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
London
Lisbon
Other
Unknown
Amsterdam
viii
Per Cent,
7.8
32.4
2.2
51.6
2.2
0.4
3.4
9.4
31.4
4.5
45
2.4
0.3
7
Carats
Per Cent,
Financial
Value
Source: Diamond Books Nos 1-4 (1744-1762), Archief de Bergeyck/Deelarchief Goubau, Beveren,
Nos 1084-87.
3
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
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
4
Table 8.2 Percentage per city of types of diamonds purchased
Antwerp
Polished
Amsterda
Antwerp or
m
Amsterdam
London
Lisbon
Other
Unknown
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
5
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
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 diamondcutting 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
Per Cent,
34.3
Amsterda
Antwerp or
m
Amsterdam
23.5
37.1
Carats
7
London
2.2
Lisbon
1.3
Other
0.1
Unknown
1.5
Per Cent,
37.8
33.7
20.1
3.1
2.4
0.1
2.8
Financial
Value
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
Antwerp or
m
Amsterdam
8
London
Lisbon
Other
Unknown
Polished
31.7
58.5
0.3
4.8
0
0.2
4.5
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
1.9
43.2
9.3
19.9
15.6
1.9
8.2
Antwerp
Polished
Unknown
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
9
Merlen and de Coninck were Dormer’s best clients in purchasing rough diamonds and bort, with
Antwerp in second place and Amsterdam in third.
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 wellacquainted 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.
10
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
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 merchantbankers, 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
11
Hope, who had excellent contacts with diamond traders in Constantinople, for ‘diamants fins’,
at that time in great demand in Antwerp.xvi
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
12
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
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
Joseph
Francis
Phineas
Jacob &
Salvador
Salvador
Salvador
Serra
Abraham
Fernandes
Nunes
Foreign silver
1200
2250 (gold
0
1000
7717
0
12000
11700
& silver)
Coral
95035
57500
13
Coral, emeralds &
0
10000
0
0
0
Jewels
3000
0
0
0
0
Pearls
0
500
300
0
0
Ostrich feathers
0
25
0
0
0
99235
70275
300
13000
19417
Silver
Total value
Source: British Library, India Office Records, B/68-B/75, Court Minute Books EIC 61-68 (17421760).
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 (15401740) (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.’
18
xxiv
BL/IOR, N/1/4, Biographical Indexes India Office Records, f°89.
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 MerchantColony 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 JeanBaptiste 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.
xxv
19