Glass is a substance in so many ways connected with the conveniences and amenities of our daily life and the word calls up so many varied associations, that I must here at the very beginning make clear with what a comparatively small proportion of the manifold applications of the substance I have to deal with. We have at hand in the British Museum a collection of glass that has no rival elsewhere; only second to it is the collection at South Kensigton.
It is in these collections that the history of glass must be studied. I have, from time to time, in the following pages called attention to the most remarkable examples. I hope that what I have said may assist the student in threading his work through what is a rather complicated history. Glass is an important substance and is manufactured from various ingredients. In India it is known from the hoary past. However, earlier only objects in crude form could be produced. In course of time, the artisans tried various processes to improve the products.
They succeeded in preparing from it beautiful things of various types which were highly attractive. Antiquity of glass in India is very strongly supported in view of several references to it in Indian literature. At the time when the Yajurveda was composed, female ornaments were made of glass. Satapatha Brahmana, a work generally attributed to a period before 800 B.C., contains references to glass beads. The manufacturing of glass in India has continued through the ages. In course of time the artisans have attained great skill in producing the glass objects of various hues, sizes and shapes.
How can one test the thesis that glass was a necessary, if not sufficient, cause of the
explosion in reliable knowledge in western Eur-Asia? One method is to compare what happened
in the two halves of Eur-Asia. This is not, one should stress, conclusive. One can plausibly
argue that if one could find a case (for example India, China or Japan) where the kind of growth
in reliable knowledge we have found in western Europe occurred in a civilization where glass
was little used, then it would disprove the hypothesis that glass was a necessary condition for
the development of 'science'. On the other hand, if India, China or Japan do not have that
expansion of reliable knowledge, it might still be the result of other things than the absence of
glass. Glass can never be other than one of a number of necessary causes, and never sufficient
in itself. Hunter-gatherers do not lack science because they lack glass.
Nevertheless, it is still useful to create a sort of control study by looking not only at other
cases, but also to look at what happened when glass and non-glass worlds collided, as they did
when Europe expanded all over Asia in the seventeenth century.
* * *
Starting with the area closest to western Eur-Asia, the history of glass in India is particularly
interesting. Here was a vast and sophisticated continent which excelled in many technical
processes over the ages, in iron and pottery, in weaving and spinning, in woodwork and
basketwork. It was situated adjacent to the area where glass was first developed (Persia and the
Middle East generally) and was in constant trade relations with that area. If there is something
inevitable about the progress of this technology, we might well have expected glass manufacture
to have blossomed in India. What then can we learn about its history?
The situation in the several thousand years before the birth of Christ suggests a widespread
knowledge of glass, but its use was mainly for decoration. The Harappans (??? dates) made
glass beads and bangles, ear ornaments, seals, glass discs. As Singh summarizes this period,
'the most popular articles were confined to beads and bangles as compared to the sites of the old
world, which show great profusion in use of glass vessels, decorations and utilitarian objects'.1
The knowledge and technology were there, but 'it must be admitted that Indian Glass technology
does not compare favourably with contemporary cultures of the outside world.' 2 Nevertheless it
is worth noting that 'Pliny states (Nat.Hist. xxxvi.26.66) that no glass was to be compared to
the Indian, and gives as a reason that it was made from broken crystal... We have, however,
very little knowledge of Indian glass of any considerable antiquity
There seems to have been a surge in the making and use of glass in the period from about the
birth of Christ to the fifth century. Dikshit writes that 'the early centuries of the Christian era
have been the most affluent period for the spread of glassware in India.'4 He claims that glass
'became an article of common use'. Traces of both indigenous glass manufacture in India,
'finger rings, Intaglios, lenses, glass-disks and other objects' have been found. 5 Foreign glass
objects, including wine glasses were being imported and it is clear that the revolutionary
technique of blowing glass was known in India. At this point it looked as if India was moving in
the same direction as the lands to the west. Yet the industry then faded away for over a thousand
years. From the golden period of the Guptas, from about 450 A.D., 'the glass industry in India
had declined to such an extent that it would not be far wrong to estimate that glass was not
valued and was little cared for.'6 Dikshit describes this as a dark age when only a few bangles
and glazed bowls were made. In the Bahmani Period (1435-1518), there was a small revival,
with 'layered glass bangles, beads of composite glass and a few fragments of bowls' being
found through the Deccan. Yet when we compare this, for instance, to what had by now
happened in Europe, we notice the conspicuous absence of windows, mirrors, lenses,
spectacles and widespread use glass for drinking vessels. As other authors put it 'In India, apart
from beads and a few other small objects which appeared from the fifth century BC, there is not
much evidence for glass or its manufacture until the Mughal period (1526-1857).'7
In the Mughal period, Persian craftsmen were brought to court and glass was manufactured.
Clear glass was uncommon, the glass being usually of a deep copper blue, and ornamented with
flowers and other decorations. Hukkah bowls ('hubble bubble') were decorated with glass and
some bowls and spittoons of glass were made. By a curious twist, while glass began to be used
for mirrors, it was used on the back of a metal mirror as decoration (usually green or light
brown in imitation of jade).(quote?)8
Another account of what happened over the Mughal period is as follows. 'During the Mughal
period (1526-1857), glass was widely used by the imperial family and the nobility... The
A'in-i Akbari, compiled in 1596-7, notes the manufacture of glass in Bihar and near the
Mughal capital at Agra. Later sources mention factories outside the Mughal Empire, in Gujarat
and other parts of western India. Most of the surviving Mughal glass, however, dates from
between the late seventeenth century and the mid nineteenth century.' The eighteenth century
objects 'include huqqa bases and glasses made in imitation of imported Dutch gin bottles.... A
completely different type of glass was produced at Kapadvanj, near Ahmadabad in Gujarat. It
consists of blue, green, brown and purple sprinklers, tumblers and spouted vessels. Production
ceased in the nineteenth century, when English lead glass captured the local market.'9
The divergent development of India when compared to western Europe could be seen as the
impact of the expanding Portuguese and British traders began to be felt. Spectacles of glass
begin to be found from the first quarter of the sixteenth century, and there is a great deal of
evidence of the import of spectacles by the East India Company from the early seventeenth
century. The correspondence of this company 'shows that foreign glass, especially large looking
glasses, spectacles etc. were in large demand in India'.10 Dutch bottles for rose water, gin, ink
and so on are also now widespread. Imported glass seems to have been quite widely used, but it
is difficult to know how much native production there was even in this period. Certainly by the
later eighteenth century, there are interesting descriptions of native glass kilns, such as that
described by Buchanan near Mysore.11 In the nineteenth century there was quite a large
indigenous glass industry, though it seems that the main products were bangles and vessels and
little evidence is to be found of the making of mirrors, window panes, spectacles, lenses etc.
Thus Dikshit concludes that 'It must be admitted that the Indian glass industry did not go much
beyond the manufacture of bangles and some small objects.'12
The quality of Indian glass was also a problem during this period. We are told that 'Indian
glass is usually full of impurities and extremely light in weight'. This had various consequences.
'The poor translucency of Indian glass led to a constant demand for superior foreign imports,
and in the eighteenth century English lead glass was particularly favoured, though the Dutch also
had a flourishing Indian trade. By the nineteenth century the indigenous industry had almost
collapsed in favour of foreign imports.'13
The puzzle is this. As Dikshit writes 'The industry did not realize the fruits of the invention of
glass blowing and the revolution it brought about elsewhere' even though 'Indians had a full
knowledge of the different processes of blowing glass'.14 Several contributory factors have
been suggested by historians of the subject. One concerns the materials for glass. Singh
suggests that 'Probably there was a limiting factor in the mass production of glasses. This was
precisely the shortage of natron, natural alkali, in India which did not allow this industry to
expand.' 15 This may be important, but if other factors had been propitious one suspects that ,
given the widespread cottage industry of the nineteenth century, this obstacle could have been
overcome. Likewise another difficulty which is not mentioned, the huge consumption of wood
needed to make glass, might again have been overcome. Certainly in the early period India had
vast forest reserves.
Dikshit puts forward two other interrelated causes for the slow development of glass. One
was the low position of glass makers. As with all those who turn nature into culture (blacksmiths,
tailors, leather-workers etc.), glass makers were relegated to the bottom of the caste
system. Thus glass making would not attract educated or wealthy people, unlike in Europe
where glass-making was a reasonably prestigious occupation. Somehow this was also linked to
social snobbery and religious restrictions. Although the statement is vague, we are told that
'Another obstacle in the industry was the general dislike for glass itself which was not counted
among articles to be used by the rich and sophisticated. Though there was no ban on using glass
articles, according to religious texts, traditionally these were held in contempt and this often
restricted their use.' 16 Perhaps one could even see how glass is thought of today. Certainly it
does seem to be the case that the main use of glass was to try to imitate something else - jade and
precious stones, china and porcelain and so on. It does not seem to have been valued for itself.
If we take a wider view various things stand out from this story. Firstly, the
non-development was not the result of either lack of knowledge or lack of craft skills. Both were
in as great abundance in this area as around the Mediterranean where glass developed so
rapidly. Secondly India is a prime example of a civilization which over a thousand years or so
almost forgot about glass. Having been quite widespread, at least for small decorative items, by
400 A.D., by 1400 it had almost disappeared. Thirdly, it is not difficult to see functional reasons
for this, quite apart from the materials side. If we examine each of the major uses, we can see
why India did not need glass. Firstly, it had an ancient and very widespread pottery tradition.
Cheap pots and drinking vessels dealt with the storage and drinking side much better than the
costly glass vessels. Secondly, its climate did not make glass windows a high priority, so flat
glass would not develop. Thirdly, it had plenty of good brass and other metals for
mirror-making. It may therefore not be necessary to invoke Hindu or Islamic attitudes to glass in
the explanation of why India remained, essentially, a civilization which did not develop glass.
The consequences were incalculable. Among these are the possible effects on Indian science.
It is well known that India was very advanced in its mathematics, giving the west the concept
and sign of the zero, for example. Yet after the period up to about 500 A.D. (check), the
mathematics became more and more abstract and 'pure'. Nor was there much development, as
far as I know, of geometry or optics. The practical experiments and testing of mathematics
which glass allows through the use of mirrors and lenses was not possible in India. This is
probably very important and deserves further research. Secondly there are the effects on Indian
art. As I have tried to show, glass is one of the crucial features which led to a revolution in
western art, with perspective, depth, realism etc. The fact that Indian art, from the medieval
period right up through the famous Persian art of the Mughal period, remained two-dimensional
and symbolic, is perhaps also influenced by the absence of glass. Thirdly, the concepts of the
person and individual were deeply effected by glass, and particularly by mirrors. It will be
interesting to see how this theory works in Indian concepts of the person and individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment