The document discusses how environmental factors influenced the development of ancient Egyptian civilization. Specifically, it analyzes how the flooding patterns and geography of the Nile river valley contributed to Egyptians developing centralized governance, urbanization, and constructing monumental pyramid structures during the Old Kingdom. While the Nile's floods enabled agriculture and unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, the irregular flooding also necessitated coordination between communities and establishment of bureaucracy to manage resources. Over time, this bureaucratic system expanded and perpetuated itself, though later architectural styles of pyramids and tombs had more to do with cultural traditions than the environment. A comparison is also drawn to the slower urbanization of Iron Age Europe, which lacked similar geographical pressures or incentives for large

1. Patrick Bones
Classics 176
Professor Roncaglia
Urban and Rural Spaces in the Ancient World
Term Paper
Land of the Pharaohs or of the Nile?
The Environmental Impact of Geography on the Development of Egyptian
Urbanized Civilization
Bones 1

2. Part One
! The field of environmental determinism has run into major obstacles during the
last century and has even been accused of attempting to legitimize racism and
European imperialism. Yet despite the controversy, the initial premise remains quite
alluring. How do environmental factors influence the development of civilization,
particularly in the context of the ancient world? To what extent can modern scholars
attribute a civilization’s accomplishments to the ingenuity of its people and not to
specific environmental advantages? This paper will trace the development of the
Egyptian state and the effect of geographical determinants on the land’s most famous
constructions projects; specifically Egypt’s pyramidal structures built during the during
the Old Kingdom in the third millennium B.C.E. Additionally, this paper will also briefly
discuss the concept of urbanization by comparing Egyptian cities and Iron Age Gallic
Oppida of the La Tene culture.
! Herodotus is attested to have once said that Egypt was the ‘gift of the Nile’ and
although this oversimplifies and quite possibly demeans the ingenuity and
accomplishments of its people, there is some level of validity to his statement.
Historically, at least before the construction of the Aswan Dam in the 1960s,1 the annual
flooding of the Nile provided both fertilized soil and irrigation for the land along its bank.
This “dependable” source of arable land allowed for the development of agricultural
surpluses which in turn enabled Egypt’s culture to flourish. Unfortunately, the
dependability of the Nile as a water source was offset by its irregular pattern of flooding.
Bones 2
1 Rosenberg, Matt. Aswan High Dam

3. “The rate of siltation is not uniform and has varied dramatically through time.”2 Over
flooding would result in damage to crops and infrastructure while limited inundation
would decrease the amount of arable land, leading to food shortages. This apotropaic
river flooding cycle necessitated cooperative management, at least at a local or regional
level. Additionally, river transit linked the entire country and acted as a constant unifying
theme. “The channel of the Nile was also essential for navigation, serving as an artery
circulating food and goods from one part of Egypt to another, and linking Egypt with its
neighbours to the south, north and east.” 3 The linear nature of the Nile forced early
peoples into frequent contact which facilitated the spread of ideas and the refinement of
Egyptian culture. “From the earliest times, boats were used to transport people between
villages during the inundation, ferry across the channel and haul cattle, grain and other
substances from one place to another. They were also used in military campaigns.
Boats thus played a major role in unifying the country. Besides the donkey, which was
used for overland transport, boats made possible the economic integration of the
country. Food from one district could be delivered to another struck by famine. Food
stored from several districts in a central granary could be used to secure the welfare of
people in the region. The emergence of kingship in Egypt might have been linked with
coordinating the collection of grain and relief activities as the most viable strategy to
cope with unpredictable crop failures in any of the districts.”4 Thus the regular
unpredictability the Nile’s flooding theoretically directly contributed to the establishment
of lower tier bureaucracy throughout Upper and Lower Egypt to combat the river’s
Bones 3
2 Hassan p.60
3 Hassan pg.54
4 Hassan pg.62

4. destructive capability. The Nile also served as an ideological basis for the early Egyptian
people. Their worldview was dualistic in nature; Kemit versus Deshret,5 the Pharaoh
above the commoners, Egypt against Sea Peoples, and life before the afterlife.
! Even though, in holistic sense, ancient Egypt was rich in natural resources, they
were not distributed evenly. Upper Egypt had magnificent mineral resources, particularly
in stone types: granite, sandstone, limestone, quartzite, hematite and porphyry.6
Additionally, it had access to the gold and ivory from what is now present day Sudan.
On the other hand, Lower Egypt had papyrus, overseas trade via the Mediterranean,
access to turquoise from the Sinai Peninsula and trading caravans from Mesopotamia
via Palestine. This uneven distribution of resources, paired with a centralized means of
travel and agriculture, lend to a competition over resources and to eventual centralized
authoritarian control. Therefore it is unsurprisingly that the two halves were united by
Menes/Narmer around 3150 B.C.E. and Egypt became a single kingdom. “The first
royal house numbers eight kings, the first of whom Menes, of this reigned for 62 years.
He was carried off by a hippopotamus and perished.”7 This quotation from Manetho, a
Ptolemaic Egyptian priest from the third century B.C.E. demonstrates the lasting cultural
memory of the Egyptian people. But his history of ruling dynasties should be
approached critically since there was a span of nearly 2800 years separating him from
Menes. Nevertheless, the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt did occur and led to the
creation of some of the most impressive structures of antiquity; the pyramids.
Bones 4
5 Peck p.9
6 Peck p.13
7 Manetho’s Aegyptiaca Fr. 6, p.29

5. ! The agricultural wealth of Egypt, paired with its mineral resources enabled the
existence of a large scale state bureaucracy and the flourishing of literary and artistic
works. But because of the system of governance, pharaonic authoritarianism, the
monumental structures built were largely single purposed. They served to glorify the
pharaoh and preserve him or her in the afterlife. If Egypt’s government had developed
differently, into a more communal and less stratified system, like that of Neolithic Britain,
its monuments might have been similarly geared towards the benefit of the people at
large. The key shift in Egyptian monumental building came with the Pharaoh Djoser/
Netjerikhet. Around 2650 B.C.E. he constructed a stone step pyramid at Saqqara.
“There were pressing practical reasons for the tomb makers to abandon mud-brick
architecture, for the superstructures of some of the contemporary mastabas were
reaching sixes close to the limits of mud brick as a building medium.”8 This transition to
stone building materials marked a drastic shift from the traditional predynastic style of
architecture. The following thousand years saw an increasing of imitations of Djoser’s
step pyramid.
! One notable exception to the theory of environmental determinism which must be
address when considering Egyptian pyramids is humanity’s tendency for the
perpetuation of tradition. The construction of later pyramidal structures, such as the
Bent Pyramid, Red Pyramid, or the Pyramids of Giza built by Khufu, Khafre, and
Menkaure can be attributed to the practice of dynastic tradition rather than
environmental influences. Once one ruler establishes the trend of building a specific
type of monumental structure the pattern tends to stick. This is proven by the trends of
Bones 5
8 Romer 284

6. ruling classes throughout the Mediterranean and specifically by the building projects of
Roman Emperors. Trajan build a much larger and more elaborate set of baths right next
door to the Baths of Titus, This was likely done to compare himself to the earlier Flavian
dynasty and prove that he was deserving of their legacy. Dynastic building projects, in
the ancient world, frequently became a competition of legacies. Additionally, the later
shift of royal Egyptian tombs to the Valley of the Kings is further evidence of practical
adaptation. Egyptian rulers realized that if they wanted their tomb to remain undisturbed
for all eternity, then it wasn’t the best idea to place a giant pyramid shaped “rob me” sign
above their tomb. In summation, the type of government was in large part dictated by
the environment. But the subsequent stylistic choices chosen by Pharaonic rulers was
due to social and cultural practicalities.
! In conclusion, urbanization of ancient Egypt began long before the dynastic
period, “as early as Naqada I, powerful centres had developed at this, Naqada and
Hierakonpolis.”9 Although paling in comparison to later Ptolemaic and Roman periods,
“the population of Ancient Egypt that could be supported by basin irrigation and cereals
is estimated at 1.2 million during the Old Kingdom (3000-2200 BC), 2.1 million in the
New Kingdom (1550-1070 BC) and 3.2 million in the Graeco-Roman period from 332
BC to AD 395 (Hassan 1993:170),”10 they still act as a useful gage on the effects
geography has on riverine civilizations. The annual unpredictability of the Nile’s flooding
necessitated localized coordination between towns and settlements. But the integration
of these various communities would have inevitably led to an increase in regional
Bones 6
9 Wilkinson p.49
10 Hassan p.56

7. conflict and competition over power. Therefore “the emergence of mediators to resolve
conflicts probably developed eventually into an organizational structure that served as
an element in the making of early states.”11Since, once in place, bureaucracies are self
perpetuating, they would have expanded to include religious and administrative duties.
“In addition, the role of the state in transporting food by boats from one place to another
was essential...”12 The significance of these predynastic urban centers cannot be
overlooked because they laid the foundation for the later unification of Upper and Lower
Egypt and the foundation of the Egyptian state.
! But this begs a return to the original question. Did Pharaonic Egypt, with all its
wonders, come about because of the ingenuity of its people or because preset
environmental determinants decided its fate? Clearly there were social and
geographical pressures which made large scale urbanization and the establishment of a
permanent bureaucratic system advantageous to early Egyptians. “The rise and
sustainability of Egypt as a nation-state with great intellectual and artistic achievements
was based primarily on cultivating cereals on the floodplain of the Nile.”13 But it remains
possible that technological innovation and development don’t necessarily lead to mass
urbanization. Since organized local agriculture predates centralized governance in
ancient Egypt, it is clear that “Egyptian civilization was not a function of centralized
management of irrigation.”14 Perhaps while Egypt’s environment may have propelled it
away from a rural focus, the resulting endpoint was a unique Egyptian culture.
Bones 7
11 Hassan p.60
12 Hassan p.57
13 Hassan p.69
14 Hassan p.69

8. ! A comparison with the Iron Age, European La Tene culture may provide a better
perspective. In Greg Woolf’s article, Rethinking the Oppida, he states that “Iron Age
settlement does lack many features normally associated with urbanization, such as a
differentiated settlement hierarchy, large scale intra-site zoning of activities and clear
evidence of central place functions on the highest order settlements.”15 This delay in
major city development is quite odd considering that by the late Iron Age, technological
and cultural diffusion into central Europe via trade routes through Italy, the Baltic and
Black Sea regions would have exposed those of the La Tene to “advancements” in
social organization and stratification. Since “the chronological gap between
Neolithicisation and urbanism is much greater in Europe than in most parts of the
world,”16 there must be an underlying reason why Europe didn’t begin to truly urbanize
until “1500 and 1800 AD.”17 Woolf postulates that, “continental Europe is a world of
plentiful resources but poor internal communications,”18 therefore in Iron Age Europe,
there was no need to urbanize, nor were their social pressures pushing for population
densities greater than that of the existing villages and small towns. Whereas in the east,
“both good communications and scarce resources are thought to have contributed to
the development and spread of Mediterranean urbanism, as to the development there of
stable, large scale political structures. The absence of those factors may provide part of
the explanation for the absence of states and cities from Iron Age Europe.”19 It is clear
Bones 8
15 Greg Woolf p.223
16 Woolf p.233
17 Woolf p.233
18 Woolf p.233
19 Woolf p.233

9. that geography, climate change and resource distribution all contribute heavily to the
initial development of urban centers. Yet these factors cannot fully explain the individual
innovations societies made nor their final developments and cultural achievements. A
more nuanced approach is necessary when approaching the study of how and when
‘civilization’ occurs. Environmental Determinism remains as ever, an alluringly elusive
subject.
Bones 9

10. Works Cited
I. Hassan, Fekri. The Dynamics Of A Riverine Civilization: A Geoarchaeological
Perspective On The Nile Valley, Egypt. 1st ed. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., 2015. Web. 19
May 2015.
II. Lloyd, Alan B. A Companion To Ancient Egypt. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2010. Print.
III. Manetho., and W. G Waddell. Manetho. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1940. Print.
IV. Peck, William H. The Material World Of Ancient Egypt. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2013. Print.
V. Rice, Michael. Egypt’s Making. London: Butler & Tanner Ltd Frome, 1990. Print
VI. Romer, John. A History Of Ancient Egypt. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012. Print.
VII. Rosenberg, Matt. Aswan High Dam. About.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 20 May 2015.
VIII. Wilkinson, Toby. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge, 1999. Print.
IX. Woolf, Greg. Rethinking The Oppida. 1st ed. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1993.
Web.
Bones 10