John E. Worth
©
UWF Division of Anthropology and Archaeology
As noted in a previous blog post (Dining
at the Luna Settlement), the inhabitants of the Luna Settlement made
extensive use of pottery for a variety of functions and tasks, ranging from
storage and transport to cooking and serving food. The archaeological record of the site is
dominated by fragments of broken pottery, including more than 15 kilograms amounting
to nearly 2,800 sherds excavated and analyzed as of the start of the 2019 field
school (Worth 2019). While the assemblage
of imported ceramics at the Luna Settlement also includes small percentages of
Aztec tradition pottery (just over 4% by count and 2% by weight), the vast
majority comprises Spanish tradition pottery vessels, including unglazed,
lead-glazed, and tin-enameled types.
Archaeologists normally classify ceramics using typologies
that work best for what we call “potsherds” or simply “sherds,” which are
simply the fragments (a.k.a. shards) of broken vessels. For this reason, archaeological ceramic types
rely primarily on the paste (incorporating clay, aplastic inclusions, commonly
called temper, manufacturing technique, firing temperature, etc.) and the
surface treatment (e.g. plain, slipped, painted, incised, punctated, stamped, glazed,
etc.) of each sherd, both of which can normally be evaluated without having
whole vessels. In this context, 16th-century
Spanish ceramics at the Luna Settlement can be classified into several basic
categories. A minority of the assemblage
(9% by count and 5% by weight) is comprised of various named types of tin-enameled
majolica (Columbia Plain, Columbia Plain Green Variant, Santo Domingo Blue on
White, Yayal Blue on White, Santa Elena Mottled, Caparra Blue, and Isabela
Polychrome) along with many other sherds that are too small to classify confidently
beyond generic blue on white, polychrome, and plain categories. A substantial part of the assemblage (43% by
count and 68% by weight) is Spanish olive jar (both lead glazed and unglazed),
and the rest comprises other coarse earthenwares (48% by count and 27% by
weight), including named types such as Melado, Green Bacín, and Orange
Micaceous, and a variety of generic redwares and other coarse earthenwares with
or without lead glazes that range from transparent to green in color. All these archaeological classifications fall
nicely within the 16th-century date range of the Luna expedition,
and this terrestrial assemblage corresponds extremely well with the assemblages
documented on the three Emanuel Point shipwrecks not far offshore.
Apart from their obvious usefulness in establishing the age
and cultural affiliation of the sites where they are found, archaeological
ceramics can also provide important insights into the range of activities potentially
carried out using them, particularly when they are examined from a functional
standpoint. In this way, pottery can be used
as a proxy for the kinds of routine activities and practices that took place at
a site, which can then be used as an avenue to understand many other cultural
phenomena such as subsistence, social organization, cultural identity, and many
others. One important aspect of
determining how ceramics were used at any given archaeological site is to
develop an understanding of the range of pottery vessel shapes and sizes in use
at the site, including which vessels were present, and in what relative
proportions with respect to the rest of the vessel assemblage. There are of course many other sources of
direct and indirect evidence for the actual uses to which pottery was put at a
given archaeological site, including physical traces of such use preserved on
individual potsherds, but vessel form studies at least provide a broad
framework within which other evidence can be analyzed. And while the direct identification and
quantification of vessel forms at an archaeological site is of course very
challenging when most of the vessels have been shattered into small sherds, independent
studies of whole or nearly whole vessels from the same culture and time period
can be extremely useful for interpreting more fragmentary finds.
For the Spanish colonial era in general, and the 16th
century specifically, researchers are also fortunate to have documentary
evidence that can reveal the types and relative frequency of specific named
pottery vessel types present in a variety of contexts, such as personal probate
inventories, warehouse lists, merchandise receipts, and shipping
manifests. Moreover, comprehensive dictionaries
of the Spanish language from the 18th century and later also provide
sometimes detailed descriptions of vessel types that in many cases were in use
for centuries before and after the 16th century, sometimes right up
to the present day (Real Academia Española 1726-1737). Such data can be invaluable for identifying
named vessel forms with well-documented functions, and for establishing
important correspondences between the documentary and archaeological record.
There have been many archaeologically-focused studies of Spanish
tradition ceramics during the colonial era and earlier. These include a number of English-language studies
and compilations that are important sources for Spanish colonial archaeologists
(e.g. Goggin 1960, 1968; Lister and Lister 1974, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1987; Boone
1984; Deagan 1987; Skowronek et al. 1988; Marken 1994; Avery 1997). Many of these tend to give greater emphasis
to Spanish majolica and olive jar, particularly with regard to their more
well-defined and limited range of vessel forms, especially in comparison to the
wider range of less easily defined vessel forms evident among other coarse
earthenwares. However, these publications
are fortunately supplemented by other Spanish-language studies that make use of
a range of archaeological and historical data to create and refine somewhat
more comprehensive ceramic vessel typologies.
These include several studies that have drawn upon substantial
collections of whole or nearly whole vessels recovered from architectural fill
inside historic structures in the Spanish cities of Seville, Triana, and
others, also including privy deposits (Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez 1993;
Pleguezuelo-Hernández 1993; Sánchez Cortegana 1994, 1998; Pleguezuelo et al. 1997, 1999; Romero Vidal 2012; Ceniceros Herreros 2012; Cruz Sánchez 2014; López
Torres 2018). Many of these publications
include scale drawings of a diverse range of complete and partial vessel
profiles, accompanied by text descriptions of vessel types and their
classification and functions, providing an important addition to the more
sherd-focused English-language literature (but see Ness 2015 for more recent
vessel form typology for the Spanish colonial era).
It is primarily the latter set of well-illustrated
Spanish-language vessel typologies that I have drawn upon to create the
selection of generic 16th-century vessel profile images that follows
below, along with descriptive tables of major vessel types that includes shape,
size ranges (based in some cases on a very small number of examples), surface
treatments, and general uses. These
example images and descriptions should not be considered comprehensive or definitive,
since all of these forms have a range of variation beyond the selected examples
portrayed here, and since this is a preliminary overview of ongoing studies. However, these summary descriptions are
presented here as part of a broader and ongoing effort to understand the nature
of the Spanish ceramic assemblage at the Luna Settlement, and what it can tell
us about daily life at the site during its two-year occupation between 1559 and
1561.
Tableware – Dining
Individual tableware for 16th-century Spanish
dining included the ubiquitous plato
and escudilla vessel forms,
equivalent to the plate (more properly a “soup plate”) and bowl, used to eat
solid, semi-solid, and liquid foods at the table. Ceramic drinking ware included individual jarrita and jarrito forms (distinguished by the number of handles), as well as
the taza, or cup, and sometimes the cuenco, or drinking bowl. It should be noted here, however, that 16th-century
documents also frequently record the use of wooden plates, bowls, and cups
instead of, or in addition to, their ceramic equivalents for both maritime and
terrestrial military use, and other more expensive materials were also used for
the same vessel types, including tin plate, pewter, and even silver.
 |
| 16th-Century Spanish Tableware - Dining |
Plato
Form: Wide soup-plate with concave or ring base,
gently rounded lower section, and outflaring slightly sloping upper section.
Dimensions: 18-24 cm orifice diameter; 3-6 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Tin enameled (interior and
exterior).
Uses: Used for serving and consuming solid or
partially liquid food at the table.
Escudilla
Form: Small bowl with rounded interior and a sharp or
rounded profile break on the exterior, forming a vertical or nearly vertical
upper section and a sloping or rounded lower section, and either a concave or
slightly flaring ring base. Includes a
porringer version with two opposing orejas/orejetas, or lug handles.
Dimensions: 9-20 cm orifice diameter; 4-8 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Tin enameled or lead glazed
(interior and exterior).
Uses: Used in consuming or measuring liquid foods.
Jarrita
Form: Small version of the jarra with two or more
vertical handles.
Dimensions: 7-10 cm orifice diameter; 8-10 cm belly
width (if present); 15-20 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed (green) or unglazed.
Uses: Used as individual drinking containers.
Jarrito
Form: Small version of the jarro with one vertical
handle.
Dimensions: 6-8 cm orifice diameter; 9-11 cm belly
width; 13-18 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed (interior and almost
all of exterior) or tin enameled.
Uses: Used as individual drinking containers.
Taza (large form
called Tazón)
Form: Cup with a flat, slightly outflaring narrow base,
wide belly, and slightly outflaring rim, typically with a single handle, but
can have two opposing handles (especially with the tazón form).
Dimensions: 8-10 cm orifice diameter; 7-12 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed (interior and exterior
partial or complete) or tin enameled.
Uses: Used as individual drinking containers.
Cuenco
Form: Hemispherical cup or small bowl, without
handles.
Dimensions: comparable to escudilla.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed (interior and exterior
partial or complete) or tin enameled.
Uses: Used as individual drinking containers, or in
consuming or measuring liquid foods.
Tableware - Serving
Pottery vessels used for serving food at the table included
a range of containers for liquids such as wine or water in various sizes,
including the larger cantaro/cantara forms and the smaller jarro/jarra forms, commonly taking the form of pitchers. These vessels were also commonly used as
measures, containing specific amounts equivalent to rations of wine, for
example. Such vessels were also made of
other materials, including brass and tin plate.
Table service also included large serving bowls called fuentes, as well as platters simply
called platos grandes. Small one-handled ceramic bottles with narrow
necks called alcuzas were used to
dispense olive oil.
 |
| 16th-Century Spanish Tableware - Serving |
Cántara
Form: Large, flat-bottomed
jar with two or more vertical handles.
Generally more pot-bellied than a
jarra, and with a shorter neck.
Dimensions: Multiple sizes,
including 1.0 and 0.5 arrobas, and
larger.
13-15 cm orifice diameter; 25-27
cm belly width; [33-44 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Used for liquid
storage, transport, and dispensing.
Cántaro
Form: Large, flat-bottomed
jar with one vertical handle.
Generally more pot-bellied than a
jarro, and with a shorter neck.
Dimensions: Multiple sizes,
including 1.0 and 0.5 arrobas, and
larger; 8-13 cm orifice diameter;
22-32 cm belly width; 32-48 cm
height.
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Used for liquid
storage, transport, and dispensing.
Jarra
Form: Medium flat-bottomed
jar with two or more vertical handles.
Generally less pot-bellied than a
cántara, and with a longer neck.
Dimensions: 8-10 cm orifice
diameter; 18-20 cm belly diameter; 25-32? cm height
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Used for dispensing
water or wine at the table.
Jarro
Form: Medium flat-bottomed
jar with one vertical handle.
Generally less pot-bellied than a cántaro, and with a longer neck.
Dimensions: 8-15 cm orifice
diameter; 14-27 belly diameter; 20-35 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead
glazed (interior and partial exterior) or unglazed.
Uses: Used for dispensing
water or wine at the table.
Fuente
Form: Large, open serving
bowl generally with straight or slightly curved outflaring lower portion and
sometimes a vertical or slightly outflaring upper collar, and slightly
outflaring concave ring base.
Dimensions: 25-33 cm
orifice diameter; 10-12 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead
glazed or unglazed.
Uses: Used for presentng
and serving food at the table.
Alcuza (a.k.a. Redoma,
though term usually reserved for glass form)
Form: Small bottle with
wide belly, narrow neck, flaring ring base, and one vertical handle.
Dimensions: 5-6 cm orifice
diameter; 11-17 cm belly diameter; 18-28 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead
glazed.
Uses: Used for serving
olive oil at the table or during cooking.
Cookware – Food Preparation
While 16th-century Spanish cooking employed a
wide range of containers of different materials, including from cast iron
skillets (sartenes), copper kettles and
cauldrons (calderas, calderos), wooden mixing bowls, etc.,
pottery played a very important role in food preparation. Liquid foods such as porridges, stews,
gruels, etc. were cooked over coals in earthenware pots (ollas) of various sizes, while shallower, more open vessels called cazuelas (similar to casserole dishes) were
also used over coals or in ovens for a range of foods, and could have ceramic
lids on which coals could also be placed for baking without an oven. The ceramic brasero (later also known as anafe/anafre) was commonly used as a miniature
stove to contain hot coals over which ollas
and cazuelas would be placed for
cooking. Earlier stages in food
preparation, such as soaking salted meats, preparing dough, marinating, etc.,
could be carried out using large ceramic basins called lebrillos, though these vessels could also have been used for
washing dishes or clothes, personal hygiene, etc. (e.g. Amores Carredano and
Chisvert Jiménez 1993:288). And while
grinding spices, herbs, and other foods was commonly carried out with brass or
bronze mortar and pestles, ceramic morteros
were also used, glazed or unglazed, presumably with wooden pestles.
 |
| 16th-Century Spanish Cookware |
Cazuela
Form: Wide, shallow pan with
gently rounded or flattened base, with or without horizontal handles.
Dimensions: 14-31 cm orifice
diameter; 6-8 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed
(interior and partial exterior).
Uses: Used over fire for frying
and sautéing foods.
Olla
(a.k.a. Puchero, when small)
Form: Globular pot with flat or
slightly convex base, wide belly, slightly restricted neck and outflaring rim,
and normally two vertical handles (though can be one or four handles).
Dimensions: Wide range of sizes;
12-28 cm orifice diameter; 15-45 cm belly width; 17-39 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed
(interior and partial exterior)
Uses: Used over fire for
cooking liquids such as porridges, stews, soups, etc.
Brasero
(a.k.a. Anafe/Anafre)
Form: Flat-based brazier with
an insloping straight-walled lower portion and a rounded open upper portion and
an incurved lip.
Dimensions: 24-38 cm orifice
diameter; 47 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Portable stove/heater for
hot coals.
Lebrillo
Form: Wide, flat-based
containers with straight, outsloping walls and a thick overhanging border,
normally with cord/rope impressions.
Dimensions: Generally large,
but including a range of sizes; 35-80 cm orifice diameter; 10-18 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed
(interior and exterior just over the lip).
Uses: Used for a range of
household functions including soaking meats, cleaning clothes, personal
hygiene, etc.
Mortero
Form: Thick-walled,
flat-bottomed vessels with rounded interior and thickened and slightly incurved
rim.
Dimensions: 18-20 cm orifice
diameter; 13-18 cm height.
Surface Treatment: Unglazed or
glazed (green exterior, white interior).
Uses: Used for grinding spices,
herbs, etc.
Storage Ware
Pottery has always been commonly used for storage of liquids
and solids, and the range of storage ware in 16th-century Spain
included flat-bottomed and round-bottomed vessels of diverse sizes and
shapes. The largest storage vessels were
tinajas, with wide mouths and flat
bases, and which could be used to store many different materials, both liquid
and solid. Large, wide-mouthed ceramic
tubs called tinas were also used for
catching rainwater or other liquid storage.
Smaller storage vessels included the orza,
basically a smaller version of the tinaja,
as well as the tarro (more recently
also known as albarelo), both of
which were used to store preserves, spices, drugs, etc. Several varieties of narrow-necked, round-bottomed
jars were more commonly used for storage during transport, including the ubiquitous
botija, known by archaeologists as
olive jars, which was a standard shipboard transport container for wine,
vinegar, olive oil, and water, and the handled cantimplora form, which was well-suited for the transport of
liquids by horse or mule.
It should be noted that several detailed typologies have
been developed for the “olive jar” based on overall vessel shape and neck
configuration (e.g. Goggin 1960; Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez 1993;
Marken 1994; Avery 1997), but unfortunately the classification most frequently
used in common parlance is still Goggin’s original (1960) classification into
Early (c1500-1580), Middle (c1580-1800), and Late (after c1800) styles, which
conflates two completely different vessel forms for the 16th century
part of the chronology. As has been
noted by several of the subsequent authors above, Goggin’s “Early Style” olive
jar is actually the two-handled cantimplora
vessel form constructed in two lateral halves, while his “Middle Style” and
“Late Style” olive jars are true botijas,
which lacked handles. Moreover, the botija form was used throughout the 16th
century and into the late 15th century in Spain (Pleguezuelo et al.
1999:271), and was actually contemporaneous with the cantimplora form. The Luna
Settlement and Emanuel Point shipwrecks have produced fragments of both vessel
forms, illustrating the fact that Goggin’s “Middle Style” olive jar (the botija) and his “Early Style” olive jar
(the cantimplora) were distinct and both
in use at the same time.
 |
| 16th-Century Spanish Storage Ware |
Botija
(a.k.a. the Olive Jar)
Form: Round-bottomed globular
jar with a narrow neck and outflaring, slightly to substantially thickened rim.
Dimensions: Two sizes: 1-1.25 arrobas (6-10 cm orifice diameter; 24-37
cm width; 43-61 cm height), and 0.5 arrobas
(7-8 cm orifice diameter; 22-26 cm width; 25-33 cm height).
Surface Treatment: Unglazed or lead
glazed (interior); half-arroba size normally used for olive oil and glazed to
avoid spoilage, with full-arroba size commonly used for wine, vinegar, and
water and unglazed, though frequently coated with pez, or resin, on the interior.
Uses: Used for liquid (mostly)
transport.
Cantimplora
(sometimes also known as Barril;
equivalent to Goggin’s “Early Style” Olive Jar)
Form: Circular, biconvex jar
with expanded, flattened, or slightly dimpled sides, a projecting narrow neck
with flaring, straight, or constricted rim, and two elongated loop handles.
Dimensions: 4-13 cm orifice
diameter; 16-34 cm body diameter; 12-38 cm belly width; 19-42 cm height
Surface Treatment: Unglazed and
occasionally glazed (interior and partial exterior).
Uses: Used for liquid transport
and dispensing.
Orza
Form: Tall, rounded, flat-based
jar with slightly restricted neck and sometimes slightly outflaring lip.
Dimensions: Wide range of sizes;
10-22 cm orifice diameter; 17-42 cm belly width; 21-47 cm height
Surface Treatment: Glazed or unglazed.
Uses: Used for storing a range
of goods including preserves and drugs.
Tarro
(a.k.a. Albarelo)
Form: Tall, cylindrical,
waisted, flat-bottomed jar with a stepped shoulder below the slightly narrowed
mouth (sometimes slightly outflaring).
Dimensions: 8-9 cm orifice
diameter; 9-11 cm body width; 17-22 cm height
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed
(interior and exterior or partial exterior) or tin enameled.
Uses: Used for storing drugs,
preserves, spices, etc.
Tina
Form: Very large, flat-based,
open tub with rounded walls and thickened or outflaring/overhanging lip, sometimes
with a decorative pinched strip on the shoulder.
Dimensions: 48-78 cm orifice diameter;
23-50 cm height
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Used for catching
rainwater and holding liquids.
Tinaja
Form: Very large, tall,
rounded, flat-based jar with slightly restricted neck and thickened or slightly
outflaring/overhanging lip.
Dimensions: 20-32 cm orifice
diameter; 38-52 cm belly width; 42-57 cm height
Surface Treatment: Unglazed.
Uses: Used for storage of
liquid and solid materials.
Hygiene
Apart from multi-use pottery vessels that were likely
employed in personal washing, such as the lebrillo
form above, the bacín form was used as
a recipient for bodily waste (a chamber pot).
Despite the use of the name, however, the archaeological ceramic type
known as Green Bacín is generally characteristic of the large lebrillo form in Spanish assemblages,
and not the bacín form, which
normally has a honey-colored lead glaze (Amores Carredano and Chisvert Jiménez
1993:288-289).
 |
| 16th-Century Spanish Bacín |
Bacín
Form: Medium flat-bottomed
container with straight (or slightly waisted) vertical or slightly outsloping
(and sometimes insloping) walls and an overhanging rim, usually with two
handles.
Dimensions: 21-32 exterior lip
orifice diameter; 19-29 cm height
Surface Treatment: Lead glazed
(interior and partial exterior) and tin enameled.
Uses: Recipient for bodily
waste.
References Cited
Amores Carredano, Fernando de,
and Nieves Chisvert Jiménez
1993 Tipología de la Cerámica Común Bajomedieval y Moderna Sevillana
(SS. XV-XVIII): I, La Loza Quebrada de Relleno de Bóvedas. Spal,
Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 2:269-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/spal.1993.i2.11
Avery, George
1997 Pots as Packaging: The
Spanish Olive Jar and Andalusian Transatlantic Commercial Activity, 16th-18th
Centuries. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertatin, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Boone, James L. III
1984 Majolica Escudillas of the 15th and 16th Centuries: A Typological
Analysis of 55 Examples from Qsar es-Seghir.
Historical Archaeology
18(1):76-86.
Ceniceros Herreros, Javier
2012 Cerámica con Vidriado Estannífero del Alcázar de Nájera (La
Rioja). In La Cerámica en el Mundo del Vino y del Aceite, ed. by Teresa
Álvarez González, Jaume Coll Conesa, Enrique Martínez Glera, and Josep Pérez
Camps, pp. 168-184. XV Congreso Annual
de la Asociación de Ceramología, La Rioja, Spain. http://www.ceramologia.org/gestion/archivos/Comunicacion7.pdf
Cruz Sánchez, Pedro Javier,
Agustín Ruiz de Marco, María Jesús Tarancón Gómez, Óscar Luis Arellano
Hernández, Montserrat Lerín Sanz, Raquel Barrio Onrubia
2014 Contextos Cerámicos de los Siglos XVI y XVII en una Villa del
Oriente Castellano: La Colección Recuperada en la Letrina del Palacio de los
Hurtado de Mendoza (Almazán, Soria). BSAA Arqueología 80:83-127. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5452598.pdf
Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish
Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800. Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
Goggin, John M.
1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Yale University Publications in Anthropology
Number 62. New Haven, CT.
1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of
the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, Vol. 72. New Haven, CT.
Lister, Florence C., and Robert H.
Lister
1974 Maiolica
in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology 8:17-52.
1976 A Descriptive Dictionary for 500 Years of
Spanish-Tradition Ceramics, 13th Through 18th Centuries. Society for
Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series 1.
1978 The
First Mexican Maiolicas: Imported and Locally Produced. Historical
Archaeology 12:1-24.
1982 Sixteenth Century Maiolica Pottery in the
Valley of Mexico. Anthropological
Papers of the University of Arizona, Number 39.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
1987 Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain:
A Cultural Registerfrom the Third
Century
B.C to 1700. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
López Torres, Pina
2018 “Loza
Quebrada” procedente de la bóveda de la capilla de San Isidoro, Catedral de
Sevilla. Spal, Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla
27(1):283-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/spal.2018i27.11
Marken, Mitchell W.
1994 Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks, 1500-1800. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Ness, Kathryn L.
2015 Classifications
Systems with a Plot: Vessel Forms and Ceramic Typologies in the Spanish
Atlantic. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 19(2):309–333. https://doi-org/10.1007/s10761-015-0290-9
Pleguezuelo-Hernández, Alfonso
1993 Seville
Coarsewares, 1300-1650: A Preliminary Typological Survey. Medieval
Ceramics 17:39-50. https://medievalceramics.wordpress.com/volume-17-1993/
Pleguezuelo Hernández, Alfonso, Rosario
Huarte Cambra, Pilar Somé Muñoz, and Reyes Ojeda Calvo
1997 Cerámicas
de la Edad Moderna (1450-1632). In Real
Monasterio de San Clemente: Una Propuesta Arqueológica, ed. by Miguel Ángel Tabales
Rodríguez, pp. 130-157. Universidad de
Sevilla, Sevilla. https://hdl.handle.net/11532/324005
Pleguezuelo, Alfonso, Antonio
Librero, María Espinosa, and Pedro Mora
1999 Loza
Quebrada Procedente de la Capilla del Colegio-Universidad de Santa María de
Jesús (Sevilla). Spal, Revista de
Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 8:263-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/spal.1999.i8.14
Real Academia Española
1726-1739 Diccionario de la Lengua
Castellana (6 vols.). Imprenta de la
Real Academia Española, Madrid. http://web.frl.es/DA.html
Romero Vidal, Alfonso
2012 Barro
y Vino: Una Buena Amistad con Más de Seis Milenios de Tradición. In La Cerámica en el Mundo del Vino y del
Aceite, ed. by Teresa Álvarez González, Jaume Coll Conesa, Enrique Martínez
Glera, and Josep Pérez Camps, pp. 68-95.
XV Congreso Annual de la Asociación de Ceramología, La Rioja, Spain. http://www.ceramologia.org/gestion/archivos/Ponencia3.pdf
Sánchez Cortegana, José María
1994 El Officio de Ollero en Sevilla en el Siglo
XVI. Diputación Provincial de
Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
1998 La Cerámica
Exportada a América en el Siglo XVI a través de la Documentación del Archivo
General de Indias (II). Ajuares
Domésticos y Cerámica Cultural y Laboral.
Laboratorio de Arte
11:121-133. https://editorial.us.es/es/revistas/laboratorio-de-arte
Skowronek, Russel K., Richard E.
Johnson, and Stanley South
1988 The Sixteenth Century Spanish Imported Ceramics at Santa Elena: A
Formal Analysis. In Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena, by Stanley South, Russell K.
Skowronek, and Richard E. Johnson, pp. 205-304.
Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Anthropological Studies 7.
Columbia, SC.
Worth, John E.
2019 Functional and Spatial Patterning in Artifact Distribution at the
Luna Settlement Site. Paper presented at
the 71st Annual Conference of the Florida Anthropological Society, Crystal
River, Florida, May 11, 2019.
