Long Chronology of Painted Grey Ware
[Preliminary Draft]
In publications from the 1960s and 1970s, a timeframe of 2300–1750 BCE was assigned to the Harappan period, from Early to Late. However, with advanced dating methods, calibration curves, and newer excavations, this timeframe was revised.
This post summarizes the arguments of the article Painted Grey Ware Culture: Changing Perspectives by V.K. Gupta and B.R. Mani with updated dates, which argues for a longer chronology of the PGW pottery tradition.
Technological similarities of PGW with earlier pottery traditions:
Shahi Tump Grey Ware: Technological similarities include lightweight construction and black paint on a grey surface, but there are differences in overall appearance. This is dated to the early 3rd millennium BCE.
Nal polychrome pottery: Lightweight pottery with manufacturing techniques similar to PGW, but with no other similarities.
This suggests that the technological foundation for the emergence of PGW was already present in the Indian subcontinent. Furthermore, apart from technological similarities, there are pottery traditions with a similar appearance to PGW pottery:
Another important aspect which has been overlooked by the scholars till now is the presence of plain grey ware (though thicker in fabric than the finer PGW) in the mature Harappan context at a number of sites including Harappa and Mohenjodaro, sherds of which are available in the Central Antiquities Collection, Purana Qila. Along with this plain grey ware, black slipped ware pottery from Harappa and Mohenjodaro is also kept in CAC, Purana Qila. From Kunal in Haryana, similar grey ware is reported from the early and mature Harappan contexts which continued during the later PGW culture. In fact, Kunal is a site which is providing a continuity of plain grey ware from the early Harappan times to the PGW times with appearance of finer variety of grey ware in the PGW cultural strata. Black painting is also found on many of this finer variety pottery, making it painted grey ware. (Gupta & Mani : 371)
Further, as Vivek Dangi reports, there are multiple sites with a clear overlap between Harappan & PGW cultures:
The excavations at the site of Bhagwanpura have thrown a new light on the relationship between the Late Harappan and the Painted Grey Ware using people. While Sub-period IA at Bhagwanpura is represented by the Late Harappan culture, Sub-period IB is marked by a co-occurrence of the Late Harappan and Painted Grey Ware ceramics ( Joshi 1993: 27). The similar evidence has been reported from Dadheri ( Joshi 1993: 245), Nagar ( Joshi 1993: 246), Manda ( Joshi 1993: 241) and Katpalon ( Joshi 1993: 245-46).
A similar situation has also been reported from the recently excavated site of Madina, which is situated about 80 km west of New Delhi. Here, the excavator does not exactly explain the Late Harappan - Painted Grey Ware overlap, but rather notes that Late Harappan elements like pottery and antiquities continued from the lowest level to the uppermost level of the Painted Grey Ware.
Dangi tentatively dates this "overlapping phase" to 1300–1100 BCE, which is unusual because the "Late Harappan" phase is not dated until 1100 BCE. This seems like a desperate attempt to force-fit the chronology, as the overlap eliminates any possibility of claiming a stratigraphic break. Additionally, it is incorrect to associate PGW with Iron Age transformation. As I explained in the previous post on Raipura, which shows iron from 1800 BCE, the primary ceramics present are Black and Red Ware and Black Slipped Ware; this is also true for other sites with early evidence of iron metallurgy, such as Jhusi and Malhar. Furthermore, Gupta and Mani note that there are "a number of sites in Punjab and Haryana where no iron is reported from PGW strata."
Fortunately, there are some sites with this overlap for which radiocarbon dates are available.
1. Alamgirpur
This is divided into four periods by the excavators:
Recent Excavations at Alamgirpur, Meerut District: A Preliminary Report
It is reported that “On the basis of recent excavations and geoarchaeological study it has been suggested that there is no stratigraphic gap between Harappan and PGW levels.” and “PGW was found in layers 1-4 along with iron artefacts mainly in the lowest layer. PGW and Harappan pottery was found together in layers 5 and 6. Layers 7-10 are characterized by Mature and Early Harappan ceramics, together with a small number of OCP sherds”
The latest excavation also refuted the dogmatic assumption of a break between Harappan & PGW levels which was earlier also criticized by archaeologist Dilip Chakrabarti:
It is apparent that the idea of break between the early periods was for some unknown reasons, was almost axiomatic in the Indian archaeological writing of the period. Hence, there was no scientific basis for the assumption of a break between the Harappan and the PGW. Our recent excavations have revealed an overlap phase of both the cultures. The geoarchaeological and wood charcoal studies carried out at the University of Cambridge have not noted any specific difference between the deposits and climatic conditions during both the periods.
Based on radiocarbon dates, Period IA is dated to 2600-2200 BCE though they have used Libby’s half life (5568 yrs) instead of Cambridge half life (5730 yrs) so the reported dates are at least 100 years younger than the samples.
Radiocarbon dates from Kampil, Gosna & Mathura reported by Gupta & Mani fit this chronological timeframe.
