Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c43.s3.t1: Diamond (10)

Minerals and Metals in Ancient India v2.c43.s3.t1

Language
English

Diamond (10)

v2.c43.s3.t1.1

Diamond (vajra, later also known as bhidura and hīraka, hīrā) was known as the hardest gem or mineral. Its property became proverbial in Bhavabhūti’s *Uttara Rāmacarita* (2.7): *vajrādapi kaṭhorāṇi* . . . ‘something tougher or harder than even diamond’. Apart from its gem quality, diamond was used as an abrasive. It was mentioned in the *Maṇilakṣaṇa* chapter of the *Skanda Purāṇa* (*SP*, 23.79) that diamond cannot be scratched by any other gem.

v2.c43.s3.t1.2

Various texts (*AS*, 2.11; *Bṛ. Saṃ.*, 79.10) referred to streams, mines and placer deposits as the sources of diamond: *srotaḥ khaniḥ prakīrṇakam*.

v2.c43.s3.t1.3

All the manuals listed eight sources of diamond, but as Finot suggested, several of these were trading places and not actual mining areas. The bank of the Veṇā (Wainganga near Nagpur) had diamond mines; the place seems to be Wairagadh formerly known as Vajragṛha. This place, the area of Vidarbha, had been mentioned by Kauṭilya as Sabhārāṣṭra. Kosala or South Kosala meant the Bundelkhand area around Pannā; the diamond field of this area tempted many invaders such as the Kuṣāṇa King, Kaniṣka. Mataṅga is the tract between Kṛṣṇā and Godāvarī, including the area of the Golconda mines. Kaliṅga included the Mahānadī alluvium in the Sambhalpur district of Orissa. (Shastri, 1969:325-27)

v2.c43.s3.t1.4

Good diamonds were supposed to be *ujjala* or bright, *adoṣa* flawless, *amala vāritara* free from impurities and transparent like water. Rain-bow like colour, *ambudendradhanuḥ* was a desirable property (*RRS*, 4.27). Ibn al-Afkānī, an Arab gemmologist, commented: “Indians prefer white and yellow diamonds because of the red rays, that emanate from them when viewed against the sun, and the spectrum resembling the rainbow”. (quoted by Sarma, 1984:48)

v2.c43.s3.t1.5

Śilappadikaram was probably the first text classifying diamond into four ‘castes’: brāhmaṇa, white and light yellow; kṣatriya red; vaiśya dark yellow or smoky and śūdra, black or impure. This casteist slant in gemmology persisted for more than a millennium.

v2.c43.s3.t1.6

Another mehtod of categorisation was in terms of the crystalline properties. Pure diamond crystal was known to be octahedral, with eight symmetric facets (*samaphalaka*), twelve sharp edges (*dhārā*), six prominent solid angles (*koṇa*):

v2.c43.s3.t1.7

षट कोणा अष्ट फलका द्वादश धारा: सन्ति वज्रे च . . .।
. . . समफलकम् उच्चकोणं सुतीक्ष्णधारं च वारितरम् अमलम।।
*ṣaṭa koṇa aṣṭa phalakā dvādaśa dhārāḥ santi vajre ca . . .*
*. . . samaphalakam ucchakoṇam sutīkṣṇadhāraṃ ca*
*vāritaram amalam ॥*
(*RYP*, 23-24)

v2.c43.s3.t1.8

Defective diamonds apart from having flaws such as crow’s foot (*kākapada*), spot (*vindu*), streak or line (*rekhā*), impurities (*samala*), etc. may also be geometrically defective (RYP, 25; AM, 27). Such defective samples may be barley-shaped (yavākāra), broken (sphuṭita) such that these have unequal solid angles (hinādhikakoṇam), sometimes only one solid angle (ekaśṛṅgam) or even roudness (vartulam). On this consideration, RRS (4.26-28) classified diamond gems into three genders or categories — masculine, feminine and neutral. The samples with well-defined facets, edges and angles are ‘masculine’. The feminine samples are concave, flat or cylindrical. The neutral (napuṃsaka) samples are spherical or blunt at the tips and slightly heavy.

v2.c43.s3.t1.9

RRS typified most of the Ratnaśāstra texts while endorsing sex- and caste-based chauvinism. It not only divided diamond (and most other gem categories) into ‘castes’ (based on colour) and ‘genders’ (based on geometrical features) but also recommended that persons of specific caste and gender should use diamonds of the corresponding type only. It went further, and noted with an air of conclusion that categorisation of all objects into castes and genders is of universal applicability.

v2.c43.s3.t1.10

स्त्री पुं नपुंसकं वज्रं योज्यं स्त्रीपुन्नपुंसके
श्वेतादिवर्णभेदेन . . . स्व स्व वर्णफलप्रदम्
. . . पदार्थेषु अखिलेषु अपि।।
strī pum napuṃsakaṃ vajraṃ yojyaṃ stripunnapuṃsake |
śvetādivarṇabhedena . . . sva sva varṇaphalapradam
. . . padārtheṣu akhileṣu api ||
(RRS, 4.29-31)

v2.c43.s3.t1.11

Pricing (mūlyam) of diamond and other gems was elaborately discussed in most of the Ratnaśāstra texts (AM, 49-52; Br. Saṃ. 79.12-16; RP, 39; Finot, xxx). From the data, it appears that price of diamond (in kārṣāpaṇas) per unit mass (in taṇḍulas) varied approximately with the square of the mass. With a tenfold increase in mass (from 2 to 20 taṇḍula or 4 carats) price per unit mass increased 100 times (200 to 2 lakh kārṣāpaṇas). Thus absolute price increased proportionately with the cubic power of the mass of the diamond sample. The price came down with various kinds of defects which were listed.

v2.c43.s3.t1.12

While Br. Saṃ. and RP fixed the price of diamond on the basis of weight only, AM (42 and 49-52) suggested that volume should also be considered. Ideally, a piece of diamond having the volume of a barley grain should have the weight of a grain of rice (AM, 42). Evidently, specific gravity was recognised as an important consideration. AM and subsequent literatures (GP, 68.38 and 47; MM, 139) have created confusion by commenting that lighter diamonds are necessarily better and hence more valuable. Agastimata or AM (49-52) suggested that the specific gravity of diamond could vary within the range — 75 + 25 per cent; this is ‘pure imagination’ in the words of Finot. The comment in *AM* 50: *tripādam tarate toye*, i.e., a diamond floats on water when it weighs three quarters less than the ideal mass for the same volume’, is very useful since it implies *Agastimata’s* opinion that diamond is four times denser than water, or that its specific gravity is 4.0 (the true value is 3.52). When it is stated that heavier pieces are impure and hence less valuable, what is implied is contamination of diamond with a heavy mineral such as zircon (sp. gr. average 4.68). That a diamond piece having lower weight per unit volume or specific gravily should fetch more price (*AM*, 49-52) was a preposterous suggestion, because such a piece would also be grossly impure. (Sarma, 1984: 50-53) The text in *AM*, 50, quoted before, was seriously misunderstood, and *Garuḍa Purāṇa* (68.38) even commented that a good piece of diamond should float in water!

Linked texts (8)