Page 259 - Vol_2_Archaeology of Manila Galleon Seaport Trade

13 Archaeological Distribution of Chinese Porcelain in Mexico 231

presence of Asian porcelains, albeit in tiny quantities, in what are in most of these
cases ranches, hamlets, and haciendas located far from the capital. Porcelains were
expensive and highly prized, and no doubt scarce in the countryside, but yet appear
in both indigenous and non-indigenous households. Probably at rural settlements as
well as at cities, people used material culture to negotiate power and status rela-
tionships like urban elites did.
Notwithstanding the wide spread archaeological distribution of Asian wares in
Mexico, based on the collections from the convent of San Jerónimo in Mexico City,
we must emphasize that late Ming vessels and ornaments are more abundant,
particularly those of the Wanli period and to a lesser extent Tianqi and Chongzhen
period vessels, especially when compared to those of the Qing dynasty.
Considering that in China the commodities made in or traded from New Spain in
general were not desired except for silver, the aforementioned archaeological
materials predate the supposed economic crisis of the seventeenth century, which
according to recent studies implied the investment of this precious metal within the
viceroyalty and the consequent decline in the shipment of silver to Spain as well as
a lower intensity of trade with Asia. Both for San Jerónimo and for collections
already published or that we have studied, at least 50% of the shards correspond to
porcelain dating to the Wanli period and, these archaeological samples illustrate
transformations in the economic processes of the world system (e.g. de Vries 2009).
To some extent, for almost 240 years, Chinese porcelain was a common element
in New Spanish homes, mostly where wealthy people resided. According to the
economic and purchasing power of the families, they were able to acquire good or
poor quality porcelain objects; the !nest distinguished the nobility and the elites,
that is those who in the social pyramid held an honorable place, according to the
canons of a society based on hierarchies (Curiel 2007; Machuca 2012: 95). Asian
objects were common in the residences not only of the elite, but also in the homes
of merchants, rich miners, royal of!cers, and the aristocracy.
In 1572, Henry Hawks, a British merchant who lived in Mexico for 5 years,
reported that porcelain dishes and cups shipped from Manila to Acapulco were
precious and scarce, “so !ne that every man that may have a piece of them, will
give the weight of silver for it” (García-Abásolo 1982: 71). On the scale of prices, if
we compare the cost of a Chinese porcelain object with ceramics made in New
Spain, !rst Asian wares were usually listed in store inventories, probate inventories
and even dowries as valued pieces; based on historical documents, pots made by
indigenous artisans had an insigni!cant cost, while Asian vessels had considerably
higher prices (Bonta de la Pezuela 2008; Castillo Cárdenas 2013; Fournier 1997).
According to the records of imports and exports, during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries the price per box of Spanish majolica was two to three times
more expensive than Puebla majolica, and the price per box of Chinese porcelain
was approximately ten times that of Puebla majolica, while the price per box of
European porcelain, most probably French, was three and a half to nine times more
expensive than Puebla majolica (Fournier 1997: 54). Nevertheless, some members