From Reeds to Diamonds: A Brief History of the Engagement Ring

As someone who is perpetually captivated by the natural beauty and variety of the world’s gemstones, I find it interesting that around 80% of all engagement rings are set with diamonds. Don’t get me wrong, diamonds are a beautiful choice, but it has only been since the mid-20th century that they became so strongly associated with weddings and engagements. These recent decades are just a brief flash in the long history of the practice of exchanging rings to announce and celebrate the marital union. For such a widespread custom, there is a remarkable lack of popular knowledge of its history, and I would like to share some broad strokes of that with you here.

Some believe that the first use of rings to announce a marriage was in Ancient Egypt and that they were made out of woven reeds and hemp, but there is little solid evidence to support this. The story goes that these rings were exchanged by the couple as a token representing their unending love and bond, but we know fairly little about the marriage ceremonies of this ancient culture, and it is likely that such descriptions contain a fair degree of modern embellishment.

The earliest confirmed information on the use of engagement rings comes to us from Pliny the Elder. The Roman author described the customs of his contemporaries in his Naturalis Historia, one of the largest works to have survived from the Roman Empire and a model for the modern encyclopedia. In Naturalis Historia Pliny claims that unadorned iron rings were used for engagement purposes during the first century CE, and it appears that in the following century precious metals came into use for this purpose. In her book The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity, Karen K. Hersch points out that Pliny’s personal preference for the simplicity of a plain band may have colored his description, as various gem-set and otherwise decorated rings from the era, believed to be related to the engagement and wedding ceremonies, survive.

There is some disagreement about the exact function of these rings (were they given to celebrate the betrothal? were they meant as a gift between the already married couple to celebrate a harmonious union?), but rings featuring clasped right hands in their design, either as part of the band or carved into the gemstone itself, are believed to be connected to weddings.

Roman fede ring featuring an intaglio insert from 200-300 CE in a gold setting created 1300-1400 CE, in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum

By the nineteenth century this ring design came to be know as “fede,” a shortening of the Italian “mani in fede” (“hands in faith” or “hands in trust”). During the Middle Ages the fede ring solidified its place as a romantic design, signifying love and loyalty, and the custom of wearing these rings on the now commonly called “ring finger” was developed. Archbishop Isidore of Seville, writing in the early seventh century CE, described the rings as presented by “the espouser to the espoused … as a sign of mutual fidelity,” stating that “the ring is placed on the fourth finger because a certain vein, it is said, flows thence to the heart.” It was believed that this “vena amoris” connected the ring finger to the symbolic home of love in the human body.

Some of the common gemstones prominently featured in these rings, used for the carving of the hand motif were carnelian, amethyst, garnet and jasper.  The Medieval rings, such as the one shown above from the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, would at times feature ancient gemstone carvings as inserts into contemporary bands.

It was not until the fifteenth century that we first see the use of diamonds as the main gemstone in an engagement ring. In 1477 Archduke Maximillian of Austria presented Mary of Burgundy with a diamond ring as a symbol of their betrothal. This sparked a trend among the aristocracy for diamond betrothal rings, but as diamond cutting was not yet particularly advanced, the stones would often lack the now-famous sparkle. This resulted in the development of more elaborate settings to offset the dullness of the diamond.

Still, in the centuries to follow, colorful gemstones remained the stones typically used in engagement rings, with the bride’s birthstone often being the gem of choice. Queen Victoria’s ring, for instance, was in the form of a coiled gold snake set with an emerald as the main stone (she was born in May).

Given how ubiquitous diamonds are in engagement rings today, many are surprised to learn that they came to prominence less than a hundred years ago.  In fact, even as recently as the 1930s, diamonds were the chief gem in only around 10% of all engagement rings sold in the US.

The discovery of massive diamond deposits in South Africa in the late nineteenth century could have flooded the market with these precious stones, but the organization controlling the mines (now called De Beers, then the De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.) created an artificial scarcity and presented the stones as extremely rare, and, as such, highly valuable.

While there were some spikes in diamond-set engagement rings here and there, diamonds were not the norm before World War II. De Beers, in an incredibly multifaceted advertising campaign, set out to create a link in the minds of the public between matrimony and diamonds. Beyond propagating such catchy slogans as “a diamond in forever” and ubiquitous advertisements showing movie stars adorned in the precious stones, in 1947 De Beers sent lecturers to high schools all over the United States. Given that at the time the average American woman was married at just after her 20th birthday, this was a brilliant move. The lecturers planted the seed for an entire generation, talking to the students about how valuable these stones are, and that a certain amount should be spent on a ring to show the bride-to-be that she will be well-provided for once she becomes a missus. First, it was one month’s salary, then this grew to two, and in Japan, De Beers pushed three month’s wages as the proper amount to spend on a ring.  

Despite the current predominance of diamond-set engagement rings, in the recent years there has been an undeniable upsurge in brides exploring the more traditional gemstone options for their rings – from rubies and sapphires, to pearls and other colored gems. The types of diamonds being chosen, too, have expanded. Previously there was a very strong emphasis on buying the most perfect diamond possible, whereas now there is much more of an interest in stones that have a unique feature – such as the beautiful inclusions of salt and pepper diamonds, or the understated elegance of the gem in its raw state.

I think these new developments are a great way to personalize the ring and truly make it one’s own. When it was time for me to let my engagement preference be known, I went with a modified version of the birthstone approach. Rather than using the gem associated with my birthday, I chose one that coincided with the beginning of our relationship (amethyst for February).

And just in case you are curious, here is a list of gemstones associated with the various months (some months have multiple):

July: Ruby
August: Peridot, Sardonyx, Spinel
September: Sapphire
October: Opal, Tourmaline
November: Citrine, Topaz
December: Tanzanite, Zircon, Turquoise

January: Garnet
February: Amethyst
March: Aquamarine, Bloodstone
April: Diamond
May: Emerald
June: Pearl, Alexandrite, Moonstone

So, how about you? Would you consider a ring that was not set with a diamond for your engagement? 

"From Reeds to Diamonds: A Brief History of the Engagement Ring" by Sasha Dubodel
pictured in the title image: Silver Banks Ring with Herkimer Diamond