Cut Diamonds 49 



should be much earlier. It is safer to adopt this point of view, as the 

 Ratnapariksha of Buddhabhatta, who presumably wrote somewhat 

 earlier than the sixth century, does not mention the cutting of dia- 

 monds, 1 nor does the mineralogical treatise of Narahari from the fifteenth 

 century. 2 At all events, we have as yet no ancient source of Indian 

 literature in which the cutting of diamonds is distinctly set forth. The 

 discovery of such a passage, or, what is still more preferable, archaeological 

 evidence in the shape of ancient cut diamonds, may possibly correct 

 our knowledge in the future. For the present it seems best to adhere 

 to the view that the polishing of diamonds was foreign to ancient India, 

 and a process but recently taught by European instructors. Certainly, 

 we should not base our present conclusions on hoped-for future dis- 

 coveries, which may even never be made, nor should we shift evidence 

 appropriate to the last centuries into times of antiquity, nor is there 

 reason to persuade ourselves that the knowledge of the diamond on the 

 part of the Indians goes back to the period of a boundless antiquity 

 (see p. 16). The Chinese contribute nothing to the elucidation of this 

 problem; and certain it is that they merely kept the diamonds in the 

 condition in which they received them from the Roman Orient, Fu-nan, 

 India, and the Arabs, without attempting to improve the appearance 

 of the stones. The European tradition that Ludwig van Berquen of 

 Brugge in 1476 was the "inventor" of the process of polishing diamonds 

 by means of diamond-dust, is, of course, nothing more than a con- 

 ventional story (une fable convenue). As shown by Bauer, 3 diamonds 

 were roughly or superficially polished as early as the middle ages; and 

 Berquen improved the process and arranged the facets with stricter 

 regularity, whereby the color effect was essentially enhanced. 4 The 

 early history of the technique in Europe is not yet exactly ascertained. 6 



1 L. Finot (/. c, p. xxx), it is true, alludes to a passage of this work where, in his 

 opinion, it is apparently the question of diamond-polishing. The text, however, runs 

 thus: "The sages must not employ for ornament a diamond with a visible flaw; it 

 can serve only for the polishing of gems, and its value is slight." This only means 

 that deficient diamonds were used for the working of stones other than the diamond. 



2 R. Garbe, Die indischen Mineralien, pp. 80-83. 

 * L. c, p. 303. 



4 The Berquen legend was firmly established in the seventeenth century, under 

 the influence of one of his descendants. Robert de Berquen (in his book Les 

 merveilles des Indes orientales et occidentales, p. 13, Paris, 1669), after disdainfully 

 talking about the rough diamonds obtained from India, soars into this panegyric of 

 his ancestor: " Le Ciel doua ce Louis de Berquen qui estoit natif de Bruges, comme un 

 autre Bezell^e, de cet esprit singulier ou genie, pour en trouver de luy mesme l'inven- 

 tion et en venir heureusement a bout." ThefMollows the story of the "invention." 



6 H. Sokeland (Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, Vol. XXIII, 1891, Verhandlungen, 

 p. 621) took up this question again, and thought that definite proof had not been 



