Glass in India 1023

References

Primary Sources Neugebauer, O. Mathematische Kei1schrift-Texte. I—III.

Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik. Abteilung A: Quellen. 3. Band, erster-dritter “Teil.” Berlin: Springer, 1935, 1935, 1937.

Neugebauer, O. and A. Sachs. Mathematica1 Cuneiform Texts. American Oriental Series, Vol. 29. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1945.

Bruins, E. M. and M. Rutten, Textes mathématiques de Suse. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran, “XXXIV.” Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1961.

Chace, Arnold Buffum, Ludlow Bull, and Henry Parker Manning. The Rhind Mathematica1 Papyrus. Oberlin, Ohio: Mathematical Association of America, 1929.

Struve, W. W. Mathematischer Papyrus des Staat1ichen Museums der Schönen Künste in Moskau. Berlin: Springer, 1930.

Babylonia A thorough but concise presentation of Babylonian mathe-

matics is Friberg, Jöran. “Mathematik”. In Rea11exikon der Assyrio1ogie und Vorderasiatischen Archäo1ogie VII. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 531—85.

Still of value is Vogel, Kurt. Vorgriechische Mathematik. II. Die Mathe-

matik der Baby1onier. (Mathematische Studienhefte, 2). Hannover: Hermann Schroedel/Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1959.

An extensive study of all aspects of Mesopotamian practical mathematics connected to mud and bricks — not least of course volume geometry and brick metrology — is Friberg, Jöran, 2001. “Bricks and Mud in Metro-Mathematical Cuneiform Texts”, pp. 61—154 in Jens Høyrup & Peter Damerow (eds), Changing Views on Ancient Near Eastern Mathematics. (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient, 19). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 2001.

The so far definitive study of the Pythagorean triples in the tablet Plimpton 322 is Robson, Eleanor, “Neither Sherlock Holmes nor Babylon: a Reassessment of Plimpton 322”. Historia Mathematica 28 (2001): 167—206.

Egypt The latest broad presentation and discussion of Egyptian

mathematics remain Clagett, Marshall. Ancient Egyptian Science. A Source Book. Vol III. Ancient Egyptian Mathematics. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, 232. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Socie- ty, 1999. (This work also contains reproductions of the fundamental source editions).

Gillings, Richard J. Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T Press, 1972.

Much information concerning what can be learned about Egyptian geometrical procedures from quarries and buildings can be gained from: Arnold, D. Bui1ding in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1991.

The Egyptian “canonic” system is investigated in: Iversen, Erik. Canon and Proportion in Egyptian Art. 2nd ed. Fully revised in collaboration with Yoshiaki Shibata. Warmin- ster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1975. 1st ed. 1955.

The myths about the secret numbers embedded in the architecture of the Cheops Pyramid are examined in: Herz-

Fischler, Roger, The Shape of the Great Pyramid. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 2000.

The lack of synthesis between theoretical and practical mathematics in classical antiquity and its eventual realization in Medieval Islam is dealt with in: Høyrup, Jens. “The Formation of ‘Islamic Mathematics’. Sources and Conditions.” Science in Context 1 (1987): 281—329.

Glass in India

ALOK KUMA R KANUNGO

Development of Glass in India Indian Glass G Foreign travel accounts like Pliny’s Natura1is Historia (73—77 AD; translated by Bostock and Riley as The Natura1 History of P1iny in 1890), Perip1us Maris Erythraei (considered to be earlier than Natura1is Historia; translated by Schoff as Perip1us of the Erythrean Sea in 1912) and Geography of Strabo (17—23 AD; translated by Jones and cited in Majumdar 1960: 279, 394) considered Indian glass to be of high quality as it was made of pounded quartz rather than silica. It has long been suggested that this may have been the reason behind the high silica content in ancient Indian glass (Stern 1987: 28). In Gudur (Andhra Pradesh), the government glass factory till recently produced glass from crystal. Dr. Brill of the Corning Museum believes that glassmakers throughout Iran, Mesopotamia, and central Asia (cited in Stern 1987: 28) routinely used pebbles instead of sand as the source of silica. In fact, in a Herat (Afghanistan) factory in 1977, the glassmakers still used pebbles collected in the riverbed as their source of silica.

Although glass was commonly made in the west Asian Bronze Age, there is some controversy con- cerning its manufacture in the Indus valley civilization (Glover and Henderson 1994). Some scholars have tried to trace the origin of Indian glass to the Harappan civilization on the basis of finding glazed pottery and quartz beads. Harappans made glazed pottery, which is ceramic with a thin layer of glass on the surface (Tite et al. 1983). Though no true glass has been found in India from the Protohistoric periods at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, the second millennium BCE saw its people able to mould and fuse excellent articles of faience and glazing their quartz beads with frit, a material similar to glass. All three materials—glass, glaze, and faience— consist of silica and lime, although special modern glass need have neither. Glass and glazes always contain soda or some or the other alkali, whereas faience generally contains only very small quantities of soda. In the evolution of glass, frit, faience, and glaze might have

1024 Glass in India

signified certain stages of development (Beck 1934; Forbes 1957: 223; Brill 1963: 120; Biek and Bayley 1979).

Glaze There is little doubt that glass was an outcome of glaze. Glass and glazes are chemically identical but they are worked and used differently (Forbes 1957; Tite et al. 1983). The glazing technique marks the emergence of the first glass or synthetic material (Barthelemy and Bouquillon 1994). However, a glaze is a glassy layer applied to a core or base of some other material. This is in some cases mixed with the material before firing and in many cases applied to the body after firing. In the fourth millennium BCE glaze was used extensively within the context of the Badarian civilization in Egypt, the Jemdet Nasr period in Mesopotamia and in the third millennium BCE, the Indus valley civilization. The method of grinding quartz and mixing it with a little alkali before firing and producing faience occurred somewhat later in Egypt, in the early pre-Dynastic period (Lucas 1926; Forbes 1957). Marshall (1931: 578, 582, 692) states that the glazing of pottery is an Indian invention and a craft which appears to have been practiced for the first time on the bank of Indus. No example of it has come to light in Mesopotamia before 1000 BCE, nor in Egypt before the Roman period, although in Nubia there is said to be evidence of glazed ware as early as the XII dynasty (1991—1928 BCE). On the strength of the available material at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, Marshall (1931) went on to say that they are so closely allied to glass that it hardly seems possible that glass could have long been delayed. Bhardwaj (1979: 31) thought that the four pieces of glazed pottery found at Mohenjodaro were the handiwork of a potter who was well acquainted with the process of glazing and able to carry it to a high degree of perfection. High temperature stoneware bangles and some glazed pottery have also been recorded from Lothal, Bhagwanpura, Sanghol, Banavali, Bara, Ropar, Chanhudaro, Hulas, and Mithathal (Dayton 1989).

Faience Faience is nearer to glass in the process of evolution. It is reported from many ancient sites and is likely to have been the predecessor of glass (Brill 1963: 120). In the archaeological sense it is generally agreed that faience consists of a lightly sintered core of crushed quartz grains coated with a translucent blue-to-green glaze, both fluxing due to soda. Such material needs a firing temperature of some 1000°C and a certain amount of sophistication in making it (Biek and Bayley 1979: 3). Crystalline quartz grains with a small amount of glassy

material predominate in the case of faience. A few simple variations, whether accidental or deliberate, would have resulted in true glass (Basa 1991). Stone and Thomas (1956: 37) proposed that glass could be produced by heating faience too much or for too long, while adding a little surplus of alkali. They further suggested that it is most probable, then, that the faience makers found this out by simple observation and so became the first makers of real glass. Forbes (1957) and Bhardwaj (1979) have proposed to call most of ancient objects dubbed faience to be glazed siliceous ware, as they have a body consisting of powdered quartz covered with a layer of glaze. This material has been reported from most of the ancient civilizations includ- ing Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India (Lucas 1926; Sofianopoulas 1952). Faience was certainly made in India and fashioned into a variety of objects such as amulets, bangles and inlay, segmented beads, spindle-whorls, fluted disc beads, seals, animal figur- ines, and pots. In the Indus valley itself the people of Mohenjodaro and Harappa are known to have made extensive use of articles from faience, a composition resulting from powdered quartz grains fused at low temperature with the addition of lime. Some of the articles like beads and inlays were found treated with a glaze or frit which does not materially differ from glass. Marshall (1931: 683) and Mackay (1931: 576, 578 and 582) are of the opinion that though no true glass has been recovered from Mohenjodaro and Harappa, the authors of these cultures had perfected a composition which very nearly approached glass. Experiments conducted by McCarthy and Vandiver (1991) have revealed that the Harappan faience has a quite dense body with a continuous glassy phase and a relatively thin skin of glaze. Intentional addition of glass frit and clay are postulated. The Harappan faience bodies are particularly strong, compared with contemporary fa- ience from west Asia and Egypt. A similar technology is not found in Egypt until much later during the New Kingdom, about 1450 BCE.

Brill (1987: 2) gives two reasons in support of the belief that glassmaking grew out of faience manufac- ture. (1) Both processes involve the pyrotechnology of the same materials (silica and alkali), and (2) faience was made for some fifteen centuries before glass was made. In this regard, the data gathered at Mehrgarh and Nausharo are of great interest since they allow the study of the local evolution of the glazing techniques through time, from the Chalcolithic to the Mature Indus period (Barthelemy and Bouquillon 1997: 63). Ancient Indian Glass Bhardwaj (1987) and Singh (1989), on the basis of glazed pottery from Mohenjodaro, have argued that the Harappans were aware of glass making. Bhardwaj

Glass in India 1025

(1987) regards a number of vitreous materials unearthed from Mohenjodaro as weathered unworked glass, but more finds from well-dated contexts are needed before we can be sure that the Harappans had truly mastered the secrets of glassmaking (Singh 1989), and it is possible that glass could have decomposed to the point where it looked like faience.

Singh (1989) cautioned about the possibility that some glass beads might have been classified wrongly as stone beads. Even if the Harappans had this knowledge it seems to have been lost with the collapse of the urban Bronze Age civilization, and the subsequent finds of glass from the subcontinent come only with the Harappan-PGW (Painted Grey Ware) overlap phase at Bhagwanpura in Haryana, datable to about 1450—1200 BCE (Joshi 1976). From this time onwards, glass beads and bangles were regularly made in many parts of the subcontinent (Lal 1987). However, here thorough investigation of faience objects from Chalcolithic sites is required as they are reported to have yielded an enormous quantity of burnt steatite and paste, sometimes also glazed. Here it is important to mention that some of the beads that had been interpreted as shell beads (Wheeler et al. 1946; Casal 1949) have now been identified as corroded glass (Francis n.d.). Too much soda will yield a kind of glass that will be easily corroded by water, though ancient glasses often have a large percentage of soda to achieve a low melting point (Forbes 1957). In some cases faience is also wrongly identified as glass; for example faience excavated in Baoji and Fufeng country of China dated to eleventh to tenth century BCE was for a long time considered to be the earliest glass finding of China (Brill 1995: 270).

From the analysis of 38 specimens found at Alamgirpur (undated), Brahmagiri (Megalithic and Andhra culture), Hastinapur (period V, eleventh to fifteenth century AD) and (period III, sixth to third century BCE), Sar Dheri, Arikamedu (ca. 200 AD), Kausambi (200 BCE—200 AD and 100—200 AD), Bihar (first to second century AD), Orissa (200 AD), Rupar (1000—700 BCE and 200 BCE—600 AD), Vankali (Sri Lanka 1200—1250 AD), Brill (1987) comments that if glass found in India has a high alumina content (Al2O3) i.e., 3.5—4.0% or greater, it probably was made in India and that a low lime content (CaO) can also be considered as evidence of local manufacture. Francis (1985, 1990a, 1990b, 1991, 1994, 2002, n.d.) based on his extensive work on Arikamedu glass beads, argues that glass beads from Arikamedu were made from local glass because of the presence of high potassium that was rare in the western glass of that period. In Egypt and the Roman Empire glass consisted of sodium oxide as alkali, whereas in India and Vietnam, as evident from Arikamedu (India) and Oc-Eo (Vietnam), both sodium and potassium oxide were utilized (Francis 1990a). Lead

as a coloring agent or opacifier in glass is found more in the West than in India. Glass from Khairadih, dated between 700 BCE to second century AD (Singh and Abdurazakov 1988), Nevasa (Varshney et al. 1988) and Arikamedu (Glover and Henderson 1994) are found to have low lime content. Furthermore, on the basis of scientific analysis of some of the early glass samples, Francis (n.d.) opines that both imported and indigenous glasses were used for bead production at Arikamedu and other contemporary south Indian sites.

In ancient India fragments of glass slag and other debris of glass production have been noticed at Khairadih, period II (IAR 1981—1982: 68, Singh and Abdurazakov 1990), Kopia (Roy and Varshney 1953; Dikshit 1969: 39; Sen and Chaudhuri 1985: 64—65; Abdurazakov 1987; Lal 1987: 45), Rajghat (Narain G et al. 1976; Singh 1989) and Taxila (Marshall 1951) in the North; Ahmednagar (Chaudhuri 1986: 97), Bhokardan (Deo and Gupte 1974: 197), Brahmapuri (Kolhapur) (Sankalia and Dikshit 1952), Nevasa (Sankalia et al. 1960: 355, 383—85), and Paunar (Deo and Dhavalikar 1968: 82—83) in the Deccan; Sirpur and Tripuri in Central India; Hulas Khera (Tewari et al. 1995—1996); Maheswar (Sankalia et al. 1958) and Nagra (Mehta and Shah 1968: 132—37) in the West; and Arikamedu and Karaikadu in the South. Thus, it is evident that ancient India was not only manufacturing by-products of glass but was also making glass for its use.

Regarding the glass furnace in ancient India, our information is meager. A solitary reference comes from Nevasa, where a glassmaking kiln dated to the period ca. 3rd—and 4th AD was unearthed. It is a circular oven 2′-6″ in diameter with 1′-7″ depth and is made of burnt clay. Around it an abundance of bichrome glass, slag, lime, cow-dung, etc. was found (Sankalia et al. 1960). At one of the points near the periphery was a channeled projection evidently to insert the pipe for the bellows (Deo 2000: 11). Chaudhuri (1986: 99) re- marked that most of glass furnaces in ancient India are open-fired type, using solid fuel, and the melting was carried out in a clay pot. Ancient Literature Mention of glass (kāca) and its by-products, most prominently that of beads, occurs in early Brāhman. ica1 (Sanskrit) and Buddhist literature. Mukharji (1888), Ghosh (1924), Chaudhuri (1986), Dikshit (1964—1965, 1969) and Deo (1987, 2000) list a few of them; for instance in the Yajurveda (c. 1200 BCE) kāca is mentioned as one of the articles of which female ornaments were made by means of stringing with gold thread. In Śatapatha Brāhman. a (c. 800 BCE), the word kāca refers to glass beads which were used for decoration of horses in the Aśvamedha sacrifice. There are references to women wearing glass beads and to the

1026 Glass in India

Glass in India. Map 1 Evidence of Glass and Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology Between 1200—600 BCE. 1. Alamgirpur, 2. Amahata, 3. Atranjikhera, 4. Autha, 5. Bagor, 6. Banahalli, 7. Bhagwanpura, 8. Brass, 9. Daulatpur, 10. Hastinapur, 11. Jakhera, 12. Jhatikra, 13. Kodumanal, 14. Kotra, 15. Kunnattur, 16. Manikpur, 17. Maski, 18. Munahi, 19. Nagiari, 20. Narhan, 21. Pairyampalli, 22. Pallavamedu, 23. Pasewa, 24. Runija, 25. Sanghol, 26. Sarhat, 27. Shirkanda, 28. Sravasti, 29. T-Kallupatti

wearing of or threading of one hundred and one beads of glass. The Taittiriya Brāhman. a also refers to the wearing of glass. Coming to the Sutra period (ca. 600 BCE), one comes across references to glass beads in the Baudhayana Srauta Sūtra and in Manava Srauta Sūtra. The Māhavagga section of the Buddhist text Vinaya Pit.aka (fifth to fourth century BCE) alludes to the use of shoes ornamented with glass as being forbidden to the Buddhist bhikshus (monks). The Chu11avagga similarly forbids the use of glass bowls. One of the earliest South Indian texts, Manimeka1ai (3, 64), refers to pa1ingu, meaning glass or quartz in Tamil, which is possibly a corruption of the Sanskrit word sphatika, although the prakrit pha1ika (quartz), occurs in the Bhattiproru inscription of the second century BCE (Srinivasan and Banerjee 1953: 113). Rāmayan. a refers to the makers of glass, the ‘kachakara’. Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra (third century BCE) alludes to the making of glass at two places. (1) Adhikarana 14, Adhyāya 1, Sūtra 12, says that in order to punish the enemy, obstacles like the smoke of Puti, Karañja leaves… . as in the manufacture of glass, by burning cow dung etc., should deliberately be created. (2) Another passage in

the Adhikarana 2, Adhyāya 14, Sūtra 45, though somewhat corrupt, refers to the process of making gold- foiled glass beads. It describes the piercing of glass beads in a molten stage for the purpose of setting ornaments and the setting of glass-fragments (kśepana) in gold ornaments for the preparation of the glass gems. Amongst the various punishments inflicted for stealing, it is ordained that a person stealing articles made of copper, bronze, tin, glass and ivory was to be fined 46—96 pan. as. Glass is also mentioned in the Māhāb- hārata, and in Yuktikarata. The effects on the human system of drinking water out of a glass tumbler are stated to be the same as those of drinking out of a crystal cup. Some of the Puranas such as the Matsya, the Vishnu, and the Bhagawata, assigned to the Gupta period (third to fifth century AD), refer to kāca. B.rhatSam. hitā (sixth century AD) also mentions glass. Apart from these, references to glass vessels for preserving medicines can be seen in texts like Charaka and Śusruta Sam. hitā. In the Amarakośa (seventh century AD) mention of glass vessels, cups and dishes are made. In later period, Somnath Kavi (ca. 1446—1539 AD) mentions spectacles in his Vyasoyogi Charita.

Glass in India 1027

G

Glass in India. Map 2 Evidence of Glass and Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology Between 600—300 BCE. 1. Alagankulam, 2. Amethi, 3. Ayodhya, 4. Benagutti, 5. Champa, 6. Danwa, 7. Daulatpur, 8. Dharanikota, 9. Dhatva, 10. Ganwaria and Salargarh, 11. Gauriganj, 12. Harnol, 13. Hastinapur, 14. Hulas, 15. Jajmau, 16. Jakhera, 17. Kadipur, 18. Kheradih, 19. Kopia, 20. Kotra, 21. Malvan, 22. Mathura, 23. Munahi, 24. Nadner, 25. Narhan, 26. Noh, 27. Paunar, 28. Prahaladpur, 29. Prakash, 30. Rajghat, 31. Singh Bhagwanpur, 32. Sonepur, 33. Sravasti, 34. Sugh, 35. Tumain, 36. Vaisali

Spread of Glass in India On the basis of glass findings at Taxila and Arikamedu, Marshall (1951) and Wheeler et al. (1946) thought them to be of foreign origin. On the contrary, typical Indian designs on some early glass specimens of Taxila, Mohenjodaro’s glazed pottery and evidence of glass in the Chalcolithic level at Maski, and at Painted Grey Ware sites (supposed to be devoid of any foreign association) have led Dikshit (1969), Bhardwaj (1987) and Singh (1989) to argue for indigenous origin of glass (Kanungo 2000—2001, 2002a, 2004c). Deo (2000: 26) takes a middle path by mentioning that though much of the glass at Taxila was imported into India through its foreign settlers, there is reason to believe that some of the beads are indigenous. It is difficult to say how far early foreign contacts were responsible for the introduction of glass but the stray specimens reported do not point to anything definite.

The Perip1us mentions Roman export of both raw glass and glassware. The ancient Indian literary records are silent on importing glass from the western world. However, the archaeological data on Roman glass in India

strongly corroborates the references in the Perip1us to glass imports into India (Gupta 1997). Stern (1986) suggests that it was convenient for Mediterranean shippers to bring raw glass to India as it served as good ballast for transport vessels. On reaching India, Mediterranean glass found a ready market because of the existence of a highly evolved glass working industry in the subcontinent. On their part, the Indians, besides marketing glass products of Roman glass in the domestic arena, exported the products to Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean. Probably, some of this glass really was imported, but there are good reasons for believing that much of this early glass was actually made in India (Brill 1987: 2).

The Indians learned the technique of glass, probably independently, only around 1200 BCE. Since then evidence of glass has been unearthed from more than 200 ancient Indian sites. Kanungo (2002a: 54—120, 2004b, 2004c) lists 204 sites which have yielded evidences of glass. Glass beads occur in about 150 sites and 36 are claimed to have been manufacturing sites (Kanungo 2004a: 123).

The earliest evidence of glass beads (two well-made unweathered black and white tabular eye beads) in

1028 Glass in India

Glass in India. Map 3 Evidence of Glass and Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology Between 300 BCE—400 AD. 1. Adam, 2. Adamgarh, 3. Adiyamankottai, 4. Agroha, 5. Ahichchhatra, 6. Alagankulam, 7. Alagarai, 8. Appukalu, 9. Arikamedu, 10. Arni, 11. Aunhan, 12. Ayodhya, 13. Bagor, 14. Balathal, 15. Banahalli, 16. Banavasi, 17. Basarh, 18. Besnagar, 19. Bhita, 20. Bhokardan, 21. Brahmagiri, 22. Brass, 23. Broach, 24. Chandahadih, 25. Chandraketugarh, 26. Chandravalli, 27. Chechar, 28. Chirand, 29. Daulatpur, 30. Devnimori, 31. Dharanikota, 32. Dhatva, 33. Dhulikatta, 34. Dhuriapur, 35. Eran, 36. Erich, 37. Ganwaria and Salargarh, 38. Garapadu, 39. Hari-narayanpur, 40. Hastinapur, 41. Hemmige, 42. Hulas Khera, 43. Irla, 44. Jhatkira, 45. Jhusi, 46. Kakrethta, 47. Kanchipuram, 48. Karad, 49. Karaikadu, 50. Karur, 51. Kausambi, 52. Khairwada, 53. Khangabok, 54. Khartuni, 55. Kheradih, 56. Kohir, 57. Kolhua, 58. Kondapur, 59. Kotalinga, 60. Kudikadu, 61. Kumrahar, 62. Kusan, 63. Maheshwar, 64. Malhar, 65. Mangalkot, 66. Manjhi, 67. Mansar, 68. Masaon, 69. Maski, 70. Matin - Mahadev, 71. Nadner, 72. Nagara, 73. Nagarjunakonda, 74. Narhan, 76. Nasik-Jorwe, 77. Nattamedu, 78. Nelakondapalli, 79. Nevasa, 80. Noh, 81. Orai, 82. Paithan, 83. Pandigadda, 84. Pataliputra, 85. Paunar, 86. Pauni, 87. Peddabankur, 88. Perur, 89. Piklihal, 90. Prakash, 91. Puduru, 92. Pydigutta, 93. Raiah, 94. Rajbadidanga, 95. Rajghat, 96. Ratura, 97. Sanghol, 98. Sankisa, 99. Sannati, 100. Satanikota, 101. Satara, 102. Singh Bhagwanpur, 103. Sisupalgarh, 104. Sonkh, 105. Sravasti, 106. Sringaverapura, 107. Srisailum, 108. Sugh, 109. Sultanpur, 1108. Taradih, 111. Taxila, 112. Ter, 113. Tharsa, 114. Tilwara, 115. Tirukkambuliyur, 116. Tripuri, 117. Tumain, 118. Ujjain, 119. Vadagaon - Madhavapur, 120. Vadnagar, 121. Vaisali, 122. Virpur, 123. Yeleswaram

India is reported from Bhagwanpura in the Harappan- Painted Grey Ware overlap phase (period I), c. 1400— 1000 BCE (Joshi 1993). The occurrence of one glass bead in period II (Protohistoric) at Navdatoli shows that glass was not unknown to the people of this period (Deo 1955: 10). The evidence of glass in the Chal- colithic period is very poor, found only at Maski. During the next cultural phase of Indian history, i.e., Painted Grey Ware, we find that the occurrence of glass is quite common and widespread. It is found at several sites in India, which are widely separated from each other. Glass finds, although limited in number, have

been a constant feature in all the levels from the sixth century BCE onwards. However, sites of Ochre Colored Pottery (OCP) culture have yielded only a few beads (Niharika 1993).

The evidence of stratified eye beads from Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) phase, which form the next important stage in the study of glass in India, possibly supports the impression that mature glass came to India from the Mediterranean countries.

The technique of glass manufacture was well known since the seventh to sixth century BCE (Margabandhu 1971: 1219, 1985: 327). Once the manufacturing

Glass in India 1029

G

Glass in India. Map 4 Evidence of Glass and Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology Between 400—1300 AD. 1. Adiyamankottai, 2. Ahichchhatra, 3. Alagankulam, 4. Ambari, 5. Anantapur, 6. Apsad, 7. Arambha, 8. Atranjikhera, 9. Banavasi, 10. Basarh, 11. Benagutti, 12. Bharat Mandir, 13. Bhita, 14. Bhokardan, 15. Buxar, 16. Champa, 17. Chechar, 18. Daulatabad, 19. Dhuriapur, 20. Dwarka, 21. Eran, 22. Fatehpur Sikri, 23. Gilaulikhera, 24. Gudnaput, 25. Harsh—ka-tila, 26. Hastinapur, 27. Hulas Khera, 28. Indragarh, 29. Jokha, 30. Kambarmedu, 31. Kanchipuram, 32. Kanheri, 33. Karnachaura, 34. Kashipur, 35. Katpalon, 36. Khairwada, 37. Kolhua, 38. Kumrahar, 39. Kundavelli, 40. Maheshwar, 41. Malhar, 42. Mangalkot, 43. Mansar, 44. Masaon, 45. Maski, 46. Nagarjunakonda, 47. Nagnoor, 48. Nalanda, 49. Narhan, 50. Pallavamedu, 51. Pandigadda, 52. Paunar, 53. Perur, 54. Prakash, 55. Ratnagiri, 56. Sanjan, 57. Shamalaji, 58. Singh Bhagwanpur, 59. Sirpur, 60. Sohgaura, 61. Sonkh, 62. Sringaverapura, 63. Taradih, 64. Taxila, 65. Tharsa, 66. Tirukkambuliyur, 67. Tripuri, 68. Tumain, 69. Ujjain, 70. Uraiyur, 71. Vadavur, 72. Vaisali

processes were standardized, during the latter half of the first millennium BCE glass objects were produced on a mass scale. The very material and objects made of the glass found during this period bear an eloquent testimony to the fact that the making of glass in a furnace and later remaking and shaping them to beads had been fully understood and utilized to the maximum extent by the artisans of the times (Margabandhu 1975: 73). The site of Kopia in Santh Kabir Nagar district (earlier part of district Basti), dated to about fifth century BCE, has yielded innumerable glass beads, thousands of glass fragments, fragments of clay crucibles with glass sticking to them, big pieces of glass and lumps of unworked glass (Roy and Varshney 1953; Dikshit 1969: 39; Sen and Chaudhuri 1985: 64—65; Abdurazakov 1987: 38; Lal 1987: 45). One large block of glass weighs about 76 kg and measures 45×30×22.5 cm (Lal 1987: 45). Unfortunately, a few excavation

reports of Indian sites yielding glass objects have discussed the manufacturing techniques involved and none the basis of the same (Kanungo 2000—2001, 2001, 2004a).

From 500 BCE onwards and particularly during the Maurya period, glass objects of all kinds came to be manufactured widely (Lad 1983: 67). In Mauryan (fourth to second centuries BCE) and Sunga (second to first centuries BCE) periods, beads of all kinds were plentiful including those made of glass (Alkazi 1996: 7). The best evidence is that of glass seals from Maheshwar, Patna, Ujjain and three glass seals from the Mauryan phase at Taxila. The seals are mostly green and pale blue, carefully moulded and subjected to annealing to remove the internal strain. Spool (externally grooved) shaped earplugs, beads and bangles constitute the bulk of the glass articles known from specimens from Ahichchhatra, Kausambi, Patna and Rajghat.

1030 Glass in India

Glass in India. Map 5 Evidence of Glass and Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology Between 1300—1800 AD. 1. Alampur, 2. Ambari, 3. Antichak, 4. Bahal, 5. Batesvara, 6. Bijai Mandal, 7. Brahmapuri, 8. Buxar, 9. Chagatpur, 10. Chandoli, 11. Chermanparambu, 12. Daulatabad, 13. Dwarka, 14. Eran, 15. Fatehpur Sikri, 16. Golconda, 17. Hampi, 18. Harsh—ka-tila, 19. Hemmige, 20. Jhatkira, 21. Kadipur, 22. Kadkal, 23. Kanchipuram, 24. Karvan, 25. Kaundanpur, 26. Khairwada, 27. Khalkata - patana, 28. Kundavelli, 29. Lalkot, 30. Maheshwar, 31. Makhdum Sahib’s Mosque, 32. Matin - Mahadev, 33. Nagiari, 34. Naksaparvat, 35. Nasik-Jorwe, 36. Navdatoli, 37. Nevasa, 38. Pachkheri, 39. Padavedu, 40. Pataliputra, 41. Paunar, 42. Purana Qila, 43. Raisen fort, 44. Rajghat, 45. Salimgarh Fort, 46. Singh Bhagwanpur, 47. Sirpur, 48. Sohgaura, 49. Tiruverkadu, 50. Uraiyur

The beginning of the Christian era witnessed the ushering of foreign cultural elements into Indian life. This is reflected not only in new shapes, but also in the introduction of new materials like the Mediterranean fine-grained corals and glass (Deo 2000: 6). Use of glass became quite common. Findings at Arikamedu, Nevasa, Taxila and other sites present evidence for this. Excavations at Chandravalli, Karad, Kolhapur, Kondapur, Maski, and Nasik have each yielded valuable materials of high quality from the Satavahana period (first century BCE to early third century AD). Wound and drawn beads are often found (Deo 2000: 27). Beads with white stripes are known to have come from Kolhapur, Kondapur, Maski, Nevasa, Prakash and Ter in the Deccan. These beads are common enough at Tripuri and Ujjain. By the dawn of the Christian era, the use of glass for beads became more popular. Many techniques were adopted for the manufacture of

beads and ornaments during this period (Margabandhu 1985: 203).

Abdurazakov (1987: 38) speaks of finding fragments of Middle Age glass at nine archaeological sites in India: Ahichchhatra, Arikamedu Assam, Jaipur, Kausambi, Kurukshetra, Nalanda, and Udaigiri. He mentions the evidence of glass and clay pots (used for glass production) at Dargai in Pakistan too.

By the time of Harsa (seventh century AD), glass was no longer a luxury as it must have been in the Satavahana period and was even used by mendicants and aboriginals (Agrawal 1953: 186; Kanungo 2002b). In Deccan, with the establishment of the Sultanates (twelfth to thirteenth century AD), the country witnessed the rise of small-scale cottage industries for the fabrication of glass beads, as evidenced by the discoveries at Kolhapur and Nevasa in Maharashtra, and Maski in Karnataka and Sirpur in Madhya Pradesh (Deo 2000: 6). The lacuna in our knowledge about the other

Glass in India 1031

contemporary Indian glass objects is almost certainly due to inadequate excavations of historical sites.

Chemical analysis of the specimens of about eighteen areas shows that Indian workers were well acquainted with the raw materials and coloring agents used for the preparation of glass. In some of the specimens of Taxila glass, the presence of lead oxide and in some of the Tripuri specimens (200 BCE) the presence of barium oxide has been found. Presence of lead in glass gives rise to the formation of crystal glass and that of barium imparts to glass high resistance to heat.

In comparison with commonly occurring archaeo- logical material such as pottery or metals, the glass in ancient sites occurs less frequently. Glass was never produced, on a very large scale, or over so wide an area as other materials. This is due to the fact that it required advanced technological skills to generate and maintain the required temperature for production of glass for long periods. This very often mirrors the general technological level of society. However, considering the spread of proto glass and its by-products in Protohistoric, its contemporary and later periods there is every possibility that glass might have developed independently in India. Glass seems to have appeared 500 to 1,000 years later than in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

In the Indian context, literary data and archaeolog- ical evidence point to the same time period for the occurrence of glass. Reference of kāca comes from the Brahmana group of texts which are assigned to the same time period as that of the Painted Grey Ware. Glass becomes more common in the Northern Black Polished Ware period. This is also reflected in literary data of the fourth to fifth century BCE, which abounds in references to glass.

In the early Christian era glass was not only found throughout the country but its by-products like beads were also produced using indigenous techniques. Subsequently, many places emerged as production centers of a flourishing glass industry, as it had become by now an article of common use and was no longer a precious and rare commodity. Glass is more abundantly seen at the dawn of the Christian era.

No archaeological site except Nevasa has as yet given evidence of a glass furnace. This is probably due to the fact that since production of glass requires a high temperature for a long time period, and in earlier days furnaces were generally made of clay, they collapsed or

broke down at a fast rate. Thus in the archaeological context, not only does glass need to be classified and recorded, but the debitage1 also needs to be carefully collected and catalogued.

The evidence of glass in Indian archaeology is spread in both time and space. Though there have been claims at regular intervals by different authors about the glass being introduced to India from outside, sometime in the Indo-Roman period, the evidence from as many as 29 sites gives ample evidence that glass was known much earlier and could have been produced locally (Map 1). Besides, there is also stray evidence of glass in Bhagwanpura (Painted Grey Ware-Harappan overlap- ping), Dwarka (late Harappan) and Maski (Chalco- lithic), which are of much earlier cultures. Likewise there are 34 sites, which have evidence of glass beads in G association with the Northern Black Polished Ware period or in the period in between 600—300 BCE (Map 2). However, with the beginning of the early Historic phase, and more particularly in the early Christian centuries, the evidence of glass from as many as 119 sites suggests large-scale use (Map 3). This period is between 300 BCE and 400 AD and is characterized by red ware, red polished ware, russet coated painted ware, red and black slipped ware, black slipped ware and rouletted ware. All the same, during the Medieval Period there is clear indication that glass was becoming quite common as evidenced by its presence at 70 sites in the early Medieval period (400—1300 AD) (Map 4) and 49 sites in the late Medieval period (1300— 1800 AD) (Map 5) (for details see Kanungo 2002a, 2004c). Considering such spread of glass and its by- products in ancient India, it is highly likely that around the early Christian era there should have been more regional major producers of glass other than the established site of Arikamedu in the south. In this regard Kopia in the north with its strategic location, abundance of glass, glass beads, crucibles and other debitage on the surface stands apart, and further work followed by a systematic excavation of this site could result in better understanding of ancient glass technol- ogy in India. Acknowledgements

1 Debitage is the collective term used by archaeologists to refer to the sharp-edged waste material left over when someone creates a stone tool (knaps flint). Debitage is probably the oldest artifact-type recognized by archaeolo- gists; the term is a French one but widely used by archaeologists the world over.

1032 Glass in India

The author is grateful to the Bead Society of Los Angeles, and the Bead Society of Greater Washington, USA; the Margaret Guido Fund, UK; and Indian Council of Historical Research, India for financial support to various seed projects from which partial data are used in this paper; to Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute Library for academic support; Dr. R.H. Brill of the Corning Museum for sending the off prints of some of the most useful publications on Indian glass; to Prof. V.D. Gogte of Deccan College for thoughtfully going through the earlier version of this paper; to Mr. Dvadatta Phule for help with maps; to Dr. Shahida Ansari for help with geographical location in maps; to Dr. Viraj Shah for help with periodical division of maps; and to Aditi Sen for help with diacritical marks.

See also: �Beads

References

Abdurazakov, A. A. Indian and Central Asian Connections, Archaeometry of G1ass Ed. H. C. Bhardwaj. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society, 1987. 37—43.

Agrawal, V. S. Harsacarita-Ek Sanskritika Adhayan. Patna: Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishada, 1953.

Alkazi, R. Ancient Indian Costume. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1996. Barthelemy de S. B. and A. Bouquillon, Steatite Working at

Mehrgarh During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods: Quantitative Distribution, Characterization of Material and Manufacturing Processes, South Asian Archaeo1ogy 1993 Vol. I. Ed. A. Parpola and P. Koskikallion. Helsinki: Sumalainean Tiedeakatemia, 1994. 47—59.

---. Evolution of glazed materials from the Chalcolithic to the Indus period based on the data of Mehrgarh and Nausharo, South Asian Archaeo1ogy 1995 Vol. I. Eds. R. Allchin and B. Allchin. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 1997. 63—76.

Basa, K. The Early Westerly Trade of Southeast Archaeology from c. 400 B.C. to c. 500 A.D. with Special Reference to Glass Beads. Diss. London: University of London, 1991.

Beck, H. C. The Use of the Microscope in the Study of Ancient Beads, Journa1 Of the Roya1 Microscopica1 Society 13 (1934): 384—98. Bhardwaj, H. C. Aspects of Ancient Indian Techno1ogy.

Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas, 1979. ---. A Review of Archaeometric Studies of Indian Glasses,

Archaeometry of G1ass. Ed. H. C. Bhardwaj. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society, 1987. 64—75.

Biek, L. and J. Bayley. Glass and Other Vitreous Materials, Wor1d Archaeo1ogy 11 (1979): 1—25.

Bostock, J. and H. T. Riley. Trans. The Natura1 History of P1iny. London: George Bell and Sons, 1890. Brill, R. H. Ancient Glass, Scientific American 209.5 (1963):

120—30. ---. Chemical Analysis of Some Early Indian Glasses, Archaeometry of G1ass. Ed. H. C. Bhardwaj. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society, 1987. 1—25. ---. Scientific Research in Early Asian Glass, Proceedings of

the XVIIth Internationa1 Congress on G1ass, Beijing, Oct.

1995. Vol. I. Beijing: International Academic Publishers, 1995. 270—79.

Casal, J. M. Fouilles de Virampatnam — Arikamedu: Rapport de l’Inde et de l’Occident aux environs de l’Ere Chrétienne. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1949.

Chaudhuri, M. The Knowledge of Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient and Medieval India, Techno1ogy in Ancient and Medieva1 India. Ed. A. Roy and S. K. Bagchi. Delhi: Sandeep Prakashan, 1986. 93—105.

Dayton, J. E. The Faience of the Indus civilization, South Asian Archaeo1ogy 1985. Ed. K. Frifelt and P. Sorensen. London: Curzon Press, 1989. 216—26.

Deo, S. B. Beads from Excavations at Navdatoli and Maheshwar (Madhya Bharat), Journa1 of the University of Bombay [History, Economics and socio1ogy: N 46] 23.4 (1955): 1—20.

---. Early Indian Glass: Antiquity and Archaeology, Archaeo- metry of G1ass. Ed. H. C. Bhardwaj. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society, 1987. 76—9.

---. Indian Beads A Cu1tura1 and Techno1ogica1 Study. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 2000. Deo, S. B. and M. K. Dhavalikar. Paunar Excavations

(1967). Nagpur: Nagpur University, 1968. Deo, S. B. and R. S. Gupte. Bhokardan Excavations. Nagpur:

Nagpur University, 1974. Dikshit, M. G. Studies in ancient Indian glass — I Glass as

mentioned in Kautilya’s Arthasastra, East and West, new series 15. 1—2 (1964—1965): 62—8.

---. History of Indian G1ass. Bombay: University of Bombay, 1969.

Dubin, L. S. The History of Beads. London: Thames and Hudson, 1987.

Forbes, R. J. Glass, Studies in Ancient Techno1ogy, Vol. V. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957, 110—96.

Francis, P. Bead Report XVI, the Asian Bead Study Tour II, Thailand: revolution and ruin, tradition and change, Ornament 9.2 (1985): 43—8.

---. Glass Beads in Asia, part I, Introduction, Asian Perspectives 28.1 (1990a): 1—21.

---. Glass Beads in Asia, part II, Indo-Pacific beads, Asian Perspectives 29.1 (1990b): 1—23.

---. Bead Making at Arikamedu and Beyond, Wor1d Archaeo1ogy 23.1 (1991): 28-43.

---. Towards a Social History of Beadmakers, Beads 6 (1994): 61—80.

---. Asia’s Maritime Bead Trade 300 B.C. to the Present. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 2002.

--- n.d. The Beads and Other Small Finds, The Ancient Port of Arikamedu: New Excavations and Researches 1989–1992, Vol. II. Ed. Vimala Begley. Paris: Memoires Archéologi- ques, École Française d’Extrême-Orient.

Ghosh, R. S. M. The use of Glass in Ancient India, The Journa1 of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 10.3 (1924): 194—201.

Glover, I. C. and J. Henderson. Early Glass in South, Southeast and China. Paper Presented at the PDF Colloquy, Art, Interaction, and Commerce: Southeast Asia and China, 6—8 June 1994.

Gupta, S. Roman Egypt to Peninsular India: Archaeological Patterns of Trade 1st century B.C. to 3rd century A.D. Diss. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1997.

G

Globes 1033

IAR: Indian Archaeology: A Review. Annual Publication of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. Joshi, J. P. A note on Excavations at Bhagwanpura,

Puratattva 8 (1976): 178—80. ---. Excavation at Bhagwanpura 1975–76 and Other

Exp1oration and Excavations 1971–1981 in Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1993.

Kanungo, A. K. Glass Beads in Indian Archaeology - an Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Bu11etin of the Deccan Co11ege Post-Gradate and Research Institute 60—61 (2000—2001): 337—53.

---. Glass beads in India: lamp winding & moulding techniques, Man & Environment 26.2 (2001): 99—108.

---. G1ass Beads in Ancient India: An Ethnoarchaeo1ogica1 Approach. Diss. Pune: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 2002a.

---. Indian ocean and the Naga ornaments, Paper presented at the 17th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Associa- tion, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan, 9—15th September 2002, 2002b.

---. Glass Beads in Ancient India and Furnace-Wound Beads at Purdalpur: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Asian Perspective 43.1 (2004a): 123—50.

---. Database of glass and glass beads in India, Man and Environment 29.1 (2004b): 42—102.

---. G1ass Beads in Ancient India: An Ethnoarchaeo1ogica1 Approach. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Inter- national Series 1242, 2004c.

Lad, G. Mahabharata and Archaeo1ogica1 Evidence. Poona: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1983.

Lal, B. B. Glass Technology in Early India, Archaeometry of G1ass. Ed. H. C. Bharadwaj. Calcutta: Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute, 1987. 44—56.

Lucas, A. Ancient Egyptian Materia1s and Industries. London: Edward Arnold and Co, 1926.

Mackay, E. J. H. Personal Ornaments, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civi1ization Vol. II. Ed. J. H. Marshall. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1931. 509—48.

Majumdar, R. C. The C1assica1 Accounts of India. Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay Publishers, 1960.

Margabandhu, C. Material Culture of Central and Western India and the Deccan from circa the Third Century B.C. to the Third Century A.D. Based on the Evidence of Excavated Remains. Diss. Nagpur: Nagpur University, 1971.

---. Aspects of Metal Technology During the Early Historic Period, Indica 12.2 (1975): 71—6.

---. Archaeo1ogy of the Satavahana Kshatrapa Times. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1985.

Marshall J. H. Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civi1ization, Vol. II. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1931.

---. Taxi1a II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951. McCarthy, B. and P. Vandiver. Ancient High Strength

Ceramics: at Harappa (Pakistan). c. 2300—1800 B.C. Materia1s Research Society Symposium Proceedings 185, 1991. 496—509.

Mehta, R. N. and D. R. Shah. Excavation at Shama1aji. Baroda: Maharaja Siyajiroa University, 1968

Mukharji, T. N. Art-Manufacturers of India. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1888.

Narain, A. K., et al. Excavations at Rajghat, Vol. III. Varanasi: Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology, Banaras Hindu University, 1976.

Niharika. A Study of Stone Beads in Ancient India. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, 1993.

Roy, P. and Y. P. Varshney. Ancient Kopia Glass, G1ass Industry 34 (1953): 366—92.

Sankalia, H. D., B. Subbarao and S. B. Deo. The Excavations at Maheshwar and Navdato1i: 1952–1953. Poona/Baroda: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute/ Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, 1958.

Sankalia, H. D. and M. G. Dikshit. Excavations at Brahmapuri (Ko1hapur) 1945–1946. Poona: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1952.

Sankalia, H. D., et al. From History to Prehistory at Nevasa (1954–1956). Poona: Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 1960.

Schoff, W. H. Trans. Perip1us of Erythraean Sea. London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1912.

Sen, S. N. and M. Chaudhuri. Ancient G1ass and India. New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy, 1985.

Singh, R. N. Ancient Indian G1ass: Archaeo1ogy and Techno1ogy. Delhi: Parimal Publication, 1989.

Singh, R. N. and A. A. Abdurazakov. Investigation of Chemical Composition of Ancient Indian Glass from Khairadih, Socia1 Sciences in Uzbekistan 8 (1988): 68—72.

--- Glasses from Khairadih: Some Chemical Consideration. International symposium on Archaeometry 2—6 April 1990, Heidelberg, Germany: abstracts, 1990.

Sofianopoulas, A. J. Primordial Glasses, Journa1 of Chemica1 Education 29 (1952): 503—04.

Srinivasan, K. R. and N. R. Banerjee. Survey of south Indian megaliths. Ancient India 9 (1953): 103—15.

Stern, E. M. The Role of Glass in the Early Roman India trade, Indiaas Mozaiek: 1986. 20—23.

---. On the Glass Industry of Arikamedu (Ancient Podouke), Archaeometry of G1ass. Ed. H. C. Bhardwaj. Calcutta: Indian Ceramic Society, 1987. 26—36.

Stone, J. F. L. C. and Thomas The Use and Distribution of Faience in the Ancient East and Prehistoric Europe, Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 22 (1956): 37—84.

Tewari, R., Hemraj and R. K. Srivastava. Excavations at Hulaskhera, Lucknow: 1978—1979 to 1986—1987 (A preliminary report), Pragdhara 6 (1995—1996): 95—13.

Tite, M. S., Freestone I. C. and M. Bimson Egyptian Faience: an Investigation of the Methods of Production, Archaeo- metry 25.1 (1983): 17—27.

Varshney, A. K., Stephen S. C. Tong and V. Gogte. Analysis of Early Glass Objects from Nevasa Excavations in India, Transactions of the Indian Ceramic Society 47.5 (1988): 149—55.

Wheeler, R. E. M., A. Ghosh and Krishna Deva. Arikamedu: an Indo- Roman Trading Station on the East Coast of India, Ancient India 2 (1946): 17—124.

Globes

EMI L I E SAVA G E -SMI TH