It is quite certain that the diamond is not one of the earliest gems known to man, and the facts of the stone not having been found among the ruins of Nineveh or Bassora, the Etruscan sepulchres, or the jewels of the ancient tombs of the Phœnicians of the island of Cyprus, recently explored by Di Cesnola, afford strong presumptive evidence that its discovery dates within historic times. As the gem in its natural state is not often finely crystallized with smooth planes and perfect transparency, like the limpid crystals of quartz, it was probably long overlooked by man, and its adoption in the decorative arts preceded by the bright-colored and softer stones. The rough crystals are not attractive when placed in comparison with many other gems, and their degree of hardness, coupled with their rarity, probably gave them their value among the ancients. We are inclined to think that their use was governed by the fancy of the rich and powerful nobles, and that the emerald and the blue and red stones took precedence in the selection of gems until the art of polishing was discovered.
In the time of Pliny the stone was acquired only by the richest of kings; and in the days of Alexander Severus, in the third century, it was remarkable for its price, while the emerald was estimated for its beauty. Lollia, at the Banquet of Caligula, glittering with the spoils of Asia Minor, of fabulous value, did not wear the diamond, so far as we can ascertain.
There is evidence to lead to the presumption that the gem was regarded in the early periods more of a curiosity possessing talismanic powers than as an ornamental stone. The famous crown of Chosroes, made in the latter part of the sixth century, and brought to light by Shah Abbas after a thousand years of concealment in an obscure fortress among the mountains of Lauristan, does not contain diamonds among its ornaments, but is incrusted with pearls and rubies.
The absence of the stone in this royal tiara, constructed at this early period of time, is certainly significant, and indicates that it was not high in estimation, or that the art of polishing in a definite manner, so as to reveal the hidden splendors of the gem, had not then been discovered.
The early practice of polishing the natural faces of the crystal did not reward the patient lapidary by a corresponding increase of beauty. Hence we can explain the setting of rough diamonds in mediæval times long after the process of polishing had been discovered and put in practice by the Orientals.
The crown of the Khan of the Tatars, captured on the Oxus by the Persians in the fifth century, is described as being ornamented with several thousand pearls, but there is no allusion to any stones resembling diamonds; yet the Tatars had undoubted access to the commercial marts of India.
The cup of Chosroes I., of the seventh monarchy of Persia, and which is still extant, is composed of small disks of colored glass united by a gold setting, and having at the bottom a crystal engraved with the figure of the monarch. This royal relic is destitute of diamonds. When the treasures of the Persian palace of Dastagherd were captured in the seventh century, no mention of the diamond was made in the enumeration of the articles. Among them were the famous throne of gold called “Takdis,” supported on feet composed of rubies; also the crown formed of a thousand huge pearls. If diamonds were abundant at this period, why do we not find them among the decorations of the royal jewels? Macondi, however, says that the Sassanian king had nine seals of office, the first of which was a diamond with a ruby centre, bearing the portrait, name, and titles of the monarch.
The sacred standard of Persia, the famous “durn-foh-Kawani,” or leathern apron of the blacksmith Kawak, which was eighteen feet long by twelve feet broad, was richly adorned with silk and the finest gems when it was captured by the Arabs in 636, at the great battle of Cadesia. Its value was then estimated at $150,000, but the diamond is not mentioned among its ornaments, and if it had been abundant we might expect to see it prominently displayed among the decorations. However, we must admit that many of these historical descriptions are very incorrect, and often partake largely of the nature of the fabulous. And so, in the description of the capture of Ctesiphon by the Arabs in the seventh century, the historian states that vast quantities of gems and precious stones and treasures of wondrous beauty, of more than one hundred millions of dollars in value were obtained. Among the descriptions of the articles comprised in this immense booty we fail to find any allusion to the diamond, and yet we know that the gem was not unknown to Persians at that time.
To give the reader an idea of the magnificent tastes of the Persian nobles at that period, we will mention some of the articles captured at this time by the freebooters of the desert.
A wonderful carpet woven of white brocade is described as being one of the marvels of the world. It was four hundred and fifty feet long by ninety feet in breadth, and exhibited a border worked in with precious stones of various hues to represent a garden of all kinds of beautiful flowers. The leaves were formed of emeralds and other green colored stones, while the buds and blossoms were composed of pearls, rubies, sapphires, and other gems of immense value.
The captured robe of state was thickly embroidered with the most beautiful rubies and pearls. The arms, helmets, and scimetars found in the royal treasury fairly flashed with the gleams of the rarest precious stones, so thickly were they incrusted over the metal. At a later period of the monarchy the Sassanian kings adorned the paraphernalia of their courts to a degree of magnificence which is almost incredible. Some of the coins and sculptures yet extant have preserved faithful representations of their luxury in dress. Many of the robes were beautifully embroidered and covered with gems and pearls.
The royal crown at this period, it appears, was not worn by the monarch, but was suspended from the ceiling in the throne-room directly over the king’s head when seated on the throne.
Theophrastus, a Greek writer living three centuries before the Christian era, does not mention the gem in a clear and distinct manner. It is true he alludes to adamas, but it is now thought by several mineralogists that this term was then applied to steel and some of the varieties of corundum. The descriptions of the splendid fêtes given by the army of Alexander at this period, when the wealth of India and Persia was brought forth to deck the Persian maidens, do not mention the diamond.
At this period, and even in later times, the royal insignia and the emblems of Persian authority were such as wreaths and vines of pure gold laden with flowers and clusters composed chiefly of emeralds, rubies, carbuncles, and other bright-colored gems, but not including the adamas. Of like description were those famous canopies under which the ancient potentates of Persia sat and gave their audiences.
Pliny, three centuries later, was the first to describe the gem in unmistakable terms, but even then but very little of a definite character was known of it.
The Romans had access at an early period to the gem-producing countries. Ceylon and India had long been known to the Roman merchants, and their caravans traversed entire Asia from the coast of Syria to the Chinese ocean in two hundred and forty-three days. Their fleets sailed regularly in the time of Claudian from the Red Sea to Ceylon, Coromandel, and Malabar. Ceylon was then famous for its luminous carbuncles and the lustre of its pearls. The famous fairs of Armenia and Nisbis, which attracted the merchants of Asia, also furnished the Romans with many of their luxuries. There certainly were no serious obstacles to the introduction of the gem into the bazaars of the wealthy nations of the Mediterranean in early times and subsequent periods if it was then an article of commerce.
With the ancient history of the gem there is also a remarkable fact to be considered in its study,—its diminutive size. It is believed by many antiquaries that the diamonds known or used by the Romans were well-defined octahedral crystals, of not over four or four and a half karats weight. It may be stated in reply that the exportation of larger gems may have been forbidden by the Hindoo rulers, as we have seen in later times concerning the rubies found in Burmah. But we place but little confidence in this objection. Large and fine gems, had they been known in the days of Roman prosperity and luxury, would surely have found their way from time to time to the wealthy marts of the empire.
There is other evidence to found the belief that most, if not all, of the diamonds of antiquity were of small size. The celebrated traveller and diamond merchant Tavernier boldly asserted in his day, that prior to the sixteenth century the largest diamonds seen in India were about ten to twelve karats weight. Tavernier was well informed of the history of the gem, and had visited several times the most famous mines of India. We are inclined to support the views of the French traveller, and believe that the famous diamonds known as the paragons are of modern discovery, or since the sixteenth century.