Stoner Et Al 2013-Libre

J Archaeol Method Theory
DOI 10.1007/s10816-013-9179-2
Taken with a Grain of Salt: Experimentation

and the Chemistry of Archaeological Ceramics
from Xaltocan, Mexico
Wesley D. Stoner & John K. Millhauser &
Enrique Rodrguez-Alegra & Lisa Overholtzer &
Michael D. Glascock
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Neutron activation analysis (NAA) of ceramics from Xaltocan (n=651)

displays high values for sodium and potassium and low concentrations of many
transition metals and rare earth elements compared to other sites in the Basin of
Mexico. Given that Xaltocan was situated on an island in the middle of a saline lake,
the potential reasons for this chemical signature are diverse. On one hand, if the
sodium and potassium were elevated due to some behavioral aspect of the potters, the
Xaltocan chemical groups provide a glimpse at the behaviors of Xaltocan potters that
permit more precise source designations. On the other hand, if this chemical fingerprint arose due to contamination in a saline post-depositional environment, the
Xaltocan chemical groups would not be valid references for provenance studies. To
evaluate these alternative hypotheses, we employ several lines of evidence: (1)
comparison of the Xaltocan ceramics to over 5,000 NAA assays of clays and
ceramics from the Basin of Mexico, (2) experimental doping of clays with water of
W. D. Stoner : M. D. Glascock
Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor Center, 1513 Research Park
Drive, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
W. D. Stoner (*)
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, 107 Swallow Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
e-mail: stoner.wesley@gmail.com
J. K. Millhauser
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8107,
Raleigh, NC 27695-8107, USA
E. Rodrguez-Alegra
Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, 2201 Speedway C3200, Austin, TX
78712-1723, USA
L. Overholtzer
Department of Anthropology, Wichita State University, 114 Neff Hall, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
Stoner et al.
different salinities and fired to different temperatures, (3) leaching experiments of

archaeological pottery sherds (n=22) recovered from the site of Xaltocan, and (4)
laser ablationinductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry of the clay and temper
fraction of a small sample of Xaltocan ceramics to determine which component is
responsible for the elevated sodium and potassium values. The results suggest that the
high sodium and potassium values were present in the ceramic paste before firing. We
then use these newly established reference groups to better understand the role of
Xaltocan in the regional economy. The type of experimentation employed in this
study has proven to be an important method for determining the behaviors of ancient
potters and distinguishing them from post-depositional processes.
Keywords Experimental archaeology . Ceramics . Exchange . Chemical analysis .
Mesoamerica . Technological choice
Introduction
Compositional analyses of archaeological ceramics have become staples in most archaeological research. As Neff (2000) and Neff et al. (2003, p. 202) (Fig. 2) observe,
however, ceramic provenance studies often fall short of evaluating all potential sources
of variation that contribute to a pots bulk chemistry. Particularly troublesome are the
chemical effects of use and diagenesis that can steer researchers away from the true
provenance of pottery. A minority of compositional studies actively use experimentation
or supplemental chemical techniques to understand these potentially confounding variables. In this paper, we establish an experimental method to differentiate cultural inputs
from post-depositional weathering in explaining the bulk chemistry of archaeological
ceramics found at Xaltocan in the Basin of Mexico.
Neutron activation analysis (NAA) of ceramics from Xaltocan has yielded chemical compositions consistently high in sodium and potassium relative to other pottery
in the Basin of Mexico. Xaltocan sat on a human-made island in the middle of the
saline Lake Xaltocan. The environment around the island possesses a number of
media that could introduce these elements into ceramic pastes. Potters may have used
clays, temper, or water high in these alkali elements, or they may have added salt
crystals to the paste. Alternatively, diagenesis through physical saturation or chemical
weathering may have elevated their concentrations. We conduct experiments to
observe the mobility of sodium and potassium in ceramic materials (1) when doped
prior to firing and (2) when subjected to post-firing saline soak and leach tests. The
results, coupled with comparison to the large NAA ceramic database for the region
and microanalytical techniques, help us to differentiate the contributing factors that
elevated the levels of potassium and sodium of Xaltocan ceramics. On one axis of
variation, we distinguish between the natural composition of raw materials and
cultural behaviors that include the potters modification and mixing of those materials. On another axis of variation, we consider the distinction between production
variables, including both natural and cultural inputs, and post-production alterations
to ceramic chemistry through use or post-depositional diagenesis.
This research has several implications for ceramic sourcing studies. First, it develops our ability to accurately reconstruct patterns of exchange by providing the
Taken with a Grain of Salt
tools to distinguish the meaningful behaviors of potters from post-production chemical changes. The latter can prevent accurate sourcing, or even lead to false source
determinations. The focus of this paper on common salt-forming elements makes it
particularly pertinent for chemical studies in coastal and lacustrine settings. Second,
defining chemical reference groups for Xaltocan permits exploration of the sites role in
producing and exchanging pottery to the broader region. Xaltocan held political and
economic importance over much of the Postclassic period (9501521 CE) (Blanton
1996; Brumfiel 2005b; Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Overholtzer 2012). While researchers have examined Xaltocan as a consumer of pottery produced elsewhere (e.g.,
Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Hodge and Neff 2005; Nichols et al. 2002; RodrguezAlegra et al., under review), its role as a producer and exporter has been poorly
understood. Provenance studies in the Basin of Mexico depend on building robust
chemical reference groups out of large ceramic samples across the region (e.g., Crider
2011; Garraty 2006; Hodge et al. 1993; Minc 1994; Nichols et al. 2002; Neff, H., &
Glascock, M. D., 2000, Provenance analysis of Aztec period ceramics from the Basin of
Mexico: final technical report, unpublished paper). Until recently, such a reference
group has not existed for Xaltocan (but see Neff, H., & Glascock, M. D., 2000,
Provenance analysis of Aztec period ceramics from the Basin of Mexico: final technical
report, unpublished paper). The current research allows us to identify Xaltocan products
in other Basin locations, thereby reconstructing exchange from this important site.
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for Ceramic Compositional

Analyses
This paper highlights the fundamental distinction among natural and cultural influences on pottery chemistry on the one hand and post-production (use and diagenesis) chemical changes on the other. These issues have been debated since the first use
of NAA (Sayre et al. 1957). The bulk chemical data garnered from NAA do not
discriminate among these variables, so it is important to understand their influence on
the chemistry of pottery found in the archaeological record.
Natural determinants of bulk ceramic chemistry include the chemical sum of all
raw materials (clay, temper, aplastic inclusions, anything else added by the potter)
used to manufacture a paste (Neff et al. 2003). Natural chemical variation among raw
materials boils down to a spatial problem regarding the geographic location of
suitable and accessible sources of clay and temper and geological processes that
make them chemically similar or different (Arnold 1985, pp. 2057; Bishop et al.
1982, pp. 275276). Cultural and natural determinants of ceramic chemistry co-vary
because potters use raw materials found in their environment. Humans introduce
chemical variability, however, through their selection and processing of raw materials; the proportions in which they mix clay, temper, and auxiliary materials; firing
technology, fuel, temperature, and atmosphere; and decoration with paints and slips.
These production variables enable provenance studies.
The ways in which archaeologists have approached these sources of chemical
variation have changed considerably over the history of NAA use in the discipline.
Early NAA studies emphasized tracing pottery back to the geological source of clays.
Kilikoglou et al. (1988, p. 37) suggest that the most secure approach is the
Stoner et al.
comparison of the [ceramic] group in question with natural clays from the area where
the site of interest is located. Sayre and Harbottle (1979) note in their oft-cited work
that the human component can often obscure the geological provenance of clays,
mixing as he does clay from different sources, levigating it, adding temper etc. (p.
3). The addition of temper to raw clays, often referred to as the temper problem,
has long been seen as distracting the researcher from identifying the geochemical
source of clays (Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Neff et al. 1988, 1989, 2003; Sayre et al.
1957; Sayre and Harbottle 1979). Many researchers advocate the use of petrography
and temper analysis to understand its influence on bulk chemistry (Bishop et al. 1982;
Bishop 1980, pp. 4748; Day et al. 1999; Day and Kilikoglou 2001; Neff et al. 1988,
1989; Stoner et al. 2008; Tsolakidou et al. 2002).
In the 1990s, archaeologistslargely influenced by social theory of the prior decade
(Bourdieu 1977, 1990; Giddens 1979) and behavioral studies pottery production in a
technological and ecological frameworks (e.g., Arnold 1985; Kolb 1988; Reina and
Hill 1974; Rice 2005 [original 1987]; Rye 1981; Schiffer and Skibo 1987,
1997)treated choices made by potters as an aspect of their identity (Gosselain
1992, 2000; Lemonnier 1992; Sillar and Tite 2000; Stark 1998). This led to the
frameworks of technological choice and chane opratoire that have been popular
in archaeology over the past two decades. In brief, choices that potters make at different
stages of the production process, from selection of raw materials through their use and
discard, leave signature traits on the pottery that reflect the potters chemical fingerprint. Every potter has a unique paste recipe, but it is extremely rare that archaeologists
are able to isolate individuals through materials analyses. Ideally, we strive to identify
the technological fingerprint of communities of potters at the highest resolution possible (e.g., Arnold et al. 1991; Stark et al. 2000).
The ways in which potters add, subtract, and mix materials in a paste can benefit
sourcing studies. Rather than tracing pottery back to the geological source of clay, this
perspective ideally compares groups of ceramics across the landscape. While this is
perhaps the most common approach to pottery sourcing today, it is certainly not without
its faults. In some cases, the potters add so much temper to the clays that natural chemical
variation among them is erased. Using laser ablationinductively coupled plasmamass
spectrometry (LAICPMS), several recent studies have successfully isolated the chemistry of the clay fraction within heavily tempered ceramics, effectively eliminating the
chemical effects of temper (e.g., Larson et al. 2005; Stoner and Glascock 2012). In other
cases, the preparation and mixing of materials provide characteristic information of the
potters chemical fingerprint. Petrographers depend heavily upon this cultural variability
among ceramic fabrics, and their work permits a better understanding of the behavioral
inputs to bulk chemical data (Bishop 1980; Day et al. 1999; Stoner et al. 2008).
Today, the assertion of Bishop et al. (1982, pp. 275276) that sourcing studies are
essentially spatial problems still holds water. The best method provides a determination of source at the finest spatial resolution possible, regardless of whether we rely
on natural or cultural variables. In all cases, however, post-production use and postdepositional chemical weathering presents an obstacle to this spatial reconstruction.
Diagenesis has been an ever-present concern of bulk chemical analysis since the
beginning (Sayre et al. 1957), but attempts to empirically evaluate post-depositional
chemical alteration have been uncommon until recently (e.g., Buxeda i Garrigos et al.
2002; Croissier 2007; Golitko et al. 2012; Schwedt et al. 2004). As Neff (2012)
observes, resting ones arguments on presumptions about weathering with no supporting

evidence can lead to false conclusions. In research regions like the Basin of Mexico,
source identification relies on the formation of robust reference groups compiled from
intensive sampling of ceramics (Hodge and Neff 2005; Hodge et al. 1992, 1993; Minc
1994; Nichols et al. 2002). The region therefore relies more heavily on identifying
sources of pottery production rather than matching ceramics to raw clays. In the case of
Xaltocan, reference groups have been formed, but the distinctive chemistry of these
ceramics could be based on post-production use (as containers for salt or salted fish) or
weathering after burial, neither of which reflects the paste recipes employed by potters.
The Role of Salt and Saline Water in Pottery Studies

Cases of intentional use of salt, saline water, or naturally salty clays in pottery production are rare, but several examples exist. Traditional potters in Pakistan and Melanesia
add salt to pottery pastes to increase vessel strength (Rye and Evans 1976, pp. 91, 128;
see also Rye 1976). Pakistani potters also used salt in the slips of water vessels, stating
that the coarse slip keeps the water cooler by increasing surface area and promoting
evaporation through the vessel walls (Rye and Evans 1976, p. 53). Matson (1971)
documents a similar process for ancient Mesopotamian ceramics. Arnold (1971, pp. 29
30) describes how potters at Ticul, in the Mexican Yucatn, taste the wet clays with
preference for those with a salty taste. Mitchem (1982) conducted experiments that
indicate the probable addition of seawater to prehistoric Pasco Series ceramic pastes in
peninsular Florida. Abbott (2008) conducted experiments that demonstrate the probable
addition of salt in combination with Ca-rich clays and calcium carbonate to Hohokam
Buff wares in the Southwestern United States. Cuomo di Caprio (1991) suggested that
halite (NaCl found in common table salt) was added to medieval glazed pottery in Sicily
to lighten its color. Bonifay (2004) describes a similar whitening effect by use of
seawater to mix ceramic pastes of late Roman pottery in northern Africa. Neff (Neff, H.,
2009, Plumbate technology revisited, unpublished paper) argues based on depth profiling using LAICPMS and scanning electron microscopy that Plumbate pottery represents the first application of salt-glazing technology in the New World. These cases
represent potters intimate knowledge of materials available within their natural environments and generations of experience in mixing them into paste recipes.
A number of additional variables confound the conceptually simple task of matching
product to producer. The firing stage of pottery production has been treated as an
important source of cultural variation (e.g., Burton and Simon 1993; Carpenter and
Feinman 1999; Gosselain 1992; Livingstone-Smith 2000; Pool 2000; Sillar 2000).
While we agree with the cultural significance of pottery firing choicesincluding type
of fuel, temperature, and firing technologyfiring has little immediate effect on the bulk
chemistry of pottery. While volatile elements exit the ceramic matrix at different
temperatures, the immediate firing-induced changes to pottery composition are more
readily observed in its mineral structure.
Important to the discussion of sodium concentration, diagenesis, and firing temperature is a series of firing experiments (Bearat et al. 1989; Buxeda i Garrigos et al.
2002; Picon 1991). Buxeda i Garrigos et al. (2002) demonstrate that in ceramics fired
higher than 9501,000 C, the Na-rich zeolite analcime forms either from the
Stoner et al.
decomposition of gehlenite or the crystallization of free material left after the glassy
phase is reached (see also Picon 1991). This process takes place in a post-burial
environment that introduces sodium to the ceramic. Because Xaltocan ceramics were
not consistently fired over 9501,000 C and they are elevated in both sodium and
potassium, Buxeda i Garrigoss firing experiments do not directly explain the chemistry of Xaltocan ceramics. They do, however, highlight the importance of considering post-depositional processes before uncritically accepting our high-sodium
chemical groups as valid. These experiments are particularly important when alkali
or alkaline earth metals exhibit chemical variation within a sample, as these are
among the most mobile elements in pottery perturbation (e.g., Golitko et al. 2012;
Buxeda i Garrigos 1999; Buxeda et al. 2002; Schwedt and Mommsen 2004).
A more common source of post-production contamination at Xaltocan may simply
involve the physical saturation of pottery with saline water and/or salt during use and
burial. Salt was produced and used in intensive household production of salted fish and
perhaps dyed cloth (Millhauser 2012), so naturally ceramics would be used to store it.
Cooking would involve saline water, which may saturate cook wares with sodium. More
pervasive chemical alterations take place in the ground. Pottery would repeatedly
saturate and dehydrate, leaving behind salt crystals as the lakes water levels rose and
fell annually. The elevation of sodium and potassium due to this physical process may
easily be reversed. As detailed in the preservation handbook published by the
Underwater Archaeology program at Texas A&M University, the basic procedure for
removing soluble salts, such as those that form in and around Lake Xaltocan, is soaking
in water (Hamilton 1997, p. 26). This suggests that if post-depositional contamination
were the reason for the elevated sodium and potassium concentrations, it could be
reversed by soaking in a deionized (DI) water bath (tested below).
This brief discussion establishes several alternative scenarios for the high levels of
sodium and potassium in Xaltocan ceramics. Variables useful for chemically tracing it
back to the production source include selection of salty clays, addition of salt or saline
water to the matrix, or addition of temper high in these elements. Variables that
confound identification of production source are any variety of post-production
chemical alteration. These alternative scenarios are tested below first through examination of the extensive geochemical database on-hand at the University of Missouri
Research Reactor (MURR) and second through experimentation that permits a better
understanding of the mobility of sodium and potassium in ceramics.
Xaltocan and Its Environs

Prior to the arrival of Spanish in 1519, the lake system in the Basin of Mexico hosted one
of the densest Prehispanic settlements in Mesoamerica (Sanders et al. 1979) (Fig. 1).
Lake Xaltocan was one of the northernmost lakes in the region, just south and east of
Lake Zumpango. The lake was mostly drained by the turn of the twentieth century, and
the subsequent diversion of the Cuauhtitlan River to Mexico City hastened its disappearance (see Archiga Crdoba 2004; Brumfiel and Hodge 1996, p. 420; Mathes 1970;
Montoya Riviero 1999; Palerm 1973). During its Prehispanic occupation, Xaltocan was
an island within the lake with only a causeway connecting it to the western outer shore.
The island was human-made beginning in the mid-ninth century A.D. (Brumfiel 2005b;
Fig. 1 Map of the Basin of Mexico region showing sites mentioned in the text. The shoreline for the lakes
is based on inspection of a 30 resolution digital elevation module for the Basin of Mexico. This likely
represents the average water levels throughout the year. Dotted lines depict the low water levels for the
individual lakes. High water levels in Lake Xaltocan may have extended to the site of Cuauhtitlan
Brumfiel and Hodge 1996, p. 423; Frederick et al. 2005). It supported settlements
through almost the entire Postclassic period (9501521 CE). Isolated lakebed mounds,
also hosting Prehispanic settlements, surrounded the island (Chimonas 2005). In 1521,
Stoner et al.
the Spanish attacked and burned Xaltocan to the ground (Corts 1970, p. 118; Hassig
2006, pp. 142143). The local population recovered and continued to inhabit the island
through the colonial period and today (Rodrguez-Alegra 2008a, b, 2010).
Xaltocan was the capital of an autonomous Otom kingdom prior to its conquest by
Cuauhtitlan, part of the Tepanec state, in 1395 A.D. (Carrasco 1999, p. 104; Gibson
1964, p. 10). According to documentary evidence, Xaltocan lay abandoned for a period
of about 30 years before incorporation into the Aztec Triple Alliance in 1428 (Brumfiel
1991), though the archaeological evidence does not support any state-wide occupational
hiatus (Overholtzer 2012, pp. 133134). Xaltocans political system had already
disintegrated some decades prior to the formation of the Aztec empire. The Aztecs did
not reestablish a local dynastic line or kingly seat. Xaltocan was likely overseen instead
by tlacateuctli, or governing nobles (Hicks 1994). The Codex Mendoza describes
Xaltocan as a subject that owed military obligations to the Triple Alliance, but its
population also owed tribute to Texcoco and Tenochtitlan (Carrasco 1999, p. 99).
Before the Aztec conquest, the island hosted a regional market and was a center for
economic production and exchange (Brumfiel 1991). Xaltocan also received tribute
gifts from many settlements in the northern Basin of Mexico (Brumfiel 1991,
pp. 181183). Blanton (1996, p. 65) projects a market territory for Xaltocan during
the Early Aztec period that covers Lake Xaltocan and Lake Zumpango. Previous NAA
indicates that plain orange and decorated ceramics produced at or near Tenochtitlan,
Chalco, Cuauhtitlan, and the Teotihuacan Valley were found at Xaltocan (Garraty
2006, p. 136; Hodge and Neff 2005; Peters 2002). The patterns of Black-on-Orange
pottery consumption at Xaltocan change over time. Aztec I sherds were produced
locally at Xaltocan. Major production of Aztec II sherds shifted to Cuauhtitlan after its
conquest of Xaltocan. Aztec III ceramics found at Xaltocan were produced at
Tenochtitlan, the Tenayuca region in the western Basin, the Texcoco region in the
eastern Basin, and the Chalco region in the southeast Basin (Brumfiel and Hodge
1996, pp. 431432; Hodge and Neff 2005, Table 13.1). Additionally, obsidian from a
variety of sources has been found at Xaltocan, including obsidian from Pachuca,
Otumba, Tulancingo, Ucareo, Zacualtipan, Oyameles-Zaragoza, and San Juan de los
Arcos (Millhauser et al. 2011).
Ethnohistoric documentation and economic models support the possible existence
of a market at Xaltocan early in its history of occupation, with dramatic shifts in
production, exchange, and consumption over time and relative to Xaltocans political
history (Blanton 1996; Brumfiel 2005b). After its incorporation into the Aztec
Empire, any market that Xaltocan might have hosted previously likely decreased in
its regional importance (Blanton 1996, pp. 6869; Hodge and Neff 2005; Brumfiel
and Hodge 1996). After the Spanish conquest, Xaltocamecas (people of Xaltocan)
participated actively in the colonial market, and its economy flourished for at least
some time into the colonial period (Gibson 1964, p. 366; Rodrguez-Alegra et al.,
under review). Xaltocan and Mexico City were linked by one of the main roads in the
Basin (Gibson 1964, p. 364).
During the Late Postclassic, Xaltocan produced textiles, reed mats, maize, and
possibly lime (Gibson 1964, p. 336; Morehart and Eisenberg 2010). After incorporation
into the Aztec Empire, textile production became more important, probably to meet
tribute demands (Brumfiel 2005a, pp. 361363; Brumfiel and Hodge 1996, p. 429). Salt
production also took place at Xaltocan, as evidenced by the presence of Texcoco Fabric
Marked salt basins (Brumfiel 2005a, p. 363; Brumfiel and Hodge 1996, pp. 428429;
Millhauser 2012). Salt was probably not boiled down from the saline waters. Instead,
tequesquite1a combination of NaCl, Na2CO3, Na2SO4, and KClwas extracted from
salt impregnated soils along the edges and in the shallows of the lake. Salt minerals were
more concentrated in these soils, and they surfaced as crystalline deposits during the dry
season (Flores 1918; Gibson 1964, p. 338). Little direct evidence suggests the presence
of pottery production at Xaltocan, but the distinctive ceramic chemistry for the overwhelming majority of sherds sampled there presents the possibility of local production
(see Hodge and Neff 2005; Millhauser 2012; Nichols et al. 2002; Overholtzer and Stoner
2011; Rodrguez-Alegra et al., under review). Post-depositional contamination may
compromise this proposition.
Previous NAA Work at and Around Xaltocan
To date, over 6,000 neutron activation assays have been conducted on Basin of
Mexico ceramics at MURR. The study area is an interior drainage basin where
sediments from volcanic parent materials drain inward and comingle around the
lakes at the heart of the Basin. Any variation in how they selected and mixed these
materials will facilitate provenance investigation.
Research at the site of Xaltocan over the past decade has led to the examination of 651
ceramic and clay specimens by NAA (Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Crider 2011; De Lucia
2011; Garraty 2006, 2007; Hodge and Neff 2005; Nichols et al. 2002; Overholtzer and
Stoner 2011; Rodrguez-Alegra et al., under review) (Table 1). John Millhauser has
additionally submitted 175 ceramics and clays from salt-producing sites in southern Lake
Xaltocan, including San Bartolom Salinas. These analyses have led to the identification
of two chemical groups, Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b, that differ from the other five
major Basin of Mexico reference groups (Figs. 2, 3, and 4). The primary differences
between the Xaltocan groups and other Basin of Mexico ceramics are elevated sodium
and potassium values. They are also depleted in many transition metals and lanthanide
series elements, which could arise through dilution. Both subgroups display the same
chemical patterns, but Xaltocan 1b is more pronounced in its chemical divergence from
the other Basin ceramics. All pottery that composes these reference groups was recovered
from the site of Xaltocan with a minority coming from San Bartolom Salinas, so we are
confident that they reflect the local paste recipe.
The enrichment of Xaltocan ceramics in sodium and potassium clearly has variable
potential sources in this case. If potters at Xaltocan chose saline clay, temper, water, or
added salt to the paste (all of which are available locally), the elevated sodium and
potassium values for their ceramics reflect their chemical fingerprint. This distinction
may not have been visible to the producer or consumer, but the pottery production process
at Xaltocan can be differentiated from other sites through chemical characterization
techniques. While this may not constitute an overt expression of identity, these salty
ceramics do nevertheless allow archaeologists to identify them through their chemistry.
1
From the Nahuatl term tequisquitl which refers to the salty crusts deposited along saline lake rims when
the water level lowers due to dessication (Parsons 2001, p. 146)
Table 1 Elemental means and relative standard deviations for seven major Basin of Mexico ceramic chemical reference groups
Chalco (n=324)
Cuauhtitlan (n=110)
Texcoco (n=194)
Otumba (n=305)
Tenochtitlan (n=343)
Xaltocan 1a (n=80)
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
Xaltocan 1b (n=135)
% Differencea
Mean
RSD
% Differencea
Na (%)
1.51
11.4
1.39
19.4
1.39
9.2
1.43
15.5
1.43
15.3
2.12
11.4
48.8
2.11
9.9
47.4
Al (%)
9.69
5.0
10.4
4.0
10.0
3.3
9.46
4.8
10.3
4.7
9.79
6.0
1.7
9.23
6.1
7.4
K (%)
1.20
28.4
1.01
25.1
0.99
14.0
1.18
22.4
1.03
21.5
1.61
17.3
48.8
1.92
24.9
77.4
Ca (%)
2.52
11.6
1.95
20.7
2.21
12.8
2.34
13.4
2.03
19.1
1.99
24.9
9.7
2.40
11.5
8.4
Sc (ppm)
14.2
7.9
13.1
5.3
13.4
4.3
12.1
5.4
13.4
5.8
11.7
5.7
11.8
10.4
7.3
21.3
Ti (%)
0.51
10.5
0.52
13.1
0.50
8.9
0.49
11.0
0.49
10.2
0.50
15.1
0.4
0.42
13.2
16.3
V (ppm)
91.3
13.9
91.8
11.4
87.1
9.8
77.4
12.9
90.5
10.4
83.4
15.6
4.8
56.5
12.3
35.5
Cr (ppm)
115
11.5
77.0
6.2
101
6.4
80.0
9.5
89.0
10.0
72.0
5.1
22.4
59.0
5.4
36.3
Mn (ppm)
760
13.4
894
26.7
819
9.7
772
15.9
803
27.6
602
33.5
25.6
592
19.1
26.9
Fe (%)
4.22
7.5
3.68
6.8
4.00
4.9
3.59
5.3
3.82
9.0
3.37
9.5
12.7
2.96
8.8
23.4
Co (ppm)
17.0
9.6
16.8
13.4
16.7
5.5
14.5
9.6
16.4
13.8
12.9
16.6
20.6
10.7
12.4
34.6
Zn (ppm)
75.2
10.4
76.8
16.1
71.8
14.1
69.4
15.9
76.4
14.1
70.9
61.6
4.1
60.3
9.9
18.4
As (ppm)
2.30
29.2
2.11
30.7
2.39
33.7
2.06
29.4
2.51
41.0
2.79
48.1
22.8
1.84
45.5
19.2
16.4
Rb (ppm)
50.0
10.0
49.7
11.9
60.9
7.8
52.0
12.0
52.1
11.9
52.1
13.0
1.6
61.6
10.4
Sr (ppm)
433
14.7
347
23.0
374
14.3
426
17.8
372
22.2
469
35.9
20.2
466
17.3
19.3
Zr (ppm)
150
13.1
170
11.6
154
12.0
133
14.2
146
12.1
147
15.3
2.6
119
14.3
20.8
Sb (ppm)
0.26
14.7
0.36
15.3
0.33
15.7
0.29
17.5
0.32
18.9
0.28
35.0
9.5
0.25
63.6
21.0
Cs (ppm)
2.77
13.3
5.35
18.7
3.66
11.1
2.77
18.4
3.82
15.7
3.64
21.6
1.0
2.85
14.9
22.5
Ba (ppm)
590
32.0
612
43.7
641
32.6
923
44.7
585
33.2
532
58.4
20.6
426
52.0
36.4
La (ppm)
24.2
8.1
29.7
12.7
25.8
6.5
22.3
10.3
25.7
9.2
21.6
15.9
15.5
20.4
15.4
20.1
50.9
7.2
59.6
12.2
54.7
5.2
46.7
10.5
53.2
8.6
42.1
17.3
20.5
41.3
17.7
22.1
25.9
12.0
30.4
14.8
27.1
9.9
22.8
13.1
27.5
11.5
21.9
19.5
18.2
20.6
19.0
22.9
Sm (ppm)
5.39
8.5
6.44
11.8
5.63
6.8
4.98
9.7
5.72
9.0
4.64
15.2
17.5
4.43
15.7
21.4
Eu (ppm)
1.49
6.8
1.69
8.6
1.51
4.4
1.33
6.5
1.55
6.9
1.31
11.7
13.8
1.22
11.9
19.4
Stoner et al.
Ce (ppm)
Nd (ppm)
Chalco (n=324)
Cuauhtitlan (n=110)
Texcoco (n=194)
Otumba (n=305)
Tenochtitlan (n=343)
Xaltocan 1a (n=80)
Xaltocan 1b (n=135)
Mean
RSD
Mean
RSD
Mean
RSD
Mean
RSD
Mean
RSD
Mean
RSD
% Differencea
Mean
RSD
% Differencea
Dy (ppm)
3.63
13.2
4.63
13.4
4.00
9.4
3.63
12.2
3.96
11.4
3.00
20.8
24.5
3.17
18.2
20.0
Yb (ppm)
2.03
11.2
2.55
10.1
2.27
8.6
2.00
12.2
2.17
9.8
1.69
18.8
23.5
1.70
18.7
22.9
Lu (ppm)
0.28
15.8
0.36
10.2
0.32
9.0
0.28
10.7
0.31
10.6
0.25
18.8
20.8
0.24
18.2
21.8
Hf (ppm)
5.66
6.2
6.49
7.1
5.80
4.4
5.23
7.2
5.75
5.5
5.74
10.0
0.7
4.64
8.4
19.7
Ta (ppm)
0.74
9.1
0.75
7.9
0.79
6.0
0.72
8.8
0.68
7.7
0.66
10.1
10.7
0.65
9.0
11.3
Th (ppm)
5.95
7.6
7.52
12.3
6.73
6.0
6.14
11.6
6.20
11.3
5.60
15.7
13.9
5.72
13.6
12.1
U (ppm)
1.26
24.7
2.59
21.2
1.60
23.2
1.44
29.1
1.86
35.4
1.53
40.4
12.7
1.45
24.6
17.3
The percent difference for each element is calculated from the value of Xaltocan groups compared to the average for the Basin of Mexico with Xaltocan removed
Bold text denotes elements in which Xaltocan ceramics are significantly higher compared to other Basin of Mexico groups, whereas italics denote elements in which Xaltocan
ceramics are significantly lower
a
Percent difference was calculated as the percent difference compared to the average for the Basin of Mexico
Table 1 (continued)
Stoner et al.
Fig. 2 Scatterplot of seven major Basin of Mexico reference groups projected on discriminant function 1
and discriminant function 2. Ellipses represent 90 % confidence intervals of group membership
These new data provide the means to better discern the role of Xaltocan in the
regional production and exchange system. To date, researchers have viewed the
position of Xaltocan in the regional pottery economy primarily from the perspective
of consumer (Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Hodge and Neff 2005; Nichols et al. 2002).
If the Xaltocan chemical groups are the result of choices made by local potters, and
not post-production chemical alteration, researchers can better figure the sites potential role as producer and exporter of pottery.
Levels of Sodium and Potassium in the Clay and Temper Fraction of the Ceramic
Paste
In an effort to determine which component of the paste contributes the high values of the
elements of interest, we conducted a small study using LAICPMS to target the clay
and temper portions of a sample of the Xaltocan 1a and 1b chemical groups (n=14) and
one specimen previously assigned to the Cuauhtitlan reference group. Laser ablation
ICPMS is useful for generating chemical data on different components of the ceramic
paste to determine which component contributes more sodium and potassium. Methods
for LAICPMS are detailed elsewhere (Stoner and Glascock 2012; see also
Dussubieux et al. 2007; Gratuze et al. 2001; Speakman and Neff 2005).
We determined that the aplastic fraction (temper and natural inclusions) of
Xaltocan ceramics contributed more sodium but less potassium to the bulk NAA
chemical signature than the clay fraction (Fig. 5; Table 2). Aplastics are generally
Fig. 3 Scatterplot of the seven major Basin of Mexico reference groups projected on axes of percent Na
and K. Data points for Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b are added to demonstrate their relatively high values
among these two elements. Ellipses represent 90 % confidence intervals of group membership
lower in potassium, suggesting that felsic rocks (such that contain K-feldspars) were
not present in the ceramic paste. Volcanic rocks found in the region, such as andesites,
dacites, and basalts, are typically higher in sodium (and/or calcium) than local clays.
These rocks are widely available, and most ceramics in the Basin possess sodium-rich
aplastic materials. The higher concentration of sodium in the aplastic fraction,
therefore, does not necessarily explain the unique chemistry of Xaltocan ceramics.
Comparison of the Xaltocan clay fraction to recent analyses of the clay fraction of
ceramics from Teotihuacan (conducted by the lead author), a non-saline postdepositional environment, shows that the former is about 90 % higher in sodium on
average (see Table 2). The clay fraction of Xaltocan ceramics could become elevated
in sodium and potassium through a number of processes. The most obvious of these
are that the natural clays used to produce the pottery were high in these elements.
Alternatively, salt or saline water may have been added to the paste.
Patterning of Sodium and Potassium in Clays Across the Basin of Mexico
Three clay samples were collected at Xaltocan by Liz Brumfiel (analysis undertaken in
1999), and six were submitted by Mary Hodge from a satellite mound to the south of the
main island (analyses undertaken in 1994). Surprisingly, only one of the clay samples
collected by Brumfiel and none of those collected by Hodge possessed higher-thanaverage levels of sodium or potassium (Figs. 6, 7, and 8). They did, however, yield
Stoner et al.
Fig. 4 Scatterplot of the five major Basin of Mexico reference groups projected on axes of parts per
million Cr and La. Data points for Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b are added to demonstrate their relatively
low values among these two elements. Ellipses represent 90 % confidence intervals of group membership
values for transition metals and rare earth elements in the range with ceramics from
Xaltocan (see Fig. 8). Clays were also high in calcium, which is not a feature of Xaltocan
ceramics. In short, only one of the three clay specimens analyzed from Xaltocan could
have produced the ceramics found on the site. These were opportunistic samples taken
from excavation units, a sampling strategy that rarely identifies the location of clays used
by potters. These few data do suggest, though, that there is considerable variation in the
salinity of post-depositional contexts at the site.
Fig. 5 LAICPMS data for the clay and temper fractions of a sample (n=14) of Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan
1b ceramics that display the full range of Na and K values found in the reference groups. Clay and temper
compositions are expressed as ratios to the bulk NAA signature, which retains the constant value of 1 across
the chart. Positive or negative deviations from the baseline indicate that the clay fraction of the pottery
contributed more or less (respectively) of that element to the bulk composition

Table 2 Comparison of the average composition of the clay and temper fractions of a sample of Xaltocan
pottery, determined by LAICPMS, to the bulk chemistry, determined by NAA, of the same samples
Xaltocan (n=14)
Teotihuacan (n=36)
Average clay
15,828.5
10,505.61
Average temper
20,356.29
na
Average bulk
28,441.2
na
The clay fraction for a sample of Teotihuacan ceramics were also analyzed via LAICPMS as a reference
Clay, adobe, and possible oven linings sampled by Millhauser at San Bartolom
Salinas are called out in the same figures for comparison. San Bartolom Salinas was a
salt production site that was either a large island near the edge of the lake or a peninsula on
the western shoreline (Millhauser 2012). Sediments from San Bartolom Salinas were
relatively high in sodium and potassium. In fact, the raw materials sampled there are good
chemical matches for the clay fraction of Xaltocan ceramics. San Bartolom Salinas may
not be the precise location that Xaltocan potters collected their clays, but many sediments
along outer shoreline of Lake Xaltocan may possess similar soil chemistry.
Hundreds of clay samples have been collected within the broader Basin of Mexico
(Fig. 9). Clay samples located closer to Lake Xaltocan generally possess higher concentrations of alkali and alkaline earth elements (e.g., barium, calcium, potassium,
sodium, strontium) and relatively low concentrations of transition metal and rare earth
elements. In Fig. 9, darker colors on the chloropleth map represent high values for the
Fig. 6 Loglog scatterplot of clays sampled from Xaltocan and San Bartolome Salinas and elsewhere in
the Basin of Mexico projected on axes of Hf (in parts per million) and Na (in percent)
Stoner et al.
the Basin of Mexico projected on axes of K (in percent) and Ca (in percent)
combined concentrations of sodium and potassium (in parts per million).2 These mobile
elements erode out of the parent rock in the mountains and water eventually deposits
them into the lake.
The sum of all data suggests that Xaltocan potters gathered clays from the outer
shoreline of the lake. Because these sediments naturally possess salts, the addition of
salt to the paste recipe would have been redundant and unlikely. It still remains a
possibility that the pastes were mixed with saline water, but the waters themselves
would have possessed lower salinity than the soils.
Distribution of High Sodium and Potassium Ceramics in the Region
Not all ceramics at Xaltocan are uniformly elevated in sodium and potassium. About
21 % of all ceramics collected on the site of Xaltocan have sodium values below the
mean for all Basin of Mexico ceramics. For potassium, 38 % of the sample is below the
Basin of Mexico mean. No meaningful difference of sodium/potassium concentrations
occurs between surface and excavation collections (Table 3). Low sodium/potassium
pots likely arrived at Xaltocan through trade (see Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Hodge
and Neff 2005; Overholtzer and Stoner 2011; Rodrguez-Alegra et al., under review).
It must be kept in mind that raw clay sampling across the Basin of Mexico is highly localized and not
representative of the whole region. Interpolated values are based on a Gaussian function built into ArcGIS
10. Interpolations close to actual data points are most reliable.
the Basin of Mexico projected on axes of Eu (in parts per million) and Cr (in parts per million)
Majolica (tin-enameled pottery) produced in Mexico City during the Colonial period
is perhaps the most definitive import found at Xaltocan. These Colonial ceramics
display below average sodium and potassium levels compared to the Basin of Mexico
and match precisely other ceramics produced in Mexico City (Rodrguez-Alegra
et al., under review).
Non-saline post-depositional environments in other parts of the Basin possess
ceramics that are chemical matches for production at Xaltocan. We filtered the
Basin of Mexico sample according to the chemical ranges exhibited by the nine most
important elements (Ca, Co, Cr, Eu, Hf, K, La, Na, and Rb) for inclusion in the
Xaltocan groups. Over 200 ceramics from non-saline depositional environments
display similar chemistry to Xaltocan ceramics. At a minimum, this suggests that
ceramics of this composition exist in the Basin in contexts where diagenetic elevation
of sodium/potassium would be unlikely. The possibility that Xaltocan-like ceramics
arrived at these sites through exchange is explored below.
Experimenting with Salt

The above discussion severely weakens the potential that diagenesis alone explains
the high sodium and potassium values for Xaltocan ceramics. Since we are attempting
to establish Xaltocan reference groups that will be used to source additional ceramics
Stoner et al.
Fig. 9 Chloropleth map of raw clay chemistry in the Basin of Mexico. Values represent the addition of
sodium and potassium concentrations in parts per million. Interpolation of chloropleth values is based on a
Gaussian function based on data points where raw clays have been collected. Interpolated values closest to
data points are the most reliable
in the future, we cannot comfortably rule out diagenesis completely. We believe that
experimentation can help us further evaluate the alternatives by determining how
sodium behaves within unfired clays and within fired pottery.
Table 3 Comparison of pottery

sherds recovered from surface and
excavation at Xaltocan
Sample size
Excavation
Surface
n=609
n=38
Mean (ppm)
18,240
18,712
SD (ppm)
4,178
4,366
RSD
23
23
Range
2,053.431,387.8
6,197.823,120.2
Mean (ppm)
14,959
14,924
SD (ppm)
5,346
3,666
RSD
36
25
Range (ppm)
3,183.841,558.9
5,818.022,299.4
Na
The experiment involved doping two different clays with waters of differing
salinity (Fig. 10). Chemical data for each category within the experiment are
generated by short-irradiation NAA to yield concentrations for nine short-lived
elements: aluminum (Al), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), dysprosium (Dy), potassium
(K), manganese (Mn), sodium (Na), titanium (Ti), and vanadium (V) (Glascock
1992; Neff 2000). We also reanalyzed via NAA a set of 21 ceramics that were
assigned to the Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b chemical groups after soaking them in
DI water for 48 h with 4 h in a sonication chamber at 50 C.
Clays
Two clays were prepared for the experiment. Ohio Red (RedArt 200 mesh) clay
mined in Ohio possesses characteristics of very low water absorption rate and high
iron content. The low water absorption results from the kaolinite clay minerals that
compose Ohio Red. The other clay was a 3:2 mixture of Ohio Red and bentonite.
Bentonite weathers from volcanic rocks (particularly basalt) and volcanic ash, and it
is likely that the clays found in the Basin of Mexico comprise at least some bentonite
clay minerals.3 Bentonite has high water absorption rates and tends to swell greatly.
Mixing Ohio Red and bentonite, therefore, increases the absorption rate of the former.
Swelling is generally bad for pottery production, but it is important to control for
different water absorption rates in this experiment as water is the medium for the
introduction of sodium and potassium ions.
Temper
We tempered the clays with play sand to enhance its workability. This is a multimineral
sand available at most home supply stores. Visual inspection suggests that the sand
contains primarily quartz, but feldspar, and an iron-rich mineral are also present.
Aplastics drag through the clay as vessel walls are smoothed, leaving behind small voids
3
Clay soils in the Basin are mostly vertisol and feozem, both of which consist of highly absorptive clay
minerals.
Stoner et al.
Fig. 10 Schematic of the salt experiment
or pores.4 Voids will facilitate the formation of sodium or potassium crystals within the
pottery (e.g., Na2CO3, NaCl, K2CO3, KCl). The sand temper used in this experiment was
sieved so that only grains between 0.50 and 1.00 mm were added to the clay, though a
minor percentage of both larger and smaller grains were included. Ohio Red and bentonite
clays were tempered with 1015 % play sand (measured by dry weight of both materials).
Average elemental concentrations for two replicates of the sand are shown in Table 4. The
overwhelming majority of the temper is composed of Si as the major mineral component
is quartz.
Water
We prepared both clays with deionized water and then desiccated them in an oven at
100 C. Samples were then rehydrated with five categories of water: (1) DI water,
(2) 1.5 % saline solution, (3) 3.0 % saline solution, (4) 9.0 % saline solution, and (5)
4
Voids are also formed by the bubbling of gases (such as CO2) that get caught within the glassy phase of
the ceramic.
Table 4 Elemental means (in

parts per million) and standard deviations for two replications of
play sand temper
Element
Mean (n=2)
SD (n=2)
RSD
Al
3,834
684
17.9
Ba
102
0.11
0.1
Ca
1,801
55.0
3.1
Dy
0.68
0.03
4.2
530
36.2
6.8
Mn
125
3.99
3.2
Na
136
9.08
6.7
Ti
1,344
62.2
4.6
31.4
1.43
4.6
27.0 % saline solution. The density of the experimental water was measured using a
hydrometer. The salinity of Lake Xaltocan varied with the rising and falling water
levels of the lake (Galvn Moreno cited in Parsons 2001, pp. 144146). During
the dry months, the water levels would be lower and the salinity higher. To
reproduce the seasonably variable saline environment of Lake Xaltocan, saline
water was made by adding a mixture of 50 % Na2CO3, 40 % NaCl, and 10 %
K2CO3 (by dry weight) to deionized water in different proportions. The ratio of
different mineral salt additions derives from data for the average tequesquite
composition published for Lake Texcoco (Galvn Moreno 1945, p. 12, summarized in
Parsons 2001, p. 146).5
Rehydration of clays was conducted by adding a standard amount of water to a
sample of the desiccated clays. In general, we added the water slowly until the point
that the clays became plastic enough to form pottery. Clays mixed with bentonite
absorbed more water than the Ohio Red. More sodium and potassium ions were,
therefore, introduced into the paste.
Firing
Once rehydrated with waters of different salinity, we created a single coil for each
clay and smoothed it out as if forming a vessel wall. This produced slabs between
8 and 10 mm thickness. The slabs were then fired to three temperatures: 700, 900,
and 1,050 C. Open firing methods generally achieve sustained temperatures much
lower than 1,000 C (Rice 2005, p. 82). The use of kilns could achieve higher
temperatures, and the potter has more control over atmosphere, the distribution of
heat across space, and the rate of temperature increase and decrease (e.g., Arnold
1985, p. 213; Arnold 1991; Pool 1990; Rice 2005, p. 153; Rye 1981, p. 98). Rye
(1981, p. 98) notes that simple updraft kilns can reach maximum temperatures of
1,000 C. In practice, however, temperatures between open and kiln firings overlap
considerably (see P. Arnold 1991; Gosselain 1992, p. 224; Livingstone-Smith 2000;
Pool 2000).
It should be noted that K2CO3 was substituted for KCl due to cost and availability.
Stoner et al.
Post-firing Treatments
The slabs were broken into fragments (referred to hereafter as tiles) and several of
them underwent post-firing treatments. Control tiles fired without saline solution (i.e.,
using only deionized water) were soaked in the four different saline solutions after
firing. The tiles were soaked for 48 h and sonicated (placed in a water-filled chamber
and bombarded with sound waves) for 4 h at 50 C to ensure permeation of saline
solution. Longacre et al. (2000) have demonstrated that ceramics absorb nearly all the
water they can hold within the first 2 min of soaking, so we are confident that
thorough saturation occurred. The tiles were dried in an oven at 100 C three times
during this cycle to encourage crystal formation.
After the third drying, half of these tiles were prepared for NAA. The other half
were subjected to a rinse in deionized water to determine how readily the sodium and
potassium ions added after firing could be liberated. Another set of tiles that were
prepared and fired with saline water were soaked in deionized water to see if sodium
and potassium could leach out of the fired ceramic. The leaching experiment followed
the same soaking and sonication parameters mentioned above. Once dried, these tiles
were also prepared for NAA.
A sample of 21 pottery sherds collected from Xaltocan (belonging to the Xaltocan
1a and 1b chemical groups) was reanalyzed after attempting to leach them in DI water
using the same sonication processes. If these sherds were elevated in sodium and
potassium due to soaking in a saline post-depositional environment, the rinsing
procedure should significantly lower the concentration of these elements as seen in
the post-rinsing experimental analysis described below. Mineral crystals that may
form in Xaltocan ceramics would be those found in tequesquite6 (Galvn Moreno
1945, p. 12, summarized in Parsons 2001, p. 146). All of these minerals are soluble in
water as follows: 35.9 g/100 ml for NaCl, 21.6 g/100 ml for Na2CO3, 112 g/100 ml
for K2CO3, and 34.4 g/100 ml for KCl at 20 C. If post-depositional contamination
caused the formation of any of these minerals, leaching in DI water at 50 C with the
added use of sonication should significantly reduce concentrations of the sodium and
potassium.
Experiment Results
Before discussing the chemical data, an interesting relationship was observed between the addition of salt and the firing of the pottery. The 27 % saline tiles emerged
from the furnace with a glazed surface after firing to 1,050 C, but not at 900 or
700 C. Of course, salt glazing was a common practice for the production of historic
ceramics, and some potters still use this technique today. The salt lowers the vitrification temperature of silica by disrupting its crystal network (Rice 2005 [original
1987], p. 99). These are the only tiles that display evidence of vitrification and
overfiring (a glassy texture with large pores where gas bubbles formed within the
paste). It therefore appears that adding salt in high percentages reduced the melting
Though, it should be noted that tequesquite minerals form primarily on the surface.
point of minerals in the clay and temper (see Rye and Evans 1976, pp. 4243 and
Arnold 1985, pp. 2528 for similar conclusions).
Several significant patterns occur within the experimental dataset (Fig. 11). The
higher the salinity of water used to prepare the clays, the higher the resulting sodium
concentrations in the fired tiles (Fig. 11ad). Surprisingly, this pattern is stronger
among the Ohio Red clays, which have lower absorption rates than the mixed clays.
Among the ceramics subjected to the post-firing saline soak, both clays absorbed
about equivalent amounts of sodium (Fig. 11e, f). Ohio Red clay must have more
potential sodium bonding sites than bentonite. After firing, most bonding sites would
have been closed to new bonds.
Fig. 11 Scatterplots showing the results of the saline water experiments. The x-axes are a linear expressions of the percent salinity used to mix/soak the clays. The y-axes are linear expressions of Na (in parts per
million). Please note the larger scale of the y-axis in a and c
Stoner et al.
The effects of firing temperature are inconsistent. Among the pre-firing-doped tiles
(Fig. 11a, b), the Ohio Red appears to display a definite trend of higher sodium
retention with lower firing temperatures. However, the glaze on the surface of the
Ohio Red ceramics fired to 1,050 C was removed prior to analysis. We analyzed one
tile with the glaze intact, and it yielded sodium concentrations about 50 % higher than
those with the glaze removed. It therefore appears that much of the sodium was
expelled to the surface of the ceramic during drying and as firing took place, more so
with the higher firing temperatures.
Among the post-firing-saline-soak assays (Fig. 11e, f), firing temperature does
have a clear effect on sodium absorption. The lower-fired tiles accepted more sodium,
which probably results from their lower degree of vitrification and higher porosity.
Higher fired tiles were less porous due to the higher level of vitrification.
The leaching experiments also produce clear patterns. Among the pre-firing-doped
tiles, leaching caused only a slight decrease in sodium concentrations (Fig. 11c, d).
The higher the salinity of the original doping, the more sodium that was lost during
leaching. Again, this reflects the fact that more sodium ions were introduced by the
higher salinity solutions than could be absorbed by the molecular structure of the
clays. The extra sodium ions were likely trapped within the glassy phase of the
ceramic. We conducted ICPMS on the waters used for the first leaching cycle for
tiles fired to 700 C (Fig. 12). The result was a definite increase in both sodium and
potassium within the leaching water of ceramics with higher levels of doping. A very
subtle pattern appears of low fired tiles losing more sodium due to leaching. Low
firing temperatures are therefore less efficient at cementing sodium into the ceramic
structure.
Perhaps the clearest and most important result of this experiment derives
from the rinse that followed the post-firing saline soak. Rinsing removed almost
all of the sodium added through repeated saline soakings of fired tiles (those
not doped prior to firing). This reinforces the argument made above that post-
Fig. 12 Loglog scatterplot showing the results of the leaching experiments. These values reflect the
amount of Na and K leached from experimental sherds mixed with saline solution before firing. The x-axis
is the percentage saline solution used to fire the ceramics scaled to log base 10 expressions. The y-axis is the
concentrations of Na and K in parts per billion but scaled to log base 10 expressions
depositional saline saturation of ceramics can easily be reversed by soaking in

DI water.
Based on these experiments, we formulate a general hypothesis regarding the role
of potting behavior versus post-depositional contamination in relation to the higher
sodium (and potassium by inference) levels in Xaltocan 1a and 1b ceramics. Sodium
contained within the ceramic paste prior to firing becomes fixed within the resulting
pottery, while non-doped pottery deposited in a saline post-depositional environment
more easily gives up sodium when exposed to a rinse.
A final step in the experiment involved reanalyzing a sample (n=21) of ceramics
assigned to both the Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b groups. The sample was taken to
represent the range of chemical variability in these compositional groups (Table 5).
The average change in sodium after leaching was a 4.1 % decrease. The mean change
for potassium is a 2.7 % increase. The median change, however, is only 2.0 for
sodium and +2.2 for potassium.7 The divergence between the mean and median
values is affected by outliers. Looking at individual samples, two in particular greatly
affect the average loss in sodium. AZX114 and AZX139 are examples that show a
definite loss of sodium possibly due to leaching. These two were among the smallest
samples by volume, though, raising the issue that they may not be representative of
the whole pot. Only one specimen displays significantly leached potassium concentrations (AZX055). All other specimens show a relatively smaller decrease in sodium
and potassium and some actually increased concentrations in both elements. To arrive
at concentrations similar to the average for the Basin of Mexico, the leaching
experiment would have to remove at least 25 % of the sodium and closer to 35 %
of the potassium. Even with instrumental and sampling errors considered, the leached
ceramics (with two possible exceptions) do not come close to this percentage of loss.
Summary
We have demonstrated that the elevated levels of sodium and potassium in chemical
groups Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b likely resulted from behaviors specific to the
potters residing at Xaltocan and possibly other nearby sites. Multiple lines of data
support this conclusion. First, since the experimentally leached samples from
Xaltocan did not experience greatly reduced levels of sodium/potassium, these
elemental concentrations must have been locked into the ceramic structure by firing.
This conclusion is based on the observed mobility of sodium in pre- and post-firing
experiments detailed above. Second, imported wares that display low-to-average
sodium and potassium levels have been recovered at Xaltocan in the same contexts
as ceramics with high levels of sodium and potassium. Third, ceramics from both
excavation and surface survey at Xaltocan display no patterned chemical variation.
Fourth, pottery sherds with chemistries identical to those found at Xaltocan have been
identified in non-saline depositional environments elsewhere in the Basin of Mexico.
Fifth, the LAICPMS data demonstrate that the clays used to produce Xaltocan
7
The rise in sodium or potassium specimens after leaching could result from the leaching of other
components thereby concentrating these elements. Alternatively, sample bias and instrumental error may
contribute to the elevated numbers.
Stoner et al.
Table 5 Comparison of two NAA assays on the same pottery sample collected from Xaltocan, displaying
the pre-leached and post-leached compositions
ANID
Pre-leached
Na (%)
Post-leached
Na (%)
% Change
Na/Al
ANID
Pre-leached
K (%)
Post-leached
K (%)
% Change
K/Al
AZX114
2.8
2.0
30.9
AZX055
1.7
1.4
21.1
AZX139
2.9
2.4
20.1
JKM079
1.3
1.1
12.7
AZX103
2.1
1.9
9.8
XAL089
2.2
1.9
8.2
AZP219
2.1
2.0
7.7
AZX077
1.6
1.4
6.8
AZX019
2.0
2.0
7.3
AZX141
2.1
2.1
5.0
JKM046
2.2
2.1
6.7
AZX019
2.1
1.9
3.4
AZX141
2.3
2.3
4.5
AZX139
2.2
2.2
1.7
AZX003
2.2
2.2
4.1
AZX073
2.0
2.1
0.3
AZX023
1.9
1.8
3.7
AZX095
1.5
1.5
1.7
AZX007
2.3
2.1
2.7
AZX033
1.7
1.8
2.0
AZX135
2.1
2.1
2.0
AZX103
1.4
1.5
2.2
AZX063
1.9
1.9
1.7
AZP219
2.0
2.2
3.8
AZX073
2.2
2.2
1.4
AZX007
1.5
1.6
4.1
XAL069
1.9
1.8
1.2
AZX114
1.5
1.6
4.4
AZX089
2.0
2.1
0.6
AZX135
1.7
1.9
4.7
JKM079
2.7
2.7
0.3
AZX023
2.0
2.1
4.8
AZX095
1.9
1.9
0.9
AZX063
1.6
1.7
5.0
AZX055
2.2
2.3
1.4
AZX089
1.6
1.8
8.5
AZX077
2.4
2.3
4.1
JKM046
1.2
1.4
12.6
AZX033
2.0
2.1
5.7
XAL069
1.4
1.6
24.9
XAL089
2.2
2.2
6.7
AZX003
1.3
1.7
36.4
Mean
2.2
2.1
4.1
Mean
1.7
1.7
2.7
Median
2.2
2.1
2.0
Median
1.6
1.7
2.2
SD
0.3
0.2
8.5
SD
0.3
0.3
12.1
RSD
13.3
10.2
NA
RSD
19.5
17.6
NA
Uncertainty estimates for measures in Na are 1.5 % and in K are 2.5 %. So the maximum instrumental
uncertainty over two assays is 3.0 % for Na and 5.0 % for K. These uncertainty ranges assume that the
sample irradiated in both assays is of identical composition, which is not the case here since we used a
different piece of the same sherd originally submitted. This might have added and unknown sampling error
to the instrumental uncertainty. Numbers in bold indicate deviations that are greater than what instrumental
error alone can explain, but greater deviances may be explained by slightly different compositions of the
piece of the sherd examined
ceramics are higher in sodium than other clays in the Basin. Finally, the small sample
of raw clays analyzed from Xaltocan indicates that not all depositional contexts on the
site are of high salinity. These data disprove the hypothesis that the elevated
sodium/potassium levels among Xaltocan ceramics resulted from post-production
use or diagenesis after burial.
Most likely, the elevated sodium and potassium resulted from the salty materials
that the potters selected and/or their behavior of mixing pastes with saline water.
Although the aplastic fraction of the ceramics is high in sodium (but not potassium),
this is the case for ceramics throughout the Basin. The composition of the clay
fraction of Xaltocan ceramics is very similar to the raw sediments sampled by
Millhauser at San Bartolom Salinas (see Levels of Sodium and Potassium in the
Clay and Temper Fraction of the Ceramic Paste). Many sediments on the outer
shoreline display the same composition, and Xaltocan potters likely used the salty
clays on the outer shores of the lake. People might have combined clay procurement
with salt production, as this was the preferred location to wash salt brine from soils. In
addition to using salt-laden clay potters might have mixed the paste with saline
waters.
Pottery Trade from Xaltocan to Other Settlements in the Basin of Mexico

Confident that the Xaltocan reference groups reflect the chemical fingerprint of its
potters rather than post-production chemical alterations, we now examine exchange
of the Xaltocan pottery. During the Early Aztec, Late Aztec, and Colonial periods, it
is likely that the population of Xaltocan exported ceramics to the destinations listed in
Table 6. Potters at other sites in the northern Basin subregion probably produced the
Formative, Classic, Epiclassic, and Early Postclassic ceramics. The island of
Xaltocan was not constructed until the Epiclassic, and the site had little regional
influence until the Early Aztec, which overlaps with the end of the Early Postclassic.
While we include pre-Aztec data in Table 6, we do not summarize them below.
To identify possible trade wares, we calculated Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of membership in the seven major Basin groups. Ceramics with more than
1 % probability of belonging to either Xaltocan chemical group (1a or 1b) and more
than twice the probability of belonging to any other reference group were initially
included as potential trade wares. These specimens were then examined through
canonical discriminant analysis and inspection of elemental concentrations relative to
the Xaltocan reference groups to eliminate members that were not a good fit. The end
result is 160 potential exports from the Northern Basin to other subregions of the
Basin of Mexico (see Table 6). About 65 % of these had been assigned to other
sources previously: including Cuauhtitlan, Zumpango, Tenochtitlan, and several
others in minor proportions. The Cuauhtitlan reference group resembles the chemistry
of Xaltocan 1a, but they separate based on certain elemental axes (see Table 1).
Garraty (2006) and Crider (2011) defined the Zumpango reference group. The site is
within proximity to sediments that must be very similar to those used at Xaltocan.
While Xaltocan likely supported a market that serviced the northern Basin, we cannot
rule out the possibility that Xaltocan-like ceramics found in the Zumpango region
were locally produced.8
Exports from the Lake Xaltocan region cover a 3,000-year time frame from the
Formative through Colonial periods. Only 3 % of these potential exports were
assigned to the Xaltocan 1b subgroup. These five specimens are among the only
ceramics recovered outside the site of Xaltocan that fit the Xaltocan 1b chemical
signature. The remainder was placed into Xaltocan 1a, which was distributed in
minor proportions over much of the Basin of Mexico. For the discussion below, it
8
These were almost all Early Postclassic wares that are rare or absent at the site of Xaltocan itself.
Stoner et al.
Table 6 Ceramics identified as potential exports from Xaltocan sorted according to time period and region
Period/site of archaeological
recovery
Basin
total
Basin subregion of archaeological recovery

East North Northeast Northwest South West Total
Formative (BCE 1500100 CE)
203
Cuanalan
El Terremote
Classic (100650 CE)
2
436
Azcapotzalco
Cerro Portezuelo
San Marcos
1 (1)
Teotihuacan
(1)
Epiclassic (650900 CE)
661
Azcapotzalco
Ixtapalapa
1
2 (1)
Xico
Zumpango Region
755
1
2
Teotihuacan
Mazapan Early Postclassic

(8501000 CE)
Cerro Portezuelo
Zumpango Region
7
1
Tollan Early Postclassic

(10001100 CE)
Cerro Portezuelo
25
1
7
43
4
Chiconautla
Chimalhuacan
Coacalco
San Pedro Chicoloapan
Teotihuacan
Xometla
(1)
Zumpango Region
2
1
24 (1)
723
Cerro Portezuelo
25
10
19
Chiconautla
10
Cuauhtitlan
10
6
Xochimilco
Cerro Portezuelo
Chalco Region
Late Aztec (13501521 CE)
Cerro Portezuelo
6
1
1,372
1
1
1
1
Teotihuacan
Early Aztec (11001350 CE)
8
1
Los Reyes
Early Postclassic (General)
2
1
11
1
31
55
1

Table 6 (continued)
Period/site of archaeological
recovery
Basin
total
Basin subregion of archaeological recovery

East North Northeast Northwest South West Total
Chalco
Chiconautla
Cuauhtitlan
9
4
Culhuacan
Ixtapalapa
Maquixco Arriba
Nonoalco
San Miguel
Tenochtitlan
17
17
Ticoman
Tola
Zacatenco
Zumpango Region
Colonial (1521? CE)
Acolman
12
5
1
Cuauhtitlan
1
2
Temascalapa
Mexico City (Tenochtitlan)

Zumpango Region
Total
5
398
40
160
2
23
34
2
35
14
All totals consist of those ceramics found outside Xaltocan that possess either Xaltocan 1a or Xaltocan 1b
paste recipes. All data are for membership in Xaltocan 1a, except those in parentheses denote membership
in Xaltocan 1b
is important to remember that settlements surrounding the eastern and northern shores
of Lake Xaltocan (e.g., Zumpango, Citlaltepec, Tultepec) may have had access to the
same materials as Xaltocan, but none figure as prominently as Xaltocan in ethnohistorical discussions of the regions economy.
The Early Aztec period (9001350 CE) is represented by Aztec I and Aztec II
Black-on-Orange ceramics, which are defined based on decorative styles. At
Xaltocan, Aztec I ceramics appear by 900 CE, which covers the duration of the
Early Postclassic. By 1240 CE, Aztec II ceramics appear alongside Aztec I, but
household participation in each style was not uniform across the site. Early Aztec
ceramics disappear by 1350 CE and are replaced by Aztec III Black-on-Orange
(Overholtzer 2012, pp. 120123). Brumfiel and Hodge (1996, p. 431; see also
Hodge and Neff 2005, p. 333) argue that potters at Xaltocan manufactured Aztec
I serving wares, but they noted that larger sample sizes were needed to confirm the
argument. We can confirm that both Aztec Black-on-Orange and Red decorated
serving wares fit securely within the Xaltocan chemical groups. In fact, many of
these decorated types resemble the Xaltocan 1b paste recipe that is found almost
exclusively at Xaltocan.
Stoner et al.
In addition to producing decorated Aztec serving wares locally, Xaltocamecas also

consumed pottery produced from other locations. Aztec I ceramics came to Xaltocan
from a variety of other places, mostly from the southern Basin. However, trade of
Aztec II ceramics contracts to include only the Cuauhtitlan-controlled region to the
west of Lake Xaltocan. These two sites were engaged in a long war that led to the
eventual conquest of Xaltocan by Cuauhtitlan in 1395 CE. It would be counterintuitive to suggest that the war intensified economic interactions, but a similar situation
has recently been noted for the Middle Postclassic by Nichols et al. (2009). Brumfiel
and Hodge (1996) and Hodge and Neff (2005) argue that Xaltocamecas did not
produce Aztec II Black-on-Orange because the small sample analyzed previously by
NAA did not yield the distinctive chemical signature of locally produced Aztec I
pottery. It is likely that Aztec II ceramics were imported at the same time that Aztec I
ceramics were produced at Xaltocan.
Because the potential exports are either Plain Orange undecorated wares or nondiagnostic Aztec Black-on-Red (and three figurines) and we lack detailed chronological
context for the export samples, we cannot determine a more precise chronology for the
export activity from the Xaltocan region (Table 6 and Fig. 13). We generally refer to
trade during the Early Aztec, combining Aztec I and Aztec II ceramics. Xaltocan pottery
exports comprise 2.6 % of the Early Aztec database. They reached only two sites among
the currently available sample. The first is Chiconautla, which likely served as a hub of
Fig. 13 Maps depicting the distribution of Xaltocan-produced ceramics during the Early Aztec, Late
Aztec, and Colonial periods. Site symbols are size graded for quantity of Xaltocan imports and hypothetical
patterns of interaction are demarcated with solid arrow lines
trade focused on the lakes, and it saw increased trade activity during the Early Aztec
(Nichols et al. 2009, p. 23). The other is Cuauhtitlan. Between 1250 and 1395 CE,
endemic warfare between Cuauhtitlan and Xaltocan plagued the region (Anales de
Cuauhtitlan 1992, pp. 5861; Morehart 2010, p. 138; Overholtzer 2012, pp. 8283),
but these tensions did not negatively affect trade (see above). Early Aztec ceramics
represent preconquest times at Xaltocan. The data presented here, combined with
previous determinations of import from the Cuauhtitlan region, suggest symmetrical
exchange relationships between Xaltocan and the Cuauhtitlan region.
The Late Aztec period (13501520 CE) is marked by Aztec III Black-on-Orange
ceramics, but also some transitional Aztec IIIIV wares. Aztec III replaces earlier
styles by 1350 CE. At Xaltocan, Aztec III Black-on-Orange ceramics mostly resemble paste recipes employed at Tenochtitlan, the most powerful capital in the Aztec
Triple Alliance. Because Aztec III ceramics appear at Xaltocan almost 80 years prior
to their integration into the Aztec Empire, it is unknown whether these imports predate or post-date the formation of the Triple Alliance. Blanton (1996, pp. 7172)
argues that Xaltocan lost its marketplace due to political subjugation by this time.
None of the earlier analyses from Xaltocan recognized Aztec III Black-on-Orange
ware as being produced locally, but Red wares and Plain Orange wares were among
its products (Garraty 2006).
Export activity from Xaltocan is 4 % of the Basin sample for the Late Aztec phase.
The direction of export shifts toward the southern half of the Basin (see Table 6 and
Fig. 13). The types of ceramics exported include Plain Orange (n=17), figurines
(n=13), and Polychromes (n=9). Aztec III Black-on-Orange (n=4) and Aztec Red
(n=3) wares were also exported in minor quantities. The export of Aztec III Black-onOrange contradicts the previous assertions that this ware was not produced in
Xaltocan (Hodge and Neff 2005). Also among the Xaltocan exports are incense
burners (n=3), one pipe, and one whistle. The highest proportion of these goods
was destined for the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan.
Xaltocan appears on the tribute list for both Texcoco and Tenochtitlan. We do not
favor tribute as the predominant method of Xaltocan pottery export to the capital for the
several reasons. First, Hodge et al. (1993, p. 132) note that ceramics were given as
tribute, but not specifically the Aztec Black-on-Orange ware. Second, not a single
potential Xaltocan pottery export appears at Texcoco (the second most powerful city
in the Triple Alliance and a documented receiver of Xaltocan tribute). Only one
specimen was potentially traded to the entire eastern Basin (Texcocos territory).
Hodge and Neff (2005) also highlight the conspicuous absence of Texcoco-made pottery
at Xaltocan (p. 339). Nichols et al. (2009, pp. 2425) find the same at Chiconautla,
though some plain pottery found there did come from Texcoco (Garraty 2006). Xaltocan
pottery exports and imports, therefore, followed an exclusive northsouth trade route,
connecting the site either directly to Tenochtitlan and/or through Chiconautla. This
implicates a symmetrical pattern of market interaction instead of, or in addition to, the
one-sided flow of tribute payments.
The decreased importance of Xaltocans own marketplace during this period
(Blanton 1996, pp. 7172) would have forced potters to find another market to trade
their wares. The Tlatelolco marketplace situated adjacent to the Aztec capital at
Tenochtitlan was the largest in the region. Xaltocamecas may not have physically
attended the market in the capital, but their products followed a southern course most
Stoner et al.
likely via canoe transport on the lakes. Lending support to this hypothesis is the
substantial number of Xaltocan 1a pots at Chiconautla. During the Late Aztec phase,
Chiconautla saw a great increase in Aztec III Black-on-Orange pottery imports from
Tenochtitlan (Nichols et al. 2009, pp. 2425), much like at Xaltocan (Hodge and Neff
2005, p. 337). Xaltocan and Tenochtitlan may have interacted through Chiconautla
merchants. Whether trade between the Aztec capital and Xaltocan was direct or with
an added break-of-bulk point at Chiconautla, the geographic movement of interaction
was essentially the same.
During the Colonial period, Xaltocan produced a significant amount of its own
pottery, but it also imported Majolica ware from Mexico City (formerly
Tenochtitlan) (Rodrguez-Alegra et al., under review). The proportion of potential Xaltocan-region exports is 3 % of the period database. Among its principal
exports are Plain Orange and Red wares (see Table 6 and Fig. 13). Mexico City
is the primary recipient of exported ceramics from Xaltocan (n=6). All of the
Red wares (n=4) traded from Xaltocan went there. All other potential exports
went to the northern half of the Basin. This pattern suggests two discreet spheres
of interaction. Xaltocan likely participated in a restricted market system that
covered only the northern Basin subregion. The products of Xaltocan potters
also made their way to Mexico City. It is very unlikely that indigenous Red
Wares were sent to the capital as tribute.
This discussion of trade and tribute is not a comprehensive consideration of the
economic role of Xaltocan across time. Such a task is reserved for more thorough
treatment elsewhere. It does exemplify the advantage of defining Xaltocan reference
groups for ceramic compositional studies.
Conclusions
All artifactual, chemical, and experimental data discussed in this paper point to
the validity of using Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b as reference groups for
chemical provenance studies. We determined that Xaltocan ceramics were
elevated in sodium/potassium prior to firing. This pattern could be explained
either by geological variability in resource availability or the behavior of potters
in the selection or mixing of materials. In either case, the newly created
Xaltocan 1a and Xaltocan 1b reference groups reflect meaningful cultural and
natural variation representative of the potters living in the Xaltocan region.
Further differentiation of cultural and natural contributions of pottery chemistry
should become clearer with future work.
This study has great importance for determining the role of Xaltocan in the pottery
economy of the Basin. Colonial documents selectively mention a small number of
communities that were known as producers of ceramics in the Colonial period, including
Huitzilopochco, Texcoco, Xochimilco, Azcapotzalco, and Cuauhtitlan (Gibson 1964, p.
350). Potters from these communities distributed their wares to places all over the Basin
(Hodge et al. 1993). Chemical characterization studies have helped identify other
ceramic production centers, including the Texcoco region, Ixtapalapa, Chalco (Garraty
2006; Hodge et al. 1993), Tenochtitlan, and Teotihuacan (Hodge and Neff 2005; Hodge
et al. 1992; Nichols et al. 2002). Pottery-producing towns mentioned in the historical
sources do not correspond closely to production centers identified archaeologically,

underscoring the value of combining historical, archaeological, and chemical evidence
to build a more complex picture of pottery production and exchange in central Mexico.
We build upon these previous studies by chemically identifying Xaltocan as a pottery
production center.
Using the Xaltocan chemical reference groups, we identify probable patterns of
pottery export from the region. Patterns of Xaltocan export generally form the reciprocal
pattern with regards to the geographic relationships previously identified for the import
of ceramics to the site (Brumfiel and Hodge 1996; Hodge and Neff 2005; Nichols et al.
2002). While the major patterns of interaction closely follow political relationships, it
now appears as though pottery exchange between Xaltocan and its political superiors
was symmetrical rather than one-sided. We suggest that the movement of pottery to and
from Xaltocan in the Early Aztec, Late Aztec, and Colonial periods involved markets
that shifted geographically over time. The disappearance of Xaltocans own
market by the end of the Early Aztec may have forced its potters to market their wares
in Tenochtitlan and Mexico City during the Late Aztec and Colonial periods
(respectively). These data also potentially support the reconstruction of Chiconautla as
a trade intermediary between Xaltocan and Tenochtitlan (see Nichols et al. 2009).
The study also elucidates important behaviors that affect pottery chemistry. We
demonstrate that potters in the Xaltocan area selected salt-laden clays, saline water, or
both to manufacture their pottery. Potters at Xaltocan may not have consciously selected
saline water over freshwater, or salty clays over non-salty clays such as in the Yucatn.
Choice of these materials may simply reflect use of resources close at hand. However, if
salt water or salty clays were used in the pottery production process anywhere in the
Basin of Mexico, Xaltocan was the only place to do so consistently over time. This
unique practice forms an important part of the chemical fingerprints of Xaltocan potters.
This study also makes a significant methodological contribution. We add to a diverse
set of experimental tools designed to explain chemical variation in ceramic
provenance studies (see Blackman and Bishop 2007; Boulanger et al. 2012; Buxeda i
Garrigos 1999; Buxeda i Garrigos et al. 2002; Golitko et al. 2012; Neff et al. 1988,
1989, 2003; Schwedt and Mommsen 2007; Schwedt et al. 2004; Stoner et al. 2008). As
Neff (2000) and Neff et al. (2003) have repeatedly argued, such evaluations should be
standard in all compositional research. It is not enough, however, to rely on generalizations about pottery perturbation. Issues of diagenesis have figured prominently in some
recent debates, and the approach presented here provides a method to evaluate between
potting behaviors and post-depositional chemical alteration.
Acknowledgments This research was made possible, in part, through NSF grants #1110793 and
#0922374 awarded to the University of Missouri Research Reactor. Additionally, NSF grant #1035319,
awarded to John K. Millhauser. Millhauser, funded the initial analysis that led to the redefinition of the
Xaltocan ceramic sample into new reference groups. Assistance with preparing samples was provided by
Timothy Ferguson, Cody Roush, and Erin Gillespie. We also wish to thank researchers who have submitted
samples from Xaltocan over the years, including the late Elizabeth Brumfiel, the late Mary Hodge, Deborah
Nichols, Destiny Crider, Christopher Garraty, and Kristen De Lucia. Their initiative has made the Basin of
Mexico one of the most thoroughly researched regions through NAA. Discussions with a number of other
colleagues, including Jeffrey Ferguson, Matthew Boulanger, and Jaume Buxeda, also helped to facilitate
the design of this research or to point out examples in the literature that have conducted similar experiments. James Guthrie helped to run a subsample of saline solution and leached liquids through the ICP
MS. Barry Higgins was consulted several times during the operation of the LAICPMS.
Stoner et al.
References
Abbott, D. R. (2008). The process, location, and history of Hohokam Buff ware production: some
experimental and analytical results. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(2), 388397.
Archiga Crdoba, E. (2004). El desage del Valle de Mxico, siglos XVI-XXI: Una historia paradjica.
Arqueologa Mexicana, 12(68), 6065.
Arnold, D. E. (1971). Ethnomineralogy of Ticul, Yucatan potters: etics and emics. American Antiquity,
36(1), 2040.
Arnold, D.E. (1985). Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, P. J., III. (1991). Domestic ceramic production and spatial organization: a Mexican case study in
ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., & Bishop, R. L. (1991). Compositional analysis and sources of pottery: an
ethnoarchaeological approach. American Anthropologist, 93(1), 7090.
Bearat, H., Dufournier, D., Nguyen, N., & Raveau, B. (1989). Influence de NaCl Sur la Couleur et la Composition
Chimique des Pates Ceramiques Calcaires au Cours de Leur Cuisson. Revue d'Archometrie, 13, 4353.
Bishop, R. L. (1980). Aspects of ceramic compositional modeling. In R. E. Fry (Ed.), Models and methods
in regional exchange (pp. 4765). Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Bishop, R. L., Rands, R. L., & Holley, G. R. (1982). Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological
perspective. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (Vol. 5, pp. 275
330). New York: Academic.
Blackman, M. J., & Bishop, R. L. (2007). The SmithsonianNIST partnership: the application of instrumental neutron activation analysis to archaeology. Archaeometry, 49(2), 321341.
Blanton, R. E. (1996). The Basin of Mexico market system and the growth of empire. In M. E. Smith & F.
F. Berdan (Eds.), Aztec imperial strategies. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Bonifay, M. (2004). tudes sur la Cramique Romaine Tardive d'Afrique. Oxford: BAR-IS.
Boulanger, M.T., Fehrenbach, S., & Glascock, M.D. (2012). Experimental evaluation of sampleextraction methods and potential for contamination in ceramic specimens. Archaeometry.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00706.x
Bourdieu. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Brumfiel, E. M. (1991). Tribute and commerce in imperial cities: the case of Xaltocan, Mexico. In H. J. M.
Claessen, P. van de Velde (Eds.), Early state economics (pp. 177198). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Brumfiel, E. M. (2005a). Conclusions. In E. M. Brumfiel (Ed.), Production and power at Postclassic
Xaltocan (pp. 349368). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Brumfiel, E. M. (Ed.). (2005b). Production and power at Postclassic Xaltocan. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh.
Brumfiel, E. M., & Hodge, M. D. (1996). Interaction in the Basin of Mexico: the case of Postclassic Xaltocan.
In A. Guadalupe Mastache de Escobar (Ed.), Arqueologa Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T.
Sanders (pp. 417437). Mxico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Arqueologa Mexicana.
Burton, J. H., & Simon, A. W. (1993). Acid extraction as a simple and inexpensive method for compositional characterization of archaeological ceramics. American Antiquity, 58(1), 4559.
Buxeda i Garrigos, J. (1999). Alteration and contamination of archaeological ceramics: the pertubation
problem. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(3), 295313.
Buxeda i Garrigos, J., Mommsen, H., & Tsolakidou, A. (2002). Alterations of Na, K and Rb concentrations in
Mycenaean pottery and a proposed explanation using X-ray diffraction. Archaeometry, 44(2), 187198.
Carpenter, A. J., & Feinman, G. M. (1999). The effects of behaviour on ceramic composition: implications
for the definition of production locations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(7), 783796.
Carrasco, P. (1999). The Tenochca Empire of Ancient Mexico: the Triple Alliance of Tenochtitln, Tetzcoco,
and Tlacopan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Chimonas, S. (2005). Occupational history of Prehispanic Xaltocan. In E. M. Brumfiel (Ed.), Production
and power at Postclassic Xaltocan (pp. 169194). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Corts, H. (1970). Cartas de Relacin. Mxico: Porra.
Crider, D. L. (2011). Epiclassic and Early Postclassic Interaction in Central Mexico as evidenced by
decorated pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Croissier, M. M. (2007). The Zapotec presence at Teotihuacan, Mexico: political ethnicity and domestic
identity. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Day, P. M., & Kilikoglou, V. (2001). Analysis of ceramics from the kiln. Hesperia Supplement, 30, 111133.

Day, P. M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A., & Kilikoglou, V. (1999). Group therapy in Crete: a comparison
between analyses by NAA and thin section petrography of Early Minoan pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(8), 10251036.
De Lucia, K. (2011). Domestic economies and regional transition: household production and consumption
in Early Postclassic Mexico. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Cuomo di Caprio, N. (1991). Ceramiche Invetriate Medievali di Agrigento e Delia: Analisi stereoscopica,
mineralogico-petrografica e SEM/EDS. In S. Scuto (Ed.), L'eta di Federico II Nella Sicilia Centro
Meridionale (pp. 171183). Rome: Atti Delle Giomate di Studio.
Dussubieux, L., Golitko, M., Williams, P. R., & Speakman, R. J. (2007). Laser ablation-inductively coupled
plasma-mass spectrometry analysis applied to the characterization of Peruvian Wari ceramics. In M. D.
Glascock, R. J. Speakman, & R. S. Popelka-Filcoff (Eds.), Archaeological chemistry: analytical
techniques and archaeological interpretation (ACS Symposium Series No. 968) (pp. 349363). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Flores, T. (1918). El tequesquite del Lago de Texcoco. Mxico: Departamento de Talleres Graficos de la
Secretaria de Fomento.
Frederick, C. D., Winsborough, B., & Popper, V. S. (2005). Geoarchaeological Investigations in the
Northern Basin of Mexico. In E. M. Brumfiel (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan
(pp. 71116). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Galvn Moreno, J. (1945). Cristalizacin fraccionada por evaporacin solar de las aguas del lago de
Texcoco. Mxico: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico.
Garraty, C. P. (2006). Aztec Teotihuacan: political processes at a Postclassic and early Colonial city-state in
the Basin of Mexico. Latin American Antiquity, 17(4), 363387.
Garraty, C. P. (2007). Intercambio de mercado y consolidacin en el corazn del Imperio Azteca. Revista
Espaola de Antropologa Americana, 37(2), 139164.
Gibson, C. (1964). The Aztecs under Spanish rule. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: action, structure, and contradiction in social
analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Glascock, M. D. (1992). Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation
analysis and multivariate statistics. In H. Neff (Ed.), Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in
archaeology (pp. 1126). Madison: Prehistory.
Golitko, M., Dudgeon, J. V., Neff, H., & Terrell, J. E. (2012). Identification of post-depositional
chemical alteration of ceramics from the north coast of New Guinea (Sandaun Province) by time
of flightlaser ablationinductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry (TOPFLAICPMS).
Archaeometry, 54(1), 80100.
Gosselain, O. P. (1992). Bonfire of the enquiries: pottery firing temperatures in archaeologywhat for?
Journal of Archaeological Science, 19(3), 243259.
Gosselain, O. P. (2000). Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 7(3), 187217.
Gratuze, B., Blet-Lemarquand, M., & Barrandon, J.-N. (2001). Mass spectrometry with laser sampling: a
new tool to characterize archaeological materials. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry,
247(3), 645656.
Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Basic methods of conserving underwater archaeological material culture. Manuscript on file at the Department of Anthropology, Nautical Archaeology Program, Texas A&M
University, College Station.
Hassig, R. (2006). Mexico and the Spanish conquest (2nd ed.). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hicks, F. (1994). Xaltocan under Mexica Domination. In Caciques and their people: a volume in honor of
Ronald Spores (Vol. 89, pp. 6785). Ann Arbor: Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan
Hodge, M. G., & Neff, H. (2005). Xaltocan in the economy of the Basin of Mexico: a view from ceramic
tradewares. In E. M. Brumfiel (Ed.), Production and power at Postclassic Xaltocan (pp. 320348). Mexico,
D.F.: INAH.
Hodge, M.G., Blackman, M.J., Minc, L.D., & Neff, H. (1992). Compositional perspective on ceramic
production in the Aztec empire. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, 203
220
Hodge, M. G., Blackman, M. J., Mine, L. D., & Neff, H. (1993). Black-on-orange ceramic production in
the Aztec empire's heartland. Latin American Antiquity, 4(2), 130157.
Kilikoglou, V., Maniatis, Y., & Grimanis, A. P. (1988). The effect of purification and firing of clays on trace
element provenance studies. Archaeometry, 30(1), 3746.
Stoner et al.
Kolb, C. C. (1988). Cultural ecology of Classic Teotihuacan Period Copoid ceramics. In Pot for all reasons:
ceramic ecology revisited (pp. 147197). Philadelphia: Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University
Larson, D. O., Sakai, S., & Neff, H. (2005). LAICPMS as a bulk chemical characterization technique:
comparison of LAICPMS, MDICPMS, and INAA data on Virgin Branch Azasazi ceramics. In R.
J. Speakman & H. Neff (Eds.), Laser ablation ICPMS in archaeological research (pp. 94103).
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Lemonnier, P. (1992). Elements for an anthropology of technology. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan.
Livingstone-Smith, A. (2000). Bonfire II: the return of pottery firing temperatures. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 9911003.
Longacre, W. A., Xia, J., & Yang, T. (2000). I want to buy a black pot. Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory, 7(4), 273293.
Mathes, W. M. (1970). To save a city: the Desaque of Mexico-Huehuetoca, 1607. The Americas, 26(4), 419438.
Matson, F. P. (1971). A study of temperatures used in firing ancient Mesopotamian pottery. In R. H. Brill
(Ed.), Science and archaeology (pp. 6579). Cambridge: MIT.
Millhauser, J. K. (2012). Saltmaking, craft, and community at Late Postclassic and Early Colonial San
Bartolome Salinas, Mexico. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Millhauser, J. K., Rodrguez-Alegra, E., & Glascock, M. D. (2011). Testing the accuracy of portable X-ray
fluorescence to study Aztec and Colonial obsidian supply at Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(11), 31413152. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.018.
Minc, L.D. (1994). Political economy and market economy under Aztec rule: a regional perspective based
on decorated ceramic production and distribution systems in the valley of Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Mitchem, J. M. (1982). Experiments in the manufacturing technology of Pasco series ceramics from
peninsular Florida. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 39th annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Memphis, Tennessee.
Montoya Riviero, M.C. (1999). Del desage del Valle de Mxico al drenaje profundo. Mxico Desconocido, 30.
Morehart, C. T. (2010). The archaeology of farmscapes: production, place, and the materiality of
landscape at Xaltocan, Mexico. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Morehart, C. T., & Eisenberg, D. T. A. (2010). Prosperity, power, and change: modeling maize at
Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 29, 94112.
Neff, H. (2000). Neutron activation analysis for provenance determination in archaeology. In E. C. a. G.
Spoto (Ed.), Modern analytical methods in art and archaeology (pp. 81134). New York: Wiley.
Neff, H. (2012). Comment: Chemical and mineralogical approaches to ceramic provenance determination.
Neff, H., Bishop, R. L., & Sayre, E. V. (1988). Simulation approach to the problem of tempering in
compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15(2), 159172.
Neff, H., Sayre, E. V., & Bishop, R. L. (1989). More observations on the problem of tempering in
compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16(1), 5769.
Neff, H., Cogswell, J. W., & Ross, L. M. J. (2003). Supplementing bulk chemistry in archaeological ceramic
provenance investigations. In L. van Zelst (Ed.), Patterns and process: a festschrift in honor of Dr. Edward
V. Sayre (pp. 201226). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education.
Nichols, D. L., Brumfiel, E. M., Neff, H., Hodge, M., Charlton, T. H., & Glascock, M. D. (2002). Neutrons,
markets, cities, and empires: a 1000-year perspective on ceramic production and distribution in the
Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21(1), 2582.
Nichols, D. L., Elson, C., Cecil, L. G., Neivens de Estrada, N., Glascock, M. D., & Mikkelsen, P. (2009).
Chiconautla, Mexico: a crossroads of Aztec trade and politics. Latin American Antiquity, 20(3), 443472.
Overholtzer, L. (2012). Empires and everyday material practices: a household archaeology of Aztec and
Spanish imperialism at Xaltocan, Mexico. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Overholtzer, L., & Stoner, W. D. (2011). Merging the social and the material: life histories of ancient
mementos from central Mexico. Journal of Social Archaeology, 11(2).
Palerm, A. (1973). Obras hidrulicas prehispnicas en el sistema lacustre del valle de Mxico. Mxico,
D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa.
Parsons, J. R. (2001). The Last Saltmakers of Nexquipayac, Mexico: An Archaeological Ethnography. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Peters, J. M. (2002). A compositional analysis of plainwares from Xaltocan, Mexico. Lux Fiat, 1, 149157.
Picon, M. (1991). quelques observations complementaires sur les alterations de composition des
ceramiques au cours du temps: Cas de quelques alcalins et alcalino-terreux. Revue d'Archometrie,
15, 117122.

Pool, C. A. (1990). Ceramic production, resource procurement, and exchange at Matacapan, Veracruz,
Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans.
Pool, C. A. (2000). Why a kiln? Firing technology in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz (Mexico).
Reina, R. E., & Hill, R. M. (1974). The traditional pottery of Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rice, P. M. (2005). Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rodrguez-Alegra, E. (2008a). De la Edad de Piedra a la Edad de ms Piedra. Cuadernos de Arqueologa
Mediterrnea, XVII, 1530.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E. (2008b). Narratives of conquest, colonialism, and cutting-edge technology. American Anthropologist, 110(1), 3341.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E. (2010). Incumbents and challengers: indigenous politics and the adoption of Spanish
material culture in colonial Xaltocan, Mexico. Historical Archaeology, 44(2), 5171.
Rye, O. S. (1976). Keeping your temper under control. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania,
XI(2), 106137.
Rye, O. S. (1981). Pottery technology: principles and reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum.
Rye, O. S., & Evans, C. (1976). Traditional pottery techniques of Pakistan: field and laboratory studies.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Sanders, W. T., Parsons, J., & Santley, R. S. (1979). The Basin of Mexico: ecological processes in the
evolution of civilization. New York: Academic.
Sayre, E. V., & Harbottle, G. (1979). The analysis by neutron activation of archaeological ceramics related to
Teotihuacan: local wares and trade sherds. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Informal Report C-2250.
Sayre, E. V., Dodson, R. W., & Burr Thompson, D. (1957). Neutron activation study of Mediterranean
potsherds. American Journal of Archaeology, 61(1), 3541.
Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1987). Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.
Current Anthropology, 28(5), 595622.
Schiffer, M. B., & Skibo, J. M. (1997). The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity, 62, 2750.
Schwedt, A., & Mommsen, H. (2004). Clay paste mixtures identified by neutron activation analysis in
pottery of a Roman workshop in Bonn, Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(9), 1251
1258.
Schwedt, A., & Mommsen, H. (2007). On the influence of drying and firing of clay on the formation of
trace element concentration profiles within pottery. Archaeometry, 49(3), 495509.
Schwedt, A., Mommsen, H., & Zacharias, N. (2004). Post-depositional elemental alterations in pottery:
neutron activation analyses of surface and core samples. Archaeometry, 46(1), 85101.
Sillar, B. (2000). The challenge of [technological choices] for materials science approaches in archaeology.
Archaeometry, 42, 220.
Sillar, B., & Tite, M. S. (2000). The challenge of 'technological choices' for materials science approaches in
archaeology. Archaeometry, 42(1), 220.
Speakman, R. J., & Neff, H. (2005). The application of laser ablation ICPMS to the study of archaeological materialsan introduction. In R. J. Speakman & H. Neff (Eds.), Laser ablation ICPMS in
archaeological research (pp. 115). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Stark, M. T. (Ed.). (1998). The archaeology of social boundaries. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Stark, M. T., Bishop, R. L., & Miksa, E. J. (2000). Ceramic technology and social boundaries: cultural practices
in Kalinga clay selection and use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4), 295331.
Stoner, W. D., & Glascock, M. D. (2012). The forest or the trees? Behavioral and methodological
considerations for geochemical characterization of heavily-tempered ceramic pastes using NAA and
LAICPMS. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8), 26682683.
Stoner, W. D., Pool, C. A., Neff, H., & Glascock, M. D. (2008). Exchange of coarse orange pottery in the
Middle Classic Tuxtla Mountains, Southern Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science,
35(5), 14121426.
Tsolakidou, A., Kilikoglou, V., Kiriatzi, E., & Day, P. M. (2002). Investigating petrological and
chemical groupings of early Minoan cooking vessels. In V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein, & Y. Maniatis
(Eds.), Modern trends in scientific studies on ancient ceramics. BAR International Series 1011 (pp.
1933). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Stoner Et Al 2013-Libre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stoner Et Al 2013-Libre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Archaeol Method Theory

Taken with a Grain of Salt: Experimentation

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Neutron activation analysis (NAA) of ceramics from Xaltocan (n=651)

different salinities and fired to different temperatures, (3) leaching experiments of

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations for Ceramic Compositional

Taken with a Grain of Salt

observes, resting ones arguments on presumptions about weathering with no supporting

The Role of Salt and Saline Water in Pottery Studies

Xaltocan and Its Environs

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Experimenting with Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Table 3 Comparison of pottery

Fig. 10 Schematic of the salt experiment

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Table 4 Elemental means (in

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

depositional saline saturation of ceramics can easily be reversed by soaking in

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Pottery Trade from Xaltocan to Other Settlements in the Basin of Mexico

Basin subregion of archaeological recovery

Formative (BCE 1500100 CE)

Epiclassic (650900 CE)

Mazapan Early Postclassic

Tollan Early Postclassic

San Pedro Chicoloapan

Late Aztec (13501521 CE)

Early Aztec (11001350 CE)

Early Postclassic (General)

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Basin subregion of archaeological recovery

Mexico City (Tenochtitlan)

In addition to producing decorated Aztec serving wares locally, Xaltocamecas also

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

sources do not correspond closely to production centers identified archaeologically,

Taken with a Grain of Salt

Taken with a Grain of Salt

You might also like