Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Mexico City majolica production

This chapter is an attempt to refine the classification of Mexican majolica ceramics from Spanish Colonial sites by using chemical data obtained by neutron activation analysis. The ceramics examined came primarily from excavations in Mexico City and from the Santa Catalina de Guale Mission site, St. Catherines Island, GA. The majolica types from these sites are both Spanish and Mexican and date from the 16th to the late 17th century. A rationale for the chemical classification of Mexico City and Puebla production is proposed. [Pg.91]

The production of majolica ceramics in Mexico during the 16th century is believed to have taken place in both Mexico City and in Puebla. Much of the evidence for Mexico City production consists of the ceramics from excavations at the Metropolitan Cathedral site. [Pg.92]

Historical documents do, however, record dates for the construction of the Metropolitan Cathedral, the floor of which was laid in 1573, sealing underneath deposits of the first 50 years of colonial occupation and the earlier Pre-Colombian period. During the installation of support pylons at the cathedral in 1975 and 1976, 182 pits were sunk through the floor, allowing excavation and sampling of the early colonial deposits. Majolica ceramics from these excavations assigned to non-Spanish types are assumed to be from a Mexico City production. Despite the lack of more detailed information, the claim is made (2) that, as Mexico City was the most important city of New Spain for the entire 16th century, the earliest demands of the market for better dishes must have been met by local craftsmen. [Pg.93]

Figure 5. Logarithmic plot of the ratios of chromium to iron for the samples from sherds in group A and group B of the cluster dendrogram shown in Figure 4. Key , archaeological samples attributed to Mexico City production A, archaeological samples attributed to Puebla production +, modem majolica produced in Puebla. Figure 5. Logarithmic plot of the ratios of chromium to iron for the samples from sherds in group A and group B of the cluster dendrogram shown in Figure 4. Key , archaeological samples attributed to Mexico City production A, archaeological samples attributed to Puebla production +, modem majolica produced in Puebla.
Table III presents the proposed location of production on the basis of the chemical composition for the majolica types analyzed and the attributions made by Goggin (I) and Lister and Lister (2). All Mexico City White and Mexico City copies of Columbia Plain belong to the proposed Mexico City production as just discussed. All the San Luis Blue-on-White sherds reported here are from the excavations at Santa Catalina de Guale. With the exception of the three Spanish composition sherds discussed earlier, the remaining 17 sherds can be chemically classified as having been produced in Puebla. Both Goggin and the Listers propose a Mexico City production for San Luis Blue-on-White. Goggin s attribution to Mexico City is restricted to the reddish paste variant. We have no chemical confirmation of a Mexico City production for San Luis Blue-on-White. Table III presents the proposed location of production on the basis of the chemical composition for the majolica types analyzed and the attributions made by Goggin (I) and Lister and Lister (2). All Mexico City White and Mexico City copies of Columbia Plain belong to the proposed Mexico City production as just discussed. All the San Luis Blue-on-White sherds reported here are from the excavations at Santa Catalina de Guale. With the exception of the three Spanish composition sherds discussed earlier, the remaining 17 sherds can be chemically classified as having been produced in Puebla. Both Goggin and the Listers propose a Mexico City production for San Luis Blue-on-White. Goggin s attribution to Mexico City is restricted to the reddish paste variant. We have no chemical confirmation of a Mexico City production for San Luis Blue-on-White.
Two samples, SC 37 and SC 38, assigned to the proposed Puebla production group, in fact come from the sealed context at the Metropolitan Cathedral. The significance of these two sherds is that they provide evidence of Puebla production of majolica ceramics before 1573. Two of the Fig Springs/San Juan Polychrome sherds, SC 46 and SC 52, excavated at the Sagrario, have the proposed Mexico City composition. On this basis, we propose that there may be two varieties of Fig Springs/San Juan Polychrome, one from Puebla and one from Mexico City. [Pg.105]

The attribution of the second major chemical group to a Mexico City production is based, at present, on circumstantial evidence. Additional research using 16th-century majolica from the 1968-69 and 1975-76 excavations in Mexico City (20) will be needed to strengthen the attribution and to determine the range of types being manufactured. [Pg.107]

From inquiries among Mexican archaeologists and ethnologists it became evident that no majolica is presently produced in the Valley of Mexico, but we found that there is still a small majolica production in Puebla. The majolica manufacturers visited in this city were the La Trinidad factory (Guevara sisters) and the Santa Maria factory (Padierna family). Both manufacturers work in an identical manner and use a clay body blended from a mixture of equal amounts of a black and a white clay. [Pg.169]


See other pages where Mexico City majolica production is mentioned: [Pg.172]    [Pg.91]    [Pg.92]    [Pg.94]    [Pg.99]    [Pg.100]    [Pg.151]    [Pg.168]    [Pg.180]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.89 ]




SEARCH



Majolica Mexico City

Mexico

Mexico City

© 2024 chempedia.info