THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF KOPIA, AN EARLY GLASS MANUFACTURING CENTRE IN INDIA

THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF KOPIA, AN EARLYGLASS MANUFACTURING CENTRE IN INDIA*

A. K. KANUNGO

C/o Deccan College, Pune 411006, India

V. N. MISRA

G-2, B Wing, Ganga Park, Mundhwa Road, Pune 411036, India

K. DUTTA and G. V. RAVI PRASAD

AMS Radiocarbon Laboratory, Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India

M. G. YADAVA

Radiocarbon Lab, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380 009, India

and G. W. L. HODGINS

NSF Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA

Right from the time of the Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, dating to c. 1200–600 BCE, morethan 210 archaeological sites in India have provided evidence of glass, but there has been noattempt to date the glass-yielding layers by radiometric techniques. This has hampered theestablishment of a chronology for the beginning and evolution of glass-making in India. Thesite of Kopia was excavated by the first author for three seasons from 2004 to 2006 tounderstand the history, development and technology of glass production in India. The exca-vation produced evidence of a long period of occupation, covering the Fine Grey Ware (FGW),Northern Black Polished Ware (NBP), Sunga–Kushana and Gupta periods. Twenty accelera-tor mass spectrometry (AMS) and radiocarbon dates, all derived from charcoal samples andprocessed independently by three laboratories, are available from the site. The dates range intheir calibrated form on average from the ninth to the second century BCE in locality I and fromthe second century BCE to the second century AD in locality II.

KEYWORDS: GLASS, INDIA, KOPIA, DATING

INTRODUCTION

The antiquity of early glass-making in India is very imperfectly known, because hardly any glassmanufacturing sites have been excavated and none have been dated by radiometric techniques.Kopia is the first archaeological site where there is ample evidence of glass manufacture, whichhas been dated by radiocarbon independently, by three different laboratories. The paper discussesthe radiocarbon dates in the context of the ceramic chronology of Kopia. The aim of the projectwas to learn about the antiquity of glass manufacture at Kopia.

*Received 4 November 2008; accepted 27 June 2009

Archaeometry 52, 5 (2010) 899–918 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2009.00497.x

© University of Oxford, 2009

Three major ceramic wares are found at Kopia. These are Fine Grey Ware (FGW), NorthernBlack Polished Ware (NBP) and red ware. Painted Grey Ware (PGW) is the best known ceramicof Early Iron Age India. Made of well-levigated fine clayey loam from the Ganga valley on a fastwheel, it was treated with a uniform grey slip on both surfaces, and painted in black pigment withgeometric designs such as dots, straight or wavy slanting lines, circles, spirals and so forth on theinner surface and the rims (Hegde 1975, 1989; Tripathi 1984, 1989, 1997; Misra 1999). Thisceramic has been found at a number of sites associated with the story of the Mahabharata epic.The story centres on a family feud that led to a war, which is believed to have been fought around1000 to 900 bce. The FGW is identical to the PGW with regard to the technique of manufacture,and the size and shape of the pots, but it has no decoration. It is found in the eastern part of theGanga valley.

The NBP is also a deluxe pottery, but technologically it is superior to both the FGW and thePGW. It is treated with a dark black, blue, orange or silvery slip on both surfaces. The surface ishighly burnished and is lustrous black in appearance. The broken sherds are often joined togetherwith copper wire, pins and rivets, which testifies to the highly precious nature of the pottery. BothPGW and NBP are securely dated by a large number of radiocarbon dates to c. 1200 to 600 bceand to 600 to 100 bce, respectively, and are by themselves important dating items. The wideoccurrence of NBP in northern and peninsular India is believed to be due to Buddhist monks whocarried NBP begging bowls with them, which they repaired when broken (Hegde 1962; Misra1999).

GLASS

The earliest evidence of glass in India comes from Bhagwanpura in Haryana, in the form ofseveral bangle pieces and two beads from the sub-period IB level, which is dated by TL toc. 1400 to 1000 bce (Tandon 1993, 219). Joshi (1993, 117), the excavator of the site, dated theseglass items to c. 1200 bce. Francis (1984, 152) argued that this glass had been produced in India,on the basis of not finding any parallel elsewhere. Later on, glass is reported from almost all thePGW sites, but at no site have the glass-yielding layers been dated by radiometric techniques.Hence our knowledge of the precise antiquity of glass in India remains uncertain. However,scattered references to glass suggest that well-developed glass and its technology came tosouthern India from Rome through Indo-Roman trade in the first to second centuries ad, and thata glass industry became established at Arikamedu on the Tamil Nadu coast. From there, earlyglass products reached other parts of India. This assumption is still held by many, as the antiquityand history of glass have not been re-examined since the landmark work History of Indian glass(Dikshit 1969), even though many discoveries of glass have taken place since then.

Recently, two glass beads (one from a stratigraphic context and the other a surface find1), thefirst dating back to 1730 bce, have been found at Harappa (J. M. Kenoyer pers. comm.) and sevenhave been found in a Late Harappan burial, reportedly from the second millennium bce, atSanauli, Uttar Pradesh (Sharma et al. 2005–6, 174). Kanungo et al. (2007, 53) have documentedeight glass beads from Chalcolithic Balathal in Rajasthan, dating to the mid-third millenniumbce. However, no beads from either site have been scientifically analysed, and those from Sanaulihave not been scientifically dated. At Balathal, though the beads were found in a Chalcolithiclevel, there is a possibility that they had intruded from the overlying Early Historic deposit. Thesame possibility applies to Ahar in Rajasthan, where a few glass beads were also found in the

1The surface find is identified with the contextual finding both morphologically and chemically.

900 A. K. Kanungo et al.

© University of Oxford, 2009, Archaeometry 52, 5 (2010) 899–918

Chalcolithic level, but the excavator felt that they could have percolated from pits in the overlyingEarly Historic deposit (Sankalia et al. 1969, 163).

Of the over 210 sites in India that have provided evidence of glass in different culturalhorizons, 37 are claimed to be glass-making/working sites (Kanungo 2004a, 88–91; Kanungo2004b, 123). However, based on current interpretations of the available data, the dating of mostsites is open to question because the association between the glass finds and the dated organicmaterials is not always reliable. It is highly likely that from the NBP (c. 600 to 100 bce) periodonwards, there were many regional centres for the production of glass and its by-products in Indiain general and in Ganga –Yamuna Doab in particular. Two maps locating the sites where evidenceof glass has been found, with some sites claimed to be production centres—one for the period of600 to 300 bce and the other for c. 300 bce to ad 400 in India—make the claim more clearly(Figs 1 and 2). The evidence provided by the excavators and explorers for the production centresof glass is critically evaluated by Kanungo (2004a,b). These maps are made on the basis ofavailable data for the sites reported up to 2002.2

After exploring the probable glass-producing sites of North India, it is found that Kopia, withits strategic location on the southern silk route, fairly large size, considerable thickness ofhabitation deposit, good state of preservation, and ample evidence of glass, glass beads, glassbangles, crucibles and other debris of glass manufacture and use on the surface, appears to be themost likely centre of glass production. One large block of glass from Kopia weighing about 76 kgand measuring 45 ¥ 30 ¥ 22.5 cm is kept in Lucknow Museum.

KOPIA

The site of Kopia (26°52′N; 83°4′45″E), located in the Sant Kabir Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh,extends over an area of about 1 km2 and is elevated at a height of about 10 m compared with thesurrounding ground level. It is located on the flood plains of the River Rapti on the east and theRiver Ami on the west. The study of satellite images shows the River Ami to have shifted about2 km to the west of the mound since its occupation. The site is well fortified and is surroundedby a moat. There is a substantial area of occupation outside the fortification as well. Most of theevidence of glass production comes from the area outside and 250 m to the north of thefortification.

PREVIOUS WORK

The potential of Kopia to be an ancient glass manufacturing site was first noticed by A. Fuhrerin 1891. Since then, several people have explored or studied the material collected from the site(Nagar 1949; Dikshit 1969, 39; Sen and Chaudhuri 1985, 64–5; Singh et al. 1990; Tewari andSrivastava 1993–4; Mani 1997–8). All of them have hypothesized that Kopia was a major glassmanufacturing centre of around the fifth century bce; and some have analysed the glass samplesfrom the surface (Roy and Varshney 1953; Abdurazakov 1987; Lal 1987, 45).

Nagar (1949) was of the opinion that the mound of Kopia, extending for about 1.5 km andrising about 13 m from the surrounding fields, and scattered all over with innumerable glassbeads and glass pieces of various shapes and sizes, was the site of an ancient glass factory datingto about the fifth century bce. Clay pieces, supposed to be parts of containers or crucibles, arereddish brown in colour, hard and stone-like to touch, and when examined in section appear to

2Most of the sites are reported in Indian Archaeology Review (IAR issues from 2002 onwards are not yet published).

Radiocarbon chronology of Kopia glass manufacturing centre, India 901


have the characteristic structure of a crucible. From the appearance of these pieces, one gets animpression that perhaps a lateritic clay was used for making them.3 On verification, the cruciblepieces proved to be close-grained, hard reddish brown and with a stone-like body. Nagarpredicted an extensive flat land area about 4.5 m above the surrounding fields to the east of themound, at a distance of approximately 200 m, to be the ancient glass production site. However,

3It is important to mention here that there is no lateritic clay in the Ganga plains.

Figure 1 A map of India, showing the sites with evidence of glass and claimed production centres for glass/glass beads(600 to 300 BC). 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. Evidence of glass/glass bead production in Indian archaeologybetween 600 and 300 BC: 5, Champa; 13, Hastinapur; 18, Kheradih; 19, Kopia; 29, Prakash; 31, Singh Bhagwanpur.



Figure 2 A map of India, showing the sites with evidence of glass and claimed production centres for glass/glass beads(300 BC to AD 400). 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; 110, 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.



the present excavator did not find any such deposit to the east of the mound—perhaps it has beencompletely destroyed. But in the northern and northwestern part of the main mound of Kopia onestill sees a spread of glass production debris on a large scale. The inhabitants of Kopia describethis place as revealing plenty of large chunks of glass when they have dug for brick-making orcultivation purposes.

Chemical analysis of some surface finds of glass and glass beads by Roy and Varshney (1953,368, 392) showed a low CaO and MgO content, in the range of 2.40–5.81%. The alumina contentof Kopia glasses is unusually high in comparison to that of Babylonian and Assyrian glasses. Royand Varshney concluded that if it is assumed that the knowledge about glass-making in India wasderived from Middle Eastern sources, it was more likely through Babylonian and Assyriancontacts. These differences acquire significance because they support the inferences pointed outby Varshney (1955) for Taxila glasses, ‘that glass manufacture was not only well practised inancient India, but that it had developed independently in this country or even if the knowledgewas originally acquired by the Indians from the Middle East sources, by the time of Taxila it hadexisted long enough in this country for considerable progress along distinctive lines to have beenmade’.

ONGOING WORK

In three seasons of excavations (2004–2006) at the site, 26 trenches, each measuring 5 ¥ 5 mand covering a total area of 418.75 m2, were excavated either fully or in quadrants (Kanungoand Misra 2004; Kanungo and Shinde 2005; Kanungo 2006). Of these, eight trenches lay inthe centre of the mound, inside the fortification, and three on the western boundary of thefortification; both of these areas are designated as locality I. All the remaining trenches werelocated in locality II, which lies to the north and outside the fortification, four on the north-western slope of the mound, one on the disturbed and ploughed northern slope, seven on thenorth slope, and four on cultivated land between the northwestern and northern slopes of themound (Fig. 3). On the basis of the information from surface exploration and trial digs, exca-vations were conducted: in the central part of the mound, to determine the cultural sequenceand obtain information about important structures; on the northern slope, to obtain informationabout the working-class habitation; and on the northwestern slope, to investigate the glassproduction technology.

The central part of the mound is a regular habitation deposit, with large rooms made ofregular-size bricks, storage jars, soak-pits, drainage system and rich antiquities besides a lot ofglass beads and bangles. A piece of crucible and a few lumps of glass indicate simultaneoushabitation when the industrial area was active.

The finds in the habitational area at the northern end include a number of glass beads, glasstubes for beads and bangles, along with bead polishers and some basins and storage jars of verytypical shape, which makes us believe that the people related to the glass bead/bangle-makinglived here (Fig. 4). The structural remains are not as rich and impressive as those of locality I, asthe occupants would have belonged to the working class. The structures are made of brokenbricks, most probably reused from earlier or other structures. The finding of a large number of bigpots and jars indicates that craft makers might have used some of these objects.

The glass production furnaces were located on the northwestern slope of the mound.Innumerable crucible pieces, most having glass attached to them, have been found. No utilitariancultural remains were found from excavations at this location; nor is any habitational depositnoticed in the surrounding area.



The finds from the excavation strongly suggest that Kopia was a manufacturing centre forglass, and that its major economy was based on glass-making and -working. Glass is not onlyfound in more than half of the site, but no other important material has been found in anysignificant quantity. The cultural sequence (locality I) revealed by the excavation shows that thesite was occupied from the FGW (c. 700 to 300 bce) to NBP period through the NBP–Mauryan(c. 300 to 150 bce) and Sunga–Kushana (200 bce to ad 100) periods to the Gupta period (ad400–600) (Fig. 5). Although we have no absolute dates from the Gutpa period deposit, artefactssuch as seals and terracotta figurines provide ample evidence of a Gupta period occupation. Glassobjects such as beads and bangles occur in locality I in large quantities in the NBP–Mauryanlevels, but they occur in very small quantities in the FGW–NBP levels, because the excavationsin these layers are limited to the index trench OB1(SE) only. The quadrant of the index trench inwhich we exposed the NBP and FGW layers is only 2.25 ¥ 2.25 m in size. In the industrial area(locality II) near the northern and northwestern ends of the mound, the layer yielding glass andevidence of its production, including a glass furnace, is dated to the Sunga–Kushana period(Figs 6 and 7). Innumerable pieces of glass, glass slag, tuyere4 and crucible pieces with moltenglass are found in trench AWX32, in which a furnace was exposed (Figs 8–11) at a depth of

4Tuyere is generally not required for glass furnaces, but is needed for the bead and bangle industry. We have not yet been able to locateany bead/bangle furnace, but the wastes indicate that such an industry did exist.

Figure 3 Satellite image of Kopia site (using Google Earth). The white outline (centre) is the fortification, the dottedelliptical outline (top) is the tentative boundary of the glass area and the white rectangular outlines indicate trench areas.



7.71 m from the datum.5 Two 14C dates, obtained by two different laboratories from the charcoalfinds from this furnace, are ad 170 1 50 and ad 120 1 120 (Table 1).

GLASS ANALYSIS

Altogether, 16 samples of glass, including 13 glasses, three minerals and one crucible sherd, wereanalysed by Robert H. Brill of the Corning Museum. Since a paper devoted to the glass analysishas been published (Kanungo and Brill 2009) and the detailed data will be included in our finalreport, only the gist of the analysis is provided here.

5The datum is the northwestern peg of trench AY1 in locality I.

Figure 4 Bangles, drawn tubes for beads (?) and beads from locality II.



Figure 5 The stratigraphy of Kopia locality I, with AMS dates.



Two distinctly different families of chemical composition were found. The first consists ofsoda–lime glasses having a relatively low lime content (CaO 2 4%) and a high alumina content(Al2O3 ~ 4.5–6.5%). This is a family of compositions that is recognized from many earlier studiesand is associated with glasses found in India. The alumina/silica ratio for the Kopia glass is about2.50–2.75 times greater than that of most of the Roman and Hellenistic glasses of a contemporarytime period. Thirteen glass samples are of this composition: all five samples, comprising threebeads, one bangle piece and one roughout dating to the Sunga–Kushana period, from locality IIare of this variety; and in locality I, one bead, two bangles and two roughouts from theSunga–Kushana period and one bangle and two roughouts from the NBP period also belong tothis category. In locality I, no glass was found in layers 8–10, and the two samples analysed fromlayers 11 and 12 are of some other composition.

The other family is of potash–silica composition. Glasses of this type are found throughoutEast Asia and South-East Asia, and as far west as India. Such glasses may have been made atmore than one location within that region, and beads and bracelets in particular were widelytraded there. The glasses from Kopia are similar to potash–silica glasses from other sites in India,in that most of them contain slightly greater levels of lime than some glasses in the same familyexcavated in South-East Asia and East Asia. Only three samples, all found in the index trench inlocality I, were of this composition; two of them are glass pieces and are associated with theFGW–NBP, and one is a bangle piece associated with the NBP. None of the samples from localityII proved to be of this composition.

Figure 6 The stratigraphy of Kopia locality II, northern end deposit, with AMS date.



All the samples analysed from Kopia have high strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr ª 0.72–0.78), which are entirely different from those characterizing glasses from more westerlysources and from East Asia. This offers further evidence for the existence of an ‘Indian family’of glass compositions. It is also consistent with the likelihood that those glasses (including allbut one of the Kopia soda–limes) were made in India. The high 87Sr/86Sr ratios are not onlydifferent from those of ‘Western’ glasses, but the Indian glasses and minerals also conform tothe high values expected for minerals from the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh, where Kopia islocated.

RADIOCARBON DATING

A large number of charcoal samples collected from seven trenches covering all parts of themound have been analysed for radiocarbon (14C, Table 1 and Fig. 12). Thirteen of them wereanalysed by the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method and seven were analysed using theconventional (b-counting) method. All the samples were treated according to prescribed scientificprocedures, such as pre-treatment with an acid–alkali–acid method to remove contamination, andbetween each analysis step the samples were thoroughly rinsed and ultrasonicated with deionizedwater. The resulting CO2 was purified and converted to graphite for AMS analysis using thehydrogen reduction method (Vogel et al. 1987, 323–33), and analysed for 14C using the AMSfacilities of the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar (laboratory code IP; Ravi Prasad et al. 2008,1833–6) and the NSF–Arizona AMS laboratory of the University of Arizona, Tucson (laboratory

Figure 7 The stratigraphy of Kopia locality II, northern–western end deposit, with AMS date.



Figure 8 The remains of the furnace in locality II.

Figure 9 Pieces of glass found with the furnace.



code AA; Donahue 1995, 235–45). For liquid scintillation counting, about 5 g of pre-treatedcharcoal samples were combusted in a stream of pure O2 gas. The resultant CO2 was purified,converted to benzene and assayed for b-activity using the Quantulus liquid scintillation analyserat the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad (laboratory code PRL; Yadava and Ramesh1999).

Figure 10 Broken tuyeres and crucible pieces found with the furnace.



The 14C ages were determined using the Libby half-life of 14C (5568 years) following standardprotocols (Stuiver and Polach 1977, 355–63; Donahue et al. 1990, 135–42). To correct forisotopic fractionation of 13C, the 14C ages of three samples analysed at AA were normalized usingmeasured d13C values between –25.1 and –25.4‰ (Donahue et al. 1990). The remaining 14C ages

Figure 11 A reconstruction of the crucible.



Tabl

e1

Rad

ioca

rbon

date

sof

arch

aeol

ogic

alch

arco

alre

mai

nsfr

omK

opia

Reg

.no.

Lot

no.

Loc

alit

yTr

ench

Lay

erD

epth

(m)

Lab

orat

ory

code

14C

age

(BP)

2sca

lend

ar14

Cag

era

nges

[sta

rt:e

nd]

rela

tive

area

(%)

Com

men

tson

ages

350

28I

AY

11

2.04

–2.2

8IP

-431

23461

87[c

albc

760:

cal

bc68

2]12

.27

[cal

bc67

1:ca

lbc

342]

70.2

0[c

albc

326:

cal

bc20

4]17

.53

Inco

nsis

tent

650

15I

AY

12

2.10

–2.2

1IP

-432

18611

84[c

albc

40:

cal

ad34

9]99

.30

[cal

ad36

9:ca

lad

378]

0.70

Sung

a–K

usha

na

750

11I

OB

13

2.17

–2.2

6IP

-438

21641

168

[cal

bc75

1:ca

lbc

686]

2.68

[cal

bc66

7:ca

lbc

637]

1.06

[cal

bc62

1:ca

lbc

614]

0.21

[cal

bc59

4:ca

lad

174]

95.4

7[c

alad

192:

cal

ad21

1]00

.59

NB

P(M

aury

a)

1150

12I

AY

13

2.94

–2.9

7IP

-433

18811

109

[cal

bc15

4:ca

lbc

138]

0.79

[cal

bc11

3:ca

lad

399]

99.2

1Su

nga–

Kus

hana

950

24I

AY

14

2.64

–2.8

1IP

-440

16831

185

[cal

bc91

:ca

lbc

69]

0.52

[cal

bc60

:ca

lad

688]

99.4

2[c

alad

754:

cal

ad75

7]0.

06

Inco

nsis

tent

3060

28I

OE

15

4.00

–4.0

3PR

L-3

021

21401

70[c

albc

381:

cal

bc37

]98

.52

[cal

bc29

:ca

lbc

22]

0.67

[cal

bc11

:ca

lbc

2]0.

81

NB

P(M

aury

a)

1250

14I

AY

17

3.06

–3.0

8IP

-464

23301

64[c

albc

747:

cal

bc68

8]6.

38[c

albc

665:

cal

bc64

6]1.

64[c

albc

587:

cal

bc58

1]0.

37[c

albc

553:

cal

bc20

3]91

.61

NB

P

1250

14I

AY

17

3.06

–3.0

8PR

L-3

016

26401

80[c

albc

997:

cal

bc70

5]79

.33

[cal

bc69

5:ca

lbc

539]

20.6

7In

cons

iste

nt

1350

25I

OB

19

3.32

–3.3

6IP

-466

18661

117

[cal

bc15

8:ca

lbc

135]

1.08

[cal

bc11

5:ca

lad

418]

98.9

2In

cons

iste

nt

1450

31I

OB

110

3.72

–3.8

1IP

-468

21911

155

[cal

bc75

1:ca

lbc

686]

3.03

[cal

bc66

7:ca

lbc

637]

1.22

[cal

bc62

1:ca

lbc

614]

0.23

[cal

bc59

5:ca

lad

93]

94.4

7[c

alad

97:

cal

ad12

5]1.

05

NB

P(M

aury

a)



Tabl

e1

(Con

tinu

ed)

Reg

.no.

Lot

no.

Loc

alit

yTr

ench

Lay

erD

epth

(m)

Lab

orat

ory

code

14C

age

( BP)

2sca

lend

ar14

Cag

era

nges

[sta

rt:e

nd]

rela

tive

area

(%)

Com

men

tson

ages

1650

31I

OB

110

3.12

–3.8

1A

A-7

1140

22811

33[c

albc

402:

cal

bc35

0]55

.71

[cal

bc30

1:ca

lbc

210]

44.2

9N

BP

1450

31I

OB

110

3.72

–3.8

1PR

L-3

017

21901

70[c

albc

392:

cal

bc89

]97

.84

[cal

bc75

:ca

lbc

57]

2.16

NB

P(M

aury

a)

2250

35I

OB

111

4.04

–4.1

5A

A-7

1141

22351

33[c

albc

389:

cal

bc34

1]26

.37

[cal

bc32

7:ca

lbc

204]

73.6

3N

BP

(Mau

rya)

1850

32I

OB

111

3.81

–3.8

9IP

-480

24891

118

[cal

bc89

5:ca

lbc

871]

0.83

[cal

bc85

0:ca

lbc

365]

99.1

7N

BP

2150

38I

OB

112

4.28

–4.3

6IP

-470

25091

100

[cal

bc81

7:ca

lbc

399]

100.

00N

BP

28I

LX

252.

84PR

L-3

020

27201

90[c

albc

1188

:ca

lbc

1181

]0.

21[c

albc

1155

:ca

lbc

1146

]0.

27[c

albc

1130

:ca

lbc

752]

98.0

9[c

albc

686:

cal

bc66

7]0.

77[c

albc

632:

cal

bc62

5]0.

18[c

albc

612:

cal

bc59

6]0.

47

Inco

nsis

tent

2960

18II

AW

X32

48.

05–8

.14

AA

-711

4218

601

32[c

alad

78:

cal

ad23

3]10

0.00

Sung

a–K

usha

na31

6019

IIA

WX

324

8.14

–8.7

0PR

L-3

022

19001

100

[cal

bc16

0:ca

lbc

134]

1.41

[cal

bc11

6:ca

lad

349]

98.1

8[c

alad

369:

cal

ad37

8]0.

41

Sung

a–K

usha

na

2660

15II

AV

X32

48.

42–9

.42

PRL

-301

820

401

90[c

albc

358:

cal

bc27

8]6.

90[c

albc

259:

cal

bc24

1]0.

80[c

albc

236:

cal

ad13

3]92

.30

Sung

a–K

usha

na

2760

05II

AA

CX

44

9.07

–9.1

3PR

L-3

019

18801

70[c

albc

39:

cal

bc8]

2.78

[cal

bc4:

cal

ad25

9]93

.50

[cal

ad28

4:ca

lad

323]

3.72

Sung

a–K

usha

na

d13C

for

all

char

coal

sam

ples

assu

med

tobe

–25‰

,exc

ept

for

AA

-711

40,-

7114

1an

d-7

1142

,for

whi

chm

easu

red

d13C

valu

es(b

etw

een

–25.

1an

d–2

5.4‰

)w

ere

used

.



analysed at IP and PRL were normalized assuming uniform d13C values of –25‰. The raw 14Cages were calibrated with Calib 5.1 software (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), using the IntCal04 14Cdata set (Reimer et al. 2004, 1029–58).

CHRONOLOGY

The dates obtained by the three laboratories are remarkably close—indeed, almost identical.Of these, five (Reg. Nos. 3, 9, 12, 13 and 28) are stratigraphically inconsistent and canbe ignored. The remaining 15 can be treated as valid for the entire site. Period-wise, six of themare from Sunga–Kushana layers, six from NBP–Mauryan layers and three from FGW–NBPlayers.

From locality I, inside the fortification, the oldest date—that is, 655 1 135 bce—comes fromthe index trench, whereas the youngest one—that is, ad 150 1 100—comes from the adjacenttrench AY1.

In locality II, the dates are only from the lowest layer; that is, layer 4. These show the beginningof the habitation in trench AACX4 in the northern end of the mound in ad 145 1 85, and in trenchAVX32 in the northwestern end of the mound in 55 1 115 bce. The furnace in AWX32 is datedto ad 120 1 120.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of FGW is limited to layers 12 and 11; with the limited excavation in this level, it is notpossible to say whether the FGW had an independent existence or was an associated ware of the

Figure 12 An age distribution plot (obtained using Calib 5.1) for samples from locality I.



NBP. There is also a distinct cultural phase between the NBP and the Sunga–Kushana period inthe form of a predominant red ware belonging to the Mauryan period, which covers layers 10–7.

The excavated finds and radiocarbon dates suggest that glass production in locality II startedmuch later than the beginning of occupation. Thus it is possible that glass-making was introducedby the people who settled here after the burning and destruction of the site around 200 bce.Throughout locality I there is evidence of burning activity and destruction of structures betweenlayers 2 and 3. This could be due to accidental fire or intentional destruction by invaders. Theheight of the fortification seems to have been increased after the burning activity. Charcoal fromthe burning event has given a date of 205 1 195 bce. The earlier claim that the glass productiondated to the fifth century bce could be due to the fact that people never realized that there wasevery possibility of localities I and II being occupied in two different time periods, and the NBPfinds in locality II could be due to anthropogenic activities from locality I, which is at a 7 mhigher level than locality II. We should mention that the glass found in the NBP period in localityI—at least, from layer 7 onwards—is very similar, both morphologically and chemically, to thatfrom locality II. There is a possibility that either (1) glass was produced earlier in locality I, orin some already destroyed area in locality II that could have dated to the NBP period, or (2) weare yet to encounter the evidence of glass production in the early levels. Thus there is a great needto put sondage trenches across the mound at regular intervals to get a respectable amount of earlyglass and to find evidence for its production before we come to any final conclusion. It isimportant to mention here that Charda (first millennium bce), which is 200 km north-west ofKopia, and Sisaniya (third to fourth centuries ad), which is 75 km north of Kopia, have yieldedglass that is identical to that of Kopia (Kanungo 2008). All these three sites should be studiedtogether, not only to understand the technological development of glass in this region but also themigration of the glassmakers.

The number of aberrant dates suggests that one or two measurements cannot be relied upon toestablish the age of a culture or of the site; there has to be a cluster of dates for the chronologyto be reliable. We resisted the temptation to date the entire site to an early age on the basis of oneor two early dates, and we have attempted to build a composite chronology of the entire culturalsequence and site on the basis of the internally consistent dates. Furthermore, the stages oftechnological development should be based on scientific dating in combination with the study ofcultural materials with regard to other related sites.

The excavation and dating of Kopia have established that glass production existed in Indiaprior to contact with Rome. The habitation area inside the fortification, the industrial area in thenorthwestern part outside the fortification and the working-class habitation in the northern partoutside the fortification were separate from each other. Their relationship in time and space needsto be investigated. It needs to be mentioned that due to the paucity of samples, we have only oneAMS date from the northern part, where the working-class people lived. The use of brickbatsinstead of regular bricks for the construction of structures, and the discovery of large pieces ofglass in the foundations, not only suggests that this part was occupied towards the very end of thesettlement period, when the economy of the site was declining, but also that in these times glasswas no longer important in the economy. The finding of a few terracotta figurines of the Guptaperiod indicates that this part of the mound was occupied later than the fortified area.

Glass and glass beads from Arikamedu might have played their role in sea trading, but as faras land routes and hinterland trading of glass products is concerned, it seems that Kopia, locatedon the southern silk route, was an important centre at least from the third century bce onwards.

Quantitative analyses by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy and semi-quantitativeanalyses by emission spectrography, X-ray diffraction of batch materials, and strontium isotope



analyses of representative glasses place the Kopia glass within earlier classifications that char-acterize glasses found in India and probably made there (Kanungo and Brill 2009). The strontiumisotope analyses are consistent with the hypothesis that glass was made in India (Brill 1987). Rehand riverine sands are suggested as probable batch materials to account for the compositions.

FUTURE WORK

The glass furnace exposed in trench AWX32 at the northwestern end of the site is the earliestglass furnace in India to be both excavated and studied scientifically, and it has raised a numberof questions, such as the following: (a) What was the glass production technology in Kopia? (b)Was there any earlier furnace than this? (c) From where did the raw materials come? (d) Forwhom was such large-scale glass produced? (e) Who controlled its production? (f) When andhow did the production technologies develop—were they borrowed or indigenous? (g) What wasKopia’s interaction with other contemporary settlements? Answers to these questions will beprovided in the detailed excavation report.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to a number of scholars for the excavation at Kopia and for obtaining the 14Cdates. The late Dr S. P. Gupta, then Director of the Centre for the Study of History, Archaeologyand Palaeoenvironment, New Delhi, was a source of constant encouragement and practical help.Dr Rakesh Tewari, Director of the Uttar Pradesh State Archaeology Department, Lucknow,extended all possible logistical help for the excavation. We are grateful to Professor PeterBellwood, Secretary General of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (IPPA), for makingavailable to us the facility of the IPPA–Arizona dating scheme, and to Dr David Whitehouse andDr Robert Brill for availing us of the facilities of the Corning Museum of Glass for scientificanalyses of the glass.

REFERENCES

Abdurazakov, A. A., 1987, Indian and central Asian connections, in Archaeometry of glass (ed. H. C. Bhardwaj), 37–43,Indian Ceramic Society, Calcutta.

Brill, R. H., 1987, Chemical analyses of some early Indian glasses, in Archaeometry of glass [note 8] (ed. H. C.Bhardwaj), 1–25, Indian Ceramic Society, Calcutta.

Dikshit, M. G., 1969, History of Indian glass, University of Bombay, Bombay.Donahue, D. J., 1995, Radiocarbon analysis by accelerator mass spectrometry, International Journal of Mass Spectro-

metry and Ion Processes, 143, 235–45.Donahue, D. J., Linick, D., and Jull, A. J. T., 1990, Isotope-ratio and background corrections for accelerator mass

spectrometry radiocarbon measurements, Radiocarbon, 32(2), 135–42.Francis, P., 1984, Notes, Journal of Glass Studies, 26, 152–3.Fuhrer, A., 1891, The monumental antiquities and inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, II, Archaeo-

logical Survey of India, Delhi.Hegde, K., 1962, Technical studies in Northern Black Polished (N.B.P.) Ware, Journal of the Maharaja Sayajirao

University of Baroda, 11(1), 159–61.Hegde, K. T. M., 1975, The Painted Grey Ware of India, Antiquity, 49(195), 187–90.Hegde, K. T. M., 1989, Pottery: Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and associated wares, in Encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology

(ed. A. Ghosh), 242–3, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, New Delhi.Joshi, J. P., 1993, in Excavation at Bhagwanpura 1975–76 and other exploration and excavations 1971–1981 in Haryana,

Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi.



Kanungo, A. K., 2004a, Glass beads in ancient India: an ethnoarchaeological approach, BAR International Series, 1242,John and Erica Hedges, Oxford.

Kanungo, A. K., 2004b, Glass beads in ancient India furnace wound beads at Purdalpur: an ethnoarchaeological approach,Asian Perspective, 43(1), 123–50.

Kanungo, A. K., 2006, Excavation at Kopia 2006: a preliminary report, Puratattva, 36, 103–11.Kanungo, A. K., 2008, Review of Excavations at Gotihawa and Pipri, Kapilbastu District, Nepal, Man and Environment,

33(1), 141–3.Kanungo, A. K., and Brill, R. H., 2009, Kopia, India’s first glassmaking site: dating and chemical analysis, Journal of

Glass Studies, 51, 11–25.Kanungo, A. K., and Misra, V. N., 2004, Excavation at Kopia: a preliminary report, Puratattva, 34, 116–26.Kanungo, A. K., and Shinde, V. S., 2005, Excavation at Kopia 2005: a preliminary report, Puratattva, 35, 126–34.Kanungo, A. K., Misra, V. N., and Shinde, V., 2007, Western Indian (Mewar) Chalcolithic beads with special reference

to Balathal, Beads, 19, 42–57.Lal, B. B., 1987, Glass technology in early India, in Archaeometry of glass (ed. H. C. Bharadwaj), 44–56, Central Glass

and Ceramic Research Institute, Calcutta.Mani, B. R., 1997–8, Two seasons of archaeological investigations in Trans-Ghaghra Plains (District Basti and

Siddharthnagar, U.P.) 1995–97, Pragdhara, B, 13–39.Misra, V. N., 1999, Pottery, in Chemistry and chemical techniques in India (ed. B. V. Subbarayappa), 223–44, Centre for

Studies in Civilizations, Delhi.Nagar, M. N., 1949, Amrita Bazar Patrika (Sunday Edition—Allahabad), 14 August.Ravi Prasad, G. V., Dutta, K., and Ray, D. K., 2008, Radiocarbon AMS at IOP: system improvements and dating of

groundwater from Bhadrak district, Orissa, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 266, 1833–6.Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr,

G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G.,Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C. E., 2004, INTCAL04 terrestrialradiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr bp, Radiocarbon, 46(3), 1029–58.

Roy, P., and Varshney, Y. P., 1953, Ancient Kopia glass, Glass Industry, 34, 366–8, 392.Sankalia, H. D., Deo, S. B., and Ansari, Z. D., 1969, Excavations at Ahar (Timbavati), Deccan College, Pune.Sen, S. N., and Chaudhuri, M., 1985, Ancient glass and India, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi.Sharma, D. V., Nauriyal, K. C., and Prabhakar, V. N., 2005–6, Excavations at Sanauli 2006: a Harappan necropolis in the

Upper Ganga – Yamuna Doab, Puratattva, 36, 166–79.Singh, P., Singh, A. K., and Singh, I. J., 1990, Explorations along the Kuwana river in districts Gorakhpur and Basti,

Pragdhara, 1, 69–82.Stuiver, M., and Polach, H. A., 1977, Discussion: reporting of 14C data, Radiocarbon, 19(3), 355–63.Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J., 1993, Extended 14C database and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program, in

Calibration 1993 (eds. M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra), Radiocarbon, 35, 215–30.Tandon, B. N., 1993, Analysis of glass from Bhagwanpura, in Excavation at Bhagwanpura 1975–76 and other

exploration and excavations 1971–1981 in Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab (ed. J. P. Joshi), 209–18,Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi.

Tewari, R., and Srivastava, R. K., 1993–4, Explorations along the Ami river and in its nearby areas in districts SidharthaNagar, Basti & Gorakhpur, Pragdhara, 4, 13–39.

Tripathi, V., 1984, Stages of Painted Grey Ware culture, Man and Environment, 8, 90–2.Tripathi, V., 1989, Pottery: Painted Grey Ware (PGW) and associated wares, in Encyclopaedia of Indian archaeology

(ed. A. Ghosh), 241–2, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, New Delhi.Tripathi, V., 1997, Stages of the Painted Grey Ware culture, in Indian prehistory: 1980 (eds. V. D. Misra and J. N. Pal),

Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad.Varshney, Y. P., 1955, Glass in Ancient India, Glass Industry, 31(12), 632–4.Vogel, J. S., Nelson, D. E., and Southon, J. R., 1987, 14C background levels in an accelerator mass spectrometry system,

Radiocarbon, 29(3), 323–33.Yadava, M. G., and Ramesh, R., 1999, Speleothems—useful proxies for past monsoon rainfall, Journal of Scientific and

Industrial Research, 58, 339–48.



THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF KOPIA, AN EARLY GLASS MANUFACTURING CENTRE IN INDIA

Documents

Transcript of THE RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF KOPIA, AN EARLY GLASS MANUFACTURING CENTRE IN INDIA