The Koh-I-Noor
It has been said that whoever owned the Koh-I-Noor ruled the world, a
suitable statement for this, the most famous of all diamonds and a
veritable household name in many parts of the world. Legend has
suggested that the stone may date from before the time of Christ; theory
indicates the possibility of its appearance in the early years of the
1300s; history proves its existence for the past two and a half
centuries. The first writer has stated:
"Reguarding its traditional history, which extends 5000 years further
back, nothing need be said here; though it has afforded sundry
imaginative writers with a subject for highly characteristic paragraphs
we have no record of its having been at any time a cut stone."
The earliest authentic reference to a diamond which may have been the Koh-I-Noor is found in the
Baburnama,
the memoirs of Babur, the first Mogul ruler of India. Born in 1483,
Babur (meaning 'lion' -- the name was not given to him at birth but
appears to be a nickname, deriving from an Arabic or Persian word
meaning 'lion' or 'tiger') was descended in the fifth generation from
Tamerlane on the male side and in th fifteenth degree from Genghis Khan
on the female side. With the blood in his veins of two of the greatest
conquerors Asia has ever seen, it is not all that surprising that Babur
himself should have become a great conqueror in his own right.
As a young man Babur owed his survival and success on the political and
military battlefields to a combination of winning personal qualities and
swift opportunism; these were to insure his conquest of the plains of
northern India. But in addition to being a warrior, Babur was a cultured
and civilized man - a writer and poet.
A miniature of Babur dating from the 1500s.
In the
Baburnama, Babur alluded to the Sultan Al-ed-Din Khalji,
the ruler of Delhi from 1295 to 1316. The year before his accession the
Sultan had led an expidition to the Deccan or 'the South', the high and
relatively cool plateau between the Narmada and the Tungabhadra-Krishna
River, where he conquered Malwa and captured a large amount of booty. At
that time, Al-ed-Din was just a prince serving under his uncle,
Jalal-Ud-Din, but in 1295 he murdered his uncle in cold blood and became
ruler himself. In 1297 Ala-ed-Din defeated the last king of Gujrat and
secured more treasure. One account states that he got his hands on the
diamond at Gujrat; another says that he obtained the stone from the
Deccan. The second version is not impossible because after his defeat
the king fled southwards where he was plundered for a second time, on
this occasion by Al-ed-Din's generals.
More than two centuries later, at the time of Babur, northern India was
divided among largely independent chiefs who were in no mood to resist a
determined invader. After several probing raids into India, Babur was
eventually invited by Daulat Khan, the ruler of Punjab, to help him with
his fight against his nephew Ibrahim Lodi, Sultan of Delhi, who was
proving to be a despotic ruler. In 1526 Babur defeated and killed
Ibrahim Lodi, at the battle of Panipat; another who was slain was
Vikramaditya, the former Rajah of Gwailor, who had fought on the side of
Ibrahim Lodi. Before going into battle, Vikramaditya had sent all his
jewels to the fort of Agra of which he was the Qilidar. Among these
jewels was a notable diamond. It has been considered possible -- though,
in view of his disposition, unlikely -- that originally Ala-ed-Din may
have rewarded Vikramaditya's ancestors, two faithful brothers, not only
with Gwailor but also with the diamond.
Babur came to Agra on May 4th, 1526, and the great diamond was most
likely given to him there the next day. There is no reference to it
recorded in the
Baburnama which reads:
"When Humayun [Babur's son] arrived, Vikramaditya's people attempted to
escape, but were taken by the parties which Humayun had placed upon the
watch, and put in custody. Humayun did not permit them to be plundered.
Of their own free will they presented to Humayun a peshkash, consisting
of a quantity of jewels and precious stones. Among them was the famous
diamond which had been acquired by Sultan Alaeddin [Ala-ed-Din]. It is
so valuable that a judge of diamonds valued it at half the daily expense
of the whole world. It is about eight mishquals. On my arrival, Humayun
presented it to me as a peshkash, and I gave it back to him as a
present."
There is another account which relates that the diamond was owned, not
by Vikramaditya, but by Ibrahim Lodi. According to this version of the
story, Ibrahim Lodi's mother was responsible for handing it over to
Humayun, the son and successor of Babur; who had been assigned to take
possession of all the jewels that had belonged to the slain Sultan of
Delhi. After Humayun's men ransacked the Royal Treasury and failed to
find the diamond, the servants and Treasury officials were questioned.
They remained silent, and even after they had been threatened with dire
punishments, none came forward with the information. In the end a
servant pointed towards the royal palace.
When Humayun entered the palace the female members of Vikramaditya's
family were weeping, so he assured them their honor would be safe in his
hands and that he would treat them according to their high station. It
was then that Ibrahim Lodi's mother went silently into a room and
emerged with a gold box, which, with trembling hands, she handed to the
young prince. Humayun opened the box and took out the diamond.
This version, however, is not considered to be the true one by most
writers, and the recovery of the diamond from the fort of Agra is
reguarded as the authentic one. There has also been much discussion and
divergence of opinion about the method of calculating the weight of the
diamond: its weight of around eight mishquals, as recorded by Babur, has
given rise to a variety of mathematical equations. It is interesting
and sifnificant to note, though, that a majority have arrived at a
figure of around 186 (old) carats.
A miniature of Humayun, on ivory.
Four years after Babur's crucial victory at Panipat, Humayun fell ill.
Doctors could do nothing for him; he continued to grow worse. Then
someone suggested to Babur that he should sacrifice his dearest
possession to save his son. Undoubtedly this individual was hoping that
the emperor would consider the diamond met such a role. If so, he was
disappointed, because Babur did not agree with this suggestion, saying
that his most precious possession was his own life. The story goes that
Babur moved around the bed of his ailing son, praying that Humayun's
life would be spared and his own life be sacrificed instead. From then
on Humayun's condition improved while Babur declined and died in
December of 1530.
The reign of Humayun lasted for 26 years but it was the subject of much
interruption. After an initial period of about 9½ years' rule he was
driven out of India by the Afghan forces of Sher Khan. Humayun fled
first to Sind, then to Persia, and did not return to India until after
15 years' exile. Having regained his throne his reign would last only
six more months: one day, hearing the call to prayers, he hastily got
up, but fell headlong down the stairs of his library, possibly under the
effects of opium.
After his defeat by the Afghans and during his subsequent wanderings,
there is evidence that Humayun carried with him the large diamond that
his father had handed back to him at Agra. For the next 200 years or so,
it came to be known as 'Babur's diamond'. Leaving behind his kingdom,
his only daughter and numerous wives -- he even abandoned his son,
Akbar, when feeling from Afghanistan -- Humayun clung to the diamond.
His veneration for it is illustrated by one incident. The ruler of a
domain where he had sought sancuary wanted to acquire the gem so, taking
advantage of the refugee's plight, he sent one of his courtiers,
disguised as a merchant, to bargain with him. When this man presented
himself and explained the purpose of his visit, Humayun was furious and
replied:
"Such precious gems cannot be bought; either they fall to one by
arbitrament of the flashing sword, which is an expression of divine
will, or else they come through the grace of mighty monarchs."
The emissary departed quietly.
Humayun's wanderings finally took him to Persia where the country's
ruler, Shah Tahmasp, received him cordially. The exiled Mogul emperor
was so kindly treated by the Shah that ultimately, as an expression of
his gratitude, he gave him valuable jewels. One historian, Abdul Fazal,
who later was to be employed as secretary to Akbar, Humayun's successor,
has told in his
Akbarnama that among the jewels which Shah
Tahmasp received was the gem known as 'Babur's diamond', so valuable
that it was worth the revenue of countries. Another writer referred to
Humayun's gift of the diamond and other jewels and related that Shah
Tahmasp was so astonished at seeing them that he sent for his jewelers
to appraise them. They told him that they were 'above all price'. This
was the way in which Babur's diamond was always spoken of - the value of
other diamonds could be estimated, but Babur's diamond could not be
appraised except by a fantastic reference to the expenditure of the
world.
The presentation of this amazing diamond to the ruler of Persia by
Humayun was confirmed by Khur Shah, the Ambassador of Ibrahim Qutb, King
of Golconda, at the Persian court. he told of the gift of a diamond of
six mishquals, that was requarded to be worth the expenditure of the
whole universe for 2½ days. However, he also said that Shah Tahmasp
didn't think so highly of it and that afterwards he sent it to India as a
present to Burhan Nizam, the Shah of Ahmednagar. But the emissary
trusted with the diamond, Mehtar Jamal, may have failed to deliver the
stone because Shah Tahmasp later sent out orders for his arrest.
These events took place in 1547. From then on until the sack and plunder
of Delhi in 1739 the diamond's history must be one of speculation and
conjecture. In the mean time a series of happenings took place which
have important bearing on the history of Babur's diamond.
In the early 1650s the reigning Mogul Emperor was Shah Jahan, the
great-grandson of Humayun. He appointed his third son, Aurangzeb, to the
governorship of the Deccan. Aurangzeb, in his own right, was keen to
conquer the independent states in this region of India, one of which was
Golconda, where the king's domain included the country's main
diamond-mining area.
Shah Jahan
At that time the King of Golconda's First Minister was Mir Jumla, a
diamond dealer with a considerable reputation in Persia who had
travelled southwards, attracted by the lure and promise which the
diamond fields held for him. Simultaneously with the administration of
his master's state, Mir Jumla planned to do a lot of business on his own
behalf, above all in diamonds. The King put him in charge of most
affairs pertaining to the mines and trading, and not surprisingly the
Persian compiled a fortune. But Mir Jumla overstepped the bounds of
caution, being caught in a compromising situation with the mother of the
King. He was obliged to leave Golconda immediately for his safety.
Mir Jumla met Aurangzeb early in 1656, then travelled to Delhi where he
met Shah Jahan. According to an agent of the East India Company who
happened to be the area at the time, Shah Jahan received Mir Jumla
courteously and gifts were exchanged between the two -- Jumla's to the
Emperor including a diamond weighing 160 ratis. Another account, by
French traveller Francois Bernier, records that:
"Jumla, who by his address contrived to obtain frequent invitations to
the Court of Shah Jahan, proceeded at length to Agra and carried the
most magnificent presents in hope of inducing the Mogul Emperor to
declare war against the Kings of Golconda and Bijapur and against the
Portuguese. It was on this occasion that he presented Shah Jahan with
that celebrated diamond which has been generally deemed unparalleled in
size and beauty."
Yet a third writer has asserted that Mir Jumla gave one diamond to Shah
Jahan and a second to Aurangzeb, the latter being an uncut specimen
thought likely to have been cut later by the Venetian, Borgio.
Although the evidence is slender, the gift of a diamond by the wily
Jumla to both father and son accords with his character and should not
be dismissed out of hand: it would have been a means of insuring his
future whichever way the wind was to blow. He chose to ally himself with
Aurangzeb while Shah Jahan's last years were marked by his declining
health and a struggle for power among his four sons. Aurangzeb emerged
victorious and lost no time in ridding himself of his brothers and
incarcerating his father in the fort at Agra. That the luckless Shah
Jahan possessed some jewels during his imprisonment is confirmed by two
sources. Bernier has stated that Shah Jahan, after he'd been imprisoned,
became so reconciled to Aurangzeb that he sent him some of his jewels
which at first he had refused to do. Apparently Aurangzeb got them only
after his father's death. Jean Baptiste Tavernier's version of the story
is different. He wrote:
"During his reign he [Shah Jahan] had begun to build the city of
Jehanabad, though he had not quite finish'd it, and therefore he desir'd
to see it once more before he dy'd: but Aurangzeb would not give him
leave, unless he would be content to go and come back by water, or else
to be confin'd to the Castle of Jehanabad, as he was at Agra, which
refusal of his son did torment him, that it hasten'd his end. Which as
soon as Aurangzeb heard of, he came to Agra and seiz'd upon all the
jewels which he had not taken from his father while he liv'd. Begum
Saheb had also a quantity of jewels, which he had not taken from her
when he put her into the Castle. But now, because she had formerly taken
her father's part, he found out a way to deprive her of them after a
very plausible manner, making a show of bestowing very great Honours and
Caresses upon his Sister, and taking her along with him to Jehanabad.
But in a short time after we heard the news of her death; ... and all
people suspected her to have been poisoned."
Left to right: Shuja, Aurangzeb, Murad Bakhsh, the three younger sons of Shah
Jahan. Miniature by Balchand, circa 1637. From the British Museum collection.
At this point in the story it is important to try and identify the large
diamonds that figured among the jewels given to Shah Jahan and
Aurangzeb. The big stone, said to have been uncut, must be the Great
Mogul which Aurangzeb showed Tavernier in 1665. But which is the diamond
mentioned by Bernier as the one which Shah Jahan receieved from Mir
Jumla, described as "that celebrated diamond which has been generally
deemed unparalleled in size and beauty"? Is it Babur's diamond? These
and other questions were asked by several authorities following the
arrival of the Koh-I-Noor in England in 1850. First there were people
who believed that the Koh-I-Noor was the Great Mogul and that Babur's
diamond was seperate; secondly, there were people who believed that the
Koh-I-Noor was in fact Babur's diamond; thirdly, there were others who
identified the Koh-I-Noor with both Babur's diamond and the Great Mogul.
One of the first to voice his views on the subject was the distinguished
mineralogist James Tennant, who noted that in addition to its
possessing flaws similar to those decribed by Tavernier as having been
in the Mogul's diamond,
"...the Koh-I-Noor had a flaw near the summit which, being on a line of
cleavage parallel to the upper surface, may very possibly have been
produced when the upper portion was removed -- the weight of which,
together with that of two portions removed from the sides, and the loss
occasioned by the regrinding of four facets on the upper surface may
very easily have represented the difference in teh weights of the two
stones, namely 83 1/3 carats."
An illustration of Tavernier from The Six Voyages of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, published in 1679.
Another writer who discussed the subject of the Koh-I-Noor's identity
was Edwin Streeter, the 19th-century London jeweler and author of two
famous books on diamonds and other gemstones. In his earlier book
Precious Stones and Gems
he stated that "any doubt as to the 'Mogul' and the 'Koh-I-Noor' being
identical is but rarely entertained." But in his later book "The Great
Diamonds of the World" he wrote that, "all are agreed that Babur's
diamond and the Koh-I-Noor are identical and the Mogul's distinct." This
contradiction was pointed out by Valentine Ball who published in 1889 a
further translation of Tavernier's
Six Voyages with extensive
notes and appendices. Ball believed that the view which Streeter had
expressed in his earlier book was the sounder of the two.
"It must be at once plainly stated that there is no direct evidence that
a diamond of that weight (186 or 187 carats) [i.e. Babur's diamond] was
in the possession of the Mogul Emperors at any subsequent period, up to
the time of Nadir Shah's invasion. We know nothing as to the weight of
the Koh-I-Noor, as such, till about the time it was brought to England,
namely the year 1850...
"Tavernier did not see any stone of the weight above attributed to
Babur's diamond in the possession of the Great Mogul, Aurangzeb, nor can
we support that he heard of any such diamond being in the possession of
Shah Jahan, who was confined in prison, where he retained a number of
jewels in his own possession. If either he or Bernier had heard of such a
stone he would surely have mentioned it...It is possible that Babur's
diamond may have been seen in Shah Jahan's possession when Tavernier saw
Aurangzeb's jewels and that Aurangzeb obtained possession of it when
Shah Jahan died, and so ultimately it passed to Persia, with other
jewels taken by Nadir Shah..."
Ball continued...
"The necessary conclusion is that it is not the Mogul's diamond which,
through failure of being historically traced as some authors assert, has
disappeared, but it is Babur's diamond the history of which we are
really left in doubt. The fixing of the weight of Babur's diamond at a
figure identical, or nearly so, with that of the Koh-I-Noor when brought
to England, though used as a link in a chain, has, as I think I have
shown, effectively disposed of its claim to be identified with the
Mogul's diamond in the first place, and secondly with the Koh-I-Noor."
In April of 1899 an article entitled
Babur's Diamond, Was It the Koh-I-Noor? appeared in the
Atlantic Quarterly Review; it was written by Henry Beveridge, the husband of the translator of the
Baburnama.
Although in the end he was unable to decide whether or not Babur's
diamond was the Koh-I-Noor, Beveridge did make one relevant point: he
drew attention to the unconscious conclusion caused by there being two
diamonds, which led Tavernier to say on one page that the great diamond
was presented to Shah Jahan and on another page to say it was presented
to Aurangzeb. Hence the fact of there being two diamonds makes obvious
many difficulties and may also explain the statement of a Persian
nobleman, mentioned in
Forbes's Oriental Memoirs, and quoted by Ball, about two large diamonds being carried off by Nadir Shah.
Just over a century later we are in the fortunate position of having
information that was unavailable to earlier writers. In particular we
now have details of the treasures amassed by the Czars, Shahs and
miscellaneous monarchs. We know for sure that there are three diamonds
in existence which have a direct bearing upon the questions raised
concerning the identity of the Great Mogul and Babur's diamond. They are
the
Orlov, weighing 189.62 metric carats, now in the Kremlin; the
Darya-I-Nur,
with an estimated weight of between 175 and 195 metric carats and
presumed to still be among the Iranian Crown Jewels; and the Koh-I-Noor,
whose former weight before it was recut was 186 carats, equivalent to
190.3 metric carats.
Tavernier referred to the shape of the Great Mogul as "of the same form
as if one cut an egg through the middle", and drew it. Both Tavernier's
drawing and description of the Great Mogul are applicable to the Orlov
Diamond as we know it today. There is, of course, an obvious difference
between the weights of the two stones, the Great Mogul being about 100
carats more. But if the diamond seen by Tavernier had been ground down
the resemblance would have become even more marked. The resulting loss
of weight by the action of such grinding would bring the weight of the
Great Mogul to approximately that of the Orlov. Ball's reference to the
Orlov is as follows:
"Several writers, among them Professor Schrauf of Vienna (1869), have
suggested that the Mogul's diamond is to be identified with the
similarly shaped Orloff now belonging to Russia. Apart from the
discrepancy in the weights and in the size, as shown by Tavernier's
drawing, which was intended to represent the natural size of the former
[the Mogul], it is tolerably certain that the Orloff was obtained from
the temple of Srirangam on an island in the Cauvery river in Mysore. It
was therefore a possession of the Hindus, and it is most improbably that
it ever belonged to the Moguls."
This convenient dismissal of the Orlov by Professor Ball cannot be
allowed to pass. Just as he alleges that Tavernier would have referred
to the Koh-I-Noor as a seperate diamond if it had existed as such,
equally would he not have referred to this huge diamond at Srirangam as a
seperate diamond? This is a diamond which even today, following
discoveries elsewhere, still ranks among the largest of undoubted
authenticity. The temple at Srirangam is not situated too far from the
diamondiferous regions of India that Tavernier, in his capacity both as a
traveller and connoisseur of precious gems, could not have learned of
the existence of such a massive stone.
But where Ball's theory on the identity of these two diamonds falls
apart is in his reference to the Darya-I-Nur about which he wrote:
"It has already been intimated that the Darya-I-Nur, a flat stone which
weighs 186 carats and is now in the Shah's Treasury, may very possibly
be Babur's diamond...I have in vain sought for any well-authenticated
fact which in the slightest degree controverts or even throws doubt on
the suggestion that the Darya-I-Nur, the 'Ocean of Light', may very
possibly be Babur's diamond."
In the light of the examination of the pieces in the Iranian Treasury
undertaken in the 1960s, it has been conclusively proved that the
Darya-I-Nur constitutes a major portion of the Great Table Diamond which
Tavernier saw - and tried to buy - at Golconda. In all probably this
diamond had been mined not long before his attempted purchase, thereby
discounting it from having an earlier history, let alone one involving
the Mogul Emperors. Furthermore the descriptions of Babur's diamond
being "valued at half the daily expense of the whole world" and so forth
are surely inapplicable to the flat rectangular-shaped Darya-I-Nur: one
would think that a more appropriate metaphore would have been to
describe it as the source of half the water needed for the world for a
day. Interestingly the sole point that suggests that the Darya-I-Nur may
be identified as Babur's diamond lies in a passage in a book on the
life of Babur which reads:
"The gifts were on a grand scale, being precious jewels, among these the
great diamond now identified as the Koh-I-Noor. This enormous
rose-tinted stone weighed 320 ratis on Humayun's scales."
The Darya-I-Nur is indeed rose-tinted but there has to have been a
mistranslation here: 'rose-tinted', when they meant 'rose-cut', the
former shape of the Koh-I-Noor.
Finally on the topic of identifying these truly historic diamonds with
gems that we know exist today, the suggestion that the Koh-I-Noor and
the Great Mogul once formed parts of the same stone is impossible: the
Koh-I-Noor is a white diamond where as the Orlov - if we assume it to be
the Great Mogul (which it most likely is) - possesses a slight
bluish-green tint. So, the Darya-I-Nur has been identified for sure as
the largest fragment of the Great Table Diamond; a very strong case
exists for identifying the Orlov as being cut from the 280-carat Great
Mogul; and a less-strong, but nevertheless valid case can be made for
identifying the Koh-I-Noor as Babur's diamond.
One of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier's illustrations from his Six Voyages
book. Diamond #1 is the Great Mogul; #2 is the Florentine; #3 is the Great Table;
#4 is probably the deep table cut mentioned in Herbert Tillander's
Diamond Cuts in Historic Jewelry - 1381 to 1910 as weighing 51 9/16 carats,
later recut to 42 10/16 carats (the crown being faceted, the block pavilion
left untouched. Finally, in 1786, it was cut into a 26¾-carat gem. It doesn't
mention where the stone is today.
After lasting for nearly fifty years the reign of the strong and
ruthless Aurangzeb ended in 1707. It marked the zenith of the rule of
the Moguls: there followed a decline with no less than six weak Emperors
reigning within a space of 13 years, each of them dying in an unnatural
way. About the same time with the sun setting on the Mogul Empire a new
one was rising to the west in Persia. Nadir Kuli, or "the Slave to the
Wonderful" as he was called, was a young shepherd who, when 18, was
abducted together with his mother by a raiding party of Uzbegs to Khiva.
Four years later the mother died in slavery, but the young Nadir
succeeded in escaping to Khorasan where his first step up the ladder of
power was his entry into the service of the Governor of Abivard (then
the capitol of the district). Under Nadir Kuli, who in 1732 dethroned
the weak ruler of Persia and usurped the throne for his stead four years
later, Persia became a major power. After he had defeated the Afghans
and the Turks and caused the Russians to evacuate the Caspian provinces,
Nadir Shah turned his attention to the east, towards the declining
empire of the Moguls. The reigning Emperor, Mohammed Shah, who had
ascended the throne in 1719, was a pitiful descendant of the once
omnipotent Moguls; he was described as "never without a mistress in his
arms and a glass in his hand". Rich pickings awaited the Persians as the
Emperor realized his predicament far too late. The decisive battle of
Karnal in 1738 was over in 2 hours: the vast Indian army was defeated,
more than 20,000 slain on the battlefield, a greater number taken
prisoner and an immense hoard of spoils captured. In triumph Nadir Shah
marched into Delhi where he was entertained sumptuously by the defeated
Mohammed Shah. Among the treasures which the Emperor handed over to
Nadir Shah was the famed Peacock Throne which Tavernier described:
"The largest throne, which is set up in the hall of the first court, is
in form like one of our field beds, six feet long and four broad. The
cushion at the base is round like a bolster: the cushions on the sides
are flat. The underpart of the canopy is all embroidered with pearls and
diamonds, with a fringe of pearls round about. Upon the top of the
canopy, which is made like an arch with four panes, stands a peacock
with his tail spread, consisting all of saphirs and other proper colored
stones. The body is of beaten gold enchas'd with several jewels, and a
great ruby upon his breast, at which hangs a pearl that weighs 50
carats. On each side of the peacock stand two nosegays as high as the
bird, consisting of several sorts of flowers, all of beaten gold
enamelled. When the king seats himself upon the throne there is a
transparent jewel with a diamond appendant of eighty or ninety carats,
encompass'd with rubies and emeralds, so hung that it is always in his
eye. The twelve pillars also that uphold the canopy are set with rows of
fair pearl, round, and of excellent water, that weigh from six to ten
carats apiece. This is the famous throne which Tamerlane began and Cha
Jehan finish'd, which is really reported to have cost 160 million and
500,000 livres of our money."
The identity of the large diamond set as a pendant has always been a
matter for speculation: possibly it may have been the Shah Diamond. But
nowhere in Tavernier's account is there a reference to the Koh-I-Noor;
indeed the Mogul Emperor must have taken steps to insure that this
treasured gem did not fall into the hands of his conqueror. However,
Nadir Shah was fully able to the task of finding the gem. There are two
stories of how he procured it. One says that Mohammed Shah gave it to
Nadir Shah, possibly in gratitude for sparing either his life or his
empire. This seems unlikely, and anyway, the second, which has come to
be accepted as the true version of the story, is both more plausible and
more colorful. Whenever stories are told about the Koh-I-Noor, this
particular one tends to pop up more than others.
The disclosure of the secret hiding place of the Koh-I-Noor was made by
one of the Emperor's harem; she told Nadir Shah that Mohammed always
kept it hidden in his turban. So the shrewd Nadir Shah had recourse to a
clever trick. He ordered a grand feast to be celebrated a few days
later to coincide with the restoration of Mohammed Shah to his throne.
During the course of it Nadir Shah suddenly proposed an exchange of
turbans, which is a well-known oriental custom signifying the creation
of brotherly ties, sincerity and eternal friendship. Mohammed Shah was
taken aback by his quick-thinking rival but at the same time was hardly
in a position to resist such a request. With as much grace as he could
summon - in fact his composure was such that Nadir Shah thought he had
been hoaxed - he accepted. Eventually when Nadir Shah had gone to his
private apartment for the night, he unfolded the turban and found the
diamond concealed within. It was when he set his eyes on it that he
exclaimed "Koh-I-Noor", meaning "Mountain of Light". The most famous
diamond in history now had a name.
A drawing I made of the Koh-I-Noor's original 186-carat form,
based directly on various illustrations I've seen of it.
One observation must be made about Nadir Shah's obtainment of the
diamond. Clearly he must have known of its existence before the banquet,
and probably before he reached Delhi, and must have eagerly sought it.
This suggests that it was known in Persia for generations, probably from
the time of Humayun's period of exile in that land, and adds weight to
the theory that it is a different stone from the Great Mogul Diamond.
A peaceful end to Nadir Shah's stay in Delhi was shattered by an
outbreak of rioting, followed by the sacking and pillaging of the city
in 1739. The loot included the Koh-I-Noor, which thus left India for
Persia for the second time, and one other exceptional diamond which must
have been the Great Table. Further victories were made by the Persians
in battle, but Nadir Shah became corrupted by his success and the
remaining years of his life were marked by growing greed and cruelty, to
the point where he was detested by the very people whom he had freed
from the foreign yoke. In 1747 he was murdered while asleep in his tent.
With the murder of Nadir Shah the unity of Persia collapsed and the
army broke up.
The next sixty years or so were the most violent and blood-stained in
the history of the Koh-I-Noor. The same pattern of events occured after
the demise of Nadir Shah as after that of Aurangzeb: a strong ruler was
followed by a series of weak ones. Nadir Shah's successor was Ali Kuli
who ascended the throne as Adil Shah, meaning "the Just". His first act
was to rid himself of all possible claimants to the throne of Persia
with the solitary exception of Shah Rukh Mirza, the 14-year-old grandson
of Nadir Shah. But after a short and disgraceful reign, Adil Shah was
dethroned and blinded by his brother Ibrahim, who, in turn, suffered the
same fate before being captured and put to death by his own troops.
Then Shah Rukh took the throne, but another pretender soon appeared and
the young king was defeated, also having his eyes put out. Shah Rukh
reigned in name, if not in fact, for almost 50 years; his supporter was
Ahmed Abdali, an Afghan who had been one of Nadir Shah's most capable
generals before he returned to Afghanistan, subdued it, and established
himself as its ruler. For the help which he had received from him, Shah
Rukh gave Ahmad Abdali important jewels, one of which was the Koh-I-Noor
Diamond.
Shah Rukh paid dearly for his gift to Ahmad Shah of the Koh-I-Noor
because Aga Mohammed Khan was convinced that the unfortunate man was
still in possession of the stone. Deserted by his son, who was unaware
of the jewels that he had once owned, Shah Rukh, now blind, was forced
to endure the most horrific torture by the cruel ruler, who had an
insatiable appetite for gems. As the torturing continued, jewels
previously hidden were given up one by one. The final torture which Shah
Rukh suffered at the hands of Aga Mohammed Shah was to have his head
closely shaved and covered with a thick paste on which boiling water was
poured. The last gem he gave up was a large ruby which had once
belonged to Aurangzeb. The torture then stopped, but Shah Rukh died from
its effects soon afterwards.
In the mean time in Afghanistan, the country where the Koh-I-Noor was
being held, Ahmad Shah had been succeeded by his son Timur, a weak ruler
but nevertheless a potent one since he left 23 sons to contest his
succession. Civil warfare broke out, with the eldest son, Zaman Shah,
becoming king in 1793. His brother Mahmud blinded him six years later
and seized the throne; then in 1803 another brother, Shuja, imprisoned
Mahmud and took the throne. Seven years after that, Mahmud escaped and
resumed his reign, but he never obtained the Koh-I-Noor because Zaman
Shah had taken it with him and had it embedded in the plaster of his
prison cell's walls. Next Shah Shuja regained the throne and the
Koh-I-Noor -- the Koh-I-Noor's place of hiding having been pointed out
to him by Zaman Shah. Finally, in 1810, the Saddozai of Afghanistan,
founded by Ahmad Shah, broke up and the two ill-fated brothers, Zaman
Shah and Shah Shuja, sought refuge with the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh,
known as the "Lion of Punjab".
Ranjit Singh
Shah Shuja had the Koh-I-Noor with him and the ruler of Punjab must hav
known about the famous gem because he showed his desire to own it. He
aimed to extort it from Shah Shuja as the price of giving him and his
family sancuary. However, Shah Shuja tried by every means to prevent
Ranjit Singh from getting hold of it. Once he told him that the stone
had been pawned with a money-lender. On another occasion he said that it
had been lost with some other jewels. On a third occasion Shah Shuja
sent Ranjit Singh a large white topaz, saying it was the diamond; and
when his court jewelers examined it and told him that it wasn't a
diamond, Ranjit Singh was furious. He posted a guard around Shah Shuja's
residence with orders that he was not to receive food or water for two
days. In the end Shah Shuja realizing his hopeless situation, agreed to
give the diamond to Ranjit Singh, on the condition that he arrive in
person to receive it from him.
Ranjit Singh accepted Shah Shuja's proposal and on June 1st, 1813 went
to his residence to claim the diamond. The customary greetings took
place, then the two kings sat opposite of each other in silence for some
time before Ranjit Singh reminded Shah Shuja of the reason for his
visit. A servant was then ordered to bring the gem from another room and
when he returned with a bundle Ranjit Singh unwrapped it and found the
Koh-I-Noor inside. He left the room without saying a word.
Ranjit Singh was the first and last powerful Sikh king; he was followed
by three weaker kings, each of whom died prematurely. In 1843 Dhulip
Singh, the last of Ranjit Singh's sons, then a minor, became the
recognized ruler of Punjab. The two Sikh Wars were fought during his
reign, leading to the annexation of the Punjab by the British. On March
29th, 1849, the British flag was hoisted on the citadel of Lahore and
the Punjab was formally proclaimed to be part of the British Empire in
India. One of the terms of the Treaty of Lahore was as follows:
"The gem called the Koh-I-Noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk
by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of
Lahore to the Queen of England."
The Governor-General in charge for the ratification of this treaty was
Lord Dalhousie who on his arrival at Calcutta in January of 1848, at the
age of 35, had become the youngest holder of this office to set foot in
India. More than anyone, Dalhousie was also responsible for the British
acquiring the Koh-I-Noor, which he continued to show great interest in
for the rest of his life. Not long after the signing of the Treaty of
Lahore Dalhousie was to become embroiled in the controversy that raged
in England about the acquisition of the diamond. Writing to his friend
Sir George Cooper in August of 1849, he stated this:
"The Court [of the East India Company] you say, are ruffled by my having
caused the Maharajah to cede to the Queen the Koh-i-noor; while the
'Daily News' and my Lord Ellenborough [Governor-General of India,
1841-44] are indignant because I did not confiscate everything to her
Majesty, and censure me for leaving a Roman Pearl in the Court... I was
fully prepared to hear that the Court chafed at my not sending the
diamond to them, and letting them present it to Her Majesty, They ought
not to do so -- they ought to enter into and cordially approve the
sentiment on which I acted thus. The motive was simply this: that it was
more for the honor of the Queen that the Koh-i-noor should be
surrendered directly from the hand of the conquered prince into the
hands of the sovereign who was his conqueror, than it should be
presented to her as a gift -- which is always a favour -- by any
joint-stock company among her subjects. So the Court ough to feel. As
for their fretting and censuring, that I do not mind -- so long as they
do not disallow the article. I know I have acted best for the Sovereign,
and for their honour, too."
The British citizen, Dr. (later Sir) John Login, was entrusted with two
charges: the responsibility for taking the Koh-I-Noor out of the
Toshakhana (the jewel house), and the guardsmanship of the young Dhulip
Singh. A cousin of Lady Login wrote to her that the old treaserur, Misr
Maharajah, had given every assistance with reguard to the former task
and said it was a great relief to be free of responsibility for the
diamond, adding that it had been the cause of so many deaths to so many
of his own family that he never expected to be spared. The old man gave
Login some advice on showing the jewel to visitors: he should not let it
fall out of his own hand, and that he should twist the ribbons that
tied it as an armlet around his fingers. It was still set in the armlet
from the time of Ranjit Singh.
The Koh-I-Noor was formally handed over to the Punjab government made up
of three members: Sir Henry Lawrence (1806-1857), his younger brother
John Lawrence (afterwards Lord Lawrence, the man who in February of 1859
would break ground on the future Lahore railroad station), and C.C.
Mausel. The two other members entrusted the safe-keeping of the gem to
John Lawrence, believing him to be the most practical and
business-minded of the trio. In their belief they were proved to be
totally wrong because the nearest the diamond came to being lost was
while it was in John Lawrence's custody. He put the small box containing
the diamond into his coat pocket and continued about his day. Then when
changing for dinner he threw his coat aside and thought no more about
the gem.
Left to right: A painting of Sir Henry Lawrence, founder of the Lawrence School in what is now Sanawar,
Himachal Pradesh, India. A bronze statue of Lord John Lawrence located at Waterloo Place in London. The
inscription at the base reads "John, First Lord Lawrence, ruler of the Punjaub during the Sepoy mutiny
of 1857. Viceroy of India from 1865 to 1868." Sir Henry (1806-1857) was killed in the Sepoy mutiny.
About six weeks later a message came from Dalhousie saying that the
Queen had ordered the Koh-I-Noor to be transmitted to her. Henry
Lawrence mentioned the subject at a board meeting. When John Lawrence
said quietly, "Send for it at once", his brother replied, "Why? You've
got it." In a flash John Lawrence remembered: he was horrified and, as
he used to describe his feelings later when telling the story, he said
quietly to himself, "Well, this is the worst trouble I have ever got
into." But his composure was so good that he gave no sign of alarm. "Oh
yes, of course, I forgot about it," he said, and the meeting went on as
if nothing happened. As soon as he had an opportunity to slip away to
his private room, he did, with his heart in his mouth, sent for his old
servant, saying to him, "Have you got a small box which was in my
waistcoat pocket sometime ago?" The man replied, "Yes, Sahib, I found it
and put it in one of your boxes." "Bring it here," replied Lawrence,
whereipon the old man went over to a tin box and removed the little one
from it. "Open it," said Lawrence, "and see what is inside."
He watched the old man anxiously as fold after fold of small rags was
taken off and was very relieved when the precious gem appeared. The
servant seemed to be unaware of the treasure which he had in his keeping
and remarked, "There is nothing here, Sahib, but a bit of glass."
The Koh-I-Noor was brough back to the meeting and immediately shown to
the board, who then who prepared for it to be sent to the Queen. But
first it had to travel from Lahore to Bombay, at the time a dangerous
route swarming with robbers and other criminals. No less a person than
the Governor-General, who when he had first set eyes on the diamond
remarked "It is a superb gem," was responsible for its transportation
out of India. On May 16th, 1850, Dalhousie wrote:
"The Koh-i-noor sailed from Bombay in H.M.S. Medea on the 6th of April. I
could not tell you at the time, for strict secrecy was observed, but I
brought it from Lahore myself. I undertook the charge of it in a funk,
and never was so happy in all my life as when I got it into the Treasury
in Bombay. It was sewn and double sewn into a belt secured around my
waist, one end of the belt fastened to a chain around my neck. It never
left me day or night, except when I went to Ghazee Khan when I left it
with Captain Ramsay (who now has joint charge of it) locked in a
treasure chest until I came back. My stars! What a relief to get rid of
it. It was detained at Bombay for two months for want of a ship, and I
hope, please God, will now arrive safe in July. You had better say
nothing about it, however, in your spheres, till you hear others
announce it. I have reported it officially to the Court, and to her
sacred Majesty by this mail."
The Koh-I-Noor was put in an iron box which itself was kept in a
despatch box and deposited in the Government Treasury. For security
reasons, this piece of news was understandably suppressed, even among
officers of the Treasury - and witheld from Commander Lockyer, the
ship's captain. The only individuals who knew about it were the officers
entrusted with the custody of the despatch, Lieutenant Colonel Mackeson
and Captain Ramsay. Either way, HMS Medea's voyage turned out to be a
perilous one and there were two occasions on which disaster was narrowly
averted. When the ship reached Mauritius, off the east coast of
Madagascar, cholera broke out on board and the local people refused to
sell the necessary supplies to its crew, requesting the ships immediate
departure. When the Medea didn't move, they asked their governor to open
fire and destory the vessel. A few days later after it had left
Mauritius the Medea faced a new danger, a severe gale which lasted for
about twelve hours before subsiding. Eventually the Medea reached
Plymouth, England where the passengers and mail were unloaded but not
the Koh-I-Noor, which was forwarded to to Portsmouth. From there the two
officers took the diamond to the East India House, handing it over to
the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the company. The Deputy Chairman
delivered it to the Queen at Buckingham Palace on July 3rd, 1850.
Lord Dalhousie, James Andrew Broun Ramsey (b. April 22nd, 1812 - d. December 19th, 1860).
Dalhousie was born and died inside Dalhousie Castle in Edinburgh, Scotland, which is now a hotel.
In addition to giving rise to both gemological and historical arguments,
the Koh-I-Noor's arrival in England was accompanied by unease on the
part of some, who were aware of superstitions attached to the diamond.
Unfortunately such people were presented with an early chance of voicing
their feelings when a retired officers of the 10th Hussars lost his
reasoning and struck Queen Victoria. Some promptly assigned the blame
for this on Dalhousie who, in a letter dated September 1st, 1850, was
equally quick to reply:
"I received your letter of 16th July yesterday. The several sad or foul
events in England on which it touches have been mentioned by me
heretofore, and they are too sad to refer to you. You add that you knew
this mishaps lie at my door, as I have sent the Koh-i-noor which always
brings misfortune to its possessor. Whoever was the exquisite person
from whom you heard this...he was rather lame both on his history and
tradition...As for tradition, when Shah Shoojah [Shuja], from whom it
was taken, was afterwards asked by Runjeat's [Ranjit Singh's] desire,
'What was the value of the Koh-i-noor?' he replied, 'Its value is Good
Fortune, for whoever possesses it has been superior to all his enemies.'
Perhaps your friend would favour you with his authority, after this,
for his opposite statement. I sent the Queen a narrative of this
conversation with Shah Shoojah, taken from the mouth of the messenger."
The directors of the British Museum wanted to have a model made of the
Koh-I-Noor, so on April 19th of 1851, removal of the diamond from its
setting in which it had arrived from India was authorized. The
jewelrywork was performed by William Chapman (goldsmith) in the presence
of Lord Breadalbane (the Lord Chamberlain), Lord Cawdor (the Trustee of
the British Museum), and Sebastian Garrard (Keeper of Her Majesty's
Jewels and the namesake of the Garrard jewelry firm). After its removal
Sebastian Garrard found it to weigh 186 1/10 carats instead of 279 as
stated by Tavernier. This was probably the reason for an amazing passage
which appeared in
The Times and read:
"Some conversation took place respecting the doubts imputed to have been
cast by Sir David Brewster upon the identity of the Koh-i-noor, but the
general opinion among those best acquainted with the subject appeared
to be that it was impossible for Dhulip Singh to have palmed off a
fictitious diamond, when the constant habit of wearing it upon State
occasions must have rendered it perfectly familiar to thousands who
would have instantly detected any attempt at substitution. The more
probably assumption was stated to be that the weight of 'The Mountain of
Light' had been somewhat exaggerated."
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868) was principal of the United College in St. Andrews from 1838 until 1859 when he left
it to become principal of Edinburgh University. He learned to make photographs from William Henry Fox Talbot, the
inventor of the calotype photography process. Brewster brought photography to Scotland in the 1840s, making the country
one of the early experimental centers for the budding art. Photo is circa 1843-1844, making it one of a handful of
the earliest photos ever taken. Brewster is also credited with inventing the kaleidoscope.
The public were given a chance to see the Koh-I-Noor when the Great Exhibition was staged in Hyde Park. The correspondent of
The Times reported:
"The Koh-i-noor is at present decidedly the lion of the Exhibition. A
mysterious interest appears to be attached to it, and now that so many
precautions have been restored to, and so much difficulty attends its
inspection, the crowd is enormously enhanced, and the policemen at
either end of the covered entrance have much trouble in restraining the
struggling and impatient multitude. For some hours yesterday there were
never less than a couple of hundred persons waiting their turn of
admission, and yet, after all, the diamond does not satisfy. Either from
the imperfect cutting or the difficulty of placing the lights
advantageously, or the immovability of the stone itself, which should be
made to revolve on its axis, few catch any of the brilliant rays it
reflects when viewed at a particular angle."
Queen Victoria opening of the Exhibition, inside the Crystal Palace.
An aerial view of the Crystal Palace, built for the 1851 exhibition. The building was
1848 feet long, 408 feet wide and 108 feet tall at its highest point. It burned down in 1939.
The Governor-General in India was continuing to take an interest in the diamond. On July 13th he wrote:
"I see all sorts of sketches and pictures of the contents of the
Exhibition. If you can get me anything presenting the Koh-I-Noor well in
its cage, coloured, I shall be much obliged."
The next month Dalhousie wrote:
"The Koh-i-noor is badly cut: it is rose-not-brilliant-cut, and of
course won't sparkle like the latter. But it should not have been shown
in a huge space. In the Toshakam at Lahore Dr. Login used to show it on a
table covered with a black velvet cloth, and relieved by the dark
colour all round."
A drawing (engraving?) of the Koh-I-Noor sitting in its display
cage at the exhibition. There appears to be a smaller stone on either
side of it. These were likely the other two diamonds in the armband.
Another person who was disappointed with the lack of brilliance of the
Koh-I-Noor was Prince Albert, the Prince Consort. He contacted Sir David
Brewster, the scientist mainly known for his investigation into
phenomenom of polarized light, as to how the diamond might best be
recut. Brewster found several small caves (inclusions) within the stone
which, in his view, were the result of the expansive force of condensed
gases. Together with other flaws he thought would cause the recutting,
without a serious reduction in weight, to be a very difficult task.
Professor Tennant and Reverend W. Mitchell, Lecturer in Mineralogy at
King's College, London, were also consulted. Accordingly they wrote a
report in which they admitted the improvement which the proposed
recutting would have upon the stone, but at the same time they expressed
fears that any cutting could endanger its integrity.
In the end it was decided to seek the advice of practical and
experienced diamond cutters, so Messrs Garrard (the Crown Jewelers) were
instructed to get a report from such persons. Their choice was Messrs
Coster of Amsterdam who, while noting the validity of the fears
expressed in the Tennant report, nevertheless stated that the dangers
were not so formidable as to prevent as to prevent the intended
recutting to be carried out. And so a small steam engine was set up at
Garrard's shop while two gentlemen from Messrs Coster, Mr. Voorzanger
and Mr. Fedder, travelled to London to undertake the recutting of the
diamond.
On the afternoon of Friday, July 17th, 1852, the Duke of Wellington, who
had shown great interest in the proposed recutting and attended several
meetings during the course of the preparations, rode up on his favorite
gray charger to Garrard's at Panton Street. The Koh-I-Noor was embedded
in lead, with the exception of a small piece of the stone that was
intended to be the first to be submitted to the cutting operation.
The Times reported:
"His Grace placed the gem upon the scaife, an horizontal wheel revolving
with almost incalculable velocity, whereby the exposed angle was
removed by friction, and the first facet of the new cutting was
effected...The Koh-i-noor is intended to be converted into an oval
brilliant, and the two smaller diamonds which accompany it are to be
similarly treated as pendants. The present weight of the principal gem
is 186 carats, and the process now in course of progress will not, it is
anticipated, diminish in any material degree its weight, while it will
largely increase its value and develop its beauties."
A day-by-day account of the recutting that has been preserved discloses
that on July 19th the cutters turned their attention to the flaws
described by Tennant and Mitchell as having been made for the purpose of
holding the stone more firmly in its setting and noted by them still to
have particles of gold adhearing to it. Not being certain as to whether
the groove, or inclusion, was natural, the cutters decided to
investigate it, so they altered the position of the stone to cut
directly into it. It was revealed to be a natural inclusion of a yellow
tinge, common in smaller stones. The two experts decided that the part
of where the flaw was situated, near the flat base of the diamond, was
probably part of the external plane of the stone's octahedral crystal.
Two weeks later, after examining the stone, Mitchell thought that it had
lost nearly all its yellow coloring and become much whiter.
The recutting of the Koh-I-Noor took a mere 38 days and cost £8000
($40,000). The final result was an oval brilliant weighing 108.93 metric
carats, which meant a loss of weight of just under 43 per cent. There
is no doubt that such a substantial reduction of the gem's weight came
as a disappointment to many, not least to Prince Albert who voiced his
views on the matter in no uncertain terms. One authority wrote that
owing to the flattened oval shape of the stone, the brilliant pattern
selected by the Queen's advisors 'entailed the greatest possible waste',
adding that Mr. Coster himself would have preferred the drop form.
There was also comment in the press that the recutting of the Koh-I-Noor
revealed the painful fact that the art of diamond cutting was extinct
in England (at least, for the time being) while even the cutters from
Amsterdam and Paris had lost much of their skill. (Antwerp is presently
considered the diamond cutting capitol of Europe.) The Koh-I-Noor's form
is a stellar brilliant cut: the crown possesses the regular 33 facets,
including the table, while he pavilion has eight more facets than the
regular 25 (counting a culet facet, which would have been applied to
prettymuch any diamond that size at the time) bringing the total number
of facets to 66. A number of famous diamonds are stellar brilliants: the
Tiffany Yellow, the
Red Cross, the
Star of South Africa and the
Wittelsbach, among others.
One of the first people to see the Koh-I-Noor in its new shape was
Dhulip Singh, who at the time was living in London under the
guardsmanship of Lady Login: she had been appointed to this post on the
death of her husband. Since his arrival in England no one had broached
the subject with the young Maharaja; it was thought that the diamond
must have a special meaning for him, something beyond a mere gem of
great value. But a chance of raising the subject presented itself. Lady
Login was present at the sittings for a portrait of the young prince
that took place at Buckingham Palace. At one of them the Queen asked
Lady Login whether the Maharaja ever spoke of the Koh-I-Noor and, if so,
whether he regretted its loss. Lady Login replied that he had never
spoken of it since his arrival in England although he had in India; at
the same time he had been greatly interested in the descriptions of the
operation of recutting it. The Queen then said that she hoped that
before the next portrait sitting Lady Login would ask Dhulip Singh's
feelings on the subject and whether he would care to see it in its recut
oval form. The Queen was told that the prince would very much like to
see the famed stone.
Dhulip Singh
During the portrait session the following day, the Queen, who had heard
Dhulip Singh's response, walked to the dais on which the Maharaja was
posing, with the Koh-I-Noor in her hand. She asked if he thought it had
been improved and whether he would have recognized it. After he had
finished in his inspection, Dhulip Singh walked across the room, and
with a low bow expressed in a few graceful words the pleasure it gave
him to have the opportunity of placing the stone in her hands.
The unease about the acquistion of the Koh-I-Noor continued in the
United Kingdom: some people considered that it had not been the property
of the state, rather the personal possession of Dhulip Singh which he
was cornered into giving away. This may have arisen from the news of
Dhulip Singh's presentation of the diamond to the Queen. The news
reached Dalhousie who on August 26th, 1854 wrote from Government House
saying:
"L-'s talk about the Koh-i-noor being a present from Dhuleep Singh to
the Queen is arrant humbug. He knew as well as I did that it was nothing
of the sort: and if I had been within a thousand miles of him he would
not have dared to utter such a piece of trickery. Those 'beautiful
eyes', with which Dhuleep has taken captive the court, are his mother's
eyes - those with which she capivated and controlled the old lion of
Punjab. The officer who had charge of her from Lahore to Benares told me
this. He said that hers were splendid orbs."
However, worries over the supposed bad luck which the Koh-I-Noor was
supposed to bring to its owner refused to die down and they ultimately
led to Dalhousie writing his most extended and emphasized letter on the
subject of the diamond. He wrote on his way home from Malta on January
7th, 1858 as follows:
"The rumour you mention as to the Koh-i-noor I have seen in former years
in an English paper, but never anywhere else. It is not only contrary
to fact but contrary to native statements also. Did the Koh-i-noor bring
ill luck to the great Akbar, who got it from Golconda, or to his own
son or grandson? Or to Aurangzeb, who rose to be the Great Mogul? And
when that race of Emperors fell (not from the ill-fortune of the
Koh-i-noor, but from their feeble hand) did it bring ill-fortune to
Nadir Shah, who lived and died the greatest Eastern conqueror of modern
times? Or to Ahmed Shah Doorani who got it at Nadir's death and founded
the Afghan Empire? Or did it bring ill-fortune to Runjeet Singh, who got
it from the Dooranis, and who rose from being a sower on twenty rupees a
month at Goojeranwalla to be the Maharaja of the Punjab, swaying the
greatest force in India next to ourselves? And has it brought ill-luck
to the Queen? Especially representing the Punjab, has it shown that
State an enemy to us? Has it not, on the contrary, shown it our fastest
friend, by whose aid we have just put down the traitors of our own
household? So much for the facts of history as to the Koh-i-noor. Now
for the estimation in which its former owners hold it. When Runjeet
Singh seized it from Shah Shoojah [the Doorani Emperor] he was very
anxious to ascertain its real value. He sent to merchants at Umritsir,
but they said its value could not be estimated in money. He sent it to
the Begum Shah, Shoojah's wife. Her answer was thus, 'If a strong man
should take five stones, and should cast them, one east, one west, one
north, and one south, and the last straight up in the air, and if all
the space between those points were filled with gold and gems, that
would not equal the value of the Koh-i-noor.' Runjeet (thinking this a
rather vague estimate, I suppose) thus applied to Shah Shoojah. The old
man's answer was: 'The value of the Koh-i-noor is that whoever holds it
is victorious over all his enemies.' And so it is. The Koh-i-noor has
been of ill-fortune to the few who have lost it. To the long line of
Emperors, Conquerors and potentates who through successive centuries
have possessed it, it has been the symbol of victory and empire. And
sure never more than to our Queen, ever since she wore it, and at this
moment...However, if her Majesty thinks it brings bad luck to her let
her give it back to me. I will take it and its ill-luck as speculation."
A painting of Queen Victoria by Francis Xavier Winterhalter, painted in 1842.
Winterhalter was famous for his paintings of royalty, Empress Eugenie, Empress
Elisabeth of Austria and Empress Maria Alexandrovna being among his portraits.
Queen Victoria did not return the Koh-I-Noor to Lord Dalhousie. Instead,
in 1853 Garrards mounted it in a magnificent tiara for the Queen which
contained more than two thousand diamonds. Five years later Queen
Victoria ordered a new regal circlet for the Koh-I-Noor which they
delivered the following year. Then in 1911 Garrards made a new crown
which Queen Mary wore for the coronation: it contained only diamonds,
among them the Koh-I-Noor. In 1937 the diamond was transfered to the
crown made for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, which was based on
Queen Victoria's regal circlet. The Koh-I-Noor is set in the Maltese
Cross at the front of the crown.
In the 20th century there was further controversy surrounding the
Koh-I-Noor, namely the question of its rightful ownership. It wouldn't
be uncharitable to suggest that on the majority of occasions which the
subject has been raised on, it has been due to the efforts of
politicians anxious to score poll points off one another rather than to
any initiative on the part of those who may harbor deep-seated feelings
about the gem.
In 1947 the government of India asked for the return of the Koh-I-Noor:
at the same time the Congress Ministry of Orissa claimed that the stone
actually belonged to the god Jaganath, despite the opinion of Ranjit
Singh's treasurer that it was property of the state. Another request
followed in 1953, the year of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. But
the really fight erupted in 1976 when the Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in a letter to the British Prime Minister, James
Callaghan, submitted a formal request for the return of the diamond to
Pakistan. This was refused but was accompanied by an assurance by
Callaghan to Bhutto that there was no question that Britain would have
handed it over to any other country. The view of the British government
was reported at the time to have been that the history of the diamond is
so confused and that Britain has a clear title, in that the diamond was
not seized in war but formally presented -- the last statement being a
somewhat curious interpretation of the events of the 19th century.
Remember, the Koh-I-Noor being handed over was one of the terms of the
Treaty of Lahore. They did not have much choice in the matter.
Pakistan's claim to the Koh-I-Noor was disputed by India, which made
another formal request for its restoration. Shortly after, a major
newspaper in Teheran stated that the gem ought to be returned to Iran.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928-1979)
The debate in the British media and press provided evidence of the keen
interest which the topic rose. People and special interest groups
hastened to put pen to paper. Lord Ballatrae, the great-grandson of Lord
Dalhousie, submitted his own claim on the grounds that for just over a
year his relative had been the stone's owner. A second person wrote that
if the Koh-I-Noor was to be handed back, then the marble statues must
be restored to Greece or Lord Elgin, the Isle of Man to Lord Delby and
the Channel Islands to France -- he was not sure to whom the Isle of
Wight belonged but felt sure there would be a long and acrimonious
dispute with the British Isles themselves. A third writer suggested that
the solution to the problem was to partition the gem... (!)
An authoritative and thoughtful addition to the debate that raged in the press was in a letter to
The Times
by Sir Olaf Caroe, a distinguished British administrator who had spent a
lifetime's service in the east, including time in the post of Foreign
Secretary to the Government of India from 1939 to 1945. Sir Olaf pointed
out that the Koh-I-Noor had been in Mogul possession in Delhi for 213
years, in Afghan possession in Kandahar and Kabul for 66 years and (at
the time of writing the letter) in British possession for 127 years. He
remarked that it is true that when it was acquired by the British it was
at Lahore (now a part of Pakistan), but other and previous claimants
also existed. The Moguls in Delhi were Turkish in origin and the rulers
in Lahore, by the time the stone came into British hands, were Sikhs.
Finally, he said he felt that the word "return" was barely applicable.
Historically, it is difficult to pass judgement on the validity of the
various claims. On the other hand, from a gemological aspect, the Indian
claim must be the most valid because it was in that country that the
Koh-I-Noor was mined. However, this country's claim to the diamond was
renounced by a man who was a statesman, not only a politician;
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India once
said, "Diamonds are for the Emperors and India does not need Emperors."
In 1992 a new HM Stationary Office publication on the British Crown
Jewels and regalia gave the revised weight of 105.602 metric carats for
the Koh-I-Noor and not the 108.93 metric carat conversion figure
previously published. The stone was found to measure 36.00 × 31.90 ×
13.04 mm. The stone is set in the Maltese Cross at the front of the
crown made for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and because of
uncertainty as to the precise weight in the HMSO publication, the
opportunity was taken in 1988 to have the stone removed during the
maintenance and cleaning of the crown by the Crown Jeweller, Mr. Bill
Summers, at Garrard & Co. It was weighed in the presences of
witnesses on a modern certified electronic balance.
Herbert Tillander's drawing of the Koh-I-Noor's facet pattern. This cut is
called a 'stellar brilliant' because of the extra facets on the stone's pavilion.
I doubt it would get better than the grade "Fair" in symmetry.
Sources:
The Great Diamonds of the World by Edwin Streeter,
The Baburnama by Babur, translated into English by Annette Beveridge 1922,
Akbarnama by Abul Fazal, translated into English by Henry Beveridge,
Travels in India
by Jean Baptiste Tavernier, translated into English by Valentine Ball
and William Crooke in 1925 (the price an original copy from the 1600s
starts at about $2100...!), the archives of the London Times.
Source: http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/famousdiamonds.html
