemical relationship between analyzed archaeological objects and the materials that were used in the fabrication of the objects
from different locations.
Our investigation of Californias mission- and presidio-era pottery follows the same lines of thought these early researchers expressed. Now, as
then, the need is to somehow characterize the pottery by determining
the physical or chemical properties of the objects so they can be compared objectively to other similarly studied ceramics or to the raw materials from which the ceramics were made. As we will see, however, the
linkage between different ceramic objects or ceramic objects and source
materials involves more than a simple assessment of analytical findings.
One of the easiest materials to characterize in terms of its chemical
constituents is obsidian, for it is a naturally occurring glass that is formed
from an extrusive igneous melt. Obsidian is often found at the margins of
lava flows in volcanic environments. It is composed predominantly of silica and can be worked into a cultural object through the physical removal
of material. Since its chemical composition is taken from the glass melt,
removal does not change the elemental constituents or their abundance.
Obsidian artifacts can be matched directly to volcanic samples of known
source location. In contrast to this relatively homogeneous naturally occurring material, pottery is a culturally crafted composite entity that undergoes a transformation to a hardened material during firing. The basic
clay component may be one or several clay minerals and/or a naturally
occurring mixture of clays and fine silts. It forms a coherent, sticky mass
when mixed with water; when wet, the mass is readily moldable, but if
dried it becomes hard and brittle and retains its shape (Worrall 1986, 1);
that is, when formed and fired by human action, it becomes pottery.
Clay can refer to several different minerals made up of hydrous aluminum phyllosilicates. According to definitions based on general mineralogical size, this would refer to particles of less than two microns. The
major chemical and physical structures of clay minerals vary, but overall
clays share the general property of swelling with the addition of water,
which increases the plasticity or working properties. As clay dries, water
that has adhered to the surface of the clay is removed, reducing its plasticity. A major transformation results when a clay object is fired, as the
bonding water that is incorporated within the lattice structure of the clay
mineral is expelled, shrinking or collapsing the clay body and rendering a
nonplastic durable object. From a functional perspective, we can think of
clay in terms of its plasticity, how easily it is molded, how well it holds its
shape when drying, and how well it retains its structural integrity when
fired. Detailed discussions of clay minerals and clay chemistry can be
found in Worrall (1986) and Rice (1987, 31110).
Pottery most frequently is made up of more than just clay minerals.
A naturally occurring clay mixture may contain clay minerals and fine
crystals of other minerals, such as feldspar, mica, quartz, rock fragments,
and carbonaceous matter. Clays are the result of chemical and mechanical weathering in the sedimentary system. They occur as extensive linear
lenses, or beds, that may be several kilometers in extent in discrete and
localized ponds or in lakes. While a given clay lens may be somewhat
uniform in composition, differences among different stratigraphically
layered lenses may be considerable. Riverine or lacustrine deposits may
be subject to cycles of flooding, causing clay and nonclay minerals to
be sorted into different size fractions and differentially distributed depending on the hydrological factors involved. All of the mechanical and
chemical processes associated with the formation of sedimentary deposits induce great complexity that makes it difficult to chemically relate
sediments to their parent materials. Although the clay-mineral system,
which has undergone extensive changes from the parent materials, might
be compositionally complex, human practices of ceramic manufacture
infuse an additional layer of interpretive difficulty that can both confound and inform the study of pottery production and distribution.
When using ceramic composition as a means of determining where a
ceramic was likely made, we need to seek patterns in compositional data
that arise from the natural variation in raw materials and information
about how components were introduced or altered through the choices
made by the potter as he or she prepared to form a ceramic object. The
mineralogical and chemical makeup of the raw materials can be greatly
altered during the process of preparing the ceramic paste. There may be
a subtraction of constituents that involves the removal of coarser particles through sifting or levigation. Conversely, some component(s) can
be added to the clayey matrix, such as other types of clay, sand, volcanic
ash, crushed carbonate-containing rocks, fiber, and dung. Two or more
different clays can be mixed together with the mineralogical properties
of one compensating for the properties of the other. The purpose of such
actions is to modify the working properties of the clay matrix so that
a formed vessel may hold its shape as it dries. It must also permit the
escape of gas during the firing process in order to maintain its structure intact. In the process of changing the forming and firing properties,
the removal of some material or the addition of tempering materials

results in a specific composition for the ceramic object. While it is advantageous in characterization investigations to try to understand the
interrelationship of the various processes that contribute to the composition of pottery, it is at times impossible to do this in the same way that it
is impossible for geochemists to unmix the different factors that result
in the composition of a given sedimentthere are too many cycles, too
many unknowns. Yet there are those situations where the mineralogical
or chemical components of pottery do permit inferences to be made that
are useful for archaeological interpretation.
The study of underlying characteristics to determine the source
of artifacts or to determine how artifacts are similar even if the source
is unknown relies on what has been called the Provenience Postulate
(Weigand, Harbottle, and Sayre 1977, 24). All material sources have a
composition that can be expressed in terms of measurable ranges of elemental concentration. The postulate assumes that the variation between
specific sources will be greater than the variation within a given source.
Further, it assumes that through the use of an analytical technique of sufficient resolving power and precision, we can differentiate among the potential resources or resource subregions. Therefore, we should be able to
differentiate pottery made from these resources from pottery manufactured from other resources. Differences, of course, are the other side of
similarities. How similar and or how different compositions are from one
another depends upon a specific application of an analytical procedure.
The level at which one seeks such differences in elemental concentration
or mineralogical abundance depends upon the analytical resolution and
precision that is being sought in a particular study.
One of the early attempts to characterize pottery in the Americas was
made by Finnish mineralogist Gustaf Nordenskild (18681895) in his
1893 publication on the pottery of the southwestern U.S. site of Mesa
Verde (Nordenskild 2009 [1893]). Although he devoted his primary
attention to general attributes of surface finish, he compared manufacturing techniques used in Mesa Verde ceramics to those used in other
Southwestern ceramics, calling attention to the use of tempers such as
sands or pounded potsherds (Nordenskild 2009 [1893], 78, 81, 84).
Latter, Sigvald Linn (18991986) used petrographic information provided by Swedish geologist Gunnar Beskow (19011991) to suggest that
many of the kinds of mineralogical inclusions found in the ceramic paste
of a particular type of Central Mexican pottery known as Thin Orange
Ware, were similar to those of other Teotihuacan ceramics (Linn 1934).

Although remains of Thin Orange were plentiful at the site of Teotihuacan, the differences that were found, such as the presence of mica schist
associated with cryptocrystalline quartz, led Linn to suggest (correctly)
that Thin Orange was imported rather than made at the site. These early
studies did not go unnoticed by Anna O. Shepard (19031973), then a
young graduate student who would become the leading authority on
ceramic technology.
Petrography and Anna Shepard
During 19261927, following completion of an undergraduate degree at
the University of Nebraska, Anna Shepard joined the San Diego Museum
of Man as a curator of anthropology. There she began a close working
relationship with Southwestern archaeologist Wesley Bradfield (1876
1929). The latter had been working with National Institute of Standards
ceramic chemist F. G. Jackson to determine if the chemical analysis of
his southwestern pottery might provide data in support of Bradfields
tentative ceramic classifications. For example, did all members of class 1
pottery show similarities among themselves, and if so, were they chemically different from pottery in class 2? Progress, unfortunately, was extremely slow as classical wet chemical methods of analysis were being
used. Shepard was studying for a graduate degree in anthropology at
the University of New Mexico but planned to change to chemistry so
that she might further such work with the pottery. As she was pondering
this move, however, she and Bradfield became increasingly aware of the
potential use of petrography for understanding technological aspects of
pottery and for discerning which pottery might be locally made or which
might be imported.
Unfortunately, Bradfield, Shepards mentor and would-be collaborator, fell ill following an operation and died. Unable to continue their
planned work in the manner that she considered to be the most effective,
Shepard withdrew from the university. Fortunately, however, her interest
and work ethic had come to the attention of the dean of American archaeology, Alfred Kidder (18851963). Through his contacts, Kidder arranged for Shepard to pursue her interest in ceramic technology with the
Laboratory of Anthropology in New Mexico. She ultimately secured continuous employment with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. With
the help of her father, an engineer and chemist, Shepard proceed to carry
out extensive studies of pottery in the American Southwest (in Hopi and
Zuni regions) and southern Mexico (in Oaxaca, in Central Mexico, and
especially in the Maya region). From her early work in the 1930s through
the 1960s, her methods dominated research in archaeological ceramic
technology. Her primary analytical tools were low-power reflected-light
microscopy and, especially, petrographic examination of thin sections.
Shepard was exacting in her work and highly critical of work that she
believed did not measure up to her standards. Over time, having seen
that archaeologists failed to interpret her ceramic technological data
correctly, she grew increasingly estranged from archaeology. There
were few with whom she would collaborate. In fact, sufficient rancor
could arise that Kidder, the head of the Carnegie Institutions programs
in the Maya area, told his staff to ignore any reference to ceramic paste in
their reports lest Shepard would object. This created a great impediment
to advancing the technological study of archaeological pottery. New developments were emerging, but even those were not safe from Shepards
critical evaluation (for a discussion of Shepard and her work, see Bishop
and Lange 1991).
A Glow on the Horizon
Northwest of the New Mexican town of Alamogordo, the vista is often
expansive. Tourists to the White Sands Missile Range are encouraged
by staff escorts to focus on historical markers. What is rarely mentioned
is the fact that there is low residual radioactivity in the area, the result
of the first successful implosion of a plutonium device on July 16, 1945,
that irreversibly ushered in the atomic age. Soon to follow was the deployment of two atomic bombs over the Japanese cites of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, respectively, in 1945.
The Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb has been extensively documented in accounts (e.g., Gosling 2010) that describe both
the technological developments that created the bomb and the social
impact of the deployment of atomic bombs (e.g., Boyer 1985; Rhodes
1986). Under the military coordination provided by Major General Leslie
R. Groves (Groves 1962) and the scientific administrative leadership of
physicist J.Robert Oppenheimer (19041967) (Bird and Sherwin 2006;
Kelly 2007) at the bomb assembly site of Los Alamos, New Mexico, hundreds of scientists, thousands of workers, and the resources of institutions such as the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory of the University of Cali-
fornia, the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, the Oak Ridge

Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the National Accelerator Laboratory in Weston, Illinois, and the Hanford nuclear facility in southeastern
Washington state were marshaled into the largest big science project of
the twentieth century. Research was undertaken at a feverish pace. German scientists had been experimenting with nuclear energy since 1938
and it was widely thought by U.S. scientists that Germany was well on
its way to developing and deploying a nuclear explosive device. The U.S.
effort therefore was a rush to limit the impact of such a German attack
(Goudsmit 1983; Norris 2002). Following the war a project was undertaken to determine how far German research had progressed in work
toward a nuclear device. The project was code-named ALSOStaken
from the Greek word for groves, the name of the military leader placed
in charge of the Manhattan Project. It appears, however, that that fear
that Germany was close to producing an atomic weapon was based more
on myth than fact. German scientific effort on nuclear research was underfunded and had little administrative support within the Nazi regime,
which politicized such research as Jewish science and thus made it unpopular at the universities (Goudsmit 1983). Such an assessment made
after the end of the war by the ALSOS mission, of course, was of little
significance during the days of the Manhattan Project.
The successful deployment of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima was a
time of mixed feelings among the scientists involved. It had been an intellectual and practical task that was herculean in scope. Tens of thousands
of American lives and those of the Allies were spared by the ultimate cessation of military action. However, there was a strong awareness of the
horror that had been released by the newly harnessed energy among the
Manhattan Project participants. This ambivalence between being proud
of achievement and feeling revulsion at the consequences was shared
by the project director, Robert Oppenheimer, nicknamed the American
Prometheus (Bird and Sherwin 2005). Oppenheimer had been raised in a
second-generation German Jewish family that belonged to no synagogue
and sent their son to be educated in an Ethical Cultural Society school
that supported a progressive form of secular humanism, individual liberty, and social justice. This helped instill in Oppenheimer the notion that
science could be used for the good of societya notion that he wrestled
with while directing the creation of a weapon of mass destruction.
Following the end of World War II, Oppenheimer accepted the directorship of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study in 1947, bringing
with him a strong interest in history, languages, and art. Finding that
the residents were overwhelmingly theoretical physicists and mathematicians, he began to recruit humanists, such as classical archaeologist
Homer A. Thompson (19062000), poet T. S. Elliot (18881965), and
historian Arnold Toynbee (18891975) (Bird and Sherwin 2005, 377).
The expansion of residents to include such noted humanists and social
scientists was in keeping with his conviction that science needed a social
perspective to know itself and the consequences of its developments. He
had his work cut out for him, as some of the mathematicians, in particular, strongly objected to the use of the institutes resources to support
members of the social sciences or humanities. Oppenheimer, however,
was dedicated to creating a wide ranging interdisciplinary environment.
After the war, a civilian government bureau took control over nuclear
energy policy. The Atomic Energy Act that was signed into law on August1, 1946, created the Atomic Energy Commission, ushering in both
new security regulations and more open access for scientists and engineers who wanted to explore nonmilitary uses of nuclear power. In 1943
radiochemist Richard W. Dodson (19202007) was appointed as a group
leader and later assistant director of the chemistry division at the Los
Alamos laboratory, working under the directorship of Robert Oppenheimer (figure 8.1). After the war he joined the faculty of Columbia University but was soon recruited to form and chair a new department of
chemistry at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He remained in contact
with Oppenheimer, and in 1953 received a call from his former boss, now
in residence at the Princeton Institute, asking if the analytical capability
of the newly harnessed nuclear energy would be of value for the study of
archaeology. The two men revisited the issue of archaeology and nuclear
science, and in 1956 they held a meeting at the Princeton Institute. Dodson brought a young physical scientist, Edward V. Sayre (19192007), to
the meeting. Following discussions among the participants, Sayre agreed
to carry out experiments to evaluate the potential use of nuclear energy
for archaeology. Among those attending were classical archaeologists
Dorothy Burr Thompson (19002001) and Homer S. Thompson and
Mayanist Linton Satterwaite (18971978). These three were later the first
to submit pottery from their research areas for instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) as a way to determine the source of manufacture
of archaeological ceramics.
The idea of using instrumental analysis to determine chemical constituents in archaeology was not new, but what was needed was a method
Figure 8.1. Third from left: Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the
Manhattan Project; far right, Robert W. Dodson, assistant division leader
of the Chemistry Division at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and later
chairman of the Department of Chemistry at Brookhaven National Laboratory. These two scientists were interested in whether nuclear energy might
be useful for archaeology. Photograph was likely taken during 19431945.
Copyright held by Photo Researchers, number BF3928. Used by permission.
that would be capable of producing acceptable data for many samples

within a reasonable time. Steps had been taken in this direction during
the 1920s and 1930s with the use of optical emission spectroscopy (OES),
which involves the introduction of energy into a sample by means of a
flame or an electric spark. This causes the atoms to become excited and
to seek a lower energy state through the emission of lightthat is, the
wavelength characteristic of an element. Early application of this method
involved recording energy spectral lines on photographic plates or film
that could then be read by a trained analyst. The position of the lines
would indicate the elements present, while the width of the lines would
be compared to those obtained from reference materials to determine
concentration. Concentrations could generally be offered in ranges but
not as exact numbers. Intensive programs of analyses were carried out
in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s that involved thousands of archaeological metal objects using optical emission spectrometry. OES became
a routine means of analysis at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology
and the History of Art at Oxford University and at the Fitch Laboratory
at the American School in Athens during the 1950s and 1960s (see Jones
1986). Gradually, the advantages offered by INAA pushed OES into the
background.
Unlike analytical techniques that depend on chemical reactions involving the electrons, neutron activation analysis depends on changes
in the nuclei of atoms and the induced radioactivity. It requires that a
sample be exposed to a source of neutrons, commonly supplied by a nuclear reactor. When a neutron is captured by a nucleus, a radionuclide
is formed that is in a highly energetic state. It can become de-excited in
several ways; the one of particular interest in the context of the study of
ceramics is through the release of electromagnetic energy in the form
of gamma rays. The gamma rays have discrete energy that is emitted according to the half-life of the radioactive isotopes that have been formed
by the neutron irradiation. Since the gamma rays have energies and intensities that are specific to particular isotopes, they can be identified
and counted, thereby leading to quantification of elemental constituents
in the sample.
Some of the first applications of neutron activation included the analysis of ancient glass (Sayre and Smith 1961) and Greek (Sayre, Dodson, and
Thompson 1957) and Maya pottery (Sayre, Murrenhoff, and Weick 1958)
at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Methodological and instrumental
developments followed swiftly, most notably the development of the
lithium-drifted germanium detector, which provided an almost tenfold
increase in the ability to detect gamma lines that are close to each other
(Sayre 1966), and the use of computers to process the complex gamma
spectra that were acquired. Other laboratories began to be involved with
the study of archaeological samples of glass, pottery, obsidian, and coins
using INAA; these included the Phoenix-Ford Nuclear Reactor in Ann
Arbor and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.
One early application of neutron activation in archaeology involved
the production of neutrons by means of an electron accelerator. The application of this method, the conclusions researchers arrived at using
this method, and the comment that followed the publication of analytical findings, however, are more important than the means by which the
neutrons were generated. Johnson and Stross (1965, 345347) described
the analytical procedure used to quantify a single element, manganese,
in 11ceramic samples from the Valley of Mexico. These data were interpreted as indicating differences between two groups of pottery, although
both groups had similar temper characteristics. This paper caught the
critical eye of ceramic technologist Anna Shepard. She had been urged
early on by her mentor, Alfred Kidder, to quickly critique work that she
felt was of poor quality lest it be followed by a future unsuspecting researcher (Bishop 1991, 84, citing a letter from Kidder to Shepard, November 22, 1935). In keeping with that view, she responded quickly to
Johnson and Stross, mentioning not only the inadequacies of interpretation resting on manganese abundancea single elementbut also presenting several points of importance for chemically based compositional
investigations of pottery. What was the locus for the manganese in the
sample? Was it in the clay or in the temper or from both? To what degree are chemical concentrations in pottery affected by environmental
conditions that follow the discard of pottery? These and other questions
highlighted the complexity of understanding elemental data when a bulk
sample is analyzed. Shepard also challenged the reliability of megascopic
visual observation for temper characterization. These are issues that
are fundamental in compositional investigations and ones that would
demand the attention of investigators almost half a century later (e.g.,
Bishop 1975; Rice 1978; Neff, Bishop, and Sayre 1988, 1989). In spite of
Shepards challenges, by the early 1970s neutron activation was emerging as the analytical technique for investigations of archaeological trade
and exchange (Beaudry 1991). With the availability of stable electronics,
computer-based spectra processing, and a host of new multivariate statistical procedures to grind the rapidly accumulating datasets, analyses
of archaeological pottery were being undertaken by several laboratories
across the United States and internationally. While Shepards concerns
received perhaps less attention than was beneficial, her demonstration
of the contributions that could be made to archaeology through petrographic analysis of pottery endured.
Other techniques of chemical analysis also have been used for the analysis of archaeological materials. These include X-ray fluorescence analysis (e.g., Culbert and Schwalbe 1987) and total reflection X-ray fluorescence (Garca-Heras, Fernndez-Ruiz, and Tornero 1997; Garca-Heras
et al. 2001). These are surface analysis techniques that are prone to error
unless the sample is well prepared by being powdered and pressed into a
pellet, for example. Atomic absorption spectroscopy has been little used
(but see Gritton and Magalousis 1978; Torres, Arie, and Sandoval, 1984).
Sample preparation is demanding, as the sample must be fully dissolved.
More recently, inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy has
been extensively used in the environmental and geological sciences. The

technique is similar in many ways to the formerly popular OES but replaces the flame with a plasma torch that reaches temperatures of 8,000
to 10,000 C (for more extensive reviews of analytical techniques in archaeology, see Pollard and Heron 2008). Because operation is controlled
by a computer and is linked with a detector, the technique can provide
virtually simultaneous measurements of multiple elements. Similar to
the atomic absorption process, it is necessary to completely dissolve a
sample. The use of this method for archaeology is limited by the need
for demanding chemistry and laboratory skills, relatively large sample
sizes, and multiple dilutions to determine different suites of elemental
constituents.
Approaches to Ceramic Characterization
Two primary approaches to ceramic characterization are used in the present volume: neutron activation and petrographic examination (see Peelo
this volume), each of which provides different but complementary information. Petrography focuses on the identification and quantification of
mineralogical components of the pottery, including their abundance and
size distribution in the ceramic paste. It is anticipated that mineralogical
inclusions observed in the pottery will vary by geological source and that
the data, if sufficiently distinctive, will provide a direct link to sources of
temper used in the pottery. Chemical analysis, however, may be required
to find finer subdivisions among pottery made from mineralogically homogeneous resources and recipes. The study of pottery recovered from
Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico well illustrates the complementary nature of petrographic and chemical approaches.
Much of the Chaco pottery is tempered with sand, sandstone, and
crushed sherds. Quartz sand temper is widely available in the area and
is insufficiently diagnostic to be useful in identifying a likely source or
sources for the temper. However, one temper class of pottery is very
distinctive: it is tempered with trachyte, a very fine-grained extrusive
igneous rock that is not found in the immediate Chaco area (Shepard
1939; Shepard in Judd 1954, 236238; Warren 1967). Using petrographic
analysis, Shepard identified the likely source to be in the general Chusca
Mountains, located some 70 kilometers from the Chacoan site. Once the
differentiation between ceramics tempered with quartz sands and those
containing predominantly trachyte temper is identified, the difference

can be seen using rapid and inexpensive examination at approximately
40 magnification with an incident-light binocular microscope. Toll
(1981, 1985) was able to carry out a large-scale study that attributed a
general temper class of Chacoan pottery to a manufacturing region, although he noted complexities in the source attributions that were caused
by the variable presence of sand and trachyte temper. Thus, at times, his
designation of particular ceramics as imports was a judgment call based
on his consideration of relative trachyte abundance.
Petrographic examination conducted by Shepard and later investigators (e.g., Warren 1967; Mills, Carpenter, and Grimm 1997) provided
information beyond the general temper class. Pottery was described in
terms of the types of feldspar it contained, the presence of biotite and
pyroxenes, and characteristics of color and texture wherein large crystals serve as a groundmass for many small, irregularly aligned (poikilitic) crystals. Variation in these or other components was suspected as
indicating different sources within a general source area. Useful characterization required a more accurate determination of likely production areas for the trachyte-tempered pottery. Accordingly, geological and
archaeological sampling was increased and samples were analyzed using
inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (Hensler, Reed, and Carpenter
2001). The combined petrographic and chemical analyses provided data
that could be used to segregate northern and central Chuska Valley clays.
Further resolution of source areas was provided through the use of neutron activation analysis, data from which allowed researchers to suggest
that a predominant manufacturing area was located in the vicinity of the
Skunk Springs community (King 2003).
At each successive stage of the Chaco-Chuska pottery investigation,
more samples of both archaeological ceramics and systematically gathered source materials were considered with types of analysis that resulted in greater sensitivity and improved specificity of source attribution. However, more extensive sampling and a larger dataset may not be
sufficient to match pottery to specific sources, as Mills, Carpenter, and
Grimm (1997, 263), among others, have noted (e.g., Bishop et al. 1982;
Rice 1987). The specific potting practices used to process the raw materials may introduce or subtract components in complex ways that can
mask relationships between the source of materials and the final product.
General statements about objective assessment of relationships between
finished pottery and the materials used to make it are difficult to make
with certainty. Each analytical approachincident light, low power microscopy, petrographic examination, or chemical analysisprovides only
descriptive information, albeit at different levels.
All approaches to the characterization of archaeological ceramics
whose objectives involve attribution of the pottery to likely sources of
resource procurement or manufacture confront issues of sensitivity,
precision, and scale. Is the method used for characterization sufficiently
sensitive to identify compositional relationships within the analyzed collection of sampled pottery in order to address the questions being asked?
Sophisticated instrumentation need not be the most important consideration for some questions. For example, when considering questions of
local or nonlocal pottery at the Classic Maya site of Palenque, the presence and abundance of opaline phytoliths identified in a broken edge of a
sherd using an incident-light binocular microscope at 40x magnification
is probably the most important component for identifying which pottery
was made in the immediate Palenque area and which was imported into
the site. The importance of this method is made even greater because one
can examine several hundred ceramics in a single day (e.g., Rands and
Bishop 1980). Thin-section petrography may be used at several levels of
examination that range from useful information regarding the nature of
nonclay constituents (Toll 1981, 1985) to efforts to link the aplastic inclusions of ceramics to specific geological deposits (Warren 1967; Mills,
Carpenter, and Grimm 1997). This method may also be used on a regional basis to seek differences among ceramics manufactured within the
region and those from outside (Gunn 2002); see also (Bishop, Rands, and
Holley 1982).
Sometimes chemical analysis is necessary, as when pottery samples
are made of clay resources that are closely situated or when the potter
used a slightly different recipe than one that followed common practice.
Generally, the primary chemical expression of pottery is carried by clays
and the fine silt fraction. These are the loci of the rare earth and transition elements. In contrast, the major elements tend to be most concentrated in the nonplastic components, which include the tempering
material. Exceptions occur, of course, such as when zircon-rich sands are
used as temper. Zircon has a high abundance of light rare earths and
high concentrations of hafnium and zirconium. The concentration of
these elements in zircon can exceed the concentration of these elements
found in the clay component of the pottery. Complexities abound, and it
is not uncommon for the culturally induced chemical variation to pre-
vent researchers from attributing a ceramic to a specific raw material

resource. Fortunately, potters tend to be conservative, using resources
and practices of proven value to achieve a successful ceramic product
time and time again. Thus, there is a chance that an analyzed ceramic
will be similar to other analyzed ceramics, and if they are abundant at a
site or region it may be valid to assume that they are the product of local
manufacture. This type of reasoning highlights a major reality of compositional research: no matter how good the data are, what they mean for
source attribution is an inferential exercise.
The preceding has presented issues of sensitivity related to drawing
relationships among ceramics or between ceramics and the geologicalgeochemical landscape. Sensitivity is not the only consideration, however. Regardless of the technique that is used, the user of the technique
or the user of the dataneeds to be aware of the precision associated
with the measurements being made: Can the data from the analysis
be reproduced and if so, to what extent can they be reproduced? With
qualitative petrographic analysis, the robustness of the analysis depends
strongly upon the person recording the observations. We assume that
the observer is competent to correctly identify the mineralogical constituents under magnification. However, real-life factors such as rushed
research schedules, hangovers, departures from domestic tranquility,
and so forth can have an impact. The extent of any loss of precision is
difficult to assess, as one would need to repeat the observations and measurements several times, and this is seldom done (see Chayes 1956; Gazzi
1966; Dickinson 1970; Demirmen 1971; Ingersoll et al. 1984).
Chemical analysis shares with petrographic analysis the need to be
sure that the object being analyzed is appropriate for the question being
pursued (e.g., dont analyze carbonate-tempered pottery if data regarding
trade in volcanic ash pottery is the concern) and the need to be sure that
the sample taken for analysis is representative of the object from which
it was extracted. Poor reproducibility of data can be related to the inappropriate use of an instrumentoften one that is available is used rather
than one that is adequate for the problem being investigated.
No analysis, no matter how well it is carried out, is worth much unless the samples that will be analyzed are well chosen. By this we generally mean samples that are appropriate and adequate for the question
under investigation. We are dealing with mature analytical procedures
where the outcome can be partially predicted. Too many projects have
been planned that go beyond the it would be interesting (somehow) to
know stage. For our study of the pottery associated with the Alta California missions, we knew that we would be working with pottery derived
from clays and sedimentary deposits that were formed primarily from
complex parent material associated with the California Coast Ranges.
What mineralogical assemblages might indicate resource differences or
be used to suggest potential spheres of shared technological practices?
Could data from neutron activation be used to identify the fingerprint
of the composition of pottery associated with a particular mission? Is it
reasonable to expect that the pottery made from clays local to Mission
Santa Clara would be different from those used by potters of El Pueblo de
San Jos given that the Rio Guadalupe was common to both? From the
beginning, it was apparent that large numbers of samples would need to
be analyzed if we hoped to have well-constituted patterns after aberrant
samples were excluded. Despite such fundamental and vexing questions,
and in recognition of the geological complexity of the region occupied by
the missions and presidios, we proceeded with an analytical program of
sampling collections that were made accessible through the professional
courtesy and cooperation of archaeologists and curatorial administrators. The collection resources varied significantly, yet we mined them for
what we could get. In some cases we analyzed everything that was made
available; at times of abundance, we subsampled the sample. No matter
how we might spin it, sampling, similar to archaeology in general, depended on opportunity and the data synthesis was inductive (with apologies to Binford 1967).
9
The Mineralogy of California
Plain Wares
Technology and Social Reproduction in
the California Spanish Missions
Sarah Peelo
Prior to the establishment of Spanish missions along the coast of Alta

California in 1769, most indigenous peoples of the California coast (excluding the southernmost groups, such as the Kumeyaay) did not have a
ceramic tradition. Instead, Native American peoples of this region produced sophisticated watertight baskets, which they used predominantly
for collecting, processing, cooking, and storing food (Shanks and Shanks
2006, 911). However, between 1769 and 1834, diverse indigenous peoples who lived in the Spanish missions began producing low-fired, usually
undecorated earthenware, referred to here as plain ware. They acquired
their knowledge of ceramic technology from Mexican artisan Mariano
Tapia, soldiers of mixed-casta backgrounds supporting the Spanish
Crown, and indigenous peoples from Baja California, southern California, and the central valley who had precolonial ceramic traditions (Bancroft 1884, 615; Davis 1967; Drover 1975; Gayton 1929; Guest 1973, 302,
306, 336; Engelhardt 1924, 121; Langelier and Rosen 1992, 87; May 1978;
Rogers 1973; Schuetz-Miller 1994, 91, 99; Van Camp 1979; Wallace 1990;
Webb 1952, 126). Despite the pluralism of the ethnic groups who brought
distinct ceramic technologies to the coastal missions of California, many
archaeologists have viewed California plain wares as a marker of Spanish ethnicity and have suggested that the presence of these artifacts in
mission period archaeological assemblages illustrates the acculturation
The Mineralogy of California Plain Wares153
of Californias indigenous peoples into Spanish lifeways (e.g., Costello

1989; Deetz 1963; Farnsworth 1987; Hoover 1989). Such interpretations
incorrectly focus on the finished productthe ceramic artifactrather
than on the techniques and behaviors that went into making and use of
those products.
By focusing on the things and ignoring the techniques used to produce
plain wares, archaeologists have artificially separated the made things
from their makers. Developments in the anthropology of technology (e.g.,
Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986; Pfaffenberger 1988; Sackett 1977, 1990; Stark 1998) and ethnoarchaeological
studies (e.g., Dietler and Herbich 1998; Druc and Gwyn 1998; Gosselain
1992, 1998, 2000) suggest that techniques are key to understanding the
reciprocal relationship between things and the societies in which they
are produced and used. Technology is not only driven by material and
functional constraints, it is also social and has style, meaning that which
technology is chosen to make an object is a response to social and cultural demands. In turn, technological choice can restructure social and
cultural ideas or norms (Lechtman 1977).
In this chapter, I focus on process rather than the finished object.
Through qualitative and quantitative petrographic analysis of ceramic
thin sections, I reconstruct the technological style of raw material selection and processing used in plain ware production at El Presidio de San
Francisco and the missions of Santa Clara de Ass, San Juan Bautista,
Carmel Borromeo del Ro Carmel, and San Antonio de Padua (figure 9.1).
I infer how, through the dynamic processes of pottery making, mission
and presidio residents may have constructed, maintained, and negotiated
their social and cultural identities. I argue that diverse peoples who participated in ceramic production at each community were participating
in shared communities of practice with regard to raw material selection.
Through participation in these shared communities of practice, colonial
social identities tied to each mission or presidio may have been created.
These colonial identities, especially in the missions, can be seen as the reproduction of an indigenous sensibility that tied identity to place. While
raw material selection was fairly homogenous within each institution,
paste processing was variable. In general, one group of potters worked
with fine-textured clay to produce wheel-thrown vessels, while another
group worked with coarser clay to model their ceramic vessels by hand.
This variability in paste processing may represent a division based on
Coast
Miwok
Mission Santa Clara Cos
No
oa
lle
Va
e)
on
hl
(O
Mission San Juan Bautista

Mission San Carlos
ern
rth
tan
y
ts
ku
Yo
Esselen
ther
Sou
Mission San Antonio
Salinan
e
Vall
uts
Yok
0 25 50 75 100
Km
Figure 9.1. Map of mission and presidio sites and surrounding indigenous
ethnolinguistic groups. Boundaries after Heizer (1978, ix).
gender: women may have enacted a sense of femaleness by producing

coarsely textured pots by hand as other women did, and men may have
participated in communities of practice with other men by throwing
finely textured vessels on a wheel. This study emphasizes that when investigating culture change in colonial moments, it is important to move
beyond discussions of ethnicity to conversations about multifaceted and
complex identities.
Analyzing Ceramic Style

Many archaeologists have focused on the analysis of artifact style (see
Conkey and Hastorf 1990; Hegmon 1992). However, stylistic attributes
are often seen as those artifact features that play no discernible role in the
utilitarian performance of objects or do not result from technical constraints on the manufacturing process (Dietler and Herbich 1998, 237).
In the case of ceramic artifacts, style is often synonymous with decoration (e.g., Deetz 1965; Washburn 1977; Wobst 1977). Others have argued,
however, that this division between style, technique, and function is not
useful for the purpose of understanding the social dimensions of material
culture (e.g., Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986, 1992; Habicht-Mauche
1993; Sackett 1977, 1990). While technological-functional explanations
of ceramic technology are certainly valuable (e.g., Arnold 1985; Braun
1983; Plog 1980, 1983), we can also investigate the social and cultural
factors that condition technical choices and functional evaluations.
Technology and techniques are socially meaningful behaviors, and some
archaeologists seek to discover the rules behind such behaviors (Lechtman 1977, 12) or discover how techniques are related to the formation of
cultural and social identities (Lemonnier 1986).
Style as Decoration
In ceramic studies, research on style often focuses on decoration, such
as form, symmetry, framing lines, line width, color, and design elements
(e.g., Washburn 1977). Informed by such representations, archaeologists
have dated deposits using techniques based on constructed typologies
(e.g., Kidder and Shepard 1936), talked about group interaction and
movement on a landscape (e.g., Wobst 1977), and suggested how certain stylistic patterns can be read as representing structures of social
organization or ideology (e.g., Deetz 1965; Glassie 1975; Hodder 1982;
Wobst1977).
A very influential example of style as design in ceramic studies is
Wobsts Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange (1977). Wobst tries
to articulate predictive frameworks concerning where and how ceramic
style, identified as decoration, should be used to communicate social
identity. Another classic example of this approach is Deetzs (1965) work
in which he considers the relationships between social structures and
eighteenth-century Arikara ceramics. In this research, Deetz is con-
cerned with the design elements and symbolic aspects of pots, for these
attributes were thought to reflect something about the social structure in
which they were produced.
Style versus Technology versus Function
Pots were seen as tools that were made and used in variable ways for
the first time using the ceramic ecology paradigm (Braun 1983). Though
ceramic ecologists adopted the view of style as added on, externally visible features of pottery (e.g., Arnold 1985; Bey and Pool 1992; Braun 1983;
Kolb and Lackey 1986; Matson 1965; Rice 1989; van der Leeuw et al.
1984), they focused their analysis on the nonstylistic features of artifacts;
that is, those thought to be influenced by the environment and by function. For ceramic ecologists, environment/ceramic relationships were
central to investigating variation in the archaeological record. Further,
ceramic attributes seen as influenced by environmental or functional factors were thought to be separate from those attributes considered to be
stylistic. This dominant school of ceramic research placed analytical and
explanatory emphasis on the forms and functions of tools at the expense
of analysis of the social relations of those productive activities (Dobres
and Hoffman 1994, 227).
An example of the classic ceramic ecological approach is Matsons
(1965) discussion of pottery produced in the Near East from 6000 to
3000BC. Within an environmental and social setting of mountains and
desert, wheat production, irrigation systems, and larger social aggregates of people, Matson approaches the study of ceramics in this region
through a consideration of the needs of the people living in the region
once food production had developed (1965, 2034). Archaeologically,
more pottery is found in cities than in villages, which may partly be because fine water-deposition clay and fuel were more readily available in
the larger towns and cities located on alluvial plains (1965, 209). Matsons emphasis on environment is made evident when he states that it is
possible to become too socially oriented in ceramic studies, reading far
more into the products than is justified (1965, 215).
Technological Style
Technological style refers to the process by which an object is made, a
process that may not be wholly apparent on the finished object (Hegmon
et al. 2000, 219). Rather than view style in opposition to function and
technique or as decoration, other scholars propose that we should view
style as a process resulting in characteristic combinations of traits (e.g.,
Lechtman 1977; Lemonnier 1986). Although raw material constraints and
environmental conditions may serve to structure technologies, dynamic
social processes may also play a major part (e.g., Pfaffenberger 1988).
Lechtman suggests that technological practice is not merely a means of
survival and adaptation but is also a means of creating and maintaining
a symbolically meaningful environment (1977, 17). The technological
package, which is itself stylistic, includes learned techniques, attitudes
toward materials, organization of labor, and ritual practices. Lechtmans
definition of style is much broader than the often-accepted definition
of style as decoration. She defines style as the manifest expression, on
the behavioral level, of cultural patterning that is usually neither cognitively known nor even knowable by members of a cultural community except by scientists who may have analyzed successfully their own
cultural patterns or those of other cultures (Lechtman 1977, 4). Using
this broadened definition of style, Lechtman argues that technological
styles are rarely dictated solely by the environment but instead largely
reflect cultural choices. These choices may be constrained by the nature
of the clay, the climate, or available tempering materials, but those are
immutable conditions in and around which people elaborate technological behavior along the lines that are meaningful socially, economically,
and ideologically (Lechtman 1977, 14). The ultimate goals of this kind of
research are not merely to describe the technology or the behavior but
also to understand the social processes behind them (Dobres and Hoffman 1996, 213).
Habicht-Mauche (1993, 14) treats style as a process when she describes Rio Grande ceramic style partially in terms of the kind of temper
selected. She also includes glaze technology and tempering characteristics in her stylistic descriptions of the later glaze wares (1993, 1617).
Dietler and Herbich (1998) similarly focus on style as a process in their
ethnoarchaeological analysis of Luo pottery. They characterize pots using technical, formal, and decorative attributes, arguing that the patterns produced are the products of choices made at various stages of the
chane opratoire of production (from clay procurement through firing)
(Dietler and Herbich 1998, 250). Through investigations that view all production techniques as stylistic, researchers attempt to form connections
between the processes of constructing or using objects and the social and
cultural identities that are produced from participation in such mundane

practices. Such research emphasizes that technical choices are dynamic
strategies that are often related to social identity (Dobres and Hoffman
1994, 219; Lemonnier 1992).
Recent ethnoarchaeological work has often been informed by a practice theory approach (e.g., Bourdieu 1977, 1990; Giddens 1979, 1984; Ortner 1999), which argues that the dynamic re-creation of identity occurs
within the context of peoples day-to-day lives. Such work has contributed to an understanding of the relationship between technological style
and the formation of social and cultural identities (Dietler and Herbich
1998; Druc and Gwyn 1998; Gosselain 1992, 1998, 2000; Howes 1998;
Miller 1988; Miller et al. 1998; Schlereth 1982). These works cast doubt
on dominant theoretical perspectives that argue that identity construction is solely a self-conscious process of communication or that style is
exclusively a deliberate manipulation of highly visible aspects of material
culture (Gosselain 2000, 188189). Instead, they suggest that the patterned ways people implemented stylistic, technical choicessometimes
unconsciously and at each step of the production sequencewill illuminate the social communities that were created, out of which participants
constructed identities.
For example, Gosselain (2000, 189) presents ethnographic research
that suggests that certain facets of identity were related consistently
to certain stages of the chane opratoire. He proposes that superficial, situational, and temporary facets of identity that respond more
readily to changing social, economic, or symbolic pressures are often
expressed through those production steps that leave visible evidence
on the finished products (i.e., finishing techniques and decoration). Local or regional identities are often negotiated through participating in
steps that are observed by fellow workers but leave no visible traces on
the finished product (i.e., clay selection, extraction, and firing). Deeply
rooted social identities such as kinship, gender, or social class are often (nondiscursively) expressed through the execution of techniques
that do not leave visible traces on the finished product but are uniquely
based on specialized gestures and motor habits acquired through repeated practice (i.e., primary forming techniques). Gosselains research
suggests that it is important to investigate the nonvisible steps in the
production sequence, such as clay selection and processing, if one is
interested in understanding the formation of meaningful social and cultural identities.
Methods of Analysis
Plain ware ceramics from several mission period archaeological assemblages were analyzed in this research (table 9.1). Based on binocular
study of larger assemblages from each mission or presidio, I created initial paste groups and selected a sample of sherds from each paste group
for petrographic analysis. Quality Thin Sections in Tucson, Arizona,
made standard (30m thickness) petrographic thin sections of sherds
from each paste group.
Petrographic analysis provides an inventory of the minerals rather
than chemical elements, as are provided by complementary analytical
techniques such as INAA. When thin sections of ceramic artifacts are
viewed through a polarizing-light microscope, minerals in the clay can be
identified by their optical properties, such as pleiochroism or extinction
angles. Petrographic analysis is used to differentiate ceramics in terms of
three independent steps of the production sequenceclay selection, temTable 9.1. Sample of plain wares from Spanish colonial sites in Alta
California
Site
Contact
Mission San
Carlos
N. Johnson, Phoebe
Hearst Museum
Mission San
Antonio de
Padua
R. Hoover, Mission San

Antonio Field School
Mission San Juan

Bautista
G. Farris, California
Department of Parks
and Recreation
R. Skowronek and
L. Hylkema, Santa
Clara University
L. Clevenger, Presidio
Trust
Mission Santa
Clara de Ass
Presidio of San
Francisco
Assemblage/
Context
Sylvia Broadbent
Collection: a midden laying between
a neophyte village
at the Mission and
the main buildings of
the Mission proper
(Broadbent 1955)
Howard Collection:
communal kitchen
area (Howard 1972),
Smithsonian Sample
Plaza Hotel (P252-24)
Project # 2000.08
(various deposits),
Smithsonian Sample
PSF FAARP 1999, 2000,
PSF Building39 (various deposits), Smithsonian Sample
Petrographic
Samples
Analyzed (n)
19
30
per selection, and paste processing. The inclusions in the clay reflect the
geology of the region from which the clay or added temper was obtained.
Temper can sometimes be distinguished from natural inclusions if it is a
distinct type that is not naturally present in clay, such as shell or grog or is
the highly angular shape of crushed rocks. Natural rock or mineral inclusions, by comparison, are rounded to subangular shapes due to natural
geological processes. In addition, there may be compositional differences
between small-sized grains (the clay) and medium- to coarse-sized inclusions (the temper) if the rock or sand materials added to the clay were
acquired from a different geological location than the clay. However, in
cases where potters actively select sand to add as temper from the same
geological source as the clay, it is not possible to reliably differentiate
between natural and added inclusions in the ceramic samples.
Rocks and minerals can be characterized both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative observations indicate the types of inclusions present, while quantitative measurements use the point-count technique to
identify how much of a particular mineral or rock is present in a sample
and to describe the size and shape of each grain (Rice 1987, 379). I provide a qualitative description of the clay body and temper when it is readily identifiable. In my quantitative analysis, I adopted a one millimeter
counting interval and identified 200 points, excluding voids, per sample
(Stoltman 1989). Clay minerals were identified as matrix; mineral grains
smaller than 0.0625 mm were classified as silt; vacant spaces were labeled
voids; and sand or grit grains (inclusions larger than 0.0625 mm) were cataloged by their mineral or lithic type, angularity, sphericity, and size class
(Silt = <0.0625 mm; Fine = 0.06250.25 mm; Medium = 0.250.5 mm;
Coarse = 0.51.0 mm; Very Coarse = 1.02.0 mm; Gravel = >2.0 mm). I
conducted these qualitative and point-count methods using an Olympus
(Model BH-2) polarizing microscope with a mechanical point-counting
stage in the Ceramic Materials Research Laboratory in the Department of
Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Summary of Mineralogical Analysis
The Raw Materials
Based on the qualitative description of the petrography, I argue that each
mission and presidio constructed their own pottery using distinct local
materials. The fabric of plain wares from each mission and presidio includes distinct combinations of rock and mineral inclusions (see Table 9.2
and Plate 1). Granite and rhyolite are the predominant rocks in the plain
wares from Mission San Antonio de Padua. The abundance of granite inclusions in Mission San Antonio de Padua plain wares is consistent with
the granitic nature of the local Salinan complex soils and clays (Compton
1966; Sloan 2006, 6869). The fabric of Mission Santa Clara de Ass plain
wares is composed of rhyolite, basalt, sandstone, granite, and quartzite
and the mineral constituents of these rocks, which are characteristic of
the Cenozoic sediments of this region (Brown et al. 1972, 5354). The
fabric of plain wares from Mission San Carlos Borromo del Ro Carmelo
is characterized by inclusions of granite and its mineral components,
which are common to the local region (Piwinski 1973). Geologically characteristic minerals of the San Francisco clays are the high-relief aegirineaugite and cristobalite that are typical of the local Franciscan complex
rocks (Tsujimori et al. 2006). In addition, potters at El Presidio de San
Francisco used unique lithic materials that included schist, basalt, and
rhyolite, which are also characteristic of the regions Franciscan complex
(Pemberton 1983, 490; Tsujimori et al. 2006). Finally, I identified granite
and quartzite inclusions and the mineral constituents of these rocks in
Mission San Juan Bautista plain wares. Both are common to the local region (Piwinski 1973).
At all of the sites except Mission San Juan Bautista, it is difficult to
distinguish between the naturally occurring paste and an added temper.
Instead of observing angular lithic materials in only the coarsest fractions, which would be a clear sign of added temper, I identified subangular inclusions of the variable mixed lithics in the coarse, medium, and
fine fractions of these wares. The clay used to produce plain wares at
these sites may have been naturally tempered with decomposed rocks,
such as granite and rhyolite at Mission San Antonio de Padua, or lithic
sand from the same geological region of the clay body may have been
added. However, at Mission San Juan Bautista, the main lithicsgranite
and quartziteare present only in the coarse fraction; I did not identify
any granite in the medium or fine fractions, and I did not identify quartzite in the fine fraction. This may suggest that granite and quartzite were
not present naturally in the clay but were crushed and added to the clay
body. However, while added temper is often observed to be highly angular, these lithic inclusions were generally subangular.
Quartz, plagioclase feldspar,

quartzite
Quartz, schist, basalt, quartzite,
plagioclase feldspar, hornblende,
aegirine augite, alkali feldspar,
rhyolite, lithic (unknown)
Quartz, granite, plagioclase feldspar
Quartz, granite, quartzite, microcline, plagioclase feldspar

Quartz, schist, quartzite, plagioclase feldspar, cristobalite, lithic
(unknown)
Mission San Carlos

Borromo del Ro
Carmelo
Mission San Juan
Bautista
El Presidio de San
Francisco
Note: 1. Minerals and rocks are listed in order of abundance; the most abundant is listed first.
Quartz, granite, plagioclase

feldspar
Quartz, rhyolite, granite, basalt,

quartzite, sandstone, plagioclase
feldspar, lithic (unknown), alkali
feldspar, hornblende, microcline
Mission Santa Clara

de Ass
Quartz, granite, rhyolite, plagioclase

feldspar, alkali feldspar, mica,
quartzite, hornblende, lithic
(unknown)
Quartz, rhyolite, basalt, granite,
plagioclase feldspar, quartzite, alkali feldspar, microcline, basaltic
hornblende, lithic (unknown)
Medium Fraction Mineralogy

(0.250.5mm)
Quartz, granite, rhyolite, plagioclase

feldspar, alkali feldspar, mica,
quartzite, lithic (unknown)
Coarse Fraction
Mineralogy 1 (>0.5mm)
Mission San Antonio

de Padua
Site
Quartz, aegirine augite, schist, quartzite,

hornblende, plagioclase feldspar, alkali
feldspar, rhyolite, lithic (unknown)
Quartz, plagioclase feldspar, hornblende,

alkali feldspar, granite, rhyolite, mica,
microcline, quartzite, augite, lithic
(unknown)
Quartz, plagioclase feldspar, alkali feldspar, quartzite, hornblende, basaltic
hornblende, mica, rhyolite, granite,
sandstone, augite, pyroxene, microcline, lithic (unknown)
Quartz, plagioclase feldspar, granite,
hornblende, alkali feldspar, mica,
quartzite
Quartz, plagioclase feldspar, hornblende
Fine Fraction Mineralogy (0.6250.25mm)
Table 9.2. Summary description of mineral components of thin sections of ceramics from Missions San Antonio de Padua,
Santa Clara de Ass, San Carlos Borromo del Ro Carmelo, San Juan Bautista, and El Presidio de San Francisco
Processing Techniques
While my analysis of raw materials suggests a fairly homogenous selection
of local clay and/or temper within each mission and presidio community,
analysis of processing techniques reveals variation in ceramic technological style in some communities. This variability in processing often
correlated with the primary formation techniques used. Wheel-thrown
pottery tended to be formed out of finer fabric with smaller inclusions
compared to the coarse material that was used to produce hand-modeled
pottery. These differences are the most distinct at Missions Santa Clara
de Ass and San Antonio de Padua, the two largest samples analyzed.
Ternary diagrams of the percentages of fine, medium, and coarse particle inclusions illustrate variability of clay processing within the assemblages (figure 9.2). Cluster analysis using Wards method of minimizing
within group variance identified two groups at Mission Santa Clara de
Ass. The first group, indicated by square symbols, had a larger abundance of medium- and coarse-sized inclusions and fewer fine inclusions,
while the second cluster group, indicated by the circle symbols, had more
fine and fewer medium and coarse inclusions. All samples from Group 2
were wheel thrown (indicated by the open symbols), and 6 out of 20samples from Group 1 were also wheel thrown. The wheel-thrown pottery in
Group 1 differs from that in Group 2; it has more medium-sized inclusions. However, all wheel-thrown pottery, despite its Wards cluster, is
low in coarse-sized inclusions. In sum, pottery that falls into Group 1 is
mostly hand modeled (indicated by the closed symbols) and is characterized by larger grains. The pottery from Group 2 and some from Group 1
is wheel thrown and is characterized by smaller grains. These data suggest that fabrics used to produce vessels on a wheel at Mission Santa
Clara de Ass were more heavily processed and that larger grains were
likely removed from the matrix, while materials used to produce vessels
by hand at this mission were not so heavily processed.
The relationship between the processing of the clay body and primary
forming technique is slightly less clear at Mission San Antonio de Padua
(figure 9.2). While it appears that wheel-thrown pottery was generally
constructed from finer-grained fabrics at this mission, this material was
not restricted for production on the wheel at this mission; some potters
used it to also produce hand-modeled vessels. Similarly, some clay with
higher percentages of medium and coarse particles was used to produce
vessels on the wheel.
Medium
0
Medium
0
100
10
90
20
60
70
80
90
100
08
09
100
Fine
30
20
10
80
08
70
60
50
09
40
30
01
20
90
0
07
00
Me dium
Fine
10
10 0
Coarse/
Very Coarse
01
0
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
100
90
20
80
30
70
40
60
50
50
60
40
70
30
80
20
90
10
100
0
02
03
04
05
06
07
Fine
90
80
100
10
00
100
70
90
01
60
80
09
50
40
06
08
40
70
05
07
30
60
04
06
20
70
50
03
05
80
60
02
04
50
01
03
10
40
01
02
90
30
Coarse/
Very Coarse
01
Medium
20
Coarse/
Very Coarse
100
10
Coarse/
Very Coarse
10
100
Medium
0
20
90
10
07
30
80
20
06
40
70
30
05
50
60
40
04
60
50
50
03
70
40
60
50
02
80
30
70
40
01
90
20
80
30
Coarse/
Very Coarse
100
10
08
09
100
Fine
Figure 9.2. Diagrams depicting the relative percentages of fine, medium,

and coarse/very coarse inclusions in plain ware produced at El Presidio de
San Francisco and Missions Santa Clara de Ass, San Juan Bautista, Carmel
Borromeo del Ro Carmel, and San Antonio de Padua. Percentages counted
using the petrographic point count technique. Square symbols = Wards
cluster group 1; Circle symbols = Wards cluster group 2; Open symbols =
wheel-thrown pottery; Closed/Black symbols = hand-modeled pottery.
100
Fine
Unfortunately, the plain wares from El Presidio de San Francisco,

and Missions San Carlos Borromo del Ro Carmelo and San Juan Bautista were too small for this kind of analysis. When plotted on ternary
diagrams, the relationship between different clay processing procedures
and primary forming technique is not clear (see figure 9.2). In addition,
all of the pottery analyzed from Missions San Carlos Borromo del Ro
Carmelo and San Juan Bautista was hand modeled. In order to address
the relationship between clay processing and production techniques at
these sites it is necessary to obtain a larger sample that includes sherds
representative of different primary forming techniques. Such a sample,
however, was not available.
Discussion
There can be more than one reason for any specific technological choice,
and both functional and social-cultural explanations can lie behind clay
selection and processing. An understanding of the environmental, technological, and economic factors that constrained ceramic production in
Spanish California can provide a valuable baseline for the consideration
of the overall reasons for technological choice (Tite 1999, 225). However, it is also essential to acknowledge that technology is embedded in
social forces and relations; it is a process that intimately connects the
things people make and the conscious and unconscious intentions of the
makers.
The data strongly suggest that each mission used unique local raw
material sources to fashion their ceramics. The use of local clay sources
is well documented cross culturally in the ethnographic record. For example, Arnold (1985, 38) argues that in many preindustrial societies clay
mines are located within about seven kilometers of the production site.
From a techno-functional perspective, raw material selection is constrained by the materials that are locally available.
While people may choose a particular clay because of its local availability, I argue that clay selection is also a social action; potters of a community may select a particular clay because it is what other potters in
their community choose. In addition to economically influenced interpretations of this pattern, elucidations about the construction of social
identity can be made from this demonstrated pattern of shared behavior.
As Pauketat argues, How people were practicing their traditions matters more than why they thought they were doing it (2003, 41, emphasis
added). It is in the processes, in the actions, that culture is made. By participating in communities of practice, for whatever reason, people may
have consciously or unconsciously constructed an identity in relationship to that social group.
The acquisition of raw materials often does not leave visible traces on
the finished pots, though these production steps are observed by fellow
workers (Gosselain 2000, 189). Thus, the stylistic choices that are made
about these steps in the production sequence are likely to reflect adjustment to local or regional identities (Gosselain 2000, 189). From a practice theory perspective, shared local identities tied to the mission and
presidio communities studied in this research were likely created among
potters as they participated in these shared daily practices. The colonial
identity that may have emerged among these potting communities at
their respective institutions was likely influenced by a local indigenous
disposition that would have structured identity around place.
While ceramic-producing communities were new to central California peoples, the individuals who composed those work groups were
diverse local Indians with indigenous knowledge and logic. Therefore,
while local indigenous peoples of the central coast missions never extracted clay from the ground prior to Spanish colonization, these new
colonial practices may still provide insight into indigenous traditions being reproduced in this space. As potters encountered cultural practices
besides their own, conditions under which they were able to modify their
social identities in relationship to these daily practices may have been
created. It is important to emphasize the ways that colonial identities
among these potting communities were reproductions of preexisting social and cultural rules.
Before colonization, indigenous California peoples formed cultural
identities around village coalitions that had strong connections to place
(Kroeber 1932). These communities are described as autonomous, selfgoverning, and independent land-owning units, whose boundaries are
marked by features about the landscape (Kroeber 1962, 33, 37, 49).
Through their extraordinary localism pattern of mobility, whereby people did not travel more than 10 to 15 miles from their community of villages, California Indians marked cultural differences between people of
different territories (Heizer and Elsasser 1980, 203) and formed a sense of
cohesion and belonging among members of their own multivillage group

(Kroeber 1962, 29). United by a territorial bond, people who lived in a
particular village coalition formed a collective identity, or a shared sense
of belonging to a particular homeland and people (Jones 1997, 1). Local community identities, at least among potting communities, were not
left behind or forgotten, nor were they statically maintained, as diverse
peoples left their tribal homelands to live together in pluralistic mission
communities. Native cultural identities may have been reproduced as
identities structured around place, as a diverse population tried to make
sense of their new surroundings.
However, variability in clay processing techniques illustrates that identities structured around place may not have been the only identities potters claimed in the California missions. It is important to understand the
diversity of the colonial experience within indigenous communities and
to recognize that other aspects of ones identity, such as gender, status,
and occupation, may have been important in conditioning that diversity
(Deagan 2004, 621). While knowledge of the raw materials appropriate
for ceramic production is generally shared among the potters at each
institution, a belief in the correct way to process the clay is not always
shared. This variability is often correlated to other steps of the production
sequence, such as the primary forming technique. Many hand-modeled
pots were characterized by coarser, less silty clays, while wheel-thrown
pots were often characterized by finer-textured clays. However, the
strength of this pattern varies by mission or presidio; it is the strongest
for the Santa Clara and San Antonio materials. While potters may have
been using the same clay resources, and thus forming a communal social identity by doing so, they broke off into smaller ceramic-producing
groups at the step of preparing that clay for production. Potters who used
a wheel generally prepared their clays in a different way than those who
hand-modeled their pots.
One functional explanation of this pattern is that finer clays are much
more suitable for wheel-thrown production, as coarse clay would damage
a potters hands if they attempted to throw it on a wheel. However, it may
also be possible to make interpretations about other layers of social identity among the potters through analysis of the diversity in clay processing
and its correlation with primary forming techniques used within a mission. Primary forming techniques do not always leave obvious traces on
the finished product like decoration, but they are deeply rooted in social
learning of motor habits and specialized gestures (Gosselain 2000, 189).

Therefore, these steps of the production sequence may inform archaeologists about social identities such as gender (Gosselain 2000, 189).
In 1973, Murdock and Provost conducted a cross-cultural analysis of
the division of labor for technological traditions, such as pottery production, as practiced by 185 societies. The results suggest that women are
primarily the producers of pottery in most preindustrial societies. The
authors argue that when the pottery is hand modeled, women are usually the producers, and when the pottery is wheel thrown, men are more
often the producers (Rice 1991, 436). Other anthropological studies illustrate many cases where pottery production is a family activity, with
men, women, and children involved in different steps of the production
sequence (e.g., Scheans 1977; Stone 1950; Tschopik 1950). However, the
evidence is quite strong for gender differentiation at the step of the primary forming technique.
Regional ethnohistoric and historic documentary data, where available, may also help form analogies supporting gendered interpretations of
labor. Ethnographic sources testify that in precontact times, indigenous
women from the San Diego area, Baja California, northern Mexico, and
the Yokuts territory made hand-modeled pottery. Historic texts document that Spanish and mestizo ceramic artisans were male and produced
wheel-thrown pottery. A gender ideology concerning pottery production could easily have accompanied the movement of these indigenous
and colonial technological styles throughout Alta California missions, as
the instructors in those technological styles maintained their ideological
practice. Using this ethnographic and historic evidence, I therefore argue
that women likely made hand-modeled vessels and where wheel-thrown
production styles appear, Spanish colonists probably recruited male Indians to form pottery.
The variability in paste processing and primary forming techniques
observed among the plain ware assemblages from some of the Spanish
colonial institutions studied may be the result of men and women enacting, consciously or unconsciously, gendered identities at these missions.
Through the production of pottery by hand using coarse-grained materials women may have been enacting female roles and, explicitly or implicitly, creating a female social identity. Similarly, a gendered identity of
maleness may have emerged out of the way a male artisan produced a pot
on a wheel from fine-textured clay, as other men did. At one level, mission
potters formed a collective identity as they selected raw materials from
the same source. However, the choice to process paste and form vessels in
variable ways may have served to create othering along gender lines.
Conclusions
Petrographic analysis of plain ware ceramics from several mission period
communities in Alta California can illuminate identity formation among
potters. I focused on the raw materials used to manufacture these ceramics, and the results suggest that the raw materials used to produce pottery
at each institution were distinct. While within each mission and presidio
raw material selection was fairly homogenous, variable paste processing was identified in some cases. Two technological styles for ceramic
production emerge at this stage in the production sequence, especially at
Mission Santa Clara de Ass and Mission San Antonio de Padua. In one,
clay was processed until the paste had a fine texture and then was used
to produce pots on a wheel. In the other technological style, associated
with hand-modeled pottery, clay was less processed and larger grain sizes
were left in.
These practices likely have functional significance, but they also have
social meaning. Materials and especially the actions involved in making materials are the medium by which people produce and reproduce
social identities. By participating in shared communities of ceramic
practice with regard to raw material selection, indigenous peoples living together in these pluralistic communities, who once identified with
varied village coalitions, may have created a social identity tied to each
institution. These colonial identities can be seen as the reproduction of
indigenous logic that tied identity to place. Further, as men participated
in their wheel-throwing potting communities and women participated
in their hand-modeling ceramic workgroups, they each may have formed
gendered social identities. This theoretical perspective, which views
identity as continuously created, multifaceted, and situational, is useful
for assessing how people actively differentiated the larger scale us and
them, but it can simultaneously be used to consider how otherness was
constructed within cultural groups on the basis of social categories such
as gender.
10
The Chemical Characterization
of California Pottery
In chapter 8 we presented a simplified description of neutron activation

(INAA) that was used for the bulk analysis of sampled California pottery. Here we provide a more detailed discussion of the specific analytical procedures that were used in the present study. The collected data by
this or any other similar chemical analysis provides only a quantitative
description of a sampled specimen. When data on several specimens are
collected, they form a complex dataset from which meaningful patterns
must be extracted. Procedures for pattern extraction are discussed frequently under such headings as data analysis or data mining (Han and
Kamber 2001; see also Sneath and Sokal 1973). Once extracted, they
must be verified and then communicated to a reader in a manner that is
archaeologically informative. Thus we introduce our specific use of statistical approaches to pattern recognition, group refinement, and source
attribution, which we have organized heuristically through reference to
Alta Californias presidio-based jurisdictions.
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis
A simple model of the atom consists of a nucleus that contains protons
and neutrons and is surrounded by a swarm (field) of electrons equal
The Chemical Characterization of California Pottery171
to the number of protons in the nucleus. It is this electron cloud that is

the primary determinant of an elements chemical behavior. The number of protons is called the atomic number and defines the element. The
sum of protons and neutrons is the atomic mass number of an element.
An element may contain different numbers of neutrons; these are called
isotopes. For example, three isotopes of carbon (12, 13, and 14) exist in
nature; they contain 6 protons and 6, 7, or 8 neutrons, respectively. If the
assemblage of protons and neutrons in an elements nucleus is unstable,
the isotope is said to be a radionuclide and will decay to a stable state
by one or more of three decay schemes: alpha particle emission, beta
particle emission, and gamma ray emission. The rate at which this decay
occurs is specific to each radionuclide and is measured in half-lives, or
the amount of time it takes for half of the original mass to decay away.
Half-lives can vary from less than a second to billions of years. While
several analytical methodologies deal with excitation of the electron field
of an element, we are concerned here primarily with the properties and
behavior of the nucleus of the elements sought.
Neutron activation involves the exposure of the nuclei of elements
in a sample to a field of slow or thermalized neutrons, which are commonly produced by a nuclear reactor. The neutrons have zero charge
and are deeply penetrating so that a solid, or bulk, sample can be used.
Since the reactions of interest take place in the nucleus, they are independent of the chemical form of the elements or the samples matrix. A
target nucleus exposed to the neutron field absorbs, or captures, a neutron, creating a highly energetic compound nucleus. De-excitation takes
place through the release of the particles mentioned above and/or by the
emission of photons of electromagnetic energy in the form of gamma
rays. The energy of the gamma ray emissions is specific to the radionuclide undergoing de-excitation and is the key to the analytical technique. Prompt gammas are given off during the neutron capture process
and must be detected and counted concurrent with irradiation. We have
relied upon delayed gamma rays, which are emitted in accordance with
the radioactive half-lives of the radioisotopes that were formed by the
neutron capture. The delayed gamma ray half-lives vary from seconds to
months and longer. For reasons of time and availability, we concentrate
on isotopes with half-lives longer than 10 hours. The decay time of some
isotopes between the end of a neutron irradiation and a counting period
permits them to decay to stable form, thereby lowering the activity level
of the sample, essentially lowering noise, so that isotopes in small abundance or with less energetic gamma rays can be detected.
Specific irradiation and counting procedures are tailored to maximize
the quality of the analytical determinations and to ensure that a reasonable number of samples can be analyzed. This requires a consideration of
the size of the sample, the expected abundance range for the elements of
interest, the length of irradiation time, neutron flux, decay time before
counting, the number of counts, the size and efficiency of the gamma
detector, and so forth.
INAA is a highly sensitive analytical technique. Using varied irradiation schemes and modern instrumentation it is possible to detect more
than 70 elements, including several with detection limits below the parts
per billion level. In practice, however, a much lesser number of elements,
2632, are routinely determined. These elemental quantifications, however, may be of little use for archaeological interpretation if there is insufficient attention to the analytical precision. How well we are able to
reproduce the measurement of a given element can be measured against
the determination of the number of elements in certified reference materials or another agreed upon in-house standard. The precision can be
monitored and described using descriptive statistics, such as the coefficient of variation for each elemental determination (Blackman and
Bishop 2007, 32527). All of our data are determined by use of a comparator standard containing known amounts of the elements of interest;
this allows for the comparability of measurement for the samples. We
are less concerned about the true value of the constituent elements, as
even relatively homogeneous reference material contains its own natural
and analytical variation. It would be prohibitive in terms of both time
and cost to use primary standards made up for each irradiation from
stoichiometric compounds for each element. The important thing is that
all elemental determinations for samples of unknown constituents are
normalized to a common reference base.
Instrumental neutron activation analysis was carried out using the
Smithsonian Institutions facility at the Center for Neutron Research at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland. This has been a cooperative research effort that has been ongoing
for 35 years. All specimens were categorized as to their ware type and
method of manufacture at the Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Laboratory and then shipped to the Smithsonian for processing.
The edges of the ceramic samples were burred slightly to remove surface
contamination from the original surrounding material or dirt accumulated during storage. Clay samples were formed into tiles and were fired
to 800C prior to being sampled for neutron activation. Adobe samples
were treated in the same manner as the clay.
Approximately 400 milligrams of the ceramic paste was extracted
from each sample using a tungsten carbide rotary file. The rotary files
are relatively free of the elements that we routinely determine with the
exception of cobalt (used as hardening agent in the files) and occasionally tantalum. As the files deteriorate, they tend to shed chips instead
of just abrading; thus, we monitor for possible contamination of these
elements by noting abnormally high tungsten values. Sample powders
were dried overnight in an oven (ca. 100C) and weighted (ca. 90 milligrams) into cleaned and cut linear polyethylene microcentrifuge tubes
that were then capped and labeled. Eighteen sample holders were placed
into a clean polyethylene container along with two ampoules of certified
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard reference material 1633 (coal fly ash) and one check standard of one of the
following: NIST standard reference material 688 (basalt), NIST standard
reference material 1633b (coal fly ash), and a commercially available airfloated 200-mesh New Ohio Red Clay drawn from our 600-pound single
milling supply.
Samples and standards are pneumatically inserted into the NIST nuclear reactor, where they are irradiated for four hours in a neutron flux
of 7.7 1013 n cm2 s1. At the end of the irradiation time, the container
is moved pneumatically to a thick lead-walled receptacle, where the samples remain for six days, during which time the short-lived isotopes will
decay according to their half-life. Samples are then removed, mounted
into a sample changer, and individually counted for 1 hour and 5 minutes
(real time) in front of a detector, which contains a semiconducting material (germanium) that registers an incoming gamma ray as an electronic
pulse. These pulses are sorted by energy and are quantified by associated
electronics and computer programs.
The samples are counted again for 2 hours and 10 minutes following
an additional three-week wait. By now many of the intermediate lived
isotopes have undergone several half-lives of decay, significantly lowering the background noise in the gamma spectrum and thereby permitting some isotopes with relatively small gamma peaks to be resolved. The
lower background also yields better counting statistics for other gamma
peaks that might have been seen in the first count but were subject to
peak interferences. Final concentrations of elements are quantified by
comparing the individual samples net counts for a given isotope with
those determined from the weighted mean of the two secondary standards in the irradiation, corrected for relative weight, isotope half-life,
and time from the end of the irradiation.
The analytical procedures have been optimized for what is expected
and can be well determined in matrices consisting of silicate rocks and
sediments; 32 elemental concentrations routinely sought. Some elemental concentrations may be below detection levels due to their low abundance, irradiation, the counting configuration, and/or background noise.
Of the 26 elements that are routinely determined, about 18 will be used
in subsequent pattern recognition stages. By repeatedly analyzing certified reference materials, it is possible to measure the total error relative
to the certified values, which includes the uncertainties within the standards themselves. What we find under routine conditions is that several
concentrations can be determined with uncertainties in the 12 percent
range, for a majority of the commonly determined elements used in the
study of pottery have a 59 percent uncertainty range, and a few elements have a 1015 percent uncertainty range (see reports of precision in
several of the laboratory descriptions in Speakman and Glascock 2007).
Sources of analytical errors are kept as low as possible and are offset
by the use of comparator standards and the need for acceptable number of samples to be processed (Blackman 1986; Blackman and Bishop
1999). High analytical precision contributes to the ability to make fine
discriminations among groups of pottery that might have been made
from resources that are geographically close. For example, Aztec pottery
would likely be different from Maya pottery if analytical errors for some
of the elements were present in the range of 1525 percent. However,
if data are to be used to distinguish among pottery made in a relatively
homogeneous geographical area, among products of specific workshops,
or among data contributed to expanding databanks for more than single project, it is important to minimize as many errors as possible. Although some investigators may be interested in using as many elements
as they can determine in their datasets, we believe that a more secure
archaeological interpretation is possible if we give attention to the betterdetermined concentrations, especially when we are trying to determine
intraregional differences.
Data Analysis
The neutron activation data provide a variably quantified description of
certain constituent elements of the analyzed ceramic paste, the resulting
matrix of which rapidly exceeds an individuals ability to visually assess
the number and robustness of internal patterns. For this reason, objective
multivariate numerical techniques are used to uncover hidden patterns
that might be of interest in the dataset. These patterns can be informative
if they can be substantiated by statistical analysis or shown to have correspondence with nonchemical archaeological data. The most frequently
used technique for presenting information is on a scatter plot that shows
data points relative to some underlying directions of variation. This form
of data presentation clearly shows more robust partitioning of the data
as cluster groups that are defined according to some objective intragroup
measure of similarity and maximizes intergroup separation. Specimen
data that deviates substantially from other samples being considered can
also be identified on scatter plots.
The partitioning of a dataset requires the researcher to select some
measure of similarity or dissimilarity. Issues of relative compactness or
separation from other similarly found or formed groups are central to
understanding the nature of the summary groups that are being derived.
Groups, partitions, or clusters may represent subdivisions of the dataset
into smaller, more homogeneous subsets. Alternatively, groups may be
formed by combining small subsets into larger groups that might be susceptible to more rigorous statistical evaluation (Harbottle 1976; Bishop
and Neff 1989; Bishop and Rands 1982; Abonyi and Feil 2007; Han and
Kamber 2001; Neff 2002; among many others). A simple means of calculating resemblance between samples is to calculate the distance that separates them when they are viewed relative to their concentration of two
elements. The distance between the two samples is the length of the line
between them as defined by the Pythagorean theorem. A resemblance or
distance matrix can be partitioned into subsets of samples according to
some criterion so that the samples in one group will be more similar to
others in the group than they will be to members of another group. Many
techniques exist; these are frequently subsumed under the heading of
cluster analysis.
Unfortunately, no one clustering procedure provides optimum global
solutions. A particular algorithm may be judged to have performed better
for some of the clusters than for others. Each clustering method makes
assumptions about the data and imposes a structured solution to the

problem. If samples belong to subsets that are naturally well separated
in the multivariate space, then differences among groups formed by various clustering approaches may be minor. Changes are most evident with
marginal samples, which may or may not belong to any of the betterpopulated groups in the matrix. Blackman and Bishop (2007) present
a Sammon map that compares the results of some of the major cluster
solutions.
Many of our data reduction procedures were discussed in the seminal
works on numerical taxonomy by Robert Sokal and Peter Sneath (Sokal
and Sneath 1963; Sneath and Sokal 1973). Their work on objective methods for biological taxonomy called for the exclusion of any characters
(variables) that were logically correlated (Sneath and Sokal 1973, 1045),
and this has been accepted by some archaeometricians, causing them to
omit consideration of elements that are found to be not just correlated
but highly correlated. Missing from their approach is consideration that
such correlated variables should be considered if such correlation was
due to some underlying consideration of geochemical association and
other factors (Levinson 1974, 5870). For example, rare earth elements,
several of which are determined by routine INAA (lanthanum, cerium,
samarium, europium, terbium, ytterbium, and lutetium) can have interelemental correlations in excess of 0.90. These elements have similar size
and electronic configuration (with two notable exceptionscerium and
europium), and as a consequence, they behave in a similar manner geochemically and are of great interest to geochemists for the interpretation
of geological processes. The correlation is not 100 percent, as very slight
differences in size can allow their relative abundance to become enriched
or depleted in melts leading to mineral formation or in physical and
chemical sedimentary environments, but not in relative low-temperature
ceramic firing. The extent to which they fractionate in terms of light or
heavy rare earths can be important for linking ceramics to raw material
resources or for discrimination among compositional groups of otherwise highly similar pottery. Other elements may also display significant
correlation (see Bishop and Neff 1989; Neff 2002).
Once a trial group is established, the patterns of its interelemental correlations can be used to evaluate the likelihood that the sample is a member of the group based upon the samples distance from the multivariate
group centroid. This involves extracting the principal axes of variation
(eigenvector) through the variance-covariance multivariate space along
with measures of length of these axes (eigenvalues). The result is a new

set of reference axes that have incorporated the original interelemental
correlation and are now independent of each other. And since the information about interelemental correlation has been incorporated, the
distance calculation includes not only aspects of size or magnitude of
measurement but aspects of shape as well. These axes are also referred
to as the principal components; a subset of the largest ones is used frequently to display the dispersion of the data with or without coding for
group membership (e.g., Neitzel et al. 2002). A samples composition
location on these axes is used to define its Mahalanobis distance from
the groups multivariate centroid. The Mahalanobis distance closely conforms to a chi-square or to an F-distribution; this forms the basis for testing the equality of two groups or the relationship between a data point
and a single group centroid (Harbottle 1976; Davis 1986; Bishop and Neff
1989; Baxter 1999, 2001). Care must be made in the use of a Mahalanobis
distance when the number of samples populating a trial group is low.
Unfortunately, there is little to indicate the lower limit of what number
of samples constitutes a well-defined group. The use of Mahalanobis
distance calculations, however, requires two to three (preferably three)
times as many samples as there are variables being used in order to obtain a reasonably robust estimation as to whether or not a sample is a
likely member of a group. The ratio of samples to variables, however, is
not the only consideration. Each application should consider the possible
effects of the signal to noise ratio embedded within a particular dataset.
Depending on the extent of sampling, groups may be observed or
formed without being sufficiently populated for rigorous statistical evaluation. If they show a tendency toward aggregating in the multivariate
space, we might regard them as interesting or suggestive of a weakly expressed group. Other samples may not appear to belong to any of the
groups being considered; these are considered to be outliers. Such outlying or divergent samples can arise from a variety of causes. They may
represent groups that have not been sampled as part of the analytical
program or if they are from a common source, they may be so few that
we cannot recognize them as members of a yet-to-be-defined group.
Sampling and measurement errors, idiosyncratic variation introduced
by a potter during manufacture of a ceramic, and choices made during
the statistical analysis also contribute to identification of outliers. The
nongrouped outlying samples identified in this project are noted in the
membership tables in chapters 11 and 13.
11
Anchoring Ceramic Production
Bricks, Tiles, and Plain Ware
Pottery was previously unknown to all but the southernmost groups in

California. The need for utilitarian ceramics to meet the needs of the missions, presidios, and pueblos led to the development of what is generally
referred to as mission-made ceramics, low-fired, plain earthenware that
is common in Spanish colonial and Mexican republic California contexts.
While perhaps not as attractive as the ceramics imported from Mexico
or the Philippines, locally made plain wares are tangible evidence of the
acculturation of native Californians, into the Spanish Empire. This ware,
which was produced by native Californians, was made with Spanish technology and in Spanish forms to service a Spanish lifestyle that was built
on the preparation and consumption of domesticated fauna and flora. In
California, wheatan Old World plantwas grown as the primary grain
instead of corn. We should remember that Spanish California was a great
experiment to create gente de razn, people of reason, which meant that
they ate human food; elites in Mexico saw corn as fit only for consumption by animals and Indians (Crosby 1972, 107). In California the diet
included wheat and vegetable- and meat-based stews called atole and
posole. These were cooked in large copper cauldrons for the neophytes
housed in the mission compound and in ceramic pots in the neophyte
ranchera, but both were served in ceramic bowls and plates (Webb 1952,
4042).
Anchoring Ceramic Production: Bricks, Tiles, and Plain Ware179
Evidence for Trade

While trade may seem on its face to be a plausible explanation for the
similarities between mission-made ceramic wares, this theory is problematic. Most trade among the missions, pueblos, and presidios would
have been done by overland transport, since most of the sites were located inland without adequate waterways to connect them. This would
have required ceramics to be moved long distances over dirt roads in
carts or in mule trains, the only transportation technology available at
that time. In a situation of this sort breakage would certainly have been
an issue, especially with fragile, low-fired wares.
Supplying an entire mission population with ceramics would have
been a difficult task, to say the least. In terms of labor expenditure, it
would have been far more economical for missions to produce their own
utilitarian wares than to import them from other sites. It is true that
some ceramics were being supplied to California from Mexico, but these
pieces were somewhat more exotic items intended for use by colonists
and soldiers. The highest concentrations of such items have been found
at presidio and pueblo sites (e.g., May 1985). The relative scarcity of these
wares at mission sites can be attributed to the fact that few individuals
of Hispanic extraction resided there. It was thought that these ceramics
were imported because they could not be profitably manufactured and
moved to consumers in California, but this was obviously not the case
with low-fired, unglazed plain ware.
Hoover and Costello (1985) noted in their book on the excavations at
Mission San Antonio that intermission trade in roof and floor tiles would
have been extremely impractical because of the bulk and relative fragility
of these plain wares (a roof tile weighs about eight pounds). This means
that it would have been necessary for each mission to have the technology to fire their own tile. Mission-made pottery, bricks, and roof tiles
are basically the same material; that is, plain earthenwares. Each would
have been fired at temperatures above 660C (Costello 1997, 213; Lackey
1982, 116122). By 1781, neophytes at Mission San Antonio were making
tiles (Hoover and Costello 1985, 123; Webb 1952, 108). At Santa Clara,
production of roof and floor tiles began in 1795 (Spearman 1963, 49), so
the firing technology was in place by this date in the Bay Area. The only
other element required to produce pottery would have been the acquisition of requisite skill.
Attribution to Source or Patterns

In chapter 10, we referred to the process of attribution, the use of inference, usually guided by statistical analysis, to assign a chemically analyzed ceramic to a raw material source area or to a similarly analyzed and
statistically evaluated group of pottery representing some geographical
location or shared potting practice. We did not attempt to attribute pottery to a specific clay resource or to assess the extent of chemical variation in the clay and clay-silt raw materials from areas about the missions.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the addition of tempering materials to the
ceramic base clay can have a significant obfuscating effect on the compositional profile of a sherd compared to the profile of the raw material.
Therefore, in the SmithsonianSanta Clara University Pottery Project we
used the analysis of relatively heavy architectural ceramics, the bricks
and tiles, to serve as a proxy for pottery that was likely to have been made
in the immediate region.
There is, of course, no a priori reason to expect that a missions local
manufacture of pottery would conform to a single compositional pattern.
Sometimes a pattern that seems to be diagnostic emerges initially and
becomes more pronounced, better defined, as more ceramics are analyzed. But in other instances, the initially recognized pattern may break
apart into two or more compact, less populated subgroups. Observing
one or more groups for a mission site reflects the interaction of several
factors, including the background geology and variation in the available
natural resources, the specific actions and decisions of the potter over
some period of time, and the sampling of available collections, which
have varying collection histories.
Inherent confounding factors notwithstanding, strong patterns were
observed among the data on the Alta California ceramics that unambiguously led to the following major conclusions: plain ware manufacture was
a craft activity carried out locally at each mission studied; considerable
quantities of glazed pottery associated with the colonial habitation sites of
all kinds were imported from an as-yet-unspecified location that almost
assuredly was in Mexico. A notable exception is pottery with a red- and
some brown-colored lead glaze that represents a local Alta California adaptation of what we presume to be the Mexican glazing technology. The
bivariate graphs of elements presented below support these conclusions.
This chapter presents data for plain wares and chapter 13 presents data for
glazed wares. Our approach has been to present our findings in a simpli-
fied manner that illustrates the compositional differences among the different manufacturing locations. Bivariate confidence ellipses have been
added for the 90 percent or 95 percent confidence level of the data relative
to the elements shown. We used confidence ellipses in our bivariate plots
to draw attention to the separation of the groups in the two elemental dimensions that are graphed. All groups have been refined at the stated confidence interval, but on some bivariate plots some groups might overlap.
This is because the groups that are listed in the tables that accompany the
figures in this chapter and chapter 13 have been found to be separate when
the covariances of multiple elemental concentrations are considered.
Importantly, however, if the data for a particular group can be shown
to be separate from the data for another group in any single dimension
(e.g., elemental concentration or some linear combination of multiple
elements), then the groups will be separate no matter how many dimensions might be considered.
Tables provide cross-tabulated data about ceramic clays, adobes, and
ceramic classes in terms of site location and membership in statistically
defined reference groups. More complete sample information involving
site operation numbers, accession numbers, and analytical data is available for the Alta California Presidio and mission samples in the downloadable files located on the MURR Archaeometry Laboratory Database at archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/datasets.html. Data for the
maylica samples will be posted on the MURR site at a later time.
Mining the Data Matrix: The Jurisdictions
The analytical findings of our investigation of the plain ware ceramics associated with the missions, pueblos, and presidios of Alta California are
presented below. The total descriptive matrix is presented in tables 11.1
through 11.5, arranged by our use of presidio jurisdictions. We begin with
discussion of the San Diego presidio jurisdiction (Table 11.1, n = 391),
which in several ways is the most complex as it was here that Spanishintroduced preferences were injected into an existing potting tradition
(see chapter 3). This is followed by discussion of the Santa Barbara presidio jurisdiction (Table 11.2, n = 319); the Monterey presidio jurisdiction (Table 11.3, n = 515); and the San Francisco presidio jurisdiction
(Table11.4, n = 315). Samples analyzed from historical adobe locations
(n = 9) or from Baja California (n = 37) are noted in Table 11.5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Adobe
4
33
1
5
10
0
0
5
2
3
Brick
8
48
8
6
0
5
9
0
5
Tile
21
137
10
49
18
6
25
0
0
Plain
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
Tizon
Brown
Note: B = Burnished; R = Red ware; P = Painted; WP = water pipe; ? = other
El Ladrillo, San Diego

Fort Guijarros
San Diego, Old Town,
Snook
San Diego Presidio
San Diego de Alcal
Feature 10
McCoy
Osuna
State Historic Park
Silvas
San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano,
kiln
San Juan Capistrano,
old church
Mission San
Luis Rey
Totals
Clay
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Colo.
Buff
0
82
0
33
0
36
0
0
5
0
11
0
1
0
6
0
0
3
Glazed Galera
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
42
0
20
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Galera? Maylica Maylica?
Table 11.1. California mission project sampling matrix by presidio jurisdiction: San Diego
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WP
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
34
391
19
114
17
18
85
39
3
35
Totals
0
0
12
0
0
4
Adobe
8
13
52
12
12
Brick
9
4
54
10
14
13
Tile
13
2
90
31
28
16
Plain
0
0
0
Tizon
Brown
0
0
0
Colo.
Buff
La Cieneguitas
Mission La
Pursima
Mission Santa
Barbara
Presidio de Santa
Barbara
Casa de la Guerra,
Santa Barbara
Mission San
Buenaventura
Mission Santa Ins
Totals
Clay
2
0
37
23
12
0
0
11
Glazed Galera
0
0
2
2
0
50
35
12
0
0
0
Table 11.2. California mission project sampling matrix by presidio jurisdiction: Santa Barbara
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
WP
1
0
2
36
19
319
10
131
57
64
Totals
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Adobe
0
11
7
0
0
0
2
Brick
0
113
1
18
20
31
8
7
8
15
Tile
10
111
0
0
15
34
12
27
Plain
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tizon
Brown
Espinosa Adobe
Mission San Carlos
Borromeo del Ro
Carmelo
San Carlos Cathedral
Mission San Antonio
Mission San Juan
Bautista
Mission San Juan
Bautista (Plaza)
Mission San Luis
Obispo, 1668
Mission San Luis
Obispo, 64H,
Chinatown
Mission San Miguel,
SLO-2189
Mission San Miguel,
SLO-67
Mission Soledad
Mission Soledad,
MNT233
Totals
Clay
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Colo.
Buff
10
160
0
0
23
31
41
42
0
31
0
0
12
11
7
Glazed Galera
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
64
0
0
36
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 11.3. California mission project sampling matrix by presidio jurisdiction: Monterey
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
14
0
0
1
9
4
0
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WP
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
20
515
11
18
42
70
124
107
90
17
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Adobe
1
15
2
3
0
1
6
Brick
11
40
9
4
0
9
1
Tile
85
168
18
21
1
12
20
11
Plain
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tizon
Brown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Colo.
Buff
Mission San Jose

Mission Santa Cruz
San Francisco
Presidio
Mission
San Francisco
San Jose Pueblo
San Jose
Mission Santa
Clara
Totals
Clay
9
70
28
9
0
6
12
0
6
4
0
0
0
2
Glazed Galera
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
12
4
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 11.4. California mission project sampling matrix by presidio jurisdiction: San Francisco
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WP
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
107
315
65
39
1
27
44
32
Totals
Table 11.5. California mission project sampling matrix: Miscellaneous
Loreto, Baja California

La Loma Adobe,
San Luis Obispo
Olivas Adobe, Ventura
Pico-Garnier, Pueblo
of Los Angeles
Tile
Plain
Glazed
Galera
Galera?
Olive Jar Totals
28
37
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
The San Diego Presidio Jurisdiction: Plain Wares

A total of 391 analyzed samples are considered from sites in the San Diego Presidio jurisdiction (Table 11.6). Architectural ceramics (bricks and
tiles) and plain wares constitute approximately 55 percent of the analyses. The sampled location includes the presidio, Mission San Diego de
Alcal, Old Town San Diego, and Fort Guijarros. The initial cluster analysis showed that the bricks and tiles tended to contribute to the formation of site-specific clusters. We separated these clusters by site into trial
groups that we then refined. Samples of bricks, tiles, clays, or adobe were
removed if they were found to lie outside a 95 percent confidence interval based on the Mahalanobis distance from the trial group centroid.
Figure 11.1 shows the San Diego reference groups relative to the elemental concentrations of iron and scandium. The data points on these two
elements alone demonstrate the separation of the groups, both of which
were formed from bricks and tiles. This separation seems to indicate
a compositional profile for ceramic objects made from local resources
proximate to each mission.
The next step was to evaluate the relationship of the plain ware samples to the groups defined for the bricks and tiles. Figure 11.2 shows the
projection of plain ware data onto the plot of the brick and tiles groups.
Several of the San Diego plain ware samples diverge from the main San
Diego group. Even when considering just the concentrations of iron and
scandium, there is little overlap of site-specific composition. The subsequent statistical evaluation revealed that many of the plain wares were no
more divergent than members of the comparison group of architectural
ceramics and the clay group. We combined clusters or groups and recalculated concentration properties.
Other samples from the San Diego jurisdiction, specifically Tizon
Brown Ware ceramics and redware pottery also were evaluated for their

Fort Guijarros, San Diego
San Diego, Old Town, Snook Parcel
San Diego Presidio
Mission San Diego
San Diego, Old Town, Feature 10
San Diego, Old Town, McCoy Parcel
San Diego, Old Town, Osuna Parcel
San Diego, Old Town, State Historic Park
San Diego, Old Town, Silvas Parcel
Mission San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, kiln
San Juan Capistrano, old church
Mission San Luis Rey
Totals
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
6
Clay
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Adobe
2
3
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
1
5
2
1
4
33
Brick
0
5
0
5
9
7
0
0
0
8
6
0
0
8
48
Tile
Table 11.6. Sampling matrix for San Diego jurisdiction: Plain wares
0
0
18
6
25
0
0
8
0
10
49
0
0
21
137
Plain
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Colo.
Buff
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
Tizon
Brown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Water
Pipe
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Red
Ware
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
27
18
18
39
17
0
8
5
19
60
4
1
34
253
Totals
Ellipses = 90% confidence intervals
Scandium (ppm)
San Diego Base Group
San Luis Rey Base Group
San Juan Capistrano

Base Group
San Diego bricks and tiles
San Juan Capistrano bricks and tiles
San Luis Rey bricks and tiles
Iron (%)
Figure 11.1. Base groups of pottery samples from Missions San Diego,
San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey.
Figure 11.2. Projection of plain ware onto base groups of Figure 11.1.
Scandium (ppm)
San Luis Rey Base Group

San Juan Capistrano
Base Group
San Diego Tizon Brown Ceramics
Iron (%)
Figure 11.3. Tizon Brown Ware shown relative to base groups of
Figure11.1.
conformance to the San Diego tile, brick, and plain ware pattern. The composition of several of the samples of the Tizon Brown Ware (Figure11.3)
and one of the two redware specimens were found to be statistically similar to the other San Diego ceramics. These were added to the San Diego
reference group. I will return to the subject of Tizon Brown Ware pottery
at the end of this chapter. Table 11.7 provides a cross-tabulation of the
ceramic class (adobe, clay, architectural ceramics, and plain ware) and the
primary reference group. Some of the samples of clay were similar to each
other but had compositions that placed them outside of the multivariate
confidence intervals for acceptance in any of the groups. Several samples
of pottery remain unassigned to the groups and are considered to be out
liers (Table 11.8). The concentration means and coefficients of variation for
the reference groups are listed in Table 11.9. Table11.9 also lists a group
identified as SDIEGO? This group, which was too small for statistical
evaluation, contains only eight members. It is similar in composition to
the main SDIEGO group but differs by having higher concentrations of
potassium, barium, and thorium. The remaining outlying samples from
Table 11.7. Ceramic class by site in the San Diego jurisdiction reference groups
San Diego
Fort Guijarros
San Diego Presidio
Mission San Diego
Block 408, Snook
Feature 10
Feature 140
Osuna
State Historic Park
Silvas
El Ladrillo
Totals
Mission San Juan
Capistrano
Adobe
Brick
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
3
0
4
5
14
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
8
8
17
17
Tile
Plain
Tizon
Brown
Clay
Redware Misc.
Totals
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
7
0
0
27
5
0
1
40
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
1
99
0
0
2
0
8
4
3
8
24
17
0
0
0
0
0
1
51
30
Table 11.8. Ceramic class by site in the San Diego jurisdiction reference groups:
Outliers

Fort Guijarros
San Diego Presidio
Mission San Diego
Block 408
State Historic Park
Feature 10
Feature 140
Osuna
Silvas
Mission San Juan
Capistrano
Totals
Clay
Adobe
Brick
Tile
Plain
Tizon
Brown
Colo.
Buff
Water
Pipe
Totals
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
7
17
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
25
3
50
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
1
25
3
69
Table 11.9. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for San

Diego jurisdiction reference groups
San Diego
n = 99
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co1
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd1
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
San Diego?
n=8
San Juan
Capistrano
n = 51
San Luis Rey

n = 30
Mean
CV
Mean
CV
Mean
CV
Mean
CV
1.81
1.39
1.72
21.4
61.3
4.92
21.2
86.5
4.4
83.2
0.46
3.64
484
21.8
40.0
14.1
4.29
1.00
0.75
2.61
0.37
6.52
0.66
7.91
0.5
10
20
179
11
13
13
23
28
35
19
54
19
33
16
17
63
14
10
26
16
20
19
17
15
176
1.73
1.76
1.67
20.3
61.8
4.81
20.8
75.2
5.4
90.6
0.43
3.54
541
20.6
39.8
14.7
4.02
0.95
0.74
2.27
0.32
5.59
0.61
8.67
0.1
17
15
76
16
23
20
16
24
25
19
66
30
14
19
22
56
21
17
24
22
24
16
20
16
283
1.44
1.89
0.24
11.9
54.4
3.22
16.1
98.5
8.6
104.4
1.28
4.39
754
29.1
54.4
23.4
4.37
0.97
0.69
2.44
0.34
7.09
0.86
10.34
1.1
16
18
554
12
12
14
28
64
80
9
68
14
24
9
9
34
13
11
15
15
27
19
11
10
70
1.92
1.67
12.90
18.0
53.0
4.65
18.8
92.8
3.3
86.3
0.30
4.19
600
22.3
42.0
16.5
4.02
0.98
0.66
2.26
0.28
5.28
0.67
8.25
0.4
8
12
87
8
10
9
15
22
40
11
37
10
26
13
7
35
13
9
18
14
29
13
13
9
130
Note: 1. Advisory only.
San Diego show little tendency to cluster together or to be the product of

any currently recognized mission ceramic group. This might be the result
of some of the Diegueos continuing to draw on resources or practices
that were in place before the arrival of the Spanish.
A similar well defined, site-specific pattern was defined for San Juan
Capistrano (Table 11.9). Inspection of elemental coefficients of variation
for the rare earth concentrations and thorium in Table 11.6 reveals a San
Juan Capistrano group that is more compact than the group defined for
the San Diego area. But compactness comes at a cost: we have a fairly
large number (25, or 51 percent) of plain wares in the outlier category
(Table 11.8).
The San Juan River rises in the Santa Ana Mountains. Over its lower
course it slows and meanders through thick alluvium, where the mechanical
and chemical processes of erosion, transportation, and deposition impart
an overall sameness to the mixtures of clays and silts. We can expect relatively similar compositional patterns for the pottery at San Juan Capistrano
because of the comparative homogeneity of available resources. In addition, Hurd, Miller, and Koerper (1990) suggest that the potting behavior of
the precontact Juaneos continued into the mission period, another reason
that one might expect similarity in composition (Koerper and Flint1978;
Koerper et al. 1978, 1988). However, the compact nature of the San Juan
Capistrano reference group and the high percentage of ungrouped samples
might indicate that there was preferential use of some particular resources
and a continuing exploitation of more general resources. Even though we
do not know the underlying reasons for the compactness of the San Juan
Capistrano group, its separation from the reference group defined for San
Diego is clearly shown in Figures 11.1 and 11.2.
Sampling of the ceramic materials from Mission San Luis Rey was
less extensive than it was for the previously discussed missions. However, a reference group (Tables 11.8 and 11.9) was obtained. This group
was found to be separable from the San Diego and San Juan Capistrano
groups, although one sample of plain ware had a composition that statistically was more like that of San Juan Capistrano (Figures 11.1 and 11.2).
Thus, all three regions were found to have subjurisdictional site-specific
compositional patterns.
Santa Barbara Presidio Jurisdiction Plain Wares
Analyses from this jurisdiction included samples from the presidio and
mission of Santa Barbara, the Cieneguitas Chumash village and chapel
site, Mission Santa Buenaventura, Mission La Pursima, and Mission
Santa Ins. A total of 214 plain ware samples were analyzed. Their breakdown according to ceramic class is given in Table 11.10.
Compositional groups for the Santa Barbara and Santa Buenaventura
sites had well-definable compositional groups that we refined as described for the San Diego material. Sample dispersion of the tiles and
bricks is illustrated in Figure 11.4, which is shown relative to the concentrations of thorium, chromium, and cesium. The Santa Barbara plain
ware was amenable to forming a large reference group that is shown to
be separable from Santa Buenaventura bricks, tiles, and plain ware using
Table 11.10. Sampling matrix for the Santa Barbara jurisdiction: Plain
wares
Clay
Brick
Tile
Plain Redware
Totals
0
0
5
0
0
7
4
12
12
13
14
10
16
28
31
0
0
0
1
0
0
34
54
65
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
12
2
8
13
1
52
3
9
4
1
54
0
13
2
0
90
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
10
30
19
2
214
Cesium (ppm)
Mission La Pursima
Mission Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara Casa
de la Guerra
Santa Buenaventura
Santa Ins
La Cieneguitas
Totals
Adobe
pm
Bricks and Tiles
Tho
Santa Barbara
Santa Buenaventura
La Purisima Concepcion
Santa Ines
riu
(p
iu
m(
ppm
o
hr
Figure 11.4. Pottery sample groups from the Santa Barbara jurisdiction.
only the concentrations of zinc and tantalum (Figure 11.5). Several of the
outlying Santa Buenaventura plain ware samples can be seen as outliers
from the group. Samples from Mission Santa Ins consisted mainly of
bricks and tiles; their separation from the other locations in the Santa
Barbara presidio jurisdiction is shown in Figure 11.6. In that figure, note
Santa Barbara Bricks, Tiles, and

Plain ware
Santa Buenaventura Bricks and Tiles
Tantalium (ppm)
Santa Buenaventura Plain ware
ellipse = 95% confidence interval
Zinc (ppm)
Figure 11.5. Separation of Santa Barbara bricks, tiles, and plain ware.
the dispersal of samples from La Pursima and the strong divergence of

the bricks and tiles from Santa Ins.
The pottery analyzed for La Pursima was not amenable to forming
a single compositional group (its nice when it happens). Four distinct
clusters were found, but these clusters were too sparsely populated to
consider them as sufficiently well-characterized reference groups. Comparisons of the La Pursima groups with those from Santa Barbara and
Santa Ins are shown in Figure 11.6. Without doubt, some of the variation observed in the La Pursima material is related to differences in the
texture of the ceramics. La Pursima clusters 3 (LPC 3) and 4 (LPC 4), for
example, are made up predominantly of bricks and tiles that contain far
more coarse nonplastic materials than are found in the other La Pursima
groups (Figure 11.7). Rare earth averages for all of La Pursima groups are
rather similar; LPC 1 is distinctive in having low scandium, chromium,
and iron values, whereas LPC 3 is markedly higher in concentration of
antimony and cesium.
The cross-tabulation of ceramic classes, locations, and compositional
groups is given in Table 11.11. As with the sampled sites of the San Diego
160
Ellipses = 95 % confidence intervals
140
Zinc (ppm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Chromium (ppm)
Santa Barbara
Group 1
La Purisima Concepcion
Group 2
Group 3
Mission
Santa Ines
Group 4
Plain ware
Plain ware
Plain ware
Plain ware
Bricks and Tiles
Bricks and Tiles
Bricks and Tiles
Bricks and Tiles Bricks and Tiles
Plain ware
Bricks and Tiles
Figure 11.6. Bivariate plot of samples from Santa Barbara, La Pursima,

and Santa Ins.
Figure 11.7. Texture differences in ladrillo (brick paste). Upper: PM004

(Group LPC4), medium-coarse. Lower: PPM0100 (Group LPC1), fine with
scattered medium grains.
Table 11.11. Ceramic class by site in the Santa Barbara jurisdiction reference
groups
Reference Groups
Clay
Santa Barbara group

La Cieneguitas village
Santa Barbara,
Casa de la Guerra
Total
Santa Barbara(?) group
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara,
Casa de la Guerra
Total
San Buenaventura
group
San Buenaventura
Santa Ins group
Santa Ins
La Pursima groups
La Pursima 1
La Pursima 2
La Pursima 3
La Pursima 4
Outliers
Santa Barbara,
Casa de la Guerra
Santa Ins
Totals
Adobe Brick
Tile
Plain
Redware
Misc
Totals
0
0
1
1
10
11
1
12
9
0
21
23
2
43
44
1
2
2
24
1
23
0
44
4
93
1
3
0
1
1
4
13
32
7
1
7
7
6
3
2
5
3
11
8
5
9
0
4
0
4
0
1
2
1
7
7
0
0
4
3
0
7
0
6
5
2
4
5
0
2
14
11
18
5
12
35
jurisdiction, ceramic products from the Santa Barbara jurisdiction demonstrate patterns of chemical composition that are consistent with the
inference of local manufacture. Group means and coefficients of variation are given in Table 11.12.
Monterey Presidio Jurisdiction Plain Wares
Diversity of raw material resources, the fact that a relatively large number
of locations were considered, and varied sampling intensity brought interpretive complexity to the compositional patterns for the ceramics from
this jurisdiction. The Royal Presidio San Carlos de Monterey and Cathedral
1.7
2.09
0.1
9.77
81.8
2.79
10.08
45.0
7.15
104
1.46
3.89
825
31.1
54.0
21.5
3.92
0.87
0.56
1.81
0.23
6.73
0.87
9.72
21
11
12
339
20
16
17
32
139
194
11
49
20
21
20
18
39
22
22
29
24
32
18
12
10
110
CV
1.92
2.31
0.30
6.62
83.0
2.01
5.48
53.6
5.7
103
0.69
2.85
788
31.5
55.0
26.2
4.49
0.95
0.68
2.06
0.28
6.24
0.68
9.00
16
Mean
7
7
130
13
23
11
28
12
43
6
26
12
10
9
10
12
10
9
17
13
10
8
11
9
51
CV
La Pursima 1
n = 11
Notes: 1. Element concentrations used for group refinement.

2. Advisory only.
Na1
K1
Ca
Sc1
Cr1
Fe1
Co2
Zn
As
Rb1
Sb1
Cs1
Ba1
La1
Ce1
Nd2
Sm1
Eu1
Tb
Yb1
Lu1
Hf1
Ta
Th1
W
Mean
Santa Barbara
n = 93
2.03
2.03
0.16
12.26
213.0
3.43
13.34
83.1
6.7
94
0.9
3.41
699
35.5
62.2
29.5
4.93
1.13
0.73
2.47
0.35
9.02
0.75
10.68
10
Mean
6
10
211
5
9
4
8
11
25
4
28
5
24
5
4
7
11
6
7
12
11
7
3
10
18
CV
La Pursima 2
n=8
1.74
2.28
0.6
13.32
114.7
3.69
15.21
119.8
7.5
146
1.46
7.97
649
36.9
64.3
28.2
5.21
1.15
0.76
2.36
0.31
5.19
0.91
11.57
13
Mean
3
7
92
5
9
5
10
11
7
4
8
5
10
3
3
12
3
3
7
3
14
8
13
5
51
CV
La Pursima 3
n=5
1.74
1.99
0.52
12.54
151.6
3.43
20.81
90.6
6.5
119
1.28
5.48
666
36.0
62.6
29.4
5.06
1.15
0.82
2.52
0.34
6.17
0.82
10.48
24
Mean
9
12
167
9
20
9
56
18
33
9
34
19
17
6
7
10
10
8
24
14
15
16
5
6
57
CV
La Pursima 4
n=9
1.93
2.25
0.58
11.16
92.7
3.36
15.4
90.0
6.3
128
0.85
4.56
777
40.9
71.6
28.2
5.46
1.18
0.76
2.41
0.35
6.2
1.12
11.82
27
Mean
10
13
119
13
21
15
28
32
27
14
36
16
26
13
12
44
11
9
13
14
20
24
21
11
77
CV
San Buenaventura
n = 30
Table 11.12. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for reference groups in the Santa Barbara jurisdiction
San Carlos de Borromeo were established in Monterey on Ohlone coastal

territory in June 1770 (Berger 1948, 269270; Geiger 1950, 310; King 1956,
5152; Weber 1988, 27). Even though this was the administrative anchor
for the region, plain ware ceramics were somewhat limited in availability
at the time of sampling, perhaps reflective of too much attention to clearing by grounds keepers (Table 11.13). Nevertheless, the observed patterns
within the dataset appear sufficiently strong to suggest that the observed
subregional patterns will hold up should research be expanded in the future. One of the most pronounced features of the data can be seen in the
divergence of the San Luis Obispo bricks, tiles, and plain ware from the
other architectural ceramics of the Monterey jurisdiction (Figure 11.8).
When the data are viewed relative to the concentrations of iron and
chromium and the San Luis Obispo samples are removed and the chromium axis is rescaled, strong regional and site-based trends become
more evident (Figure 11.9). The patterning in this plot appears to reflect
primary physiographic-geological differences in the jurisdiction. The
Soledad mission and the Espinosa adobe samples lie in the upper portion
of the graph, which represents ceramics made at different locations along
the alluvial resources of the Salinas River. Soledad in particular may have
drawn on resources containing ultramafic- and granitic-derived sediments contributed by the cutting of the nearby Arroyo Seco. Missions
San Antonio and San Juan Bautista, located on the opposite sides of the
Santa Lucia Mountains in the Coast Range, diverge toward the lower
right of the graph and are largely separated from the pottery of the other
Table 11.13. Sampling matrix for Monterey jurisdiction: Plain wares
Monterey, San Carlos Cathedral

Mission Carmel
San Juan Bautista
San Juan Bautista, Plaza
San Luis Obispo, 1668
San Luis Obispo, 64H
San Miguel, SLO-67
Mission Soledad
Mission Soledad, MNT 233
Espinosa Adobe
La Loma Adobe, SLO
Totals
Clay
Adobe
Brick
Tile
Plain
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
1
0
11
7
8
31
0
5
20
8
1
18
0
15
2
115
12
34
8
5
0
15
27
0
0
10
0
0
111
19
42
40
5
5
35
37
11
18
10
16
2
240
Chromium (ppm)
Thorium (ppm)
Soledad
San Miguel
San Luis Obispo
San Juan Bautista
Monterey Cathedral
Mission San Antonio
Mission Carmel
Espinosa Adobe
Figure 11.8. Bivariate plot showing divergence of San Luis Obispo

samples.
sites. On the left of the graph lie the sparsely represented bricks and tiles
from the Monterey cathedral and those from Mission San Miguel. Lines
have been added to call attention to the different resource zones that
might have induced some of the compositional variation.
Data for the plain wares reinforces the compositional patterns observed
in the architectural ceramics and clays. When combined, it p
rovides sufficiently populated groups for statistical refinement. Figure11.10 shows
the reference groups obtained for Monterey, Soledad, Carmel, and San
Antonio. The samples from San Luis Obispo that were high in chromium,
which were omitted from Figure 11.10, are here dispersed into three subgroups, due in part to the variation or spread of chromium concentrations but also because of subtle differences in the abundance of other elements (e.g., iron and rubidium).
Granitic and
Metamorphic
sources
Coastal
Eastern
San Juan
River basin
Figure 11.9. Bivariate plot showing dispersion of ceramics of the

Monterey jurisdiction.
In Figure 11.11, plain ware contributes to San Luis Obispo reference

groups 1 and 3. The small cluster labeled as SLO-2 consists of only bricks
and tiles. In Figure 11.9, we can see that the samples from missions on
the opposite side of the Santa Lucia MountainsSan Juan Bautista and
San Antoniooverlap when plotted in terms of iron and chromium
concentrations. When graphed for their concentrations of cesium and
europium, however, reference groups formed from the combination of
bricks, tiles, and plain wares are almost separable at the 90 percent confidence interval for these concentrations and are fully separable in the
multi-elemental space (Figure 11.12). Unfortunately, no plain wares were
available for analysis from Mission San Miguel. The analysis of the bricks
220
Soledad
Chromium (ppm)
160
Monterey
100
Carmel
San Antonio
40
1.0
2.5
4.0
5.5
Iron (%)
Figure 11.10. Bivariate plot of compositional groups for Monterey, Soledad, Carmel, and San Antonio.
San Luis Obispo Group 3

SLO Chinatown plainwares
SLO Chinatown tiles
La Loma Adobe tiles
San Luis Obispo Group 1
Rubidium (ppm)
SLO Mission tiles
San Luis Obispo

Group 2
Iron (%)
Figure 11.11. Bivariate plot showing dispersion of San Luis Obispo compositional subgroups.
Europium (ppm)
San Antonio
San Juan Batista
Monterey
Cesium (ppm)
Figure 11.12. Bivariate plot comparing San Antonio and San Juan Bautista pottery to that from Monterey.
and tiles, however, yielded a chemical pattern that was separate from that
of the other materials considered (Figure 11.13).
Statistically refined reference groups were derived for San Luis Obispo
(SLO 1, SLO 2), San Antonio, Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and the smaller,
compositionally different samples from Monterey and San Miguel (Table11.14). One plain ware sample had a p-value (albeit low) that might indicate that it was compositionally close to a group formed for Santa Clara
(see below). Two plain ware sherds from Soledad MMT 233 were found
to be similar to pottery recovered from San Francisco. Despite these
three samples, which we believe are examples of accidental similarity, a
strong site-specific pattern for the manufacture of the architectural and
plain wares is apparent. Concentrations and coefficients of variation for
the reference groups and comparative samples are given in Table 11.15.
San Francisco Jurisdiction Plain Wares
Our investigation of ceramic manufacture in the San Francisco jurisdiction was published in Skowronek et al. 2009. Because the project de-
ellipses = 95% confidence intervals
Hafnium (ppm)

Chemical Group
San Luis Obispo

Chemical Group 1
San Luis Obispo

Chemical Group 3
San Miguel Chemical

Group
Rubidium (ppm)
Figure 11.13. Bivariate plot comparing compositional groups for Missions
San Antonio and San Miguel with groups defined for San Luis Obispo.
veloped from our exploratory study of the pottery from Mission Santa
Clara, plain wares sampled from that site are especially numerous (85),
as is shown in Table 11.16. The brick, tiles, and plain ware formed two
statistically distinct groups, Santa Clara 1 and Santa Clara 2. The former
is made up of architectural samples and plain wares, and the latter is
comprised of plain wares exclusively. These groups, along with outlying
samples, are graphed in Figure 11.14. Pottery from San Francisco forms
one well-populated group (San Francisco 1) and a relatively minor cluster
(San Francisco 2), plus a few outliers (Figure 11.15).
What is very noticeable in the graph is the spread in chromium concentration, which ranges from only a few to almost 4,000 parts per million. This variability is likely the result of the annual influx of Central
Valley sediments, which has alluvium that is rich in chromium derived
from ultamafic minerals (Abu-Saba 1998). Analysis of the < 65 micron
watershed sediments (clays and silts) in the San Francisco region reveals
chromium concentrations of less than 200 parts per million (Abu-Saba
and Flegal 1995). The higher values, therefore, are likely attributable to
sand-sized particles of the mineral chromite or chromium spinels. The
Table 11.14. Ceramic class by site for Monterey jurisdiction reference

groups
Reference Groups
Monterey
Espinosa Adobe
San Juan Bautista
Totals
Monterey?
Soledad MNT 233
San Juan Bautista
San Juan Bautista
San Juan Bautista, Plaza
Totals
Carmel
Mission Carmel
San Juan Bautista
Totals
Soledad
Espinosa Adobe
Mission Soledad
Totals
San Miguel, SLO-67
San Miguel, SLO-67
Mission San Antonio
Mission San Antonio
Totals
San Luis Obispo 1
Totals
San Luis Obispo 2
La Loma Adobe, SLO
Totals
Total
Outlier
Mission Carmel
Mission San Antonio
San Juan Bautista
San Miguel, SLO-67
Soledad, MNT 233
Total
Adobe
Brick
Tile
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
1
8
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
Plain
Totals
0
6
0
6
1
12
1
14
25
0
25
5
5
10
31
5
36
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
9
29
3
0
32
37
3
1
41
0
0
0
1
0
1
14
18
32
0
0
0
0
18
33
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
8
8
1
24
25
1
34
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
16
20
0
10
10
4
26
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
6
0
0
4
4
2
1
7
10
393
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
6
5
2
3
3
1
0
6
20
5
3
3
7
2
2
6
28
1.68
2.07
2.08
12.06
71.3
3.7
14.9
75.4
6.8
121.9
0.90
3.82
841
39.8
71.2
30.7
5.32
1.09
0.70
2.29
0.32
7.75
1.05
14.1
1.4
Note: 1. Advisory.
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co1
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd1
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
Mean
9
14
130
17
27
19
55
21
52
18
36
19
16
26
27
39
23
21
27
33
38
26
18
21
77
CV
San Juan
Bautista
n = 36
1.61
1.69
1.18
12.26
93.1
4.1
15.5
73.6
2.7
102.2
0.30
3.18
772
42.3
76.3
27.7
5.50
1.11
0.66
1.40
0.19
8.08
1.07
13.0
1.2
Mean
Carmel
n = 41
8
15
28
12
9
10
27
16
36
11
41
10
24
18
28
52
21
13
20
29
39
17
12
13
160
CV
1.54
2.30
5.81
14.24
146.6
4.3
18.3
103.5
4.1
127.8
0.63
4.53
647
42.8
76.9
32.8
5.76
1.24
0.82
2.15
0.28
5.03
1.17
12.6
0.9
Mean
CV
9
17
110
14
15
13
15
14
36
11
34
16
23
15
13
17
15
9
17
20
21
13
19
13
188
Soledad
n = 33
1.05
1.32
46.10
7.57
94.0
2.4
13.4
61.2
6.3
58.9
1.17
4.96
673
26.3
43.3
19.4
3.12
0.67
0.58
1.19
0.17
6.59
0.89
10.5
1.8
Mean
CV
21
15
110
25
22
20
121
94
42
17
161
22
37
47
50
66
54
52
49
48
60
22
21
30
58
Monterey
n = 14
1.42
2.18
.
10.95
66.1
3.6
11.1
90.4
2.6
102.7
0.46
2.70
929
44.0
82.2
36.8
6.12
1.33
0.83
2.20
0.30
9.46
1.11
12.5
1.1
Mean
8
15
0
11
12
14
26
17
34
12
21
14
21
12
19
13
13
8
16
17
24
16
12
14
75
CV
San Antonio
n = 35
1.65
2.40
.
10.06
101.3
2.9
15.7
81.8
2.4
118.3
0.62
3.38
883
33.4
58.7
25.1
4.72
1.03
0.70
2.36
0.28
5.28
0.89
11.1
0.6
Mean
5
11
0
7
9
7
14
12
29
6
31
7
10
8
7
12
9
10
18
24
27
5
7
16
173
CV
San Miguel
n=9
1.90
0.95
2.98
14.67
616.2
4.0
27.4
70.0
6.3
55.2
0.95
2.67
650
24.4
47.2
17.4
3.85
0.96
0.62
1.97
0.26
5.05
0.72
6.5
0.6
Mean
CV
24
21
137
19
45
17
38
35
33
15
50
28
35
17
40
35
11
9
22
19
39
15
22
7
106
San Luis
Obispo 1
n = 30
Table 11.15. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for Monterey jurisdiction reference groups
1.97
1.27
0.44
13.80
310.9
3.6
19.4
83.9
5.0
75.4
1.00
4.37
579
24.3
40.7
20.3
3.98
0.92
0.66
2.12
0.30
4.65
0.87
8.0
1.9
Mean
CV
21
24
110
13
23
12
34
26
45
14
24
17
31
7
14
11
10
11
17
20
21
12
51
7
91
San Luis
Obispo 2
n = 10
Table 11.16. Sampling matrix for the San Francisco jurisdiction
Mission San Jose

Mission Santa Cruz
Mission San Francisco
San Jose de Guadalupe
(San Jose Pueblo)
Santa Clara, misc.
Mission Santa Clara
Totals
Clay
Adobe
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
Brick
Tile
Plain
Totals
1
6
2
2
9
1
6
9
20
11
12
18
31
18
20
29
3
0
1
15
4
0
11
40
21
1
85
168
28
1
98
225
28
26
Santa Clara 2
24
Scandium (ppm)
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Santa Clara 1
8
6
4
Santa Clara bricks & tiles
Santa Clara plain ware
0
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 11.14. Bivariate plot of base groups for Mission Santa Clara.
highly variable concentration of chromium in the pottery apparently is

the result of subregional locations for clay procurement and unintended
variation in paste preparation. The separation of the San Francisco 1
group from Santa Clara and sites of the Monterey jurisdiction is illustrated in Figure 11.16.
Architectural and ware ceramics from the Pueblo of San Jose cannot
be separated from similar materials that form the Santa Clara 1 group,
36
34
32
30
Scandium (ppm)
28
San Francisco 1
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
San Francisco 2
12
San Francisco bricks & tiles
10
San Francisco plain ware

8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 11.15. Bivariate plot of base groups for San Francisco.
30
28
Santa Clara 2
26
San Juan Bautista

24
Scandium (ppm)
22
Carmel 1
20
18
16
14
San Francisco 1
Santa Clara 1
12
10
San Jose
8
6
Santa Cruz
4
San Francisco bricks & tiles
San Francisco plain ware
0
0
200
400
600
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 11.16. Bivariate plot of San Francisco 1 group relative to compositional groups defined for San Juan Bautista, Santa Clara, San Jose, and
Santa Cruz.
800
nor was this expected. The sources of ceramic materials from the Santa
Clara Mission and the San Jose pueblo are both derived from the sediments of the Guadalupe River, which in the 1800s originated in a large
swamp in what is now the Willow Glen section of San Jose (Brown 2005).
It then flowed north through unconsolidated valley alluvium from the
neighboring mountains into the south of San Francisco Bay. Initially the
mission (Mission Santa Clara de Thamien, est. 1777) and the pueblo (El
Pueblo de San Jos de Guadalupe) were both located along the banks of
Mission Creek just before the creek joined the Guadalupe (Fava 1976,
10; Skowronek 2006, 2334). Even the most recent mission, Mission
Santa Clara (est. 1825), which is located some two miles from the original
mission site, is well within the Guadalupe watershed. Compositions of
the brick, tiles, and earthenwares from Mission San Jose, which is located
in a different geomorphic province, are easily separated. Figure 11.17 illustrates the divergence of the Mission San Jose ceramics from those of
San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. Reference groups for the San
Francisco jurisdiction are given in Table 11.17, and their concentration
means and coefficients of variation are listed in Table 11.18.
Figure 11.17. Bivariate plot of pottery from Mission and Pueblo San Jose
relative to groups from San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz.
Table 11.17. Ceramic class by site for the San Francisco jurisdiction
reference groups
Reference Groups
San Francisco 1
Totals
San Francisco 1?
Totals
San Francisco 2
Totals
Santa Clara 1
Mission San Jose
San Jose Pueblo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara de Ass
Totals
Santa Clara 1?
Mission San Jose
San Jose Pueblo
Mission Santa Clara
Totals
Santa Clara 2
Mission Santa Clara
Totals
Santa Cruz 1
Mission Santa Cruz
Totals
Santa Cruz 2
Mission Santa Cruz
Totals
Mission San Jose
Mission San Jose
San Jose Pueblo
Totals
Outliers
San Jose Pueblo
Mission Santa Clara
Totals
Clay
Adobe
Brick
Tile
Plain
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
6
6
12
6
11
17
13
17
30
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
5
1
6
5
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
1
3
0
6
10
0
15
1
47
63
1
20
1
54
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
21
21
21
0
0
0
0
6
6
1
1
1
1
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
8
0
0
8
19
1
3
23
29
1
4
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
3
6
0
5
1
15
21
1
7
2
19
29
1.76
0.91
1.93
18.3
520
4.33
24.5
77.8
5.1
48.6
0.68
2.31
597
20.4
42.2
18.6
3.77
0.98
0.60
2.09
0.27
6.69
0.78
7.33
0.51
Note: 1. Advisory.
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co1
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd1
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
8
30
51
10
17
8
41
51
26
18
24
22
30
12
23
26
12
11
15
15
20
21
14
13
128
1.64
0.82
2.00
18.5
1166
5.20
50.4
79.6
4.3
55.8
0.65
2.78
480
20.3
41.9
15.3
3.41
0.93
0.59
1.92
0.24
5.99
0.88
7.24
0.18
5
16
8
7
13
6
35
16
53
25
45
32
38
11
9
45
16
5
16
16
36
20
21
21
187
CV
Mean
Mean
CV
San Francisco 2
n=8
San Francisco 1
n = 30
1.50
1.58
3.93
14.7
179
4.09
24.3
101.7
6.7
97.9
0.71
3.76
758
26.6
48.0
20.9
3.91
0.97
0.66
2.00
0.27
4.07
0.78
9.13
0.62
Mean
14
22
67
12
18
16
49
20
52
13
32
19
26
11
11
16
13
9
16
16
26
17
15
12
108
CV
Santa Clara 1
n = 76
1.59
1.48
3.96
13.8
208
3.79
18.9
94.1
7.0
94.5
0.68
3.37
818
25.0
44.4
20.0
3.84
0.91
0.59
1.95
0.28
4.49
0.82
8.37
0.42
Mean
10
43
93
20
40
20
35
27
38
22
35
33
14
16
16
23
13
13
22
18
21
26
32
21
140
CV
Santa Clara 1?
n=5
1.59
1.08
1.86
19.9
260
5.19
29.5
81.6
4.9
60.1
0.53
2.08
589
19.2
32.9
17.1
3.47
1.03
0.64
1.79
0.25
4.72
0.76
6.13
0.19
Mean
11
17
100
11
7
11
40
20
54
15
36
18
20
10
8
13
11
9
19
13
25
11
33
11
213
CV
Santa Clara 2
n = 21
1.13
1.07
.
10.2
256
3.25
12.9
42.6
10.9
63.7
1.33
3.61
603
13.4
24.6
7.4
2.00
0.50
0.44
1.18
0.15
7.90
1.03
6.95
2.58
Mean
8
15
0
8
19
17
39
22
62
12
29
14
14
20
19
63
23
16
100
12
30
26
26
7
32
CV
Santa Cruz 1
n=8
1.42
1.40
.
8.6
121
2.45
10.6
58.6
6.5
57.6
0.62
2.53
773
14.2
23.6
1.1
2.15
0.60
0.31
1.13
0.13
5.83
0.67
5.73
1.40
Mean
7
16
0
13
20
12
28
88
22
11
17
14
12
20
21
316
16
11
8
21
37
29
20
24
64
CV
Santa Cruz 2
n = 10
Table 11.18. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for San Francisco jurisdiction reference groups
1.54
1.42
1.31
10.3
162
2.59
10.9
54.2
4.5
53.7
0.52
1.92
851
20.8
35.4
15.0
3.20
0.87
0.45
1.45
0.19
5.05
0.52
6.13
0.48
Mean
7
18
159
7
16
7
45
58
27
9
31
15
18
12
18
24
14
10
19
19
23
19
33
14
123
CV
Mission San Jose

n = 34
800
Bricks and Tiles recovered at Santa Cruz

Plain ware recovered at Santa Cruz
700
Chromium (ppm)
600
San Francisco 1
500
400
Santa Cruz 1
Santa Clara 2
300
200
Monterey
San Jose
100
Santa Cruz 2
Carmel 1
0
0
90% Confidence ellipses

4
Cesium (ppm)
Figure 11.18. Bivariate plot showing paste relationship of Santa Cruz
brick, tiles, and plain ware to groups from San Francisco, Santa Clara, Carmel, and Monterey.
Few bricks, tiles, and plain wares from Mission Santa Cruz were available for sampling; only 18 were analyzed. These, however, partitioned
into one of two groups, which were found to be distinct in composition
from the other pottery analyzed from the jurisdiction (figure 11.18).
This chapter has provided an overview of the compositional patterning
for bricks, tiles, and plain ware recovered from California missions and
presidios. The architectural ceramics (bricks and tiles) served as a proxy
for the local raw material resources in the near vicinity of missions and
presidios. Sampling among target areas was uneven. Occasionally multiple compositions were encountered among the bricks and tiles. When
they were, we used the principle of Occams razor and visual examination of the ceramic textures found in the different groups. Our findings
were consistent with the interpretation given in chapter 9 that variable
attention was given to the relative coarseness of the bricks and tiles (figure 11.7). In general, the plain wares were manufactured from similar
sources of clay-silt resources as the bricks and tiles. Overlap of compositions among the identified groups of ceramic materials is infrequent.
A prominent exception is found for the materials from San Jose Pueblo
and Mission Santa Clara, which is understandable given their geographic
proximity along a common river that arises in an alluvial depression.
The Curious Case of Tizon Brown Ware
We cannot leave this section without calling attention to one of the less
represented plain wares in our sampling in the San Diego jurisdiction:
Tizon Brown Ware (n = 19). Tizon Brown is a plain ware; thus, it is appropriate for discussion here. However, this ware provides an example
of the issues that can arise in the interpretation of compositional data,
several of which were mentioned in the preceding chapter.
Tizon Brown Ware is part of a prehistoric Patayan tradition that
began about AD 700 and persisted into the contact period among the
Kumeyaay (Hicks 1963). It is found at several locations in southern California (Euler and Dobyns 1958). The Presidio Gateway Search Project,
which was initiated by Diane Everett-Barbolla in 1976 (Cheever 1983),
found it at the San Diego presidio. Our 19 analyzed samples were recovered from Fort Guijarros. Fourteen of these samples fall within our main
San Diego reference group, two are possibly members of SDIEGO2, and
three are outliers (Table 11.19). Tizon Brown Ware has presented numerous taxonomic difficulties for archaeologists because the members of the
ware can exhibit variation in nonplastic inclusions, color, and surface finish (May 1978). In 2002, Hildebrand et al. published their findings from
a neutron activation analysis and a petrographic study of Tizon Brown
Ware and a California brown ware they call Salton Brown Ware. The latter was considered to be a ceramic class that was separate from Tizon
Brown Ware because it was made of alluvial rather than residual clay.
Neutron activation at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR)
was carried out on 75 samples selected from the Salton Trough, the Peninsular Range, and the coastal plain. Because of patterns in the neutron
activation data matrix, the majority of the samples were assigned to one
of five compositional groups. A summary graph based upon the logtransformed concentrations of scandium and lanthanum is re-created in
Figure 11.19. The Hildebrand et al. study does not give a statement of the
confidence interval represented by the added ellipses, but data from the
MURR Archaeometry Program Web site suggests that they indicate a
90percent confidence interval within the elemental space being graphed.
0.80
2.45
3.46
12.9
65.2
3.70
12.7
139.8
8.8
130.8
1.06
8.94
936
45.2
79.2
42.1
6.87
1.25
0.84
3.09
0.49
5.18
1.08
13.91
3.44
27
6
31
12
10
12
16
23
36
7
22
8
34
7
8
29
9
8
28
16
16
11
10
9
11
CV
1.41
1.57
2.35
15.0
52.9
4.64
13.0
106.9
7.0
86.2
0.56
5.63
877
30.2
54.5
25.9
5.14
1.08
0.67
2.66
0.42
4.88
0.80
10.04
2.19
Mean
IMP-1B2
n=8
24
26
40
6
31
14
17
32
20
27
19
18
34
15
12
20
15
14
25
41
39
13
19
11
31
CV
2.30
2.07
2.08
8.7
22.2
3.19
6.8
125.6
3.8
98.7
0.43
5.46
818
34.9
60.0
32.9
6.15
1.19
0.79
2.02
0.33
5.98
0.96
11.88
2.84
Mean
IMP-23
n=9
Notes: 1. Imperial County group 1A (Hildebrand et al. 2002).

2. Imperial County group 1B (Hildebrand et al. 2002).
3. Imperial County group 2 (Hildebrand et al. 2002).
4. San Diego County group 1 (Hildebrand et al. 2002).
5. San Diego reference group 2 (Hildebrand et al. 2002).
6. San Diego Reference group.
7. San Juan Capistrano reference group.
8. San Luis Rey reference group.
9. Advisory.
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co9
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
Mean
IMP-1A1
n = 15
23
14
16
12
26
19
24
26
32
11
34
19
14
14
16
26
26
18
37
31
20
19
44
34
78
CV
1.46
0.31
3.65
19.4
68.3
6.11
18.9
111.6
1.9
11.2
0.30
0.95
480
14.8
27.1
16.8
3.77
1.25
0.47
1.50
0.27
2.46
0.34
2.22
0.70
Mean
SDI-14
n = 10
12
26
9
8
32
5
10
14
71
50
58
21
26
6
6
6
4
6
41
8
21
18
16
10
37
CV
1.55
0.93
3.03
25.3
52.2
5.88
20.0
87.0
3.0
38.3
0.45
2.35
523
16.0
31.5
17.2
4.14
1.06
0.70
2.69
0.45
4.30
0.43
6.03
1.27
Mean
CV
36
50
45
17
55
12
25
32
93
55
103
54
43
36
37
37
35
26
43
30
24
37
35
65
48
SDI-25
n = 35
1.81
1.39
2.36
21.4
61.3
4.92
21.2
86.5
4.4
83.2
0.52
3.64
505
21.8
40.0
14.1
4.29
1.00
0.77
2.61
0.37
6.52
0.66
7.91
0.49
Mean
CV
10
20
144
11
13
13
23
28
35
19
35
19
26
16
17
63
14
10
22
16
20
19
17
15
176
SDIEGO6
n = 99
2.05
1.53
2.03
21.4
63.3
5.09
21.7
79.2
4.6
81.4
0.37
3.57
468
22.5
42.6
17.3
4.41
1.04
0.88
2.27
0.30
6.13
0.63
9.59
0.00
Mean
6
9
3
7
16
6
17
6
38
14
100
20
6
10
19
11
10
1
18
20
24
16
15
10
0
CV
SDIEGO?
n=3
Table 11.19. Concentration means and coefficients of variation for Tizon Brown Ware comparative groupings
1.47
1.86
6.06
11.7
53.4
3.15
15.8
103.1
8.2
103.5
0.93
4.32
740
29.2
55.0
24.1
4.35
0.97
0.70
2.46
0.34
7.28
0.86
10.28
1.09
Mean
SJC-407
n = 40
16
19
67
13
12
15
20
69
95
10
29
15
22
9
9
21
14
12
15
16
28
20
11
10
76
CV
1.92
1.67
12.90
17.9
52.8
4.63
18.7
91.3
3.2
85.9
0.30
4.17
590
22.1
41.8
16.4
4.00
0.98
0.66
2.25
0.28
5.29
0.67
8.20
0.39
Mean
8
12
87
8
10
9
14
24
40
11
37
10
28
13
7
34
13
9
18
14
31
13
13
9
134
CV
SLEY-318
n = 31
Lanthanum (Log10 ppm)
1.8
1.4
1.0
Imp-1a
Imp-1b
Imp-2
SDI-1
SDI-2
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
Scandium (Log10 ppm)

Figure 11.19. Bivariate plot of Patayan pottery analyzed at the University
of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR).
Hildebrand et al. interpret the main left-right division in the plot as reflecting differences in resources in desert (IMP1A, IMP1B, and IMP2)
and mountain (SID1 and SID2) environments (Hildebrand et al. 2002,
p.131, figure 10.4).
Groups SID1 and especially SID2 are of particular interest. Pottery
and clays were analyzed from Buckman Spring (SDi-4787), located in the
foothills of the Jacumba Mountains, and from the Loveland Reservoir
area (SDi-14,283); these two areas are located 53 and 46 miles, respectively, east of the San Diego presidio. Pottery was also obtained from sites
closer to the presidio, for example the Rose Canyon site 10 miles to the
north and the historic Ystagua village (SDi-4609) 5 miles further north
(Hildebrand et al. 2002). The samples, therefore, represent Tizon Brown
Wares acquired from locations that occur at varying distances from the
San Diego Mission and Presidio.
Hildebrand et al. (2002) partitioned the data into groups aided by

a truncated principal components analysis of 32 elemental concentrations. Using only the first six principal components, which accounted for
84 percent of the variation in the data matrix, they calculated the Mahalanobis distance of each sample from a group centroid and converted
it to a probability of membership in a reference group. Using the chemically based group membership and informed by the petrographic analysis, Hildebrand et al. concluded that their Tizon Brown Ware of groups
SID1 and SID2 were manufactured in the central or eastern Peninsular
Range batholiths. Samples from sites closer to the Pacific Coast might
have been attributable to a source in the western batholith, but this area
is located tens of miles from the presidio and the mission.
In addition to advancing understanding of the compositional variation in Tizon Brown Ware, Hildebrand et al. caught our attention by
their inclusion of a sample from a tile fragment that was part of a historic
flume recovered from near the San Diego mission (SCI090), a site that
we interpreted as producing architectural ceramics and plain wares locally. The flume tile was attributed to the SDI-2 group with a calculated
group membership of 94.6 percent, which meant that it was close to the
multivariate centroid of a broad group located in the Peninsular Range
batholiths or near the foothills of the Peninsular Range (Hildebrand etal.
2002, 134135). This attribution implies that either the raw materials
for architectural ceramics or the ceramics themselves were obtained at
a considerable distance from the missionan interpretation that runs
contrary to the finding of our present work. This difference in interpretation required some closer investigation.
The downloaded data from the MURR website, which were generated
using National Bureau of Standards standard reference material 1633A
(coal fly ash), were normalized to standard reference material 1633, as
used in the Smithsonian-NIST analyses. Conversion factors for merging
the MURR and Smithsonian-NIST datasets were based on each laboratorys analysis of numerous samples of a common reference material. The
normalized means and coefficients of variation for the Hildebrand et al.
(2002) study and for our compositional reference groups that contained
Tizon Brown Ware are given in Table 11.16. Readily apparent in the table
are the large coefficients of variation for elements of the SDI-2 group (the
one to which the mission historic tile is attributed) compared to those of
the reference groups of the present study. Using the San Diego reference
group of our study and 14 elemental concentrations (potassium, scan-
dium, chromium, iron, rubidium, cesium, barium, lanthanum, cerium,

europium, terbium, ytterbium, lutetium, hafnium, and thorium), all of
the Hildebrand et al. samples have a less than 0.01 percent likelihood
of being members of our group, with the exception of the historic tile
(which has a 14 percent likelihood of being a member of our group). This
finding is consistent with our attribution of architectural ceramics to local manufacture at the missions.
The respective attributions of the historic flume tile illustrate an important aspect of compositional studies. Compositional groups can be
formed with varying compactness and are considered adequate for some
purposes but not others. Hildebrand et al. considered SDI-2 to be a group
25
20
Thorium (ppm)
SDI1
SDI2
SAN DIEGO
15
FLUME TILE
10
0
0
50
100
150
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 11.20. Bivariate plot of flume tile from the San Diego reference
group and the SD1 and SD2 compositional groups of Patayan ceramics. Plot
is based on data generated by the University of Missouri Research Reactor
(Hildebrand et al. 2002), transformed for compatibility with NIST standard
reference material 1633 (coal fly ash), which the SmithsonianSanta Clara
University Pottery Project uses as an analytical standard.
that was sufficiently formed to be considered separate from the desert

groups. In turn, they saw it as a basis for seeking textural/mineralogical
properties that might covary with geographic location (Hildebrand et al.
2002, 136). But the group they formed to show differences among it and
other groups does not appear to be sufficiently refined for an accurate
attribution of comparative samples, such as the historic tile. Inspection
of Figure 11.20 illustrates the variation in concentrations of thorium and
chromium among the SDI-1, SDI-2, and San Diego reference groups. The
dispersion of the SDI-2 samples in the plot is obvious. The position of
the flume tile in terms of these two concentrations is shown by a separate
symbol that locates it in the San Diego area of these two dimensions.
What we consider to be a misattribution of the flume tile to the SDI-2
group may have been caused, in part, by Hildebrand et al.s reliance on
membership probabilities based on a seemingly arbitrary selection of
the first six principal components. Principal components are linear combinations of the original measurements extracted (in this case) from a
variance-covariance matrix. The first component represents the maximum dimension of variation through the pooled dataset and each subsequent component represents a lesser amount of the variation. It is
unlikely that poorly represented samples in a dataset will have much influence on what determines the maximum direction of variation. There is
always a danger when too little information is extracted from a variancecovariance matrix or a correlation matrix, but there is also a danger of
incorporating variation that might be trivial or noise. The Tizon Brown
Ware study provides an example of how possible groups may be created rather than found during some modeling of a compositional dataset.
How compact or loose compositional groups are formed may have a significant impact on archaeological interpretation.
The flume tile aside, Figure 11.20 illustrates the separation of the San
Diego reference group, which contains Tizon Brown Ware members,
from the groups of Hildebrand et al. (2002). The matching of San Diego
Tizon Brown Ware to the architectural ceramics and ware illustrates our
finding that the San Diego Tizon Brown Ware ceramics were made locally. Differences between the San Diego materials and the Tizon Brown
Ware of Hildebrand et al. are likely an indication of multiple manufacturing areas or the use of different resources at different times. More research is warranted.
12
Native American Ceramics
Found at Old Town San Diego
Trade or Local Manufacture?
D. Larry Felton, Glenn Farris, and Eloise Richards Barter
Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, located about 20 miles from
the Mexican border, marks an important crossroad in California history.
It is adjacent to the site of the earliest permanent Spanish colonial settlement in Alta California, the mission and presidio established on a nearby
mesa in 1769. The local Kumeyaay Indian people were quickly displaced
by the colonists; some were pulled into the mission, while others resisted
and fled. In the 1820s, after the Mexican War of Independence, soldiers
retiring from the presidio built homes along the terrace of the San Diego
River within the boundaries of the modern park.
This little Mexican pueblo was soon drawn into a thriving world economy, one that transported the cornucopia of goods from the British industrial revolution and the China trade to new and ever-expanding consumer markets. Residents of Alta California capitalized on the livestock
economy begun by the missionaries, trading huge quantities of cowhides
and tallow destined for the factories of Britain and New England for
newly available imported consumer goods. San Diego became an important port for this trade and the adopted home of foreign merchants, including a number of prominent Americans. In 1846, expanding U.S. imperial and economic interests precipitated the Mexican-American War,
during which Alta California was captured and San Diego was occupied
by U.S. troops.
Native American Ceramics Found at Old Town San Diego219
Over 150 years later, excavations in Block 408 in Old Town San Diego
exposed archaeological deposits, building foundations, and artifacts associated with several households from the Mexican republic and early
American periods. The artifacts recovered included the expected consumer goods from Britain, China, Mexico, and elsewhere. More surprising, however, was the overwhelming indication in these same deposits of
a substantial Native American presence. This included large volumes of
Native American ceramics and flaked stone and other artifacts that suggest Native American occupants and material culture.
This ample archaeological signature contrasted sharply with representation of Native Americans in traditional historical and interpretive
presentations, wherein Indians are ephemeral presences, especially after the demise of the missions in the mid-1830s. How might we explain
the overwhelming but enigmatic suggestion of Native Americans in the
Pueblo of San Diego in the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s?
To paraphrase Nol Humes book title, if these potsherds could talk,
we would have posed the following questions to them:
What might explain the huge numbers of Indian-made ceramics on
a site historians have stated was occupied primarily by retired Spanish soldiers and their families? Was there perhaps a more substantial
Native American community living in the pueblo than is suggested by
traditional historical sources?
Would Hispanic families have utilized such an abundance of Native
American wares rather than familiar Mexican-made pottery or massproduced wares imported from England or China?
Were the ceramics in fact of Native American origin, or did they
represent similar traditions brought by the colonists from Mexico or
elsewhere?
What were the original vessel forms and how were they made and
used? We recovered over 23,000 pieces of unglazed brown ware.
All of them were broken and many consisted of only tiny fragments,
so identifying the vessel forms represented was itself a significant
challenge.
Where and by whom were these vessels made, transported, and marketed? Were they manufactured in town from waterborne clay deposits readily available from the San Diego River bed or at more distant
locations near traditional Native American clay sources and kiln sites?
Did the same people use the same materials to make the roof and paving tiles that are so common to Spanish colonial architecture and so
well represented in the same deposits as the pottery?
These were among the questions we posed as we embarked on the research reported here. We used traditional archaeological ceramic classification approaches, archival research, and scientific analyses that quantified the minerals and elements present in pottery, tile, and clay samples.
The results are gratifying and frustrating, definitive and circumstantial.
The sherds have spoken, but they have revealed only incomplete stories
in faint and distant voices.
Historical Context
The pueblo of San Diego, located on the flood plain at the foot of the bluff
on which the presidio once stood, was first identified in historical records
as the site of an orchard, or huerta, owned by the military commander of
the time, Jos Mara Ruiz (Whitehead 1986, Plate 11). With the conclusion of the Mexican War of Independence (18101821), many royal Spanish army soldiers found themselves in an awkward position. For much of
that decade, they had received hardly any pay. At the same time, many
had large families to support. Retirements became common, and as retirees lost their right of residence in the presidio, they needed to establish
new homes. Some obtained land grants and established ranchos. Others
decided to simply move down the hill, build homes, and plant gardens
along the San Diego River. Even families with established land grants in
the broader hinterland of San Diego sometimes also maintained a home
in town.
Though San Diego is generally seen as a sleepy little town, its status was enhanced in the years 18251831 when the governor of Alta
California, Jos Mara Echeandia, chose to live there rather than in
Monterey, the provincial capital. Several young officers who were later
prominent in California history, including Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo
and Agustn Vicente Zamorano, also found their way to San Diego. As
the governor was fond of parties, the desire to be in the center of social
activity may have been a reason soldiers chose to have a town residence.
In keeping with its enhanced political and economic importance, several Yankee merchants made their headquarters in the pueblo; one no-
table example was Henry Delano Fitch. As the hide and tallow trade
grew, the port of San Diego became the main collection point for hides
gathered along the coast of California before they were shipped to New
England.
Some of the retired soldiers entertained visions of grandeur, and fortunately for them, there was a ready supply of servants in the local Indian
population. The Indian population in San Diego grew after the secularization of the missions in 1833, when many of the Christianized Native
American peoples were turned out of the mission establishments to seek
employment where they could. Although some returned to their native
rancheras, others opted to remain in the familiar Mexican communities
where they had spent much of their lives. Therefore, a number of the
families of the retired soldiers had Indian servants. The realization of this
basic fact casts a new light on the presence of traditional Indian artifacts,
particularly ceramics, in the archaeological deposits dating to the period
of 18301850.
Block 408, the location of the archaeological work reported here, was
the site of homes of several prominent families. These include Californio
descendants of presidial soldiers as well as American merchants who had
married into those Californio families (figure 12.1).
The Fitch-Carrillo Household
Joaqun Carrillo and Mara Ignacia de la Candelaria Lopez may have been
the first residents of Block 408, based on Judge Benjamin Hayess state-
GARDEN STREET
EUGENIA
SILVAS
AGUILAR
OSUNA
FITCH
SNOOK
FITCH STREET
Figure 12.1. Map showing residents of Block 408, San Diego, ca. 1830s
1840s.
ment that the Fitch House was built in 1821 (Hayes 1874). Since Henry
Delano Fitch did not come on the scene until the end of that decade,
the house probably belonged to Fitchs wife, Mara Antonia Natalia Elijah Josefa Carrillo, the eldest daughter of Joaqun and Mara Ignacia (see
Pourade 1963, 11).
Fitch was a sea captain and a merchant who married Josepha Carrillo
after a dramatic elopement to Chile and eventual return to San Diego.
They subsequently had a family of eleven children. At some point the
Fitches presumably took over the large Carrillo family house that faced
onto Calhoun Street (Pourade 1963, 11). For a while Captain Fitch operated his store out of his home (Ogden 1981, 240), but he later built a
separate store nearby. Until that time, Fitch used part of the next-door
Osuna home to store his inventory. Fitch died in 1849, and his ruined
adobe collapsed in a storm in 1884.
The Osuna Household
The parcel southeast of the Fitches along Calhoun Street was owned
by Juan Mara Osuna, who married Mara Juliana Josefa Lopez. He was
elected first alcalde of the newly established pueblo of San Diego on January 1, 1835. One of his daughters, Felipa, married Juan Mara Marrn and
figures prominently in historical accounts, as her memoirs were recorded
by Thomas Savage in 1878. Osuna is believed to have obtained his lots on
Block 408 in 1838.
Mara Juliana Josefa Lopez was the second Lopez sister to take up
residence on Block 408; Josepha Fitch was her niece. The adjacent FitchCarrillo and Osuna households, with numerous cousins in residence,
must have been lively. The Osunas split their time between their house
in the pueblo of San Diego and their rancho, San Dieguito. Osuna died in
1847. His heirs sold the property to W. Evans in 1861.
The Snook Household
American sea captain Joseph (Jos Francisco) Snook married Mara Antonia Alvarado at the San Diego presidio chapel on December 2, 1837.
The couple took up residence on Calhoun Street, next door to (northwest
of ) the Fitches. Snook died in 1848. It is probable that his wife encountered hard times following his demise, as an 1853 court action accused
her of operating a low groggery in San Diego. No archaeological evidence of the Snook home or groggery has been discovered.
The Silvas Household
Mara Eugenia Silvas owned a small residential lot on Garden Street behind the Fitch and Snook properties. The Silvas household was of particular interest to project archaeologists because her property was the
focus of much excavation work in preparation for the reconstruction of
the 1869 McCoy House.
We have no documentation of when or how Mara Eugenia Silvas acquired this property, but we know that she sold it to Julian Ames in 1851.
However, we can trace her presence in the San Diego area since at least
1813, primarily through church documents that record her role as a godparent, her marriages, and the baptisms of her 13 known children (Davidson 19351937). Maria Eugenia Silvas was the daughter of presidial
soldier Jose Manuel Silvas. She married Jos Ramon Lisalde, a leather
jacket soldier from the presidio, in 1816. Following Lisaldes death, Maria
Eugenia married Calixto Jos Antonio Ybarra.
Indian Servants in the Pueblo of San Diego
In the pueblo, Indian servants probably performed many domestic duties. In some cases the family cook was an Indian male. Although males
would seldom, if ever, occupy this role in the Indian community, men
were employed as cooks in the missions. After the secularization of the
missions, the men who were trained to cook for the priests very likely
sought employment with Mexican families. The fact of the sizable number of Indian servants in the pueblo of San Diego is made particularly
clear in a census, or padrn, of these servants living in the pueblo of San
Diego dated April 17, 1836 (Hayes n.d.). At least 26 servants and their
families are listed.
It was possible to identify some of these servants in the mission rec
ords for Mission San Diego de Alcal and the nearby Mission San Luis
Rey, thereby providing considerably more information about them and
their families than is presented in the census. Such details often included
baptism dates and ages, parents names and home villages, godparents
names, marriage dates, occupation in the mission, and other facts that
help shed more light on these individuals than is available from any other
sources. Unfortunately, little such information has been forthcoming
from mission records for individual Native Americans we can actually
place in the households included in the archaeological study of Block 408
(see Farris 2003).
Some of the servants and other members of Block 408 households
do, however, figure very prominently in accounts of an Indian uprising
in May 1837. Information about this event is provided in the memoirs
of several San Diego residents, including Jos Maria Estudillo (1878),
Felipa Osuna de Marrn (1878), and Juana Machado de Wrightington
(1878). This plot co-occurred with the period of general Indian attacks
that wracked San Diego County in 1837, which included the attack on the
Jamul Rancho in April 1837.
While details differ somewhat, all three informants tell of a plot by a
group of Indian servants in San Diego to rob the Fitch store, kill the store
manager (Lawrence Hatwell), and kidnap Mrs. Fitch (Josefa Carrillo) and
Mrs. Marrn (Felipa Osuna de Marrn). The plot was foiled by Felipa
Osuna, thanks to her knowledge of the Indian language, and those involved were pursued and executed. Juana Machado de Wrightingtons account noted that the plot was revealed by Candelaria, one of Mrs.Fitchs
servants. Sra. Machado de Wrightington stated that Mrs. Fitch was
Candelarias godmother, or madrina, indicating a relationship that transcended that of mistress and servant, although this has not been confirmed in the mission records.
One of the alleged plotters, Juan Antonio, was the cook in the Estudillo home (Estudillo 1878, 8 ff.). There is some confusion about dates in
the Estudillo account, but it seems clear it is the same event described in
the June 1, 1837, entry in the diary of Faxon Dean Atherton (1964, 50):
Capt. Fitch went on shore for home, having learnt that two of his Indian
servants had been shot for being concerned in a conspiracy to murder
his wife and family, also all the inhabitants of San Diego. His servants got
into a dispute about what they should do with Mrs. Fitch. One was for
killing her, the other wished to take her with him to the Tulares and in
their dispute they were overheard by a little Indian boy who gave Mrs.F.
the information and they were immediately apprehended and before being shot, confessed the whole. There were three other accomplices shot
with them.
Juana Machado de Wrightington (1878, 17) remembered more details

of the Indians involved. She identified them as
Nario, Christian from Baja California, Jos Maria, also from Baja, Carrancio, from the Cuyamaca mountains and married in San Diego, Juan
Antonio, from here in San Diego, Pedro Pablo, this latter was also from the
same mountains.
The story of this abortive plot is interesting in several respects, including confirmation of the presence of Indian men and women in Californio
households, a fact that helps account for artifacts of seeming Native
American origin found mixed with other imported goods.
Archaeological Context
The ceramic collections discussed were recovered during archaeological
excavations in Block 408 in the years 1993 to 2000. This work was part
of a redevelopment project that included reconstruction of the James
McCoy house, which was built near the center of the block in 1869 (see
Felton and Farris 1996).
While many architectural elements of the McCoy House were discovered, most of the artifacts recovered represent earlier occupations dating to the Mexican republic era (18211846) and early American period
(1846ca. 1855). Several buildings in Block 408 were reportedly among
the earliest residences in Old Town San Diego, built by soldiers retiring
from the nearby presidio after the Mexican War of Independence. None
of these buildings survive; most were in ruins or demolished by the time
McCoy acquired these parcels and constructed his house in 1869.
Archaeological assemblages were recovered from parcels associated
with the several different Mexican republic era households, including
those of Henry Delano Fitch, Juan Mara Osuna, Joseph Snook, and
Mara Eugenia Silvas. Several factors limit our ability to compare and interpret the archaeological collections in terms of these individual households. While samples were recovered from parcels associated with each
of the four households mentioned, the areas excavated in each, and thus
the size of the assemblages, were by no means comparable. Most of the
artifacts were recovered from stratified sheet refuse deposits overlying
old living surfaces. While these deposits were excavated stratigraphically

and generally had good integrity, the fact that much of Block 408 was
abandoned and many buildings were in ruins during the 1850s and 1860s
suggests that some assemblages may represent post-occupation trash
disposal.
In spite of the uncertainty involved in ascribing specific artifacts to
specific residents, we want to emphasize the solid temporal placement
of the deposits that yielded the brown wares subjected to the analyses
reported here. Using primarily dated British earthenwares, the terminus
post quem dates for these deposits range from 1834 to 1846. The major
deposits bearing brown ware were being laid down in most areas until at
least the mid-1840s, and this process may have continued into the early
1850s.
Architectural features representing several Mexican republic era
buildings and yard walls were encountered during the Block 408 excavations. These include traditional cobblestone foundations for adobe
walls, adobe bricks, and tile-paved floors (these are not discussed further
here). One other group of adobe wall foundations has potential implications for ceramic production in the area. These footings were shallow
trenches filled with large volumes of floor tile and roof tile kiln wasters.
They represent portions of at least two buildings that are believed to have
been constructed in the 1830s or earlier. Many of these kiln wasters are
severely overfired, as indicated by warped and bloated shapes. In many
cases, the bodies have a vesicular, glassy, pumice-like texture. All are broken, and some underfired.
Upon discovering these features, we hypothesized that a nearby tile
kiln was a ready source of large quantities of wasters. Other excavations
revealed substantial strata of alluvial clays in over-bank flood deposits
from the nearby San Diego River, leading us to further speculate that
these might be the source of raw material used for both architectural tiles
and the unglazed pottery we were recovering. Extensive archaeological
work has been completed in the vicinity of Old Town and the presidio,
but no kiln site or other significant waster deposits have been reported.
Both the elemental and mineralogical data reported here seem to preclude the use of the alluvial clays for manufacture of either architectural
ceramics or household pottery.
The Ceramic Collection

Over 38,000 ceramic fragments were recovered from the excavations in
Block 408. These included British, Chinese, and Mexican ceramics, as
would be expected for sites from this period. The most notable aspect of
the collection, however, is the overwhelming predominance of unglazed
brown wares: these are represented by over 23,000 fragments, or about
61 percent of the collection (Table 12.1).
Although the brown ware specimens are often broken into small fragments and are notoriously difficult to reconstruct, simple paddle-andanvil bowls and pots are the most common forms present. Sherds often
have sooted exteriors, suggesting that they were used as cooking vessels.
These ceramics are most commonly referred to in the literature as Tizon
Brown Ware.
Wares similar or identical to the historic period Old Town material were widely produced by Native Americans throughout San Diego
County during the late prehistoric period, and Native American people
continued production of ceramics into the historic period. While it
seemed probable that material present in historic period deposits in Old
Town derived from the local Kumeyaay ceramic tradition, we could not
preclude the possibility that a Spanish colonial or Mexican tradition was
not also represented.
The sheer volume of unglazed brown wares hypothesized to be of Native American manufacture in historic period deposits in Old Town suggests widespread and ongoing use of these vessels. This in turn implies
a lively ceramic industry through at least the 1840s and raises a number
of intriguing questions about the production and distribution of these
wares that we hoped to address through analysis.
Table 12.1. Old Town ceramic collection
Lead-Glazed (Mexican)
Stoneware (European, American)
Maylica (Mexican)
Buff Ware (Native American)
Porcelain (mostly Chinese)
Earthenware (mostly British)
Brown Ware (mostly Native American)
Total
211
355
368
457
1,272
12,094
23,601
38,358
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.2
3.3
31.5
61.5
100.0
Study Methods
Analysis of the brown wares from Block 408 was conducted in several
different phases, using different analytic methods. The final objective
was to integrate the results of these diverse perspectives into a coherent explanation of the place of indigenous pottery in the pueblo of San
Diego.
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Study (INAA)
At the request of the SmithsonianUniversity of Southern California Pottery Project, we submitted 85 Old Town San Diego samples to the project in 2001 for INAA. These included 39 unglazed brown ware sherds,
30 architectural samples (floor and roof tiles) from Block 408, and five
samples of alluvial clays from nearby San Diego River deposits. The remaining specimens included presumed Mexican lead-glazed wares and a
single piece of Colorado buff ware.
The specimens selected to undergo INAA represent different site areas, but they were submitted prior to more detailed analysis of vessel
forms, materials, and manufacture methods.
Study of the Form, Fabrication, and Use of Vessels
Although a preliminary catalog had been completed previously, a more
in-depth analysis of the unglazed brown wares was begun in 2004 by
Eloise Barter with assistance from Sue Wade, D. L. Felton, and others.
This work included a review of the entire collection with the primary
objectives of identifying the vessel forms in use in historic Old Town San
Diego, describing the manufacture methods and materials, and discovering whether the historic brown wares differed significantly from precontact Tizon Brown Wares.
During this review, individually cataloged pieces (e.g., rim sherds, decorated items, handles, and unusual forms) were retrieved, as were other
items that attracted the analysts attention (e.g., distinctive manufacturing marks). A key challenge was to identify specimens (e.g., rim sherds)
large enough to use for identification of vessel forms (figure 12.2).
While the fabric attributes of the brown wares generally appeared to
be homogeneous, some variation in color, texture, and composition was
noted while sorting the collection. To more fully assess this variability, a
Figure 12.2. General vessel forms recovered in historic Old Town San
Diego. Drawing by David L. Felton.
relatively large assemblage from a single well-defined early a rchaeological

context was subjected to detailed visual inspection (Artifact Lot P1116169; 388 sherds; TPQ date: 1834). While this assemblage constitutes only
1.6 percent of the total brown ware sample, it proved to be representative and allowed identification of several different visual groups that
now appear to correlate with different fabric and firing treatments. The
specimens selected for vessel form identification were also subsequently
classified in terms of these visual groups.
Thin-Section Mineral Identification Study

Petrographic thin sections of 100 ceramic specimens, including 76 brown
ware samples, were prepared by Richard Meyers in 20042005. Mineral
frequencies were identified by Karen Shabel (Gallucci), using facilities
at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. As was the case with the INAA
studies, identifying the origins of the brown ware ceramics in use in Old
Town was a primary objective of the thin-section study.
The thin-sectioned specimens included 76 brown ware samples that
were selected to represent a range of vessel forms and visual groups
established during the analyses described above. Six architectural tiles
were also thin sectioned. Twenty-three of the brown ware and architectural specimens selected for thin sectioning had previously been subjected to INAA analysis.
Historical Research
Concurrent with other studies, Glenn Farris (2003) explored historical
sources that would help interpret the Native American artifacts recovered from historic period deposits in Old Town San Diego. While he
found almost no primary source material that documented the manufacture or distribution of the brown ware found in such abundance, he discovered substantial information about the presence of Native American
servants in many of the Californio households in Old Town San Diego.
Eloise Barter conducted additional research in the ethnographic literature on local ceramic production methods and clay sources and consulted early twentieth-century soils maps that help document nearby residual clays, the most likely sources of ceramic raw material.
Study Results
Study of the brown ware pottery recovered during excavations in Block
408 supports the following general conclusions. Evidence for these assertions are described in more detail below.
Local Native American pottery continued to be used extensively in
Mexican households.
Predominant vessel forms included small bowls and pots, along with
a few examples of water bottles and comales. No major changes in
traditional Native American vessel forms could be demonstrated.
Sooting patterns suggest that bowls and pots were used for cooking as
well as storage.
Traditional quarries of residual clay from the nearby Peninsular Range
were the source of raw material for most of the brown wares present.
While this general conclusion is supported by elemental and mineral
analyses, they did not provide any more specific identification about
clay sources. Circumstantial arguments for a source in Spring Valley
have been developed from other sources.
INAA and mineral analysis indicate that local alluvial clays were not
used to manufacture the pottery or architectural tiles sampled.
Four examples of Salton Brown Ware, made of alluvial clays from
the desert region (Salton Trough) east of the Peninsular Range, were
identified through thin-section analysis.
There is some evidence for the introduction of new ceramic technology, including the use of dung temper and adjustments to traditional
firing methods.
Materials and Preparation

The term Tizon Brown, whether it is used as a ware or a type designation, is a slippery slope in southern California archaeology (see Hildebrand et al. 2002, 121122). Although originally defined for use in
northwestern Arizona, the term is now commonly used for much of the
unglazed brown paddle-and-anvil pottery recovered in southern California. We adopted the inclusive ware designation but are aware of discussions of its validity and the problems involved in defining types (see
discussion in chapter 11).
Over 23,000 sherds in the 19932000 Old Town excavation catalogs
were classified as Tizon Brown Ware. In reviewing the samples we found
few exceptions to that identification.
The difficulty of ware/type labeling, which depends upon visual recognition, becomes most apparent when specialized investigations are
carried out. Based on the minerals present, thin-section analysis identified four sherds as Salton Brown Ware (Shabel 2005, 3). Visually, those
four sherds did not differ from the Tizon Brown Ware in the collection.
Unfortunately, we learned of the presence of Salton Brown Ware after

the INAA samples were submitted, so we lack elemental data that we
can compare with known members of this group. Hildebrand et al. reported INAA data for Salton Brown Ware and were able to differentiate
this and other eastern desert pottery from western mountain groups, including Tizon Brown Ware (see Hildebrand et al. 2002, 131, figure 10.4).
Reexamination of INAA data from the current study might identify other
as-yet-unrecognized examples of Salton Brown Ware.
Lot 169 Study
When sites yield an abundance of ceramics, archaeologists develop mental templates for the sherds found there. If there is agreement on attributes of wares and their subordinate types, sherds that fit these ideals can
be sorted quickly, with little hesitation or consultation.
In the absence of decorative or other surface attributes by which to
further differentiate most sherds identified as Tizon Brown, we were
curious about whether there were any consistent, easily distinguishable
variations in the fabric of these ceramics that might be used to separate
them. If so, would these perceived fabric templates be confirmed by the
INAA and mineralogical thin-section studies?
A subset of 388 Tizon Brown Ware sherds from a single early archaeological context (Lot 169; TPQ date 1834) was examined closely to test
this possibility. Without the use of either fresh breaks or magnification,
these specimens were sorted into groups that visually had similar fabric
characteristics. Repeated sorting over several months resulted in three
major visual groups described below. Samples from other lots selected
for vessel form identification were subsequently classified in terms of
these groups.
Tizon Brown Ware (TBW) Group
The sherds in this group were from vessels built from residual clays by
coiling. The walls were then thinned with a paddle and anvil. Firing temperature was low. The sherds in the study had a dark reddish-gray medium to coarse fabric. It contained poorly sorted angular or subangular
granitic inclusions. Nothing distinguished these sherds from the Tizon
Brown Ware found throughout San Diego County.
The TBW Group was the most frequent class (76 percent of the Lot
169 study). Both thin-section and INAA analyses confirmed the presence
of large, homogeneous analytic groups that correspond well with the vi-
sual Tizon Brown Ware group. Mineral content of the brown wares in the
collection was typical of Tizon Brown Ware, and those pieces, as well as
the construction materials sampled, were made from residual clays derived from the Peninsular Range batholith (Shabel 2005, 3, 5). The INAA
study identified a single geochemical signature for the San Diego region
that subsumes most of the unglazed brown wares and architectural samples (Skowronek, Bishop, et al. 2005).
Laminar Group
These specimens are similar in appearance to the TBW Group, but the
fabric is characterized by scattered laminae that are often (but not always) parallel to the vessel surface. There are small round voids, short
longitudinal voids, and an occasional longitudinal cast that is clearly botanical in origin. Subsequent microscopic inspection suggested that an
organic temper, possibly dung, had been added. Laminar sherds made up
17 percent of the Lot 169 sample.
The laminar visual group could not be differentiated on the basis of
minerals or other attributes (e.g., voids) during thin-section study (Shabel 2005, 5). In the INAA results, however, five of the laminar group
specimens were classified as OUTLIER, while eight others were placed
securely within the San Diego region reference group. The only other Old
Town San Diego pieces classified as OUTLIER in the INAA study were
two roof tile specimens and one floor tile specimen.
We suspect the group identified as laminar was made from the same
residual clays as Tizon Brown Ware with dung or other organic inclusions added to the fabric. INAA might be used to discover compositional
differences that reflect, in addition to different clay sources, specific
mixtures of clays and tempering materials that might represent the fabric recipes of pottery producers (Skowronek, Bishop, et al. 2005, 4). It
is interesting that the three additional outliers among the Old Town San
Diego samples are tiles. While these were not subjected to the same visual analysis as the pottery sherds, organic inclusions are often noted in
architectural ceramics from this period, especially floor tiles.
Organic-tempered pottery has been reported previously at the San
Diego presidio but purportedly occurred there only in red-slipped
Hispano-Indian red wares, similar to those produced in Sonora by adding horse manure to the clay (Williams and Cohen-Williams 1997, 34).
There are also ethnographic reports of Pai Pai paddle-and-anvil potters
from Santa Catarina in Baja California using dung as the tempering agent
(Fenenga and Heredia 1995, 4; Wilken 1999, 124). Mission period pottery
elsewhere in California sometimes includes chaff temper, but it appears
to have been more common in the northern missions, where there was
no indigenous ceramic tradition (Frierman 1982, 24).
We suggest the laminar group represents a postcontact change in traditional Tizon Brown Ware fabric preparation, namely the addition of
manure or other organics for some batches. We have not been able to
correlate other obviously introduced attributes (e.g., new vessel forms or
slips or other surface treatments) with this change in fabric preparation,
however.
Red SurfaceGray Core (RS/GC) Group
About 10 percent of the Lot 169 sample exhibits an abrupt color change
from a red surface rind to a gray core. This initially appeared to be a slip
or a float, although subsequent analysis demonstrated that the two zones
were part of the same fabric, differing only in color. We now believe that
this group represents different firing methods rather than differences in
material or preparation (see discussion of firing below).
Clay Sources
As discussed above, all lines of evidence point to residual clays weathered

from the batholith of the Peninsular Range to the east of San Diego as
the probable source of raw material for most of the brown ware pottery
present in the Block 408 collection. We had hoped that these technical
studies might provide more specific identification of clay sources. Simply
knowing that the clays are from the mountains to the east is of relatively
little use in developing more detailed understanding of the economics of
ceramic production and distribution during the Mexican republic era.
The historical record has also been frustratingly vague on the subject.
One alternate source, secondary deposits of alluvial clays found along
the old bed of the San Diego River adjacent to Old Town, was conclusively excluded on the basis of both thin-section and INAA analysis
(Shabel 2005, 5; Skowronek, Bishop, et al. 2005, 11). Another nearby clay
source that we considered was Rose Canyon, located 10 miles north of
Old Town. While this was the major source of clay for San Diego brick
and tile manufacture in the 1920s, samples subjected to INAA analysis in
an earlier study found it to be unrelated to local Tizon Brown Ware pottery (Hildebrand et al. 2002, 136).
In spite of the lack of primary archaeological or documentary data, a

plausible circumstantial argument can be developed for ceramic manufacture in Spring Valley, located about 11 miles east of Old Town. This
hypothesis is based on a few ethnographic accounts, previous archaeological work, and a 1915 soils map.
San Diego soils, including residual clay soils from which good pottery
clay might be quarried, were systematically mapped in 1915 (Holmes and
Pendleton 1918). The sources of residual clays nearest to Old Town San
Diego include Spring Valley and the area just east of the San Diego Mission Dam and the Flume Historic Site in Mission Gorge. These areas are
between 11 and 12 miles from Old Town.
Ethnographic and archaeological sources also suggest that Spring
Valley was a likely clay source for the brown ware found in Old Town
San Diego. Diegueo women are known to have regarded potters clay
from (Spring) valley so highly that they traveled 60 miles to obtain it,
according to Harry Happy Sharp (Heizer and Treganza 1944, 334). The
Kumeyaay village of Neti (Meti; CA-SDI-4638) was located in Spring
Valley, where the Bancroft Ranch House Museum is now located. Neti
was occupied at least until 1860, when the ranch was established. There
have been sporadic archaeological excavations at the site that began in
1969. The existence of large quantities of fire-cracked rock, a natural
clay source, and recovered coils of fired clay seems to imply that Neti
was the location of an extensive pottery manufacturing site (Carrico and
Ainsworth 1974, 9)
Unfortunately, no clay samples from Spring Valley or other areas suggested by the 1918 soils map were included in the INAA work reported
here. However, a clay sample from Mission Gorge was analyzed by Hildebrand et al. (2002, 135). They placed this in their SDI-2 compositional
group, which included Tizon Brown Wares from a number of widely
scattered archaeological sites along the coast and in the Peninsular Range
and a historic period ceramic tile from the San Diego Mission water system. These results (similar composition of widely scattered clay sources)
cast further doubts on our probably naive hope that INAA and/or thinsection analysis has the potential to help identify specific clay sources
with much certainty.
Even if we had been able to identify specific clay sources such as Spring
Valley or the Mission Gorge area with more precision, that alone would
not have told us whether the pots were made there and subsequently
marketed in Old Town or if raw clay was hauled to a potter nearer to

their ultimate destination. Skilled female traditional potters, who were
accustomed to working in isolation (see Rogers 1973 [1936], 5), may have
remained near the quarries at Neti or elsewhere. More knowledge about
pottery production, distribution, and marketing will have to await fortuitous finds in the archival or archaeological record.
Forming
Study of the Block 408 collection indicated that potters supplying the
pueblo of San Diego were making classic paddle-and-anvil vessels, as
described by Fenenga and Heredia (1995), Carrico (1983), Van Camp
(1979), and especially Rogers (1973 [1936]). While most paddle and other
construction marks were obliterated when the damp pot was smoothed,
our sample had occasional anvil marks, impressions from basket molds,
and fiber mop wipes. There was no evidence of wheel throwing and only
relatively minor evidence of introduced vessel forms.
One hundred and nine brown ware specimens (rim sherds and mended
groups of rim and body sherds) from the 23,000+ sherds recovered were
found to be of sufficient size and integrity to estimate vessel shape and
size. The vessel counts presented below are based on these specimens.
We estimated vessel shapes and sizes using approaches common
among ceramic analysts. This included orienting the plane of the rim to
horizontal, then estimating the projection of the vessel wall to establish
a likely vessel form. Vessel form ideals were derived primarily from Sue
Wades work, which was developed from observations of archaeological
specimens in the San Diego Museum of Man (Wade 2000, 1222). Vessel mouth diameters were estimated from these same specimens using a
table of concentric circles. Sooting patterns and other distinctive attributes were also noted. These observations were repeated by at least three
analysts, and samples were reexamined if results were inconsistent.
Six vessel forms were identified in the Block 408 collection; vessel
shapes and sizes are summarized below. With the exception of the comal,
all matched prehistoric shapes in Wades study (Table 12.2).
Bowls are the most common form present, followed closely by pots.
Together these make up about 92 percent of the sample. Pots are characterized by constricted necks; unlike bowls, their mouths are smaller than
the projected body diameters. Bowls and pots are further subdivided into
two variants each, based primarily on body and rim morphology. In all the
Totals
Bottle
Water bottle
Recurved rim
Simple rim
Pot
Comal
Open
Vertical
Bowl
611
38
19
10
7
1
1217
31
5
7
13
5
1823
18
9
5
2429
Table 12.2. Vessel form and rim diameter (centimeters)
10
4
3
3035
1
1
3641
4247
4853
9.0/2.16
26.0/10.10
17.2/5.30
17.4/2.79
22.8/7.81
26.7/7.72
Avg./SD
109
30
17
37
16
Totals
shapes, rims were casually made, often changing form on a single sherd.
Lips were predominantly flat, although open bowls had both round and
flat lips. A single sherd had carefully executed diagonal exterior ridges
on the lip.
Four specimens were identified as water bottles (Wades olla). These
were vessels with short necks and small mouths. Two water bottle samples that were submitted for thin sectioning were among those identified
as Salton Brown Ware.
We identified five sherds as comales, flat or very shallow clay vessels
used as griddles. These were common vessel forms throughout Latin
America. Similar forms are referred to in California archaeological literature as trays, bowls, plates, griddles, and parching trays. Two of the
Block 408 samples are sooted.
It is possible that some of these flat vessels represent introduced (e.g.,
Mexican) comal forms. Three were included in the laminar fabric
group, which we hypothesize reflects the introduction of dung or other
organic tempering by Hispanic colonists. Thin-section analysis identified
another piece as Salton Brown Ware, suggesting that this group may include traditional southern Californian as well as introduced forms.
In addition to the common vessel forms described above, a few additional decorative, unusual, and nontraditional brown ware specimens
were identified during the initial cataloging and sorting. There were two
handle fragments, two foot ring sherds, two pinch pots, a scoop or spoon,
a spoon handle, and a doodle (a rolled broken piece of clay). The handles
and foot rings are notable, in that they represent introduced, nontraditional vessel elements.
Seventeen sherds had some design element, but all were too small to
discern a pattern (9 incised and 7 red paint). This is a rate of decoration
of about 0.04 percent of the total recovered sherds. In a comparable historic period assemblage from the nearby Rose-Robinson site (CA-SDI11,824H), there was a total of three incised sherds among 3,814 Tizon
Brown Ware specimens, a rate of 0.08 percent (Schulz and Barter 1985).
The very low frequencies of exotic forms and decorated pieces reinforce our impressions that the Tizon Brown Ware from the pueblo of
San Diego was primarily traditional and utilitarian. While some aspects
of traditional material preparation may have begun to change (e.g., the
introduction of dung/organic temper), the vessels being produced appear to have overwhelmingly conformed to the norms of the precontact
ceramic tradition.
Firing
The specimens identified as members of the Red SurfaceGray Core
Group, about 11 percent of the sample, were originally thought to represent a slip or float surface treatment. We now suspect that this group
reflects changing firing methods rather than differences in material or
preparation.
Kumeyaay fired their pottery in a pit-type kiln dug into the side of a
hill. The oak bark fuel around the pots was lit at sundown, and the coals
gave off intense heat for about two hours. Pots were removed the next
morning or after a day or two (Rogers 1973 [1936], 1415; Lucas 1983,
120). This is open firing, as opposed to a closed European kiln.
During open firing, when a vessel does not remain in the coals to cool,
its surface will be oxidized as it loses heat. A sharp interior margin results
when this occurs. This can be so distinct that some analysts have warned
that it might be mistaken for a slip (Rye 1981, 116118).
In historic period times, fuel sources in the San Diego vicinity were
decimated and animal dung may have begun to replace oak bark as fuel
in a Kumeyaay potters open kiln. Dung reaches a higher temperature
more quickly, but drops dramatically as the dung is volatilized, there being no charcoal left to retain heat. . . . In contrast, wood takes longer to
achieve a maximum temperature and does not burn quite as hot, but [it]
retains a high temperature much longer (Griset 1990, 13).
It is possible that the rapid loss of heat in an open dung-fired kiln resulted in our Red SurfaceGray Core sherds. It is not possible to say if the
rapid cooling was intentional, whether any single vessel was uniformly
affected, or if this result was even recognized by the potters as producing
vessels with distinguishing characteristics.
Although we considered the possibility that the pottery recovered on
Block 408 might have been produced on site, we cannot point to any archaeological or archival evidence that such was the case. While a number
of hearths and ash lenses were recorded, none appear to correspond to
the traditional pit kilns described in the ethnographic or archaeological literature. No tools (e.g., ceramic anvils, scrapers, burnishing tools)
that could securely be identified with ceramic production were noted,
although we concede that these could take the form of otherwise unmodified pebbles or cobbles and might not be recognizable as such. Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, we did not note any kiln wasters
besides the floor and roof tiles used as aggregate in the adobe founda-
tion trenches described previously. In sum, our best inference is that ceramic production, including firing, was taking place off site, very likely in
traditional locations, using largely traditional methods. The most likely
changes were the introduction of dung or other organic material as temper and possibly as fuel for firing.
Marketing, Use, and Reuse of Pottery
Perhaps the most disappointing outcome of our research is the complete lack of primary evidence for the marketing of traditional Native
American pottery to the Californio community. We can construct several scenarios, but they remain purely speculative. Perhaps these vessels
were simply brought in by Native American servants and quietly put into
service with no explicit acceptance or rejection from their California
overseers. On the other hand, one can imagine a variety of more overt
market mechanisms by which pottery could have been bought, sold, or
traded. These scenarios might include itinerant peddlers, periodic openair markets, travel to pottery-producing specialists or communities as
needed, or perhaps even inclusion of these wares in the stores operated
by merchants such as Henry Delano Fitch (MS 25, Fitch Family Papers,
San Diego History Center Document Collection, San Diego, California).
We just dont know, but we continue to hope that some as-yet-untapped
archival source might someday shed light on this intriguing question.
Identifying the use to which many of these vessels were put can be
approached with somewhat more confidence. The presence of sooting
on pottery hints that the vessels were used for cooking. The rim area
of vertical rim bowls, open bowls, and simple rim pots often had heavy
soot deposits (62 percent, 62 percent and 70 percent, respectively). Such
extensive sooting suggests frequent use over an open fire, although secondary burning cant be excluded as a possibility. Other analysts have
warned that using sooting patterns to determine use is subject to error
(Griset 1996, 188192).
Only 26 percent of recurved rim pot rims were sooted, less than seen
on other forms. Vessels represented by similar rim forms were identified as storage jars during excavation at the Rose Robinson Site in Old
Town Sacramento (Schulz, Quinn, and Fulmer 1987, 16). If one assumes
that cooking was done over open fires, recurved rim pots may have been
more frequently used for storage than bowls were. No abrading or scrap-
ing (as might have occurred when items were repeatedly inserted or removed from a pot) was noted.
After initial use of intact vessels for cooking or storage, broken pottery
fragments were sometimes modified and reused for other purposes. The
Block 408 collection includes two small discs, presumably game pieces,
made from fragments of Tizon Brown Ware. A completed piece was
ground to size (1.85 1.9 0.5 centimeters) and burnished on both major surfaces. A similar piece (2.5 2.49 0.6 centimeters) was chipped
into shape but was not ground or burnished. The presence of both incomplete and finished gaming pieces (if that was indeed their function)
may help corroborate our speculation that Indian men spent recreational
time in the yards of the Californio households in which they were employed. The presence of flaked stone and glass suggests that traditional
tool manufacturing activities were also taking place well into the 1840s.
13
Supplying Glazed Ceramics
to Alta California
Examination of the lead-glazed ceramics added a second dimension to

understanding pottery circulation within the Alta California mission and
presidio system, as these ceramics were generally thought to have been
imported from Mexico. Project researchers were fortunate to be able to
put their analyses of Alta California lead-glazed pottery in the context of
a perspective based on an extensive investigation of ceramics from the
historic craft centers in both Mexico and Spain. The hope was that patterns of manufacture and distribution would define directions of technological transmission. This still-expanding dataset provides a means for
assessing the number of locations that might have been supplying the
Alta California missions and presidios with lead-glazed ceramics.
The Economics of Supplying Alta California
Before the arrival of the Spanish in the eighteenth century, all overland
travel and trade in what would become Alta California was conducted
on foot. Many commodities were moved along the trails, including salt,
nuts, shell, furs, feathers, baskets, asphalt, and even pottery (Davis 1961,
1214). These trails were largely inadequate for wheeled traffic but were
ideally suited for mounted travel and for the horse and mule pack trains
that characterized the first Spanish incursions into this region. The pack
Supplying Glazed Ceramics to Alta California243
animals could carry approximately 30 percent of their body weight; for

most mules and horses that meant about 250300 pounds (110 to 140kg).
Goods needed to be laboriously packed and unpacked and carefully balanced every day. Without this care, the animals could be hurt or the load
could be spilled to the ground (Williams and Davis 2004, 4750). This
resulted in higher prices for goods on the borderlands; shipping costs
were so high that goods sometimes brought three to four times their
original price by the time they reached their destination (Caywood 1950,
9293). Despite the high cost of transportation, it was mule trains that
brought commodities to the hinterlands of New Spain from sources in
the south (Barnes 1980, 97; Goggin 1968, 216218).
In 1775, Spanish explorer Captain Juan Bautista de Anza had twenty
arrieros, or teamsters or muleteers, as part of his overland expedition
from Sonora to Alta California. Expedition members had 165 pack mules
and probably another 200 horses under their care at any given time
(Guerrero 2006, 85; Pourade 1971, 91). It would not have been unusual
for the pack train to be strung out over more than a mile. This may have
made some mules prone to straying or becoming prey to both human and
animal predators. With a 250-pound load the 165 mules in Anzas expedition would have been able to carry slightly less than 21 tons, or 41,250
pounds, of goods. This tenuous and expensive supply route slammed
shut in 1781, when the Yuma people destroyed the mission settlement
of San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuer on the Colorado River. After that,
communication with Mexico City, the capital of New Spain, was limited
to seaborne transportation.
Seaborne Commerce
The sea route from western Mexico could be difficult, and the 1,000-mile
trip from New Spain to San Diego could take as long as three months.
Prevailing westerly winds forced mariners to beat far out to sea and then
tack back eastward to the coast. However, return trips to Mexico usually
took no more than a few weeks.
San Blas was the stepping-off point from the coast of what is today
Nayarit, Mexico. The town, located some 125 miles south of Mazatln
on the mainland side of the mouth of the Gulf of California, was founded
in 1768 as a shipyard and naval depot. It was the main point of embarkation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for supply ships that
served both Baja and Alta California such as the Princesa, the Santiago,
the Prncipe, the San Carlos, the Sonora, and the Nuestra Seora de los
Remedios, also known as La Favorita (Archibald 1978; Pantoja y Arriaga
and Martinez 1982; Perissinotto 1998; Weber 1992). These vessels ranged
in size from 60 to 225 tons, and the largest were capable of carrying more
than 200 tons of cargo (Kemp 2010). One shipload of goods carried the
equivalent of five of Anzas mule trains. Because the motor of sea transport, the wind, was free, even lengthy voyages were more cost effective
than overland supply, even when the cost of food and water for the crew
was factored in. Supply ships carried many of the materials that made
this largely forgotten corner of the empire a familiar place for its expatriate residents (Chapman 1915, 184194). Extant account books reveal that
the harshness of life on the frontier was decreased through the importation of textiles, pharmaceuticals, tools, weapons, church fixtures, foods,
and a wide range of kitchen paraphernalia that included copper cooking
vessels, iron comales, Chinese porcelains, and Mexican-made lead- and
tin-glazed ceramics (Perissonotto 1998; Skowronek, Fanta, and Morales
n.d.). The possibility of loss of these desired and valuable commodities
through breakage or spoilage was not a trifling aspect of such commerce.
In this era, the bulk storage and shipping of such commodities was done
in wooden and ceramic vessels.
Shipping Containers
Until the first third of the twentieth century, wooden barrels were the
preferred method of moving bulk cargos of both liquid and dry commodities such as wine, beer, and nails. Crates and bags were cheaper, but they
were difficult to move and not very sturdy. Barrels, on the other hand,
were strong, durable, and watertight and were easily rolled and stacked.
However, evidence of the use of barrels is rare on Spanish colonial shipwrecks and terrestrial sites. The reason for this may be found in Iberia.
In Spain, geographic and climatic diversity combined to produce a
rich natural vegetation cover. Here we must distinguish, of course, between modern conditions and those that prevailed in the past. Today less
than 10 percent of Spain is forested and this is largely limited to the highland areas (Fisher and Bowen-Jones 1958, 48). In the sixteenth century,
the majority of Spain was wooded (Way 1962, 75, 78). In the southern
part of the Iberian Peninsula were thick forests with heavy stands of timber that were exploited for a millennium and a half by Romans, Moors,
and Spaniards. The timber was cut for export and for the construction of
ships (Lewis 1980, 79, 80; Way 1962, 78), houses, fuel, and barrels. Likewise, the now-barren Meseta Central, Spains high central plateau, was
a wooded and forested region into the fifteenth century (Way 1962, 12).
The disappearance of woodland cover was the result of human activities,
including uncontrolled cutting, burning for pasturage, and overgrazing
by sheep and goats. This change, it is important to note, was under way
in the sixteenth century, when forest products and woolens were at a premium in the markets of Europe (Fernandez 1972a, 68; Fernandez 1972b,
84; Fisher and Bowen-Jones 1958, 48; Vives 1972a, 38, 43; Vives 1972b,
262). Deforestation led to heavy erosion of the hills and sedimentation of
rivers and ports in the southern half of the country (Hoffman and Schultz
1988, 5359). This had implications for the manufacture of storage containers for moving commodities to New World colonies. While mature
oak trees might be harvested for shipbuilding or cooperage, the so-called
junk wood and brush were useful for firing kilns and for dunnage to
cushion ceramic containers in the holds of ships. The result was the continuation of the millennia-old tradition of making ceramic amphoras as
storage containers to the end of the nineteenth century. Some have suggested that commodities would be shipped in large barrels and then the
contents would be decanted into the smaller amphora for distribution
(Deagan 1987, 31; Fairbanks 1972, 142).
Past Research
Neutron activation analysis of lead-glazed ceramics offered an opportunity to monitor patterns of long-distance importing of goods for the
missions and presidios of California. We felt that imports from manufacturing centers in Spain or the large documented craft centers of colonial
Mexico were likely responsible for the lead-glazed pottery in our sample.
Unique to the project was access to a large database of compositional
data that was accumulated through decades of interest in tin-opacified
lead-glazed pottery and more recent work in an extensive program involving the non-opacified lead-glazed wares of colonial and republican
Mexico. Tin-opacified lead-glazed pottery was often collected or curated
because of the popularity of its finish and design, but the more abundant
non-opacified lead-glazed pottery of Mexico was often trampled underfoot. In both cases, sampling was opportunistic but benefited from the
collaboration of many archaeological professionals and students. Ultimately almost 600 lead-glazed ceramics were analyzed from California
Table 13.1. Sampling of lead-glazed pottery from Alta California

Glazed

San Diego, Fort Guijarros
San Diego Presidio
San Diego, Old Town
San Juan Capistrano
Total
La Pursima Concepcin
Mission Santa Buenaventura
Total
Mission Carmel
Monterey, San Carlos Cathedral
Mission San Antonio
San Luis Obispo, 64H, Chinatown
San Miguel, SLO-2189
Total
San Francisco Jurisdiction
Mission San Jose
Mission Santa Cruz
San Francisco
San Francisco de Ass
San Jose de Guadalupe
Santa Clara de Ass
Totals
Total Glazed Samples
Galera
Maylica
Totals
5
36
8
33
82
3
7
1
1
12
0
22
0
20
42
8
65
9
54
136
12
0
23
2
37
4
2
7
0
13
12
1
35
2
50
28
3
65
4
100
31
41
42
23
7
6
10
160
12
13
7
1
0
0
0
33
38
23
0
6
0
0
0
67
81
77
49
30
7
6
10
260
6
12
6
28
9
9
70
1
2
0
4
0
0
7
6
0
1
4
1
0
12
13
14
7
36
10
9
89
585
(Table 13.1) and compared against a database consisting of more than

2,000 analyses of lead-glazed ceramics from Spain and Mexico.
Maylica: Tin-Opacified Lead-Glazed Ceramics
Much of the luxury imported pottery found at the California missions
was a tin-opacified lead-glazed ceramic known variably as maiolica,
maylica, or majolica when made in Italy, Iberia, or the Ibero-American
world. Historic documents often refer to these ceramics as loza Blanca
de Talavera or loza Blanca de Puebla (see chapter 15) (Cohen-Williams
1992; Perissinotto 1998). Other names include faience for tin-and-leadglazed ceramics made in France or delft for those originating in England
and the Netherlands. Spanish and Italian-made maylicas were widely
exported to Latin America during the sixteenth century even as the
technology for making these ceramics was being transferred to the New
World (Gavin 2003; Lister and Lister 1974, 1976, 1982, 1987; Skowronek
1987). Potters in Europe rapidly mastered the technology beginning in the
late sixteenth century, and continuing through the eighteenth century,
maylicas were exported from potteries in Puebla and Mexico City to
Spain, the Spanish-controlled Greater Antilles, and the northern borderlands of New Spain (Skowronek 1984, 1992). In fact, during the eighteenth century there were some one hundred workshops that produced
maylica in Puebla, Mexico (Cervantes 1933; Lister and Lister 1984).
Tin-opacified lead-glazed ceramics were used generally for the presentation, consumption, and/or storage of food and other consumables. The
forms included plates and platters, bowls, cups, pitchers, tureens, and
apothecary jars. These ceramics have a soft, porous paste that is covered
with a lead glaze containing tin oxide after firing. This glaze may then be
painted with a wide variety of designs and submitted to an additional firing. Complex typologies of these ceramics have been developed based on
the color of the paste and decoration (e.g., Cohen-Williams 1992; Deagan
1987; Goggin 1968; Lister and Lister 1974, 1982, 1987, 2001; May 1972).
Chemical characterization of tin-opacified lead-glazed ceramics by
neutron activation analysis began 40 years ago with a small sample of
pottery recovered by William J. Folan in 1966 at the late eighteenthcentury Spanish-occupied village of Yuquot, British Columbia, Canada.
Eleven sherds were analyzed for four elemental constituents: sodium, potassium, lanthanum, and manganese. Unfortunately, when the report of
the analyses was submitted for publication in 1973 (Weigand, Ward, and
Harbottle 1981), comparative data for Mexican colonial pottery had not
yet been created. This problem was partially resolved when Jacqueline
Olin began working with Sayre and Harbottle using INAA to distinguish
colonial production in the New World from imported Spanish pieces.
Subsequent investigations have identified more than six chemically distinctive production locales in Spain and Italy, and at least seven more
have been documented from Mexico and Central and South America.
The unique chemical signature of each of the production locales allows
firm attribution of ceramic typologies to geographic location and facilitates the study of distribution and exchange mechanisms at colonial sites.
Ce
Spanish
Mexican
La
Th
Figure 13.1. Early three-component plot showing chemical separation of

Mexican and Spanish maylica. Taken from a laboratory printout; see published version in Olin, Harbottle, and Sayre (1978, figure 8).
Olin, Harbottle, and Sayre (1978) published the first findings of

maylica composition based on the use of INAA at Brookhaven National
Laboratory. This study involved 178 ceramic sherds from early Spanish
colonial sites in the Caribbean and from the Metropolitan Cathedral and
Metro excavations in Mexico City. The Mexico City sites provided types
attributed to both Spanish and Mexican production. The primary focus
of the research was to establish if chemical composition could be used to
distinguish Spanish from Mexican production locales. Figure 13.1 shows
a reproduction of the three-component plot of lanthanum, cerium, and
thorium that Olin, Harbottle, and Sayre (1978) presented to illustrate the
separation of the typologically Spanish from the typologically Mexican
maylica. They compared the Mexican chemical group to samples in
a large database of pre-Columbian ceramics from the valley of Mexico
and to a few additional samples of Spanish and Mexican maylica types
from Guatemala, Panama, Peru, and Ecuador. These data provided the
basis for tantalizing suggestions that maylica also was being produced
at these sites.
Maggetti, Westley, and Olin (1984) confirmed the distinction between the Spanish and Mexican groups using thin-section petrography.
eramics of Spanish attribution had pastes with sedimentary rock types

C
as aplastics, while those of Mexican attribution had pastes with aplastics
of volcanic origin. Only one petrographic composition was established
for Spanish types, while several distinctive paste fabrics were recognized
among the Mexican types. Maggetti, Westley, and Olin also found that
the maylica of Mexican attribution appeared to have been made by
mixing calcareous marl with clay of volcanic origin to achieve the desired
plasticity and calcium carbonate content.
Jornet, Blackman, and Olin (1985) examined a collection of over 80
maylica ceramics from three major production locales in Spain: Seville/
Triana, Talavara/Puente, and Menises/Paterna. While their 1985 publication dealt primarily with the Menises and Paterna workshops, the
overall data showed that chemical distinctions could be made among
the three production locales. Figure 13.2, a ternary plot of cerium, thorium, and chromium, displays this chemical separation. However, as in
earlier studies, the samples analyzed were from collections that are not
Thorium (ppm)
20
16
100
12
90
80
70
60
90
50
80
Cer
ium
70
(pp
m)
40
60
30
pm
(p
iu
o
hr
Seville/Triana
Talavera/Puente
Manises/Paterna
Figure 13.2. Three-component plot after Jornet, Blackman, and Olin

(1985) showing differentiation among maylica manufacturing centers in
Spain.
Thorium (ppm)
20
16
12
110
100
8
90
)
m
p
p
80
4
90
70
60
80
70
Cer
ium
m
ro
h
C
50
60
40
(pp
50
m)
40 30
iu
Sevilla/Triana
Talavera/Puente
Paterna/Manises
Granada
Figure 13.3. Three-component plot after Myers et al. (1992) demonstrating divergence of Spanish Granada maylica from other manufacturing
centers.
a ttributable to controlled archaeological excavation, leaving some questions about attribution. Later, using data that included samples from an
excavated sixteenth-century pottery workshop and kiln at 44 Pureza
Street in the Triana district of Seville and incorporating data produced
by Jornet, Blackman, and Olin (1985), Myers, de Amores, Olin, and Hernandez (1992) demonstrated the distinction among the Spanish production locales of Seville-Triana, Talavara/Puente, Manises/Paterna, and
Granada (figure 13.3) and established Seville as by far the major supplier
of maylica to the early Spanish colonies in the New World.
Olin and Blackman (1989) published the results of the research on a
collection of 82 maylica samples of both Spanish and Mexican attribution from excavations at the Spanish mission site at Santa Catalina de
Guale on St. Catherines Island, Georgia. An important aspect of this
study was the inclusion of 50 new samples from the Mexico City Metro
excavations and nine bisque-fired sherds from the modern maylica
workshops in Puebla, Mexico. As earlier research had shown, the samples
of Spanish types were all of a single composition that is now firmly attributable to production in Seville. The Mexican types, however, could be
chemically separated into two compositional groups. The ceramic types
that Goggin (1968) has stylistically attributed to Puebla production (i.e.,
Fig Springs, Puebla Polychrome, and San Luis Blue on White) and the
stylistically unattributed Aucilla and Mt. Royal Polychrome all are members of a single chemical compositional group. That group also contained
modern bisque-fired ceramics produced in Puebla, lending strong support to the theory that Puebla was the production locale for these ceramic
types.
Additionally, close examination of the Puebla chemical group revealed
that the group could be split into two compositional subgroups based
on the light rare-earth elements lanthanum and samarium (figure 13.4).
The two groups each contained at least one modern Puebla maylica and
paste compositions appeared to covary with decorative typology. All of
the samples in one group were San Luis Blue on White sherds and all
of the samples in the other group were Aucilla and Mount Royal Poly-
Samarium (ppm)
Modern Maiolica produced in Puebla

Aucilla and Mt Royal Polychrome
San Luis Blue on White
Lanthanum (ppm)
Figure 13.4. Bivariate plot showing correlation among chemically defined

Puebla groups and maylica types.
chrome. This finding was a strong indication that workshops in Puebla

seem to have used a particular clay mixture to produce specific types of
wares.
Another chemical compositional group comprised almost exclusively
of Lister and Listers Mexico City White (Lister and Lister 1974, 1982)
could be readily distinguished from the Puebla compositional group,
leading Lister and Lister to propose that this composition represented a
Mexico City production (figure 13.5).
Through multiple collaborative efforts, studies of maylica grew to
include material from well-documented excavations in the known production centers of Mexico City, Puebla, and Oaxaca, Mexico; Antigua,
Guatemala; and Panama Viejo, Panama. Our team reevaluated the data
from the major maylica workshops of Mexico City and Puebla using
new data from excavated maylica, bisque-fired sherds, and wasters and
confirmed the chemical distinctions among ceramics made in Seville,
Mexico City, and Puebla. Ceramic workshops in Oaxaca were prolific and produced large quantities of stylistically different pottery that

Puebla 2
Scandium (ppm)
Maiolica group
Sevilla/Triana Maiolica
group
Puebla 1
Maiolica group
Mexico City Maiolica

group
Cerium (ppm)
Figure 13.5. Bivariate plot showing separations among maylica from
Spain, Mexico City, and Puebla.
Chromium (ppm)
Oaxaca Maiolica
group
Sevilla/Triana
Maiolica group
Puebla 1
Maiolica group
Mexico City Maiolica

group
Antigua Maiolica group
Panama Maiolica
group
Cerium (ppm)
Figure 13.6. Bivariate plot showing chemical differences among several of
the recognized compositional groups representing maylica manufacturing
centers.
when sample data was added to the binary plot presented for Puebla and
Mexico City and Sevilla show a distinct chemical difference (figure 13.6).
All of these studies have contributed to a growing database of compositional data, providing a rich tableau against which to compare the chemical data obtained from the analysis of the maylica pottery recovered
from Alta Californias missions and presidios.
Prior to discussing the patterns observed in the compositional matrix of Alta California maylicas, we need to say something about the
nomenclature used in the data tables below. The archaeological practice of ascribing a typological name to pottery is done to help communicate something about the relationship among ceramics in terms of
time and location. Pottery is assigned to a group with which it shares
a majority of surface and finish attributes. These attributes are known
as an a bstractiona variably defined reference to an ideal typological
specimen. If a ceramic being examined is a whole vessel or a large sherd,
the task of assigning it to a generally recognized type may be relatively
nambiguous. Small sherds, however, can present a problem; the likeliu

hood of an accurate classification is greatly decreased.
The availability of tin-opacified lead-glazed pottery from California
for inclusion in our project varied greatly among the targeted missions
or presidios. At times our team included sherds that were identified only
as maylica. If a type name was assigned, we recorded it. If no type was
assigned, we assigned it to a type when we were reasonably certain of the
classification. At times, a small sherd, some as small as a dime in diameter, lacked sufficient attributes for a secure assignment. As is frequently
the situation, many typological assignments should be followed with a
question mark, but this makes for messy tables. If the choice was between one type or another, we reported it here using the best assessment
we could make. We have retained a questionable or missing category
for sherds that defy typological assignment to anything more specific
than the general category of maylica.
Situating California Maylica
Tin-and-lead-glazed ceramics are found throughout Alta California as
far north as the Spanish outpost among the Nootka in what is today
British Columbia (Cutter 1991; Lueger 1981). Beginning with the work
of Arnold Pilling in 1952 and continuing a generation later with the efforts of other California archaeologists (e.g., Arthur, Costello, and Fagan
1975; Cohen-Williams 1992; Cohen-Williams and Williams 2004; May
1972), the sherds of these colorfully decorated ceramics have continued
to fascinate scholars because of the insights they can provide into colonial economics and acculturation (Fournier et al. 2003; Fournier-Garca,
Blackman, and Bishop 2007 and Fournier G. et al. 2009; Voss 2012).
Samples of tin-opacified lead-glazed ceramics were obtained from
Missions San Jos, Carmel, San Francisco, San Juan Bautista, San Juan
Capistrano, and San Buenaventura and from the Presidios of San Diego,
Santa Barbara, and Monterey (Table 13.2). Compositions of these ceramics were compared among themselves and against the large Smithsonian
database of chemical signatures for maylicas made in both the New
and Old Worlds. These include workshops in Seville/Triana, Talavara/
Puente, Paterna/Manises, and Granada in Spain; Puebla, Mexico City,
and Oaxaca in Mexico; Panama City, Panama; Antigua, Guatemala; and
locales in Peru and Ecuador that produced pottery during the sixteenth,
seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.
Abo/Aranama
Aranama Polychrome
Blue on White, wavy rim
Huejotzingo Blue
on White
Mexico City Polychrome
Monterey Polychrome
Puebla Blue on White
San Agustin Blue
on White
San Diego Polychrome
San Elizario Polychrome
San Luis Polychrome
Tucson Polychrome
Tumacacori Polychrome
Viva Fernando
Maylica
Wavy Rim
Gunmetal
Green on White
White
Yellow
?
Totals
0
2
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
4
0
1
2
4
1
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
22
San
Juan
Capistrano
0
1
2
San
Diego
Presidio
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mission
Santa
Barbara
1
1
4
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
5
0
1
35
3
0
3
5
0
6
2
Santa
Barbara
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Mission La Santa
Pursima
Buenaventura
Table 13.2. Sampled maylica ceramics from Alta California missions
3
0
8
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
23
0
1
0
3
0
2
2
Monterey
Cathedral
13
0
3
0
0
6
0
1
3
1
0
4
1
0
38
0
0
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
San
Mission Juan
Carmel Bautista
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
San
Francisco
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
San
Jose
Pueblo
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Mission
San Jose
24
2
23
1
1
21
2
13
4
1
1
9
1
3
171
7
1
7
16
3
20
11
Totals
Chemical characterization of 171 samples of maylicas from California reveals that 141, or 82 percent, of the samples could be assigned to
one of two chemical groups, both of which are firmly associated with
Puebla manufacture (Table 13.3). It is unclear whether the two compositional groups from Puebla represent different workshops, different clay
sources used randomly by all workshops, or temporal differences in resource use or potting practices. Five of the maylica ceramics, one from
Monterey Presidio and four from the nearby Mission San Juan Bautista,
are associated with the Panama ceramic compositional group. Breaking
patterns that we saw in the other maylica data, these samples could be
from heirloom vessels, thus linking their owners to past memories and
histories (Lillios 1999). The remaining unassigned samples (outliers) did
not originate in the major Mexican production centers in Mexico City
or Oaxaca and were not attributable to Spanish production at Sevilla/
Triana or the other Spanish centers.
It is clear that most of the unassigned maylica samples are closely associated with one of the two Puebla groups and may represent additional
variation in resource use in Puebla. Ceramics from the two characterized
Puebla compositional groups are found throughout the presidio jurisdictions and include least 13 recognizable types (Table 13.4). Elemental
means and coefficients of variation for the Puebla groups and a comparison of these samples with the reference groups of Mexico City, Panama,
and Oaxaca are presented in Table 13.5; these groups served for the attribution of the Alta California maylica ceramics. These samples represent
imported items. We know from documentary evidence that requisitions
for such items could be large. For example, one requisition that was made
from the Santa Barbara presidio in 1806 included 60plates, 20 cups, 100
items of earthen dinnerware, and 12 chamber pots (Perissinotto 1998,
339).
Given the overlap in ceramic types attributed to the two sources we
can begin to examine issues related to production and market preference.
It appears that the decorations associated with these types were being
reproduced at multiple locales and workshops in the Puebla region. Buyers for the province would procure the ceramics, and then consignments
originating from these workshops were shipped on an arduous trip that
included travel over land from Puebla to the port of San Bls and from
there by ship (figure 13.7).

San Diego Presidio
San Juan Capistrano
Total
La Pursima
Santa Buenaventura
Total
Monterey Cathedral
Mission Carmel
San Juan Bautista
Total
Mission San Jose
San Jose Pueblo
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
Panama 2
0
0
0
Panama 1
1
0
1
1
3
12
21
1
34
7
1
17
2
27
9
13
22
Puebla 1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
Puebla 1?
3
0
1
0
4
8
33
0
41
5
0
13
0
18
9
4
13
Puebla 2
Table 13.3. Maylica samples assigned to compositional reference groups (n = 171)
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
Puebla 2?
2
1
1
0
0
1
3
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
4
1
5
Outliers
6
1
4
1
12
23
38
6
67
12
1
35
2
50
22
20
42
Totals

San Diego Presidio
San Juan Capistrano
La Pursima
Santa Buenaventura
Mission Carmel
Mission San Jose
San Jose Pueblo
0/1
2/0
4/3
4/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/1
0/0
0/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
3/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
Aranama
0/0
0/0
Abo/
Aranama
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
2/1
0/0
0/0
0/4
0/0
Huejotzingo
Blue on
White
0/1
1/1
0/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
3/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
0/0
Monterey
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/2
0/2
1/0
2/2
0/0
1/0
1/0
1/0
Puebla
Blue on
White
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/1
0/0
0/0
1/0
0/0
San
Diego
Polychrome
0/0
0/2
0/0
1/2
2/10
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
4/0
0/0
San
Agustin
Blue on
White
1/0
0/0
0/0
4/3
1/1
0/0
3/1
0/0
1/0
1/2
2/1
San
Elizario
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
1/5
1/2
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
6/1
Tumacacori
Polychrome
Table 13.4. Membership of maylica in reference groups for Puebla 1 and Puebla 2 by jurisdiction and site
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
Viva
Fernando
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/1
0/2
0/0
1/1
0/0
0/0
0/1
2/2
Blue on
White,
Wavy
Rim
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
Green
on White
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/3
0/0
0/5
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
White
0/0
0/0
0/0
2/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
Misc.
0.66
1.42
15.73
11.26
75.8
3.20
12.9
89.7
13.3
89.5
1.91
5.16
373
35.1
61.1
24.0
5.51
1.07
0.76
2.55
0.36
5.51
1.01
9.77
1.7
Note: 1. Advisory.
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co1
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd1
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
Mean
Seville
n = 310
25
24
14
7
11
7
17
61
41
17
53
18
25
6
6
17
6
6
11
8
9
8
12
7
24
CV
1.55
0.85
9.63
9.33
63.5
2.85
13.2
62.6
6.6
47.9
2.85
2.46
461
19.4
36.6
17.8
3.78
0.98
0.53
1.48
0.19
4.21
0.48
4.57
0.5
Mean
15
24
26
7
12
8
17
19
57
13
72
17
18
8
11
15
9
11
20
16
26
10
12
8
96
CV
Mexico City
n = 73
1.12
0.71
16.01
9.78
81.0
2.72
10.2
58.9
11.4
44.0
5.99
3.14
407
16.2
23.3
14.9
3.42
0.88
0.47
1.46
0.21
3.80
0.49
4.19
0.5
Mean
Puebla 1
n = 115
13
23
23
10
14
12
26
25
202
18
136
33
40
10
22
23
9
9
24
14
15
11
21
11
102
CV
1.00
1.21
12.58
12.26
83.9
3.22
10.6
85.4
13.2
66.5
3.58
5.72
433
20.5
28.9
18.6
4.06
0.94
0.58
1.92
0.28
4.23
0.58
5.32
0.7
Mean
Puebla 2
n = 39
16
22
18
9
13
8
14
26
61
21
127
30
22
8
14
13
7
7
18
8
13
8
16
10
72
CV
0.52
2.33
10.38
17.21
89.6
4.02
13.2
139.9
14.4
124.3
3.10
6.75
750
34.0
59.3
30.1
6.18
1.24
0.90
3.13
0.50
4.99
0.75
8.25
2.8
Mean
CV
14
12
33
8
10
7
14
16
47
14
107
14
33
6
7
12
6
7
13
8
13
8
14
10
50
Oaxaca 1
n = 73
1.65
2.28
1.49
16.10
27.3
4.77
24.0
166.9
47.6
146.7
5.80
29.42
603
31.9
58.7
27.4
5.12
1.14
0.71
2.16
0.31
5.08
0.75
12.77
2.5
Mean
Panama
n = 54
12
10
126
8
18
8
25
14
33
7
21
16
35
6
7
12
9
11
13
14
26
12
11
7
160
CV
Table 13.5. Means and coefficients of variation for maylica reference groups used for attribution of Alta California ceramics
San Francisco
Monterey
Santa Barbara
San Diego
Santa Elena
Santa Catalina de Guale
St. Augustine
Chihuahua
Fort St. Louis
Loreto
Havana
San Blas
Mexico City
Veracruz
Puebla
Santo Domingo
Antiqua
Figure 13.7. Map showing selected areas from where maylica has been
analyzed.
Lead-Glazed Earthenwares
Lead-glazed earthenwares are one of the most poorly understood but
readily recognized categories of ceramics found on sites dating from the
Spanish colonial and Mexican republican eras on the borderlands. Part
of the difficulty stems from the fact that this pottery tradition is still very
much alive and is a part of everyday life in much of Mexico (Edson 1979).
A broad functional spectrum is observable in our sample that ranges
from pottery vessels used for storage and preparation to wares used for
presentation and consumption.
The manufacture of this pottery requires two distinct steps. First the
object must be formed. For these vessels a mixture of manufacturing
techniques are used that include throwing on a wheel, molding on an anvil, and a hybrid version of both techniques (Barnes 1980, 9394; Edson
1979). Pastes vary widely from fine to coarse. Once made, the green dry
item is fired. Next, lead glazes that range from clear glaze to those with
added iron or copper oxides to create yellow, green, orange, red, or black
colors are applied. This glaze forms an impermeable covering. In utilitarian vessels, the glaze covers the interior of the vessels and the mouth and
shoulders of the exterior. These vessels tend to have coarser paste and are
thicker in cross-section. Vessels used for presentation and consumption
are glazed on both surfaces and usually have finer pastes and thinner
cross-sections. Some of these vessels are decorated with floral motifs in
brown and black and green, yellow, and white.
The vessel is fired a second time to set the glaze (Barnes 1980, 9394).
An important aspect of this firing is the kiln. Before the Spanish arrived,
open-pit firing was the norm in the Americas. The introduction of kiln
technology in the sixteenth century not only enabled potters to reach
the higher firing temperatures needed to mature the glaze but also made
it possible for them to protect the vessels from fusing together or other
unsightly mishaps using a variety of kiln furniture (Barnes 1980, 9495;
Imwalle this volume).
Archaeologists have struggled to understand lead-glazed ceramics for
more than half a century. Kathleen Deagan (1987, 4753) noted that in
the Caribbean and La Florida, lead-glazed ceramics were made and exported as early as the sixteenth century from both Europe and locations
in Puerto Rico, Panama, Guatemala, and Mexico, where the transfer of
kiln technology was complete.
Beginning in the 1950s, scholars conducting research in the area that is
now the southwestern United States (Colton 1953; Gerald 1968; Gilmore
1974; Schuetz 1969) began to classify lead-glazed ceramics. The most comprehensive study was compiled by Mark Barnes in 1980. Barnes laid out
several three-century-long periods beginning in 1650, based on known
archaeological ranges. For the period from 1750 to 1850, he named six
lead-glazed types: Black-Glazed, Green-Glazed, Interiorly Glazed, ClearGlazed, Guanajuato Green-Glazed, and Galera Polychrome-Glazed
(Barnes 1980, 99103). Significantly, he referred to the entire complex
as Mexican Lead-Glazed Earthware (Barnes 1980, 98). Unfortunately,
researchers have applied these type descriptions in a somewhat cavalier
fashion when classifying ceramics. There have been lumpers who use
the terms Mexican Lead-Glazed or simply Lead-Glazed. Some simply described the forms, noting that they were glazed but making no attempt
to further categorize them (e.g., Lueger 1981). Patricia Fournier included
descriptions of paste attributes in her discussion of the different color
series (Fournier-Garca 1997). Some have slavishly used Barness typologies, and others have simply used the term Galera as a catchall term for
glazed pottery (e.g., Gerald 1968). Suffice it to say that whatever pottery
has been called in California and the greater Southwest, researchers
have tended to assume that it was made in what is today Mexico because
the added complexity and expense inherent in the glazing technology
was assumed to be beyond the capacity of mission-trained potters. But
if that is true, where did the pottery come from and how many workshops in Mexico might have been involved in the manufacture of these
ceramics?
Lead-Glazed Ceramics in Alta California
We selected 445 lead-glazed ceramics from Missions San Francisco, San
Antonio, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Juan Bautista, San Juan Capistrano, San Luis Obispo, La Pursima Concepcin,
San Miguel, Santa Buenaventura, and Soledad for compositional analysis. These ceramics included materials from Pueblo San Jos, Old Town
San Diego, Fort Guijarros, and the presidios at San Diego, Santa Barbara,
Monterey, and San Francisco (Table 13.6). For initial consideration of the
compositional variation among the lead-glazed ceramics and to reduce
potential confusion, at first we categorized sample items simply as glazed
or as Galera Polychrome based on the absence or presence of painted
floral decorations.
The interpretation of compositional variation among the lead-glazed
Alta California ceramics was aided by our ability to compare their composition to the large database of maylica and non-maylica lead-glazed
ceramics from Mexico. Samples from Mexico included pottery from locations mentioned in historical documents and represented ceramic production from Mexicos colonial and republican periods. Thus far, more
than 1,000 samples have been analyzed by neutron activation analysis
and several distinctive patterns are recognized (e.g., Mexican lead-glazed
groups GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3), some of which can be attributed to regional manufacturing traditions (e.g., Fournier, Blackman, and Bishop
2007).
The outcome of the Alta California lead-glazed pottery analysis was
notable in several ways. First, in accord with our expectations, 373 of the
sherds (84 percent) were found to not be similar in composition to any
of the profiles established for the California production sites. A binary
plot of the concentrations of chromium and iron illustrates the compositional distinctiveness of some of these materials (figure 13.8). The ellipses shown in figure 13.8 are based on the 90 percent confidence intervals we defined for the reference group. For example, the four ellipses
Table 13.6. Glazed ware (non-maylica) sampling summary (n = 414)

San Diego, Fort Guijarros
San Diego Presidio
San Diego, Old Town, McCoy
San Juan Capistrano
Totals
Mission La Pursima
Santa Buenaventura
Totals
Mission Carmel
Mission San Antonio
San Luis Obispo, 64H, Chinatown
San Miguel, SLO-2189
Totals
Mission San Jose
Mission Santa Cruz
San Jose Pueblo
Mission Santa Clara
Totals
Galera
Galera?
Glazed
Totals
3
6
1
1
11
0
1
0
0
1
5
36
8
33
82
8
43
9
34
94
4
2
5
0
11
0
0
2
0
2
12
0
23
2
37
16
2
30
2
50
12
11
7
1
0
0
0
31
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
31
41
42
23
7
6
10
160
43
54
49
24
7
6
10
193
0
2
0
4
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
12
6
28
9
9
70
7
14
6
32
9
9
77
along the left side of the graph, which overlap in concentrations of the
chosen elements, represent the 90 percent confidence intervals for the
GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, and GLZ-9 reference groups of Mexican
non-maylica lead-glazed ceramics. When we remove the samples and
the ellipse used for the lead-glazed pottery in the San Francisco reference group and graph the data in terms of the concentrations of chromium and scandium, the Mexican lead-glazed groups can be seen more
clearly (figure 13.9). They are clearly separated from the other groups on
theplot.
The symbols inside the ellipses on the left side of figures 13.8 and 13.9
represent Alta California glazed pottery that is generally assumed to be
imported from Mexico. We also assumed that small GLZ groups 12 and
Pb glazed pottery made at San Francisco
Iron (%)
Pb glazed pottery made at Carmel
Pb glazed pottery made at Santa Clara

Pb glazed pottery made at Santa Barbara
Pb glazed pottery made at Santa Cruz

Pb glazed pottery made at san Juan Capistrano
Mexican Pb glazed pottery recovered at California Missions
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 13.8. Bivariate plot showing lead-glazed pottery manufactured in
Alta California relative to main Mexican groups.
Scandium (ppm)
Pb glazed pottery
made at San Juan
Capistrano
Pb glazed pottery made

at Santa Clara

at Santa Barbara

at Carmel
Pb glazed groups 1, 2, and 3

Pb glazed group 9
Pb glazed group 6
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 13.9. Expanded view of figure 13.8 after removal of the ellipse
representing San Francisco production.
22 represent imports from Mexico. The other ellipses in Figures 13.8 and
13.9 describe the 90 percent confidence intervals for the Alta California reference groups discussed above that we defined using brick, tiles,
and earthenware pottery (e.g., groups defined to Carmel, Santa Clara).
The extent to which pottery in the Mexican reference groups GLZ-1,
GLZ-2 and GLZ-3 can be accurately partitioned is arguable. The variations in elemental concentration are relatively small, and each reference
group has two to three times the europium content we observed in the
other groups (Table 13.7). A significant compositional difference between GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 and the smaller groups GLZ-6, GLZ-9,
GLZ-12, and GLZ-22 is clear (figure 13.10). If we assume that the variation found among GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 represents natural and/or
cultural differences that might be encountered in a given manufacturing
subregion, then 241 of the 445 (54 percent) items of lead-glazed pottery
studied in the Alta California project derive from one major Mexican
source (Tables 13.813.11). Additionally, as shown in Table 13.8, pottery
from these main groups of lead-glazed wares was distributed throughout
several mission sites of all four presidio jurisdictions. It appears that in
the supply process a surprisingly few vendors were used to meet the
needs of the colony in Alta California. But where were these suppliers
located?
No matter how well you might think that a research design is structured, there is always empirical reality. For example, figure 13.11 plots the
more than 1,000 lead-glazed ceramics from Mexico in terms of concentrations of chromium and thorium. Recall from chapter 11 the statement
that if chemically based clusters or groups of pottery can be shown to be
different in any single dimension, they will be separate regardless of the
number of the additional dimensions considered. In this figure multiple
different areas of density can be seen among the Mexican ceramics. In
the lower left corner of the plot, tightly grouped together, are ellipses that
represent the 90 percent confidence interval for Alta California glazed
groups GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, and GLZ-9, showing that they
separate clearly from analyses of the lead-glazed pottery sampled from
historical Mexican production centers. Moreover, the symbols within the
ellipses represent the few analyses that we have from pottery recovered at
San Blas, Nayarita known transshipment departure port for the movement of goods to Alta California. A strong inference can be made that
more than 50 percent of the analyzed lead-glazed wares likely came from
a specific production locale (see above). That source is likely in Mexico,
0.93
0.47
1.36
9.81
16.8
4.15
12.7
95.1
3.9
13.8
0.59
0.85
713
25.8
42.4
20.9
4.36
1.18
0.60
2.0
0.29
4.6
0.94
3.62
0.6
19
27
48
10
19
18
22
50
44
27
48
14
19
9
11
25
12
9
16
15
19
6
12
8
97
CV
0.83
0.51
1.24
11.73
14.5
4.46
17.1
96.5
4.0
20.6
0.69
0.94
791
32.3
54.9
28.2
5.61
1.49
0.76
2.6
0.37
5.4
1.22
4.29
0.8
Mean
GLZ-2
n = 53
18
22
58
12
21
12
51
18
43
21
72
22
19
12
19
22
13
12
19
14
16
9
21
10
72
CV
0.47
0.42
0.86
11.25
17.5
3.97
13.1
87.8
4.6
21.9
0.74
0.89
793
30.1
50.2
26.5
5.29
1.31
0.71
2.4
0.35
5.1
1.13
4.21
1.2
Mean
GLZ-3
n = 57
18
21
29
14
21
11
31
32
48
100
69
14
17
10
15
18
12
12
15
12
19
7
16
8
53
CV
0.36
0.70
1.11
8.40
31.8
3.93
13.9
126.3
7.7
65.6
0.98
3.46
331
72.9
159.1
70.5
17.27
0.56
3.03
12.3
1.95
19.9
5.54
28.60
11.2
Mean
GLZ-6
n = 18
31
24
100
11
17
10
37
33
76
10
26
12
45
12
9
15
12
10
15
10
18
10
12
9
15
CV
0.51
0.90
0.20
5.77
17.1
2.61
11.6
117.2
4.8
69.7
0.81
3.56
407
110.5
211.7
106.5
24.46
0.74
4.39
16.6
2.42
18.1
5.26
34.78
13.4
Mean
GLZ-9
n = 18
20
18
64
13
30
20
68
16
34
11
24
9
39
14
17
16
11
12
15
12
17
11
9
9
38
CV
0.30
0.60
0.87
5.70
14.8
2.48
7.7
107.2
13.9
54.5
0.86
2.86
429
96.3
176.5
97.2
23.64
0.67
4.06
16.0
2.50
16.0
5.03
31.24
10.8
Mean
GLZ-12
n= 13
21
26
20
15
32
15
50
15
132
13
41
13
32
17
17
15
14
12
14
13
15
11
9
10
35
CV
1.56
1.75
1.20
12.88
99.7
4.37
15.8
80.1
3.1
99.3
0.66
3.46
791
41.6
68.9
30.2
5.50
1.05
0.63
1.5
0.20
8.7
1.19
13.25
1.2
Mean
CV
7
10
54
9
11
8
16
19
21
9
43
12
26
14
11
28
13
10
18
19
32
16
15
11
64
CARMEL
n = 19
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-5, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, GLZ-12, GLZ-22 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; CARMEL = Carmel reference group
Note: 1. Advisory.
Na (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Sc
Cr
Fe (%)
Co
Zn
As
Rb
Sb
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Nd1
Sm
Eu
Tb
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
Th
U
Mean
GLZ-1
nN = 131
Table 13.7. Means and coefficients of variation for selected glazed-pottery reference groups (n = 324)
0.51
0.80
0.43
12.34
38.4
3.85
20.3
156.3
4.3
79.5
1.17
3.65
307
62.7
123.1
55.7
13.79
0.77
2.31
9.0
1.37
15.0
4.16
20.71
6.3
Mean
GLZ-22
n=8
15
21
92
8
26
10
16
32
37
14
105
14
19
23
14
27
23
17
19
16
21
5
13
11
31
CV
1.27
1.56
1.14
9.27
19.2
2.93
12.4
54.9
11.9
98.0
16.49
3.78
885
20.8
38.5
14.3
2.94
0.68
0.41
1.8
0.30
8.9
0.76
11.05
2.0
Mean
GLZ-5
n=7
5
12
3
2
8
11
25
32
23
5
159
6
17
5
6
18
9
8
27
8
16
7
9
4
71
CV
0
6
14
3
26
GLZ 2
0
12
GLZ-3
0
3
GLZ-6
0
0
GLZ-9
0
4
GLZ-12
1
1
GLZ-22
1
6
GLZ-MIS
3
4
SCLARA-1
1
1
SCLARA-1?
0
1
CARM
0
3
SCRUZ
0
2
SF
0
1
SF-1?
0
2
SFRAN-2?
1
6
Outliers
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, GLZ-12, and GLZ-22 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; GLZ-MIS = miscellaneous Mexican lead-glazed pottery; SBARB=leadglazed pottery made at Santa Barbara; SJCAP-1 = lead-glazed pottery made at San Juan Capistrano; Outliers = non-attributed lead-glazed pottery
Mission San
Jose
Mission Santa
Cruz
San Francisco
Presidio
Mission San
Francisco
San Jose de
Guadalupe
Mission Santa
Clara
Totals
GLZ-1
Table 13.8. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery in Mexican and California reference groups, San Francisco jurisdiction
9
78
32
14
Totals
12
3
16
15
33
GLZ-2
1
8
GLZ-3
0
1
GLZ-6
0
9
GLZ-9
0
1
GLZ-12
0
0
GLZ-22
0
6
GLZ-MIS
1
1
SBARB
11
11
SJCAP-1
3
8
Outliers
34
94
43
Totals
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, and GLZ-12 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; GLZ-MIS = miscellaneous Mexican lead-glazed pottery;
SBARB=lead-glazed pottery made at Santa Barbara; SJCAP-1 = lead-glazed pottery made at San Juan Capistrano; Outliers = non-attributed lead-glazed
pottery
Fort Guijarros
San Diego
Presidio
San Diego,
Old Town,
McCoy
San Juan
Capistrano
Totals
GLZ-1
Table 13.9. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery samples in Mexican and California reference groups,
San Diego jurisdiction
0
1
0
1
1
9
1
18
GLZ-2
1
5
0
9
GLZ-3
0
1
0
1
GLZ-6
0
2
0
2
GLZ-9
0
2
0
2
GLZ-12
0
0
1
1
GLZ-22
0
2
1
3
GLZ-MIS
0
2
0
2
SBARB
0
3
0
3
SBARB?
0
0
0
1
LPC-G1
0
0
0
4
LPC-G3
0
3
0
4
Outliers
2
30
2
51
16
Totals
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, GLZ-12 and GLZ-22 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; GLZ-MIS = miscellaneous Mexican lead-glazed pottery; SBARB =
Santa Barbara; LPC-G1 = La Pursima Group 1; LPC-G3 = La Pursima Group 3; Outliers = non-attributed lead-glazed pottery
La Pursima
Mission Santa
Barbara
Santa Barbara
Santa Buenaventura
Totals
GLZ-1
Table 13.10. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery samples in Mexican and California reference groups, Santa
Barbara Jurisdiction
10
1
2
0
28
11
18
3
6
3
2
45
GLZ-2
1
0
26
5
2
GLZ-3
0
0
12
7
0
GLZ-6
0
0
6
3
1
GLZ-9
0
0
6
5
0
GLZ-12
0
0
4
0
0
GLZ-22
0
0
15
1
6
GLZ-MIS
0
0
3
0
0
MONT1?
0
4
18
4
1
CARM
0
1
6
3
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
7
2
3
0
2
19
4
3
CARM? SCLARA1? SFRAN1 Outliers
6
10
197
49
24
54
43
Totals
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, GLZ-12 and GLZ-22 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; GLZ-MIS = miscellaneous Mexican lead-glazed pottery; MONT1? = possibly matches Monterey reference group; CARM = Carmel reference group; SCLARA1 = Santa Clara 1 reference group; SFRAN-1 = San Francisco 1 reference group; Outliers =
non-attributed lead-glazed pottery
Mission Carmel
San Carlos
Cathedral
San Antonio de
Padua
San Juan Bautista
San Luis Obispo,
64H, Chinatown
San Miguel,
SLO-2189
Soledad, MNT 233
Totals
GLZ-1
Table 13.11. Membership of Alta California lead-glazed pottery samples in Mexican and California reference groups, Monterey
jurisdiction
7.0
5.8
GLZ-02
GLZ-01
GLZ-22
GLZ-6
Iron %
4.6
GLZ-03
GLZ-9
3.4
GLZ-12
2.2
1.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Thorium (ppm)
Figure 13.10. Small clusters of glazed ceramics relative to the main glaze
groups.
Pb glazed ceramics from sites all over Mexico
Thorium (ppm)
Ellipses are 90% confidence intervals for the three major

Pb glazed Mexican imports into California
GLZ 1,2, & 3
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 13.11. Glazed ceramics representing production from major Mexican centers and the GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 groups.
given the compositional similarity to the few San Blas ceramics, but we
have no idea where that production center is located.
Beyond providing a tabulation of Alta California recovered pottery
that makes up the main GLZ groups, Table 13.8 shows that some leadglazed ceramics had paste compositions that match those of our established mission and presidio site groups. Such matching samples are not
numerous but are significant because they document the transfer of
technological knowledge from Mexico into Alta California. Indeed, this
table reflects the evidence for the local manufacture of some lead-glazed
ceramics in all four of the presidio jurisdictions.
Several small groups or clusters of glazed pottery are found in the data
matrix. These clusters are too sparsely populated to be subjected to rigorous statistical refinement, but nonchemical patterns of provenience and
color provide some information of archaeological interest. GLZ groups
5, 10, 12, 22, and 23 in Figure 13.12 are shown along with the large reference groups of GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 in terms of concentrations
of thorium and iron. This plot illustrates aspects of the compositional
Thorium (ppm)
GLZ-10
GLZ-12
GLZ-22
GLZ-05
GLZ-01
GLZ-23
GLZ-02
GLZ-03
Iron (%)
Figure 13.12. Additional small clusters of glazed ceramics relative to the
main glaze groups.
separation of groups GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and GLZ-3 from the smaller clusters. Clusters GLZ-10 and GLZ-12, which are high on the thorium axis,
contain samples from San Francisco but also include samples from the
other sites, principally Mission San Antonio. Cluster 22 is poorly represented, but its site provenience has a subregional character, drawing on
both the Monterey and Santa Barbara jurisdictions. GLZ-5 is comprised
of samples from Loreto in Baja California. The small cluster referred to
as GLZ-23 is also from Loreto. Other samples from that location were
similar in composition to the main reference groups GLZ-1, GLZ-2, and
GLZ-3. Although much larger sampling and analysis is necessary, Loreto
appears to offer several quite different glaze ware compositions. This diversity might be explained by the fact that Loreto has only poor clay;
pottery from that site was imported from locations in Sonora for export
to Alta California (Crosby 1994, 284).
Among the most intriguing findings from the analysis of the leadglazed pottery was that 47 Alta California samples fit well within the
90 percent confidence intervals for site or subregional compositions
defined using the bivariate graphs of elemental data for architectural
and earthenware pottery. The attribution of a glaze wares composition
to a defined Alta California reference group was based on the likelihood that the comparative samples chemical makeup might be found
within a 90percent confidence interval given the comparative samples
Mahalanobis distance from the reference groups multivariate centroid.
Figures 13.13, 13.14, 13.15 and 13.16 illustrate the attributions using only
elemental pairs.
An additional perspective is provided by examining the relationship
between the surface finish of the chemically assigned group (Table13.12).
For the 392 ceramics for which we have recorded surface color, 171
(43percent) have an orange finish. One hundred forty of these ceramics
are in the main reference glaze groups GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, and
GLZ-9. Orange also occurs in the smaller clusters of GLZ-10, GLZ-12,
and GLZ-22. These groups also contain pottery with black glaze, brown
glaze and red-brown glaze. Pottery with a yellow glaze is concentrated in
GLZ-12, GLZ-5, and GLZ-1.
Within the ceramics that are commonly presumed to be of Mexican
manufacture, brown and red-brown glaze is present in the GLZ-1, GLZ-2,
GLZ-3, GLZ-6, and GLZ-9 groups. Of the 64 ceramics that were likely
manufactured at sites in Alta California, 49 are brown, red, or red-brown
(Plate 2). Only one red-glazed ceramic was attributed statistically to one
Pb glazed ware recovered in

San Diego
Pb glazed wares recovered at
San Juan Capistrano
Sodium (%)
San Juan Capistrano

Base Group
Pb glazed group 9
Pb glazed
group 1-2
Pb glazed
group 3
Thorium (ppm)
Figure 13.13. Bivariate plot illustrating the local attribution of lead-glazed
ceramics of the San Diego jurisdiction.
La Purisima Group 3
Scandium (ppm)
La Purisima Group 2
Santa Buenaventura Group 2

Recovered at
La Pursima Concepcion
Recovered at
Santa Barbara
La Purisima Group 1
Recovered at
Santa Buenaventura
Chromium (ppm)

ceramics of the Santa Barbara jurisdiction.
28
26
Santa Clara 2
24
Scandium (ppm)
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Santa Clara 1
Carmel 1
6
4
2
Pb glazed wares recovered at Santa Clara
0
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Chromium (ppm)
ceramics of the San Francisco and Monterey jurisdictions.
24

22
Santa Clara 1
Scandium (ppm)
20
18
16
Carmel 1
14
San Francisco 1
12
10
Santa Cruz 1
8
6
Santa Cruz 2
4
2
Pb glazed pottery recovered at Santa Cruz
0
0
200
400
600
800
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 13.16. Bivariate plot illustrating the local attributions of some (but
not all) of the lead-glazed pottery from Santa Cruz.
3
9
1
25
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
44
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
84
GLZ-2
5
9
8
53
GLZ-1
2
46
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
27
0
0
14
GLZ-3
0
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
7
GLZ-6
0
14
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
8
GLZ-9
0
10
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
GLZ-12
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
GLZ-22
0
7
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GLZ-5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
SBARB
0
11
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SJCAP-1
0
18
0
0
1
1
9
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
CARM
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
SCLARA1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
SCRUZ
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
SFRAN-1 SFRAN-1? SFRAN-2?
3
273
1
18
2
15
18
1
4
1
39
39
17
114
Totals
Key: GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3, GLZ-6, GLZ-9, GLZ-12 and GLZ-22 = Mexican lead-glazed reference groups; SBARB =Santa Barbara reference group; SJCAP-1 = San Juan Capistrano reference
group; CARM = Carmel reference group; SCLARA1 = Santa Clara 1 reference group; SCRUZ = Santa Cruz reference group; SFRAN-1 = San Francisco 1 reference group; SFRAN-1? = possibly matches San Francisco 1 reference group; SFRAN-2? = possibly matches San Francisco 2 reference group
Note: 1. Color likely indicates local manufacture.
Black
Brown
Green
Orange
Orange to
brown
Red1
Red to brown1
Red to orange
Reddish
Tan to orange
White and
black
Yellow
Yellow to
brown
Yellow to
green
Totals
Color
Table 13.12. Finish color in Mexican and Alta California lead-glazed reference groups
of the Mexican GLZ groups. Within the limits of our sampling, therefore,
if a red glazed ceramic is recovered from a location in Alta California it is
highly probable that it came from a location in Alta California, not from
Mexico. Variation in glaze color is illustrated for GLZ-1 in Plate 3, GLZ-2
in Plate 4, GLZ-3 in Plate 5, GLZ-9 in Plate 6, and GLZ-12 in Plate 7.
Instrumental neutron activation analysis has provided direct evidence
for site-specific manufacture of lead-glazed ceramics the length of Alta
California. For decades it has been an accepted bromide that this technology was transferred in a very few short years after the conquest of the
Caribbean and the Spanish Main, as Deagan and Cruxent (2002a, 2002b)
found at La Isabela (14931498) and South and DePratter (1996) found
at Santa Elena (15661587). Yet when it came to California, researchers
tended to assume the technology was beyond their means. Clearly that
was not the case, and this evidence should lead us to marvel not at the
ability of Alta California potters to make these ceramics but at those who
never considered that this could have happened. The discovery of a cock
spur or bisque-fired three-armed trivet provides additional indirect evidence for glazed ceramic production at Mission San Francisco (Ambro
2003). And there is no reason to think that the manufacture of glazed
ceramics was limited to a few sites; increased sampling may document it
at additional locations.
Although we have evidence of local manufacture, the compositional
data indicate that the vast majority of lead-glazed ceramics (over 90 percent) were derived from outside California, probably from Mexico. Exactly from where in Mexico is at this time unknown. We can say that they
are unlikely to have come from Mexico City or from Puebla because they
match no known compositional groups from these production locales.
While it is possible to infer as many as 13 compositional groups in the
data from California, it appears that over half of the analyzed lead-glazed
pottery studied in this project derives from one major Mexican source.
In collaboration with Mexican colleagues, we continue to search for this
source.
Burnished Ceramics
Analysis of the ceramics found in this corner of the viceroyalty that
was Alta California provides clues regarding the supply of the province
with goods produced in Mexico and Spain. It also shows aspects of the
complexity of understanding observed manufacturing patterns for the
c eramic wares. For example, one type of burnished ceramic has the same
chemical signature as one of the lead-glazed groups. Known by a number of different names in the archaeological record, including Guadalajara Polychrome (e.g., Deagan 1987, 4446; Goggin 1968, 21011), and
Bruida de Tonal (e.g., Katz 1977; Charlton and Katz 1979; Voss this
volume), this unglazed but highly burnished and often decorated earthenware is found in small frequencies in Spanish colonial sites in Alta California and in other regions of New Spain. The burnished ceramics were
not a priority of our project, but when sherds of this class were included
with other glazed pottery, we sampled them.
Figure 13.17 is drawn from groups graphed along the left side of figure 13.9 and consists of the main glazed groups, GLZ-1, GLZ-2, GLZ-3,
GLZ-6, and GLZ-9. Symbols representing the data for the burnished
ware have been added to figure 13.17. The small cluster of samples labeled
burnished 1 is compositionally distinct from the total database. Five of
the sherds are from the Monterey Cathedral and one is from San Antonio
de Padua. Of the seven burnished ceramics assigned to GLZ-9, two are
from the Monterey Cathedral, one from Carmel, three from San Antonio, and one from the San Diego presidio (Plate 8). At the macroscopic
16.0
Scandium (ppm)
13.6
burnished 1
11.2
GLZ-123
8.8
GLZ-6
6.4
GLZ-9
4.0
0
10
20
30
40
Chromium (ppm)
Figure 13.17. Bivariate plot showing distribution of burnished ceramics
relative to the main Mexican combined group, GLZ-123.
50
level, all but one of the burnished sherds can be characterized as having
a fine paste, one with few scattered sand-size inclusions. The GLZ-9
group, however, is different than the small burnished-1 cluster by being
relatively thin walled (3.95.1 mm), whereas the walls of the ceramics in
the GLZ-9 group, which is focused on the Monterrey site, are around
6.26.3 mm thick. The walls of the two samples that are seen as members of the main GLZ-1 and GLZ-2 groups, one from La Pursima and
one from the Santa Barbara presidio, are similarly thicker than those of
GLZ-9.
Sources for the few burnished ceramics that were analyzed appear to
have been in Mexico. Although burnished pottery was not part of our
Alta California sampling strategy, we note that with the exception of Mission San Antonio, the samples that we did include were from presidio
locations: San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Monterey. Designing a project
that would involve stylistic, chemical, and petrographic information to
locate the sources of burnished pottery that was imported into Alta California might be a useful endeavor.
Olive Jar: The Utilitarian Container
We conclude this chapter with mention of a readily recognizable leadglazed ceramic, the olive jar. More than a half a century ago, the late
John M. Goggin (1968) penned the seminal article on olive jars, containers that he euphemistically called the jerry can of the Spanish empire.
These containers, generally thought to be from Spain, were not a focus
of our extensive analytical attention, but they were occasionally included
as sampling opportunity presented itself. The ceramics are impressive:
their volumes ranged between 15 and 21 liters, or about 45.5 gallons
(James 1988) and would have weighed about 20 kilograms, or 50 pounds,
when full of wine. Known in Spanish as jarras de aceite, tinajas, botijas,
and botijuelas, these amphora-shaped storage vessels served as shipping
containers for a wide variety of pourable commodities, including wine,
olive oil, olives, nuts, grains, and even coins (Deagan 1987, 3035; Lister
and Lister 1987, 128137). These reusable containers were ubiquitous on
the Atlantic side of the Spanish colonial world, and fragments of them
have been found by the thousand on shipwreck and terrestrial sites.
These containers are not common in Alta California, but we see from a
1799 requisition of the Santa Barbara presidio, which listed 2 earthenware jars of Seville olives, that olives, and by implication the container in
which they were shipped, were items of interest. Nonetheless, it is somewhat surprising that more fragments of these highly identifiable vessels
have not been foundor perhaps were not saved.
The compositional groups found for the lead-glazed ceramics of Alta
California provide an informational base against which the paste of the
olive jars can be compared. As expected, some, such as those in olive jar
cluster OJ-1 from Carmel, are found to be attributable to the large Seville
compositional group (Plate 9), as are olive jars that were transshipped
from the Baja California port of Loreto. These, however, cannot clearly
be assigned to the Seville group. One olive jar from Santa Barbara is a
member of the Santa Barbara reference group, and others from Santa
Barbara might be similarly attributed, leading to the suggestion that olive
jar manufacturing technology was present in Alta California. The variation we found in the few olive jar fragments analyzed was somewhat surprising but perhaps should have been anticipated given the coarseness of
the ceramic body. Many of the analyzed lead-glazed olive jars are without
specified manufacturing origin. Work to date has only begun to frame
better questions about glazed pottery in Alta California, in Mexico, and
in the Spanish colonial empire.
Part V
Pottery as an Active
Component of Colonial
Economics
In chapter 13 we saw how instrumental neutron activation analysis has
provided a vital source of information about the complexity associated
with the manufacture and supply of pottery to Alta California. Compounding this complexity are the myriad names archaeologists use to
describe these ceramics and the limited documentary evidence available
about the import of such items to the province. Barbara Voss explores
this disconnect in chapter 14 using evidence largely derived from the Presidio of San Francisco. She notes that the aesthetic qualities of the vessels
studied by archaeologists are virtually invisible in the folk classifications
found in the invoices and requisitions associated with the San Francisco and Santa Barbara presidios. She also notes that the receipts from
Alta California indicate that ceramics were generally inexpensive, were
shipped in bulk, and were valued primarily for their functional qualities
rather than for their appearance.
In chapter 15, Jack Williams complements Vosss findings in his research on maylica from Spanish colonial sites in southern California.
His work, like that of Julia Costello (1990), finds that while maylica is
often conceived of as an essential component to Ibero-American ceramic assemblages, it was never common in early California. He notes
that frontier settlers rapidly abandoned it for English imports during the
Mexican republic era.
Chapter 16 ties our findings and those of the contributors back to the
issue of Alta Californias place in the Spanish colonial world and the early
modern economy.
14
Losa Surtida
Historical and Archaeological Perspectives
on Imported Ceramics in Alta California
Barbara L. Voss
Colonial settlements in Alta California imported substantial quantities

of ceramics from Mexico, China, and Europe. Archaeologists have given
these imported wares, which were usually glazed and often quite beautifully decorated, a wealth of attention since the early 1900s. But how do
the elaborate classification systems developed by archaeologists relate to
how these ceramics were valued and used by the residents of colonial settlements? Analysis of colonial shipping records from Santa Barbara and
San Francisco provides a window into the folk categories used to order
and inventory imported ceramics in Alta California. A case study from
my research at the San Francisco presidio illustrates how this historical evidence brings new perspectives to archaeological interpretations of
Spanish colonial ceramics.
Imported Ceramics: History and Function
The category of imported ceramics is used here to refer to ceramics used
in Alta California that were not manufactured within the province (figure14.1). The majority of imported ceramics arrived in Alta California
via annual supply ships from the Naval Department of San Blas. Located
on the Pacific Coast of Mexico between present-day Puerto Vallarta and
Mazatln, San Blas was established in 1768 for the express purpose of
284 Part V. Pottery as an Active Component of Colonial Economics
Figure 14.1. Examples of imported ceramic ware types typically found in

Spanish colonial Alta California sites. Recovered from Building 13 midden,
San Francisco Presidio: a) maylica; b) Bruida de Tonal; c) British white
ware; d) Chinese export porcelain; e) Galera. Photograph by Barbara L. Voss.
facilitating the Manila Galleon trade and serving as a supply depot for
Alta California colonial settlements (Thurman 1967). Goods shipped
from San Blas to Alta California ranged from blacksmiths anvils to silk
ribbons. Household goods figured prominently, including household
ceramics.
The majority of ceramics shipped to Alta California were produced
in present-day Mexico, including maylica (tin-enameled earthenwares),
Galeras (lead-glazed redwares), and Bruida de Tonal (burnished earthenwares). The remainder consisted of ceramic wares produced outside
the Spanish empire, such as Asian porcelains and British whitewares.
Some of these may have arrived in Alta California through alternative
Imported Ceramics in Alta California285
trade relationships, for example through licit and illicit trade with American, British, and Russian vessels. Trading with these non-Spanish suppliers accelerated in the 1810s, after the Mexican War for Independence
disrupted supply lines from San Blas.
As other chapters in this book document, Alta California settlements
also obtained and produced local ceramics for daily use. Sherds of locally produced vessels have been recovered at every excavated Spanish
colonial site. In some cases, these vessels were the result of trade with local indigenous communities, and in places where this was the case, local
earthenwares often demonstrate a continuation of prehistoric indigenous
ceramic traditions, with modifications to appeal to colonial tastes. Additionally, missions, presidios, and pueblos established their own ceramic
production, both at the household level and in organized workshops.
The dynamic relationship between locally produced wares and imported wares is evident in the archaeological record. In general, imported wares are less abundant in the southern areas of the province.
There, colonial settlers were able to procure ceramics from Native Californian potters who had developed distinctive ceramic traditions long
before colonization. For example, Barbolla-Rolands (1992, 12031) analysis of ceramics from a range of archaeological deposits at the San Diego
presidio found that local aboriginal ceramics constituted 74 percent of
the total assemblage, Mexican-produced ceramics amounted to 24 percent, and the remaining 2 percent consisted of European whitewares and
stonewares and Asian porcelains. In the northern regions, where Native
Californian communities primarily used basketry, colonial communities
were more dependent on the San Blas shipments for ceramics. Vosss
(2002, 691) analysis of ceramics from the Building 13 midden, a deposit
at the San Francisco presidio dating from 1776 to around 1800 found
that only 25 percent were produced locally; 67 percent of the wares were
produced in Mexico; and the remaining 8 percent originated in Europe,
China, or an unknown location.
The relative function of imported and locally produced ceramics also
varied from settlement to settlement. At the San Diego presidio, BarbollaRolands research showed that although the majority of locally produced
vessels were bowls and ollas, there were also significant numbers of flat
plates and saucers. She noted that European conventions influenced aboriginal ceramic technology by introducing non-aboriginal forms such as
stoppers, spouts, ring-bases, and plates (Barbolla 1992, 128). Imported
ceramics at the San Diego presidio primarily consisted of tableware ves-
sels and storage jars (Barbolla-Roland 1992, 121142). Barbolla-Rolands

analysis suggested that a mixture of local and imported ceramics was
used in table service and food storage at the San Diego presidio and that
food preparation and cooking was done almost exclusively with local
ceramics.
Ginns (2009) analysis of locally produced ceramics at several central
California mission sites also provides information about the functional
relationship of locally produced wares and imported ceramics. Ginn
studied samples of plain ware ceramics from Missions San Carlos, San
Antonio, San Juan Bautista, and Santa Clara. The majority of these were
produced within each mission community rather than vessels obtained
in trade from autonomous indigenous potters. Plain ware bowls of diverse sizes and forms were found at all four missions; these included vessels typical of tableware bowls as well as bowl-shaped vessels more likely
used in food preparation and cooking. Comales, which were also used for
cooking, were identified in the plain ware assemblage from San Carlos,
and soup plates, which were used for table service, were found at San Antonio. Jars used in food storage were found at both San Antonio and Santa
Clara (Ginn 2009, 152153, 171174, 189, 202204). Although Ginns
study did not analyze imported wares, her findings indicated that as at
the San Diego presidio, table service at these four missions likely included
both locally produced wares and imported wares because several typical
tableware forms such as cups and plates are not present in the plain ware
assemblages. Similarly, it is clear that food preparation, cooking, and storage at these four missions relied heavily on locally produced ceramics.
At the San Francisco presidio, there was a stronger differentiation in
function between imported and locally produced wares. The ceramic assemblage from the Building 13 midden there consisted of 7,467 sherds
(12.3 kg), representing a minimum number of 251 vessels. Of these,
36percent were tablewares, including cups, bowls, chocolateros, plates,
soup plates, and platters. All were imported ceramics. Eighty-two minimum vessels33 percent of the total assemblagewere cooking vessels,
identified archaeologically by the presence of soot residues in the exterior of the vessels. Of these, 61 vessels were imported and 21 were locally
made. Seventy-one vessels29 percent of the total assemblagewere
classified as general use vessels; this category consisted of medium and
large hollowwares most likely used for noncooking food storage, preparation, and service. Most general-use ceramics42 minimum vessels
were locally produced; only 29 were imported.
These three studies indicate that there was dynamic variability in the
functional relationship between imported ceramics and locally produced
ceramics at Spanish colonial settlements in Alta California. At the San
Diego presidio, imported ceramics were used, but locally produced vessels were used for table service and food storage (but not for cooking or
food preparation). In contrast, at the San Francisco presidio, imported
ceramics were used exclusively for table service and were the dominant
source of cooking vessels. Some locally produced vessels were also used
for cooking, but most were used in noncooking food preparation and
service. Finally, at the four missions Ginn investigated, there is consistency in the use of locally prepared bowls but variability in the production of locally produced wares for table service. This functional variability
means that imported ceramics must be interpreted in the archaeological
and historical context of each settlement.
Archaeological Classifications of Imported Ceramics
Archaeological classifications of ceramics in Alta California vary widely
in their methodology and interpretation. The methods used depend
largely on location of production. For locally produced wares, archaeologists have tended to adapt prehistoric ceramic typologies (for example,
Barbolla-Rolands identification of Tizon Brown Ware at the San Diego
presidio, discussed above). In the absence of precolonial ceramic traditions, archaeologists have often grouped local wares under generic headings such as plain ware or missionware. For wares produced outside
the Spanish empire, such as British whitewares, European stonewares,
and Chinese porcelains, archaeologists studying Alta California have
tended to rely on typologies developed by ceramic specialists working in
those regions.
Appropriately, the most attention has been given to colonial-era
glazed earthenwares that were produced in New Spain and imported
to Alta California and other regions of the interior provinces. The commonly used classification/description systems for three major ware
typesmaylica, Galera, and Bruida de Tonalillustrate the range of
approaches that have been used in archaeological studies of imported
ceramics in Alta California.
Maylica has received the most descriptive and typological attention
of any Spanish colonial ware type (e.g., Barnes and May 1972; Charlton
1976; Deagan 1987; Goggin 1968; Lister and Lister 1974; Plowden 1958;
Snow 1965; Barber 1908; Fournier and Charlton 1998). Several studies
have focused specifically on maylica found in Alta California (BarbollaRoland 1983; Cohen-Williams 1992; May 1972, 1987). Archaeological
classifications of maylica generally follow two complementary directions. One approach focuses on the quality of the maylica, sorting the
specimens into common, ordinary/intermediate, and fine categories
(Barber 1908; Fournier-Garca 1997; Goggin 1968). This analysis, based
on the quality and color of the glaze and the refinement of the decorative
elements, uses archaeological data to approximate the grades used by
pottery guilds in Puebla, a major site of maylica production during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The second approach follows classification systems used in prehistoric
archaeology by using stylistic traits to identify chronologically sensitive
artifact types. Broad maylica traditions are defined by widely shared
decorative motifs and color schemes, and each tradition is further divided into types that refer to specific decorative motifs. For example, San
Elizario Polychrome is a maylica type belonging to the Puebla Tradition that is distinguished by the depiction of a bird in the vessels central
medallion and a rim motif composed of brown and blue lines accented
by blue dots. For Alta California, May (1972, 1975, 1987) distinguishes
between two major maylica traditions. The Puebla Tradition, dating
from the late 1600s, consists of maylica with blue decorations, and the
Aranama Tradition, dating to the late eighteenth century, consists of
maylica decorated with polychrome green, orange, yellow, and brown.
Mays typology is interpretive as well as descriptive; he argued that the
brightly colored Aranama Tradition maylica arose out of the mercantile crisis created by the industrial revolution, which flooded the Spanish
colonial North American market with gaily colored and mass-produced
European ceramics (May 1975, 69).
Compared to maylica, lead-glazed redwares (figure 14.2)usually
referred to as Galera by Alta California archaeologistshave received little typological attention and have usually been classified as common or
utilitarian wares with little descriptive elaboration. In the last four decades, many researchers have noted the analytical neglect of these wares.
In 1972, Fairbanks commented, Next in importance [to maylica] must
surely be yellow or red lead-glazed earthenwares, commonly found but
not yet studied in any detail (1972, 142). Likewise, Barnes wrote in 1980,
Unlike other historical ceramics, these wares are often lumped together
Figure 14.2. Decorated Galera tableware sherds recovered from the

Building 13 midden, San Francisco Presidio: a) monochrome soup plate
with dotted-rim motif; b and c) polychrome white and green slipware soup
plate; d) monochrome cup/bowl with dotted-rim motif; e) monochrome
jarro/chocolatero; f and g) polychrome brown and white jarro/chocolatero;
h) monochrome jarro/chocolatero with banded-rim motif; i) monochrome
wavy-rim motif; j) monochrome banded-rim motif; k) monochrome bandedrim motif; l) plain green glaze; m) monochrome green glaze. Photograph by
Barbara L. Voss.
by the authors of historical site exploration reports, who make no attempt to differentiate them except by the color of their glaze (Barnes
1980, 92).
The earliest archaeological descriptions of Galera ceramics were compiled by Caywood (1950), Di Peso (1953), and Gerald (1968). Building
on Caywoods and Di Pesos earlier descriptions, Gerald distinguished
between two major types: Green Glazed and Galera Polychrome. Greenglazed sherds, which are produced by adding copper to the lead-based
glaze, included two subtypes: Awatovi Green Glaze is characterized by
a white paste with a translucent, emerald-green glaze, while Guanajuato
Green Glaze, which is characterized by a relatively hard reddish body,
is a variety that Caywood (1950) and Di Peso (1953, 225) previously

identified.
Geralds second major type, Galera Polychrome, is attributed to pottery workshops in Tlaquepaque, near Guadalajara, and is described as
having a brownish-red paste with painted decorations in white, brown,
black, green, and blue. Gerald noted that some earlier sherds of this ware
occasionally have designs in white topped with green (1968, 53). While
the Galera Polychrome type is more commonly found in Alta California, examples of Green-Glazed Galeras are also found in Alta California
sites.
Building on these earlier studies, Barnes (1980) developed a more detailed classification system for Galeras distributed throughout New Spain
from the mid-1700s onward. Eight of the Mexican lead-glazed earthenware types that Barnes identified have been found in Spanish colonial
and early Mexican sites of Alta California: Green-Glazed ware, BlackGlazed ware, Guanajuato Green-Glazed ware, interiorly glazed bowls,
Tonal Polychrome, Galera Polychrome, totally green-glazed wares,
and polychrome decorated jarros or chocolateros. Like the earlier classifications Caywood, Di Peso, and Gerald described, Barness analysis of
Galeras focuses primarily on paste and glaze color and secondarily on
decorative elements.
Bruida de Tonal (figure 14.3), also known as losa de olor (fragrant
pottery), is found in relatively small frequencies in Spanish colonial sites
in Alta California and in other regions of New Spain. The ware has been
documented through numerous folk art studies of the potters of Tonal,
Jalisco (e.g., Diaz 1966; Hernndez Casillas 1996; Katz 1977; Lpez Cervantes 1990; Marn de Paalen 1960; Olveda 1999; Romo Torres 1990).
Bruida de Tonal is manufactured primarily from local Tonal clay but
gains its distinctive appearance from a thin translucent slip made from
special clay obtained 30 miles to the south. The vessels are decorated by
alternating applications of red and black oxide with layers of clay slip,
resulting in a four-color design (red, pink, black, and blue-gray). When
the slips and pigments have dried, the vessels are burnished (bruida)
with a lead ore stone. Archaeological descriptions tend to follow art history conventions, emphasizing the ethnographically documented motifs
represented by painted designs on the sherds. Most Bruida de Tonal
vessels are divided into decorative zones by thin horizontal bands called
intermedios with geometric, floral, and animal designs filling each decorative zone in various combinations (Katz 1977, 8084).
Figure 14.3. Bruida de Tonal sherds showing common decorative

motifs. Recovered from Building 13 midden, San Francisco Presidio. Photograph by Barbara L. Voss.
These three examples of archaeological descriptions and classifications show considerable variation in the approach used to analyze Alta
California imported ceramics: for maylica, glaze quality, decorative
color, and decorative motif take center stage, while Galeras are classified
more by the color of the vessel paste and glaze, and Bruidas de Tonal
are described according to the decorative traditions identified through
folk art studies. Despite these differences, there is a clear emphasis on
the appearance of the ceramic specimenwhat might be considered its
aesthetic attributes. As will become clear, these aesthetic attributes may
not have been as significant to the original users of these ceramics as they
have become to the archaeologists who analyze them.
Folk Classifications of Imported Ceramics
An alternative approach to ceramic classification is folk classification,
which derives categories using emic criteria: folk classifications of ceramics indicate how potters and pottery users perceive ceramics.
For Alta California, key sources of folk classifications are requisitions
and invoices (memorias and facturas). These were routinely compiled to
document the shipment of goods from San Blas to Alta California settlements. Fortunately, two sets of such documents have been identified
and translated for the Santa Barbara and San Francisco presidios. For
the Santa Barbara presidio, the original documents were first identified
in the Archivo General de la Nacin in Mexico City and were compiled
by the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. They were transcribed, translated, and published in a collaborative project between the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Santa Barbara Trust for
Historic Preservation (Perissinotto 1998). For the San Francisco presidio,
National Park Service archaeologist Leo Barker traveled to the Archivo
General de la Nacin in 1987 to retrieve microfilm copies of colonial
documents related to the San Francisco presidio, including invoices and
requisitions. These sources were later amended with a contribution of
additional microfilmed documents from Francis Weber and Catherine
Rudolph of the Santa Barbara Presidio History Center (Barker 2007).
Through a partnership between the Presidio Archaeology Center and
the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), archivist
Veronica Dado (Dado 2003, 2004, 2006) transcribed and translated 26
requisitions and seven invoices, which represent 17 shipments to El Presidio de San Francisco. Both sets of documents date from 1779 to 1810,
the period when Alta California settlements were receiving the majority
of their supplies from the San Blas shipments.
Both requisitions and invoices provide a window into the categories
and terminologies literate military professionals used to describe their
material world (see also Voss 2008b, in review). The men at the presidios
who compiled these documents were officers who served as habilitados, a
Spanish colonial military rank that combined the tasks of the quartermaster, paymaster, and general accountant with other military duties. There
is remarkable consistency in the categories presidio habilitados used in
their requisitions and those their counterparts in San Blas used, indicating
a shared terminology despite the considerable distance and the absence
of face-to-face contact. As a record of correspondence between highranking military officers, the requisitions and invoices may not directly
convey the perspectives of rank-and-file soldiers or their family members,
who comprised the majority of the populations at presidios. But indirectly,
these documents begin to give us a sense of the values and preferences
that shaped the demand side of ceramic consumption in Alta California.
The first thing that becomes apparent when reviewing these requisitions and invoices is that supply officers at both presidios gave very little
attention to ceramics, perhaps because they were everyday household

objects that were not central to the military function of the presidios. In
the Santa Barbara documents, ceramics are mentioned in only seven of
12invoices and 16 of 40 requisitions. For the San Francisco documents,
ceramics are mentioned in four of seven invoices and 12 of 26 requisitions. In each case, ceramics rarely merit more than a few lines on lists
that include literally hundreds of entries. In total, only 60 entries in all
the documents combined mention ceramics. In contrast, one typical requisition (Perissinotto 1998, 232237) alone contains 62 entries related
to clothing, cloth, notions, and sewing equipment, and each entry is described in great detail. One might conclude from this broader context that
Spanish colonists in Alta California were far more concerned with their
personal appearance than the settings on their tables (Voss 2008b).
The key term indicating a shipment of ceramics is losa (alternatively
spelled loza), a word that both Perissinotto (1998) and Dado (2004) have
translated as earthen dinnerware. In context, however, several entries
of losa include referents that indicate that this losa was a more generic
term that could refer to porcelain as well as earthenware and to cooking
vessels and chamber pots as well as tableware vessels.
Twenty-three of the ceramic entries refer generically to crates containing losa surtidaassorted potterya description that suggests a lack
of concern with vessel form, quality, or decoration. Thirty-eight entries of
losa or losa surtida mention vessel forms that suggest tablewares, while
nine refer to cooking wares. Seven entries refer specifically to water jars,
and nine refer to jars that are filled with foodstuffs such as oil, olives, or
honey. In the latter case, the jar may be a shipping container rather than
the object of trade itself. Finally, six entries refer specifically to chamber
pots, the only functional category not directly related to food storage,
preparation, or consumption.
Twenty-seven of the 60 entries mention the location of manufacture. Twenty-four of these specified losa de Puebla: or losa surtida de
Puebla, possibly referring to the maylica workshops known to have
operated there throughout the colonial period. There is one reference
to loza de Guadalaxara in an entry describing an assortment of pots,
skillets, and pans (Perissinotto 1998, 216217). Two entries refer to Chinese porcelains: losa de China (Perissinotto 1998, 208) and losa fina
achinada (Dado 2004, Doc 5[1]102).
Most ceramics were shipped by the crate, usually in crates of 25 dozen
vessels. One requisition requested three gross (36 dozen) of assorted
ottery from China (Perissinotto 1998, 208). With few exceptions, the
p
contents of each crate were not itemized in either the requisition or
the invoice. Ceramics shipped by the crate were priced by the dozen. The
price of tableware ceramics generally ranged from 2 to 5 reales per dozen,
although two entriesone for fine-striped ceramics and the other for
Chinese-looking plateswere much higher, at 7 and 10 reales per dozen,
respectively. Five listings are of larger vessels (jars, pots, and chamber
pots) priced by the piece at 3 to 12 reales.
Vessel form is the most frequent attribute mentioned, appearing in 41
of the 60 entries. Thirteen of these refer to jars (bote or botija, variously
spelled votija or botixa) used to transport foodstuffs such as honey and
olive oil. The remaining 28 entries refer to tablewares and cooking wares.
For tablewares, plato (plate) is the most commonly listed vessel form, followed by taza (cup), pozuelo/posillo (bowl), platone (serving plate), tinaja
(water jar), and jarros chocolateras (chocolate jars). For cooking wares,
the most common forms are cazuelas (skillets), cazos/ollas (pots), and
jarros (pans). Many of these entries list multiple types of vessels that were
included in a particular crate: 4 crates with 100 dozen assorted Puebla
earthen dinnerware, plates, cups, and bowls, at 25 per crate (Perissinotto 1998, 265). Six entries also referred to chamber pots (bacinicas)
that were included in a crate of assorted dinnerware or cookingware.
Seventeen entries make some reference to vessel quality. Eleven of
these describe the ceramics as ordinary (ordinaria), five entries as fine
( fina), and one entry as medium fine (entrefina). Vessel decoration receives the least attention; it is mentioned in only four of the 60 entries.
In the Santa Barbara documents, one entry refers to fine striped ( fina
plumeada) ceramics (Perissinotto 1998, 8081) and another entry for
cookingwares notes that the vessels are glazed (bidriada) (Perissinotto
1998, 328329). In the San Francisco documents, two entries specify that
the vessels are white (blancos), one for plates and one for chamber pots.
The contrast between these folk categories and the cited examples
of archaeological classifications is rather dramatic. First and foremost,
these documents throw the archaeological obsession with ceramics into
question. With 38 percent of the ceramic entries listed as losa surtida
assorted potteryand an additional 15 percent of entries referring to
ceramic shipping containers, we can only conclude that colonial supply
officers were little concerned with the aesthetic qualities of the ceramics
being transported from San Blas to Alta California. Indeed, the appearance of ceramics is rarely mentioned.
If the aesthetic qualities that dominate archaeological classifications

had little significance in the back-and-forth correspondence between
Alta California and San Blas, what ceramic attributes were salient? Place
of manufacture is frequently mentioned and may serve as a proxy for
the ware types (maylica, porcelain) commonly used by archaeologists.
Quality seems to be a concern, perhaps echoing the standards established
by pottery trade guilds.
Most commonly, however, the entries describe the form and by implication, the function of the vessels: plates, bowls, cups, platters, jars,
skillets, pots, and pans. This finding corresponds with Rices observation that folk terms for pottery vessels are almost invariably based on
projected use (Rice 1987, 278) rather than on location of manufacture,
surface treatment, color, paste composition, or decoration. Rice found
that the most common folk classes relate to general function, particularly cooking, storage, or serving, with the next most common designating general forms. In this regard, the colonists of Alta California seem
typical of ceramic users around the world: they were concerned primarily with what the vessels would do rather than with how the vessels
would look.
Imported Tablewares at the San Francisco Presidio
What are the implications of these differences between archaeological
and folk classifications? How can the information from the invoices and
requisitions help us better interpret archaeological data? This section
presents an example from my own research at the San Francisco presidio, in which I use both archaeological and folk classifications to analyze
ceramics.
The ceramic assemblage was recovered from 1999 to 2000 through
excavation of a sample of the Building 13 midden. The midden accumulated in a shallow pit that had been excavated to harvest clay-rich soils
for adobe and ceramic production. At the time the pit was excavated,
it was located just outside the east edge of the San Francisco presidio
quadrangle. Ceramic chronology and stratigraphic analysis indicate that
the midden deposit accumulated primarily between 1776 and 1800, with
a few materials added from 1800 to around 1810precisely the time period covered by the requisitions and invoices. Household ceramic sherds,
most of them highly fragmented, comprised 19.96 percent of the midden
contents by specimen count; by weight, these household sherds accounted

for 24.81 percent of the midden contents (Voss 2008a, 139142).
The minimum number of vessels (MNV) these ceramic sherds7,467
in allrepresented was 251. A MNV of 91 (36 percent) were identified
as tablewares used in presenting, serving, and consuming food. All were
imported to the San Francisco presidio, most likely through the shipments from San Blas. We excavated an 8 percent sample of the Building 13 midden, so it is conceivable that the midden may have contained
sherds from as many as 1,137 tableware vessels. (The actual number is
likely somewhat lower as a result of the sampling bias introduced by
MNV quantification [Miller 1986].) This may seem like a lot of plates,
bowls, and cups, but when considered in light of the shipping records
presented above, this number of vessels would represent only three to
four crates worth of tableware ceramics.
Using archaeological classifications, the tableware ceramics break
down into fairly expected categories (Voss 2008a, 212218). A MNV
of 40 are maylica, the majority of which (30 MNV) are in the Puebla
Tradition, with a wide range of types, including San Agustn Blue on
White, Puebla Blue on White, Wavy Rim Blue on White, San Elizario
Polychrome, Huejotzingo Blue on White, and green and yellow variants
of Huejotzingo. There are a smaller number of Aranama Tradition polychromes, including the Monterey Polychrome type, and another maylica
tradition called Tumacacori Polychrome, which has a blue-tinted glaze.
A MNV of 25 are Galeras, nearly all red-bodied and coated with a translucent or transparent lead glaze. In some instances, the glaze itself is
tinted red or green. Like maylica, the Galeras are beautifully decorated,
most with hand-painted underglaze designs executed in brown, reddishbrown, or black pigment. Some are embellished with dots and lines of
pale yellow slip, and sometimes the slip is tinted with a green colorant.
The Galera vessels are decorated with horizontal bands (straight, wavy,
or dotted) that define decorative zones that are filled in with clusters of
dots, wavy lines, crescents, and spirals.
While maylica and Galera dominate the assemblage, there are several other ware types. Bruida de Tonal accounts for a minimum number of eight tableware vessels. Bands, curvilinear motifs, and spirals are
the most common design elements on these vessels, and a few include
the fine-brushed hatching characteristic of the petatillo style. Another
minimum number of eight vessels are Chinese porcelains, two with blue-
on-white underglaze decorations and six with overglaze polychromes

executed in red, gold, and brown enamels. Finally, there are small quantities of European earthenwaresBritish whitewares, French faience, and
black-glazed refined earthenwaresthat were likely acquired as gifts or
through trade with British and French explorers who visited Alta California. The British whitewares include blue hand-painted and transfer-print
floral decorations as well as tortoiseshell mocha.
There are some interesting correspondences between these archaeological descriptions and the ceramic entries in the requisitions and
invoices. If place of manufacture was a proxy for ware type, then the
prevalence of maylica tablewares matches the relatively frequent mention of losa de Puebla and the Chinese porcelains are likely connected
to the mentions of Chinese ceramics in the documents. However, Ga
lera tablewarewhich is quite common archaeologicallyhas no corresponding entries in the documents. The archaeological evidence also
indicates that small amounts of ceramics were entering the San Francisco
presidio through unauthorized routes, whether by trades or as gifts; this
finding suggests that other goods may have also entered Spanish colonial
settlements through mechanisms other than the official shipments from
SanBlas.
The archaeological evidence also provides a window on the aesthetics of the colonial table. Even if vessel decoration was given little official
attention, archaeological analysis shows that the colonists were using
beautiful and colorful ceramics. Nearly all of the tablewares were decorated, most in hand-painted linear and curvilinear geometric motifs and
floral and vegetal design elements. No single color scheme dominated.
The surface coloration includes white, blue, and black opaque glazes and
clear or tinted glazes and slips that gave vessels reddish, greenish, and
tan appearances. Decorative elements were applied in a variety of colors as well: blue monochromes and polychromes (41 percent) and black
monochromes (22 percent) were most common, but the decorations also
included red, green, yellow, orange, and brown pigments. Perhaps this
variety of decoration is what was meant by the phrase losa surtidaa
mixed lot of pottery including a wide range of decorations as well as
forms.
For the colonial supply officers, vessel form and function were the
most important attributes. When the tableware assemblage is reanalyzed
with attention to these folk categories, a close relationship between the
Table 14.1. Tableware ceramics (MNVs) recovered from the building 13

midden: Correlation between ware type and vessel form
Ware Type
Maylica
Galera
Bruida de Tonal
Chinese porcelain
British whiteware
Faience
Total1
Cup or
Bowl
7
6
4
6
1
1
25
Jarro or
Chocolatero
Plate or
Soup Plate
Platter
Total1
28
3
31
36
17
4
6
1
1
65
Note: 1. Includes only tableware MNVs that could be identified to form.
archaeological and documentary evidence emerges. A MNV of 65 tablewares (out of 91) could be identified by vessel form. Plates (31 MNV)
were most common, including both shallow plates and the deeper-welled
plates often called soup plates. Cups and bowls (25 MNV) were grouped
together because in most cases not enough of the original vessel was preserved to differentiate between these forms. The tableware assemblage
also includes several small jars or chocolateras (eight MNV) and a serving platter (one MNV). In sum, the archaeological evidence generally
corroborates the tableware vessel forms listed in the requisitions and
invoices.
Taken separately, these analyses are quite useful; however, an even
more interesting pattern emerges when the archaeological classifications
(ware type and decoration) and folk classifications (vessel form) are combined (Table 14.1). It becomes apparent that certain ware types specialized in particular forms. Nearly all the maylica vessels are plates or
soup plateswide, shallow vessels used for individual servings of main
dishes such as stewed and dry-cooked meats, grains, and vegetables. In
contrast, most of the Galeras are hollowwarescups, bowls, jars, and
chocolate pots. The Bruida de Tonal vessels and the Chinese porcelains
are all hollowwares; the Bruida de Tonal vessels appear to be mostly
cups and the porcelains mostly bowls. A MNV of one British whiteware
and one faience ware could be identified to form, and these too were
bowls or cups.
The results are surprising: each colonial table was itself a collection
of losa surtida. Rather than one household dining on maylica and another on Galera, it appears that each household selected vessels from an
assortment of ware types. One can envision a typical table setting with
maylica plates and soup plates for serving stews, bean dishes, and other
main courses; Galera chocolateras for hot beverages; Bruida de Tonal
cups for cool beverages; and a selection of Galera, maylica, porcelain,
faience, and whiteware cups and bowls for soups, gruels, and spirits.
These vessels, which were drawn from potteries throughout New Spain
and in Asia and Europe, linked each colonial household to a vast commercial network that literally stretched around the globe.
Conclusion
The findings of this study are humbling for archaeologists. We give great
attention to the aesthetic qualities of the vessels we study. In this volume, the geochemical signatures of ceramics also emerge as a key line
of archaeological evidence, a vital source of information about pottery
manufacture and distribution. Yet the shipping correspondence from
Alta California indicates that ceramics were generally inexpensive, were
shipped in bulk, and were valued primarily for their function rather than
for their appearance.
The analysis of the tableware ceramics from the San Francisco presidio reveals a dynamic interplay between archaeological and documentary
evidence. The subtle shifts in ceramic decoration provide an independent
line of chronological information that is quite valuable for dating deposits.
Moreover, the archaeological evidence from the San Francisco presidio
suggests that the requisitions and invoices are poor sources of information about ceramic ware types and locations of manufacture. Likewise,
despite the lack of documentary attention to aesthetics, the archaeologically recovered ceramics are elaborately decorated and quite beautiful
captivating to the modern eye and perhaps to colonial sensibilities.
The finding that vessel form is correlated with vessel ware type at the
San Francisco presidio changes the way archaeologists think about the
relationship between ceramics and social life in colonial Alta California.
Because of the dynamic relationship between imported and locally produced ceramics throughout Alta California, we cannot assume that the
pattern evident in San Francisco can be extended to the entire province.
But regardless, this example shows that when archaeological classifications and folk classifications are integrated in ceramic analyses, archaeol-
ogists gain a more fine-grained perspective on how colonial households

used ceramics in their daily lives.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Veronica Dado for her review of analyses that
contributed to this study; to Kat and Landis Bennett of 360 Geographics for assistance with preparation of figures; and to Suzanne G. Fox for
editorial assistance.
15
Reconstructing Maylica Use
Patterns from Colonial Sites
in Southern California
Jack S. Williams
By the middle of the sixteenth century, Spanish explorers had penetrated

the coastal areas of what is today the state of California. Sporadic visits
to these same regions occurred throughout the following 200 years. In
1769, colonization of the province began with the establishment of an
outpost at San Diego. By the dawn of the second decade of the nineteenth
century, Spain had developed a series of missions, presidios, pueblos, and
smaller outposts such as ranches along the Pacific coastline. Between
1821 and 1848, the newly independent Republic of Mexico transformed
and elaborated the settlements inherited from Spain.
Archaeological research into the sites of this era has only gradually
developed. Most investigations have taken place since the middle of
the twentieth century (Farnsworth and Williams 1992). Historians have
shown relatively little interest in understanding the material culture of this
period. Most of the field research that initially developed was focused on
architecture. Gradually, increased attention was placed on smaller, more
fragmentary but plentiful classes of remains. As an increasing number of
anthropologically trained archaeologists became involved in investigations of Iberian sites during the 1960s, a specific research focus developed that involved ceramics, including tin-enameled wares.
Many researchers have emphasized the value of sherds as a tool in
chronological control. The discovery of a particular type of a broken
piece of pottery could be used to approximately date the surrounding

artifacts and buildings (for examples, see Barnes and May 1972; Bonath 1978; Cohen-Williams 1992; Fournier-Garca 1990; Fox 1983; Gerald
1968; Goggin 1968; James 1988; Krase 1979; Lister and Lister 1974, 1976,
1978, 1982; Lpez Cervantes 1976; May 1975; Mller 1981; Plowden 1958;
Snow 1965; Seifert 1977; Tunnel and Ambler 1967; Williams 1994, 2003).
Some investigators have also attempted to explore the behavioral implications of Ibero-American pottery. The topics that have been examined using ceramic data include status, ethnicity, politics, acculturation,
economics, and ideology (for examples, see Deagan 1983; Ewen 1991;
Fairbanks 1972; Fontana 1972; Lister and Lister 1987; Skowronek 1992;
Vernon 1988; Williams 1983, 1992a, 1992b). This second kind of analysis
(involving human behavior) has been considered somewhat more controversial than the first (involving dating).
The major objective of the essay that follows is to refine our understanding of the character and chronological placement of certain tinenameled earthenware types (maylica, majolica, maylica, loza blanca
de Puebla, loza de Talavera) commonly found on Spanish colonial sites in
southern California (using data from the San Diego presidio, Mission San
Diego, and Mission San Luis Rey). Once these changes in tin-enameled
earthenwares have been plotted over time, some speculation is offered
about the value of the maylica for our understanding of certain broader
issues involving cultural change.
The Study Setting
The analysis that follows is based on archaeological data that mainly
derives from three projects. These investigations involve the San Diego
presidio, Mission San Diego, and Mission San Luis Rey. Each of these colonial sites was part of the southernmost presidio district of colonial Alta
California. The projects are an integral part of a larger effort to preserve
surviving remains and to understand the character of life and material
culture of the region.
The Presidio of San Diego was founded in July 1769. In the decades
that followed, the settlement served as a mission, a presidio, and a civil
outpost. At first, the outpost functioned as a combination mission and
presidio. In 1774, the mission was moved to a new location and the
Reconstructing Maylica Use Patterns303
original site was taken over by the military. During the later eighteenth
century, the presidio evolved into a military colony with a population
that reached over 400 people. By 1800 the presidio was a massive adobe
citadel that included houses for the garrison, workshops, storehouses,
and the homes of civilian settlers. The military colony was slowly abandoned in the 1830s. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, most of
the presidios remains have escaped disturbance. After 1920, the site was
transformed into a public park. Fieldwork was undertaken at the presidio
in the period 19921998. The analysis of artifacts from the site is ongoing
(Williams 1997, 2004b).
Mission San Diego was reestablished at its current site in 1774. Less
than a year later, the outpost was destroyed by Indian raiders. By 1776 the
settlement had been founded for a second time. During the decades that
followed, the Franciscans who managed the settlement continued their
endeavor despite the relatively limited interest of the Native Americans
and an extreme shortage of water. The mission was initially rebuilt as an
adobe fortress. However, over time it evolved into an adobe quadrangle
of a less militant nature. Despite significant material success, the mission
was never able to become a reduccin (place of Native American resettlement). The Franciscans continued to have to work with people living in
their traditional villages. At various times, the population at the settlement may have included over 1,000 people. By 1835, Mission San Diego
was secularized. The U.S. Army used the facility from 1847 to 1864, and
in 1864 the mission property was returned to the Catholic Church. Major restoration efforts at the site date from 1935 to the present. The current archaeological project, which focuses on the mission friary, began in
2002 and continues at the present time.
Mission San Luis Rey was established in 1798. It was the eighteenth
mission founded in Alta California. Unlike the conditions in San Diego,
abundant water and support from the Native American community ensured its rapid growth. By the end of the first decade of the nineteenth
century, the outpost had grown into an elaborate complex of buildings
that included a residential area for more than 1,000 inhabitants. Secularization took place in 1835. Like San Diego, Mission San Luis Rey served
as a U.S. military base, from 1847 to 1864. Major efforts to restore the
mission complex began at the end of the nineteenth century. The present archaeological investigations began in 1998 and have continued
through the present. They involve a number of site areas, including por-
tions of theplaza, the sunken gardens, and the eastern and western site
peripheries.
Of the three study areas, the San Diego presidio has provided the
most abundant collections of colonial and early Mexican republic tinenameled earthenwares. Work undertaken at the location by Paul Ezell
(19651976), Diane Barbolla (19761986), and Brad Bartel (19811991)
and the 19921998 field work has produced tens of thousands of sherds
of tin-glazed earthenware (Barbolla-Roland 1992; Williams 1994).
Table 15.1 summarizes some of the features of important archaeological contexts at the three sites that are relevant to the present analysis.
Data from the period after 1800 is available from all three sites. However, the San Diego presidio is the only site that has yielded abundant
information about the era of 17691800. In particular, the north wing
excavations of 19921998 produced the only clear sealed deposits that
can be dated to the two eras.
The critical data from the San Diego presidio was extracted by using known dates of architectural features to establish the period of various strata and features. By carefully studying the relationship of floors,
wall junctions, and fill episodes, it has been possible to reconstruct the
gradual evolution of the exposed area of the north wing over time (Williams 1994). Although the dates of these changes remain approximate, a
number of key features have emerged that suggest that ongoing research
will have major implications for understanding the general pattern of
maylica use in California.
The earliest construction phase is represented by the creation of a continuous row of rooms backed by a defense wall (a casa muro). This structure was built out of adobes and cobbles. The construction of this complex can be dated to circa 17761778. When compared to the structures
of later eras, these buildings seem to have had a rather rustic character,
with earthen floors and little architectural elaboration. All the rooms built
during this period appear to have had entranceways opening to the plaza
to the south. No multiroom complexes were observed (Williams 1994).
Prior to 1783, a gateway (sallyport) was cut through the original defense wall, near the northeast corner. Two smaller rooms were added to
the exterior of the fort. These rooms were constructed out of crudely
dressed sandstone blocks. The new additions created two two-room
compounds. Other rooms seem to have followed the earlier residential
pattern.
Table 15.1. Archaeological contexts and excavation periods: San Diego

Presidio, Mission San Diego, and Mission San Luis Rey
Area Investigated/Dates of Research
Possible Date Range and Notes on Maylica
San Diego Presidio, Chapel

and Convento, 19651976
Most of the deposits encountered date to ca.

18001835. Aranama Polychrome and similar
later maylica types were most frequently encountered. Most deposits have abundant English
wares. Approximately 500 sherds of maylica were
recovered.
San Diego Presidio, West Wing,

19761986
Deep tests in the western gun platform area reveal depositions dating ca. 17691800, with two
levels of English wares. Other areas of the western compound have mixed deposits with relatively
abundant English wares, similar to the chapel and
convent areas. Approximately 12,000sherds of
maylica were recovered, much of it from the deep
tests.
San Diego Presidio, Northeast

Corner, 19881991
Most of the maylica encountered was discovered

in association with abundant English and Chinese
wares. Aranama Polychrome and Tumacacori
Polychrome (azul punche) outnumber all decorated
types encountered. Approximately 1,500 sherds
of maylica were recovered.
San Diego Presidio, North Wing,

19921998
Abundant maylica was recovered throughout the

study area. Deposits dating to after 1790 are
associated with English and Chinese ceramics.
Earlier sealed contexts date to ca. 1769?1790.
More than 9,000 sherds of maylica were recovered. Analysis is ongoing.
San Luis Rey Mission, Plaza Acequia, 19982000
The deposits studied dated to 18001850. Most

of the maylica encountered was discovered in
association with abundant English and Chinese
wares. Approximately 500 sherds of maylica were
recovered. Analysis is ongoing.
San Diego Mission Friary

20022003
Most of the materials encountered date to 1800

1850. Small amounts of maylica were recovered
from the general area and sealed deposits. Less
than 150 sherds of maylica were recovered.
Analysis and investigations are ongoing.
Note: For additional information about the San Diego Presidio, see Williams 1994.
Sometime around 1783, a massive new construction program was

initiated at the presidio. A freestanding defense wall was built several
meters beyond the edge of the original fortifications. The old sallyport
became an alleyway that ended in a triangle-shaped bastion. A series of
backyards were also created. Most of these rear areas show evidence of
having been associated with cooking. During the last decade of the century, the study area was dominated by a large elite residence that we think
was associated with Comandante Jos de Ziga.
Another important change at the site during this era was the introduction of fired bricks and rounded roof tiles. The creation of a series of
floors in the elite residence area sealed the earlier floor deposits. During
the abandonment phase, looters removed select sections of these floors.
During our excavations, we cleared the areas disturbed by these postoccupation activities. Because the looters were interested only in the tile
floors, they left the earlier deposits undisturbed.
The dramatic shifts in activities in the backyard areas also produced
new patterns of soil accumulation. During the period before the construction of the new defense wall, the exterior of the presidio was covered
by deposits of domestic sheet trash. We encountered a number of features dating to the early period that also suggested the creation of bronze
castings in the area.
The new backyard activities generally produced formal earth and
clay floors. These surfaces had higher percentages of ash than the lower
sheet-trash strata. Formal cooking features, including estufas, or stoves,
and hornos, or ovens, were common in these areas.
Sometime after 1800, another series of major modifications can be detected at the presidio. The new fortifications were abandoned and a number
of smaller residential compounds were created in the north wing. Many of
these changes were made with reused building materials. Sheet-trash deposits and features were built to the north of the ruined fortifications.
During the last decade of the settlement (ca. 18251835), many of
the exterior rooms were used for trash disposal. A particularly abundant
trash lens was created in the former alleyway. The last rooms to have
been used as habitations appear to be those that fronted the plaza.
Because of the high clay content of the areas soils and the early protection afforded to the presidio, an unusual amount of wall fabric has
survived (Williams 1994). Walls generally range in height from 50 centimeters to 1.5 meters. Because of the unusual state of preservation and the
Table 15.2. Stratigraphic sequence observed in the north wing of the San
Diego Presidio
Strata
Description
Grey/black topsoil brought into the site by George W. Marston

in the early twentieth century for park landscaping. Generally
less than 20 cm thick. Artifacts date from the twentieth century
through the Spanish colonial era.
Wall fall and wall melt. Fragmentary adobe bricks and melted
adobe wall fabric. This strata is tan to brown in color and has
an extremely high clay content. The strata terminates in a lens
made up of the fragmentary remains of fallen roof tile. This strata
ranges in depth from approximately 30 cm to 2 m. Most artifacts
date from the Mexican republic and Spanish colonial eras.
3A
Upper Floor Context. Materials trapped between the fallen roof

tile and the first discernible floor surface (this may be clay, earth,
or fired tile). Color and character vary. This strata ranges from a
few cm to a maximum depth of 15 cm. Most artifacts that can be
dated reflect the period after 1800.
3B
Lower Floor Context. Materials trapped below the upper floors.

Color and character vary. This strata ranges from a few cm to a
maximum depth of 20 cm. Most artifacts that can be dated reflect
the period before 1800.
Sterile. Yellow clay matrix with irregular cobblestone deposits.
Note: In areas where strata 3A and 3B were not discernible, the materials were labeled as
strata3.
highly regular nature of the formation processes at the site, it has been
possible to recognize the stratigraphic sequence noted in table 15.2. In
general, the San Diego presidio site has produced an unusual number of
easily dated deposits. Many of these locations have abundant maylica
(tables 15.3 and 15.4).
Based on the stratigraphic locations of the maylica and the concentrations of associated dated ceramics, it has been possible to distinguish a number of approximate chronological periods for the maylica
(table15.5).
The data from Missions San Diego and San Luis Rey remains less clear
than that for the San Diego presidio. Neither site has produced abundant
maylica (a total of 250 sherds from San Diego Mission and 475 from
San Luis Rey have been found). Based on data from the San Diego presidio, the locations that have produced these sherds appear to date to after
Table 15.3. Frequencies of maylica types at the San Diego Presidio

Type or Tradition
Variety
White Maylica
Puebla Polychrome
Aranama Polychrome
Puebla Green on White
Puebla Orange on White

Later Mexican Polychromes
(azul punche)
Mexico City Yellow
Totals
General category
General category
Castillos Polychrome
Huejotzingo Blue on White
Wavy Rim Blue on White
San Agustn Blue on White
San Antonio Blue on White
Unidentified black on white
General category
Monterey Polychrome
Orange Band Polychrome
San Ignacio Polychrome
Santa Cruz Polychrome
Tubac Polychrome
Tucson Polychrome
Huejotzingo Green on White
Wavy Rim Green on White
Ziga Polychrome
Huejotzingo Orange on White
General category
Ventura Polychrome
General category
3,298
3,074
4
193
75
72
5
2,063
13
406
106
14
111
7
23
26
58
5
3
12
1
4
2
37
34.2
31.8
<0.1
2.0
0.8
0.7
<0.1
21.4
0.1
4.2
1.0
0.1
1.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
General category
30
9,642
0.3
100
Table 15.4. Summary of maylica from archaeology at the San Diego

Presidio
Type or Tradition

White Maylica
Aranama Polychrome
(azul punche)
Other
Totals
3,423
3,298
2,076
751
35.5
34.2
21.5
7.8
37
57
9,642
0.4
0.6
100
Table 15.5. Early versus late maylica complexes at the San Diego
Presidio
Early Maylica Complex
Later Maylica Complex
(17691800)
Common types
White maylica
(18001835)
Aranama Polychrome
White maylica
Standard types
Aranama Polychrome
Rare types
Castillos Polychrome
San Antonio Blue on White
San Agustn Polychrome
Orange Band Polychrome
Monterey Polychrome
Santa Cruz Polychrome
Associated wares
Exotic plain wares and redwares
Local Native American wares
Chinese Porcelain
Latino lead-glazed wares

Tucson Polychrome
Monterey Polychrome
Ziga Polychrome
Tubac Polychrome
Ventura Polychrome
Later Mexican Polychrome
Locally produced redwares
Local Native American wares
English-produced wares
Chinese porcelain
Latino lead-glazed wares
Note: Common types represent up to 50 percent of each deposit; standard types

represent up to 25 percent of each deposit; rare types represent less than 10 percent
of each deposit.
1800. The distribution of types, varieties, and forms from the two missions falls into the same general pattern as the later presidio deposits.
Chronological Implications
Based on the data presented here and additional preliminary studies of
the patterns of maylica found within each strata at the San Diego presi-
dio, it is clear that a number of subtle shifts can be detected in the pattern
of maylica use over time.
During the period before 1800, the maylica complex is dominated
by Puebla Blue on White wares (Plate 10). A small percentage of these
ceramics represent varieties that are thought to have fallen out of use
by the era of the presidios founding. These include San Agustn Blue on
White, San Antonio Blue on White, and Castillos Polychrome (Plate 11).
In contrast, Puebla Blue on White soup plates, bowls, and jars make up a
significant portion of the early deposits. San Elizario Polychrome is also
particularly abundant during this period (Plate 12). Aranama Polychrome,
most frequently encountered in the form of San Diego Polychrome and
Monterey Polychrome, represents a distinct minority in the early context collections (Plate 13). Maylica is abundant in all the early colonial
deposits we have encountered. It represents more than 95 percent of the
white wares by count during this era.
During the later period (after 1800), the most obvious shift is in the
general amount of maylica encountered in colonial deposits. Over time,
the maylica counts shrink drastically, especially when compared to
other white wares. British and Chinese goods clearly replaced the older
maylica wares as the serving vessels of choice during this period. By
1835, maylica had all but disappeared. Although Puebla Blue on White
wares were still present, San Elizario Polychrome and various Aranama
tradition wares, such as Monterey Polychrome and Tucson Polychrome,
are the most frequently encountered varieties of tin-enameled earthenware (Plate 14). Also notable in the later deposits are small but persistent
quantities of Tumacacori Polychrome (azul punche), Mexico City Polychrome, and other rarer types, such as Ventura Polychrome, and similar
later Mexican Polychromes (Plate 15).
Based on the data noted in the preceding sections it should be possible
to recognize other early or late deposits in the colonial period. In general,
the declining percentage of Puebla Blue on White seems to provide a
useful index of the relative chronological position of a deposit. Unfortunately, the extreme popularity of San Elizario Polychrome makes it a less
reliable indicator of early versus late occupations. The relative abundance
of Aranama Polychrome, Tumacacori Polychrome (azul punche), and
other similar wares is another good indicator of a post-1800 occupation.
Finally, the presence of a high percentage of English wares compared to
maylica is a definite indicator of the final two decades of Mexican rule.
Common forms
Types
Bowls, jars,
bottles
Bruida redware,
other HispanicIndian redware
Tizon Brown Ware,

Colorado River
Buffware, including
decorated variants
Bowls, jars
Bruida
Other Native
American
Unidentified
Local Native
American
Table 15.6. Ceramics at the San Diego Presidio
Soup plates
(soperos), bowls,
jars, drug jars,
cups, teacups
(Lead-glazed)
Tlaquepaque
Polychrome
(decorated pumicetempered plainware
[from San Blas?]
olive jar wares
Maylica
Iberian Tradition
Maylica
Pitchers, plates,
bowls, jars, teacups,
teakettles
(with various
forms of decorations
including transferware)
British yellow ware,
mochaware, annular
ware, cottage ware,
lusterware, stoneware
Pearlware
Other
European
Plates, bowls, jars, gin bottle
Chinese porcelain (including:

plainwares, polychrome, Galera
ware, creamware underglaze blue,
overglaze, polychrome, export
grade, Canton ware, Ohm pattern,
and Allah patterns)
Asian
Some Possible Behavioral Implications of

the Changes Seen in Maylica
It may be useful to begin the discussion of behavioral implications with a
brief review of the place of maylica in the larger pattern of ceramic use
seen at the San Diego presidio (table 15.6). The key features of the early
Ibero-American domestic ceramic pattern can be described as follows.
Native American tradition plain wares, deriving from both local and
more distant Indian groups, are the predominant type of pottery found
on Ibero-American sites. Some of these wares show evidence of the introduction of Old World concepts, such as the potters wheel, and some
types of other modifications such as ring bases, flat bottoms, and loop
handles. Red slipped ware (redware), an important ceramic type known
from both the Old and New Worlds, was introduced to California by the
Spaniards. Glazed wares represent a small but consistent percentage of
the ceramics. Lead-glazed wares and most Native tradition wares were
apparently used primarily in food preparation and storage. A diverse array of new types and forms of serving wares were introduced in the later
period, including chamber pots, teapots, and bottles.
It is interesting to note the forms of vessels that are not characteristic
of the maylica assemblage at the presidio. Soup plates (soperos), bowls,
cups, and jars are the most common forms encountered. A few fragments
can be clearly identified as drug jars (albarellos). Handles are rare but not
unknown. By contrast, relatively few lids of any sort have been recovered. Some forms that are common elsewhere, such as shaving dishes,
inkstands, sand shakers, salt cellars, square bottles, flowerpots, chamber
pots (bacines), jugs, tiles, chocolate jars, and candlesticks, are unknown.
However, cups (tazas) in small demijohn-like forms and teacups can be
identified in the collections.
Conclusions
Compared to other regions, the maylica assemblage of California reflects continuity with decorative schemes but far less diversity of forms
than in the more developed areas of the empire. While frontier people
made use of maylica in ways that were similar to how it was used in
other areas (as serving wares), they made do with a somewhat simplified
set of utensils.
It is clear that maylica, which is often conceived of as an essential

component to Ibero-American ceramic assemblages, remains a lowfrequency phenomenon in early California. It was never an extremely
abundant ware compared to local ceramics produced by Native Americans. Prior to 1800, maylica was a more prominent form of serving
ware. The frontier settlers rapid abandonment of maylica echoes a
shift in the regions economy that involved the advent of increased trade
with the Old World. This change produced deposits with more abundant
improved earthenwares. Finally, the shift toward the new ceramic types
may suggest that the settlers had limited loyalty to the older wares. By the
end of the Mexican republic era, maylica had become an even scarcer
commodity in California.
From a practical perspective, the data described here suggests that in
order to study the more subtle aspects of maylica, very large ceramic
collections need to be created. The absence of maylica in smaller collections from early missions and contact sites may simply be a reflection of
the scarcity of this variety of pottery.
16
Concluding Comments
Pottery and the Transition from Colonial Life
After more than a dozen years of involvement with the ceramics associated with the missions, presidios, pueblos, and adobes of Californias
Hispanic past, it seems appropriate to assess what has been learned, take
stock as to where we are, and consider what lies ahead. Such reflection is
common among senior members of any field of research, and to a considerable degree it preempts others from pointing out the omissions and
errors of procedure or interpretation. In honesty, we began with a hammer and searched for a nail to strike. Because of a partnership between
the researchers in the Smithsonian and the Center for Neutron Research
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology we had an ongoing program of neutron activation analysis with successful applications
in many parts of the Old World, the American Southwest, and in Mesoamerica and Central America. Other specialists were interested in the
results of these specialized studies. But was there a project that might
bring our research efforts to a wider audience? After a few months of
contemplation, Ronald Bishop drew upon memories of his fourth grade
education and returned to California to explore what might be a research
topic that involved Native American and Spanish contact at this dynamic
period of two-way social transformation. He found a researcher at Santa
Clara University who was already musing about the question of ceramic
production, supply, and exchange. And from this beginning, our re-
Concluding Comments: Pottery and the Transition from Colonial Life315
search team was formed with the goal of exploring aspects of social and
economic interaction through a compositional investigation of ceramic
materials.
California archaeologists and mission administrators were willing to
collaborate with the project by permitting their ceramics to be included
in the study. Beyond that, a healthy dose of serendipity allowed us to expand the nascent project to include subject specialists and local associations, artists, enthusiasts, and others. Because of these collaborations, we
were able to include materials from 18 of the 21 original missions and all
four of the presidios and were also able to supplement our elemental data
with information compiled by other colleagues regarding vessel form,
decoration, manufacture and function. By fortunate coincidence, as the
California project was carried out a new project was begun that focused
on the glazed ware ceramics from colonial- and republican-era Mexico.
Thus, we were acquiring a comparative database even as we were analyzing California glazed wares.
An initial focus was documenting and assessing the extent of trade
of earthenwares in Alta California. Trade is a popular focus that figured
prominently in explanations for growth in social complexity in the late
1970s and 1980s (e.g., Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Hirth 1978; and Renfrew
1975). We were able to provide evidence of trade using compositional
analyses. Yet studies of compositional data have tended to show that
trade over appreciable distances is not as common as we once hoped.
Exceptions are made, of course, for exotic or ritual pottery having special
social, economic, or political value. Examples of such ceramics would be
the central Mexican Thin Orange of the earlylate Classic period (ca. AD
300900), Plumbate pottery from the Pacific Coast near the GuatemalaMexico border (ca. AD 6001200), or the small Tell el-Yehudiyeh Ware
juglets of the Middle East Levant (ca. 17501550 BC). Aside from such
material, Dean Arnolds worldwide survey found that typically, commonly consumed ceramics were made from clay resources that were located less than 5 kilometers away from where the ceramics were used
(e.g., Arnold 1985, 2060). Similarly, ethnoarchaeological work among
the earthenware-making Kalinga of the northern Philippines has shown
that two-thirds of the utilitarian earthenwares made today are exchanged
within a 10 kilometer (5 mile) radius of their point of production (Stark
1994, 187). With this perspective we did not expect to find bricks or roof
tiles weighing some 1525 pounds being carried any appreciable distance
from where they were made. Thus, using these architectural ceramics as
proxies for local clay resources or potters fields, we were able to anchor
earthenware manufacture to each mission or mission-presidio complex
sampled rather unambiguously.
In some instances a single compositional group representing missionbased manufacture could be seen, but more generally, compositional variation that was seemingly attributable to quantity of nonplastic inclusions
in the pottery led to the establishment of a main group with one or more
subgroups. The inclusion of architectural ceramics gave a useful base for
comparison with the earthenware. As Dietrich noted in 1928, California clays vary in their composition and properties (Dietrich1928,15).
Dietrich went on to show the location of high-grade clays for pottery
formed by Eocene sedimentation from inland seas (Dietrich 1928, 19)
and the concentration of such clays in what is now Riverside County.
The more common clays are adequate for making pottery without warping using low-temperature firing, but frequently these clays require the
addition of grog, or other types of tempering material. Clearly, much of
the chemically expressed variation that we find in the locally manufactured earthenware pottery could be explained through more extensive
petrographic analysis. That, combined with more extensive sampling for
chemical analysis might have led to a larger number of well-constituted
subgroups, but the interpretive rewards would probably not have been
worth the analytical resources expended.
A different dimension was added to the project with the analysis of
glazed ceramics, particularly of the monochrome or Galera ware. The determination that more than 50 percent of non-tin-opacified glazed wares
we analyzed were manufactured arguably in a single craft center somewhere (presumably) in Mexico offered the possibility of demonstrating
a strong economic relationship between production and consumption.
Yet even after we compared the California glaze ware compositions with
those established for many of the major historically documented centers
of pottery manufacture in Mexico, no match was forthcoming. Our primary glaze ware composition group is isolated in compositional space.
That the group does emanate from Mexico is assumed from the very
few matches with glaze ware from San Blas and Loreto, both of which
were embarkation points for goods being shipped to Alta California. The
smaller groups we formed for the Alta California glaze wares similarly
have no firm match to any groups in Mexico despite the fact that compositional reference groups have been formed for the historically described
production centers. Until more sampling can take place in western Mexico, this situation is likely to remain unresolved.
One of the more significant findings of the research is the demonstration that some of the glaze wares associated with the missions and
the presidios were manufactured in Alta California and that they were
manufactured at several of the mission complexes. It was not the glazed
pottery that moved but rather the technology to make it, first north from
Mexico and then through the mission chain. In a throwback to explanations that were offered before the days of compositional analysis, we
found that it was technological diffusion, not trade, that was responsible
for some of the glaze ware distribution. Perhaps equally interesting is the
fact that local manufacture appears to be associated with the red-glazed
pottery and for some of the brown-glazed pottery. Pottery with orange,
yellow, or green glazes was all seemingly imported from Mexico.
Reflecting the great distances and therefore the great costs involved,
there is no evidence that Spanish-produced maylica ever flowed into
Alta California (let alone the rest of the Americas) after the sixteenth
century (Skowronek 1992). The great production centers of Mexico City
and Puebla, principally the latter, fulfilled the desire for fancy tableware
for presenting food the gente de razon consumedat least the pottery.
Notwithstanding Vosss (2012, this volume) recent work that questions if archaeologists have overestimated the significance of imported
ceramics to the people who used them in the presidios of Alta California,
it is fair to observe, as does Williams in this volume, that even when fully
functional ceramics were being produced locally, maylica was imported
to both presidios and missions. In chapter 2, we quoted Braudels succinct
statement about desire versus need (1973, 123). Although people in
the presidios, pueblos, and missions of Alta California could wear clothing, eat foods, and use pottery produced in their community or nearby in
the province, they chose to import some of these commodities, including
many finer itemssome from as far away as Spain (Skowronek and Graham 2012, 2425). Certainly, the quality and cost of the imported ceramics may have been on the lower end of the scale when generally supplied
to the presidios (Voss 2012, 50), but they were nonetheless requisitioned
and supplied. Interestingly, Costello suggested that not only was cloth
and clothing a significant portion of the trade brought to California but
at the end of the Spanish colonial period Spanish-American pottery,
once monopolized by high-status groups, [was] passed down to Indian
households after English wares became easily available (1990, 123, 389).
After the collapse of the Spanish empire and the ending of the Manila
Galleon trade, Mexico and its distant provinces joined the nascent world
capitalist economy more fully (Costello 1990, 411).
The role of Puebla is well documented in work by Perissinotto (1998),
who presents the invoices and requisitions for the earthen dinnerware,
fine earthen dinnerware, and earthenware jars filled with olives from
Puebla for the Santa Barbara presidio for the years 17791810 (Table16.1). Similarly, ledger books from Mission Santa Clara for the period
17701828 clearly demonstrate the procurement of olives in olive jars,
porcelain, crockery and presumably maylica from Puebla (Skowronek,
Fanta, and Morales n.d.) (Table 16.2). Such requests had a significant
economic impact, as the pottery had to be transported from the source
of manufacture in the interior on the Central Plateau of Mexico to the
transshipment point of San Blas on the Pacific Coast. Given the varying
excavation and/or collection histories and the limited study of existing
ledgers, invoices, and receipts, we may never be able to adequately assess how many maylica vessels arrived in Alta California. Nonetheless,
we now can say with certainty that the majority supplied to the province came largely from Mexico and that Puebla figured prominently as a
supplier.
But there is still the strange situation at Missions San Juan Bautista
and San Carlos in the Monterey presidio jurisdiction. There and only
there we find maylicas whose elemental fingerprint is consistent not
with Mexican but rather with Panamanian production. It was thought
that Panamanian production ended before the establishment of Alta
California, during the raids of Henry Morgan in 1670 (Rovira 2001).
Are these artifacts evidence for a late eighteenth and early nineteenthcentury revival of Panamanian production? Are they evidence for nonsanctioned trade from Panamanian ports at the end of Spanish colonial
rule? Or could they be heirlooms that made their way to the Monterey
jurisdiction because it was the location of the primary residence of the
president of the Franciscan province?
In this volume, in addition to presenting the results of our groundbreaking archaeometric study of the production, supply, and exchange of
ceramics in Alta California, we have for the first time brought together
the leading ceramicists and scholars in the field to share their findings.
From studies of fabrication, form, decoration, and firing techniques to
petrographic analysis and detailed studies of local production, provisioning, and exchange, the place of ceramics in Alta California is now firmly
Invoice, Mexico
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Invoice, Mexico
Invoice, Mexico
Invoice, Mexico City
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
11
16
20
23
26
25
23
13
Invoice or Requisition
Document Number
March 31, 1793
March 26, 1793
May 10, 1792
May 10, 1792
December 9,
1791
February 24,
1788
January 16,
1790
March 21, 1787
March 31, 1785
Date
223
217
209
205
175
155
111
105
81
Page Number
(continued)
Two tercios of earthen dinnerware from Guadalajara,

assorted, with pots, skillets, and pans
2 cases of fine Puebla earthen dinnerware
3 gross of assorted earthen dinnerware from China
50 dozen pieces of assorted earthen dinnerware in

two crates, 25 in each at 3 reales
2 crates of Puebla earthen dinnerware with
25 dozen each and the two totaling 50 at
2 reales
1 crate with 25 dozen assorted earthen dinnerware
from Puebla at 2 reales
1 crate with 25 dozen assorted earthen dinnerware
from Puebla at 2 reales
Total of goods from Puebla; 1 tercio of oil with
4 arrobas in 9 earthenware jars
2 crates of fine assorted Puebla earthen dinnerware
1 crate of medium fine earthen dinnerware with

25 dozen plates and cups at 3 reales
1 crate of the same, fine striped, with 25 dozen
at 7 reales
2 crates and straps at 12 reales
1 crate of fine assorted Puebla earthen dinnerware
Description
Table 16.1. Documented ceramics at the Santa Barbara Presidio, 17791810
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Invoice, Mexico
Invoice, Mexico
Requisition list,
Santa Barbara
Requisition list,
Santa Barbara
Requisition list
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
Requisition, Santa
Barbara
27
32
37
39
Source: Perissinotto (1998).
47
44
41
38
37
30
29
Invoice or Requisition
Document Number
Table 16.1. (continued)
January 22,
1799
January 22,
1799
January 22,
1801
February 3,
1801
January 30,
1802
January 31,
1804
January 31,
1806
December 29,
1795
June 8, 1796
March 7, 1795
March 31, 1794
Date
339
329
319
311
307
303
301
265
251
249
233
Page Number
100 dozen Puebla earthen dinnerware [comprising]

60 [dozen] plates
20 [dozen] cups
20 [dozen] bowls
And 1 dozen small chamber pots of Puebla
earthenware
1 earthenware jar of virgin honey
4 crates of assorted earthen dinnerware from

Puebla, plus 6 serving plates and 6 pans
5 crates of Puebla earthen dinnerware, plates, cups,
without bowls, with 6 serving plates
1 earthenware jar of virgin honey
4 crates with 100 dozen ordinary earthen

dinnerware from Puebla at 25 per crate
4 crates with 100 dozen assorted Puebla earthen
dinnerware, plates, cups, and bowls, at 25 dozen
per crate
4 crates of assorted earthen dinnerware from
Puebla, including 6 serving plates and 6 pans
2 earthenware jars of Seville olives
4 crates of ordinary earthen dinnerware from Puebla
2 crates of ordinary Puebla earthen dinnerware
Description
Porcelain
Maylica?
Maylica?
Maylica?
Olive Jar
Maylica?
Maylica?
Maylica?
Olive Jar
Maylica?
Olive Jar
Olive Jar
Maylica?
Olive Jar
Maylica?
Porcelain
Olive Jar
Olive Jar
Olive Jar
Olive Jar
Maylica?
Guadalajara
1777
1777
1777
1777
1784
1785
1785
1788
1789
1791
1791
1795
1802
1803
1803
1803
1804
3 botijas de aceite
1 cajn de loza de Puebla
12 pozuelos finos de China
3 botijas de aceite de comer
3 botijas de aceite de comer
2 botijas aceite
3 botijas aceite
4 docenas de platos a 12 reales
Cargo 3 pesos 0 reales por los santos
oleos, fletes, vasijas remitidos de
Guadalajara en 1820
1 docena de tazas lecheras

1 docena de tazas poblanas
3 botijas de aceite
12 tazas lecheras de Puebla
2 botijas de aceite
3 botijas de aceite
1 cajn de loza fina de puebla con 4 docenas
de platos, 3 platones y otras piezas
6 tazas lecheras 3 reales

6 dichas calderos 2 reales
4 botijas de aceite de comer en un tercio
que remito a la misin de Nuestro Padre
San Francisco en 18 pesos
8 docenas de platos poblanos a 4 reales
6 dichos de la tierra 1 reales
6 pozuelos ordinarios de china 9 reales
Espaol
Source: Skowronek, Fanta, and Morales (n.d.).
1810
1820
1807
Material
Date
Table 16.2. Ceramics at Mission Santa Clara, 17771820

6 common porcelain bowls from China;
9 reales
6 same as the above domestic;
1 reales
6 milk cups; 3 reales
6 same as the above kettle; 2 reales
4 jugs of edible oil in a third which I
remit to the mission of Our Father
San Francisco at 18 pesos
8 dozen of plates from Puebla at
4 reales
1 dozen of milk cups
1 dozen of cups from Puebla
3 jugs of oil
12 milk cups from Puebla
2 jugs of oil
3 jugs of oil
1 carton of fine crockery from Puebla
with 4 dozen plates, 3 large plates
and other pieces
3 jugs of oil
1 box of crockery from Puebla
12 fine porcelain bowls from China
3 jugs of cooking oil
3 jugs of eating oil
2 jugs of oil
3 jugs of oil
4 dozen plates at 12 reales
1 charge 3 pesos 0 reales for the
holy oils, freightage, dishes remitted
from Guadalajara in 1820
Description
213214
217218
219220
225226
237238
259260
271272
281282
313314
7778
9596
103104
117118
137138
195196
207208
7778
1718
1718
6768
1718
1718
Pages
established. These findings have underscored our theoretical approach to

this study within the framework of world systems and the creation of a
New Europe in the New World, even in the outpost located the farthest
from Spain. As Skowronek pointed out in 1989, protective colonial areas were the periphery of the periphery; that is, they served as buffer
zones to the more valued peripheral areas, in this case Mexico. Mexico
was the semi-periphery for both Alta California and the Philippines, and
both of these remote corners of New Spain looked to it for supplies; San
Blas and Acapulco were transshipment centers for both provinces. Costello (1990, 402) referred to Alta California as an external area whose
relationship to the Spanish world system was limited to luxury items. We
believe that the relationship was far more complicated. Certainly Alta
California received luxury goods, but it also regularly supplied labor and
food to the presidios and provided support to the Spanish Crown by donating money, flour, corn, or beans to Spains presidios after Napoleon
captured the motherland (Lambert et al. 1998, 1014). In these ways they
were directly connected to Spain. Furthermore, by simply existing, they
kept foreign interlopers away from productive Mexico and demonstrated their allegiance by remaining loyal to Spain during the Mexican
War of Independence (Costello 1990, 408).
Alta California was successfully transformed into a New Europe connected by sea lanes to its motherlandcolonial Mexico. As we have
seen, the Hispanic peoples of Spanish California were virtually indistinguishable from their cousins in Mexico in terms of architecture, agriculture, animal husbandry, foodways, and other aspects of material
and nonmaterial culture. Some of these similarities are attributable to
local production, long-distance supply, or the local exchange of goods
or a combination of the three. What evolved was a continuum running
from presidio entrepts with a more complex social setting to less socially complex frontier mission and civilian communities. In all of these
communities new skills were learned and old lifeways were adapted. This
may best be seen in the evidence derived from the analysis of plain pottery. North of Los Angeles, new potters selected clay for both pottery
and architectural ceramics from no more than two sources in any given
community. South of Los Angeles, where there had been generations of
indigenous women potters, we see a greater number of exploited clay
sources, suggesting a degree of continuity as the region was transformed
into a new part of New Spain.
We close this volume by looking backward and forward. Given what

has been thought about, done, and said, its reasonable to ask What
next? More statistically quantifiable petrographic analysis focused on
the groups identified on the basis of paste chemistry would be useful.
This would be highly informative at the level of descriptive adequacy to
link the nonplastics in the pottery to resource materials. This is labor intensive and runs the risk of finding that there are no sharp demarcations
in the eroded and alluvial materials of the Coast Range. Another direction would be to seek the compositions of the lead glaze, specifically that
found on the locally manufactured pottery. How geographically specific
were the glaze recipes? Did the raw materials for the glaze come from one
or several sources? To that end, a British analytical chemist and Ronald
Bishop have crafted a proposal for a host institution with state-of-theart high-performance multi-collector inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry (ICPMS) for funding for a one-year investigation. This
likely will conclude our investigation of the ceramics of Alta California,
but we hope that posting the analytical data on the web will move others
to continue the study beyond the point that we leave it.
References
Abonyi, Janos, and Balzs Feil

2007 Cluster Analysis for Data Mining and System Identification. Birkhuser,
Boston.
Abu-Saba, Khalil E.
1998 Spatial and Temporal Variability in the Aquatic Cycling of Chromium.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Abu-Saba, Khalil E., and A. Russell Flegal
1995 Chromium in San Francisco Bay: Superposition of Geochemical Processes
Causes Complex Spatial Distributions of Redox Species. Marine Chemistry
49: 189199.
Aikens, C. Melvin
1995 First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan. In The Emergence
of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John Hoopes, 1121. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington,D.C.
Allen, Rebecca
1998 Native Americans at Mission Santa Cruz, 17911834: Interpreting the Archaeological Record. Perspectives in California Archeology vol. 5. Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
2000 Mission Santa Barbara, California National Historic Landmark District
Nomination. KEA Environmental, Inc. Prepared for the National Park Service, San Francisco.
Ambro, Richard D.
2003 They Danced in the Plaza: The Historical Archaeology of Notre Dame
Plaza, Mission San Francisco de Ass (Dolores). Holman & Associates, San
Francisco.
326 References
Archibald, Robert
1978 The Economic Aspects of the California Missions. Academy of American
Franciscan History, Washington, D.C.
Arkush, Brooke
1993 Yokuts Trade Networks and Native Culture Change in Central and Eastern California. Ethnohistory 40(5): 619640.
Arnold, Dean E.
1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
1993 Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Community. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Arnold, Dean E., Hector Neff, and Ronald L. Bishop
1991 Compositional Analysis and Sources of Pottery: An Ethnoarchaeological
Approach. American Anthropologist 95: 7090.
Arthur, Don, Julia Costello, and Brian Fagan
1975 A Preliminary Account of Majolica Sherds from the Chapel Site, Royal
Spanish Presidio, Santa Barbara, California. Kiva 41: 207214.
Atherton, Faxon Dean
1964 The California Diary of Faxon Dean Atherton, 18361839. Edited by
Doyce B. Nunis, Jr. California Historical Society, San Francisco.
Baer, Kurt E.
1959 California Indian Art. The Americas 16(1 July): 2344.
Bancroft, Hubert H.
1884 History of California. Vol. 18 of The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Vol.1,
15421800. A. L. Bancroft & Company, San Francisco.
Barber, Edwin Atlee
1908 The Maiolica of Mexico. Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial
Art, Philadelphia.
Barbolla-Roland, Diane
1983 Maiolica at the San Diego Presidio Gateway Search Excavation: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of San Diego History 29: 193213.
Barbolla, Diane Everett
1992 Alta California Troops: Acculturation and Material Wealth in a Presidio
and Mission Context, 17691810. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of California, Riverside.
Barker, Leo R.
2007 Text-Based Reality: Material Culture at El Presidio de San Francisco. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the California Mission Studies
Association, San Francisco.
Barnes, Michael R.
1980 Mexican Lead-Glazed Earthenwares. In Spanish Colonial Frontier Re-
References327
search, edited by Henry F. Dobyns, 92110. Spanish Borderlands Research

No.1. Center for Anthropological Studies, Albuquerque.
Barnes, Michael R., and Ronald V. May (editors)
1972 Mexican Majolica in Northern New Spain. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society, Costa Mesa, California.
Barnes, Thomas C., Thomas H. Naylor, and Charles W. Polzer
1981 Northern New Spain: A Research Guide. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Barnett, William, and John Hoopes (editors)
1995 The Emergence of Pottery. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing
ton,D.C.
Bartel, Brad
1991 Archeological Excavation and Education at the San Diego Royal Presidio.
Journal of San Diego History 37: 130.
Barter, Eloise Richards, and David L. Felton
2005 Tizon Brown Ware from Old Town San Diego State Historic Park (Block
408 Entrance Improvement Project). Cultural Heritage Section, California
Parks Department, Sacramento, California.
Baxter, Michael J.
1999 Detecting Multivariate Outliers in Artefact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 41: 321338.
2001 Statistical Modelling of Artefact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 43:
1147.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 550563. Vol. 8 of
Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 538549. Vol. 8 of
Beaudry, Marilyn P.
1991 New World Paste Compositional Investigations. In The Ceramic Legacy of
Anna O. Shepard, edited by Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, 224
256. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Beebe, Rose Marie, and Robert M. Senkewicz
2001 Lands of Promise and Despair: Chronicles of Early California, 15351846.
Heyday Books, Berkeley.
Bent, Vance G., Sally Salzman Morgan, Michael Imwalle, and Robert Sheets
1990 Archaeological Excavations of the Northern Front: Rear Area of the Comandancia. El Presidio de Santa Barbara Archaeological Research Series,
328 References
Volume 2. Prepared for the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation and
the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, California.
Berger, John A.
1948 The Franciscan Missions of California. Doubleday, New York.
Bergesen, Albert
1995 Lets Be Frank about World History. In Civilizations and World Systems,
edited by Stephen K. Sanderson, 195205. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek,
California.
Bey, George J., and Christopher A. Pool (editors)
1992 Ceramic Production and Distribution: An Integrated Approach. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Bilsky, Lester J.
1980 Historical Ecology. Kennikat Press, London.
Binford, Lewis R.
1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological
Reasoning. American Antiquity 31: 112.
Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin
2006 American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Vintage, New York.
Bishop, Ronald L.
1975 Western Lowland Maya Ceramic Trade: An Archaeological Application of
Nuclear Chemistry and Geological Data Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University.
1991 Anna O. Shepard: A Correspondence Portrait. In The Ceramic Legacy of
Anna O. Shepard, edited by Ronald L. Bishop and Frederick W. Lange, 4287.
University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Bishop, Ronald L., and Frederick W. Lange (editors)
1991 Anna O. Shepard: A Ceramic Legacy. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Bishop, Ronald L., and Hector Neff
1989 Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, edited by R. O. Allen, 576586. Advances in Chemistry Series 200.
American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Bishop, Ronald L., and Robert L. Rands
1982 Mayan Fine Paste Ceramics: A Compositional Perspective. In Analyses
of Fine Paste Ceramics: Excavations at Seibal, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff,
283314. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 15, No. 2. Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bishop, Ronald L., Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley
1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 275330.
References329
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1962 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielio Material Culture. Annual Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 5: 150.
Blackburn, Thomas C., and Travis Hudson
1986 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere. Vol. 5, Manufacturing Processes, Metrology, and Trade. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, Cali
fornia.
Blackman, M. James
1986 Precision in Routine I.N.A.A. over a Two Year Period at the NBSR. In NBS
Technical Note 1231, edited by Frank J. Shorten, 122126. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Blackman, M. James, and Ronald L. Bishop
1999 Long Term Stability of Irradiation and Gamma Ray Counting Systems and
Data Reproducibility. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference
on Modern Trends in Activation Analysis, Bethesda, Maryland.
2007 The Smithsonian-NIST Partnership: The Application of Instrumental
Neutron Activation Analysis to Archaeology. Archaeometry 49: 321341.
Blakeney, Karen
1980 Timateo Ware: A Possible New Majolica Type at Mission San Antonio.
Masterkey 54(4): 154156.
Bonath, Shawn
1978 An Evaluation of the Mean Ceramic Date Formula as Applied to Souths
Majolica Model. Historical Archaeology 12(1): 8292.
Boule, Mary Null
1988 Mission San Juan Capistrano. Merryant Publishing, Vashon, Washington.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1990 The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Boyer, Paul S.
1985 By the Bombs Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of
the Atomic Age. Pantheon, New York.
Brandes, Ray, James Moriarty III, Toni Nagle, Gregory Nelson Chase, and LoisT.
Campbell
1966 The History and Architecture of Mission San Diego de Alcala: 17691965.
Manuscript on file, University of San Diego, San Diego.
Braudel, Fernand
1973 Capitalism and Material Life, 14001800. Harper & Row Publishers,
New York.
Braun, David P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by James
Moore and Arthur S. Keene, 107134. Academic Press, New York.
330 References
Breschini, Gary S.
1996 Montereys First Years: The Royal Presidio of San Carlos de Monterey.
Electronic document, http://www.mchsmuseum.com/presidio.html, accessed
5/4/2013.
Broadbent, Sylvia M.
1954 Tile and Dating at Carmel Mission, Site CA-Mnt-18. Archaeological Research Facility Manuscript No. 191. Archaeological Archives of the Phoebe A.
Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
1955 Carmel Mission (Mnt-18): A Preliminary Report on Excavated Materials.
Ms. on file, Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Brown, Alan K.
2005 Reconstructing Early Historical Landscapes in the Northern Santa Clara
Valley. Research Manuscript Series on the Cultural and Natural History of
Santa Clara, No. 11. Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.
Brown, Vinson, David Allan, and James Stark
1972 Rocks and Minerals of California. Naturegraph Publishers, Healdsburg,
California.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth, and Timothy K. Earle (editors)
1987 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Caley, Earl R.
1949 Klaproth as a Pioneer in the Chemical Investigation of Antiquities. Journal of Chemical Education 26: 242247, 268.
Cameron, Constance
1999 Determining Tribal Boundaries through PotsherdsAn Archaeological
Perspective. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(23): 96126.
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
2004 Campo Kumeyaay: Culture. Electronic document, http://www.campo
-kumeyaay.org/culture.htm, accessed May 1, 2004.
Carano, Paul, and Pedro C. Sanchez
1964 A Complete History of Guam. Tuttle Publishing, Rutland, Vermont.
Carlson, Shawn B., and William D. James
1995 An Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of 18th Century LeadGlazed Earthenwares from Four Spanish Missions in Texas. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 196: 207213.
Carrico, Richard L. (editor)
1983 A Brief Glimpse of the Kumeyaay Past: An Interview with Tom Lucas,
Kwaaymii, of Laguna Ranch. Journal of San Diego History 29(2): 115139.
Carrico, Richard L., and Peter Ainsworth
1974 The Bancroft Ranch House: A Preliminary Site Report. Paper on file, Bancroft Ranch House Library, Spring Valley, California.
References331
Cartier, Robert, Barbara Bocek, Charlene Detlefs, and Janice Whitlow

1979 The Preliminary and Secondary Archaeological Investigation of Block B,
San Jose, California: A Report for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Jose. Archaeological Resource Management, San Jose.
Casagrande, Joseph, S. I. Thompson, and P. D. Young
1964 Colonization as a Research Frontier: The Ecuadorian Case. In Process and
Pattern in Culture, edited by Robert A. Manners, 281325. Aldine Publishing
Co., Chicago.
Caywood, Louis R.
1950 Hispanic Pottery as a Guide in Historical Studies. In For the Dean: Essays
in Anthropology in Honor of Byron Cummings on His Eighty-Ninth Birthday,
September 20, 1950, edited by Erik K. Reed and Dale S. King, 7798. Hohokam Museums Association and the Southwestern Monuments Association, Tucson and Santa Fe.
Cervantes, Enrique A.
1933 Nomina de Loceros Poblanos Durante el Perodo Virreinal. Casas,
Mexico.
Chapman, Charles Edward
1915 The Alta California Supply Ships, 177376. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 29(2): 184194.
Charlton, Thomas H.
1976 Contemporary Mexican Ceramics: A View from the Past. Man 11: 517525.
Charlton, Thomas H., and Roberta A. Katz
1979 Tonal Bruia Ware: Past and Present. Archaeology 32 (JanuaryFeb
ruary): 4453.
Chayes, Felix
1956 Petrographic Modal Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Cheever, Dayle Marie
1983 An Historical Faunal Analysis: Large Mammal Utilization at the San Diego Presidio. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, San
Diego State University, San Diego.
Choris, Ludovik
1822 Voyage pittoresque autour du monde, avec de portraits de sauvages dAmrique, d Asie, dAfrique, et des iles du Grand Ocan. Fermin Didot, Paris.
Clark, Donald
1991 Monterey County Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary. Kestrel Press,
Carmel Valley, California.
Cohen-Williams, Anita G.
1992 Common Maiolica Types of Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology
26: 119130.
Cohen-Williams, Anita G., and Jack S. Williams
2004 Reconstructing Maiolica Patterns from Spanish Colonial Sites in South-
332 References
ern California. Paper presented at the California Mission Studies Association

meeting, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Colston, Stephen A.
1982 San Joaquin: A Preliminary Historical Study of the Fortification at San
Diego s Punta de Guijarros. In Fort Guijarros: Tenth Annual Cabrillo Festival
Historic Seminar, edited by Ronald V. May, Roy Pettus, and Stephen A. Colston, 6183. Cabrillo Historical Association, San Diego.
Colton, Harold S.
1939 An Archaeological Survey of Northwestern Arizona including the Description of Fifteen New Pottery Types. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin no.
16. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.
1953 Potsherds. An Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramics and Their Use in Historic Reconstruction. Northern Arizona Society of
Science and Art, Flagstaff.
Compton, Robert R.
1966 Granitic and Metamorphic Rocks of the Salinan Block, California Coast
Ranges. In Geology of Northern California, edited by Edgar Bailey, 277287.
California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Christine A. Hastorf (editors)
1990 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cook, Scott
1998 Mexican Brick Culture in the Building of Texas, 1800s1980s. Texas A & M
University Press, College Station.
Costello, Julia G.
1983 Ceramic Analysis of Maiolicas and Mexican Earthenwares. In Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at Mission San Jose (CA-Ala-1), edited
by Stephen A. Dietz, 247253. Prepared by Archaeological Consulting and
Research Services, Santa Cruz. Submitted to County of San Mateo, San
Mateo.
1985a Ceramics and Other Ceramic Artifacts. In Excavations at Mission San
Antonio 19761978, edited by Robert L. Hoover and Julia G. Costello, 20
56. Monograph 26. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
1985b The Brick and Tile Kiln. In Excavations at Mission San Antonio 1976
1978, edited by Robert L. Hoover and Julia G. Costello, 12251. Monograph 26.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1985c Mission PotteryAnalysis from Feature 1. Appendix G. In Report of Phase
III Research for Block 1, San Antonio Plaza, San Jose. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., for the Redevelopment Agency, City of San Jose, California.
1989 Santa Ines Mission Excavations: 19861988. California Historical Archaeology no. 1. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
1990 Variability and Economic Change in the California Missions: An Histori-
References333
cal and Archaeological Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1992 Not Peas in a Pod: Documenting Diversity among the California Missions.
In Text-Aided Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, 6781. CRC Press, Inc.,
Boca Raton, Florida.
1997 Brick and Tile Making in Spanish California with Related Old and New
World Examples. In Prehistory and History of Ceramic Kilns, edited by Prudence M. Rice, 195217. Ceramics and Civilization, vol. 7. American Ceramic
Society, Westerville, Ohio.
2007 Mission Pottery: A Typology and Drawings of Locally Made Earthenwares from Mission San Antonio de Padua, California. Manuscript on file,
Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab, Santa Clara, California.
Craddock, Paul T.
1991 Mining and Smelting in Antiquity. In Science and the Past, edited by Sheridan Bowman, 5773. British Museum Press, London.
Crosby, Alfred H., Jr.
1972 The Columbian Exchange, Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492.
Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Crosby, Alfred W.
1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 9001900.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Crosby, Harry W.
1994 Antigua California: Mission and Colony on the Peninsular Frontier, 1697
1768. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Culbert, T. Patrick, and Larry A. Schwalbe
1987 X-Ray Florescence Survey of Tikal Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological
Science 14: 635657.
Culleton, James
1950 Indians and Pioneers of Old Monterey. Academy of California Church
History, Fresno.
Cutter, Donald C.
1990 California in 1792: A Spanish Naval Visit. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
1991 Malaspina & Galiano: Spanish Voyages to the Northwest Coast, 1791 &
1792. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Dado, Veronica
2003 El Presidio de San Francisco: Spanish Colonial Documentation Translation Project. Report on file, Presidio Trust and the National Park Service,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco.
2004 El Presidio de San Francisco: Spanish Colonial Documentation Translation Project. Report on file, Presidio Trust and the National Park Service, San
Francisco.
334 References
2006 From Urban Manila to Frontier California: Asian Goods and California
Presidios. Mainsl Haul: A Journal of Pacific Maritime History 4142(4 and 1):
4953.
Davidson, Winifred
19351937 Libro de Bautismos, 17691822, Mission San Diego de Alcala,
Founded July 16, 1769, by Fr. Junipero Serra, O.F.M. Typescript on file at San
Diego Historical Society Archives, San Diego.
Davis, Edward H.
1967 Diegueno Basketry and Pottery. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 3(1): 5966.
Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of California.
Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey, no. 54. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Davis, John C.
1986 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Dawson, David, and Oliver Kent
2008 The Development of the Bottle Kiln in Pottery Manufacture in Britain.
Post Medieval Archaeology 24(1): 201226.
Deagan, Kathleen (editor)
1983 Spanish St. Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community.
Academic Press, New York.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500
1800. Vol. 1, Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
2004 Reconsidering Taino Social Dynamics after Spanish Conquest: Gender
and Class in Culture Contact Studies. American Antiquity 69: 597626.
Deagan, Kathleen A., and Jose Cruxent
2002a La Isabela: Columbuss Outpost Among the Tainos, 14931498. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
2002b Archaeology at Americas First European Town: La Isabela, 14931498.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Deetz, James F.
1963 Archaeological Investigations at La Purisima Mission. Archaeological
Survey Annual Report 5: 161244. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Demirmen, Ferruh
1971 Counting Error in Petrographic Point-Count Analysis: A Theoretical and
Experimental Study. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology 3: 1541.
References335
De Nevi, Donald (editor)

1971 Sketches of Early California: A Collection of Personal Adventures. The
Chronicle Publishing Company, San Francisco.
Denger, Mark J.
2004 Historic California Posts: Castillo de Guijarros. Electronic document,
http://www.militarymuseum.org/FtGuijarros.html, accessed May 1, 2004.
Diaz, May N.
1966 Tonal: Conservatism, Responsibility, and Authority in a Mexican Town.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dickinson, William R.
1970 Interpreting Detrital Modes of Graywacke and Arkose. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 40: 695707.
Dietler, Michael, and Ingrid Herbich
1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social
Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, 232263. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Dietrich, Waldemar F.
1928 The Clay Resources and the Ceramic Industry of California. California
State Printing Office, Sacramento.
Di Peso, Charles C.
1953 The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, Southeastern
Arizona. The Amerind Foundation, Inc., Dragoon, Arizona.
Dobres, Marcia A., and Christopher R. Hoffman
1994 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 211258.
Driver, Marjorie G., editor
1990 Guam Diary of Naturalist Antonio de Pineda, 1792. Micronesia Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Drover, Christopher E.
1975 Early Ceramics from Southern California. Journal of California Anthropology 2: 101107.
Druc, Isabelle C., and Q. Hugh J. Gwyn
1998 From Clay to Pots: A Petrographical Analysis of Ceramic Production in
the Callejon de Huaylas, North-Central Andes, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 707718.
Edgar, Kathleen J., and Susan E. Edgar
2000 Mission San Juan Capistrano. The Rosen Publishing Group, New York.
Edson, Gary
1979 Mexican Market Pottery. Watson-Guptill Publications, New York.
Edwards, Rob, Charlotte Simpson-Smith, and R. Paul Hampson
1990 Historical Resource Investigation at Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church
336 References
Santa Cruz, California, 19931997. Copies available from Cabrillo College

Archeological Program, 6500 Soquel Drive, Aptos, California, 95003.
Edwards, Rob, Charlotte A. Simpson-Smith, and Allan Lnnberg
1994 Final Report: The Profiling and Monitoring of a California American Water Company Trench Through a Portion of the Historic Spanish Presidio and
Adjacent to the Thomas O. Larkin House in Monterey, California. California
American Water Company, Monterey, California.
Eisenhower, Dwight D.
1953 Atoms for Peace. Address by Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the
United States of America, to the 470th Plenary Meeting of the United Nations
General Assembly, Tuesday, 8 December 1953. International Atomic Energy
Agency. Electronic document, http://www.iaea.org/About/atomsforpeace
_speech.html, accessed September 20, 2012.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1912 The Missions and Missionaries of California. Vol. 2, Upper California.
James H. Barry, San Francisco.
1920 The Missions and Missionaries of California. James H. Barry, San Francisco.
1922 San Juan Capistrano Mission. Standard Printing, Los Angeles.
1923 Santa Barbara Mission. James H. Barry, San Francisco.
1924 San Francisco or Mission Dolores. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago.
1927 San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press,
Chicago.
1929 San Miguel, Arcangel: The Mission of the Highway. Mission Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara.
1931 Mission San Juan Bautista: A School of Church Music. Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
1932 Mission La Concepcion Purisima de Maria Santisima. Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
1933 Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears. Mission Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara.
1934 Mission San Carlos Borromeo (Carmelo). Schauer Printing Studio, Santa
Barbara, California.
Estudillo, Jos Mara
1878 Datos Histricos Sobre la Alta California por D. Jos Mara Estudillo,
vecino de San Diego. Dictated manuscript recorded by Thomas Savage at
North San Diego, January 17, 1878. Manuscript D-D 76, Bancroft Library,
Berkeley.
Euler, Robert C., and Henry F. Dobyns
1958 Tizon Brown Ware: A Descriptive Revision. In Pottery Types of the Southwest, edited by Harold S. Colton. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series 3D. Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.
References337
Evans, W. S.
1969 California Indian Pottery: A Native Contribution to the Culture of the
Ranchos. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 5(3): 7176.
Ewen, Charles R.
1991 From Spaniard to Creole: The Archaeology of Cultural Formation at Puerto
Real, Haiti. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Fagan, Brian
2003 Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants.
Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1972 The Cultural Significance of Spanish Ceramics. In Ceramics in America,
edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, 141174. University Press of Virginia, Char
lottesville.
Farnsworth, Paul
1987 The Economics of Acculturation in the California Missions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Farnsworth, Paul, and Jack S. Williams (editors)
1992 The Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial and Mexican Republican Periods. Historical Archaeology 26(1): 16.
Farris, Glenn J.
2003 Early Views of Old Town San Diego. Manuscript on file, A. H. & M. Division, California State Parks, Sacramento.
Faulk, Odie B., and Laura E. Faulk
1988 Defenders of the Interior Provinces: Presidial Soldiers on the Northern
Frontier of New Spain. The Albuquerque Museum, Albuquerque.
Fava, Florence M.
1976 Los Altos Hills: The Colorful Story. Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside, California.
Feller, Michelle
1983 Mexican Ceramics from the San Diego Gateway Search Project. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Mesa College, San Diego.
Felton, David L., and Glenn J. Farris
1996 Archeological Treatment Plan for the Entrance Redevelopment Project,
Old Town San Diego State Historic Park. Manuscript on file, A. H. & M. Division, California State Parks, Sacramento.
Fenenga, Gerrit L., and Verenice Y. Heredia
1995 Pai Pai Ethnoarchaeology: Some Implications for California Archaeology.
Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Ferkins, Jelmer W.
2001 The Origins of Pottery among Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Cali-
338 References
fornia and the Western Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Fernandez, Luis Suarez
1972a The Atlantic and the Mediterranean Among the Objectives of the House
of Trastamara. In Spain in the Fifteenth Century 13691516, edited by Roger
Highfield, 5868. Macmillan Press, London.
1972b The Kingdom of Castile in the Fifteenth Century. In Spain in the Fifteenth Century 13691516, edited by Roger Highfield, 8189. Macmillan
Press, London.
Fisher, John
1985 Commercial Relations Between Spain and Spanish America in the Era of
Free Trade, 17781796. Journal of Latin American Studies 19: 419421.
Fisher, William Bayne, and Howard Bowen-Jones
1958 Spain: A Geographical Background. Christophers, London.
Flint, Arthur. E.
1990 Thin-Section Analysis of Pottery Fragments from San Juan Capistrano
Mission. California Mission Studies Association Newsletter 7(1): 67.
Fontana, Bernard L.
1972 The Cultural Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics as Social Documents. In
Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, 141174. University Press
of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Forsyth, Gloria B.
1961 The Lost Chapel at Cieneguita. Noticias 7(1):1116.
Foster, George M.
1960 Culture and Conquest: Americas Spanish Heritage. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 27. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research, New York.
2011 Tragedy at San Miguel Mission. Paper presented to the California Mission
Studies Association, San Miguel, California.
Foster, John M.
2011 Restauracin: The Mission to Save the Missions. Panel discussion with
Dr. Carlotta Mellon and Dr. Knox Mellon (California Missions Foundation),
Anthea Hartig (National Trust for Historic Preservation), Milford Wayne
Donaldson (California Office of Historic Preservation), and John M. Foster,
RPA (Greenwood-Associates) at the California Mission Studies Association
28th Annual Conference, San Miguel Arcngel, February 2527.
Fournier, Patricia, and Thomas H. Charlton
1998 La tradicin de Maylica en Mxico (siglos XVI al XIX). In Primer Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa Histrica: Memoria, edited by Enrique F.
Dvila and Susana G. Serafin, 419426. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa
e Historia, Mexico City.
References339
Fournier, Patricia, Russell K. Skowronek, Ronald L. Bishop, and M. James

Blackman
2003 Glazed Ceramics in New Spain: Technological Variability and Social Interaction in the Borderlands. Paper presented at the Maylica from the Spanish World Symposium, Museum of International Folk Art, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, August 2731.
Fournier-Garca, Patricia
1990 Evidencias Arqueolgicas de la importacin de cermica en Mxico, con
base en los materiales del Ex-Convento de San Jernimo. Colecciona Cientfica, Serie Arqueologa nmero 213, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico.
1997 Tendencias de Consumo en Mxico Durante los Perodos Colonial e
Independiente. In Approaches to the Historical Archaeology of Mexico, Central & South America, edited by Janine L. Gasco, Greg C. Smith and Patricia
Fournier-Garca, 4958. Institute of Archaeology, No. 38. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fournier-Garca, Patricia, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop
2007 Los alfareros purpecha de la Cuenca de Ptzcuaro: Produccin, intercambio y consumo de cermica vidriada durante la poca virreinal. In Arqueologa y complejidad social, edited by Patricia Fournier Garca, Walburga
Wiesheu Foster, and Thomas H. Charlton, 195221. Escuela Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico.
Fournier G., Patricia, Karime Castillo, Ronald L. Bishop, and M. James Black
man
2009 La loza blanca novohispana: Tecnohistoria de la Maylica en Mexico. In
Arqueologa colonial Latinoamericana. Modelos de estudio, edited by Juan
Garca Targa and Patricia Fournier G., 99114. BAR International Series 1988.
Archaeopress, Oxford.
Fox, Daniel E.
1983 Traces of Texas History: Archaeological Evidence of the Last 450 Years.
Corona Publishing, San Antonio.
Frank, Andre Gunder
1995 The Modern World System Revisited: Rereading Braudel and Wallerstein.
In Civilizations and World Systems, edited by Stephen K. Sanderson, 195205.
Altimira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Frierman, Jay D.
1982 The Ontiveros Adobe: Early Rancho Life in Alta California. Report prepared for the Redevelopment Agency City of Santa Fe Springs by Greenwood
and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
1987 Southern California Brown Ware. In Historical and Archaeological Investigation at the Aros-Serrano Adobe, Prado Basin, by Roberta S. Greenwood,
340 References
John M. Foster, and Anne Q. Duffield. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District, Contract No. DACWO9-86-C-0009. Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California.
Garca-Heras, Manuel, Ramn Fernndez-Ruiz, and Juan Diego Tornero
1997 Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics by TXRF and Contrasted with NAA.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 24: 10031014.
Garca-Heras, Manuel, M. James Blackman, Ramn Fernndez-Ruiz, and RonaldL. Bishop
2001 Assessing Ceramic Compositional Data: A Comparison of Total Reflection X-Ray Fluorescence and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis on
Late Iron Age Spanish Celtiberian Ceramics. Archaeometry 43: 325347.
Garretson, Rob
2000 The California Missions Project. Electronic Document, http://www.cuca
.k12.ca.us/lessons/missions/Antonio/SanAntonioDePadua.html#founding,
accessed May 4, 2013.
Gatbonton, Esperanza B.
1985 Bastin de San Diego. Intramuro Administration, Ministry of Human
Settlements, Manila.
Gavin, Robin Farwell
2003 Introduction. In Ceramica y Cultura. The Story of Spanish and Mexican
Maylica, edited by Robin Farwell Gavin, Donna Pierce, and Alfonso Plegue
zuelo, 123. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gayton, Anna H.
1929 Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery-Making. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 24(3): 23951.
Gazzi, Paolo
1966 I minerali pesanti nei flysch arenacei fra Monte Ramaceto e Monte Molinatico (Appennino settentrionale). Mineralogica et Petrographica Acta 11:
197212.
Geiger, Maynard
1950 Junpero Serra, O.F.M., in the Light of Chronology and Geography (1713
1784). The Americas 6(3): 291333.
1963 Pictorial History of the Physical Development of Mission Santa Barbara:
From Brush Hut to Institutional Greatness, 17861963. Franciscan Fathers of
California, Oakland.
1967 New Data on the Buildings of Mission San Francisco. California Historical Society Quarterly (46): 195205.
Gerald, Rex E.
1968 Spanish Presidios of the Late Eighteenth Century in Northern New Spain.
Museum of New Mexico Research Records no. 7. Museum of New Mexico
Press, Santa Fe.
References341
Giddens, Anthony
1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction
in Social Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley.
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gilmore, Kathleen
1974 Mission Rosario, Archeological Investigations 1973. Archeological Report14, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Parks Division, Historic Sites
and Restoration Branch, Austin.
Ginn, Sarah M.
2009 Creating Community in Spanish California: An Investigation of California Plainwares. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Cruz.
Glassie, Henry H.
1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Goggin, John M.
1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Sixteenth to Eighteenth
Centuries. Yale University Publications in Anthropology no. 72. Department
of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Gosling, Francis G.
2010 The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb. DOE/MA-0002 Revised, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
Gosselain, Oliver P.
1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Making Among the Bafia of
Cameroon. Man 27: 559586.
1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of
Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam T. Stark, 78106. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2000 Materializing Identities: An Africanist Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 187217.
Goudsmit, Samuel A.
1983 Alsos. Tomash Publishers, Los Angeles.
Grant, Campbell
1978 Eastern Coastal Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 509
519. Vol. 8 of Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution
Greenwood, Roberta S.
1978 Obispeiio and Purisimeiio Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F.
Heizer, 520524. Vol. 8 of Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
342 References
Greenwood, Roberta S., and John M. Foster

2004 Environmental Impact Report: Mission Garden Estates Project, Archeological Element. Prepared for Douglass Wood & Associates, San Luis Obispo,
California.
Griset, Susanne
1990 Historic Transformations of Tizon Brown Ware in Southern California.
Paper presented at the 21st Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Park
City, Utah.
1996 Southern California Brownware. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Gritton, Vance
1990 Characterization of San Juan Capistrano Ceramics by Chemical Analysis.
In Proceedings of the Conference of Orange County History, edited by Leland S.
Estes and Robert A. Slayton, 106118. Chapman College, Orange, California.
Gritton, Vance, and Nicholas M. Magalousis
1978 Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy of Archaeological Ceramic Materials.
In Archaeological Chemistry II, edited by Giles F. Carter, 258270. Advances
in Chemistry Series 171. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Gritton, Vance, and Kimbach Tran
1995 Gerontopsychoceramics II: The Study of Old North and South Cracked
Pots. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the California Mission
Studies Association, San Francisco.
Groves, Leslie R.
1962 Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. Harper & Bros.,
New York.
Guerrero, Vladimir
2006 The Anza Trail and the Settling of California. Heyday Books, Berkeley,
California.
Guest, Francis F.
1973 Fermin Francisco de Lasuen (17361803). Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C.
Gunn, Christopher M.
2002 Compositional Perspectives on the Exchange of Muna Slate Wares in the
Late and Terminal Classic Northern Maya Lowlands. Masters thesis, University of Kentucky.
Gurcke, Karl
1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.
Habicht-Mauche, Judith
1993 The Pottery from Arroyo Hondo Pueblo, New Mexico: Tribalization and
Trade in the Northern Rio Grande. Arroyo Hondo Archaeological Series vol.8.
School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
References343
Han, Jaiwei, and Micheline Kamber

2001 Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan-Kaufmann Academic
Press, San Francisco.
Harbottle, Garman
1976 Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3: 3372.
1982 Chemical Characterization in Archaeology. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by Jonathan E. Ericson and Timothy K. Earle, 1351. Academic
Press, New York.
Harrington, Mark R.
1938 The Making of Tiles at the Missions. Masterkey 12(3): 99103.
1940 Report on the Excavation of a Kiln at Back of Church La Pursima Mission. Manuscript on file, La Purisima Mission State Historic Park, Lompoc,
California.
Harris, Victor
1997 Jomon Pottery in Ancient Japan. In Pottery in the Making: Ceramic Traditions, edited by Ian Freestone and David Gaimster, 2025. British Museum,
London.
Hawthorne, Hildegarde
1942 Californias Missions: Their Romance and Beauty. D. Appleton-Century,
New York.
Hayes, Benjamin Ignatius
n.d. Documentos para la Historia de California, 18261850, originales y copiadas de los Archivos del Condado de San Diego, por Benj Hayes. Manuscript
CA-70. Bancroft Library, Berkeley.
1874 Notes on California Affairs. Manuscript. Bancroft Library, Berkeley,
California.
Hegmon, Michelle
1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:
517536.
Hegmon, Michelle, Mark Ennes, and Margaret C. Nelson
2000 Corrugated Pottery, Technological Style, and Population Movement in
the Mimbres Region of the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological
Research 56: 217240.
Heizer, Robert (editor)
1978 California. Vol. 8 of Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Heizer, Robert F., and Albert Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Heizer, Robert F., and Adan E. Treganza
1944 Mines and Quarries of the Indians of California. California Journal of
Mines and Geology 40: 291359.
344 References
Hensler, Kathy Niles, Lorie Stephens Reed, and Andrea J. Carpenter

2001 Tracking the Trachyte: Origins and Development of Chuska Pottery
Technology. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, New Orleans. Electronic document, http://www
.nmacweb.org/My_Homepage_Files/Download/chuska_paper%5B1%5D.pdf,
accessed May 5, 2013.
Hernndez Casillas, Horacio
1996 La artesana de Tonal, Jalisco. Coleccin Regiones de Mxico, Instituto
Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico.
Hester, Thomas R.
1978 Salinan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 500504. Vol. 8 of
Hicks, Frederick N.
1963 Ecological Sects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California, Los
Angeles.
Hildebrand, John A. G., Timothy Gross, Jerry Schaefer, and Hector Neff
2002 Patayan Ceramic Variability: Using Trace Elements and Mineralogical
Analysis to Study Brown and Buff Wares in Southern California. In Ceramic
Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest, edited by Donna M.
Glowacki and Hector Neff, 121139. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Hirth, Kenneth G.
1978 Interregional Trade and the Formation of Gateway Communities. American Antiquity 43: 3545.
Hodder, Ian (editor)
1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hoffman, G., and H. D. Schultz
1988 Coastline Shifts and Holocene Stratigraphy on the Mediterranean Coast
of Andalucia (Southern Spain). In Archaeology of Coastal Changes, edited by
Avner Raban, 5371. BAR International Series 104. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
Holmes, L. C., and Robert L. Pendleton
1918 Reconnaissance Soil Survey of the San Diego Region, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, Washington, D.C.
Holmes, Philip
1997 Two Centuries at Mission San Jose, 17971997. Produced by the City of
Fremont for the Fremont Museum of Local History, Fremont, California.
References345
Hoover, Robert L.
1989 Spanish-Native Interaction and Acculturation in the Alta California Missions. In Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David H. Thomas, 395406. Columbian Consequences
vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Hoover, Robert L., and Julia G. Costello (editors)
1985 Excavations at Mission San Antonio, 19761978. Monograph XXVI. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Hornbeck, David, Jr.
1989 Economic Growth and Change at the Missions of Alta California, 1769
1846. In Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David H. Thomas, 303331. Columbian Consequences
vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Howard, Donald M.
1969 A Preliminary Report: The Archaeology of the Indian Rancheria, Mission
San Antonio de Padua, California. Memoirs of the Monterey County Archaeological Society, Collected Works. Manuscript in possession of the author.
1972 Excavations at Tes-haya: The Indian Rancheria at Mission San Antonio de
Padua (Mnt-100). Monterey County Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1): 111.
1973 Dietary Trends of the Antonio Indians. Monterey County Archaeological
Society Quarterly 2(2): 56.
Howes, David
1998 Cross-Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. Routledge,
London.
Hurd, Gary S., George E. Miller, and Henry C. Koerper
1990 An Application of Neutron Activation Analysis to the Study of Prehistoric
Californian Ceramics. In Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West, edited
by Joanne M. Mack, 201220. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers
no. 23. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Imwalle, Michael H., and David Stone
2011 Preservation Plan Implementation Report, Rancho San Marcos Adobe
(CA-SBA-109/H), Santa Barbara County, California. Prepared for Ty Warner
Hotels & Resorts LLC, Santa Barbara, California.
Imwalle, Michael, Russell K. Skowronek, and Ruben Reyes
2007 Fire in the Hole: Replicating a Spanish Colonial Kiln. Paper presented at
the 40th annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Ingersoll, Raymond V., Thomas F. Bulard, Richard L. Ford, Joel P. Grimm, John P.
Pickle, and Steven W. Sares
1984 The Effect of Grain-Size on Detrital ModesA Test of the Gazzi-Dickinson
Point-Counting Method. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 54: 103116.
346 References
Iversen, Eva C.
2006 Mission San Miguel: A California Heritage. Pamphlet. Mission San Miguel
Arcangel, Franciscan Padres, California. Transcription available at http://
archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CADATA/2006-11/1164337240, accessed April 30, 2013.
James, Stephen R.
1988 A Reassessment of the Chronological and Typological Framework of the
Spanish Olive Jar. Historical Archaeology 22(1): 4366.
Johnson, Ann Hagerman
1985 Report of Phase III Research for Block 1, San Antonio Plaza, San Jose. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., for the Redevelopment Agency, City of San
Jose, California.
Johnson, John R.
1990 The Chumash Indians After Secularization. In The Spanish Missionary
Heritage of the United States, ed. Howard Benoist and Sr. Maria Catalina
Flores, C.P., 143164. United States Department of the Interior/National Park
Service and Los Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historic Park,
San Antonio, Texas.
Johnson, Ralph A., and Fred H. Stross
1965 Laboratory-Scale Instrumental Neutron Activation for Archaeological
Analysis. American Antiquity 30: 345347.
Jones, Richard E.
1986 Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Fitch Laboratory
Occasional Paper 1. The British School at Athens, Athens.
Jones, Sin
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, New York.
Jornet, A., M. James Blackman, and Jacqueline S. Olin
1985 13th to 18th Century Ceramics from the Paterna-Manises Area (Spain). In
Ancient Technology to Modern Science, edited by W. David Kingery, 235266.
Ceramics and Civilization vol. 1. American Ceramics Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Judd, Neil M.
1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Katz, Roberta R.
1977 The Potters and Pottery of Tonal, Jalisco, Mexico: A Study in Aesthetic
Anthropology. Columbia University, New York
Kealhofer, Lisa
1991 Cultural Interaction During the Spanish Colonial Period: The Plaza
Church Site, Los Angeles. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
References347
Kelly, Cynthia C.
2007 The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its
Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians. Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers,
New York.
Kelly, Isabel
1978 Coast Miwok. In California, edited by Robert Heizer, 414425. Vol. 8 of
Kemp, Alan
2010 Stormy Seas in the Era of Galvez, 17661774: The Naval Department of
San Blas, Seasonal Weather Patterns and the Fate of the Monterey Expedition. Boletin 27(12): 2868.
Kenneally, Finbar
1965 Writings of Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C.
Kessell, John L.
2002 Spain in the Southwest: A Narrative History of Colonial New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Kidder, Alfred V., and Anna O. Shepard
1936 The Glaze Paint, Culinary, and Other Wares. Vol. 2 of The Pottery of Pecos.
Papers of the Phillips Academy Southwestern Expedition 7. Yale University
Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Kimbro, Edna E., MaryEllen Ryan, and Robert H. Jackson
1985 Research Santa Cruz Mission Adobe Santa Cruz Mission State Historic
Park. Historical Investigations, Davenport, California.
King, Kenneth M.
1956 Mission to Paradise: The Story of Junpero Serra and the Missions of California. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago.
King, Valerie Claire
2003 The Organization of Production for Chuska Gray Ware Ceramics: Distribution and Consumption in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Koerper, Henry C., and Arthur E. Flint
1978 Some Comments on Cerritos Brown Pottery. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 14(2): 1925.
Koerper, Henry C., Christopher E. Drover, Arthur E. Flint, and Gary Hurd
1978 Gabrielino Tizon Brown Pottery. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 14(3): 4358.
Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, Adella B. Schroth, Stephen ONeil,
and Richard W. Huddleston
1988 The Putuidem Project Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA-855.
348 References
Vol. I. Submitted to Enterprise Construction Inc., Irvine, California. South

Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Kolb, Charles C., and Louana M. Lackey (editors)
1986 A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited. Temple University,
Philadelphia.
Krase, Jean
1979 The Old World Ceramic Sherds from San Diego Presidio: A Qualitative,
Quantitative and Historical Analysis. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.
Krase, Jean, and Ronald V. May
1987 Ceramics from Punta de Los Guijarros. Fort Guijarros Quarterly 1(2): 214.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1922 Elements of Culture in Native California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(8): 259328.
1932 The Patwin and Their Neighbors. American Archaeology and Ethnology
49: 253423.
1962 Two Papers on the Aboriginal Ethnography of California. The Nature of
Land Holding Groups in Aboriginal California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 56: 2158.
Lackey, Louana M.
1982 The Pottery of Acatln: A Changing Mexican Tradition. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
La Pursima Mission Advisory Committee
1951 Minutes. La Pursima Mission State Historic Park, Lompoc, CA.
Ladastida, Roberta, and Diana Caldeira
1995 The Kumeyaay Indians. In Cooperation with the Campo Band Mission
Indians, Title V Grant (1995). San Diego County Office of Education. Electronic
document, http://kumeyaay.sdcs.k12.California.us/Kumeyaay.Indian.Infor/
Kumeyaay.Indians.html, accessed May 1, 2004.
Lambert, Diane, Naomi Reinhart, Ludivina Russell, and Gregory Von Herzen
1998 A Year in the Life of a Spanish Colonial Pueblo, San Jose de Guadalupe in
1809: Official Correspondence. Research Manuscript Series on the Cultural
and Natural History of Santa Clara no. 9. Santa Clara University, Santa Clara,
California.
Langelier, John Phillip, and Daniel Bernard Rosen
1992 El Presidio de San Francisco: A History under Spain and Mexico, 1776
1846. Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California, and National Park Service.
Lechtman, Heather
1977 Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: Styles,
Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by Heather Lechtman and
Robert Merrill, 320. West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota.
References349
Lemonnier, Pierre
1986 The Study of Material Culture Today: Toward an Anthropology of Technical Systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147186.
1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lesure, Richard G.
1998 Vessel Form and Function in an Early Formative Ceramic Assemblage
from Coastal Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 1936.
Levinson, Alfred A.
1974 Introduction to Exploration Geochemistry. Applied Publishing Ltd., Maywood, Illinois.
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 48595. Vol. 8 of
Lewis, Archibald R.
1980 Ecology and the Sea in Medieval Times (3001500 A.D.). In Historical
Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social Change, edited by Lester J. Bilsky,
7498. Kenikat Press, Port Washington, New York.
Lewis, Henry T.
1973 Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and Ethnohistory. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers no. 1. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Lewis, Kenneth E.
1984 The American Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Settlement Pattern
and Process. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters
on the California Frontier. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lillios, Katina
1999 Symbolic Artifacts and Spheres of Meaning: Groundstone Tools from
Copper Age Portugal. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by John Robb, 173177. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Carbondale, Illinois.
Linn, Sigvald
1934 Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacn, Mxico. Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm.
Lister, Florence C., and Robert H. Lister
1974 Maiolica in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 8: 1752.
1976 Italian Presence in Tin Glazed Ceramics in Spanish America. Historical
Archaeology 10(1): 2841.
1978 The First Mexican Majolicas: Imported and Locally Produced. Historical
Archaeology 12(1): 124.
350 References
1982 Sixteenth Century Majolica Pottery in the Valley of Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona no. 3. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
1987 Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A Cultural Register from
the Third Century B.C. to 1700. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2001 Maiolica Ole: Spanish and Mexican Decorative Traditions. Museum of
New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.
Longacre, William A., and James Skibo (editors)
1994 Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Lpez Cervantes, Gonzalvo
1976 Cermica Colonial en La Ciudad de Mxico. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Secretara de Educacin Pblica, Departamento de Prehistoria, Mxico.
1990 Cermica de Tonal, Jalisco: Coleccin del Museo Regional de Guadalajara. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico.
Love, Holly, and Rheta Resnick
1983 Mission Made Pottery and Other Ceramics from Muwu. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(1): 111.
Lucas, Christophe, and Bernhard Sick
2009 Augustin Alexis Damour: Scientifique et collectionneur. Le Rgne Minral 86.
Lucas, Tom
1983 Brief Glimpse of the Kumeyaay Past: An Interview with Tom Lucas:
Kwaamii of Laguna Ranch. Edited by Richard L. Carrico. The Journal of San
Diego History 29(2).
Lueger, Richard
1981 Ceramics from Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 3, 103170. History and Archaeology Series no. 44. National Historic
Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Luksic, Jennifer, and Nik Kendziorski
1999 The Use of Presidio Hill. Journal of San Diego History 45(3).
Luomala, Katherine
1978 Tipaai and Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 592609. Vol.8
of Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Lynch, Oliver
1938 The Water Supply of Mission Santa Barbara (II). Priestly Studies 8 (Autumn): 4147.
Lyneis, Margret M.
1988 Tizon Brown Ware and the Problems Raised by Paddle-and-Anvil Pottery
References351
in the Mojave Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 10:
146155.
Machado de Wrightington, Juana
1878 Los Tiempos Pasados de la Alta California. Recuerdos de la Sra. D.a Juana
Machado de Ridington [sic], January 11, 1878, North San Diego. Manuscript
interview by Thomas Savage. Bancroft Library, University of California,
Berkeley.
Macko, Michael E.
1999 Identification and Preservation of Mission Period Structural Remains: Demolition Monitoring for ARCO Station 1706, San Juan Capistrano, California.
Prepared for England & Associates, Irvine, California.
Madulid, Domingo A.
1987 The Philippines in the Year 1792 as Portrayed by the Malaspina Expedition Artists. Quarterly of Culture and Society 15(3): 219254.
Maggetti, Marino, Harold Westley, and Jacqueline S. Olin
1984 Provenance and Technical Studies of Mexican Majolica Using Elemental
and Phase Analysis. In Archaeological Chemistry-III, edited by Joseph B. Lambert, 151191. Advances in Chemistry Series, no. 205. American Chemical
Society, Washington, D.C.
Margolin, Malcolm
1997 Preserving the Layers of History. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento.
Marn de Paalen, Isabel
1960 Alfarera, Planeacin y Promocin, Coleccin Jalisco en el Arte, Ayuntamiento de Guadalajara, Guadalajara.
Matson, Frederick R.
1965 Ceramics and Man. Aldine Publication Company, Chicago.
May, Ronald V.
1972 An Evaluation of Mexican Majolica in Alta California. In Mexican Majolica in Northern New Spain, edited by Michael R. Barnes and Ronald V. May,
2550. Occasional Paper no. 2. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Costa
Mesa, California.
1974 Mexican Majolica at the Monterey Presidio. Monterey County Archaeological Society Quarterly 3(4): 14.
1975 Mexican Majolica in Northern New Spain: A Model for Interpreting Ceramic Change. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
1976 An Analysis of Certain Ceramics from the San Buenaventura Mission.
In The Changing Faces of Main Street: Ventura Mission Plaza Archaeological
Project, edited by Roberta S. Greenwood, 215255. Redevelopment Agency
City of San Buenaventura in fulfillment of contractual obligations for archae-
352 References
ological exploration of Acquisition Parcels 19424 and 19425. Redevelopment Agency, San Buenaventura, California.
1978 A Southern California Indigenous Ceramic Typology: A Contribution to
Malcolm J. Rogers Research. Journal of the Archaeological Survey Association
of Southern California 2(2): 154.
1985 Spanish Period Ceramics from the San Antonio Plaza Project. In Ann Hagerman Johnson, David Frederickson, and Vance G. Bent, eds., Report of Phase III
Research for Block 1, San Antonio Plaza, San Jose, Appendix H. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., for the Redevelopment Agency, City of San Jose, California.
1987 Spanish and Mexican Majolica in California: Key Indicators of the Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Spanish Empire. Fort Guijarros Quarterly
1(2): 1422.
1995 Evidence for the Physical Appearance of 18th-Century Spanish Cannon
Batteries in California. Fort Guijarros Journal 1: 415.
Mayfield, David W.
1978 Ecology of the Pre-Spanish San Francisco Bay Area. Masters thesis, Department of Geography, San Francisco State University, San Francisco.
McCumsey, Robert
1993 Mission San Antonio de Padua. Learning Windows Publications, Margarita, California.
McIntosh, Roderick J.
1978 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at San Marcos Rancho Adobe
(SBa-109). Manuscript on file, Central Coast Information Center, University
of California, Santa Barbara.
McLean, Deborah K. B.
2001 An Assessment of the Manufacture, Use, Origin, and Nomenclature
of Utilitarian Ceramics Produced by Native American Peoples of Orange
County, California. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, California
State University, Fullerton, California.
Meinig, Donald W.
1986 Atlantic America, 14921800. Vol. 1 of The Shaping of America: A Geographic Perspective on 500 Years of History. Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut.
Michel, Helen V., and Frank Asaro
1982 Appendix B: Neutron Activation and X-Ray Fluorescence Analyses of
Ceramic and Lithic Materials. In Jay D. Frierman, ed., The Ontiveros Adobe:
Early Rancho Life in Alta California, 213220. Prepared for the Redevelopment Agency, City of Santa Fe Springs, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific
Palisades, California.
Miller, Bruce W.
1988 Chumash: A Picture of Their World. Sand River Press, Los Osos,
California.
References353
Miller, Daniel, Peter Jackson, Nigel Thrift, Beverley Holbrook, and Michael
Rowlands
1998 Shopping, Place, and Identity. Routledge Press, London.
Miller, George L.
1986 Of Fish and Sherds: A Model for Estimating Vessel Populations from Minimal Vessel Counts. Historical Archaeology 20(2): 5985.
Milliken, Randall Theodore
1991 An Ethnohistory of the Indian People of the San Francisco Bay Area from
1770 to 1810. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Berkeley.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area, 17691910. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
2002 The Indians of Mission Santa Clara. In Telling the Santa Clara Story, Sesquicentennial Voices, edited by Russell K. Skowronek, 4563. City of Santa
Clara and Santa Clara University, Santa Clara.
Mills, Barbara J., Andrea Carpenter, and William Grimm
1997 Sourcing Chuskan Ceramic Production: Petrographic and Experimental
Approaches. Kiva 62: 261282.
Monroy-Guzmn, Fabiola, and Patricia Fournier
2003 Elemental Composition of Mexican Colonial Majolica Using INAA. In
Nuclear Analytical Techniques in Archaeological Investigations, 147161,
Technical Reports Series no. 416, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
Moorhead, Max L.
1975 The Presidio, Bastion of the Spanish Borderlands. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Mller, Florencia
1981 Estudio de la Cermica Hispanis y Moderna de Tlaxcala-Puebla. Colecin cientifica Arqueologa number 103. Departamento de Salvamento Arqueolgico Instituto de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico.
Munsell Color Company
1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color Company, Baltimore.
Myers, J. Emlen, Carredano F. de Amores, Jacqueline S. Olin, and A. Pleguezuelo
Hernandez
1992 Compositional Identification of Seville Majolica at Overseas Sites. Historical Archaeology 26(1): 131146.
Nakamura, Toshio, Yasuhiro Taniguchi, Seiichiro Tsuji, and Hirotaka Oda
2001 Radiocarbon Dating of Charred Residues on the Earliest Pottery in Japan.
Radiocarbon 43 (2B): 11291138.
Neff, Hector
2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In
Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Deter-
354 References
mination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited

by Donna Glowacki and Hector Neff, 1536. University of California Monographs in Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, and Edward V. Sayre
1988 A Simulation Approach to the Problem of Tempering in Compositional
Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:
159172.
1989 More Observation on the Problem of Tempering in Compositional Studies of Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 5769.
Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, Edward B. Sisson, Michael D. Glascock, and
PennyR. Sisson
1994 Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Postclassic Polychrome Pottery from
Central Mexico. In Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, edited by Henry B. Nicholson and Eloise QuionesKeber, 117142. Labyrinthos, Culver City, California.
Neitzel, Jill E., Hector Neff, Michael D. Glascock, and Ronald L. Bishop
2002 Chaco and the Production and Exchange of Dogoszhi Style Pottery. In
Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest, ed. DonnaM.
Glowacki and Hector Neff, 4766. Costin Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.
Newcomb, Rexford
1925 The Old Mission Churches and Historic Houses of California. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia.
Nordenskild, Gustaf
2009 [1893] The Cliff Dwellers of the Mesa Verde, Southwestern Colorado: Their
Pottery and Implements. Rio Grande Press, Glorieta, New Mexico.
Norris, Robert S.
2002 Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Projects
Indispensable Man. Steerforth Press, South Royalton, Vermont.
OBrien, O.F.M., Fr. Eric
1938 The Water Supply of Mission Santa Barbara (I). Priestly Studies 8:
146147.
Ogden, Adele
1981 Captain Henry Fitch, San Diego Merchant, 18251849. Journal of San Diego History 27(4): 238259.
Olin, Jacqueline S., and M. James Blackman
1989 Compositional Classification of Mexican Majolica Ceramics of the Spanish Colonial Period. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, edited by Ralph O. Allen,
87111. Advances in Chemistry Series no. 220. American Chemical Society,
Washington, D.C.
Olin, Jacqueline, Garmon Harbottle, and Edward Sayre
1978 Elemental Compositions of Spanish and Spanish Colonial Majolica Ce-
References355
ramics in the Identification of Provenience. In Archaeological Chemistry II,

edited by Giles F. Carter, 200229. Advances in Chemistry Series no. 172.
Olsen, William H., and Louis A. Payen
1968 Archaeology of the Little Panoche Reservoir, Fresno County, California.
California State Department of Parks and Recreation, Archaeological Resources Section Report 11. Sacramento.
Olveda, Jaime (editor)
1999 Historia y Alfarera. El Colegio de Jalisco, Zapopan.
Oppelt, Norman T.
2007 Prehistoric Southwest Pottery Types and Wares: Descriptions and Color
Illustrations. Published by the author, Greeley, Colorado.
Ortner, Sherry B.
1999 The Fate of Culture: Geertz and Beyond. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Osuna de Marrn, Felipa
1878 Statement of Her Life Taken Down by Thomas Savage, January 26, 1878.
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Padon, Beth, Stephen R. Van Wormer, E. Jane Rosenthal, and Paul E. Langenwalter II
1990 San Juan Capistrano Historic Town Center Cultural Resources Report Extended Phase I Investigation. LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine. Submitted to Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of San Juan Capistrano. South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Pantoja y Arriaga, Juan, and Esteban Jos Martnez
1982 The Voyage of the Frigate Princesa to Southern California in 1782. Edited
by Richard S. Whitehead. Translated by Geraldine V. Sahyun. Santa Barbara
Mission Archive-Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Parker, Paul P.
1944 The Tiles from Mission Soledad. California Historical Society Quarterly
23:348.
Parkman, Edward Breck
1985 Soapstone Artifact Caches from San Diego County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 21(4): 3138.
Parkman, E. Breck
1994 Bedrock Milling Stations. In The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region, edited by Lowell John Bean, 4363.
Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
Pauketat, Timothy R.
2003 Resettled Farmers and the Making of a Mississippian Polity. American
Antiquity 68: 3966.
356 References
Pauley, Kenneth E., and Carol M. Pauley

2005 San Fernando, Rey de Espaa: An Illustrated History. The Arthur H. Clark
Company, Spokane, Washington.
Pearson, Charles E.
1981 El Nuevo Constante: Investigations of an Eighteenth Century Spanish Shipwreck off the Louisiana Coast. Anthropological Study No. 4. Department of
Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Baton Rouge.
Pearson, Charles E., and Paul E. Hoffman
1995 The Last Voyage of El Nuevo Constante, The Wreck and Recovery of an
Eighteenth-Century Spanish Ship off the Louisiana Coast. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Pemberton, H. Earl
1983 Minerals of California. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Perissinotto, Giorgio (editor)
1998 Documenting Everyday Life in Early Spanish California: The Santa Barbara Presidio Memorias y Facturas, 17791810. Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, Santa Barbara.
Pfaffenberger, Bryan
1988 Fetished Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of
Technology. Man 23(2): 236252.
Pilling, Arnold R.
1952 California Mission Maiolica. Archaeological Research Facility Manuscript
139. University of California, Lowie Museum, Berkeley.
1955 Glazed Ceramic Relationships in California (Farallon Islands). Archaeological Research Facility Manuscript Number 213. University of California,
Lowie Museum, Berkeley.
Pineda y Ramrez, Antonio de
1990 The Guam Diary of Naturalist Antonio de Pineda y Ramrez, 1792. Edited
by Marjorie G. Driver. Micronesia Area Research Center, University of Guam,
Mangilao.
Piwinskii, Alt J.
1973 Experimental Studies of Granitoids from the Central and Southern Coast
Ranges, California. Tschermaks Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen 20: 107130.
Plog, Stephen
1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 125142.
Plowden, William W., Jr.
1958 Spanish and Mexican Majolica Found in the New World. El Palacio 65(6):
212219.
References357
Pollard, A. Mark, and Carl Heron

2008 Archaeological Chemistry. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.
Porcasi, Judith F.
1998 Middle Holocene Ceramic Technology on the Southern California Coast:
New Evidence from Little Harbor, Santa Catalina Island. Journal of California
and Great Basin Anthropology 20: 270284.
Pourade, Richard F.
1963 The Silver Dons. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
1971 Anza Conquers the Desert: The Anza Expeditions from Mexico to California and the Founding of San Francisco. Copley Press, Inc., San Diego.
Priestley, Herbert Ingram, and Lillian Estelle Fisher (editors)
1946 Franciscan Explorations in California. The Arthur H. Clark Company,
Glendale, California.
Pritchard, William E.
1970 Archeology of the Menjoulet Site, Merced County, California. Archeological Report No. 13. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of
Resource Management and Protection, Sacramento.
Rands, Robert L., and Ronald L. Bishop
1980 Resource Procurement Zones and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the
Palenque Region, Mexico. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by R. E. Fry, 1946. SAA Papers no. 1. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington.
Renfrew, Colin M.
1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and CarlC.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, 359. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Repplier, Agnes
1933 Junipero Serra, Pioneer Colonist of California. Doubleday, Garden City,
New York.
Rhodes, Ricard
1986 The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Rice, Prudence M.
1978 Ceramic Continuity and Change in the Valley of Guatemala: A Technological Analysis. In The Ceramics of Kaminaljuy, Guatemala, edited by Ronald K. Wetherington, 401510. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1991 Women and Prehistoric Pottery Production. In The Archaeology of
Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by Dale Walde
and NoreenD. Willows, 436243. Archaeological Association of Calgary,
Calgary.
358 References
1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

6(1): 154.
Rodriguez, Maria Dolores Higueras
1985 Catalogo Critico de los Documentos de la Expedicion Malaspina (1789
1794) del Museo Naval. Vol. 1. Museo Naval, Madrid.
Rodrguez-Alegra, Enrique
2005 Eating Like an Indian: Negotiating Social Relations in the Spanish Colonies. Current Anthropology 46: 551573.
Rodriguez-Alegria, Enrique, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock
2003 Indigenous Ware or Spanish Import? The Case of Indgena Ware and Approaches to Power in Colonial Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 14: 6781.
Rogers, David B.
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History, Santa Barbara.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 Yuman Pottery Making. American Anthropologist 45(3): 153.
1973 [1936] Yuman Pottery Making. San Diego Museum Papers no. 2. Ballena
Press, Ramona, California.
Rolle, Andrew
2003 California: A History. 6th ed. Harland Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois.
Romo Torres, Ricardo
1990 Dinmica Sociocultural de la Cermica de Tonal, Cuadernos de difusin
cientfica nm. 16, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara.
Rovira, Beatriz E.
2001 Presencia de maylicas panameas en el mundo colonial: algunas consideraciones acerca de sudistribucin y cronologa. Latin American Antiquity
12(3): 291303.
Royo, A. R.
1999 The Kumeyaay (Diegueno) of San Diego County and Baja. Electronic
Document, http://www.desertusa.com/mag99/july/papr/kumeyaay.html, accessed May 5, 2004.
Rye, Owen S.
1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.
Sackett, James R.
1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42: 369380.
1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Uses
of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret C. Conkey and Christine Hastorf,
1831. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sayre, Edward V.
1966 Refinement in Methods of Neutron Activation Analysis of Ancient Glass
References359
Objects Through the Use of Lithium Drifted Germanium Diode Counters. In

Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress on Glass, Brussels, 1965,
paper no. 22, 19. Gordon and Breach, New York.
Sayre, Edward V., Alexander Murrenhoff, and Charles F. Weick
1958 The Nondestructive Analysis of Ancient Potsherds Through Neutron Activation. BNL Laboratory Rep. 508 T-122. Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, New York.
Sayre, Edward V., and Ray Winfield Smith
1961 Compositional Categories of Ancient Glass. Science 133: 18241826.
Sayre, Edward V., Richard W. Dodson, and Dorothy Burr Thompson
1957 Neutron Activation Study of Mediterranean Potsherds. American Journal
of Archaeology 61: 3541.
Scheans, Daniel J.
1977 Filipino Market Potteries. Monograph No. 3. National Museum, Manila.
Schlereth, Thomas J. (editor)
1982 Material Culture Studies in America. American Association for State and
Local History, Nashville, Tennessee.
Schuetz, Mardith K.
1969 Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians.
Vol. 2 of The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. State Building Commission, Archaeological Program, Austin, Texas.
Schuetz-Miller, Mardith K.
1994 Building and Builders in Hispanic California, 17691850. Santa Barbara
Trust for Historic Preservation, Santa Barbara.
Schulz, Peter D., and Eloise Richards Barter
1985 Incised Brownware Sherds from Old Town San Diego. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 21(4): 2528.
Schulz, Peter D., Ronald Quinn, and Scott Fulmer
1987 Archaeological Investigations at the Rose-Robinson Site, Old Town San
Diego. Manuscript on file, Archaeology, History and Museums Division, California State Parks, Sacramento.
Seifert, Donna
1977 Archaeological Majolicas of the Rural Teotihuacn Valley, Mexico. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa.
Shabel, Karen (Gallucci)
2005 Analysis of Ceramics from Block 408, Old Town San Diego. Study performed for California Parks Department, Sacramento.
Shanks, Ralph, and Lisa W. Shanks
2006 Indian Baskets of Central California: Art, Culture, and History. Costao
Books, Novato, California.
Shepard, Anna O.
1939 Appendix ATechnology of La Plata Pottery. In Earl H. Marris, ed., Ar-
360 References
chaeological Studies in the La Plata District, 249287. Carnegie Institution of

Washington Publication no. 519. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.
Skowronek, Russell K.
1984 Trade Patterns of Eighteenth Century Frontier New Spain: The 1733 Flota
and St. Augustine. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1987 Ceramics and Commerce: The 1554 Flota Revisited. Historical Archaeology 21(2): 101111.
1989 A New Europe in the New World: Hierarchy, Continuity and Change in
the Spanish Sixteenth-Century Colonization of Hispaniola and Florida. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University.
1992 Empire and Ceramics: The Changing Role of Illicit Trade in Spanish
America. Historical Archaeology 26(1): 109118.
1998 Sifting the Evidence: Perceptions of Life at the Ohlone (Costanoan) Missions of Alta California. Ethnohistory 45(4): 675708.
1999 Identifying the First Pueblo De San Jose De Guadalupe: Some Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Considerations. California Mission Studies Association Occasional Paper 2. California Mission Studies Association,
Santa Clara, California.
2002 Global Economics in the Creation and Maintenance of the Spanish Colonial Empire. In Social Dimensions in the Economic Process, edited by Norbert
Dannhaeuser and Cynthia Werner, 295310. Research in Economic Anthropology no. 21. JAI Press, Amsterdam.
2005a Ceramic Analysis of Daly Science Electrical Upgrade Project 1999.11.
Manuscript on file, Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab, Santa
Clara, California.
2005b Ceramic Analysis of Alameda Apartments Pool Project 2000.03.
Manuscript on file, Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab, Santa
Clara, California.
2009 On the Fringes of Empire: The Spanish U.S. Southwest and the Pacific.
In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 471506. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
New York.
Skowronek, Russell K., Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman, Sarah Ginn, and
Manuel Garca Heras
2003 Chemical Characterization of Earthenware on the Alta California Frontier. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 16: 209219.
Skowronek, Russell K., Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman, Yessica Islas, and
Courtney Thiesen
2005 San Diego Region (Fort Guijarros MMG; Mission San Diego de Alcala
References361
MMO; Old Town San Diego MMM Presidio of San Diego PMJ): Report on
Neutron Activation Analysis of Earthenwares. Ms. on file Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab; Santa Clara University Archives, Santa Clara,
California; and National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Skowronek, Russell K., M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop
2009 Locally-Made or Imported: Identifying Ceramic Composition Variation
in the San Francisco Presidio Jurisdiction. Historical Archaeology 43(4): 121.
Skowronek, Russell K., M. James Blackman, Ronald L. Bishop, Sarah Ginn, and
Manuel Garca-Heras
2001 Chemical Characterization of Earthenware on the Alta California Frontier. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Nuclear and Related
Techniques. Havana, Cuba.
Skowronek, Russell K., M. James Blackman, Ronald L. Bishop, and Vanessa Koons
2005 Santa Barbara Presidio (PMQ), Casa de la Guerra (PMR), and Mission
Santa Barbara (Manuscript): Report on Neutron Activation Analysis of Earthenwares. Manuscript on file, Santa Clara University Archaeology Research
Lab and the Santa Clara University Archives, Santa Clara, and Department of
Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Skowronek, Russell K., M. James Blackman, Ronald L. Bishop, Shuryn Riggins,
and Emily Johnson
2005 Mission San Francisco de Ass (PMK) and the Presidio of San Francisco
(PME): Report on Neutron Activation Analysis of Earthwares. Manuscript on
file, Santa Clara University Archaeology Research Lab and the Santa Clara
University Archives, Santa Clara, and Department of Anthropology, National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Skowronek, Russell K., Jelena Radovic Fanta, and Hugo Morales (editors)
n.d. By All Accounts . . . The Mission Santa Clara de Ass Ledger Book,
17701828. Manuscript on file, University of Texas Pan American, Edinburg,
Texas.
Skowronek, Russell K., and Margaret A. Graham
2012 Wine and Alcohol on the Alta California Frontier. Boletin 28(12):
2333.
Skowronek, Russell K., Ruben Reyes, Sarah Ginn, Kelly Greenwalt, M. James
Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop
2006 From Science to Humanism: Finding the Pots in the Sherds. San Diego,
Alta California and the Borderlands: In San Diego, Alta California, and the
Borderlands: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference California Mission
Studies Association, edited by Rose Marie Beebe and Robert Senkewicz, 155
173. California Mission Studies Association, Santa Clara, California.
362 References
Skowronek, Russell K., with Elizabeth Thompson

2006 Situating Mission Santa Clara de Ass: 17761851, Documentary and
Material Evidence of Life on the Alta California Frontier: A Timeline. Academy of American Franciscan History, Berkeley, California.
Sloan, Doris
2006 Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Sneath, Peter H. A., and Sokal, Robert R.
1973 Numerical Taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Snow, David H.
1965 The Chronological Position of Mexican Majolica in the Southwest. El
Palacio 72(1): 2535.
1984 Spanish American Pottery Manufacture in New Mexico: A Critical Review. Ethnohistory 31: 93113.
Sokal, Robert R., and Peter H. A. Sneath
1963 Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
South, Stanley, and Chester B. DePratter
1996 Discovery at Santa Elena: Block Excavation 1993. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 222. College of Liberal Arts, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Sparkman, Philip Stedman
1908 The Culture of the Luiseo Indians. University of California Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4): 187234.
Speakman, Robert J., and Michel D. Glascock (editors)
2007 Special Issue: Fifty Years of Neutron Activation Analysis in Archaeology.
Archaeometry 49(2).
Spearman, Arthur Dunning
1963 The Five Franciscan Churches of Mission Santa Clara, 17771825. The
National Press, Palo Alto, California.
Spier, Robert F.
1978 Foothill Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert Heizer, 471484. Vol. 8 of
Stark, Miriam T.
1994 Pottery Exchange and the Regional System: A Dalupa Case Study. In Kalinga
Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by William Longacre and James M. Skibo, 169198. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Stark, Miriam T. (editor)
1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
References363
Stavrianos, Leften S.
1981 Global Rift: The Third World Comes of Age. William Morrow and Co., New
York.
Steffen, Jerome O.
1980 Comparative Frontiers: A Proposal for Studying the American West. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Stoltman, James B.
1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin
Sections. American Antiquity 54: 147160.
Stone, Doris Z.
1950 Notes on Present-day Pottery Making and Its Economy in the Ancient
Chorotegan Area. Middle American Research Records 1(16): 269280. Middle
American Research Institute, Tulane University.
Taaffe, Edward J., Richard I. Morrill, and Peter R. Gould
1963 Transport Expansion in Underdeveloped Countries: A Comparative
Analysis. Geographical Review 53: 503529.
Tac, Pablo
1835 Las Misiones Espaolas en Los Estados Unidos. Translated by Jos de
Ons. University of Colorado Press, Boulder.
Taylor, Suzanne P.
2004 The Salinan People. Electronic document, http://www.missionsanmiguel
.com/history/salinans.html, accessed May 5, 2013.
Tays, George
1941 Ranch and Mission Industries in Spanish California. Unpublished manuscript.
George Tays Writings, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Thomas, David Hurst
1989 Columbian Consequences: The Spanish Borderlands in Cubist Perspective. In Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands
West, ed. David H. Thomas, 114. Columbian Consequences vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Thompson, Richard E.
2003 Excavations at a Neophyte Indian Dormitory. Report prepared for the
Alsion Montessori Middle/High School of Mission San Jose, California, by
Archaeor of Mission San Jose, California.
Thurman, Michael E.
1967 The Naval Department of San Blas: New Spains Bastion for Alta California and Nootka, 17691798. Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.
Tite, M. S.
1999 Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption: The Contribution
of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3):
181233.
364 References
Toll, Henry Wolcot

1981 Ceramic Comparisons Concerning Redistribution in Chaco Canyon, New
Mexico. In Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, edited by Hil
ary Howard and Elizabeth A. Morris, 83121. British Archaeological Reports
120. Oxford, England.
1985 Pottery, Production, and Public Architecture and the Chaco Anasazi System. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado,
Boulder.
Tompkins, Walker A.
1967 Old Spanish Santa Barbara. McNally and Loftin, Santa Barbara, California.
Torres, Luis M., Ana W. Arie, and Beatriz Sandoval
1984 Provenance Determination of Fine Orange Maya Ceramic Figurines by
Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. In Archaeological Chemistry III,
edited by Joseph B. Lambert, 193213. Advances in Chemistry Series 205.
Tschopik, Harry, Jr.
1950 An Andean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 15: 196218.
Tsujimori, Tatsuki, K. Matsumoto, John Wakabayashi, and Juhn G. Liou
2006 Franciscan Eclogite Revisited: Reevaluation of the P-T Evolution of Tectonic Blocks from Tiburon Peninsula, California, U.S.A. Mineralogy and Petrology 88: 243267.
Tunnell, Curtis, and J. Richard Ambler
1967 Archaeological Excavations at Presidio San Agustn de Ahumada. Archaeological Report Number 6. Texas State Building Commission, Austin.
Van Camp, Gina
1979 Kumeyaay Pottery: Paddle and Anvil Techniques of Southern California.
Anthropological Papers No. 15. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.
van der Leeuw, Sander E., and Allison C. Pritchard
1984 The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Albert Egges van Giffen Instituut voor Praeen Protohistoire, CINGULA VII. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Vandiver, Pamela B., Olga Soffer, Bohuslav Klima, and Jiri Svoboda
1989 The Origins of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia.
Science: 10021008.
Vernon, Richard H.
1988 17th Century Apalachee Colono-Ware as a Reflection of Demography,
Economics, and Acculturation. Historical Archaeology 22: 7682.
Vives, Jaime Vicens
1972a The Economy of Ferdinand and Isabellas Reign. In Spain in the Fifteenth
Century, 13691516, edited by Roger Highfield, 248273. Macmillan Press,
London.
References365
1972b The Economies of Catatonia and Castile. In Spain in the Fifteenth Century,
13691516, edited by Roger Highfield, 3253. Macmillan Press, London.
Voss, Barbara L.
2002 The Archaeology of El Presidio de San Francisco: Culture Contact, Gender, and Ethnicity in a Spanish-Colonial Military Community. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
2008a The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San
Francisco. University of California Press, Berkeley.
2008b Poor People in Silk Shirts: Dress and Ethnogenesis in Spanish-Colonial
San Francisco. Journal of Social Archaeology 8: 404432.
2012 Status and Ceramics in Spanish Colonial Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 46(2): 3954.
Wade, Sue A.
1989 Pottery Analysis. Appendix D. In Beth Padon, Stephen R. Van Wormer,
E.Jane Rosenthal, and Paul E. Langenwalter II, eds., San Juan Capistrano Historic Town Center Cultural Resources Report Extended Phase I Investigation,
246287. LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine. Submitted to Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of San Juan Capistrano. South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
1991 Aboriginal Ceramics Analysis in San Juan Capistrano Historic Town Center. In Martin D. Rosen and Judith D. Tordoff, eds., Extended Phase 1 Investigations of CA SDI 5422, City of Oceanside, California, 127149. Caltrans
District 11, California Department of Transportation, San Diego.
1999 Analysis of Ceramics from SDI-10.156 A and B. Topomai. In Archaeological Investigations at SDI-10,156 A and B, San Diego. Paper prepared for the
Department of Defense, USMC Camp Pendleton, California.
2000 Analysis of Ceramics from SDI-14,527, Old Town San Diego. Paper prepared for Heritage Resources, Ramona, California.
Wagner, H. R., and Pedro de Unamuno
1923 The Voyage of Pedro de Unamuno to California in 1587. California Historical Society Quarterly 2(2): 140160.
Wallace, William J.
1978a Southern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 44861.
Vol. 8 of Handbook of the North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution
1978b Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer,
46270. Vol. 8 of Handbook of the North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1990 Another Look at Yokuts Pottery-Making. In Hunter-Gatherer Pottery
from the Far West, edited by Joanne M. Mack, 171178. Nevada State Museum
Anthropological Papers No. 23. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
366 References
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974 The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of
the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press,
New York.
1989 The Modern World-System III. Academic Press, San Diego.
Warren, A. Helene
1967 Petrographic Analyses of Pottery and Lithics. In An Archaeological Survey
of the Chuska Valley and the Chaco Plateau, New Mexico, Part 1: Natural Science Studies, edited by Arthur H. Harris, James Schoenwetter, and A. Helene
Warren, 104134. Museum of New Mexico Research Records, no. 4. Museum
of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.
Washburn, Dorothy K.
1977 A Symmetry Analysis of Upper Gila Area Ceramic Design. Papers of the
Peabody Museum 68. Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Way, Ruth
1962 A Geography of Spain and Portugal. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.
Weaver, Richard A.
1986 Notes on the Production, Use, and Distribution of Pottery in East-Central
California. In Pottery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas, edited by
S. Griset, 7581. Anthropological Papers vol. 111. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Webb, Edith Buckland
1952 Indian Life at the Old Missions. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Weber, David J.
1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut.
Weber, Francis J.
1976 The Jewel of the Missions: A Documentary History of San Juan Capistrano.
Libra Press Limited, Hong Kong.
1977 A History of San Buenaventura Mission. San Buenaventura Mission Gift
Shop, San Buenaventura, California.
1988 A Bicentennial Compendium of Maynard J. Geigers The Life and Times of
Fray Junpero Serra. EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo, California.
Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre
1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern USA. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by Timothy K. Earle
and Jonathon E. Ericson, 1534. Academic Press, New York.
Weigand, Phil, Sue Ward, and Garman Harbottle
1981 Mexican Sherds Recovered from the Archaeological Excavations at Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 3, 171178. History
and Archaeology Series no. 44. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch,
Parks Canada, Environment Canada.
References367
Whitehead, Richard S.
1986 Alta Californias Four Fortresses. Zamorano, Los Angeles, California.
1996 Citadel on the Channel: The Royal Presidio of Santa Barbara, Its Founding
and Construction, 17821798. Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation
and the Arthur H. Clark Company. Santa Barbara, California.
Whiting, Joseph S., and Richard J. Whiting
1960 The Forts of the State of California. Daily News Press, Longview, Cali
fornia.
Wilken, Michael
1999 The Paipai Potters of Baja California: A Living Tradition. Masterkey 6(4):
1826.
Williams, Jack S.
1983 Early Nineteenth Century Plainware Pottery from Mission San Antonio
de Padua Alta California. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions Archive,
Jolon, California.
1992a The Archaeology of Underdevelopment and the Military Frontier of
Northern New Spain. Historical Archaeology 26(1): 721.
1992b Archaeological Investigations at the Captains House at the Presidio of
Tubac. Center for Spanish Colonial Archaeology, San Diego, California.
1994 The San Diego Presidio Archaeology Project, 19921994. Technical Report Series Number 4. Center for Spanish Colonial Archaeology, San Diego,
California.
1996 Field Notes: Kiln Documentation, Mission San Juan Capistrano (CAORA-856H), June 24, 1996. Manuscript on file, Center for Spanish Colonial
Research, San Diego, California.
1997 Adobe Ramparts: Archaeology and the Evolution of the Presidio of San
Diego. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 33(4): 2956.
2004a Archaeological Investigations of the Sunken Gardens of Mission San Luis
Rey. Center for Spanish Colonial Research, San Diego.
2004b San Diego Presidio: A Vanished Military Community of Upper California. Historical Archaeology 38(3): 121134.
2009 Alta California and Spanish Naval Strategy in the Pacific. Mainsl Haul: A
Journal of Pacific Maritime History 45(12): 5873.
Williams, Jack S., and Anita G. Cohen-Williams
1997 The Center for Spanish Colonial Archaeology Handbook. 4th ed. The Center for Spanish Colonial Archaeology, San Diego, California.
Williams, Jack S., and Thomas L. Davis
2004 Sailors, Merchants, and Muleteers of the California Mission Frontier. The
Rosen Publishing Group, New York.
Wobst, Martin H.
1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, 317
368 References
342. Anthropological Papers no. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Wolf, Eric
1982 Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Worrall, William E.
1986 Clays and Ceramic Raw Materials. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
London.
Wright, J. Leitch
1971 Anglo-Spanish Rivalry in North America. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
About the Authors

and Contributors
Authors
Ronald L. Bishop
Ronald Bishop holds a PhD from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.

He is currently the curator for Mexican and Central American archaeology in the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum of
Natural History, the Smithsonian Institution. He has spent 40 years analyzing ceramics and jade from Mesoamerica (especially Maya), Lower
Central America, the greater U.S. Southwest, and, more recently, Hispanic and Mexican colonial pottery in California, Texas, and Mexico. He
has written extensively on the compositional analysis of cultural materials, integrating the analytical data obtained from the study of museum
objects with analyses of artifacts from recent excavation and surveys. He
has published on subjects related to ceramic production and distribution, especially as these are aided through the use of chemical and petrographic analyses of pottery.
M. James Blackman
Jim Blackman is a senior research chemist emeritus at the Smithsonian

Institution in the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum
of Natural History. He helped establish the archaeological neutron activation program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
excavated in the Middle East, and has served as curator for Southeast
Asian Archaeology. He earned a masters degree in geology from Miami
370 About the Authors and Contributors
University Oxford in 1970 and received his PhD in mineralogy from Ohio
State University Columbus in 1975. He has published extensively on the
chemical characterization and technological analysis of archaeological
ceramics, clay objects, and obsidian (in the ancient Middle East, South
Asia, and the colonial Americas); trade and exchange; and craft specialization, especially as these topics relate to the flow of information in early
state formation.
Russell K. Skowronek
Russell Skowronek received his PhD from Michigan State University. He

is a research associate of the Smithsonian Institution and is a professor
of anthropology and history at the University of Texas-Pan American,
where he serves as the director of the Community Historical Archaeology Project with Schools. Previously he was associate professor of anthropology and campus archaeologist at Santa Clara University, where
the original study of ceramics on the Alta California frontier was undertaken. Skowronek specializes in the study of the Spanish colonial world.
He is the author or editor of several books, including X Marks the Spot:
The Archaeology of Piracy (with Charles Ewen), HMS Fowey Lost . . . and
Found (with George Fischer), Beneath the Ivory Tower: The Archaeology
of Academia (with Kenneth Lewis), and Situating Mission Santa Clara de
Ass: 17761851, Documentary and Material Evidence of Life on the Alta
California Frontier.
The Contributors
Eloise Richards Barter
Eloise Barter is an archaeologist retired from California State Parks, where

she worked on sites throughout the state. Her MA thesis on pottery from
a southwestern site began an interest in pottery that has continued. She
has analyzed ceramic collections from several prehistoric and historic
southern California sites and a Monterey, California, nineteenth-century
French kiln.
Julia Costello
After receiving her MA in archaeology from the University of Denver in

1972, Julia Costello spent two years as a ceramic specialist in Lebanon,
working on Bronze Age, Phoenician, and Roman sites. She immigrated to
California after the onset of the Lebanese civil war, where she specialized
About the Authors and Contributors371
in Spanish colonial sites. In 1990, she received her PhD on this topic from
the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Costello has directed major archaeological research projects at numerous Spanish colonial sites
in California, including El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park,
Mission San Antonio de Padua, El Pueblo de Los Angeles, Mission La
Pursima Vieja, Mission Santa Ins, Mission San Buenaventura, and over
a dozen rancho sites. She has authored numerous excavation studies
and published widely on the results of her research. Her recent volume
The California Missions: History, Art and Preservation, which she coauthored with Edna Kimbo, was awarded the International Book Awards
Grand Prize for Non-Fiction.
Glenn Farris
Glenn Farris retired in 2008 from California State Parks, where he was
employed as a state archaeologist. He worked on a number of missionera sites throughout California in the course of his employment, including Sonoma Barracks, Santa Cruz Mission, Mission San Juan Bautista,
Mission La Pursima Concepcin, and the Presidio of Santa Barbara. He
also worked with coauthor Larry Felton on the McCoy-Silvas site in Old
Town San Diego. On the latter project, Farris worked on both the excavations and the preparation of an ethnohistoric study of the site in particular and Old Town San Diego in general.
D. Larry Felton
David L. (Larry) Felton worked as a historical archaeologist and archaeological collections manager for California State Parks for over 35 years.
He retired in 2010. During his extensive experience in field excavations,
Larry has worked on numerous mission-era sites throughout the state
including Santa Cruz Mission, Sonoma Barracks, the Cooper-Molera
Adobe in Monterey, the Las Cruces Adobe, and various sites in Old Town
San Diego. He is particularly interested in the study of ceramics.
Robert L. Hoover
Bob Hoover received his AB, MA, and PhD degrees in anthropology
from the University of California, Berkeley, with a specialty in the archaeology of California. He has taught at Stanford University and was a
professor at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo
from 1970 until his retirement in 1998. Since 1976, he has specialized
in Spanish colonial archaeology, serving continuously as director of the
Archaeological Field School at Mission San Antonio de Padua for over

30 years and training some 500 students. Dr. Hoover has also excavated
at Missions Santa Ines, La Pursima, San Miguel, San Luis Obispo, and
Santa Barbara and at the Presidio of Santa Barbara. He is the recipient of
the Award of Distinction from the California Council for the Promotion
of History and the Norman Neuerburg Award of the California Mission
Studies Association.
Michael H. Imwalle
Mike Imwalle was born in Yuma, Arizona, and grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. He moved south to attend the University of California,
Santa Barbara, where he has resided since 1980. Mr. Imwalle is a specialist in history, historical archaeology, architectural history, and historic
preservation with more than 25 years experience in California. He has
directed more than 50 historic and prehistoric archaeological excavations
and surveys in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and Ventura
Counties, including projects at numerous Spanish mission sites. He has
served as chief archaeologist and principal investigator at El Presidio de
Santa Barbara State Historic Park and the Casa de la Guerra Restoration
Project since 1987. In that capacity, Mr. Imwalle has overseen numerous architectural and archaeological projects, researched historic land
use, conducted oral histories, written historical overviews, and prepared
HABS/HAER-level documentation. He has extensive experience in the
description, classification, and analysis of the material culture of Spanish
colonial and Mexican period artifacts.
Sarah Ginn Peelo
Sarah Peelo is an anthropological archaeologist and a Presidents Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California, Davis. She specializes in
Spanish colonial archaeology in California. She received a bachelors degree from Santa Clara University (1999), a masters degree from Colorado
State University (2001) and a PhD from University of California, Santa
Cruz (2009). Her research interests include historical archaeology, ceramic studies, Spanish colonialism, identity formation, and North American Indians. She has conducted fieldwork at many California Spanish
colonial sites, such as Mission San Antonio de Padua; has worked intimately with Spanish colonial historic documents; and has ceramic analysis experience from the Smithsonian Center for Materials, Research, and
About the Authors and Contributors373
Education; the Smithsonian Natural History Museum; and the UC Santa

Cruz Ceramic Analysis Laboratory.
Ruben Reyes
After graduating from San Jose State University in 1975 and before starting graduate school, master potter Ruben Reyes took a break from academic ceramic arts and went to Mexico to learn about clay from market
potters. This experience was first applied in graduate school, where in
1984 he earned his MA in art at San Jose State University. In 2004, after
twenty years in the computer industry, Reyes brought his ceramic skills
to the SmithsonianSouthern California University Pottery Project. In
addition to his work with the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History,
he has worked with the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian,
the Santa Barbara Presidio Trust, the San Francisco Presidio Trust, and
other historic sites and museums in California. Reyes continues working
clay and listening to other potters experiences. He is currently co-owner
with Will Johnson of the Black Bean Ceramic Art Center in San Jose,
California.
Barbara Voss
Barbara Voss is a historical archaeologist whose research investigates the

dynamics and outcomes of transnational cultural encounters in colonial
and early industrial North America. Her book The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco analyzes landscape,
architecture, foodways, material culture, and dress to trace the transformation of social identities in eighteenth-century Spanish California.
Since 1992, she has conducted field and laboratory research at the Presidio of San Francisco at the site of the eighteenth-century Spanish colonial military settlement. The most current phase of this project involves
excavation of archaeological deposits from a nearby civilian neighborhood. She is also the principal investigator of the Market Street Chinatown Archaeology Project, a laboratory study of a collection of artifacts
from San Joses earliest historic Chinese community.
Jack Stephen Williams
Jack Williams grew up in San Diego, California. He received an MA in

anthropology in 1983 and a PhD in anthropology in 1991 from the University of Arizona. Jack lives in Ramona, California, where he teaches
and works as a consultant in cultural resources management. He has led

projects at various Spanish colonial sites in the greater Southwest, including the missions of Tucson, San Xavier del Bac, San Gabriel, San Juan
Capistrano, San Luis Rey, and Santa Barbara and the presidios of San Diego, Tubac, and Tucson. At present, he heads archaeological projects at
Missions San Luis Rey and San Diego. He also serves as a board member
on the California Mission Foundation and has written numerous scholarly books and articles on Spanish colonial archaeology and history. He
has written a number of popular books on scholarly subjects for young
people, including the six-book series People of the California Missions
(with Thom Davis) and twelve volumes on California Indian Peoples.
Index
Page numbers followed by t indicate tables; page numbers followed by i indicate

illustrations.
Acagchemem, 26, 3233, 48, 49
Action archaeology. See Experimental
archaeology
Afro-Eurasian economic system, 13
Albarellos, 312
ALSOS project, 142
Alta California, 18, 23, 25, 27, 44; annexation to New Spain, 39, 41; and ceramics of, 78, 9495; and ceramics
shipped to in bulk, 299; and closing
of overland trail, 243; colonization of,
19; division into presidio jurisdictions,
4344, 44i; and Hispanic period,
xx; and illicit trade in ceramics, 297;
and imported goods, 41, 244; and
introduction of ceramic technology,
98, 15253; as island, 40; and native
cultures, 27, 29, 28i; origin of pottery,
95; as peripheral borderland, 13, 19;
and pottery making in, 21, 9495, 96;
and production of hides and tallow,
41; as protective colony, 18, 43; and
seaborne supply line to, 19, 243; and
Sacred Expedition, 26; and shift in
diet, 41; and Spanish occupation of,

25, 26; and supply ships to, 24345;
and trade, 21, 242; and trails of,
24243; transformation of province,
43. See also specific Indian groups;
specific missions
Anacapa Island, 33
Anglo-American expansion, 39
Anthropology of technology, 153
Antiquities, 136
Anza, Juan Bautista de. See De Anza,
Juan Bautista
Archaeology, 56, 103, 301
Archaeometrics, xxv
Architectural earthen wares, 96, 31516.
See also Bricks; Earthenwares; Tiles
Arguello, Comandante Jos Daro, 59
Arrieros, 243
Arroyo de la Quema, 49
Atherton, Faxon Dean, 224
Atole, 41, 178
Atomic absorption analysis, 8; of
earthenwares, 8
Atomic Energy Act, 143
376 Index
Atomic Energy Commission, 143

Atrevida, 67
Azotea, 62, 63
Bacines, 293
Baer, Kurt, 4
Baja California, 25i, 26
Barbareo as potters, 98. See also
Chumash
Barbolla-Roland, Diane, 28587, 304
Barker, Leo R., 292
Barnes, Michael R., 261, 28889, 290
Barranco, 120
Bartel, Brad, 304
Barter, Eloise Richards, xxiv, 8, 228, 230
Basket-making tradition, 64, 152; and
Chumash women, 98
Bjar, Salvador, 48
Beskow, Gunnar, 139
Bishop, Ronald L., xxxv, 314
Blackman, M. James, xxxv
Blacksmithing, 21
Blacksmiths, 4, 97. See also Moreno,
Santiago
Block 408 excavations, 219, 221, 225
26; and architectural features, 226;
and bowls, 236, 238; ceramics from,
226, 227, 227t, 238; and clays used,
231, 23436; and comales, 236, 238;
decorated sherds, 238; and dung temper, 231, 23334; and excluded clay
sources, 234; and flaked stone, 241;
and glazed wares, 227; and handles,
238; and historical research, 230; and
identification of vessel forms, 22829,
229i, 236, 237t, 238; and kilns,
23940; and paddle-and-anvil bowls,
227, 236; and petrographic examination, 230; and recurved rims, 24041;
samples for instrumental neutron activation analysis, 228; and soils map,
235; soot patterns, 240; and Spring
Valley as clay source, 23536; tile
wasters, 226; and water bottles, 238.
See also Old Town San Diego; Tizon
Brown Ware
Borica, Diego de. See De Borica, Governor Diego

Boronda, Jos, 97
Botijas. See Olive jars
Botijuelas. See Olive jars
Bouchard, Hiplito, 5354
Bradfield, Wesley, 140
Bricks, xxivxxv, 21, 64, 115, 118, 119,
195; as architectural pottery, 9, 96,
180; and brick masons, 98; and brick
works, 129; clay preparation for, 105,
117; descriptive studies of, 78; and
ethnographic accounts, 11920; and
exhibit of, xxvii; and firing of, 115,
120, 126; and grades of, 126; and
modern Mexico, 118, 128; and molds
of, 11718; and source of clay, 120;
and use of, 126
Broadbent, Sylvia M., 159t
Brookhaven National laboratory, 143,
145, 248
Burnished ceramics, 27779; Bruida
de Tonal, 278, 284, 284i, 287, 290,
291, 291i, 296, 311t; and chemical signature of, 278, 278i; and Guadalajara
Polychrome, 278
Caballito. See Kiln Furniture: cock spur
Cabrillo, Juan Rodriguez, 23, 33
Caley, Earl R., 136
California, 23, 27i, 301; cartography of,
2324; and Hispanic period, xx, 301;
and historic sites pre-1848, 94; homogeneity of, 2122; and native peoples,
166; and precontact peoples, 38, 67;
and prehistoric peoples, 21, 136; and
Spanish world system, 22
California Missions, 2122, 25, 27; and
craftsmen, xix, 4, 42; descriptions of,
7; intermission trade, xxv, 42, 179;
and manufacture of ceramics, 43, 179;
pottery at, xxi, 95, 179. See also Alta
California; Missions; specific missions
Californios: and families in San Diego,
221; and misinterpretation of life
style,94
Index377
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,

29,30
Cardero, Jos, 67, 124i
Carpenters, 4; artisans, 97; carpentry,
21; and joinery, 21. See also Boronda,
Jos
Carreta, 120
Carrico, Richard L., 236
Carrillo, Joaqun, 221, 222
Casa muro, 304
Casco, 70i
Catalonian Volunteers, 47, 52
Caywood, Louis R., 28990
Center for Neutron Research, 172
Ceramics: aesthetics of, 297, 29899; of
Alta California, 78, 41; and archaeological classifications of imports,
28791; bisque, 116; ceramic appearance, 29495, 297; ceramic ecology,
156; ceramic style, 155; chamber
pots, 293; and chemical analysis of,
xx, xxvii, 8, 9; clays, xx, xxvii, 8, 103,
13839, 149; comparison of manufacturing techniques, 138; crates of,
29394; as dating tool, 201322;
documentary evidence of, 6, 29195;
dynamic social processes, 157; ethnography of, 158, 165; exhibit, xxvii;
firing clouds, 115; firing process, xxi,
115, 116; functional variability of, 287;
functions of, 8, 295; from Guadalajara, 6, 41, 50; Hispanization, xixxx;
history of, xx; hollowwares, 298;
imported glazed pottery, 180, 283;
introduction of ceramic technology
to California, 98, 114; local manufacture of, xxvi, 5; local versus non-local
manufacture, 6465, 99, 149; from
Mexico, 96; movement of ceramic
technology, 317; as multicomponent
systems, 133; and Native pottery
traditions in southern California, 285;
and nonvisible steps in production
of, 158; from the Philippines, 50; and
pilot study of, xxiv, 9; production, xix;
from Puebla, 6, 50, 96; relationship
between imports and local wares,

285; replication of, xxvi, 129; and
separation of vessels in the kiln, 116;
and technological style, 15657; and
tempering materials, 9, 139, 14748;
vessel forms, xxv, 5, 293, 294. See also
Burnished ceramics; Earthenwares;
Lead-glazed ceramics; Maylica;
Plain wares
ceramic characterization, 13551;
choice of samples, 15051; inferences,
150; precision, 149; scale, 149; sensitivity, 149, 150
folk classifications of imported ceramics, 29195, 29798; losa (or loza),
293; losa de China, 293; losa fina
achinada, 293; losa de Guadalaxara,
293; losa de Puebla, 293; losa surtida,
293
Cermeo, Sebastan Rodriguez, 24
Chaco-Chuska pottery, 147, 148; and
temper of, 14748
Chemical analysis techniques: and
atomic absorption spectroscopy,
14647; and plasma emission
spectroscopy, 14647, 148; and total
reflection x-ray fluorescence, 146;
and X-ray fluorescence, 8, 146. See
also Instrumental neutron activation
analysis
China, 1314; and Chinese porcelains, 6,
41, 50, 284i, 29697, 311t
Chocolateros, 105, 298, 299
Choris, Louis, 7
Chumash, 26, 28, 3334, 50, 54; and
baskets, 3334, 98; and Channel
Islands, 33; and material culture, 33
34; and the Presidio of Santa Barbara,
50, 98; and trade with Salinans, 34;
and village of Kaswa, 51; and wooden
artifacts, 34. See also Basket-making
tradition
Chutchui. See Ohlone
Civilian Conservation Corps, 118, 12021
Clareos, 61
Classification, 71
378 Index
Clavos, 111
Clothing manufacture, 21
Cocedor, 120
Cocina, 72
Colonial social identity, 153, 166, 169
Colonial system, 14; and communication, 16; context of, 1213; and cosmopolitan frontier, 15; and economic
hierarchy, 15; and motherland, 15;
and production, 1415; productive
vs. protective, 15; and remoteness
of frontier colonies, 18; settlement
pattern of, 13, 16; and Spanish, 13; and
transportation, 16. See also Peripheral
areas; Spanish colonial system
Colorado River crossing, 40
Comales, 100, 231, 236, 238, 286
Conquest culture, 1516
Cooper cooking pots, 41, 178
Cordoba, Alberto de. See De Cordoba,
Alberto
Core states, 1415
Corts, Father Juan, 119, 122
Cosmopolitan colonization model, 16
Costanoan, 28i. See also Ohlone
Costello, Julia G., xxiii, xxiv, xxvxxvi,
67, 99100, 101, 105, 120, 12627
Craftsmen at California missions, 4,
95, 97. See also De Vargas, Don
Manuel; Frano, Jose Maria; Garcia,
Pedro Gonzalez; Larios, Jose Maria;
Lopez, Cayetano; Martinez, Leocadio;
Mendoza, Mariano; Ramrez, Jos
Antonio; Rivera, Salvador; Rodriguez, Manuel; Romero, Jos Antonio;
Ruiz, Manuel Estevan; Ruiz, Pedro
Alcantara; Sangrador, Miguel; Tapia,
Mariano
Crespi, Father Juan, 52
Cruzeos, 62
Cubist approach, 5
Dado, Veronica, 292, 293
Damour, Augustin Alexis, 13637
Dawson, David, 12324
De Anza, Juan Bautista, 40, 5859; and

overland expedition, 243
De Borica, Governor Diego, 47, 59, 115
De Cordoba, Alberto, 47
De Glvez, Jos, 25; and expulsion of
Jesuits, 26; and reorganization of
frontier military, 26; as visitador,
2526
De Goycoechea, Comandante Felipe, 115
De Mofras, Duflot: and Mission San
Luis Obispo, 54
De Portol, Gaspar, 26, 52
Descubierta, 67
De Sol, Governor Pablo Vincente, 54
De Unamuno, Pedro, 24
De Vargas, Don Manuel, 42
Diegueo, 4, 2930, 31, 47. See also
Kumeyaay
Di Peso, Charles C., 28990
Documentary information, 67; and
evidence, 103
Dodson, Richard W., 143, 144i
Doln Vstonice, 135
Drake, Francis, 24
Drakes Bay, 24
Earle, Tim, 315
Earthenwares, 5, 4142, 64, 98, 115,
178; anvil technique, 102i, 1056,
107i, 108i; attributes of form, 71;
basket form pot, 101i, 105, 106i; coil
techniques, 72, 75, 101; and compositional groups, 31617; definition
of clay, 13738; figurines, 73t, 87;
firing conditions, 75, 115; hand base,
74t, 88i, 89, 90i, 91; homogeneity of,
98; kiln temperatures, 75; large base,
74t, 90i, 91; local resources, 315; low
quality, 75; marbles, 73t, 87; mixed
manufacturing techniques, 72; Mohs
scale scratch test, 115; molded base,
75; paddle-and-anvil finishing, 72,
75, 101; pastes, 75; throwing from the
mound technique, 99i, 100i; trade
in, 315; typology of mission pottery,
Index379
7192; wheelbase, 87, 88i, 89; wheel

made, 72, 74t, 75, 101, 105; white-slip
designs, 74. See also Architectural
earthen wares; Burnished ceramics;
Plain wares
local clay, 103, 165; aging of, 1045;
blending clay, 1034; hand mining,
104; modern clay, 105; preparation
of, 104; techniques with, 105; temper
used, 1034; wedging, 104, 104i
vessel forms, 72, 76, 100, 105; bowls,
72, 74t, 77i, 7879, 80i, 100, 101i,
102i, 105, 108i, 178; chocolate pots,
105; cooking pots, 72, 73t, 74, 82, 83i,
8485, 86i, 100; comales, 73t, 100,
105; cups, 100i, 101i, 105; handles,
74t, 92; jars, 72, 73t, 82, 83i, 8485,
86i, 105; juglets, 73t, 85, 86i; lids, 80i,
8192; plates, 73t, 80i, 100, 178; soup
plates, 73t; storage vessels, 100, 105
Ecuador, 1718
Edwards, Rob, xxiv
El Presidio de Santa Barbara State Historic Park, xxvi, 120, 131; and appreciation for skilled artisans, 131; and
demonstration kiln, xxvi, 111, 120, 121,
122, 131; and exhibit, xxvixxvii. See
also Kilns; Presidio of Santa Barbara
El Trabuco, 49
Empires, 12
Entrepts, 16, 17, 1819
Esselen, 26, 28i, 35, 56, 57
Estudillo, Jos Maria, 224
Estufas, 306
Ethnoarchaeology, 153, 158; and archaeological data, 7; definition, 7, 103;
and the Kalinga, 7. See also Kalinga
Experimental archaeology, 122; and
ceramic techniques, 95, 103; and emic
view, 103; and kiln models, 127, 128i;
replication of ceramic forms, 103, 105;
and scale models, 127
Fages, Pedro, 34, 52
Farris, Glenn J., xxiv
Felton, D. Larry, xxiv, 228

Fernandios, 51
Fitch, Henry Delano, 22021, 222, 224,
225, 240
Fort Guijarros, 47
Franciscans, 25, 26, 39, 41
Frano, Jose Maria: as artisan at Mission
San Juan Bautista, 58
Frits, 109
Fritt. See Frits
Gabrielinos, 49, 50. See also Kumivit
Garcia, Pedro Gonzalez: as blacksmith
and armorer at Mission San Luis
Obispo, 54
Gente de razon, 21, 178
Gerald, Rex E., 28990
Golden Hind, 24
Goycoechea, Felipe de. See De Goycoechea, Felipe
Great Britain, 24, 39
Great War for Empire. See Seven
YearsWar
Greenwalt, Kelly, 98
Gritton, Vance, 89
Groves, Leslie R., 141
Habilitados, 292
Havana, 24, 25
Henrique, Antonio, 97
Historic sites, 94; problem with interpretation of, 94
Hoover, Robert L., xxiv, 56, 71, 96, 105,
109, 111, 15253, 179
Horno, 120, 306
Howard, Donald M., 6970, 100, 159t
Howard Collection, 7172, 74, 75, 76i,
159t
Huerta, 220
Ibero-American pottery, 302. See also
Ceramics; Maylica
Illicit trade, 40, 28485
INAA. See Instrumental neutron activation analysis
380 Index
Instrumental neutron activation analysis, xxiv, xxv, 9, 114, 14345, 159, 170
75, 277; bivariate confidence ellipses,
181; and data analysis of, 17576; as
evidence for lead-glazed ceramic production, 116; and exhibit, xxvii; and
gamma rays, 145; in identifying clay
sources, 96; and Mission Santa Clara,
xxiv, 9; at Ontiveros Adobe, 9; and
outliers, 177; and prehistoric pottery
analysis, 9; and use of, 9, 114. See also
Neutron activation analysis
International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS), 292
Jacal, 60, 62, 63
Jackson, F. G.: as ceramic chemist, 140
Jarras de aceite. See Olive jars
Jesuits: and expulsion from New
Spain,26
Juaneos, 32, 48, 49, 192. See also
Acagchemem
Kalinga, 7, 42, 315
Kamia. See Kumeyaay
Kidder, Alfred V., 155; and Anna
Shepard, 140, 141
Kiln furniture, 116, 261; archaeological
evidence of, 117, 277; cock spur (Caballito), 116, 117, 277; fired clay rods,
116, 117i; nails (clavos), 116, 117i
Kilns, 48, 51, 55, 58, 63, 68, 115, 117,
131; and archaeological evidence of,
12425, 127; atmospheres of, 116;
and brick stoker, 120; clamp, 123,
12627; and construction of tile, 6,
127; English bottle, 12324; for glazed
ceramics, 116; illustrations of, 6; lime,
124; modern Mexican open, 124;
modern Mexican updraft, 123; permanent, 123; open-topped circular,
123, 124, 124i, 127, 128i; reasons for,
116; Redwind, 123; Scotch, 123; and
single-chamber, 126; and stacking the,
122; test firings of, 122; and temporary, 123; tile, 124, 125i, 12526; top-
loading, 124; two-chamber updraft,

xxv, 68, 117, 127, 129; volcano-style,
123. See also Kiln furniture
Klaproth, Martin: as father of analytical
chemistry, 136
Kumeyaay, 26, 32, 44, 218, 227; baskets,
30; ceramic techniques of, 30, 105;
and ceramic vessel types, 30; and clay
deposits, 30; houses of, 30; and language, 29; material culture of, 2930;
at Mission San Diego, 45; and openpit kilns, 239; subsistence, 29; village
of Colsoy, 44; village of Neti, 235; and
weapons of, 29. See also Diegueo
Kumivit, 33, 49, 50, 51. See also Fernandios; Gabrielinos
La Argentina, 5354
Ladrilleros, 128
Ladrillos. See Bricks
La Favorita. See Nuestra Seora de los
Remedios
La Pursima Mission Advisory Committee, 12122
Larios, Jose Maria, 54, 58
Lasun, Fr. Fermn, 42, 4748, 49,
95,97
Lead-glazed ceramics, 96, 134, 180,
242, 246t, 24546, 26062, 273; in
Alta California, 26263, 263t, 264i;
Barnes typology, 261, 290; California
production of, 264i, 277; compositional groups, 265; clusters of glazed,
271i, 272i, 27273; early lead glazes,
261; glazed, from major Mexican centers, 271i; finish color in Mexican and
Alta California lead-glazed reference
groups, 276t; for food preparation,
312; instrumental neutron activation
analysis, 262; kiln technology, 261;
local attribution of, 274i, 275i; Loreto,
273; Mexican Lead-Glazed earthen
ware, 261; means and coefficients of
variation for glazed pottery, 266t;
membership of Alta California, 267t,
268t, 269t, 270t; non-California
Index381
production of, 263, 265, 277; past research, 24546; paste compositions,
272; plates, 29; steps to manufacture, 26061; surface finishes, 273.
See also Ceramics; Maylica
Galera, 261, 284, 284i, 287, 28890,
289i, 291, 296, 297, 316; forms of,
298; Galera Polychrome from Tlaquepaque, 290
Leather tanning, 21; leatherworkers, 4
Linn, Sigvald, 13940; and petrographic information, 139
Living history museums, 9394, 113
Lopez, Cayetano, 42, 54
Loso de olor. See Burnished ceramics
Lower Colorado Buff pottery, 136
Loza Blanca de Puebla, 246. See also
Maylica
Luiseo, 4, 28, 3132; and baskets, 32;
ceramic vessels, 31i; hunting weapons
of, 31; and material culture, 32; pottery techniques and forms, 32; subsistence, 3132; and Tizon Brown Ware,
32. See also Quechnajuichon
Machado de Wrightington, Juana, 225
Mahalanobis distance, 177, 186, 215, 273
Maiolica. See Maylica
Manhattan Project, 14142
Manila, 24
Martinez, Leocadio, 58
Masonry/masons, 21, 98
Material analysis: of ceramics in Alta
California, 78
May, Ronald V., xxiii, 8, 47, 99, 152, 179,
212, 247, 251, 28788, 3012
Maylica, 8, 72, 1068, 110i, 284, 284i,
28788, 291, 302, 304, 310, 311t,
31213, 317; Ab Aranama Polychrome, 111; absent vessel forms,
312; Alta California mission samples,
254, 255t; Aranama Polychrome,
305t, 310; Aranama tradition, 288;
Aucilla, 251, 251i, 252; and chemical
composition groups, 252, 252i, 253i;
and chemical separation, 248i, 248,
249, 249i, 250, 250i; and classification of types, 28788; and database
of compositional data, 253; and data
nomenclature, 25354; description
of, 247; differences in firing atmospheres, 11112; early versus late
complexes at the Presidio of San Diego, 309t; Fig Springs, 251, 251i; and
firing replication, 11112; frequencies of types, 308t; and frit, 109; as
heirlooms, 256; as imports, 247, 256;
and instrumental neutron activation
analysis, 24748; and lead-based
glaze, 109; map of analyzed, 260i;
means and coefficients of variation
for, 259t; and Mexico, 1067, 318;
Mexico City as production center of,
252; and modern Puebla, 25052;
Mt. Royal Polychrome, 251, 251i, 252;
Oaxaca as locale, 252253; Panama
as production center of, 256, 318;
plates, 1015; and Portly Eunuch
motif, 111; Puebla Blue on White, 310;
Puebla as manufacturing center of,
247, 251, 251i, 256, 317, 318; Puebla
Polychrome, 251, 251i; and Puebla
tradition, 288; and product locales in
Europe and New Spain, 247; replication of, 109, 11213; and reproductions of popular designs, 256; and
saggers, 111, 113; San Diego Polychrome, 111; San Elizario Polychrome,
110i, 111, 111i; San Luis Blue on White,
251, 251i, 252; from Santa Catalina de
Guale in Georgia, 25052; Santa Cruz
Polychrome, 111; Sevilla as major
supplier of, 25051; Smithsonian
database for in Old and New Worlds,
254; and thin-section petrography,
24849; tin/lead glazed ceramics, 96;
as tin-opacified lead-glazed ceramic,
24654; Tucson Polychrome, 111; Tumacacori Polychrome, 305t, 310; and
type names, 255t; and vessel design
paints, 110; Viva Fernando VII, 111;
Wavy Rim Blue-on-White, 111
382 Index
Maylica (continued)
types found at: the Presidio of San
Diego, 308t; the Presidio of San Francisco, 296
vessel forms, 109, 112i, 247; apothecary jars, 109; bowls, 109, 247; cups,
109, 247; pitchers, 247; plates, 247,
298, 312; platters, 247; soup plates,
109
Mendoza, Mariano: as tile maker at Mission San Antonio de Padua, 56
Mendoza, Ruben, xxiv
Mestizo, 19
Mexico, 2425, 25i, 39, 43, 64; and Bara
complex, 135; craftsmen from, 97;
and glazed ceramics, 95; and male
potters, 97; and plain pottery, 95;
and Purron complex, 135; and Thin
Orange Ware, 13940. See also Leadglazed ceramics; Maylica
Millwrights, 97
Mission Carmel. See Mission San Carlos
Borromeo del Rio Carmelo
Mission Dolores. See Mission San Francisco de Ass
Mission La Purisima Concepcin, 33,
44i, 94; and 1812 earthquake, 51;
and California State Park archaeologists, 121; and the Chumash, 33, 51;
founding of, 45t; and Indian artisans
at, 97; and instrumental neutron
activation analysis of ceramics, 96;
and interpretation of a pottery shop
and non-functional kiln, 12021; and
misinterpretation of features, 125; and
pottery kiln, 129i; and reconstruction of mission, 118, 12021; ; and
second location, 51; and tallow vats,
125; and tile kiln, 51, 12425, 127. See
also Chumash; Civilian Conservation
Corps; Instrumental neutron activation analysis
Mission La Pursima Concepcin
(Yuma), 40
Mission Nuestra Seora de la Soledad.
See Mission Soledad
Missions, 4, 18, 39, 43; artisans at, 95;

and impact on native Americans, 41;
and intermission trade in pottery, 5,
6465, 9596; neophytes in, 4; as
self-sufficient communities, 18, 39; as
suppliers to the presidios and pueblos,
39; as trade schools, 4143, 9697;
and transformation of neophytes, 41,
9697
Mission San Antonio de Padua, 8, 26,
27i, 34, 3637, 38, 44i, 70i, 154i, 161;
buildings of, 56; casco, 70i; crops and
livestock at, 56; earthenware typology
from, 6992; excavation of tile kiln,
127; first documented use of fired
tiles, 114, 179; founding of, 45t, 56;
Howard excavations and artifacts,
6970; and kiln, 12627, 128i; and
minerals in ceramics, 162t, 164, 164i;
and plain ware, 159t; Site II, 69, 70i,
72; weight of fired roof tiles, 122, 179;
and wheel-thrown ceramics versus
handmade, 163. See also Ohlone
Mission San Buenaventura, 26, 27i, 33,
44i; and Chumash, 50; and founding
of, 45t, 50; and instrumental neutron
activation analysis of ceramics, 96;
and plain and glazed ceramics study,
96; and pottery-making buildings, 50;
tile roofs of, 50
Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio
Carmelo, 26, 27i, 35, 44i, 5657, 154i;
buildings of, 57; crops and livestock,
57; description by Father Serra, 57;
founding of, 45t, 5152, 56; and La
Perouse, 57; and minerals found in
plain ware, 162t, 164i; and Mission
San Diego, 5657; and Panamanian
maylica, 318; and plain ware, 159t,
161, 165; and production of leadglazed ceramics, 116; and relocation
of, 52, 56; and Manuel Estevan Ruiz
as Master Mason, 53; San Carlos Cathedral, 51, 52; supplies needed from
Mission San Antonio, 5657. See also
Presidio of Monterey
Index383
Mission San Diego, 27i, 44i, 303; and

archaeology at, 303, 205t, 307; buildings at, 46; and crops and livestock,
45; fired roof tiles and bricks, 64; first
location, 46; founding of, 26, 44, 45t;
and Kumeyaay, 45; mission records
from, 22324; population at, 303; at
second location, 4445, 46, 303; and
weaving, 4546. See also Kumeyaay;
Presidio of San Diego
Mission San Fernando de Espaa, 32,
45t, 51, 97
Mission San Francisco de Ass, 26,
27i, 35, 40, 44i, 97; buildings, 59;
founding of, 45t; pottery production at, 59, 118; and Jos Antonio
Romero (potter), 43, 97; and roof
tiles, 59. See also Presidio of San
Francisco
Mission San Francisco Solano (Sonoma),
36, 64, 116
Mission San Gabriel Arcngel, 26, 33,
40, 45t, 49
Mission San Jos, 35, 38, 44i, 63
Mission San Juan Bautista, 8, 38, 44i,
154i; buildings of, 5758; craftsmen
at, 58; founding of, 45t, 57; and Panamanian maylica, 318; and plain ware,
159t, 161, 162t, 164i, 165; population
of, 5758; and tile kiln, 58
Mission San Juan Capistrano, 26, 27i,
44i; 1812 earthquake at, 49; adobe
structures at, 49; and first abandonment, 49; founding of, 45t, 49; and
homogeneity of clay resources,
192; neophytes of, 48; and production of lead-glazed ceramics, 116;
and volcano-style kiln, 124. See also
Juaneos
Mission San Luis Obispo, 26, 27i, 33,
3637, 44i; buildings of, 54; and
craftsmen, 54; founding of, 45t; and
water-powered mill, 54
Mission San Luis Rey, 27i, 31, 44i;
archaeology at, 3034, 305t, 307;
and Salvador Bjar, 48; buildings of,
4849; and fired roof tiles, 48; and

first church, 48; founding of, 45t, 47,
303; granaries at, 48; kilns at, 48, 124;
and laundry terraces, 49; and mission
records, 22324; and neophytes from
Mission San Juan Capistrano, 48; and
Jos Antonio Ramrez, 48; and use of
bricks in construction, 48
Mission San Miguel Arcangel, 34, 44i,
45t, 55, 123, 131
Mission San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuer (Yuma), 40, 243
Mission San Rafael, 45t, 63
Mission Santa Barbara, 33, 44i; and
adobe structures with tiles, 51; building for pottery manufacture, 51; and
description of tile makers, 119; founding of, 45t, 50; Indian artisans at, 97;
and instrumental neutron activation
analysis, 96; La Cieneguita, 51; and
plain and glazed ceramics study, 96;
and pottery kiln, 117, 118i, 122; and
production of lead-glazed ceramics,
116; and tile kiln, 125i
Mission Santa Clara de Ass, 26, 27i, 35,
38, 40, 44i, 45t, 61, 154i; architectural
pottery of, 9; ceramic pilot study,
xxiv, 9; and ceramics, 321t; earthenware, 1012, 159t, 161, 162t, 164i; and
first location, 208; and instrumental
neutron activation analysis, 9; and
Cayetano Lopez, 42; and production
of lead-glazed ceramics, 116; and Jos
Antonio Romero (potter), 43; roof
and floor tiles, 61, 179; and Miguel
Sangrador, 42; and Mariano Tapia
(potter), 97
Mission Santa Clara de Thamien. See
Mission Santa Clara de Ass
Mission Santa Cruz, 8, 35, 44i; and
adobe church, 63; buildings in second
location, 62; and earthenware manufacture, 63; founding of, 45t, 62; and
Jose Maria Frano, 58; and jacal structures, 62; and Jos Antonio Romero,
43, 63; and tile kilns, 63
384 Index
Mission Santa Ins, 33, 44i, 45t; and

instrumental neutron activation
analysis, 96; tiled roofs of, 51
Mission Santa Inez. See Mission Santa
Ins
Mission Soledad, 34, 35, 3637, 38, 44i,
45t, 5556
Missouri University Research Reactor
(MURR), 212, 214i. See also MURR
Archaeometry Laboratory Database;
MURR Archaeometry Program
Website
Miwok, 24, 26, 28i, 36, 60, 63, 64
Mohs scale scratch test, 115
Monterey, 18, 25i, 27i; as entrept,
1819; as presidio jurisdiction, 18,
44i, 5158; and timber sent to Santa
Barbara, 50. See also Presidio of Santa
Barbara
Monterey Bay, 24
Monterey Presidio. See Presidio of
Monterey
Moreno, Santiago, 97
Munsell Color Company, 75
Munsell Color Guide, 75, 76t
MURR Archaeometry Laboratory
Database, 181
MURR Archaeometry Program Website,
212
National Bureau of Standards: reference
material 1633A, 215
National Park Service: at Mission La
Pursima, 12021
Native peoples: in Alta California, 27,
28i; and racist views of, 4. See also
specific groups
Neutron activation analysis, 8, 145,
17172; and analysis of Maya pottery, 145; as analytical technique for
archaeology, 146, 148; and archaeology, 145; data analysis of, 17576;
and electromagnetic energy, 145. See
also Instrumental neutron activation
analysis
New Europes, 15, 16
New Spain: and annexation of Alta

California, 31
Nordenskild, Gustaf, 131
Northern Yokuts. See Yokuts
Nuestra Seora de los Remedios, 40,
24344
Obrador, 120
Obsidian, and chemical properties, 137
Ohlone, 24, 26, 28i, 34, 3536, 51, 56,
57, 59, 61, 62, 63
Old Town San Diego, 218, 22041; archaeological excavations of, 21920;
Block 408 archaeology, 221, 221i,
22526; Joaqun Carrillo, 221, 222;
Mara Ignacia de la Candelaria Lopez, 221; Jos Mara Echeandia, 220;
and Henry Delano Fitch, 22021,
222, 224; Fitch-Carillo household,
22122; and groggery, 22223; and
growth of Indian population, 221;
and Indian servants, 221, 22325;
and Indian uprising in 1837, 22425,
240; and McCoy House restoration,
223, 225; occupation by U.S. troops,
218; and port of San Diego, 221; as
pueblo, 220; Mara Eugenia Silvas,
223; and Silvas household, 223,
225; Jos Francisco Snook, 222; and
Snook household, 22223; and trade
in cow hides and tallow, 218, 221;
and Agustn Vincente Zamorano,
220. See also Block 408 excavations;
Osuna, Juan Mara; Presidio of San
Diego
Old Town San Diego State Historic
Park, 218
Olin, Jacqueline S., 9, 247, 24849, 248i,
249i
Olive jars, 27980, 318
Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 141, 14243,
144
Optical emission spectroscopy (OES),
14445
Order of Friars Minor. See Franciscans
Oroysom, 63
Index385
Ortega, Comandante Francisco, 123

Osuna, Juan Mara, 222, 225
Padrn, 223
Painters, 97
Palizada, 62
Palou, Fr. Francisco, 4546
Parron, Fr. Fernando, 44
Period rooms: ceramics in, 107
Peripheral areas, 1415
Petrographic examination of ceramics, 147, 169; as inventory of minerals, 1960; and petrographic count
technique, 164i, and thin-section
petrography, 149, 15960
Peyr, Antonio: and second church at
San Luis Rey, 48
Plain wares, 153; and bowls at missions,
286; and clay selection as a social
action, 165; cluster analysis of, 163,
164i; and functional explanations of,
16768; gender differentiation, 168
69; and local materials, 16061, 165,
180; made by hand, 163; and minerals
found in, 162t; and Native American traditions, 312; and processing
techniques, 163, 165, 167; quantitative analysis of, 160; samples of, 159t;
and shared social identities, 166; and
temper, 160, 161; and variability in
paste processing, 15354, 164i, 168,
169; wheel-thrown, 163, 312. See also
Earthenwares
Polities: egalitarian, 12
Portola, Gaspar de. See De Portol,
Gaspar
Posole, 41, 178
Potters, xxxxi, 4, 97; and Native
peoples, 97; and sophistication of,
113; and techniques, 103; and women,
97. See also Ceramics; Earthenwares;
Pottery; Romero, Jos Antonio; Tapia,
Mariano
Pottery, 3, 137; antiquity of, 135; as
art, 4; and chemical changes in, 9;
and chemical differences in, 910,
14950; chemical properties of,

137; in Colombia, 135; as culturally
crafted composite, 137; definitions of
clays, 138; and Early Jomon period of
Japan, 135; figurines, 135; and local/
non-local manufacture, 65, 149; as a
marker, 15253; as material culture,
3; open-pit firing of, 115, 116; origins
of, 13536; as social identity, 153;
and techniques, 5; as technological
continuity, 19. See also Ceramics;
Earthenwares; Plain wares
Pottery anvil, 105, 107i, 108i
Pozo, 120
Presidio of Monterey, 45t, 5154, 124i,
198
Presidio of San Diego, 4647, 3023;
abandonment of, 47, 303; and
abundance of maylica, 304; as
adobe citadel, 303; archaeology at,
303, 304, 305t; and backyards of
rooms, 306; and bronze castings at,
303; ceramics found at, 311t; and
construction of defense wall (casa
muro), 304, 306; and early ceramic
use at, 312; early versus late maylica
complexes found at, 309t; and
English wares, 310; and evolution of
the north wing, 304; and fired bricks,
306; founding of, 26, 302; frequencies of maylica types, 308t; and
imported ceramics, 28586, 304;
and local wares, 309t; and looters,
306; and non-native pottery forms,
285; as presidio jurisdiction, 18, 44i,
182t; and Comandante Jos Mara
Ruiz, 220; and sample matrix, 182t;
and sealed archaeological deposits,
304; and state of preservation, 306;
and soldiers retirements, 220; and
stratigraphic sequence in north wing,
307t; summary of maylica found,
308t; at village of Cosoy, 46; and
Comandante Jos de Zuiga, 306.
See also Ceramics; Earthenwares;
Maylica; Plain wares
386 Index
Presidio of San Francisco, 40, 284i;

buildings of, 60; correlation between
ware type and vessel form, 298t; excavations at, 29596; founding of, 45t,
59, 60; and Galera, 296; and imported
ceramics, 285, 286, 292, 29697; and
locally made ceramics, 286; maylica
found at, 296; and plain ware, 159t,
161, 162t, 164i, 165; and Presidio
Archaeology Center, 292; as presidio
jurisdiction, 18, 44, 5864; and problem with building materials, 60; and
Jos Antonio Romero, 97; and tiles
from Mission San Francisco de Ass,
60. See also Lead-glazed ceramics;
Maylica
Presidio of Santa Barbara, 45t, 94,
108, 115; adobe buildings of, 50;
and aqueduct at, 123; and bricks for
pottery kiln, 115; and commandants
dining room, 108; and documents
of shipping, 292; and Comandante
Felipe de Goycoechea, 115; and imported ceramics, 50, 319t, 320t; and
Francisco Ortega, 123; and plain and
glazed ceramics study, 96; as presidio
jurisdiction, 44i, 5051; reconstruction of, 94, 108; and tile production,
50, 114, 115; and weight of fired roof
tiles, 122
Presidios, 5, 1819, 39, 4344, 179
Princesa, 24344
Prncipe, 24344
Provenience Postulate, 139
Pueblo de Nuestra Seora la Reina de
los Angeles, 50
Pueblo of San Jos de Guadalupe, 38,
40, 44i; 1779 flood, 61; adobe buildings, 6162; and clay sources, 2078;
founding of, 61; and Guadalupe River,
208; and the Peralta Adobe, 6162;
and tile in archaeological deposits, 62;
and Willow Glen, 208; wood buildings of, 61
Pueblos, 4, 18, 27i, 39, 43, 50, 179
Punta de Guijarros, 47
Quechnajuichon, 26, 3132, 47. See also

Luiseo
Quemador, 120
Radiographs, xxvi, 102
Ramrez, Jos Antonio: as master carpenter at Mission San Luis Rey, 48
Ranchera, 78
Rancho San Marcos, 128, 12930, 130i
Replicative studies. See Experimental
archaeology
Reyes, Ruben, 4142, 93113, 12223;
and replication of ceramic forms,
xxvi, 103, 105, 106i, 108i; and traditional potters, xxvi, 68
Ritual pottery, 315
Rivera, Salvador: as mason at Mission
San Luis Obispo, 54
Rodriguez, Manuel: as carpenter and
soldier, 58
Romero, Jos Antonio, 4243, 60,
63, 98; as potter, 97; at Presidio of
Monterey, 53, 57; and soldier at the
Presidio of San Francisco, 43, 97; as
traveling pottery teacher, 4243
Rose-Robinson site, 238, 240
Ruiz, Manuel Estevan: as builder of
stone chapel at Mission San Carlos
de Borromeo, 53; as master mason in
Monterey, 53
Ruiz, Jos Mara, 220
Ruiz, Pedro Alcantara: as mason at Mission San Luis Obispo, 54
Rurik. See von Kotzebue, Otto
Russian empire, 39; in America, 24
Sacred Expedition, 24, 26; and Christianized Indians, 26
Saggers, 111, 111i, 113, 116, 117i: definition of, 116
Salinan, 26, 28i, 3435, 55, 56
Salton Brown Ware, 212, 231, 232, 238
Sammon map, 176
San Agustn, 24
San Antoino Plainware, 69
San Antonio, 52
Index387
San Blas, 40, 28385, 292, 296; and

ceramics from, 265, 273, 28384,
285; and household goods, 284; as
shipyard and naval depot, 40; as
starting point for Alta California, 26,
24344
San Carlos, 5253; as supply ship, 40,
24344
San Clemente Island, 33
San Diego, 18, 23, 25i, 26, 27i; and
bricks and tiles for Fort Guijarros, 47;
as entrept, 1819. See also Old Town
San Diego; Presidio of San Diego
San Francisco, 18, 25i, 27i; as entrept,
1819
Sangrador, Miguel: as craftsman at Mission Santa Clara, 42
San Joaquin Valley, 21, 33, 36, 56, 58
San Miguel, 23
San Miguel Island, 33
San Nicolas Island, 33
San Salvador, 23
Santa Barbara, 27i, 33, 50, 98. See also
Presidio of Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation, xxvi, xxvii, 108, 11415, 120,
131, 292
Santa Catalina Island, 33
Santa Clara University, 8, 61
Santa Clara University Archaeology
Research Laboratory, 100, 172
Santa Cruz Island, 33
Santa Rosa Island, 33
Santiago, 24344
Satterwaite, Linton, 143
Sayre, Edward V., 143, 247
Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 230
Serra, Junpero, 26, 44, 45t, 49, 5152,
54, 56, 57
Seven Years War, 24
Shepard, Anna O., 14041, 14546,
147, 155; and archaeological ceramic
technology studies, 140; and Alfred
Kidder, 140, 141; and neutron activation analysis critique, 14546; and
petrographic analysis of Chaco pot-
tery, 14748; and petrographic thin

sections, 141
Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, 8
Smithsonian Institution, xxvii. See also
Smithsonian Center for Materials
Research and Education
Smithsonian-NIST datasets, 215
SmithsonianSanta Clara Ceramics
Project, 94, 98, 99. See also Smith
sonianSanta Clara University Pottery Project; SmithsonianUniversity
of Southern California Pottery Project
SmithsonianSanta Clara University
Pottery Project, 180; ceramic dispersion of Presidio Monterey jurisdiction, 200i; comparison of missions,
202i, 203i; and compositional groups,
192, 194, 201i, 203i, 207i, 216i; and
compositional patterns, 199; divergence of Mission San Luis Obispo
sample, 198, 199i, 201i; and Mission
San Diego flume tile, 216i, 21517;
and paste relationships in Presidio of
San Francisco jurisdiction, 211i; and
plot of pottery from missions in San
Francisco area, 208i; and principal
components, 217; projection of plain
wares on Presidio of San Diego base
groups, 188i; projection of Tizon
Brown Ware on Presidio of San Diego
base groups, 189i; and samples plot
from Presidio of Santa Barbara jurisdiction, 195i
base groups: Mission of Santa Clara,
206i; Presidio of San Diego jurisdiction (missions), 188i; Presidio of San
Francisco jurisdiction, 207i; Presidio
of Santa Barbara jurisdiction, 193i,
194i
ceramic class by site: Presidio of
Monterey jurisdiction, 204t; Presidio
of San Diego jurisdiction, 190t;
Presidio of San Francisco jurisdiction, 209t; Presidio of Santa Barbara
jurisdiction, 196t
388 Index
Smithsonian (continued)
concentration means and coefficients:
Presidio of Monterey jurisdiction,
205t; Presidio of San Diego jurisdiction, 191t; Presidio of San Francisco
jurisdiction, 210i; Presidio of Santa
Barbara jurisdiction, 197t; Tizon
Brown Ware, 213t
sampling matrix of plain wares:
Presidio of Monterey jurisdiction,
198t; Presidio of San Diego jurisdiction, 187t; Presidio of San Francisco
jurisdiction, 206t; Presidio of Santa
Barbara jurisdiction, 193t
sampling matrix of all types of pottery: miscellaneous, 186t; Presidio of
Monterey jurisdiction, 184t; Presidio
of San Diego jurisdiction, 182t; Presidio of San Francisco jurisdiction, 185t;
Presidio of Santa Barbara jurisdiction,
183t
SmithsonianSouthern California
University Pottery Project. See
SmithsonianUniversity of Southern
California Pottery Project
SmithsonianUniversity of Southern
California Pottery Project, 99, 1089,
11415, 120, 216i, 228
Soapstone, 2930, 32, 33
Society of Jesus. See Jesuits
Sonora, 24344
Soperos, 109
Southern California Brown Ware. See
Tizon Brown Ware
Southern Yokuts. See Yokuts
Spain, 24, 24445
Spanish colonial system, 14, 39, 40
Spanish Florida, 24
Spanish supply system, problems
with,40
Steatite, 34, 38. See also Soapstone
Supply ships, 4041
Tac, Pablo, 31, 32
Tailors, 97
Tanners, 4, 97
Tapia, Mariano, 42, 53, 56, 57, 60, 97,

98, 152
Tpis, Father Estvan, 119, 122
Technological style: of clay selection, 153
Tejas. See Tiles
Tejeros, 119, 128
Throwing from the mound, 99i, 100i
Tile makers, 97, 119, 12223. See
also Romero, Jos Antonio; Tapia,
Mariano
Tiles, xxivxxv, 21, 64, 115, 118, 119; as
architectural pottery, 9, 96, 180; and
clay preparation, 105; descriptive
studies of, 78; exhibit of, xxvi; firing
temperatures of, 115, 179; and intermission trade of, xxv, 96, 179; and
local production, 96, 179; problems
with replication of, 118; and size of
floor tiles, 119; weight of, 96, 119, 122
Tinajas. See Olive jars
Tite, M. S., 165
Tizon Brown Ware, 32, 136, 187t, 212
15, 217, 227, 228, 238, 311t; analysis
of, 186; and comals, 238; and game
discs, 241; Lot 169 study of, 23234,
238, 239; neutron activation analysis,
212, 214i, 23234; petrographic study
of, 212; and pottery samples, 214; as
slippery slope, 231
Tucson, 40
Tulare Lake, 21, 36
Umamuno, Pedro de. See De Unamuno,
Pedro
Victoria, 23
Village coalitions, 166; among Native
peoples, 16667
Vives, Jaime Vicens, 245
Vizcano, Sebastin, 24, 33
Von Kotzebue, Otto: as Captain of the
Rurik, 7
Voss, Barbara L., xxiv, 317
Water routes, 1617, 40, 243
Weavers, 97. See also Henrique, Antonio
Index389
Weaving, 21
Western Mono people, 136
White Sands Missile Range, 141
Williams, Jack S., xxiv, xxvxxvi,
99100, 101
World economy, 14, 15
Yokuts, 28i, 33, 34, 3638, 37i, 56,

57, 58, 60, 62, 136. See also Yokut
speakers
Yokut speakers, 21
Yuma people, 40
Yuquot, 247
X-ray fluorescence analysis, 146; and

total reflection x-ray fluorescence, 146
Zapotln el Grande, 48

Ceramic

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ceramic

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ceramic Production in Early Hispanic California

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

Copyright 2014 by Russell K. Skowronek, M. James Blackman, and Ronald L. Bishop

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

This volume is dedicated to

Part I. A Study of Pottery

2. Creating a New Europe in the New World

Part II. Tradition and Transformation of Alta California

3. Craft and Commodities of Early California

4. Incorporation into New Spain: Presidio Jurisdictions

Part III. The Creation of Ceramics

5. A Typology of Mission Pottery: Drawings and

6. Fabrication and Replications: A Potters View

7. Ceramic Firing Technology in Alta California

Part IV. Assessing Variation in Ceramic Composition

8. Selected Approaches to Ceramic Characterization

9. The Mineralogy of California Plain Wares:

10. The Chemical Characterization of California Pottery

11. Anchoring Ceramic Production: Bricks, Tiles, and

12. Native American Ceramics Found at Old Town

13. Supplying Glazed Ceramics to Alta California

Part V. Pottery as an Active Component of Colonial Economics 281

15. Reconstructing Maylica Use Patterns from Colonial

16. Concluding Comments: Pottery and the Transition

3.2. Location of presidios and missions in Alta California

3.3. Map of general locations of contact period Native

3.4. Ceramic vessel attributed to the Luiseo of southern

4.1. Alta California jurisdictions and missions

5.1. A portion of the casco of Mission San Antonio de Padua,

5.4. Section drawings of pots and jars Type PJ1PJ5

5.5. Section drawings of pots and jars Type PJ6PG8 and

5.7. Section drawings of hand base Type HB3HB5 and large

6.1. Throwing from the mound was one fabrication technique

6.2. Base of a bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio

6.3. A bowl or cup excavated at Mission San Antonio

6.4. A basket form pot; wheel-thrown vessel recovered at

6.5. A shallow plate or bowl made using an anvil found at

6.6. Wedging clay to remove air bubbles

6.7. Reproduction of the wheel-thrown basket vessel found at

6.8. Using an anvil to make a bowl

6.9. Replica shallow bowl made using an anvil

6.10. San Elizario Polychrome replica plate

6.11. Sagger with replica San Elizario Polychrome plate

6.12. Reproductions of the range of forms identified in the

7.1. Cutaway view of a sagger with clavos and clay rods

7.2. Charles C. Pierce photograph of Santa Barbara Mission

7.3. Demonstration kiln at El Presidio de Santa Barbara

7.4. Drawing of the Monterey Presidio (1791) by Jos Cardero

7.5. 1938 drawing of the tile kiln at the Santa Barbara

7.6. Scale model of San Antonio Mission kiln with

7.7. Interior of the pottery kiln at Mission La Pursima

8.1. Manhattan Project scientists at Los Alamos, New Mexico

9.1. Map of mission and presidio sites and surrounding

9.2. Relative percentages of fine, medium, and coarse/very coarse

11.2. Projection of plain ware onto base groups of Figure 11.1

11.3 Tizon Brown Ware shown relative to base groups

11.4. Pottery sample groups from the Santa Barbara jurisdiction

11.5. Separation of Santa Barbara bricks, tiles, and plain ware

11.6. Bivariate plot of samples from Santa Barbara, La Pursima,

11.7. Texture differences in ladrillo

11.8. Bivariate plot showing divergence of San Luis Obispo

11.9. Bivariate plot showing dispersion of ceramics of the

11.10. Bivariate plot of compositional groups for Monterey,