Chapter Nine

The Eurasian Diamond Trade in the Eighteenth Century: a Balanced Model of Complementary

Markets

Tijl Vanneste

Introduction

Diamonds have been known since Antiquity. Until the Eighteenth Century, these precious stones

were only found in India and Borneo, from where trade routes were established to the Middle

East, China and Europe. Little is known about the Eurasian diamond trade before the early

modern period, something that can be partially explained by a lack of regularity in the trade. i

This regularity would only arrive in the Seventeenth Century, when a set of laws made by the

English East India Company (EIC) led to a structured and regular official Eurasian diamond

trade.ii Ironically, when the Eurasian diamond trade was on the verge of being stabilized, it met

with an enormous challenge, when diamonds were found in Brazilian riverbeds around 1724. iii

Existing analyses of the global diamond trade, such as Gedalia Yogev’s, are often based on a

hierarchical model; this tendency can be attributed, at least in part, to an analytical focus on

who controlled the official diamond shipments from Asia or Brazil into Europe. This has resulted

in a vertical model, with one main centre at the top—occupied at different times by Venice,

Bruges, Antwerp (twice), Lisbon, London and Amsterdam. In this model, competition between

cities became a catalyst for change over time. It is a discontinuous model, reserving a lot of

attention for a ‘rise and fall’ history of cities as diamond centres, where the rise of one city

1

implies the fall of another. Still, important lacunae remain, particularly in linking the history of

the early modern diamond trade with later, more modern developments.

One of the more remarkable features of the eighteenth-century diamond business is the

disappearance of Antwerp as a crucial diamond centre, particularly in light of the prime role the

city was to fulfil again in our modern era. It is not hard to come up with a number of reasons for

this anomaly: Jewish merchants had already started to leave the city at the end of the Sixteenth

Century. The growing power of the Dutch and English East India Companies at the expense of

the Portuguese further contributed to the erosion of Antwerp’s primacy in diamonds. What is

surprising, however, is the large number of business records of diamond traders who operated

between the late Sixteenth and Eighteenth Centuries preserved in legal archives in Antwerp,

indicating that Antwerp had managed to retain more prominence in the early modern diamond

trade than is generally assumed.iv Perhaps the most extensive of these archives is that of James

Dormer (1708-1758). Dormer initiated regular correspondence with one of the most important

diamond businesses: that of Francis and Joseph Salvador in London, who had direct commercial

ties with India.v Around this privileged relationship, a cross-cultural diamond trade network

developed from the early 1740s onwards, incorporating merchants and bankers in Amsterdam,

London, Antwerp and Lisbon. Almost all of them belonged to a diaspora; Dormer corresponded

with Sephardic Jews, French Huguenots and other English Catholics. Dormer recorded all his

diamond activities in four books. An analysis of these indicates that the early modern Eurasian

diamond trade was based on complementary markets rather than on a hierarchical model of

diamond centres.vi Dormer was not a typical diamond merchant, he was an English Catholic who

married into local nobility. Nevertheless, due to its international nature, his diamond business

gives us a good insight in the functioning of the European diamond markets and their links with

Asia in the first half of the Eighteenth Century.

Supply Channels: Different Kinds of Rough Diamonds

2

The Salvadors guaranteed Dormer good access to Asian supplies, but Dormer obtained his

diamonds from a variety of sources and places, as can be seen in Table 8.1. All the diamonds

purchased by Dormer are divided according to the share in weight (carats), and in financial

share per city of purchase.vii For a small percentage of transactions no marketplace could be

traced.

Table 8.1 Percentages per city of origin of diamonds purchased

Antwerp Amsterdam Antwerp or

Amsterdamviii

London Lisbon Other Unknown

Per Cent,

Carats

7.8 32.4 2.2 51.6 2.2 0.4 3.4

Per Cent,

Financial

Value

9.4 31.4 4.5 45 2.4 0.3 7

Source: Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren,

Nos 1084-87.

There are no surprises in this table. Of the total weight of diamonds registered as purchases in

Dormer’s diamond books, slightly more than half came from London. Amsterdam comes in

3

second place with 32.4 per cent, followed by small amounts of diamonds purchased in Antwerp

(7.8 per cent) and Lisbon (2.2 per cent). A very small number of diamonds were bought in other

places: Gent, Brussels and Liege. This seems to confirm London’s primacy when it comes to

diamond imports. The fact that Amsterdam was less important for Dormer can be explained by

the fact that he was not in contact with the Amsterdam merchants involved in the Brazilian

diamond monopoly. By contrast, in London, his most important source for precious stones was

the firm of Francis and Joseph Salvador, which was rumoured in the 1740s and 1750s to have

played a role in that monopoly. On the other hand, the Salvadors never managed to play an

important role in the Brazilian diamond trade, mainly due to antipathy towards them and other

Sephardim from the first minister, Pombal, the most powerful man in Portugal. It seems the

Salvadors and Dormer focused on Asian stones. As a monopoly had been put in place to control

Brazilian diamonds, the small amount of diamonds coming from Lisbon is not surprising;

notwithstanding one important exception, Dormer did not have direct access to the monopoly

holders.

It is interesting to note that, when looking at financial shares, the situation changes a

little, with a lesser share from London and a greater share from unknown origins. One possible

explanation is that Dormer and his partners also traded in finished products and jewels, which

they obtained from a wider variety of sellers, and with a higher value per carat than the rough

diamonds that Dormer often obtained from well-known sources. A second explanation might be

that rough diamonds arriving in London were of lower quality. This difference in quality might

be linked to geographical origin, as Brazilian diamonds were sometimes considered to be

superior to Indian stones. In this case, the data might suggest a larger share of Asian stones

coming out of London. A closer look at the share of different types of precious stones bought by

James Dormer and his associates gives a better insight in market differences beyond relative

shares, as is clear from Table 8.2.ix

Table 8.2 Percentage per city of types of diamonds purchased

4

Antwerp Amsterda

m

Antwerp or

Amsterdam

London Lisbon Other Unknown

Polished 36.3 4 26 4.3 0 0 29.4

Senal 8.8 43.2 0 37.5 0 0 10.5

Bort 0.8 5.6 0 93.3 0 0 0.3

Rough 9.3 56.3 0 27.4 4.3 0.7 1.9

Unknown 7.2 1.7 25 65 0 1.1 0

Source: Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren,

Nos 1084-87.

The information in this table indicates that different markets played different roles, and that

they should not be compared only by volume. Polished diamonds can be brilliants, roses, or

even sometimes stones set in jewellery such as rings, necklaces and earrings. Dormer got these,

unsurprisingly, mostly from local traders. Senal or senaille is a category best summed up as

‘diamond splinters’, which could be polished to have three facets. Because a distinction

5

between polished and unpolished senal is not consistently made in the diamond books, the two

have been kept together.x Bort is the lowest quality of diamond, often crushed to diamond dust,

sold in large quantities, and used by polishers. It is also a waste product after polishing that is

then resold. Rough diamonds are uncut and unpolished stones that do not fall in the lower

quality categories. The most surprising element is the import of higher quality rough diamonds

from Amsterdam, equalling more than twice as much as London imports of the same kind: 56.3

per cent versus 27.4 per cent. This is remarkable, although London provides much more bort

than the Dutch city. Aside from a possible difference in quality related to the geographical origin

of the diamonds, another reason for these figures could be the more developed diamond

industry in Amsterdam, drawing a larger share of rough stones of a higher quality. The very high

percentage of bort coming from London must be explained by the same reason: with a more

voluminous cutting industry, Amsterdam simply had less bort available to sell abroad. According

to Jonathan Israel, ‘there were many more Jewish brokers, a much larger Jewish diamond-

cutting and polishing industry ... [in Amsterdam] than in London.’xi David Jeffries attributed the

difference in magnitude of the cutting industry to the fact that the wages of English workmen

were high in comparison with their counterparts in Amsterdam.xii Yogev suggested a more

compelling explanation, namely that a possible transfer of diamond industry to London would

have been accompanied by a transfer of skilled diamond cutters, and that such an emigration

did not take place.xiii Stones that were bought as finished products were regularly bought on the

Antwerp market; only rarely were they bought elsewhere. Senal diamonds were first bought in

London, but also in Antwerp and Amsterdam, in similar numbers. When looking at weight

percentages of the total amount of carats bought, the share of good rough diamonds bought in

Amsterdam (28.7 per cent) is not much less than the share of bort bought in London (34.8 per

cent). This strongly indicates a difference in the quality of unpolished material coming from

London and Amsterdam, and hints at forms of market specialisation, as it is clear that both cities

played a different, but equally important role in the distribution of rough diamonds.

6

Sales Markets: A Regionalized Demand

It is clear that by far the most sales of precious stones were made in the Low Countries.

Antwerp served as the setting for over a third of all transactions, in both value and weight. If

one includes the stones sold to the itinerant couple van Merlen and de Coninck, the Brabant city

takes 71.4 per cent of the total weight of diamonds sold, or 57.9 per cent of the financial value.

Amsterdam is not far behind, accounting for 23.5 per cent of all carats sold. London and Lisbon

only played a marginal part in the sales transactions of Dormer and his colleagues. This did not

mean that consumer markets there were non-existent. However, it did mean that, in terms of

the diamond industry, both cities did not even come close to the Low Countries. Weight alone

is, however, not sufficient as an indicator, as certain types of diamonds were much more

valuable than others. Bort, for instance, was sold at a low value but in high quantities. When a

geographical division is made based on relative shares of the financial value of trade, a different

picture emerges, with a more prominent role for Amsterdam, now responsible for a share of

33.7 per cent of all diamonds sold.

Table 8.3 Percentages per city of diamond sales

Antwerp Amsterda

m

Antwerp or

Amsterdam

London Lisbon Other Unknown

Per Cent,

Carats

34.3 23.5 37.1 2.2 1.3 0.1 1.5

7

Per Cent,

Financial

Value

37.8 33.7 20.1 3.1 2.4 0.1 2.8

Source: Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren,

Nos 1084-87.

Table 8.3 hints at a bigger market for more expensive jewellery in Amsterdam, while lower

quality products remained in Antwerp. To better analyse such differences, all sales have been

divided into types of diamonds in Table 8.4, which gives relative shares of sales (in carats). As

the distinction between polished and unpolished senal cannot be made on the sales side, that

category has disappeared. Instead, a distinction has been made between the sale of polished

goods that were worked in Antwerp, and polished goods that already had been worked

elsewhere (and thus were purchased and sold in the same condition).

Table 8.4 Percentage of sales types

Antwerp Amsterda

m

Antwerp or

Amsterdam

London Lisbon Other Unknown

8

Polished

Antwerp

31.7 58.5 0.3 4.8 0 0.2 4.5

Polished 6.4 33 0.5 24.8 35.3 0 0

Bort 43.4 9.3 46.4 0 0.2 0 0.7

Rough 19.5 8.3 70.3 1.9 0 0 0

Unknown 1.9 43.2 9.3 19.9 15.6 1.9 8.2

Source: Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren,

Nos 1084-87.

Table 8.4 is the strongest indicator of the complementary nature of the different European

diamond markets. It confirms a greater market share for expensive goods in Amsterdam, as 58.5

per cent of diamonds polished in Antwerp, and 33 per cent of finished products, were sold in

there. Lisbon only played a role as a sales market for finished products. One third of these found

a buyer in Amsterdam, another third in Lisbon and a quarter in London, which had a similar role

to Lisbon as a sales market. Considering their activities as cutters, it is unsurprising that van

Merlen and de Coninck were Dormer’s best clients in purchasing rough diamonds and bort, with

Antwerp in second place and Amsterdam in third.

9

From these tables, a more nuanced picture emerges of Europe’s diamond markets.

London and Amsterdam were playing a crucial role in importing rough diamonds—although of

varying quality and origin—which were worked by cutters in Antwerp and Amsterdam. Bort, the

lowest quality of stone, which was used in the process of cutting, came primarily from London.

The markets for finished diamonds, roses and brilliants, sometimes set in pieces of jewellery,

were most significant in Lisbon and Amsterdam, and of course Antwerp itself. It makes sense

that Lisbon played a role as a sales market for polished stones: its inhabitants were well-

acquainted with the riches of Brazilian stones, as large quantities passed through the

Portuguese capital, helping to create demand—probably also in Brazil itself—which had to be

filled by stones from abroad because Lisbon did not have an important cutting industry.

Antwerp and Amsterdam were two close markets, a fact which is exemplified by the efforts of

merchants going back and forth between the two. The Ashkenazi families with whom Dormer

corresponded were established in Amsterdam, but some of their members made regular trips to

Antwerp, at times in the company of Bernardus van Merlen or Isabella de Coninck. The number

of sales was higher in Amsterdam than in Antwerp. This suggests that more stones were sold to

consumers and jewellers in Amsterdam, while in Antwerp, transactions with other merchants

and diamond cutters were dominant, although members of the local elite can be identified as

small buyers of Dormer’s diamonds.

What emerges from this data is not simply the superiority of one city over another, but

rather a sense that different places had different things to contribute to the diamond industry,

leading to a degree of specialisation and complementarity. This does not mean that cities

specialised in one type of the trade. Although London’s cutting industry never competed with

that of Amsterdam or Antwerp, this did not mean it did not exist. Furthermore, all of these

cities, as well as others, were consumer markets, driving a need to import polished stones; this

depended not only on supply and demand, but also on fashion.

To gain a better understanding of the role played by changing taste in different

geographical areas, it is necessary to further distinguish between categories, particularly with

regard to precious stones set in jewels and polished diamonds. Such classifications were made

10

by the merchants themselves. Rough diamonds can be divided into categories according to

quality. Polished stones can be divided by: type of cut, including brilliant or rose, the older and

out-of-fashion table cut and the less-common shield cut; size of particular stones; colour and

quality.

Unfortunately, the information in Dormer’s diamond books is not consistent enough to

introduce such analytical categories. It is, however, possible to support the thesis that local

taste was important, and that merchants tried to maximize their profits by playing out taste

differentials. Many parcels of diamonds were sent back and forth between London, Lisbon,

Antwerp and Amsterdam as traders tried to obtain fresh information about best prices. One of

the finest examples of local fashion can be found in a letter written by Dormer’s Lisbon agents,

the Huguenot firm of Berthon & Garnault:

[we] immediately cal’d a buyer, the best man here, he lookt’ em over and told us that

as to the 2 papers of brilliants N°1 & 2 they were unsaleable amongst the Portugueeze,

that what was in demand amongst em was only very small brilliants perfect in coullour

& cleanness and from 20 to 30 to ye. Kt … and we cal’d a good broaker ... and added

that should never sell the brillants, N°1, thô tolerable white being full of defects and Ill

cutt and N°2 the same and quite foul Coullourd, but to some spaniards suppoze any

should come here, as has been lately, equipping for buenos aires.xiv

The diamonds were sent back to Antwerp through Amsterdam. At other times, traders knew

exactly what they wanted. When George Clifford & Sons, one of Europe’s foremost merchant-

bankers, became engaged in the diamond trade, they asked Dormer if he could obtain stones

from ‘the five most wanted sorts’ in Amsterdam. They were very explicit about what they

wanted: ‘rozes that are well spread x pretty clear, but not quite of the first water’. xv James

Dormer made similar requests, not always with success. In 1750 he asked Thomas and Adrian

Hope, who had excellent contacts with diamond traders in Constantinople, for ‘diamants fins’,

at that time in great demand in Antwerp.xvi

11

The frequency with which diamonds were sent back and forth between markets; the

often specific demands merchants made to each other to obtain specific types of diamonds; and

the constant inquiries about prices all provide further evidence for the idea that markets

functioned on a complementary basis, on which merchants tried to make the most profit and

looked out for every opportunity. James Dormer and his correspondents tried to play the

markets, sending types of diamonds to the city where they were the most wanted and where

they could obtain the best price. Although Lisbon, Antwerp, Amsterdam and London were the

leading commercial diamond centres in the Eighteenth Century, networks of diamond traders

spanned these places and beyond. Hence, important consumer markets existed elsewhere too,

and precious stones were also sent to cities like Paris. Occasionally, diamonds left Europe again.

Thomas and Adrian Hope wrote to James Dormer in 1747, stating that a correspondent of theirs

in Russia desired thirty carats of brilliants, cut in a specific way. They asked Dormer to provide

them with a sample to send to Russia.xvii In addition, in 1749, Berthon & Garnault wished they

had some rose diamonds, 50 to 100 stones per carat, claiming they could ship them to Rio de

Janeiro, where a good demand was said to exist.xviii At least once, Bernardus van Merlen went to

Turkey himself.xix These kind of remote trips were only undertaken to other sales markets, and

none of the diamond merchants working with James Dormer seems to have gone in person to

Asia or South America, although all of Dormer’s Jewish partners in London had relatives who

were active in India.

Silver, Jewels and Coral for Diamonds: A Regular and Well-Structured Trade

Yogev has argued that the coincidence of the establishment of the Jewish diaspora in London,

and the move of the East India Company away from a trade monopoly in diamonds in Asia, led

to a structured and regular Eurasian diamond trade that was Anglo-Indian in nature. xx Some

issues complicate this reading of history. First, it is very difficult to make any assessment of

contraband trade, as there are only indications that diamond merchants obtained part of their

diamonds illegally. The volume of clandestine diamond trade remains unknown. Second, in

Dormer’s diamond books, the origin of the purchased stones is not often mentioned, making it

hard to trace diamonds back to India, Borneo or Brazil—a task that is further complicated by the

12

regular practice of mingling different parcels. In spite of these problems, it is possible to connect

Europe’s diamond consumption with mines in India. In Dormer’s time, the diamond trade was

essentially free, but had to be carried out within the framework of the English East India

Company. For merchants without excellent connections abroad, public sales held in London by

the EIC offered access to Indian stones.xxi Most of the larger commercial houses had

representatives or partners in India, to whom they sent silver, coral, amber, pearls, finished

stones or jewels. The contacts were to use these to obtain rough diamonds. Permissions for this

exchange trade were noted in the Company’s court minute books, making it possible to

determine what was sent to India by Dormer’s partners between 1744 and 1758. Table 5 gives

the figures, in pounds sterling, of commodities sent to India by members of the Salvador firm,

Dormer’s most important supplier.xxii

Table 8.5: Shipments to India by the Salvador Firm (1744-1758)

Commodity (£) Jacob

Salvador

Joseph

Salvador

Francis

Salvador

Phineas

Serra

Jacob &

Abraham

Fernandes

Nunes

Foreign silver 1200 2250 (gold

& silver)

0 1000 7717

Coral 95035 57500 0 12000 11700

13

Coral, emeralds &

Silver

0 10000 0 0 0

Jewels 3000 0 0 0 0

Pearls 0 500 300 0 0

Ostrich feathers 0 25 0 0 0

Total value 99235 70275 300 13000 19417

Source: British Library, India Office Records, B/68-B/75, Court Minute Books EIC 61-68 (1742-

1760).

Almost £13,482 worth of merchandise, particularly coral, was sent to India per year in order to

buy rough diamonds; a considerable amount. It is not always known who received these

commodities, but several members of the Salvador family resided in India. Salvador Rodrigues

and Francis Salvador Sr were two uncles of the Francis Salvador who corresponded with

Dormer. Salvador Rodrigues and Francis Salvador Sr had set up a partnership with two French

Huguenot brothers, Daniel and Jean Chardin, at the end of the Seventeenth Century. During the

1680s, Salvador Rodrigues and Daniel Chardin travelled frequently to the diamond mines of the

Golconda kingdom, while their respective brothers were living in London. After one trip,

Salvador Rodrigues wanted to stay in Golconda, where ‘he lived with Hindu mistresses and the

14

children they bore him, spoke Telugu, wore Indian costume and ate a strict vegetarian diet.’ xxiii

This caused the Chardin-Salvador partnership to break down. It remains unknown whether the

Salvadors had family members in Asia at a later time, although a Joseph Salvador was buried in

Calcutta in 1789, as ‘a poor inhabitant’.xxiv In any case, the Salvadors continued to set up

partnerships with Christian traders to get diamonds from India. Francis Salvador, Dormer’s

correspondent, had started to work with London merchant Edward Fenwicke. They used a

certain Richard Benyon as agent in Madras, who was replaced in 1727 by Nathaniel Turner.xxv

Some merchants in India were linked to the Salvadors through marriage, as was the case

for Solomon Franco or Moses Pereira de Paiva, representatives in India of two important firms

in the diamond trade.xxvi It is clear that family ties played a crucial role for the Eurasian diamond

trade, although successful merchants also managed to build relationships at high levels.

Governors such as Henry Van Sittart had set up a private trade in diamonds, in addition to

helping out certain friends. One of those was Joseph Salvador, who even became a close friend

with Robert Clive, first Baron Clive, and provided him some advice in Indian affairs.xxvii Of course,

benefits were reciprocal, as many East India Company officials and governors remitted their

fortunes back home in diamonds.xxviii Knowing some of the world’s foremost diamond traders

was very helpful in that regard. The firm of Van Sittart & Plowman sold coral and jewellery in

Bengal as an agent for different Jewish merchants, including Joseph Salvador.xxix The main task

of these agents was to obtain rough diamonds. When a return cargo had been secured by

agents, the diamonds had to be put on vessels bound for Europe. Once they had information

about the arrival of shipments of precious stones, the Salvadors started writing to their

correspondents to gauge demand in other markets:

Last Friday late we had the agreable News of the arrival of the Lapwing from Fort St

George & brings about [Pagodas] 200,000 in Diamonds & Boart of all sorts, they cost

extremely Dear in India ... the Levys & Salomons have a great deal come to their own

Hands in this Ship and they will croud your Place immediately as soon as they take

them out of the [Company] there may be more Diamonds not registered, we must

know from you minutely what you think of Boart Yellow and Brown and as to fine

15

Goods we think Amsterdam is the best Market and little or nothing to be gott by it, we

dont think there is any great Haste but however must have particular Advises from

your side to act here we can say nothing more at present.xxx

The minute books of the EIC mention the same arrival of the Lapwing. As in March, it was

decided that the diamonds on the Lapwing belonging to the EIC were to be put up for public

sale later that month. According to Francis and Joseph Salvador, all the diamonds were sold by

the end of April.xxxi

The remark about unregistered (clandestine) diamonds is interesting, although not much

is revealed about the size of the trade and or who was involved. One episode which does give

an insight on this side of the market is the story of Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais, a

Frenchman who sacked Fort St George in 1746, thereby laying his hands on a large amount of

rough diamonds. It was big news in Europe. James Dormer and Francis Salvador decided to set

up a partnership to try to buy the diamonds off La Bourdonnais, motivated by the idea that,

should they succeed, ‘we shall be intirely masters of that branch [Indian diamond trade] for the

present until a fresh supply Comes to Europe which Cannot be ‘till next year’. xxxii In December

1747, a French Indiaman arrived in a port in Galicia. Francis Salvador suspected that La

Bourdonnais was on board. He suggested that Dormer should travel secretly to Spain to meet

with the Frenchman and conclude a deal.xxxiii No meeting ever took place between the French

captain and James Dormer. La Bourdonnais was eventually imprisoned in the Bastille. He died in

1753, two years after his release from prison.xxxiv The above extract also mentioned two of the

foremost Ashkenazi commercial families: Levy and Salomons. They belonged to a diaspora of

Eastern European Jewry, and their family networks were considered by Sephardic merchants

such as the Salvadors as a serious competitive threat. In spite of this, James Dormer had

established regular correspondence with members of these families.xxxv

16

Conclusion

Historical evidence supports the claim that European diamond centres interacted in a horizontal

manner, rather than corresponding to a hierarchical structure. Diamonds of various sorts and

qualities were bought and sold in different cities. Marcia Pointon was right to point out that the

‘economically global character of precious stones fed into an internationally apprehensible

language of value, and, therefore, also of visuality.’xxxvi The international valuation of diamonds,

however, did not prevent differences in local tastes. Nor did it prevent opportunistic merchants

from circulating parcels of diamonds between cities to obtain the best prices. The analysis of

business archives such as those of Dormer reveal a great deal about market mechanisms and

the relationships between different cities. However, since many of these traders conducted

most of their business within Europe, an important part of the picture is missing. It would

therefore be a mistake to underestimate the role of India, or Asia, as a supplier of commodities

enhanced and sold in Europe. The Anglo-Indian exchange trade, and the activities of itinerant

jewellers such as the Chardins, and the famous Jean-Baptiste Tavernier in the Seventeenth

Century, all point to the existence of a consumer market in Asia. [Fig.1] A demand existed for

Flemish and Dutch cutters to move to India. A look at one of the plates included in Tavernier’s

travel journal not only shows different cuts of diamonds, but also demonstrates that precious

stones were also cut locally in India, according to both local and imported customs.xxxvii

Furthermore, some legendary diamond traders were Indian, such as Shantidas Zaveri (circa

1585-1659) and Virji Vora (circa 1590-1670).xxxviii One of the main challenges for historians

interested in diamond trade, or indeed Eurasian commerce, is the creation of a balanced model

in which different regions are seen to act in a complementary manner—rather than a narrow,

one-dimensional manner.

Fig.1. 'Representations of the 14 fairest Diamonds ...' from The Six Voyages of Baptista

Tavernier, translated by John Phillips, London 1678, Book II, Part II, between pp.147 and 148.©

Image courtesy of Nigel Israel

17

i For an assessment of this period, see Godehard Lenzen, The History of Diamond Production and the Diamond Trade (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970).ii Gedalia Yogev, Diamonds and Coral: Anglo-Dutch Jews and Eighteenth Century Trade (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), pp. 83-85.iii Joaquim Felício dos Santos, Memórias do Distrito Diamantino da Comarca do Sêrro Frio (Rio de Janeiro: Itatiaia, 1956), pp. 60-61. iv Insolvente Boedelskamer, Antwerp. v Maurice Woolf, ‘Joseph Salvador 1716-1786’, in Transactions and Miscellanies of The Jewish Historical Society of England, 21 (1962-1967), pp. 104-137. vi The books cover the period 1744-1758. On the James Dormer diamond network, see Tijl Vanneste, Global Trade and Commercial Networks: Eighteenth-Century Diamond Merchants (London: Pickering & Chatto, June 2011). vii The percentages have been calculated by analysing all the transactions noted in Dormer’s four diamond books. Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren, Nos. 1084-1087. The limited amount of diamonds sold by Dormer’s son Jacob Albrecht between 1758 and 1762 were not included.viii The column ‘Antwerp or Amsterdam’ in this and other tables indicates the relative shares of diamonds sold to or purchased from the married couple Bernardus van Merlen and Isabella de Coninck. They were itinerant merchants and resided in both cities, making it impossible to attribute these transactions to Antwerp or Amsterdam. ix The percentages on each row are calculated relative to the total amount of that particular type, not of the total amount of diamonds bought.x M. Cohen, Beschreibende Verzeichniss einer Sammlung von Diamanten und der zur Bearbeitung derselben nothwendigen Apparate (Wien: Anton Strauss, 1822), p. 24.xi Jonathan Israel, Diasporas within a diaspora. Jews, Crypto-Jews and the World Maritime Empires (1540-1740) (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 37.xii David Jeffries, A treatise on diamonds and pearls (London: C. and J. Ackers, 1751), p. 101.xiii Yogev, Diamonds and Coral, p. 142.xiv City Archive Antwerp (CAA), IB1652, Berthon & Garnault to James Dormer, Lisbon, 24/06/1749.xv CAA, IB1662, George Clifford & Sons to James Dormer, Amsterdam, 07/09/1747.xvi CAA, IB1701, Thomas & Adrian Hope to James Dormer, Amsterdam, 05/03/1750. xvii CAA, IB1701, Thomas & Adrian Hope to James Dormer, Amsterdam, 03/08/1747.xviii CAA, IB1652, Berthon & Garnault to James Dormer, Lisbon, 21/10/1749.xix CAA, IB1717, B.E. van Merlen to James Dormer, Amsterdam, 18/04/1746.xx Yogev, Diamonds and Coral, p. 88.xxi See for instance CAA, IB 1742, Francis & Joseph Salvador to James Dormer, London, 07/09/1751.xxii Included as well are the firm of Jacob and Abraham Fernandes Nunes, cousins of the Salvadors and Phineas Serra, Joseph Salvador’s attorney. xxiii Edgar R. Samuel, ‘Gems from the Orient: the activities of Sir John Chardin (1643-1713) as a diamond importer and East India Merchant’, in Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 27 (2000), p. 361; Dirk Van der Cruysse, Chardin le Persan (Paris: Fayard, 1998); Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Yale University, John Chardin Correspondence and Documents, Gen MSS 216, Series I, Folder 14. D. Foucault to John Chardin, London, 17/05/1707. ‘Il [Salvador Rodrigues] setablit aux mines, prit femme, gardant par devers luy une somme de 1200 pagodes.’xxiv BL/IOR, N/1/4, Biographical Indexes India Office Records, f°89.xxv South Carolina Historical Society, No. 34/577, Edward Fenwicke Letterbook, 1723-1728.xxvi Walter J. Fischel, ‘The Jewish Merchant-Colony in Madras (Fort St. George) during the 17th and 18th Centuries: a Contribution to the Economic and Social History of the Jews in India ’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 3 (1960), pp. 87-107; Walter J. Fischel, ‘The Jewish Merchant-Colony in Madras (Fort St. George) during the 17th and 18th Centuries: a Contribution to the Economic and Social History of the

Jews in India (Concluded)’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 3 (1960), pp. 175-95; Jonathan Schorsch, ‘Mosseh Pereyra de Paiva: An Amsterdam Portuguese Jewish Merchant Abroad in the Seventeenth Century’, in Y. Kaplan (ed.), The Dutch Intersection – The Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. 63-85.xxvii Bruce Lenman and Philip Lawson, ‘Robert Clive, the “Black Jagir”, and British Politics’, Historical Journal, 26 (1983), pp. 801-29; BL/IOR, Verelst Collection, Mss Eur F218/37: Calcutta Journal, Ledger and Cash Book (Letter I) (May 1768-Apr 1769), pp. 85-90.xxviii See for instance Tillman W. Nechtman, Nabobs – Empire and Identity in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), particularly the two last chapters. A quote from p. 172 summarizes the appeal of Indian precious stones: ‘If diamonds were the sign of an Indian fortune, turbans marked a nabob himself.’ The name of Robert Clive also pops up a few times, as do that of other governors involved in diamonds.xxix BL/IOR, Van Sittart Collection, Mss Eur F331/27: Journal Van Sittart & Plowman, 31/08/1767, a box of coral for Joseph Salvador sold for £4012:1:9.xxx CAA, IB1742, Francis & Joseph Salvador to James Dormer, London, 11/03/1750.xxxi BL/IOR, B/71, Court Minute Book EIC 64 (April 1750 – April 1752), p. 339; CAA, IB1742, Francis & Joseph Salvador to James Dormer, London, 23/04/1750.xxxii CAA, IB1743, Francis & Jacob Salvador to James Dormer, London, 24/11/1747; CAA, IB1743, Francis & Joseph Salvador to James Dormer, London, 20/10/1746.xxxiii CAA, IB1743, Francis & Jacob Salvador to James Dormer, London, 08/12/1747.xxxiv George W. Forrest, ‘The Siege of Madras in 1746 and the Action of La Bourdonnais’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, 2 (1908), pp. 189-234. xxxv Vanneste, Global Trade and Commercial Networks, pp. 95-122.xxxvi Marcia Pointon, Brilliant Effects: A Cultural History of Gem Stones and Jewellery (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 17.xxxvii ‘Representations of the 14 fairest Diamonds ...’, in Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, translated by John Phillipps (London, 1678), Book II, Part II, p. 149.1676).xxxviii Makrand Mehta, Indian Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Historical Perspective (Delhi: Academic Foundation, 1991), pp. 91-114, 53-64.