1This paper will try to deal with some issues concerning emerald extraction and commercialization in Roman Egypt. Emeralds were one of the most appreciated mineral resources in ancient times. The exploitation of these gemstones in Egypt is well attested thanks to ancient literary sources and archaeology. Thus, several authors such as Strabo (Geography, 17, 1, 45), Pliny the Elder (Natural history, 37, 17, 65; 37, 18, 69), Claudius Ptolemy (Geography, 4, 5, 8), Olympiodorus (frg. 53.2), the 4th-century monk and bishop Epiphanius (De Gemmis, 40V^h and 88R^a) and the 6th-century monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (Topography, 11, 339), referred to a concrete area in Egypt in which emeralds were obtained: the Smaragdus region. Archaeological survey in the Egyptian Eastern Desert has allowed this region to be located in the current area of the Wadi Gemal National Park (fig. 1).1

Fig. 1 – Location of the site of Sikait in Egypt (D. Fernández Abella).

2Therefore, the Smaragdus region is in a portion of the Eastern Desert, north-west of Berenike and immediately south-west of Marsa Alam. Survey work identified an extensive network of settlements in this zone, most of which related to the control and exploitation of the multiple emerald mines known since ancient times. Among them, we can highlight sites like Sikait, Middle and North Sikait, Nugrus, Wadi Umm Harba, Umm Kabu and Zabara. Particularly of interest is the case of Sikait, the most impressive and best preserved. Located 45 km inland from the Red Sea coast, on a branch road from Wadi Gemal, it is also the best known from an archaeological point of view. Thus, during the years 2000 to 2003, intensive survey, mapping and excavation work yielded a complete panorama of its size and extension: an extensive settlement cut into two parts (eastern and western) by the Wadi Sikait with an extension of 560 m north-south by 270 m east-west, comprising between 150‑200 visible structures (fig. 2).2 The chronology lies between the 1st and 6th centuries AD; however, most of the archaeological levels excavated related to the later phase of the site (4th‑6th centuries). The archaeological interventions in the site were resumed in 2018 by the “Sikait Project”, obtaining new data that have led to the current revision of emerald mining in this area.3

Fig. 2 – The site of Sikait with the trenches dug in 2018 (drawing courtesy of Eastern Desert Survey/Berenike Project, by B.C. Foster, J.‑L. Rivard, S.E. Sidebotham, in Foster et al. 2007, fig. 18-6; annotated by V. Trevin).

3Regarding emeralds, we can define them as the chromium and/or vanadium variety of beryl,4 an aluminium-beryllium silicate that in its green-colored version has attracted commercial interest since ancient times.5 Actually, the quality of the beryl in the Wadi Gemal region is quite poor, in comparison with other areas of extraction.6 Even so, the beryl extracted from this area was still highly appreciated by the Romans, as it was the main, if not the only, source of this hard, green gem within the Empire.7 This explains the relatively extensive documentation of these beryl/emeralds throughout the Empire. Extraction was probably initiated in the Ptolemaic period and continued during Islamic times until the 16th century, when the discovery of the higher quality emeralds from the Colombian mines put an end to extraction in Egypt.8 However, in the current state of the research the major period of extraction documented is the Roman and Byzantine period.

4It is during this phase that we can identify this huge network of settlements dedicated to emerald mining that were included in a larger trade network connecting the Mediterranean with areas such as Arabia or India. Egypt acted as a hinge within this network with the Red Sea ports, like Myos Hormos or Berenike, receiving luxury products that were transported through the desert to the Nile. Within this large trade network, several other small-scale productive networks interacted, including gold mining, quarries such as Mons Claudianus or Porphyrites, and gemstone mining, including amethysts and emeralds. Now, we will focus on one of these small-scale productive networks: the “emerald trade network”. As we do not have enough space for a general overview, we will only deal with three concrete issues: the emerald mine workers, the ownership of the mines and the changes in the late period of this network (4th to 6th century AD).

The emerald mine workers

5One of the main issues concerning the mining sites in the Roman Empire is who worked in them. This is especially relevant in Egypt, where we have data coming from authors like Agatharchides. This Greek historian and geographer, who wrote his works in the 2nd century BC, referred to a massive presence of slave workers linked to the gold mines, and especially to the use of convict labor.9 This perspective generated a historiographical debate that has been questioned for the Roman period in Egypt thanks to the ostraca coming from quarries like Mons Claudianus. These documents seem to imply that most of the workers were free citizens with some degree of specialization, which is logical if we consider the complexity of the processes involved.10

6In the case of the Smaragdus, archaeological evidence cannot help us determine whether the workers were free citizens or slaves. For example, in Sikait, we can theorize about the presence of men and also women and even children, thanks to the discovery of materials such as toys, like stone-carved camels and dolls, bracelets, gaming counters, weights and spindle whorls.11 Even if these materials cannot definitively be related to women and children, they complement the epigraphic data analyzed later and allow us to propose that not only male workers lived in sites like Sikait. This is not an uncommon situation, as we have plenty of evidence about families living together in several of the sites in the Eastern Desert during this period. For example, the works of H. Cuvigny on the ostraca of the praesidia along the route from Myos Hormos to Koptos have shown undeniable proof of the presence of women and children in them.12 However, in cases like Sikait, we do not have any direct information referring to their social or juridical status. This is basically due to the total absence of written texts like ostraca or papyri recovered from this region to date, probably because of the lack of archaeological excavations conducted until now. Luckily, we do have three ostraca recovered in the excavation of the fort of Didymoi that offer some data regarding the workers of the emerald mines.

7Didymoi, in Wadi Khashm al‑Manih, is one of the praesidia that protected the route from Berenike to Koptos in Roman times.13 From this site we have recovered a large quantity of ostraca, of which three refer directly to the workers of the emerald mines, specifically: O.Did. inv. 343, 347 and 376, all of them dated to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In the first case, we have a letter from Longinus to Numerius discussing a lawsuit involving a loan of money to a third party. In the second case, we have a letter from Gaius Terentius to Marcus Longinus referring to some supplies that one sent to the other. We have the same situation in the third ostracon, where Philokles wrote to Kapparis concerning several supplies he sent at some point. The common element in the three documents is emerald workers or smaragdarioi acting as carriers of these messages and products.14 So, for the moment these are the best attestations we have concerning the workers of the emerald mines. What ideas can we extract about them from these ostraca? Firstly, that these workers could go along the routes that connected the mines with the Nile. We can interpret these movements as evidence that they were free citizens who could move through the productive and trade network of the Eastern Desert during the Roman period in Egypt, as we think it would make no sense to have a slave working in the emerald mines sent to deliver messages to the road’s forts. It is more logical to think about free workers moving along the roads for unknown reasons and being used as carriers of messages, as in a large number of other cases documented in the Eastern Desert.15 This does not imply that there was no slave labor used in the mines. In fact, some archaeological items can be linked to the presence of these workers. For instance, the well-documented presence of military units in the quarries or the existence of many skopeloi or watchtowers. In the case of the skopeloi, it is noteworthy that the work on sites like Mons Claudianus, Porphyrites or Ophiates seems to show that, taking into account their orientation, their function was not to counter external attacks, but more probably to control the interior of the facility.16 These elements could act as evidence of the presence, to a certain extent, of slave and convict labor. Anyway, it seems probable that most people working in the quarries and mines were free workers as we do not have any archaeological evidence in sites like Sikait or Nugrus detailing, for instance, separated domestic structures with differing (or poorer) construction patterns like huts; elements that could have been used for the accommodation of slaves.

8During these journeys, the emerald workers acted as carriers of messages and products from one point to another.17 This links with another issue regarding work in the emerald mines: seasonality. If we consider these smaragdarioi moving through the Eastern Desert roads, we can propose that at least some of these workers stayed in the mines only during a part of the year, going back to the Nile Valley at some point, probably being involved in agricultural labor. Of course, it is probable that some workers stayed permanently in the mines. Archaeological evidence such as small-scale husbandry and agriculture or the existence of necropolis, both of which are documented in Sikait, seems to imply that some emerald workers lived in the mining settlements all year round with their families.18 However, we must remember that the ostraca correspond to the Early Roman period, while most of the archaeological evidence comes from the 4th‑6th centuries, making it difficult to establish direct links between the two periods. Anyway, the ostraca provide a complex picture in which we can include several professional and social situations.

9The other main aspect that we can remark from these documents is the presence of a woman among these emerald workers, a smaragdaria. It is not uncommon to find women involved in the productive structure of the Eastern Desert mines, for example in the gold mines.19 However, this is the main reference we have about a woman described as an emerald worker, together with an unpublished ostracon coming from the praesidium of Dios (inv. 1002), in which another smaragdaria appears accompanying a prostitute.20 So, women were working in the mines, although we cannot be certain about their tasks and duties. Maybe they were related to the post-extraction process, as we know that there was some in situ work on the extracted beryl, because of the residues recovered outside of the mining pits. Another possibility could be within the extraction process. Most of the mines in sites like Sikait or Zabara are characterized by the presence of tens of shafts and galleries, some of them of extremely limited dimensions. These could imply that, to some extent, women or children could have been used for extracting the beryl from these spaces. Only the recovery of more data will help us get a better understanding of the participation of women in the emerald mines. However, thanks to these documents we are able to confirm the presence of women in these settlements not just as members of the workers’ families, but also as an active part of the production system. Again, it is important to note that neither archaeological nor epigraphic sources of information are in the same chronological framework, as the ostraca can be dated to the Early Roman period, while most of the archaeological data coming from sites like Sikait is dated to the Late Roman or Byzantine period (4th to 6th century AD). Therefore, we consider that there could have been some changes in the productive system between these two periods, as we will see later. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the importance of these documents for understanding the aspects about the workers of the emerald mines.

The “ownership issue”

10The second aspect we will deal with concerns the ownership of the mines. It is really complicated to know who owned the mines and who controlled the production and distribution of emeralds, especially considering the lack of direct sources of information clarifying these points. Even if we analyze better-known cases such as Mons Claudianus or Porphyrites, this aspect remains far from being solved.21 The traditional historiographic vision considered that most of the mines and quarries from the Empire came under the control of the state or the familia Caesaris after the rule of Augustus and Tiberius.22 Thus, we have a famous passage from Suetonius in his Life of Tiberius (49, 2), where he shows that this emperor took the control of metalla from private hands and from the civitates. Nevertheless, this text and others from authors like Tacitus, discussing the same matter, are not supported by later epigraphic and literary sources, in which we can see several examples of private owners managing these productive areas, either directly or under the tutelage of the imperial government in a leasing contract.23 Anyway, in the case of the Egyptian quarries, it is difficult to determine ownership because neither the inscriptions nor the ostraca usually give explicit reference to this issue.

11The Smaragdus region is not an exception. However, we have some other evidence that can help us consider this matter further. In particular we can discuss two inscriptions documented at Wadi Umm Wikala and Wadi Hammamat. They are similar and dated in the first years of the 1st century AD. They are quite well known as they refer to an official charged with the supervision of the productive regions of Roman Egypt (the metallarches or archimetallarchos), who was probably the man in charge before the appearance of the procurator metallorum.24 The inscriptions refer to Publius Iuventus Rufus, defining him as metallarches or archimetallarchos. Unfortunately, we do not have more references to know the exact prerogatives of this office, but the most interesting data for us is that it appears to be related to the supervision of all the metalla and mines of Egypt, and specifically responsible for the control of pearls, topazes and emerald mines. This directly links this official with the supervision of the Smaragdus and offers the best evidence of state control of the emerald mines, with an evident relationship to the military sphere, as the inscription is clear about the military range of Rufus, tribune of the 3rd legio Cyrenaica and eparchos of Berenike. Later, the epigraphy shows the emergence of another official office: the praefectus Montis Berenicidis, an equestrian rank official charged with the territorial and military control of the desert region around Berenike. Although we do not know exactly where the seat of this official was, his tasks were probably related to protecting roads and trade, so we can consider that he had some link with the supervision of the correct operation of the emerald mines, maybe mainly from a military point of view.25

12If we consider these inscriptions, we can propose that, at least during the first decades of the 1st century AD, the beryl mines were under direct control of the state. This would be logical if we take into account the importance of the Smaragdus, a unique source of this precious mineral in the Empire. However, with the current state of research we cannot discard other options, identified in other areas of the Empire, such as it being owned directly by the familia Caesaris or under a leasing contract implying exploitation in private hands. However, the documentation of the metallarches or archimetallarchos controlling the totality of metalla in Egypt seems to lean more probably towards the first option.

13Even if the hypothesis is suggestive, we cannot project it on the rest of the 1st century or the following centuries, as we do not have enough data. For example, it is unclear if the emergence of the prefect of Berenike implied the supervision of the Smaragdus. On the other hand, the recent excavations in Sikait during the 2018 season have provided new evidence that could offer some insights regarding this “ownership issue” through the excavation of the so-called “Six Windows Building” complex (fig. 3). Located at the northern end of the site, it faces the wadi floor. It sits in a small zone, atop of a retaining platform, and is one of several related constructions that compose a complex. The complex was built on two different levels in which the access was made through a staircase. Apart from the main building (the “Six Windows Building”), there is a smaller one closer to the wadi floor and the remains of additional edifices to the right of the main one. These latter structures are poorly preserved. The whole complex is organized around a central courtyard. The main building comprises two rectangular rooms with a small third room attached at some later date. The building material is local grey quartz-mica schist.

Fig. 3 – The “Six Windows Building” complex (Sikait Project).

14Two trenches were dug inside the building (one in each of the rooms) and a third opened in a small house located just below the main structure, left of the access way to the platform atop of which the “Six Windows Building” lies. The most interesting of the trenches was the one dug in the second room, built against the natural rock of the slope. It is a space of rectangular shape with the following dimensions: 3.15 m on the north side, 2.50 m on the east, 3.85 m on the south and 3.10 m on the west. Apart from the access door and two windows, in the rear wall there was also a shelf and what seems to have been a storage niche (1.65 m high x 1 m wide). The excavation of this trench did not differ significantly from the previous room, showing the same beaten earth floor in both spaces. However, the most interesting revelation came from cleaning the niche. After removing debris that filled this space, a small rock-cut space appeared. Its entrance was 0.90 m high and 0.80 m wide and after it a small tunnel ran obliquely for an unknown distance (fig. 4). The original access was reduced by the addition of the northern wall of the room. This implies that the structure existed before the last occupation of the building, being probably related with a first use in the Early Roman period. In fact, the orientation of the entrance of this structure (N‑S) is not aligned with the standing building. However, it has the same orientation as a foundation wall from the first phase documented in the first room of the building. This space was still in use in the late period (4th‑6th centuries), as is shown by the excavated layers from this period that are directly related to the access. We must highlight that in these layers a large quantity of beryl and residues of beryl extraction were recovered. Both the features of the structure and the beryl recovered offered evidence for considering that this structure could have had the function of a mining pit for the extraction of emeralds.

Fig. 4 ‑ Entrance of the structure documented in the “Six Windows Building” (Sikait Project).

15However, this hypothesis needed confirmation as, for example, this function was not evident from a geological point of view, as the rock in which the structure was cut was not normally linked with the appearance of beryl. That is why, during the 2020 season, a complete excavation and documentation of this rock-cut space was conducted. The results of this intervention in the underground chamber inside the “Six Windows Building” revealed its modest dimensions and the absence of any beryl source, evidencing that it was, in fact, a storage place, and not a mining gallery. It is a general pattern in the settlement of Sikait to have a small rock-cut space in the back room of the edifices built against the mountain rock. A complete survey of these structures was conducted during the 2020 season, confirming that all of them were linked to storage or living areas.26 Thus, we can confirm that most probably the majority of buildings and complexes in both slopes of the settlement had a residential function. Nevertheless, we want to highlight that in all the houses and complexes excavated, a relatively abundant amount of beryl and residues of beryl were recovered. This was the case in the houses located in the wadi floor excavated in the first archaeological seasons and we continued to observe this in the complexes excavated in 2018 and 2020.27 We already mentioned the “Six Windows Building”, in which more than 600 fragments of beryl were recovered.28 But this was also the case in the so-called “Tripartite Building”, a large complex located in the highest part of the western slope, presiding over the site atop of a huge artificial terrace (fig. 5). It is composed of three different buildings: building C, a square edifice in the south (probably a kitchen or a storage space); building B, another square structure in the north (probably identified with a small domestic sanctuary); and building A, a central and larger edifice made of three rooms (the “Tripartite Building”).29 The excavation of building A offered the recovery of 371 fragments in total, being consistent with the evidence found in the “Six Windows Building”.30 So, if we consider this concentration (that, for instance, does not appear in the religious edifices), one possibility is to propose that, after beryl was extracted, it was temporarily stored in these complexes, before its commercialization. If this idea could be confirmed in following seasons, we would be dealing with one good piece of evidence for some kind of private exploitation of the mines, at least in the late period of occupation of the site, in which the inhabitants of these complexes had control over some amount of emerald production and the subsequent trading process.

Fig. 5 – View of the “Tripartite Building” complex from the south-east (J.O. Guzmán).

16Evidently, we need more data to confirm this hypothesis and, even if we can get to this point, many issues and blanks concerning the ownership of the mines would still remain unsolved. To advance this subject, the recovery of written texts like ostraca is crucial. However, for the moment, we can propose that at the beginning of the Roman dominion of this area the Smaragdus could have been under direct state control while in the late period of exploitation the possibility of private mining concessions existing has to be considered. These two situations are not mutually exclusive, as we know that in Roman times there were several juridical conditions regarding the ownership and exploitation of mining areas. For instance, the Vipasca laws are straightforward concerning these aspects: we have evidence of the combination of public ownership and private entrepreneurs acting together even in the state mines, where the Roman administration could hand part of the organizational issues to private partners, helping reduce the burden on the imperial officials.31 However, as said before, only further archaeological work will allow this hypothesis to be confirmed.

Different periods, different networks?

17Finally, a last aspect we want to focus on is the change in the emerald network during the Late Roman or Byzantine period. As seen previously, most of the archaeological evidence coming from the emerald mining settlements is related to this late period. Again, the best-known example is Sikait, in which for the moment almost all the excavated buildings are dated in this phase, at least the best-preserved structures. However, it is also clear that there was an occupation phase of the site during the Early Roman period, as seen in the “Six Windows Building” complex or in the houses dug in the first archaeological seasons in Sikait, while the ancient literary sources and the epigraphy clearly indicate that the exploitation of the mines started, at the latest, after the Roman conquest of Egypt.

18Thus, the main constructive phase in Sikait is dated between the 4th and 6th centuries AD, offering evidence about a general period of increased extraction and commercialization of emeralds. If we put this situation in the general context of the Egyptian Eastern Desert, we can see that it is linked to the recovery of this area, from an economic point of view, after the contraction suffered in the 3rd century.32 The best evidence for this comes from the Red Sea ports and, although Myos Hormos seems to have been abandoned at this point in time, Berenike flourished again and started a new period of splendor during the 4th and part of the 5th century.33 Other examples can be related to gold-mining sites such as Bir Umm Fawakhir,34 quarries like the Porphyrites,35 or the so-called “enigmatic settlements”, a large group of small settlements of unknown function that appeared all along the Eastern Desert from the 4th century and that we will mention again later.36 This recovery is well attested thanks to the archaeological and written evidence retrieved from the city of Berenike, that experienced major changes in its urban and construction features, probably showing adaptation to a new social, economic, and political status.37

19So, we have evidence showing an intensive period of activity in the emerald mines and the recovery of the Red Sea trade network. The third crucial element we need to include in our analysis of this period are the several late literary sources discussing the emerald mines. In this regard, there are three basic references: Epiphanius, Olympiodorus and Cosmas Indicopleustes. These sources are quite interesting as all of them mentioned the emerald mines and showed that they were under the direct control of the Blemmyes,38 for example Epiphanius of Salamis, a 4th century bishop who wrote an exegetical treatise on the twelve gemstones on the High Priest’s breastplate: De duodecim gemmis rationalis.39 One of the gemstones he referred to was an emerald. In fact, he mentions the mountains where the emeralds were extracted and directly states that they were under the control of the Blemmyes, who put the gems on the market. A second source is Olympiodorus, a historian who lived between the 4th and 5th centuries and wrote a history of the Western Roman Empire that has arrived to us through later authors like Photius. It is a remarkable source because of his links with the Roman imperial power. For instance, he acted as Roman ambassador to the court of the Huns and travelled to Upper Egypt, maybe under the same condition, to interact with the several tribes and peoples moving along the limes.40 The importance of this reference is that he also mentions the emerald mines, noting that they provided large quantities of emeralds to Egypt. However, the key data is that he explains that the “barbarians” invited him to visit the mines and that for doing that he needed the authorization of their king.41 Finally, the third source is the 6th-century monk Cosmas Indicopleustes. He was the author of the Christian topography, an interesting book in which he offered geographic data on areas like Egypt, the kingdom of Aksum, the Red Sea and India, thanks to his own experience as a traveller in these regions. Here, we have again a reference to the exploitation of the emeralds by the Blemmyes and some information about their commercialization, as Cosmas mentions that the Ethiopians (probably meaning the Axumites) procured these emeralds and sent them to India.42

20Therefore, we have several ancient authors who insisted on the idea that the emerald mines were under Blemmyan control at least from the end of the 4th century. The references are clear about the control not only of the extraction but also of the emerald trade. So, the question is whether we can think about a “Late Roman or Byzantine emerald trade network” or more likely about a “Blemmyan emerald trade network”. To start considering this issue, we need to deal with the problem of the presence and influence of the Blemmyan people in the Eastern Desert during the Late Roman period. In recent years archaeology is showing that this presence could have been far more intensive than previously thought and, for example, the recent discoveries in the port of Berenike seem to point in this direction. Literary sources refer to the Blemmyes as a nomad population that lived in the area near the Egyptian limes and who, especially from the 3rd century AD, put pressure on the Roman frontier, making several incursions into Egyptian territory.43 The problems in this area finally implied the abandonment of the Dodekaschoinos under Diocletian and a general reorganization of the region.44 Thus, in this new geopolitical context, several parties were interacting in the Eastern Desert, including the Roman Empire, new powerful states such as Aksum and the local nomad tribes such as the Blemmyes and the Noubades. This last group is especially interesting, as it seems that Rome established them in the Nile Valley, specifically to act as a buffer state to prevent Blemmyan incursions.45 On the other hand, earlier regional powers like the Meroitic state disappeared during this period. In conclusion, the 4th century in the Egyptian Eastern Desert saw an important and extensive restructuring that involved several political entities and implied the resuming of the productive and commercial network, but with new features marked by the interests of these new political entities.

21However, our goal is not to go into this complex geopolitical situation in detail, but to contextualize the emerald production within it. To do this, we must assume three initial premises:

• the 4th century implied the productive and commercial network resuming in the Egyptian Eastern Desert and Red Sea coastal regions; this is well attested thanks to the archaeological evidence in quarries like Porphyrites or Red Sea ports such as Berenike;
• it is also supposed that sites like Sikait were restructured in the 4th century, with the construction of the main structures preserved in the site and evidence about an important phase of emerald extraction in the Smaragdus;
• literary sources are clear about the direct control of emerald mines by the Blemmyes since, at least, the end of the 4th century.

22The main issue concerning these three premises is to see if this recovery of the productive and commercial network can be directly related to the increasing presence and influence of the Blemmyes in this area. Unfortunately, it is still complicated to trace this Blemmyan evidence from an archaeological point of view. However, some recent archaeological finds can help to shed new light on this subject. Among them, probably the most impressive are the discoveries made in the “Northern Complex” of Berenike. The epigraphic evidence retrieved could imply a general rethinking about the status of this port in the Late Roman period, in which the Blemmyan population could have had a key role. Of course, this could mean that we have to revise the general ideas about the extent of Blemmyan presence in Egypt and their influence in the Red Sea commercial network.46

23In the case of the Smaragdus, we can consider evidence recovered from Sikait, the best-known site of this region. It is interesting to note that almost all the trenches dug since the first season have a late chronology (4th to 6th century AD) and in almost all of them we can highlight several materials that are more likely related to the local Nubian tradition than to the Roman or classical one. For instance, the excavation of the Large Temple allowed the recovery of several of these items, including stone camel figurines. The documentation of a steatite head is especially interesting, maybe representing Nubian features (fig. 6), combined with other figurines and objects linked with the Graeco-Roman tradition.

Fig. 6 – Steatite head found in the Large Temple (Sikait Project).

24Other interesting elements are several copper-alloy arrowheads recovered in different spaces in the site. For instance, during the excavation of the houses in the wadi floor under the direction of S.E. Sidebotham some of these objects appeared.47 In season 2018 two more of these arrowheads were recovered in the excavation of the “Six Windows Building” (fig. 7). The presence of similar barbed arrowheads in late contexts have been related to Blemmyan warriors in other sites like Kalabsha or Mouweis, near Meroë.48

Fig. 7 – Copper-alloy arrowhead recovered in the “Six Windows Buildings” (Sikait Project).

25The third aspect that can be linked with the presence of Blemmyan populations in settlements like Sikait is the documentation of Eastern Desert Ware. This pottery is usually related to the indigenous population of this region and with a chronology mostly related with the 4th to 6th century AD.49 Although archaeological evidence in the Eastern Desert shows that its presence can be traced back at least until the Early Roman period, Sikait is a good example of a clear association of this pottery with well-dated Late Roman levels (with presence of late coinage and ceramic materials like LR1 amphora or Aswan bowls). Sherds of Eastern Desert Ware have been recovered in all of the trenches that have been dug for the moment by the Sikait Project (all of them chronologically dated between the 4th and 6th centuries AD) and their abundance is very apparent in the only trash dump documented on the site. Located in the highest part of the western slope and linked with the so-called “Tripartite Building”, among Egyptian and Late Roman amphora, a large quantity of Eastern Desert Ware sherds (bowls, plates, cups, etc) has been documented (fig. 8). Thus, the important presence of this handmade pottery in the late phase of the site can be observed as another piece of evidence for the increasing presence of local populations in the Smaragdus region.

Fig. 8 – Eastern Desert Ware sherds recovered in Sikait (F. Sánchez Blanco).

26Finally, a last aspect we want to highlight are the tombs found in the site. The team of S.E. Sidebotham already identified the main necropolis during the surveys conducted at the beginning of the 2000s. It is located on the eastern side of a tall peak west from the main wadi and it consists of a group of about 100 graves, all of them completely robbed.50 As has been noted by Sidebotham, the number of graves compared to the extensive settlement of Sikait probably implies that it was not the only necropolis of the settlement and, in fact, other graves can be documented all around the site. The features of the graves are similar, normally being small pits dug in the floor and covered with circular tumuli composed of irregular stones of varying dimensions (although usually between 2 and 5 m in diameter and 0.5 m in height). The scattered pottery found around the graves is mostly related to the Late Roman period. However, some fragments can also be dated to the Early Roman phase, showing a long period of use of this burial area.

27We can also detect other spaces used as burial zones in the site. Thus, the survey of the highest part of the eastern slope of the site has allowed the identification of several buildings that were probably reused as graves in the late period. For the moment, eight of these buildings have been identified. They have the same features as most of the edifices of the site: composed of one or several rooms, above an artificial terrace and built with local schist stones without mortar. They can vary in dimensions, going from buildings with one single room (as for buildings 1, 2, 4, 5 or 8) to a large complex of over 20 m in length divided in three rectangular rooms (building 3). In all cases, the funerary use implied the utilization of the houses rubble for constructing several tumuli inside the rooms. Depending on the dimensions of the houses, one room can contain from one to even five or six of these tumuli. Most of them have a circular shape with a diameter between 0.5 and 1 m. These small dimensions could imply a contracted deposition of the body. All the tumuli were robbed and offered a large presence of scattered sherds of pottery (seemingly of late chronology, including Eastern Desert Ware and Late Roman amphora) and bone fragments (fig. 9).

Fig. 9 – Image from the eastern part of building 3, with presence of two robbed tumuli (Sikait Project).

28In the case of building 7, we have the best example of the reuse and adaptation of these buildings as a burial space. The southern door of this house was closed with a stone wall, probably trying to seal the building after the funerary ritual was finished. On the other hand, building 6 offers the best evidence of tumuli, with the conservation of one almost totally intact (fig. 10). Its dimensions are 2.30 m in length by 1.20 m in width and 0.50 m in height, practically occupying all of the room extension. The upper part of the grave has a small hole that was used to rob its content, leaving just some pottery sherds and bone fragments.

Fig. 10 – Image of the grave documented in building 6 (Sikait Project).

29It is important to highlight that this type of grave can be documented in almost all of the Eastern Desert, from the Eritrean region to Upper Egypt, being usually linked with the indigenous desert population.51 Thus, the documentation of these graves for the late phase of the settlement could be another interesting piece of evidence for proving the presence of the Blemmyes or desert dwellers in the Smaragdus from the 4th century AD.

30Therefore, both the material culture and the funerary practices seem to point towards a late period of Sikait in which the presence of local desert inhabitants could have had an important role. This hypothesis would fit better with the literary sources that, as we have seen, consider that at the end of the 4th century the emerald mines were under control of this local population. If we imagine the restructuring of the Eastern Desert under Diocletian, the Smaragdus had to be one of the main areas in which the Roman Empire was interested. However, probably the increasing pressure exerted by the Blemmyes during the 3rd century crisis in the limes implied that any kind of intervention in this area had to take into account their presence. And, if we consider the evidence recovered in places like Sikait or Berenike, maybe we need to rethink the new productive and commercial model, not thinking just about a “Late Roman phase” but more likely about a “mixed model” in which the Roman interests were combined with the local tribes’ interests. For the moment it is still impossible to determine exactly how this model worked, but we can consider several options. For example, some authors proposed that ethnic groups like the Blemmyes or the Noubades were incorporated as foederati in the 5th century.52

31That could be an interesting way of explaining the logical process by which these groups were gradually incorporated in the military, economic and social structure of Roman Egypt. In fact, from a military point of view, this integration could help explain one of the main historical issues in the Eastern Desert for the Late Roman period: the abandonment of almost all the praesidia that during the Early Roman period controlled the main roads connecting the Nile Valley with the Red Sea and the productive regions. During the 3rd century most of these praesidia were completely abandoned and just some of them were maintained or reoccupied between the 4th and 6th centuries.53 Considering that from the end of the 3rd century the Roman Empire tried to regain control over the productive and commercial structure of this area, it is strange that the praesidia network was not reused. Of course, there are logical explanations in cases such as the forts of the Koptos/Myos Hormos road, where the demise of the Red Sea port would have had a major repercussion, but this cannot offer a solution for all the praesidia. However, in a situation in which these desert dwellers were gradually integrated (even in an official way), maybe the explanation could be simply that these praesidia were no longer necessary; as if they had been built specifically for protecting caravans from desert bandits and local tribes, if these groups were already integrated within the social and economic Roman network, then it would have been unnecessary to equip all the forts again. We have the same situation with the so-called “enigmatic settlements”, a group of sites located in isolated areas of the Eastern Desert with a chronology of 4th‑7th centuries AD, and with similar features and unknown function.54 It has already been proposed that these settlements could correspond to Blemmyan or desert-dwellers occupations.55 If we consider this hypothesis, a gradual process of settlement of this population would be logical, not just entering pre-existent sites like Sikait or Berenike, but also creating new communities. These communities could differ in their dimensions and functions, going from small pastoral settlements to large residential villages (as, for example, the impressive site of Shenshef). Of course, in this case only archaeological excavations in these sites will allow this possibility to be corroborated.

32If we go back to the Smaragdus, after the important restructuring the site experienced at the beginning of the 4th century, a new period of intensive exploitation of the beryl mines started. The presence of the indigenous population could imply their participation in the extraction of emeralds up to a certain extent. Unfortunately, the lack of written evidence makes it difficult to define aspects such as the ownership of the mines or the productive model in this late phase. However, if we consider that after a century the mines were under Blemmyan control, we can theorize about a process in which the Roman power gradually lost control of the mines, probably because the Roman capacity and interest in controlling this area diminished progressively during the 4th century. We have to imagine that, at some point, the Blemmyes peacefully assumed control of the mines and started to manage them on their own, as there is not a single signal of violence in the dug archaeological levels. On the other hand, the excavated temples, houses and complexes seem to show continuity without major disturbances during this late phase. Thus, the Blemmyes gained control not only over the extraction of the Eastern Desert emeralds but also of their commercialization, as clearly shown by authors such as Cosmas Indicopleustes talking about the trading connection with Aksum and India. This situation seemed to continue until the beginning of Islamic period, as shown by interesting sources like al‑Maqrizi, a late source from the 14th‑15th century. This Islamic historian referenced the Egyptian emerald mines, saying that the Byzantines left remains of the mining works and that the mines and their managers were still there when Islamic armies conquered Egypt.56 It is probable that these “managers” were precisely the Blemmyes that controlled the mines for a couple of centuries.

33In conclusion, the increase of the available evidence points towards the need for rethinking the changes experienced in the Smaragdus region between the 4th and 6th centuries, focusing on the role exercised by local nomadic tribes such as the Blemmyes. We can say the same about other aspects related to the extraction and commercialization of emeralds that we have dealt with, like the ownership of the mines or the status of the workers who lived in this area. In this regard, only the continuity of archaeological work in sites like Sikait will allow the enigmas around the emeralds from the Egyptian Eastern Desert to be deciphered.