# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Unknown Artist, Untitled Painting Depicting Nadir Shah on the Peacock Throne, 1850, Opaque watercolor on paper, 12 1/8 in. x 16 9/16 in, Edward Binney 3rd Colle

# data[].attributes.body
Persian leader Nader Shah invaded Northern India, slaughtering and looting throughout Delhi, where he removed the diamond from Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah’s Peacock throne. In her article, “ Empire, Diamonds, and the Performance of British Material Culture,” Danielle Kinsey writes that according to myth, “Upon acquiring it in 1739, the Persian leader Nadir Shah was said to have exclaimed; ‘Kohinoor!’ or ‘Mountain of Light!’” — giving the infamous stone its iconic name (Kinsey 399).

# data[].attributes.body
We don’t know where the diamond originated, but we do know that until the 1700s, all colorless diamonds originated in India (Dalrymple). References to diamonds in Hindu scriptures like the Garuda Purana allude to diamonds with properties similar to the Kohinoor and underscore diamonds' material and cultural significance to early Indian society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Unknown Artist, Untitled Painting Depicting Peacock Throne, 1850, watercolor on ivory, 5 cm x 4.5 cm, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, UK, https://upload.wik

# data[].attributes.body
The Mughal Empire, an Islamic Empire, controls Northern India. The Kohinoor diamond was incorporated into the elaborate, brilliant Jewelled Throne (later called the Peacock Throne), encrusted with rubies, diamonds, and other gems. Mughal values tended “to keep and celebrate the natural weight and shape of a stone rather than cutting to produce the smaller but more symmetrically cut gems favoured in Europe” (Dalrymple).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Unknown Artist, Portrait of Ahmad-Shah Durrani, 1757, Mughal miniature,  Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, France, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia

# data[].attributes.body
Under uncertain circumstances, Ahmad Shah of the Durrani Empire came to possess the diamond, which remained in Afghanistan for 70 years, during which, bloody conflicts over its possession mirrored larger power struggles in Durrani Afghanistan.

# data[].attributes.body
Ranjit Singh, the maharaja of the Sikhs, claimed the diamond. The Kohinoor came to symbolize Ranjit Singh’s hard-fought power and achievement. He is responsible for the stone's growing popularity, viewing it as his crowning accomplishment. It remained with him in Lahore, under careful guard. Like his predecessors, Ranjit Singh was increasingly anxious that someone would steal the diamond. Already, the stone’s prior owners had met grisly fates. This trend contributed to persistent beliefs in a mythic “curse” placed on the diamond.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
James Duffield Harding, Maharaja Duleep Singh, 1847, lithograph, 9.8 in x 7.8 in, British Library, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duleep_Singh#/media/File:Mahar

# data[].attributes.body
After years of struggle and death brought about by the power vacuum left after Ranjit’s death, the diamond appeared again— on the body of newly anointed Duleep Singh, the five-year-old Maharaja of Punjab (and son of Ranjit Singh). His mother Rani Jindan used Duleep’s breeding to her advantage, acting as his regent. Here, the stone was yet again used as a visual mode for consolidating individual power.

# data[].attributes.body
Following the Ango-Sikh wars and annexation of Punjab, the East India Company seized power and separated the young boy emperor from his mother and placed him under the guardianship of a British doctor and his wife. They forced their demands on the boy in the form of the final Treaty of Lahore. One of its demands required him to relinquish the diamond to the British, namely, the Governor-General: the Marquess of Dalhousie, who championed giving the diamond to the queen, citing its biography and symbolism as key traits.

“3rd. The Gem called the Koh-i-noor, which was taken from Shah Shooja-ool-Moolk by Maharajah Runjeet Sing, shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.”

-the treaty, printed in The Life of The Marquis of Dalhousie by Sir William Lee-Warner, K.C.S.L. (1904)

# data[].attributes.body
Despite instances of cholera, horse trampling, and more, Dalhousie eagerly presented the diamond to Queen Victoria.

In her diary, the queen wrote:

“Unfortunately it is not set 'à jour', & badly cut, which spoils the effect…”

This clash of Eastern and Western aesthetics came to define the remainder of the diamond’s story, bringing up questions surrounding unwritten visual hierarchies and the preservation of history and provenance.

A 19th century book on precious stones exemplifies this:

“Oriental nations were satisfied to allow the stone to be one of size rather than beauty, and were not so fastidious as to sacrifice quantity to quality. The unsymmetrical contour of the ‘Koh-i-noor’ when it first arrived in England is sufficient illustration of this fact; the two principal planes indeed being cleavage planes, and besides it had two or three flaws remaining, which might have been a serious defect, and cause the breaking of the stone ; these were successfully removed in the recutting.” (Smith 74)

Gems and Precious Stones, Henry G. Smith, F.C.S. (1896).

This loaded language alienates the “Oriental” Indians and denigrates their culture as possessing “flaws” and “defect[s]” lacking in “quality” Sources like this never mention imperialism or white supremacy but they’re ever-present in the subtext. Critical readings help make visible the crucial history of the diamond, which has been made opaque.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kohinoor was the main attraction at the Great Exhibition in London, where everyday Britons could get a glimpse of the legendary diamond. As news of the diamond’s imminent display spread, so did excitement and high expectations. The event aimed to impress audiences with its displays, and thus, the state. It took place in the impressive Crystal palace in London. Press drew parallels between the queen, her new possession, and the splendor of the crown; “palace, diamond, and monarch were all thus seen as magnificent and mutually reinforcing” (Kinsey 403). Unfortunately for Victoria and Dalhousie, the public were not impressed in the slightest. To them, the diamond was dull, poorly cut, and absolutely not worth the hype. Bad publicity and disparaging political cartoons ensued. Anxious as ever to maintain a positive public opinion by means of visual culture, Prince Albert scrambled to make adjustments, to save the diamond, and his reputation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Illustrated London News, Illustration of the 1852 re-cutting of the Koh-i-Noor, 24 July 1852, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor#/media/File:Re-cuttin

# data[].attributes.body
Albert arranged for the diamond to be recut by Dutch craftsmen working for Garrard & Co. This significantly diminished its size and weight but assimilated it to British aesthetic standards. At last, the diamond was symmetrical, brilliantly sparkling— acceptable. Here again, Britain deployed material methods to shape public perception. By nature, the recutting upheld the colonialism and cultural dominance of England, articulating a visual hierarchy, with Mughal and Sikh Indian aesthetic traditions at the bottom and Victorian English ideals at the top.

This obsession with darkness and light cannot be a coincidence; it’s a symptom of the explicit white supremacy of the British Empire. By whitening the stone, Albert redeemed it in the eyes of the crown and the public. Proximity to paleness is synonymous with virtue and power. This metaphorical recarving is what England sought to do with its colonial subjects: shave off the parts that weren’t useful and polish the rest to serve their means.

# data[].attributes.body
Duleep converted to Christianity and moved to England, where he resided in the royal court and “soon became a member of Victoria’s family,” receiving praise and gifts from Victoria. In many ways, his story mirrors that of the diamond which once belonged to him. The last time he saw the Kohinoor (now altered beyond recognition), it was shown to him by Victoria, after which he presented it to her. “It is to me, Ma'am, the greatest pleasure thus to have the opportunity, as a loyal subject, of myself tendering to my Sovereign the Kohinoor!” he said (Dalrymple).

Torn from his family and relocated to a faraway land, feeling indebted to the royals, did he have a choice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
George Richmond, Portrait of Rani Jind Kaur, 1863, painting, owner of work (such as museum), http://www.xiamenoilpainting.com/htmlimg/image-39836.htm.

# data[].attributes.body
Duleep became increasingly curious about his mother, and after writing to her, he was allowed to reunite with her at a Hotel in Calcutta. After annexation, Rani Jindan was imprisoned to prevent unrest, and she’d suffered for years. Meeting his mother began to change Duleep’s outlook. He managed to convince the British to let her come back to England and live near him. For the next three years, she repeatedly told him that the British had stolen what was rightfully his, and he began to question the settlement they’d coerced him into signing.

# data[].attributes.body
The diamond was remounted in the crown of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, where it remains today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
 "The Koh-i-Noor before recutting," 1874, from Diamonds and Precious Stones (New York, 1874), p 95.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Louis Dieulafait, "The Koh-i-Noor after being re-cut," 1874, from Diamonds and Precious Stones (New York, 1874), p 98. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Garrard & Co, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Crown, 1937, Platinum, diamonds, rock crystal, velvet, ermine, 20.7 cm, Royal Collection Trust, Treasury, Jewel

# data[].attributes.body
The Kohinoor diamond has passed through so many hands, shaping histories across thousands of miles. Its potency as an art object has aided empires and power struggles since it came out of the earth centuries ago. Leaders used the diamond to construct themselves and write their own mythologies before Great Britain got involved. It’s crucial to remember these mythologies are far from the whole story and to carefully examine the histories we’re told. The involvement of British colonial power in the Kohinoor story marks a key shift, expanding the realm of the diamond to a global empire and entangling the diamond in colonialism, capitalism, white supremacy, and Western conceptions of race and gender. These systems impact everything, including the most seemingly benign aesthetic objects. Aesthetics are inseparable from empire— they embody and enforce adherence to norms and communicate those values in an intuitive, concrete way. The recutting of the Kohinoor was more than an aesthetic choice; it articulated the cultural hierarchy and priorities the British crown prescribed. The diamond may have hopped from one crown to another to another, but those crowns were all British. They were all fashioned with labor and materials obtained through colonization, slavery, and imperialism. And they continue to represent the same institution which served as a mascot for such processes the whole way. Scholars, activists, and government officials have all recognized this and proposed many solutions, most often, repatriation. Still, the process is complicated. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

# data[].attributes.body
The diamond was re-set in the crown of Queen Alexandra. As rulers changed, so too did the stone’s setting. Still, its shape remains unchanged, a symbol of the stasis of the monarchy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Jean Desboutin, Queen Mary, 13 March 1914, autochrome, 9.4 in x 7 in, Royal Collection, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1914_Queen_Mary_Autochrome.jpg#/

# data[].attributes.body
Yet again, the diamond was re-set, this time in the crown of Queen Mary. The fact that mainly female royals wore the stone isn’t unimportant for a couple of reasons. First, the media propagated the idea that “the queen's status as a female rendered her exempt from a curse” according to Kinsey. It seemed logical to the public that the stone went to women to avoid the grisly fates of history. Second, feminizing the Kohinoor diamond more effectively obscured its violent history by relegating it to something seemingly trivial.  Third, this strong visual association embedded the diamond and all it represented more firmly in the culture. To female royals and elites, decadence and aesthetics were empire-building. Kinsey discusses this, writing, “Fashion was an issue for many in Britain, but for Victoria, whose body and attire were under such intense scrutiny, the performance of her (albeit unique) role in society was integral to her project of becoming a monarch popular with the bourgeoisie and seeing the monarchy through republican challenges” (Kinsey 412).

# data[].attributes.body
After his mother’s death, Duleep married and had children, all the while contemplating how he’d been wronged. Unfortunately, he never received justice. Duleep Singh died in 1893 in Paris, without riches, family, or the diamond.

# data[].attributes.body
Unclear origins aren't an excuse to keep the diamond where it is. Whoever’s claims are valid, the stone cannot remain in the clutches of the British monarchy, the institution responsible for global colonizing and devastating action. By encouraging the nuanced study of this item’s history— and others like it— and valuing transparency, we can make these conversations easier. Make visible the bloody backstory and go from there. Let those marginalized by that backstory and those who are knowledgeable and unbiased lead the conversations. Until the stone is returned, the crown will continue to profit off of the blood spilled over the Kohinoor among countless other artifacts. That money would better be spent repairing the lasting damage of the British Empire and investing in the global south. There are so many possibilities beyond the bounds of empire. Repatriating the Kohinoor, or at least starting the process, is just a small step in a crucial journey of reckoning with colonialism.

# data[].attributes.body
Dalrymple, William, and Anita Anand. Koh-i-noor: The History of the World's Most Infamous Diamond. Bloomsbury, 2017.

“Garrard & Co - Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mothers Crown.” Royal Collection Trust, https://www.rct.uk/collection/31703/queen-elizabeth-the-queen-mothers-crown. Accessed 20 December 2023.

“Garrard & Co - Queen Marys Crown.” Royal Collection Trust, https://www.rct.uk/collection/31704/queen-marys-crown.

Kinsey, Danielle C. “Koh-i-Noor: Empire, Diamonds, and the Performance of British Material Culture.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, 2009, pp. 391-419. JSTOR.

Lee-Warner, Sir William. The Life of The Marquis of Dalhousie. New York, MacMillan and Co., 1904. Internet Archive.

Smith, Henry G. Gems and Precious Stones. Sydney, Charles Potter, 1852. Internet Archive.