See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269401567

Diamond

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
5 2,563

1 author:

Thomas Stachel
University of Alberta
198 PUBLICATIONS   5,704 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Unconventional settings for diamond deposits View project

MSc Thesis Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Stachel on 11 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
CHAPTER 1: DIAMONDS
T. Stachel
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Alberta, 1-26 Earth Sciences Building
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada, T6G 2E3
Email: tstachel@ualberta.ca
INTRODUCTION
Mineralogically, diamond is the cubic high-
pressure phase of elemental carbon characterized by
unique Mohs hardness (10), perfect octahedral
cleavage, and very high density (3.51 g/cm3),
refractive index (2.417), dispersion (0.044) and
thermal conductivity. At the same time, history
shows that diamond is the most precious and desired
of all gems. In modern times this status is further
promoted through diamond’s extreme durability, its
formation deep in the Earth’s interior (>105 km) and
during Earth’s earliest history, together with
ingenious advertising, such as the theme “a diamond
is forever”.
India was the world’s only supplier of
diamonds for at least two thousand years until the
discovery of diamonds in Brazil (1725). Diamonds
from the alluvial Kalimantan fields of Borneo likely
were mined since the 7th century but either only
traded regionally or included into Indian production
before being exported to Europe (Ogden 2005).
Following new discoveries in South Africa (from
1866 onward) it was eventually recognized that
diamond is brought to Earth's surface in volcanic
rocks subsequently named “kimberlite” after the
town Kimberley, where the new diamond-bearing
rock was first found. Today diamond has become a
key mineral resource with annual production in
2011 reaching 124 million carats equivalent to
US$14.4 billion. In the order of carats extracted, the
principal diamond-producing countries are Russia,
Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Canada, Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa and
Australia (Fig. 1-1). A factor that distinguishes
diamond from non-gem mineral resources is the
variability of carat price depending on production
quality; end-members in the extreme fluctuation
about an average production price of US$ 116 per
carat extend from US$ 9 (Democratic Republic of
the Congo) to US$ 1602 per carat (Kingdom of
Lesotho). Based on the value of production in 2011,
Botswana is the world’s leading diamond producer,
Mineralogical Association of Canada Short Course 44, Tucson AZ, February 2014, p. 1-28.
1
followed by Russia, Canada, South Africa and
Angola (Fig. 1-1). Although only about one-fourth
of the world’s diamond production is of gem
quality, retail sales of diamond jewelry exceed US$
70 billion.
Chemical inertness, deep origin and a formation
probably dating back as far as the Paleoarchean also
make diamond the object of intense research efforts.
Most of this research focuses not on diamond itself
but on minute mineral inclusions – unwanted
blemishes in the gemstone trade – that diamond
incorporated during growth and then shielded from
chemical alteration through subsequent mantle
storage and exhumation from depth. It is these
inclusions and the phase assemblages they sample
that provide the only pristine samples of the deep
mantle, while also informing about the origin of
diamond. Because of the small size of inclusions in
diamond (usually < 0.02 mm) early analytical work
(e.g., Mitchell & Giardini 1953) was limited to
X-ray diffraction studies. Criteria for the visual
identification of mineral inclusions in diamond were
first developed by Harris (1968a, 1968b). With the
introduction of the electron probe micro-analyzer in
the 1960s, chemical analysis of inclusions
eventually became possible, and early pioneering
work was simultaneously undertaken at the
Carnegie Institution, Washington (Meyer 1968,
Meyer & Boyd 1969) and at the Russian Academy
of Science in Novosibirsk (Sobolev et al. 1969,
1970). Milestone reviews of the early research on
inclusions in diamond were given by Meyer & Boyd
(1972), Sobolev (1977), Meyer (1987) and Gurney
(1989). These and subsequent studies on mineral
inclusions in diamond have fundamentally shaped
our understanding of the geochemical and
mineralogical environment of diamond formation in
the Earth’s mantle and, thereby, laid the
groundwork for a modern interpretation of indicator
mineral analyses during diamond exploration.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

35.14

30 
Million carats 22.90
19.25
20 

10.80
7.83 8.21 8.33 8.50
10 

0.36 1.26
0 
eo ra
Na e

fri th

ia
e

a
da
Au a
lia

go
la
ca
n

an
bw
i

ss
   L ier

ib

go
   A u
ra

na

on
So

Ru
w
m

ba
An
st
S

Ca

 C

ts
m

DR

Bo
Zi
1,602
1,500 
US$ per carat

1,000 
695

500  348
170 211 236
76 140
9 28 56
0 
la
fri th 

eo ra 

o
Na ne
o

ia

ia
e
Zi alia

C ca

go
an

ad

th
bw
ng

   L ier
   Aou

ib
ss

so
r

an

m
o

Ru

S
ba

A
st
 C

ts

Le
Au

m
DR

Bo

3,902
4,000 

3,000  2,551 2,675

Million US$

2,000  1,730
1,163
873
1,000 
359 476
180 221
0 
o
fri th 

ng
o

ia

a
e
lia

ia

la

da
Ca a

an
bw
th

c
ib

ss
go

   A u
ra

o
na
So
so

w
m

Ru

 C
An
ba
st

ts
Le

DR
Na
Au

Bo
Zi

FIG.1-1. Top: the world’s top ten diamond-producing countries in terms of million carats extracted. Middle: average
production price (US$ per carat) for selected countries. Bottom: the world’s top ten diamond-producing countries in
terms of value (million US$). The Kingdom of Lesotho, which only ranks #14 in production measured by weight,
jumps to #8 in production measured by value due to an extremely high carat price. Data source: Kimberley Process
Rough Diamond Production Statistics for 2011 (https://kimberleyprocessstatistics.org/public_statistics).

2
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
ORIGIN OF DIAMOND IN EARTH’S
MANTLE
Primary diamond deposits are hosted in
volcanic diatremes (“pipes”) and small subvolcanic
intrusions (dykes and sills), as opposed to secondary
deposits that result from erosion of primary deposits
and transport and re-sedimentation of diamonds in
rivers and along oceanic coastlines. The growth of
diamonds is unrelated to their volcanic host rocks.
The essential role of magmatism in the formation of
primary diamond deposits lies instead in the
sampling of diamonds pre-existing at depth in
Earth’s mantle and their rapid transport to Earth’s
surface. This restricts the occurrence of primary
diamond deposits to only a few types of ultramafic
magmatic rocks originating beneath the graphite–
diamond transition (> 105–135 km, depending on
the local geotherm): Group I (“basaltic”) kimberlite,
as well as less common Group II (“micaceous”)
kimberlite (also named orangeite) and olivine
lamproite. In addition, volcaniclastic komatiite is
described as the source rock for an unusual suite of
diamonds at Dachine, French Guiana (Capdevila et
al. 1999).
The observed close association between
diamondiferous kimberlite and Archean cratons
(known as “Clifford’s Rule”, as revised by Janse
1994) was related by Boyd & Gurney (1986) and
Haggerty (1986) to deep reaching (down to ca. 200
km) and chemically highly depleted lithospheric
keels that are generally absent beneath younger
crust. Rigid and largely stripped of heat-producing
elements (such as potassium), subcratonic
lithospheric mantle is cooler than convecting
asthenospheric mantle at similar depth (e.g.,
Rudnick & Nyblade 1999), causing the graphite–
diamond transition to rise to shallower depth (ca.
105–135 km, see Fig. 1-2) beneath cratons. The
region where lithospheric mantle reaches into the
diamond stability field establishes a “diamond
window”, with the exact thickness of this window
varying among and within cratons depending on
both lithospheric thickness and local geothermal
gradient. The restriction of primary diamond
deposits to lithosphere extending into the diamond
stability field relates to a need for rapid ascent of
magmas from the diamond window, facilitated
through the brittle nature of lithospheric mantle, to
preserve diamonds (e.g., Eggler 1989). In addition,
carbon is only a trace element in Earth’s mantle
(Trull et al. 1993) and formation of macro-diamonds
hence requires local enrichment of carbon
3
presumably related to redox fronts. A strong
association between diamonds and harzburgite/
dunite (Gurney 1984) suggests that highly depleted
lithospheric mantle effectively acts as a trap for
carbon in upwelling fluids or melts. In accordance
with the original proposal of Haggerty (1986),
recent evidence for a reduced character of deep
cratonic peridotite (Woodland & Koch 2003,
McCammon & Kopylova 2004, Creighton et al.
2009, 2010) is consistent with an oxidized character
(i.e., carbonate-bearing) of diamond-precipitating
fluids. Such oxidized fluids cannot be derived from
deep convecting upper mantle as it is even more
reduced than the cratonic lithosphere (Ballhaus
1992) but could relate to devolatilization of
subducting oceanic slabs. The alternative model,
oxidation of methane-bearing asthenospheric fluids
to water and diamond during ascent along a gradient
of increasing oxygen fugacity, is, however, equally
viable (Taylor & Green 1989, Huizenga et al. 2012).
The second principal diamond source rock in the
cratonic lithosphere is eclogite. It has been
suggested that eclogite and peridotite in the
subcratonic lithospheric mantle are similarly
reduced (Simakov 2006), which may imply a similar
mechanism of diamond formation. However,
accurate estimates of oxygen fugacity in eclogite are
still lacking since their mineralogical composition
precludes constraining silica activity (an essential
parameter for available oxybarometers).
“Super-deep” diamonds derived from the
convecting mantle (asthenosphere to lower mantle)
underlying the common diamond sources in ancient
and rigid cratonic lithosphere appear to be generally
associated with recycled oceanic lithosphere
transporting carbon (as organic matter or carbonate)
back into Earth’s deep mantle and possibly also
providing steep redox gradients (Stachel 2001). The
need for rapid exhumation appears to constrain
occurrences of sublithospheric diamonds to regions
with deep-reaching cratonic keels as well. Special
cases of (non-economic) primary diamond
occurrences unrelated to cratons and volcanic hosts
are established through the presence of micro-
diamonds in UHP terranes (e.g., Sobolev & Shatsky
1990, Zhang et al. 1997), the occurrence of graphite
pseudomorphs after diamond in peridotite massifs
(Pearson et al. 1995), and a common association of
nano- to micro-diamonds with astroblemes (e.g.,
Carlisle & Braman 1991).
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

30
100

Mantle Adiabat
(TP=1300°C)
40

Gr
Diamond a
Dia phit 150
P 50 Window mo e Depth
nd
[kbar] [km]

60
200

70
600 800 1000 1200 1400
T [ºC]
FIG. 1-2. Conditions of formation and storage of diamond in deep-reaching cratonic keels. Data points (grey squares)
represent pressure–temperature estimates for garnet lherzolite xenoliths from the central Slave Craton (Lac de Gras area;
Grütter 2009) using the single clinopyroxene geothermobarometer of Nimis & Taylor (2000). A linear regression of the
data set (“local geotherm”) is shown as a solid grey line. The graphite–diamond transition (dashed line) is from Day (2012).
Compared to the graphite–diamond transition originally proposed by Kennedy & Kennedy (1976), the steeper slope of the
revised phase boundary (Day 2012) extends the stability of diamond in Earth's mantle to shallower depth, with the
difference being particularly large for areas with a “cool” local geotherm (about 30 km difference for the example shown
here). The adiabat for a mantle potential temperature (TP) of 1300°C (dotted line) is from Rudnick & Nyblade (1999) and
represents the lower end of a range of temperatures (TP of 1300–1400°C) considered by these authors; a TP of ~1300°C is,
however, likely realistic for convecting mantle beneath cratons not affected by diapirs carrying excess heat from the lower
mantle (e.g., McKenzie & O’Nions 1991). Lithospheric mantle reaches its maximum possible depth where the local
geotherm intersects the mantle adiabat, implying that for geothermal gradients not significantly below that derived for the
Slave Craton, lithospheric thickness cannot considerably exceed 200 km depth (cf. Rudnick & Nyblade 1999). For the
central Slave Craton, the lithosphere extends into the diamond stability field between ca. 105–195 km depth, establishing a
diamond window of approximately 90 km width. An average geotherm for Precambrian shields worldwide (40 mW/m2
surface heat flow; Hasterok & Capman 2011) results in a diamond window of 65 km width (130–195 km depth, see Fig.
1.15).

DIAMOND MORPHOLOGY the two (cubo-octahedra), aggregates and twins. The

The following summary of diamond
morphology and surface features is built on
comprehensive reviews presented by Robinson
(1979), Sunagawa (1984), Harris (1987), Gurney
(1989), and Wilks & Wilks (1991). Photographic
examples, largely based on the De Beers Canada
Rough Diamond Display at the University of
Alberta, can be found in Tappert & Tappert (2011).
Primary and secondary shapes
Primary growth forms of diamond are octahedra
and cuboids (Fig. 1-3), including combinations of
most common twins are flat triangles called macles
(spinel-law twins). Variations in growth regime are
reflected by the occurrence of (i) single crystalline
diamonds, including twins or aggregates of a few
crystals, (ii) coated diamonds, i.e., single crystalline
diamonds with fibrous overgrowths, (iii) fibrous
cuboid (no flat {001} faces) diamonds, and (iv)
polycrystalline diamond aggregates. Polycrystalline
diamond derived from primary volcanic hosts is
generally referred to as bort (or boart); a fine-
grained whitish variety (common at Orapa and
Venetia mines) is called framesite. Carbonado is a

4
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

FIG. 1-3. Primary diamond shapes. From left to right: (i) octahedron, (ii) macle (spinel twin), (iii) cube with minor
dodecahedral resorption, (iv) re-entrant cube with concave {001} faces (after Welbourn et al. 1989).
porous polycrystalline form of diamond that cannot
(yet?) be linked to volcanic sources and may have
an impact origin.
Experimental work suggests that the primary
diamond shape changes from cube through cubo-
octahedron to octahedron with increasing
crystallization temperature (Yamaoka et al. 1977).
The transition from smooth dislocation growth via
smooth hopper growth (producing concave crystal
faces) for single crystal diamonds to rough growth
for fibrous and polycrystalline diamonds reflects
increasing supersaturation and growth rate
(Sunagawa 1984). Consequently, the thin fibrous
coats over gem quality, single crystal diamond
typical of the productions from Ekati, Diavik and
Snap Lake, for example, represent two distinct
stages of diamond precipitation, early stable
dislocation growth and a second stage of rough
overgrowth at high levels of supersaturation.
Resorption of diamond leads to the
development of rounded dodecahedral faces at the
expense of primary cube and octahedral faces (Fig.
1-4). With cubes a distinct tetrahexahedral shape
results, whereas with octahedra the resulting form is
generally referred to as “rounded dodecahedra” (or
“dodecahedroids”). Robinson (1979) also suggested
the term “tetrahexahedroid” because each rounded
dodecahedral face may be subdivided into two
surfaces (giving 24 faces in all), based on the
presence of a curved crest line. In all cases of
resorption, true crystal shapes are not produced
because the resulting ‘faces’ are curved; planar
crystal faces are, however, necessary to define a
crystal shape crystallographically. Observations of
pseudo-hemimorphic (“half resorbed”) diamonds –
with their octahedral portion being protected inside
mantle xenoliths and the dodecahedral portion being
exposed on the surface – link the development of
rounded dodecahedra to resorption in the
transporting kimberlite or lamproite magma.
Detailed studies on the internal growth structure of
diamonds have also documented earlier stages of
resorption followed by re-growth (e.g., Harte et al.
1999a), implying that dissolution of diamond may
already occur during mantle residence.
Common surface features
Stacked growth layers in the form of triangular
plates on octahedral surfaces (both octahedra and
macles) are the only growth-related surface features
observed on diamonds (Fig. 1-5). Incipient
resorption produces a similar secondary feature on
octahedral faces called shield-shaped laminae.
There, resorption exhumes steps in growth layering,
with the resulting stacked laminae being generally
thinner than primary triangular plates and showing

FIG. 1-4. Secondary shapes through increasing degrees of resorption (after Robinson 1979). From left to right: (i) sharp-edged
octahedron (100% mass preserved), (ii) octahedron with dodecahedral faces, (iii) rounded dodecahedron with residual
octahedral faces, (iv) rounded dodecahedron (less than 55% of original mass preserved).

5
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
Plastic
Stacked deformation
Hexagons
growth lines
layers
Microdisk
patterns
Positive
Negative Shallow
trigons
trigons depressions
FIG. 1-5. Surface features on diamond. Left: surface features on octahedral faces. Center: surface features on rounded
dodecahedral faces. Right: surface features typically associated with diamond from alluvial deposits (unrestricted to a
particular type of face).
rounded edges and blunt points. If points are sharp
and jagged, the term serrate laminae is used instead.
“Ribbing” describes the imbrication of exhumed
growth layers along rounded edges of octahedral
crystals. As a common secondary etch feature,
octahedral faces may show triangular pits, called
trigons (Fig. 1-5) that are either flat-bottomed or
point-bottomed with inclined sides. Rare positive
trigons parallel the orientation of the octahedral
face, whereas common negative trigons show an
inverse orientation. Hexagonal etch pits are a
combination form of positive and negative trigons
(Fig. 1-5). The etch features equivalent to trigons on
cube faces are tetragons, with rare positive
orientations parallel to cube edges and common
negative orientations, set at 45° to those edges.
Shape and orientation of trigons and tetragons
reflect the combined effect of temperature, oxygen
fugacity and chemical composition of the fluid
during etching (Fedortchouk & Canil 2009,
Fedortchouk & Zhang 2011).
Dodecahedral resorption may exhume
octahedral growth layering in the form of terraces
and as discontinuous ridges called “elongate
hillocks” (Fig. 1-5). Closely spaced subtle sharp
parallel ridges (“plastic deformation lines”) reflect
strain during diamond’s residence in the mantle.
“Microdisk patterns” (circular shallow positive
relief features), deep elliptical to irregular depress-
ions (“corrosion sculpture”), and less pronounced
“shallow depressions” (representing incipient
corrosion sculpture) likely reflect late stage etching,
since they have been linked to diamonds recovered
from hypabyssal (i.e., magmatic) kimberlite in
diatreme root zones (e.g., Robinson et al. 1989).
For alluvial diamonds, resorbed
dodecahedral morphologies generally dominate over
octahedral shapes. Percussion marks, ground edges
and surfaces (Fig. 1-5), and similar abrasion marks
6
Edge
Terraces abrasion
Corrosion
sculpture
Scratch
mark
Elongate
hillocks Percussion Abraded
surface
marks
relate to the wear of diamonds during sedimentary
transport.
OPTICAL CENTERS
Because of similar ionic radius and charge,
nitrogen substitutes for carbon in the diamond
lattice and is the most abundant impurity in
diamond. Nitrogen contents are generally low
(median value of 160 at.ppm (atomic ppm); <1% of
samples exceed 1400 at.ppm) and tend to be higher
in diamonds with eclogitic inclusions (median of
494 at.ppm, see Figure 1-6) compared to peridotitic
samples (median of 82 at.ppm). Both the overall
differences between eclogitic and peridotitic
diamond and the distinct zoning in N content seen
on the level of individual diamond crystals may be
due to kinetic factors related to the speed of
diamond growth (Boyd et al. 1994) or may reflect
variations in the availability of N acting as a
compatible trace element during diamond
precipitation (Stachel et al. 2009). Optical centers
due to N in diamond are reviewed in detail by
Harris (1987) and Wilks & Wilks (1991). A simple
guide to the determination of the content and
aggregation state of N in diamond using Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy may be
found in Taylor (2004).
Nitrogen enters the diamond lattice as a single
substitutional impurity (C center) which under high
ambient temperatures in Earth’s mantle rapidly
aggregates to form pairs of N atoms (A center).
During continued mantle residence the N pairs may
aggregate further into groups of four atoms
surrounding a vacancy (B center). Increasing
aggregation of N in diamond from the A to the B
center is usually accompanied by a simultaneous
increase in N3 (groups of three N atoms surrounding
a vacancy) and associated N2 centers, and B' centers
(platelets, nanometre- to micrometre-sized disc
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

0 500 1000 1500 relationship between platelets and B centers likely

does not exist (Howell et al. 2012); catastrophic
Eclogitic platelet degradation may thus be erroneously
80 N=598 assigned to externally octahedral diamond
Median=494 containing early stages of cuboid growth.
Type II The thermodynamic parameters governing the
60 interrelationships of N content, N aggregation,
mantle residence time, and mantle residence
temperature were derived by Evans & Harris (1989)
40 and Taylor et al. (1990). Under mantle conditions
aggregation of single substitutional N atoms into A
20 centers occurs so quickly (Taylor et al. 1996) that it
may be ignored in a thermo-chronometric analysis.
Frequency

The second step, the aggregation from A to B

0 centers occurs at a much lower rate and thus, in
400 Peridotitic
N=986
Median=82
300
Type II
200
100
0 of years). Plastic deformation is common in
0 500 1000 1500
N [atomic ppm]
FIG. 1-6. Nitrogen content in lithospheric diamonds
containing mineral inclusions of peridotitic (bottom)
and eclogitic (top) paragenesis. Twelve samples
(three peridotitic, nine eclogitic) fall outside the
diagram with N >1500 at.ppm (maximum content is
3830 at.ppm). Class 0–50 at.ppm includes Type II
diamonds (i.e., diamonds with N below the limit of
detection at ~10 at.ppm) shown in black.
shaped defects, which are composed of carbon
interstitials that originate during the formation of
vacancies associated with nitrogen B centers). For
“regular” octahedral diamonds, infrared spectra
show a linear relationship between the integrated
strength of the platelet peak (I[B']) and the intensity
of absorption (measured as absorption coefficient at
1282 cm–1) due to the B center (Woods 1986). For
“irregular” octahedral specimens this relationship
breaks down due to “catastrophic” platelet
degradation likely related to intense deformation
(Woods 1986), short-lived heating events (Evans et
al. 1995), or a combination of both during mantle
residence. For cuboid growth sectors a “regular”
principle, it is possible to constrain either the mantle
residence time or the time-averaged residence
temperature of a diamond from the concentration
and aggregation of N impurities. Estimates of
mantle residence temperatures are fairly insensitive
to the choice of residence time (based on values
generally >1 Ga, see Fig. 1-7) and normally show
satisfactory agreement with independent estimates
based on inclusion geothermobarometry (e.g., Leahy
& Taylor 1997). Conversely, N-based geochrono-
metry is extremely temperature-dependent and
hence may yield very crude estimates of mantle
residence times only (e.g., billions versus millions
diamond and has been suggested to accelerate N
aggregation (Evans 1992). Considering the
dominant control of temperature on N aggregation,
the additional error on residence temperature
estimates introduced through possible unaccounted
effects of plastic deformation probably lies within
the accuracy limits of conventional, inclusion-based
geothermobarometry.
Other important optical centers in diamond
include: (i) substitution of boron, responsible for
blue coloration and electrical conductivity (p-type
semiconductivity) of diamond; (ii) lattice defects
(clusters of around 60 vacancies) due to plastic
deformation giving rise to brown coloration (Fisher
2009). For a review of color in diamond, see
Fritsch (1998), and for brown diamonds, see
Hainschwang et al. (2005) and Jones (2009).
Diamond “types” and their relative abundances
Nitrogen-bearing diamonds (i.e., Type I
diamonds) may be classified based on their N
aggregation state into Type Ib (single substitutional
N) and Type Ia (aggregated). Type Ia diamonds may
be further categorized as Type IaA (90–100% A

7
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

10000
300 IaA Type IaAB IaB a Peridotitic

10 a
°C
3G

°C

0°C
1G
00

50
Eclogitic
11

115
°C
00
11
Eclogitic (N=549)

0°C
1000
Frequency

200

120
Peridotitic (N=737) N

100 100

C
°C
50

00°
12

13
0 10
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
%B [100B/(A+B)] %B [100B/(A+B)]
FIG. 1-7. Nitrogen aggregation expressed as the relative proportion of N in the B center (assuming that all N is present in
either A or B centers). Diamonds with N <10 ppm (Type II) are excluded since their N aggregation state is unknown. The
histogram on the left shows the relative abundance of Type IaA, IaAB and IaB diamonds. The graph on the right depicts
the relationship between N content, N aggregation, mantle residence time (1 Ga and 3 Ga) and time-averaged residence
temperature (isotherms calculated after Leahy & Taylor 1997). It is apparent that the precise choice of a mantle residence
time is almost irrelevant as long as ages much older (>> 100 Ma) than kimberlite emplacement are assumed. Diamonds
cover a large range in residence temperatures from <1050 to >1300°C.
center) and Type IaB (90–100% B center) with Type Ib
intermediate types being designated as Type IaAB C center (single N)
(see Fig. 1-6 and 1-8). Type II diamonds are defined (deep yellow to brown)
as being nitrogen-“free”, i.e., having N contents
below the limit of detection of FTIR spectroscopy at Type Ib-IaA
about 5–10 at.ppm. There is a further subdivision of
Type II diamonds into boron-free (Type IIa) and Type IaA
boron-bearing samples (Type IIb). A detailed study A center
of blue Type IIb diamonds (Gaillou et al. 2012) (colourless)
showed color intensity to correlate only loosely with
B content (ranging from <0.08 to 8.4 ppm in ToF– Type IaAB
SIMS spot analyses). The B content of Type I +
diamonds is not well studied since N compensates B’ center (platelets)
the B-related centers which therefore cannot be (colourless)
detected using optical absorption spectroscopy. A +
single Type IaAB diamond included in the study of N2 and N3 centers
Gaillou et al. (2012) had no detectable B (limit of (pale to bright yellow)
detection during ToF–SIMS analysis was 0.3 ppm).
Considering the natural abundance of the
various diamond types it is useful to separate
“normal” diamonds derived from the subcratonic Type IaB
lithospheric mantle from “super deep” B center
sublithospheric diamonds. For diamonds containing (colourless)
lithospheric inclusions a world-wide data-base FIG. 1-8. Flow diagram illustrating increasing aggreg-
(Table 1-1) shows 19% of the samples to be Type II, ation of N in Type I diamonds. Nitrogen C and N2
a much higher proportion than the commonly quoted centers cause various shades (depending on
number of 2% (Dyer et al. 1965). Peridotitic concentration) of yellow body colors.

8
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
diamonds are three times as likely to be Type II as
eclogitic diamonds (Table 1-1). Nitrogen-bearing
diamonds are dominated by intermediate
aggregation states (Type IaAB, see Fig. 1-7).
Compared to the eclogitic suite, peridotitic
diamonds have a higher proportion of the lesser
aggregated Type IaA diamonds, which is a function
of lower average N contents (Fig. 1-6) leading to
slower aggregation at comparable residence
temperatures. Fully aggregated Type IaB diamonds
only form a minor portion of the world-wide data
base (Table 1-1). Diamonds containing some non-
aggregated N (Type Ib–IaA) are extremely rare but
make up about 5% of the production at the Helam
Mine (Swartruggens dyke swarm, South Africa;
McKenna et al. 2004). Bluish Type IIb diamonds
are very rare and inclusion studies have not been
completed on this kind of diamond. World-wide,
Type IIb diamonds are mainly derived from the
Cullinan Mine (“Premier”) in South Africa, and a
likely lithospheric origin is inferred by association
with the general diamond production at that mine.
Diamonds containing inclusion parageneses
indicative of derivation from the lowermost
transition zone and the lower mantle typically are
Type II (Hutchison et al. 1999). Rare exceptions are
several ferropericlase-bearing diamonds from the
Lac de Gras area (Davies et al. 1999, Tappert et al.
2005a, Donnelly et al. 2007) containing 16 to 1950
at.ppm N. This may indicate that these diamonds
actually represent ferropericlase-bearing dunitic
sources in the lithosphere (Brey et al. 2004) rather
than a sublithospheric origin. Majorite garnet-
bearing diamonds derived from the asthenosphere
and transition zone are either Type II or have low N
contents at intermediate to high aggregation states
(Type IaAB to IaB). For example, eleven diamonds
with eclogitic majorite garnet inclusions from
Jagersfontein, South Africa, have an average N
content of 24 at.ppm (Tappert et al. 2005c).
TABLE 1-1: PERCENTAGES OF TYPES (BASED ON N
CONTENT AND AGGREGATION STATE) FOR
LITHOSPHERIC DIAMOND WITH PERIDOTITIC AND
ECLOGITIC INCLUSIONS
Peridotitic Eclogitic Combined
Type n=986 n=598 n=1584
II 25 8 19
IaA 19 16 18
IaAB 52 72 59
IaB 3 4 4 al. 1991, McCandless & Gurney 1997). Various
9
STABLE ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION OF
DIAMONDS
Apart from minor elemental and molecular
impurities at the trace level, diamond is composed
of pure carbon. Hence, the C stable isotopic
signature of diamond may be expected to provide
the most robust fingerprint for its origin (see Kirkley
et al. 1991, Cartigny 2005 and Stachel et al. 2009
for full reviews). Carbon has two stable isotopes,
12
C and 13C and the ratio of the two is
conventionally expressed as a normalized difference
(δ13C measured in ‰) with respect to the
international VPDB (Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite)
standard.
Figure 1-9 shows the C isotopic composition of
diamonds carrying inclusions that are derived from
the subcratonic lithospheric mantle (peridotitic,
eclogitic and websteritic suites), from the
underlying asthenosphere and transition zone
(eclogitic and websteritic garnet inclusions with a
significant majorite component) and from the lower
mantle (various associations involving the mineral
ferropericlase). Peridotitic, eclogitic, websteritic and
lower mantle diamonds all have modes that coincide
with the accepted mantle value of about –5‰. This
concurrence, however, cannot be used to
conclusively establish a mantle origin for most
diamond C, as the C isotopic composition of
average altered oceanic crust is indistinct (about –
4.7‰, Shilobreeva et al. 2011). For eclogitic and
websteritic diamond the distributions are strongly
skewed towards more negative values (down to –
41.1 and –41.3‰, respectively, De Stefano et al.
2009). An apparent secondary mode for eclogitic
diamond at –13 to –9‰ (Fig. 1-9) relates to
abundant isotopic data for a single diamond
occurrence (Argyle Mine in Western Australia). For
asthenospheric and transition zone diamonds
Tappert et al. (2005c) pointed out that each locality
studied so far has yielded a distinctive and narrow
range in C isotopic compositions, with values below
–18‰ representing diamonds from the former
Jagersfontein mine (South Africa) only.
The association of isotopically light C with
eclogitic (and comparatively rare websteritic)
diamond was first noticed by Sobolev et al. (1979).
Based on similarities with the C isotopic
composition of organic matter, these strongly
negative values have since been widely used as
evidence for a subduction origin of eclogitic
diamonds (e.g., Sobolev & Sobolev 1980, Kirkley et
arguments have, however, been forwarded against a
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 direct relationship between diamonds with light C
isotopic compositions and recycled organic matter
Lower Mantle
60 N=146 (see e.g., Deines 2002). Clearly the strongest
Median=-4.5‰ challenge comes from the isotopic analysis of N
impurities in diamonds with a C isotopic
Frequency

40 “subduction signature” (see Cartigny 2005 for a

review). Nitrogen in oceanic sediments has a
positive isotopic signature (average δ15N of about
20 +6‰) and metamorphic overprint in a descending
slab will only increase this value (Cartigny et al.
1998). The N isotopic composition of Earth’s
0 mantle is estimated to be about –5 ±3‰ (Cartigny
Asthenosphere and Transition Zone 2005). Consequently, if diamond with strongly
5 N=46
Median=-13.6‰ negative C isotopic composition had formed from
4
subducted organic matter, then C isotopic
Frequency

compositions below about –10‰ should be

3 accompanied by positive δ15N values. As shown in
multiple papers by Cartigny (op. cit. and references
2 therein) this is not the case and ca. 70% of eclogitic
diamonds have negative δ15N values instead.
1
To reconcile the N and C isotopic composition
0
of diamond, Cartigny et al. (2001) favor
Eclogitic and Websteritic metasomatic diamond formation involving open
N=923 Webst. system isotopic fractionation. Considering the tight
Median eclog.=-6.3‰
150
Median webst.=-7.3‰ distribution of peridotitic diamonds around the
Eclog.
mantle value, this fractionation process must operate
Frequency

in eclogitic environments only. At the high

100
temperature conditions of the deep lithospheric
mantle strong fractionation of stable isotopes
50 generally involves open systems and for C isotopes
1 Webst. requires separation of a free CO2 fluid. At high
1 Eclog.
pressure in a peridotitic environment CO2 reacts
0 with forsteritic olivine to form magnesite and
Peridotitic enstatite, hence precluding the presence of a free
N=1259
300
Median=-4.9‰ CO2 fluid (Wyllie & Huang 1976). In eclogite,
olivine is absent and possible carbonation reactions
Frequency

involve clinopyroxene (Luth 1995) or garnet

200 (Knoche et al. 1999). For natural mineral
compositions and in the likely presence of H2O in a
CO2-bearing fluid, these buffer reactions may well
100
only occur at depth beneath the subcratonic
lithospheric mantle. The model of Cartigny et al.
0 (2001) thus provides an elegant explanation for the
-40 -30
13
-20 -10 0 (almost complete) absence of peridotitic diamonds
δ C [‰] with C isotopic compositions that are significantly
FIG. 1-9. Carbon isotopic composition (δ13C) of diamond lighter than the mantle value. Additional evidence
derived from the subcratonic lithosphere (with for a formation of eclogitic diamonds during
peridotitic, eclogitic and websteritic inclusions), the fluid/melt infiltration processes, rather than via
asthenosphere and transition zone (containing eclogitic direct conversion of subducted organic matter,
and websteritic garnet inclusions with a majorite comes from observations of complex growth
component), and the lower mantle (ferropericlase- patterns, non-systematic isotopic heterogeneity and
bearing inclusion parageneses). Arrow indicates the strong chemical disequilibrium among multiple
assumed mantle value for δ13C of about –5‰ (e.g.,
inclusions in individual diamonds (e.g., Rickard et
Cartigny 2005).

10
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
al. 1989, Sobolev et al. 1998), and significant
variations in the stable isotopic composition of
multiple diamonds recovered from individual
eclogite xenoliths (e.g., Taylor et al. 2000).
However, as pointed out by Smart et al. (2011), if a
mantle-like C isotopic composition of –5‰ is
assumed for the primary metasomatic fluid/melt,
then the CO2 separation model cannot account for
eclogitic diamonds with δ13C much below –14‰ as
this would require unrealistically high fractionation
values (separation of >99% CO2). The Cartigny et
al. (2001) model, therefore, cannot be used to relate
the origin of diamonds with very low δ13C to
mantle-derived C and the need for input of a
strongly 13C depleted component via subduction
persists.
Irrespective of the cause, as light C isotopic
compositions are fairly common among eclogitic
diamonds but rare among peridotitic diamonds (only
1.3% of peridotitic diamonds have δ13C below –
10‰) they may be employed as a useful indicator
for the presence of eclogitic diamonds in population
studies where mineral inclusions in diamond cannot
be recovered to establish their paragenesis.
INCLUSIONS IN DIAMOND
In the gemmology of diamond, inclusions are
negative features that detract from value; studies on
mineral inclusions in diamond have, however,
played a key role in establishing the xenocrystic
nature of diamonds with respect to their volcanic
hosts and in deriving the mineralogical and
chemical composition of diamond source rocks in
Earth’s mantle. Because these inclusions can only
be accessed by breaking or cutting of the host
diamonds, the majority of studies have focused on
small, low values stones (typically in the 2–3 mm
size range). It is, however, believed that the
information retrieved from the smaller diamonds
extends to larger gem-quality stones. The concept of
using Cr-rich harzburgitic garnet (G10) as a key
indicator for diamond potential during kimberlite
exploration is based on its prevalence among
peridotitic garnet inclusions in diamond (Gurney &
Switzer 1973, Gurney 1984, see below). Similarly,
spinel recovered during indicator mineral sampling
is employed to assess diamond potential by
comparing how closely it matches the composition
of Mg-chromite inclusions in diamond with respect
to Mg, Cr and Ti content (e.g., Fipke et al. 1995).
Depending on when inclusion minerals formed
relative to their diamond hosts, a distinction is made
between (i) protogenetic, (ii) syngenetic and (iii)
11
epigenetic inclusions. Protogenetic inclusions are
pre-existing minerals that are passively overgrown
by newly formed diamond. Consequently, proto-
genetic inclusions are recognized by an absence of
both epitaxy and external morphologies imposed by
the host diamond. Protogenetic inclusions are
presumed to be rare but have been described as
seeds for diamond precipitation (Bulanova 1995).
Syngenetic inclusions co-precipitated with their
diamond hosts either from a fluid/melt or during a
metamorphic recrystallization event. Because of a
very high crystal form energy diamond imposes its
own symmetry on simultaneously growing inclusion
minerals, resulting in cubo-octahedral external
morphologies for the vast majority of inclusions
(including non-cubic minerals). Epigenetic
inclusions commonly are alteration products of pre-
existing inclusions formed when fluids enter
inclusion cavities along cracks and are usually
related to ascent and cooling of the transporting
kimberlite magma or subsequent sedimentary and
metamorphic events. Epigenetic inclusions are
commonly cryptocrystalline or represent phases that
clearly are not of mantle origin (e.g., crystallized
during metamorphic events). However, the presence
of annealed cracks in diamonds, revealed in
cathodoluminescence studies, suggests that in rare
cases epigenetic modification of inclusions may
already occur in the Earth’s mantle (e.g., Kopylova
et al. 1997).
For studies on the physical and chemical
environment of diamond formation common
syngenetic inclusions are targeted, although, in
principle, protogenetic phases that re-equilibrated
with their environment until the moment of
encapsulation – which is not unlikely considering
their small (micrometre) size and high ambient
temperatures – will yield identical information.
As a first order division, mineral inclusions in
diamond can be assigned to sources within the
subcratonic lithospheric mantle or may have a
sublithospheric origin. Because of large scientific
interest, diamonds with sublithospheric inclusions
are highly over-represented in the literature and in
reality probably account for less than 1% (by mass)
of the current world-wide diamond production.
Lithospheric diamonds are subdivided into three
main suites representing peridotitic, eclogitic and
rare websteritic sources (Fig. 1-10). Sublithospheric
diamonds may be broadly split into two groups: (i)
asthenospheric and transition zone diamonds with
“eclogitic” and “websteritic” inclusions, character-
ized by garnet containing variable amounts of a
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

Eclogitic 
33%
Wehrlitic
Harzburgitic 1%
Peridotitic 86% Lherzolitic
65% 13%
Websteritic
2%

FIG. 1-10. Relative proportions of source parageneses for inclusion-bearing diamond derived from the subcratonic
lithospheric mantle. Diamond from the sublithospheric mantle is excluded and likely accounts for less than 1% (by mass)
of the world-wide diamond production. The pie chart on the left is based on 2844 inclusion-bearing diamonds (data-base
of Stachel & Harris 2008). The pie chart on the right splits the peridotitic suite into harzburgitic (-dunitic), lherzolitic and
wehrlitic parageneses. Percentages are derived from compositional classification of 685 peridotitic garnet inclusions (data-
base of Stachel & Harris 2008, corrected for an over-representation of inclusion-bearing diamonds from DeBeers Pool
mines, South Africa). In combination, the two graphs imply that about 56% of inclusion-bearing diamonds derive from
harzburgitic sources.
majorite component indicative of an ultra-high diamond inclusion garnet with Cr2O3 >4 wt.% from
pressure origin and (ii) diamonds from the lower- the lherzolitic field and, with reference to the
most transition zone and the lower mantle typically classification scheme of Dawson & Stephens
recognized by the presence of ferropericlase as part (1975), designated the garnet on the Ca-poor side of
of the inclusion assemblage. the line “G10” and on the Ca-rich side “G9”. The
The classical review on lithospheric inclusions two concepts of a mineralogically defined lherzolitic
in diamond was given by Meyer (1987), a com- field and a statistically based G10/G9 division were
prehensive recent update may be found in Stachel & recently merged by Grütter et al. (2004) who
Harris (2008). Inclusions in sublithospheric defined the exact boundaries of the garnet
diamond were reviewed by Stachel (2001), Stachel classification diagram shown in Figure 1-11. Based
et al. (2005), Harte (2010) and Kaminsky (2012). on garnet compositions, it is not possible to detect
the absence or presence of orthopyroxene in
Peridotitic inclusion suite clinopyroxene-free sources and hence to distinguish
Peridotitic diamond sources may be split into between harzburgitic (orthopyroxene-bearing) and
three parageneses: harzburgitic–dunitic (clino- dunitic (pyroxene-free) parageneses. In Figure 1-11
pyroxene absent), lherzolitic (orthopyroxene and dunitic garnet will plot together with highly
clinopyroxene present) and wehrlitic (orthopyroxene depleted harzburgitic garnet at CaO contents below
absent, clinopyroxene present). Classification of about 1.8 wt.% (cf. Grütter et al. 1999).
inclusions into one of the three parageneses is Mineral inclusion phases observed in peridotitic
commonly established using garnet chemistry. diamonds are listed in Table 1-2 and the relative
Based on xenolith studies, Sobolev et al. (1973) abundance of the various parageneses can be taken
were the first to define a lherzolitic field in Cr–Ca from Figure 1-10. Common inclusions phases are
space delineating garnet in equilibrium with both Cr-bearing (mainly as a knorringite component)
clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene. Garnet plotting pyrope garnet (29% of peridotitic inclusions),
on the Ca-poor side (“sub-calcic garnet”) of the olivine (28%), Mg-chromite (27%), orthopyroxene
lherzolitic field (Fig. 1-11) is derived from (12%) and clinopyroxene (4%). Very common Fe-
clinopyroxene-free harzburgitic–dunitic sources, Ni sulfide minerals are not included in calculated
whereas garnet falling on the Ca-rich side of the abundances because they are not systematically
lherzolite field cannot have been in equilibrium with recovered during inclusion studies (because of small
orthopyroxene and thus reflects wehrlitic mineral size and a common association with extensive
assemblages (Sobolev et al. 1969, 1973). Gurney fracture systems). The extreme overabundance of
(1984) used an “arbitrary line” to separate 85% of sulfide minerals, garnet and Mg-chromite relative to

12
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
G10 G9
20
c
15
zoliti
Harzburgitic
Lher
Cr2O3
10
5
Wehrlitic
0
0 5 10
Websteritic CaO
normal peridotitic mineral modes indicates
preferential “sampling” of these minerals by
diamond, possibly related to surface energy
minimization (Meyer & Boyd 1972) or to frequent
co-precipitation with diamond during melt/fluid
infiltration events. The sources of peridotitic
diamond are chemically highly depleted as a
consequence of severe melt extraction during the
Archean (e.g., Boyd et al. 1993). This depleted
character is reflected by inclusions in diamond
through overall high Mg-numbers (commonly >91
for olivine and orthopyroxene, and >90 for
clinopyroxene, with median values of 92.9, 94.5 and
92.9, respectively), high Cr in garnet (typically >4
wt.% Cr2O3, median value is 7.9 wt.%), and
presence of very Cr-rich (molar 100Cr/[Cr+Al] >80)
and Ti-poor (<1 wt.% TiO2) spinel. Lherzolitic
inclusions are generally less magnesian than their
harzburgitic counterparts (Fig. 1-12); however,
sharp divisions cannot be established.
Eclogitic inclusions suite
The source of eclogitic diamonds, based on
studies of inclusions in diamond and eclogite
xenoliths, has been shown to have a broadly basaltic
bulk composition, chemically depleted relative to
present day MORB tholeiite and more akin to
picritic or komatiitic basalt (e.g., Rudnick 1995,
Jacob 2004). Based on this fundamental difference
G12
FIG. 1-11. Cr–Ca plot conventionally
used for classification of garnet in
inclusion studies and for indicator
mineral assessment. Divisions
(dashed lines) are from Grütter et
al. (2004). Compositional fields for
garnet inclusions in diamond are
shown as shaded areas and are
based on 1830 individual
inclusions. Note that the com-
positional field for wehrlitic garnet
is derived from seven inclusions
only.
Eclogitic
15 20
in source composition, eclogitic inclusions can
generally be readily distinguished from their
peridotitic counterparts, e.g., on the basis of lower
Mg-numbers and Cr concentrations, and elevated
Na, Ca and Al contents. Besides Fe sulfide minerals,
common mineral inclusions in eclogitic diamond are
garnet (56% of inclusions, excluding sulfide
minerals) and clinopyroxene (39%), and less
abundant rutile (3%) and coesite (2%). Eclogitic
garnet inclusions are variable mixtures of the three
end-members grossular, almandine and pyrope.
Their most characteristic feature is the virtual
absence of Cr: a cut-off at 1 wt.% Cr2O3 is used to
separate eclogitic from peridotitic garnet in Figure
1-11, but in reality 79% of eclogitic garnet contains
<0.1 wt.% Cr2O3. Eclogitic clinopyroxene typically
is omphacitic (i.e., contains several wt.% Na2O and
Al2O3) and has Mg-numbers <80 (median value is
76.8 wt.%). In rare cases where eclogitic
clinopyroxene reaches or exceeds Mg-numbers of
90 (typical for the peridotitic inclusion suite), a
distinction can still be made based on its low Cr–Al
ratio (molar 100Cr/[Cr+Al] <10).
Websteritic suite
Diamond from websteritic sources is relatively
uncommon and accounts for only about 2% of
inclusion-bearing diamonds (Fig. 1-10). In the
petrographic sense the terms websterite and olivine
13
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

TABLE 1-2: MINERAL INCLUSIONS IN DIAMONDS.

Peridotitic Eclogitic Websteritic Sublithospheric Uncertain
Common Common Common Common Common
Cr-pyrope Grossular-almandine- Almandine-pyrope Majoritic garnet Graphite
Olivine pyrope Diopside-augite Omphacitic cpx
Enstatite Omphacitic cpx Enstatite Mg-Si-perovskite* Rare
Cr-diopside Fe sulfides Ca-Si-perovskite* Diamond
Mg-chromite Occasional Ferropericlase Calcite
Fe-Ni sulfides Occasional Coesite* Dolomite
Rutile Olivine Rare Perovskite
Rare Coesite* Stishovite* Amphibole
Coesite* Rare Ilmenite Moissanite
Mg-ilmenite Rare Phlogopite Corundum Apatite
Magnesite Kyanite Chromite Eskolaite
Calcite Corundum Spinel Sr-titanate
Native Fe Ilmenite Native Fe
Zircon Magnetite Native Ni
Phlogopite Fe-Mg-chromite Calcite
Yimengite Phlogopite Siderite
K-feldspar “Ca-feldspar”
Sphene “K-feldspar” (former
Staurolite hollandite?)
Zircon NAL (new aluminum
Moissanite silicate phase)*
Calcite Calcium ferrite*
Dolomite Ringwoodite*
Sphene
Sulfides

Retrograde(?)
Larnite (Ca2SiO4)
CaSi2O5
(titanite structure)
CaSiO3
(walstromite structure)
Type-III cpx (originally
garnet structured)
TAPP

Epigenetic phases are not listed. “Common”, “occasional” and “rare” refers to the relative abundance of a mineral within a
particular inclusion suite, with sublithospheric and websteritic inclusions being rare themselves. * refers to mineral inclusions
where an original structure is inferred based on pressure–temperature constraints. In the case of NAL and calcium ferrite, both
composition and structure are inferred for inclusions that underwent unmixing during exhumation from the lower mantle
(Walter et al. 2011). Inclusions in quotation marks have the composition of the mineral listed, but likely formed in a different
structure that cannot be inferred unambiguously. Compiled from a data-base of inclusions in diamonds from world-wide
sources (see Stachel & Harris 2008). Phases only occurring as submicroscopic (nanometre-sized) inclusions in sublithospheric
diamond (see Kaminsky 2012 for a review) are not included.

websterite refer to pyroxenite containing both
clinopyroxene and orthopyroxene. For inclusions in
diamond the term websteritic suite is not well
defined and has traditionally been applied to garnet
and pyroxene inclusions with compositions
transitional between the peridotitic and eclogitic
suites. Hence the websteritic suite encompasses both
“peridotitic” inclusions with unusually low Mg-
number (Gurney et al. 1984) and “eclogitic” garnet
and clinopyroxene inclusions which coexist – or are
inferred to coexist – with orthopyroxene.
Compositional criteria for assigning inclusions to
the websteritic rather than the eclogitic suite include
elevated Mg- and Cr-numbers for garnet (Fig. 1-11)
and pyroxene inclusions and, for garnet, low Ca
contents (<6 wt.%, Grütter et al. 2004). Common
inclusions in websteritic diamond are almandine–
pyrope garnet (38% of inclusions), clinopyroxene
(with a limited omphacite component compared to
eclogitic inclusions) (37%), orthopyroxene (21%),
with additional occurrence of coesite (3%) and
olivine (1%).

14
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

86 88 90 92 94 96 98 moderate majorite component likely derived from

14
extremely deep (>250 km) lithospheric roots
Lherzolitic (Pokhilenko et al. 2004, Stachel et al. 2006).
12
“Normal” sublithospheric inclusions of majoritic
N=49 garnet are generally eclogitic to websteritic in
10 Median=92.1
composition and, accordingly, sometimes accom-
Mean=92.1 ±1.0
Frequency

panied by omphacitic clinopyroxene inclusions.

8
Diamond from the lowermost transition zone
and the lower mantle is primarily described from
6 three locations: the Juina area in Brazil (including
Rio Sao Luiz; Harte et al. 1999b), the DO-27 pipe at
4 Lac de Gras, Canada (Davies et al. 1999) and the
Kankan area in Guinea (Stachel et al. 2000). The
2 crystal structure of true ultra-high pressure phases
(e.g., Ca–Si- and Mg–Si-perovskite or stishovite) is
0 not preserved in such inclusions. Evidence for a
lower mantle origin hence is based on coexistence
Harzburgitic
of the oxide ferropericlase ([Mg,Fe]O) with silica-
N=173 rich phases ([Mg,Fe]SiO3, CaSiO3 and SiO2
30
Median=93.2 compositions); such parageneses cannot have
Mean=93.2 ±1.0 formed outside the lower mantle as at lower
Frequency

pressures ferropericlase would react with these

20
10
0 ppm NiO. Additionally, a number of “exotic” ultra-
86 88 90 92 94 96
Mg#
FIG. 1-12. Mg-number of olivine inclusions in diamond.
Olivine of lherzolitic and harzburgitic paragenesis has
different modes, medians and means but overlaps
within one standard deviation and hence cannot be
separated based on Mg-number.
Sublithospheric inclusions
Garnet inclusions containing a majorite
component – with an end-member composition
M3(AlM0.5Si0.5)[VI]Si3[IV]O12 – were first discovered
by Moore & Gurney (1985) in diamond from the
Monastery mine (South Africa) and have since been
recognized in diamond from several other deposits
(see Stachel 2001 for a review). In analogy to garnet
compositions observed in high pressure experi-
ments, inclusions of majoritic garnet are inferred to
indicate diamond formation beneath the subcratonic
lithosphere (i.e., deeper than ca. 200 km) and
extending into the transition zone down to at least
500 km depth (e.g., Tappert et al. 2005b). Rare
exceptions are Cr-rich garnet inclusions with a
phases to form olivine or pyroxene compositions.
Because of a very strong preference of Ni for
ferropericlase, original formation of inclusions with
orthopyroxene compositions as Mg–Si-perovskite in
the lower mantle may be inferred from low Ni
contents (NiO <300 ppm), with typical ortho-
pyroxene from the upper mantle containing >1000
98 high pressure phases from the deep transition zone
and the lower mantle have been described as
inclusions in diamond, mainly from the Juina area
(e.g., Harris et al. 1997, Hutchison et al. 2001,
Kaminsky et al. 2001, Walter et al. 2011, Kaminsky
2012; see Table 1-2).
Mineral inclusion-based geothermobarometry
The presence of multiple inclusion phases in
the same diamond allows determination of the
pressure–temperature conditions of last equilibration
via mineral exchange geothermobarometry. The
most commonly applied thermometers are based on
the coexistence of garnet with olivine (TO’Neill 79,
O’Neill & Wood 1979, O’Neill 1980) and
clinopyroxene (TKrogh 88, Krogh 1988), whereas pairs
of garnet and orthopyroxene may be employed to
derive both pressure (PBKN, Brey & Köhler 1990)
and temperature (THarley, Harley 1984). In cases
where the inclusion pairs are not in contact, the
resulting P–T estimates represent the ambient
conditions at the time of diamond formation. At
high temperatures in the Earth’s mantle, touching or

15
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

intergrown mineral pairs will over time re- PNT 00 [kbar]

equilibrate in response to changes in ambient 30 40 50 60 70 80
pressure and/or temperature and hence reflect the 30
conditions of mantle storage prior to kimberlite N = 79
magmatism. Single phase geothermometers (Ni-in- Median=51
garnet: TNi, Griffin et al. 1989, Canil 1999; Zn-in- [kbar]
spinel: TRyan, Ryan et al. 1996; Mn-in-garnet: TMn, Mean = 50
20 ±8 [kbar] Lherzolitic

Grütter et al. 1999, Creighton 2009) and
thermobarometers (clinopyroxene: PNT 00 and TNT 00,
Nimis & Taylor 2000) allow determination of the
conditions of formation for diamond containing only
one inclusion species. A comprehensive review of
the P–T conditions of diamond formation and
mantle storage may be found in Stachel & Harris
(2008) and only a short summary is given here.
PBKN, calculated iteratively in combination with
THarley, and PNT 00 in combination with TNT 00, are the
two thermobarometers that can be applied to the
largest number of inclusions in diamond (Fig. 1-13).
Although only a limited number of lherzolitic
garnet–orthopyroxene pairs is available, the overall
agreement in PBKN with inclusion pairs of
harzburgitic paragenesis (average lherzolitic: 51
±10 kbar; average harzburgitic: 55 ±8 kbar)
indicates formation at similar conditions. Therefore,
despite being based on lherzolitic inclusions only,
the more accurate (Nimis & Grütter 2010) pressure
values derived via the PNT 00–TNT 00 combination
may be used to derive 50 ±8 kbar (equivalent to 160
±25km) as the best estimate for average conditions
of diamond formation. Assuming equilibration at
this average pressure (50 kbar), the olivine–garnet
(TO’Neill 79) and the clinopyroxene–garnet (TKrogh 88)
thermometers can be applied to a large number of
peridotitic and eclogitic suite inclusion pairs. The
two thermometers yield matching thermal
conditions for peridotitic and eclogitic inclusion
(average of 1160–1170 ±110°C, modes in class
1150–1200°C, see Fig. 1-14). Temperature
estimates for harzburgitic and lherzolitic garnet–
olivine inclusion pairs are also indistinct (Fig. 1-14,
averages agree within 10°C).
Figure 1-15 shows pressure–temperature
estimates (PBKN–THarley and PNT 00–TNT 00) for
peridotitic inclusions relative to the continental
geotherms of Hasterok & Chapman (2011). The data
strongly scatter, with a number of points falling
outside the diamond stability field, and cover a
range of model geotherms between 35 and 45
mW/m2 surface heat flow. Linear regression of all
data points (PBKN–THarley and PNT 00–TNT 00, Fig.
1-15) yields a trend approximately equivalent to a
38 mW/m2 model geotherm. A large comparative
Frequency
10
0
N = 88
20 Median=55
[kbar] Harzb.
Mean = 55 Lherz.
Frequency ±8 [kbar]
10
0
30 40 50 60 70 80
PBKN [kbar]
FIG. 1-13. Pressure of origin for peridotitic (harzburgitic
and lherzolitic parageneses) inclusions in diamond
based on simultaneous estimates (iterative calculations)
of pressure and temperature. Garnet–orthopyroxene
pairs (bottom histogram) are present in diamond of
both harzburgitic and lherzolitic parageneses and allow
for simultaneous derivation of PBKN (Brey & Köhler
1990) and THarley (Harley 1984). Peridotitic clinopyrox-
ene inclusions (top) are, by definition, absent in
diamond of harzburgitic paragenesis and, therefore,
originate from lherzolitic sources only (ignoring the
possible presence of rare wehrlitic clinopyroxene
inclusions). Before calculation of PNT 00 and TNT 00, the
filters of Grütter (2009) were applied to exclude
clinopyroxene compositions outside the calibration
range of Nimis & Taylor (2000). The two
geothermobarometer combinations indicate similar
average conditions of diamond formation, at pressures
of 50–55 (±8) kbar. However, because of the lower
accuracy of THarley compared to TNT 00, the pressure
estimates derived through the combination of PNT 00
and T NT 00 are considered more reliable.

16
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

TKrogh 88 [°C] study of non-touching and touching garnet–

800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 orthopyroxene pairs in diamond from the De Beers
40 Pool kimberlite pipes (South Africa) produced
strong evidence that diamond formation (average
Eclogitic: N=144
non-touching inclusions: 1200°C) was followed by
Median=1160 °C
cooling (average touching: 1080°C) by about 120°C
30 Mean=1170 (Phillips & Harris 1995, Phillips et al. 2004; for this
±110 °C
relative comparison the 2 sigma uncertainty is
Frequency

estimated to be ±25°C). Subsequently, indications

20
for a similar decrease in ambient temperature soon
after diamond formation were also found elsewhere
(Stachel et al. 2003, 2004), suggesting that diamond
formation may relate to short-lived heating events.
10 Garnet–orthopyroxene pairs falling below a 37
mW/m2 Hasterok & Chapman (2011) model
geotherm thus likely represent conditions of mantle
storage rather than diamond formation.
0
Peridotitic: N=164 Harzb. Fluid and melt inclusions in diamond
Median=1140 °C Fibrous and clouded diamond usually contains
Lherz.
innumerable micrometre to nanometre-sized melt
30 Mean=1160
±110 °C (or “high density fluid”) inclusions. Electron
microprobe-based studies of the bulk composition of
Frequency

such inclusions, pioneered by Navon and co-

20
10
0 BenDavid et al. 2006, Weiss et al. 2010, Kopylova
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
TO’Neill 79 [°C]
FIG. 1-14. Temperature estimates for peridotitic
(harzburgitic and lherzolitic parageneses; based on
Mg–Fe exchange between garnet–olivine; TO’Neill 79)
and eclogitic (Mg–Fe exchange between garnet–
clinopyroxene; TKrogh 88) inclusions in diamond. For the
calculations a fixed pressure of 50 kbar (see Fig. 1-13)
was assumed. Results exceeding the maximum
temperature of lithospheric mantle (1400°C, see Fig.
1-2) likely represent disequilibrium between inclusion
phases and were disregarded. For eclogitic diamonds
the inclusion suite from Argyle (average temperature
of 1240°C) was considered to represent unusually hot
conditions and hence excluded.
workers (e.g., Navon et al. 1988, Schrauder &
Navon 1994, Izraeli et al. 2001, Klein-BenDavid et
al. 2009), revealed the presence of four
compositional end-members: (i) hydrous chloride
melt, (ii) high-Mg carbonatitic melt and an array
between (iii) hydrous-silicic and (iv) low-Mg
carbonatitic melts. Studies of the daughter minerals
in the inclusions (e.g., Guthrie et al. 1991, Klein-
et al. 2010) revealed multi-phase assemblages of
carbonate phases, mica, apatite and quartz, with
possible occurrence of additional phases. The trace
element abundance patterns of the inclusions (e.g.,
Schrauder et al. 1996, Tomlinson et al. 2005,
Zedgenizov et al. 2007, Rege et al. 2010, Weiss et
al. 2011) are very high in incompatible elements
and show broad similarity to those of kimberlite
(e.g., Tomlinson et al. 2005, Weiss et al. 2011).
The genetic and temporal relationship between
fibrous/clouded and clear monocrystalline (gem-
type) diamond is not fully understood. Detectable
concentrations (at the ppm to ppt level) of lithophile
elements in clear monocrystalline diamond have
been related to submicroscopic fluid and melt
inclusions (Fesq et al. 1973, McNeill et al. 2009,
Rege et al. 2010, Melton et al. 2012), but may
equally be explained through nanometre-sized
mineral inclusions (Melton et al. 2012), implying
that the origin of gem diamonds is more complex.

17
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
TP=1300°C
Adiabat
40
4 (clinopyroxene) thermobarometer combinations.
Gra 5
50 p The uncertainty of individual data points is equal
Dia hite
P [kbar]
mo
nd
60
PNT 00-PNT 00
Lherzolitic
PBKN-THarley
70 Lherzolitic
Harzburgit.
35
900 1000 1100 1200 1300
T [°C]
TIMING OF DIAMOND FORMATION
Nitrogen aggregation and the age of diamonds
The general antiquity of diamonds relative to
their kimberlite hosts can be established based on
the aggregation state and concentration of N
impurities in the diamond lattice (Fig. 1-16). Taking
the combined average of the geothermometry data
for peridotitic and eclogitic inclusions (1170
±110°C, see above) and assuming that diamond
storage temperatures did not dramatically fluctuate
over time, it is possible to derive crude relative
diamond ages by applying N thermochronometry
(see section “Optical Centers”, p. 6) to match these
temperatures. Assuming mantle residence times of
3, 1 and 0.1 Ga (resulting in average TNitrogen of
1130, 1150 and 1210°C for diamonds with
peridotitic and eclogitic inclusions) provides a
reasonable bracket around the inclusion-based
temperatures. Diamond formation only 10 Ma
before kimberlite eruption (average TNitrogen of
1280°C, Fig. 1-16), however, would require mantle
storage at temperatures well above (by about 110°C)
those indicated by inclusion thermometry. Although
only crude age constraints can be established, N
characteristics nevertheless provide clear evidence
that diamond generally formed at least hundreds of
millions of years prior to transport to Earth’s
surface.
However, exceptions to this generalization are
established e.g., through fibrous cubes and fibrous
coats on gem diamonds, with poorly aggregated N
in the overgrowths pointing to a late stage of
diamond formation (mantle residence of less than 5
FIG. 1-15. Simultaneous estimates of pressure and
temperature of origin using the PBKN–THarley
(garnet–orthopyroxene) and PNT 00–TNT 00
to or better than 5 kbar and 100°C. Mantle
adiabat (for a mantle potential temperature of
1300˚C and a gradient of 0.3˚C/km) and model
geotherms equivalent to 35–45 mW/m2 surface
40 heat flow are plotted after Hasterok & Chapman
(2011), the graphite–diamond transition is from
Day (2012). The average (± one standard
deviation) and a linear regression (r2=0.68) for all
data points are indicated as a black cross and a
solid grey line, respectively.
1400
Ma) possibly related to kimberlite magmatism
(Boyd et al. 1992, Gurney et al. 2010).
Radiometric dating of inclusions
An indirect way of obtaining diamond ages is
radiometric dating of silicate and sulfide inclusions.
Despite challenges to the applicability of inclusion-
derived ages to the timing of diamond formation
(e.g., Navon 1999, Spetsius et al. 2002), the
approach is generally considered valid (e.g., Pearson
& Shirey 1999, Richardson et al. 2004). Some of
the arguments brought forward as to why radiogenic
dating of inclusions indeed yields diamond
formation ages include (i) closure temperatures for
Re and Os in sulfide minerals well below ambient
temperatures in Earth’s mantle at depths beneath the
graphite–diamond transition and (ii) an agreement
of sulfide-based Re–Os and silicate-based Sm–Nd
ages – as shown for eclogitic inclusions from
Jwaneng (Richardson et al. 1999, 2004) and Orapa
(Richardson 1986, Shirey et al. 2001) – that is too
close to be fortuitous (see Fig. 1-17).
A comprehensive review on inclusion-based
dating of diamonds was presented by Pearson &
Shirey (1999) with recent updates in Stachel &
Harris (2008) and Gurney et al. (2010). Sm–Nd
ages, generally based on garnet (± clinopyroxene)
composites, and Re–Os ages, determined through
analysis of individual sulfide inclusions, are
summarized in Figure 1-17. With the exception of a
Mesozoic isochron age obtained from two sulfide
inclusions in a single diamond from Koffiefontein
(Pearson et al. 1998) and an inferred similar age for
18
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

1000 1200 1400 1600 a peridotitic sulfide inclusion from Jagersfontein

250
(Aulbach et al. 2009), all dated peridotitic diamonds
1 stdev
0.01 Ga formed between 3.6 and 1.4 Ga. Formation of
mineral
200 Mean=1280
thermom.
±80 °C
diamonds containing harzburgitic (3.6–3.2 Ga) and
lherzolitic inclusions (about 2 Ga for Premier,
Venetia and Udachnaya, about 1.4 Ga for Ellendale)
Frequency

150 Eclogitic
occurred during two discrete periods in the
Paleoarchean and in the Paleoproterozoic to
100 Peridotitic Mesoproterozoic, respectively. This has been related
to early formation of harzburgitic diamonds during
50
initial craton stabilization and root formation, and
later addition of lherzolitic diamonds during
Proterozoic craton modification (accretion along
0 craton rims and magmatic mantle re-fertilization;
0.1 Ga
Shirey et al. 2004, Gurney et al. 2010). Formation
Mean=1210 of eclogitic diamonds is documented between 2.9
200
±80 °C and 0.99 Ga (Fig. 1-17). Mesoarchean ages for
eclogitic sulfide inclusions are interpreted to mark
Frequency

150 the onset of modern style plate tectonics at around 3

Ga (Helmstaedt et al. 2010, Shirey & Richardson
2011). With the exception of Koffiefontein
100
(peridotitic) and Premier (eclogitic), inclusion-based
ages of diamond formation predate the eruption of
50 their kimberlite and lamproite hosts by hundreds of
millions to billions of years (Fig. 1-17), consistent
with the inferences made above based on N
0
aggregation states.
1 Ga
200 Mean=1150
±70 °C
Frequency

150

100

50

FIG. 1-16. Time-averaged mantle residence temperatures

0 for 1285 diamonds with peridotitic and eclogitic
inclusions (data-base of Stachel et al. 2009), based on
3 Ga the N thermometer of Taylor et al. (1990) and Leahy
200 Mean=1130 and Taylor (1997). TNitogen is shown for mantle
±70 °C
residence times of 3, 1, 0.1 and 0.01 Ga. TNitogen cannot
Frequency

be calculated for diamonds with 0 (N=172) or 100%

150 (N=17) N in B centers; therefore, aggregation states of
0.1 and 99.9 %B were instead assumed for such
100
samples, making the calculated residence temperatures
maximum and minimum estimates, respectively. For a
given residence time, average residence temperatures
50 for diamonds with peridotitic and eclogitic inclusions
differ by less than 20 °C. The temperature range (1
standard deviation about the mean) for conventional
0 mineral exchange thermometry (see Fig. 1-14) is
1000 1200 1400 1600 shown as a shaded area.
TNitrogen [°C]

19
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND

4.0
Peridotitic
Kaapvaal Slave
SE
3.0 Daldyn Australia
Age [Ga]

Limpopo (alluv.)

2.0
Kimberley

1.0

A154-S
Koffiefont.

Wellington
Finsch

Ellendale
Venetia
Kimberley

Panda
Premier

Udach-
naya

Model ages
Eclogitic Sm-Nd
4.0 Re-Os
Kaapvaal
Isochrons
Zimbabwe Sm-Nd
3.0
Age [Ga]

Re-Os
Limpopo Slave Kimberlite
2.0

1.0
Kimberley

0
Koffiefont.
Jagersfont.

Argyle
Finsch

Orapa
Venetia

A154-S
Jwaneng
Kimberley

Premier
Klipspringer

FIG. 1-17. Compilation of diamond ages based on the Sm–Nd (garnet ± clinopyroxene) and Re–Os (sulfide minerals) isotopic
systems. Results for peridotitic and eclogitic diamonds are shown separately. Eruption ages of the respective kimberlite or
lamproite hosts are given as well (triangles). The host kimberlite bodies are listed along the X-axis, the respective host
cratons/areas are indicated inside the graphs. For a complete list of references see Stachel & Harris (2008, their Table 9)
and Gurney et al. (2010, their Tables 1–4).

20
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
CONCLUSIONS
Based on their mineral inclusion content gem
diamonds form in peridotitic, eclogitic and
websteritic sources located in the subcratonic
lithospheric mantle. Rare exceptions are
sublithospheric diamonds derived from the
asthenosphere, the transition zone and the lower
mantle. Common peridotitic and eclogitic diamonds
generally are ancient (ca. 3.6–1.0 Ga) and reside in
relatively cool (bracketed by 35 and 45 mW/m2
surface heat flow model geotherms of Hasterok &
Chapman 2011) lithospheric sections ranging in
depth between about 105 and 200 km. From there,
diamonds are transported to Earth’s surface by
rapidly ascending kimberlite or lamproite magmas.
Resorption by the transporting magma may convert
primary octahedral or cuboid diamonds into
secondary dodecahedral shapes, resulting in loss of
diamond mass. Color centers in diamond originate
from molecular impurities giving rise to yellow
(nitrogen C and N2 centers) and blue (boron)
colouration or are due to plastic deformation (brown
and pink). A type classification of diamonds is
based on N contents and aggregation states.
Dissolution, etching, plastic deformation,
mechanical wear and irradiation produce a range of
surface features that may be used to further
characterize diamonds from individual deposits.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jeff W. Harris and K. S. (Fanus) Viljoen are
thanked for their valuable input into the diamond
morphology section. Heidi Höfer provided advice
on crystal growth, Oded Navon on fluid inclusions
in diamond. Anetta Banas and Steven Creighton
helped during data collection and writing. George
Harlow and Tom McCandless are thanked for
formal reviews of the manuscript. Funding by
NSERC and the CRC program is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
AULBACH, S., SHIREY, S.B., STACHEL, T.,
CREIGHTON, S., MUEHLENBACHS, K. & HARRIS,
J.W. (2009): Diamond formation episodes at the
southern margin of the Kaapvaal Craton: Re–Os
systematics of sulfide inclusions from the
Jagersfontein Mine. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.
157, 525-540.
BALLHAUS, C. (1992): Redox states of lithospheric
and asthenospheric upper mantle. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 114, 331–348.
21
BOYD, F.R. & GURNEY, J.J. (1986): Diamonds and
the African lithosphere. Science 232, 472–477.
BOYD, S.R., PILLINGER, C.T., MILLEDGE, H.J.,
MENDELSSOHN, M.J. & SEAL, M. (1992): C-
isotopic and N-isotopic composition and the
infrared-absorption spectra of coated diamonds –
Evidence for the regional uniformity of CO2–H2O
rich fluids in lithospheric Mantle. Earth. Planet.
Sci. Lett. 109, 633–644.
BOYD, F.R., PEARSON, D.G., NIXON, P.H. &
MERTZMAN, S.A. (1993): Low-calcium garnet
harzburgites from southern Africa – Their
relations to craton structure and diamond
crystallization. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 113,
352–366.
BOYD, S.R., PINEAU, F. & JAVOY, M. (1994):
Modelling the growth of natural diamonds. Chem.
Geol. 116, 29–42.
BREY, G.P. & KÖHLER, T. (1990):
Geothermobarometry in four-phase lherzolites II.
New thermobarometers, and practical assessment
of existing thermobarometers. J. Petrol. 31,
1353–1378.
BREY, G.P., BULATOV, V., GIRNIS, A., HARRIS, J.W.
& STACHEL, T. (2004): Ferropericlase – a lower
mantle phase in the upper mantle. Lithos 77, 655–
663.
BULANOVA, G.P. (1995): The formation of
diamond. J. Geochem. Explor. 53, 1–23.
CANIL, D. (1999): The Ni-in-garnet geothermo-
meter: calibration at natural abundances. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 136, 240–246.
CAPDEVILA, R., ARNDT, N., LETENDRE, J. &
SAUVAGE, J.F. (1999): Diamonds in volcaniclastic
komatiite from French Guiana. Nature 399, 456–
458.
CARLISLE, D.B. & BRAMAN, D.R. (1991) Nano-
meter-size diamonds in the Cretaceous/Tertiary
boundary clay of Alberta. Nature 352, 708–709.
CARTIGNY, P. (2005): Stable isotopes and the origin
of diamond. Elements 1, 79–84.
CARTIGNY, P., HARRIS, J.W. & JAVOY, M. (1998):
Eclogitic diamond formation at Jwaneng: No
room for a recycled component. Science 280,
1421–1424.
CARTIGNY, P., HARRIS, J.W. & JAVOY, M. (2001):
Diamond genesis, mantle fractionations and
mantle nitrogen content: a study of δ13C–N
concentrations in diamonds. Earth. Planet. Sci.
Lett. 185, 85–98.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
CREIGHTON, S. (2009): A semi-empirical
manganese-in-garnet single crystal thermometer.
Lithos 112 (S1), 177–182.
CREIGHTON, S., STACHEL, T., MATVEEV, S., HÖFER,
H., MCCAMMON, C. & LUTH, R.W. (2009):
Oxidation of the Kaapvaal lithospheric mantle
driven by metasomatism. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 157, 491–504.
CREIGHTON, S., STACHEL, T., EICHENBERG, D. &
LUTH, R.W. (2010): Oxidation state of the
lithospheric mantle beneath Diavik diamond
mine, central Slave craton, NWT, Canada.
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 159, 645–657.
DAVIES, R.M., GRIFFIN, W.L., PEARSON, N.J.,
ANDREW, A.S., DOYLE, B.J. & O'REILLY, S.Y.
(1999): Diamonds from the deep: pipe DO–27,
Slave Craton, Canada. In The J.B. Dawson
Volume, Proceedings of the VIIth International
Kimberlite Conference, (J.J. Gurney, J.L. Gurney,
M.D. Pascoe & S.H. Richardson, eds.), Red Roof
Design, Cape Town, 148–155.
DAWSON, J.B. & STEPHENS, W.E. (1975): Statistical
classification of garnets from kimberlite and
associated Xenoliths. J. Geol. 83, 589–607.
DAY, H.W. (2012): A revised diamond–graphite
transition curve. Am. Miner. 97, 52–62.
DE STEFANO, A., KOPYLOVA, M.G., CARTIGNY, P. &
AFANASIEV, V. (2009): Diamonds and eclogites
of the Jericho kimberlite (Northern Canada).
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 158, 295–315.
DEINES, P. (2002): The carbon isotope geochemistry
of mantle xenoliths. Earth Science Reviews 58,
247–278.
DONNELLY, C.L., STACHEL, T., CREIGHTON, S.,
MUEHLENBACHS, K. & WHITEFORD, S. (2007):
Diamonds and their mineral inclusions from the
A154 South pipe, Diavik Diamond Mine,
Northwest Territories, Canada. Lithos, (in press).
DYER, H.B., RAAL, F.A., DUPREEZ, L. & LOUBSER,
J.H.N. (1965): Optical absorption features
associated with paramagnetic nitrogen in
diamond. Philosophical Magazine 11, 763–774.
EGGLER, D.H. (1989): Kimberlites: how do they
form? In Kimberlites and related rocks. (J. Ross
et al., eds), Blackwell, Carlton, 489–504.
EVANS, T. (1992): Aggregation of nitrogen in
diamond. In The Properties of Natural and
Synthetic Diamond, (J.E. Field, ed.), Academic
Press, London, 259–290.
22
EVANS, T. & HARRIS, J.W. (1989): Nitrogen
aggregation, inclusion equilibration temperatures
and the age of diamonds. In Kimberlites and
related rocks. (J. Ross et al., eds), Blackwell,
Carlton, 1001–1006.
EVANS, T., KIFLAWI, I., LUYTEN, W.,
VANTENDELOO, G. & WOODS, G.S. (1995):
Conversion of platelets into dislocation loops and
voidite formation in Type Iab diamonds. Proc. R.
Soc. London Ser. A – Math. Phys. Sci. 449, 295–
313.
FEDORTCHOUK, Y. & CANIL, D. (2009): Diamond
oxidation at atmospheric pressure: development
of surface features and the effect of oxygen
fugacity. Eur. J. Mineral. 21, 623–635.
FEDORTCHOUK, Y. & ZHANG, Z. (2011): Diamond
Resorption: Link to metasomatic events in the
mantle or record of magmatic fluid in kimberlitic
magma? Can. Mineral. 49, 707–719.
FESQ, H.W., BIBBY, D.M., ERASMUS, C.S., KABLE,
E.J.D. & SELLSCHOP, J.P.F. (1973): A compar-
ative trace element study of diamonds from
Premier, Finsch and Jagersfontein mines, South
Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth. 9, 111–114.
FIPKE, C.E., GURNEY, J.J. & MOORE, R.O. (1995):
Diamond exploration techniques emphasising
indicator mineral geochemistry and Canadian
examples. Geol. Surv. Can., Bull. 423, 24–36
FISHER, D. (2009): Brown diamonds and high
pressure high temperature treatment. Lithos 112
(S2), 619–624.
FRITSCH, E. (1988): The nature of color in
diamonds. In The Nature of Diamonds, (G.E.
Harlow, ed.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 23–47.
GAILLOU, E., POST, J.E., ROST, D. & BUTLER, J.E.
(2012): Boron in natural type IIb blue diamonds:
Chemical and spectroscopic measurements. Am.
Mineral. 97, 1–18.
GRIFFIN W.L., RYAN C.G., COUSENS D.R. & SUTER
G.F. (1989): Ni in chrome pyrope garnets: a new
geothermometer. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 103,
99–202.
GRÜTTER, H.S. (2009): Pyroxene xenocryst
geotherms: Techniques and application. Lithos
112 (S2), 1167–1178.
GRÜTTER, H.S., APTER, D.B. & KONG, J. (1999):
Crust-mantle coupling: evidence from mantle-
derived xenocrystic garnets. In The J.B. Dawson
Volume, Proceedings of the VIIth International
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
Kimberlite Conference, (J.J. Gurney, J.L. Gurney,
M.D. Pascoe & S.H. Richardson, eds.), Red Roof
Design, Cape Town, 307–313.
GRÜTTER, H.S., GURNEY, J.J., MENZIES, A.H. &
WINTER, F. (2004): An updated classification
scheme for mantle–derived garnet, for use by
diamond explorers. Lithos 77, 841-857.
GURNEY, J.J. (1984): A correlation between garnets
and diamonds in kimberlites. In Publs. Geol.
Dept. & Univ. Extension, Univ. West. Aust. 8,
143–166.
GURNEY, J.J. (1989): Diamonds. In Kimberlites and
related rocks. (J. Ross et al., eds), Blackwell,
Carlton, 935–965.
GURNEY, J.J. & SWITZER, G.S. (1973): The
discovery of garnets closely related to diamonds
in the Finsch pipe, South Africa. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 39, 103–116.
GURNEY, J.J., HARRIS, J.W. & RICKARD, R.S.
(1984): Silicate and oxide inclusions in diamonds
from the Orapa Mine, Botswana. In Kimberlites
II: the mantle and crust-mantle relationships (J.
Kornprobst, ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 3–9.
GURNEY, J.J., HELMSTAEDT, H.H., RICHARDSON,
S.H. & SHIREY, S.B. (2010): Diamonds through
Time. Econ. Geol. 105, 689–712.
GUTHRIE, G.D., VEBLEN, D.R., NAVON, O., &
ROSSMAN, G.R. (1991): Submicrometer fluid
inclusions in turbid-diamond coats. Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett. 105, 1–12.
HAGGERTY, S.E. (1986): Diamond genesis in a
multiply-constrained model. Nature 320, 34–37.
HAINSCHWANG, T., KATRUSHA, A. & VOLLSTAEDT,
H. (2005): HPHT treatment of different classes of
type I brown diamonds. J. Gemmol. 29, 261–273.
HARLEY, S.L. (1984): An experimental study of the
partitioning of iron and magnesium between
garnet and orthopyroxene. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 86, 359–373.
HARRIS, J.W. (1968a): The recognition of diamond
inclusions. Part 1: Syngenetic mineral inclusions.
Industrial Diamond Review 28, 402–410.
HARRIS, J.W. (1968b): The recognition of diamond
inclusions. Part 2: Epigenetic mineral inclusions.
Industrial Diamond Review 28, 558–561.
HARRIS, J.W. (1987): Recent physical, chemical,
and isotopic research of diamond. In Mantle
Xenoliths, (P.H. Nixon, ed.), John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester, 477–500.
23
HARRIS, J.W., HUTCHISON, M.T., HURSTHOUSE, M.,
LIGHT, M. & HARTE, B. (1997): A new tetragonal
silicate mineral occurring as inclusions in lower-
mantle diamonds. Nature 387, 486–488.
HARTE, B. (2010): Diamond formation in the deep
mantle: the record of mineral inclusions and their
distribution in relation to mantle dehydration
zones. Min. Mag. 74, 189–215.
HARTE, B., FITZSIMONS, I.C.W., HARRIS, J.W. &
OTTER, M.L. (1999a): Carbon isotope ratios and
nitrogen abundances in relation to
cathodoluminescence characteristics for some
diamonds from the Kaapvaal Province, S-Africa.
Mineral. Mag. 63, 829–856.
HARTE, B., HARRIS, J.W., HUTCHISON, M.T., WATT,
G.R. & WILDING, M.C. (1999b): Lower mantle
mineral associations in diamonds from Sao Luiz,
Brazil. In Mantle Petrology: Field Observations
and High Pressure Experimentation: A tribute to
Francis R. (Joe) Boyd (Y. Fei, C.M. Bertka &
B.O. Mysen, eds.), The Geochemical Society,
Houston, 125–153.
HASTEROK, D. & CHAPMAN, D.S. (2011): Heat
production and geotherms for the continental
lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
307, 59–70.
HELMSTAEDT, H.H., GURNEY, J.J. & RICHARDSON,
S.H. (2010): Ages of cratonic diamond and
lithosphere evolution: constraints on Precambrian
tectonics and diamond exploration. Can. Mineral.
48, 1385–1408.
HOWELL, D., O’NEILL, C., GRANT, K., GRIFFIN, W.,
O’REILLY, S., PEARSON, N., STERN, R. &
STACHEL, T. (2012): Platelet development in
cuboid diamonds: insights from micro-FTIR
mapping. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 1–15.
HUIZENGA, J.M., CROSSINGHAM, A. & VILJOEN, F.
(2012): Diamond precipitation from ascending
reduced fluids in the Kaapvaal lithosphere:
Thermodynamic constraints. Comptes Rendus
Geoscience 344, 67–76.
HUTCHISON, M.T., CARTIGNY, P. & HARRIS, J.W.
(1999): Carbon and nitrogen compositions and
physical characteristics of transition zone and
lower mantle diamonds from Sao Luiz, Brazil. In
The J.B. Dawson Volume, Proceedings of the
VIIth International Kimberlite Conference, (J.J.
Gurney, J.L. Gurney, M.D. Pascoe & S.H.
Richardson, eds.), Red Roof Design, Cape Town,
372–382.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
HUTCHISON, M.T., HURSTHOUSE, M.B. & LIGHT,
M.E. (2001): Mineral inclusions in diamonds:
associations and chemical distinctions around the
670-km discontinuity. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol.
142, 119–126.
IZRAELI, E.S., HARRIS, J.W. & NAVON, O. (2001):
Brine inclusions in diamonds: a new upper mantle
fluid. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 187, 323–332.
JACOB, D.E. (2004): Nature and origin of eclogite
xenoliths from kimberlites. Lithos 77, 295–316.
JANSE, A.J.A. (1994): Is Clifford's rule still valid?
Affirmative examples from around the world. In
Diamonds: characterization, genesis and
exploration, (ed. H.O.A. Meyer & O.H.
Leonardos), CPRM Special Publication Jan/94,
Brasilia, 215–235.
JONES, R. (2009): Dislocations, vacancies and the
brown colour of CVD and natural diamond.
Diam. Relat. Mat. 18, 820–826.
KAMINSKY, F. (2012): Mineralogy of the lower
mantle: A review of 'super-deep' mineral
inclusions in diamond. Earth Science Reviews
110, 127–147.
KAMINSKY, F.V., ZAKHARCHENKO, O.D., DAVIES,
R., GRIFFIN, W.L., KHACHATRYAN-BLINOVA,
G.K. & SHIRYAEV, A.A. (2001): Superdeep
diamonds from the Juina area, Mato Grosso State,
Brazil. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 140, 734–753.
KENNEDY, C.S. & KENNEDY, G.C. (1976): The
equilibrium boundary between graphite and
diamond. J. Geophys. Res. 81, 2467–2470.
KIRKLEY, M.B., GURNEY, J.J., OTTER, M.L., HILL,
S.J. & DANIELS, L.R. (1991): The application of
C isotope measurements to the identification of
the sources of C in diamonds: a review. Appl.
Geochem. 6, 477–494.
KLEIN-BENDAVID, O., WIRTH, R. & NAVON, O.
(2006): TEM imaging and analysis of
microinclusions in diamonds: a close look at
diamond growing fluids. Am. Mineral. 91, 353–
365.
KLEIN-BENDAVID, O. LOGVINOVA, A.M.,
SCHRAUDER, M., SPETIUS, Z.V., WEISS, Y.,
HAURI, E.H., KAMINSKY, F.V., SOBOLEV, N.V. &
NAVON, O. (2009): High-Mg carbonatitic
microinclusions in some Yakutian diamonds – a
new type of diamond–forming fluid. Lithos 112
(S2), 648–659.
24
KNOCHE, R., SWEENEY, R.J. & LUTH, R.W. (1999):
Carbonation and decarbonation of eclogites: the
role of garnet. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 135,
332–339.
KOPYLOVA, M.G., RICKARD, R.S.,
KLEYENSTUEBER, A., TAYLOR, W.R., GURNEY,
J.J. & DANIELS, L.R.M. (1997): First occurrence
of strontian K-Cr-loparite and Cr-chevkinite in
diamonds. Geol. Geofiz. 38, 382–397.
KOPYLOVA, M., NAVON, O., DUBROVINSKY, L. &
KHACHATRYAN, G. (2010): Carbonatitic
mineralogy of natural diamond-forming fluids.
Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 291, 126–137.
KROGH, E. (1988): The garnet-clinopyroxene iron-
magnesium geothermometer – a reinterpretation
of existing experimental data. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 99, 44–48.
LEAHY, K. & TAYLOR, W.R. (1997): The influence
of the Glennie domain deep structure on the
diamonds in Saskatchewan kimberlites. Geol.
Geofiz. 38, 451–460.
LUTH, R.W. (1995): Experimental determination of
the reaction dolomite plus 2 coesite equals
diopside plus 2 CO2 to 6 GPa. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 122, 152–158.
MCCAMMON, C. & KOPYLOVA, M.G. (2004): A
redox profile of the Slave mantle and oxygen
fugacity control in the cratonic mantle. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 148, 55–68.
MCCANDLESS, T.E. & GURNEY, J.J. (1997):
Diamond eclogites: Comparison with
carbonaceous chondrites, carbonaceous shales,
and microbial carbon-enriched MORB. Geol.
Geofiz. 38, 371–381.
MCKENNA, N., GURNEY, J.J., KLUMP, J. &
DAVIDSON, J.M. (2004): Aspects of diamond
mineralisation and distribution at the Helam
Mine, South Africa. Lithos 77, 193–208.
MCKENZIE, D. & O'NIONS, R.K. (1991): Partial melt
distribution from inversion of rare-earth-element
concentrations. J. Petrol. 32, 1021–1091.
MCNEILL, J., PEARSON, D.G., KLEIN-BENDAVID, O.,
NOWELL, G.M., OTTLEY, C.J. & CHINN, I. (2009).
Quantitative analysis of trace element
concentrations in some gem-quality diamonds. J.
Phys.-Cond. Matt. 21(36).
MELTON G.L., MCNEILL, J., STACHEL, T., PEARSON,
D.G. & HARRIS, J.W. (2012): Trace elements in
gem diamond from Akwatia, Ghana and DeBeers
Pool, South Africa. Chem. Geol. 314, 1–8.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
MEYER, H.O.A. (1968): Chrome pyrope – an
inclusion in natural diamond. Science 160, 1446–
1447.
MEYER, H.O.A. (1987): Inclusions in diamond. In
Mantle xenoliths, (P.H. Nixon, ed.), John Wiley
& Sons Ltd., Chichester, 501–522.
MEYER, H.O.A. & BOYD, F.R. (1969): Mineral
inclusions in diamonds. Carnegie Inst. Wash.
Yearb. 67, 1446–1447.
MEYER, H.O.A. & BOYD, F.R. (1972): Composition
and origin of crystalline inclusions in natural
diamonds. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 36, 1255–
1273.
MITCHELL, R.S. & GIARDINI, A.A. (1953): Oriented
olivine inclusions in diamond. Amer. Mineral. 38,
136–138.
MOORE, R.O. & GURNEY, J.J. (1985): Pyroxene
solid solution in garnets included in diamonds.
Nature 318, 553–555.
NAVON, O. (1999): Diamond formation in the
Earth's mantle. In The P.H. Nixon Volume,
Proceedings of the VIIth International Kimberlite
Conference, (J.J. Gurney, J.L. Gurney, M.D.
Pascoe & S.H. Richardson, ed.), Red Roof
Design, Cape Town, 584–604.
NAVON, O., HUTCHEON, I.D., ROSSMAN, G.R. &
WASSERBURG, G.J. (1988): Mantle-derived fluids
in diamond micro-inclusions. Nature 335, 784–
789.
NIMIS, P. & GRÜTTER, H. (2010): Internally
consistent geothermometers for garnet peridotites
and pyroxenites. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 159,
411–427.
NIMIS, P. & TAYLOR, W.R. (2000): Single clino-
pyroxene thermobarometry for garnet peridotites.
Part I. Calibration and testing of a Cr-in-Cpx
barometer and an enstatite-in-Cpx thermometer.
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 139, 541–554.
OGDEN, J. (2005): Diamonds, head hunters and a
prattling fool: The British exploitation of Borneo
diamonds. Gems and Jewellery 14, 67–69.
O'NEILL, H.S.C. (1980): An experimental study of
the iron-magnesium partitioning between garnet
and olivine and its calibration as a
geothermometer: corrections. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 72, 337.
O'NEILL, H.S.C. & WOOD, B.J. (1979): An
experimental study of the iron-magnesium
partitioning between garnet and olivine and its
calibration as a geothermometer. Contrib.
25
Mineral. Petrol. 70, 59–70.
PEARSON, D.G. & SHIREY, S.B. (1999): Isotopic
dating of diamonds. SEG Reviews in Econ. Geol.
9, 143–171.
PEARSON, D.G., DAVIES, G.R. & NIXON, P.H.
(1995): Orogenic ultramafic rocks of ultra-high
pressure (diamond facies) origin. In Ultra-high
pressure metamorphism, (R.G. Coleman & X.
Wang, eds.), Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 456–510.
PEARSON, D.G., SHIREY, S.B., HARRIS, J.W. &
CARLSON, R.W. (1998): Sulphide inclusions in
diamonds from the Koffiefontein kimberlite, S
Africa: constraints on diamond ages and mantle
Re-Os systematics. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 160,
311–326.
PHILLIPS, D. & HARRIS, J.W. (1995): Geothermo-
barometry of diamond inclusions from the De
Beers Pool Mines, Kimberley, South Africa. Sixth
International Kimberlite Conference,
Novosibirsk, Extended Abstracts, 441–443.
PHILLIPS, D., HARRIS, J.W. & VILJOEN, K.S. (2004):
Mineral chemistry and thermobarometry of
inclusions from De Beers Pool diamonds,
Kimberley, South Africa. Lithos 77, 155–179.
POKHILENKO, N.P., SOBOLEV, N.V., REUTSKY,
V.N., HALL, A.E. & TAYLOR, L.A. (2004):
Crystalline inclusions and C isotope ratios in
diamonds from the Snap Lake/King Lake
kimberlite dyke system: evidence of ultradeep and
enriched lithospheric mantle. Lithos 77, 57–67.
REGE, S., GRIFFIN, W.L., PEARSON, N.J., ARAUJO,
D., ZEDGENIZOV, D., O'REILLY, S.Y. (2010):
Trace-element patterns of fibrous and
monocrystalline diamonds: Insights into mantle
fluids. Lithos 118, 313–337
RICHARDSON, S.H. (1986): Latter-day origin of
diamonds of eclogitic paragenesis. Nature 322,
623–626.
RICHARDSON, S.H., CHINN, I.L. & HARRIS, J.W.
(1999): Age and origin of eclogitic diamonds
from the Jwaneng kimberlite, Botswana. In The
P.H. Nixon Volume, Proceedings of the VIIth
International Kimberlite Conference, (J.J. Gurney,
J.L. Gurney, M.D. Pascoe & S.H. Richardson,
eds.), Reed Roof Design, Cape Town, 709–713.
RICHARDSON, S.H., SHIREY, S.B. & HARRIS, J.W.
(2004): Episodic diamond genesis at Jwaneng,
Botswana, and implications for Kaapvaal craton
evolution. Lithos 77, 143–154.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
RICKARD, R.S., HARRIS, J.W., GURNEY, J.J. &
CARDOSO, P. (1989): Mineral inclusions from
Koffiefontein mine. In Kimberlites and related
rocks. (J. Ross et al., eds), Blackwell, Carlton,
1054–1062.
ROBINSON, D.N. (1979): Surface textures and other
features of diamonds. Unpubl. PhD thesis,
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South
Africa, Vol. 1: pp. 221, Vol. 2: pp. 161.
ROBINSON, D.N., SCOTT, J.A., VAN NIEKERK, A. &
ANDERSON, V.G. (1989): The sequence of events
reflected in the diamonds of some southern
African kimberlites. In Kimberlites and related
rocks. (J. Ross et al., eds), Blackwell, Carlton,
990–1000.
RUDNICK, R.L. (1995): Eclogite xenoliths: samples
of Archean sea floor. Sixth International
Kimberlite Conference, Novosibirsk, Extended
Abstracts, 473–475.
RUDNICK, R.L. & NYBLADE, A.A. (1999): The
thickness and heat production of Archean
lithosphere: constraints from xenolith
thermobarometry and surface heat flow. In
Mantle Petrology: Field Observations and High
Pressure Experimentation: A tribute to Francis R.
(Joe) Boyd (Y. Fei, C.M. Bertka & B.O. Mysen,
eds.), The Geochemical Society, Houston, 3–12.
RYAN, C.G., GRIFFIN, W.L. & PEARSON, N.J.
(1996): Garnet geotherms – pressure-temperature
data from Cr-pyrope garnet xenocrysts in volcanic
rocks. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 5611-5625.
SCHRAUDER, M. & NAVON, O. (1994): Hydrous and
carbonatitic fluids in fibrous diamonds from
Jwaneng, Botswana. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
58, 761–771.
SHILOBREEVA, S., MARTINEZ, I., BUSIGNY, V.,
AGRINIER, P., LAVERNE, C. (2011): Insights into
C and H storage in the altered oceanic crust:
Results from ODP/IODP Hole 1256D. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 75, 2237–2255
SHIREY, S.B. & RICHARDSON, S.H. (2011) Start of
the Wilson cycle at 3 Ga shown by diamonds
from subcontinental mantle. Science 333, 434–
436.
SHIREY, S.B., CARLSON, R.W., RICHARDSON, S.H.,
MENZIES, A., GURNEY, J.J., PEARSON, D.G.,
HARRIS, J.W. & WIECHERT, U. (2001): Archean
emplacement of eclogitic components into the
lithospheric mantle during formation of the
Kaapvaal Craton. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2509–
2512.
26
SHIREY, S.B., RICHARDSON, S.H. & HARRIS, J.W.
(2004): Integrated models of diamond formation
and craton evolution. Lithos 77, 923–944.
SIMAKOV, S.K. (2006): Redox state of eclogites and
peridotites from sub-cratonic upper mantle and a
connection with diamond genesis. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 151, 282–296.
SMART, K.A., CHACKO, T., STACHEL, T.,
MUEHLENBACHS, K., STERN, R.A. & HEAMAN,
L.M. (2011): Diamond growth from oxidized
carbon sources beneath the Northern Slave
Craton, Canada: A δ13C–N study of eclogite-
hosted diamonds from the Jericho kimberlite.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 75, 6027–6047.
SOBOLEV, N.V. (1977): Deep-seated inclusions in
kimberlites and the problem of the composition of
the upper mantle. AGU, Washington (Translated
from the Russian edition, 1974).
SOBOLEV, N.V. & SHATSKY, V.S. (1990): Diamond
inclusions in garnets from metamorphic rocks – a
new environment for diamond formation. Nature
343, 742–746.
SOBOLEV, N.V., LAVRENT'EV, Y.G., POSPELOVA,
L.N. & SOBOLEV, V.C. (1969): Chrome pyrope
from Yakutian diamonds. Doklady Akademii
Nauk SSSR 189, 133–136.
SOBOLEV, N.V., BARTOSHINSKY, Z.V., YEFIMOVA,
E.S., LAVRENT'YEV, Y.G. & POSPELOVA, L.N.
(1970): Association of olivine, garnet and
chrome-diopside from Yakutian diamonds (in
Russian). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 192,
1349–1353.
SOBOLEV, N.V., LAVRENT'EV, Y.G., POKHILENKO,
N.P. & USOVA, L.V. (1973): Chrome-rich garnets
from the kimberlites of Yakutia and their
paragenesis. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 40, 39–52.
SOBOLEV, N.V., GALIMOV, E.M., IVANOVSKAIA,
I.N. & EFIMOVA, E.S. (1979): Isotopic
composition of carbon from diamonds containing
crystalline inclusions. Doklady Akademii Nauk
SSSR 249, 1217–1220.
SOBOLEV, N.V., SNYDER, G.A., TAYLOR, L.A.,
KELLER, R.A., YEFIMOVA, E.S., SOBOLEV, V.N.
& SHIMIZU, N. (1998): Extreme chemical
diversity in the mantle during eclogitic diamond
formation: Evidence from 35 garnet and 5
pyroxene inclusions in a single diamond. Int.
Geol. Rev. 40, 567–578.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
SOBOLEV, V.S. & SOBOLEV, N.V. (1980): New
proof on very deep subsidence of eclogitized
crustal rocks. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 250,
683–685.
SPETSIUS, Z.V., BELOUSOVA, E.A., GRIFFIN, W.L.,
O'REILLY, S.Y. & PEARSON, N.J. (2002): Archean
sulfide inclusions in Paleozoic zircon megacrysts
from the Mir kimberlite, Yakutia: implications for
the dating of diamonds. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett.
199, 111–126.
STACHEL, T. (2001): Diamonds from the
asthenosphere and the transition zone. Eur. J.
Mineral. 13, 883–892.
STACHEL, T. & HARRIS, J.W. (2008): The origin of
cratonic diamonds – constraints from mineral
inclusions. Ore Geol. Rev. 34, 5–32.
STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W., BREY, G.P. & JOSWIG,
W. (2000): Kankan diamonds (Guinea) II: lower
mantle inclusion parageneses. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 140, 16–27.
STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W., TAPPERT, R. & BREY,
G.P. (2003): Peridotitic diamonds from the Slave
and the Kaapvaal cratons – similarities and
differences based on a preliminary data set. Lithos
71, 489–503.
STACHEL, T., VILJOEN, K.S., MCDADE, P. &
HARRIS, J.W. (2004): Diamondiferous
lithospheric roots along the western margin of the
Kalahari Craton – the peridotitic inclusion suite in
diamonds from Orapa and Jwaneng. Contrib.
Mineral. Petrol. 147, 32–47.
STACHEL, T., BREY, G.P. & HARRIS, J.W. (2005):
Inclusions in sublithospheric diamonds: glimpses
of deep earth. Elements 1, 73–78.
STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W. & MUEHLENBACHS, K.
(2009): Sources of carbon in inclusion bearing
diamonds. Lithos 112 (S2), 625–637.
SUNAGAWA, I. (1984): Morphology of natural and
synthetic diamond crystals. In Materials science
of the Earth's interior, (I. Sunagawa, ed.), Terra
Scientific, Tokyo, 303–330.
TAPPERT, R. & TAPPERT, M.C. (2011): Diamonds in
Nature: A Guide to Rough Diamonds. Springer,
New York, pp. 142.
TAPPERT, R., STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W., SHIMIZU,
N. & BREY, G.P. (2005a): Mineral inclusions in
diamonds from the Panda kimberlite, Slave
Province, Canada. Eur. J. Mineral. 17, 423–440.
27
TAPPERT, R., STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W.,
MUEHLENBACHS, K., LUDWIG, T. & BREY, G.P.
(2005b): Subducting oceanic crust: the source of
deep diamonds. Geology 33, 565–568.
TAPPERT, R., STACHEL, T., HARRIS, J.W.,
MUEHLENBACHS, K., LUDWIG, T. & BREY, G.P.
(2005c): Diamonds from Jagersfontein (South
Africa): messengers from the sublithospheric
mantle. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 150, 505–522.
TAYLOR, L.A., KELLER, R.A., SNYDER, G.A.,
WANG, W.Y., CARLSON, W.D., HAURI, E.H.,
MCCANDLESS, T., KIM, K.R., SOBOLEV, N.V. &
BEZBORODOV, S.M. (2000): Diamonds and their
mineral inclusions, and what they tell us: A
detailed "pull-apart" of a diamondiferous eclogite.
Int. Geol. Rev. 42, 959–983.
TAYLOR, W.R. (2004): Impurity measurements in
diamonds using IR. Rough Diamond Review 4,
40–42.
TAYLOR, W.R. & GREEN, D.H. (1989): The role of
reduced C–O–H fluids in mantle partial melting.
In Kimberlites and related rocks. (J. Ross et al.,
eds), Blackwell, Carlton, 592–602.
TAYLOR, W.R., JAQUES, A.L. & RIDD, M. (1990):
Nitrogen-defect aggregation characteristics of
some Australasian diamonds: Time-temperature
constraints on the source regions of pipe and
alluvial diamonds. Amer. Mineral. 75, 1290–
1310.
TAYLOR, W.R., CANIL, D. & MILLEDGE, H.J.
(1996): Kinetics of Ib to IaA nitrogen aggregation
in diamond. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 60,
4725–4733.
TOMLINSON, E., DE SCHRIJVER, I., DE CORTE, K.,
JONES, A.P., MOENS, L. & VANHAECKE, F. (2005):
Trace element compositions of submicroscopic
inclusions in coated diamond: A tool for
understanding diamond petrogenesis. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 69, 4719–4732
TRULL, T., NADEAU, S., PINEAU, F., POLVÉ, M. &
JAVOY, M. (1993): C–He systematics in hotspot
xenoliths: implications for mantle carbon contents
and carbon recycling. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett.
118, 43–64.
WALTER, M.J., KOHN, S.C., ARAUJO, D.,
BULANOVA, G.P., SMITH, C.B., GAILLOU, E.,
WANG, J., STEELE, A. & SHIREY, S.B. (2011):
Deep mantle cycling of oceanic crust: evidence
from diamonds and their mineral inclusions.
Science 333, 54–57.
 T. STACHEL – DIAMOND
WEISS, Y., KIFLAWI, I. & NAVON, O., 2010. IR
spectroscopy: Quantitative determination of the
mineralogy and bulk composition of fluid
microinclusions in diamonds. Chem. Geol. 275,
26–34.
WEISS, Y., GRIFFIN, W.L., BELL, D.R. & NAVON, O.
(2011) High-Mg carbonatitic melts in diamonds,
kimberlites and the sub-continental lithosphere.
Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 309, 337–347.
WELBOURN, C.M., ROONEY, M.L.T. & EVANS,
D.J.F. (1989): A Study of diamonds of cube and
cube-related shape from the Jwaneng Mine.
Journal of Crystal Growth 94, 229–252.
WILKS, J. & WILKS, E. (1991): Properties and
Applications of diamond. Butterworth-Heinemann
Ltd, Oxford, pp. 525.
WOODLAND, A.B. & KOCH, M. (2003): Variation in
oxygen fugacity with depth in the upper mantle
beneath the Kaapvaal craton, Southern Africa.
Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 214, 295–310.
WOODS, G.S. (1986): Platelets and the infrared-
absorption of Type-Ia diamonds. Proc. R. Soc.
28
View publication stats
London Ser. A – Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 407, 219–
238.
WYLLIE, P.J. & HUANG, W.-L. (1976): Carbonation
and melting reactions in the system CaO-MgO-
SiO2-CO2 at mantle pressures with geophysical
and petrological applications. Contrib. Mineral.
Petrol. 54, 79–107.
YAMAOKA, S., KOMATSU, H., KANDA, H. & S
ETAKA, N. (1977): Growth of diamond with
rhombic dodecahedral faces. Journal of Crystal
Growth 37, 349–352.
ZEDGENIZOV, D.A., REGE, S., GRIFFIN, W.L., KAGI,
H. & SHATSKY, V.S. (2007): Composition of
trapped fluids in cuboid fibrous diamonds from
the Udachnaya kimberlite: LAM–ICPMS
analysis. Chem. Geol. 240, 151–162.
ZHANG, R.Y., LIOU, J.G., ERNST, W.G., COLEMAN,
R.G., SOBOLEV, N.V. & SHATSKY, V.S. (1997):
Metamorphic evolution of diamond-bearing and
associated rocks from the Kokchetav Massif,
northern Kazakhstan. J. Metam. Geol. 15, 479–
496.