36 



V. Ball — On the Diamond Mines 



[No. 1, 



Mogul it may have been mutilated during its travels and this may account 

 for the loss in weight 27178— 18606 = 8572 carats, and for the difference 

 in its shape when brought to England from the sketch given by Tavernier. 



^**^ 



The Gkeat Mogul 

 (From sketch by Tavernier J. 



The Koh-i-nuk 

 (Before recutting). 



It is probable moreover that Tavernier's sketch or diagram as it might be 

 called, which is here reproduced for comparison, was from memory and was 

 therefore more regular in outline than the original. The name Great Mogul 

 was, of course, not of native origin but was' probably first conferred by 

 Tavernier. By the natives, it was in all probability originally known as the 

 Kollur diamond. In reference to this I was quite accidentally informed, by 

 a native jeweller of Calcutta that it has been suggested, if not absolutely 

 stated by some native writer that the title Koh-i-nur really owes its origin 

 to a change in the originally meaningless name Kollur. Such changes, in 

 which, while the sound is more or less retained, a meaning is acquired are 

 not by any means rare in Oriental languages while they sometimes occur in 

 those of Europe. Thus English surnames in the mouths of natives become 

 changed into words of similar sound which have a meaning in Hindustani or 

 whatever the language spoken may be. 



From the above I think it will be admitted that there are good reasons 

 for believing in the identity of the Great Mogul or Kollur diamond of 

 Tavernier with the Koh-i-nur. In spite of the slight differences in weight 

 in his two statements we cannot suppose that he saw two distinct diamonds, 

 and the hypothesis that the Great Mogul diamond still exists in Persia 

 under a different name is wholly without foundation. 



II. Raolconda, identical with Rawduconda, Lat. 15° 41' Long. 76° 50'. — 

 District of Mudgul in Haidrabad. 



It has hitherto been supposed by all the authors to whose writings 

 I have had access that Tavernier's Raolconda can no longer be traced 

 and certainly the investigation presents some difficulties, but I venture to 

 believe that the following affords the right clue to its identification. 



