City and site · Egypt · 3 min read, approximately

Memphis and its necropolis: from mastaba to pyramid

The UNESCO World Heritage Centre describes the necropolis of Memphis as evidence of the development of the royal tomb from the "mastaba" to the pyramid. Which stages the source dates, and which it leaves undated.

The explanations distinguish finds, interpretations and open questions. Sources appear at the end of the page.

Two dated stages

The UNESCO World Heritage Centre page "Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur" states that Memphis is "traditionally believed to have been founded in 3000 BC as the capital of a politically unified Egypt", and that it "served as the effective administrative capital of the country during the Old Kingdom". According to the same page, its fame comes from its being "the first Capital of Ancient Egypt", and it was the seat of royal power for over eight dynasties. These are the two dated stages the source gives for the city: a founding that tradition places in 3000 BC, that is, in the site's Early Dynastic period (about 3100-2649 BCE), and its role as capital in the Old Kingdom. Because of both, and not because of the city's long existence, the article is placed in the two periods. Source 1.

From mastaba to pyramid

According to UNESCO, the property contains "the first complex monumental stone buildings in Egyptian history", as well as evidence of the development of the royal tombs "from the early shape called mastaba" until it reaches the pyramid shape. The Pyramid Complex of Saqqara, it says, contains the first monumental stone building ever constructed, and the limestone step pyramid of Djoser is "the oldest pyramid to be constructed". The archaic necropolis at Saqqara, it says, dates back "to formation of Pharaonic civilization". "First" and "oldest" are UNESCO's claims. Source 1.

Where this sits on the timeline

The English text of the UNESCO page does not date the mastaba or Djoser's pyramid by period or year. The Met's timeline places "the pyramids of Giza and Saqqara" in the Old Kingdom, about 2649-2150 BCE. The end point of the development, the pyramid, therefore lies in the Old Kingdom according to the Met; the "early" shape, the mastaba, is not dated in the sources read, and the article does not assign it to a period. Sources 1, 2.

More than nine thousand tombs

According to UNESCO, the property has more than nine thousand rock-cut tombs, from different historic periods, ranging from the First to the Thirtieth Dynasty and extending to the Graeco-Roman Period, and more than thirty-eight pyramids, including the three pyramids of Giza, the pyramids of Abusir, Saqqara and Dahshur, and the Great Sphinx. That range shows a long use of the necropolis, but a long existence alone is not a dated stage: the article is therefore not placed in the later periods, although the tombs run to the Thirtieth Dynasty. Source 1.

Scope of reading: the UNESCO World Heritage Centre page "Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur" (English text) and the Met's timeline page for Egypt, 8000-2000 BCE, were read on 24 October 2026. The excavation reports of Memphis and Saqqara were not read, so this page gives no plans, measurements or dates of particular tombs.

Source

Sources and further reading

The research and references behind this page. Rights to external content remain with their owners.

  1. 1 Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur

    UNESCO World Heritage Centre · Checked

  2. 2 Egypt, 8000-2000 B.C. (Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, chronology)

    The Metropolitan Museum of Art · 2000 · Checked

Continue from here

Follow the next connection

Every card comes from a documented relation or an editorial link. The reason line explains the connection.

Two sources place the pyramids of Giza in the Old Kingdom and see the Memphite necropolis as testimony to power and organization. What they say about the state that built them, and what they do not.

2 min read, approximately

Related reading.

A radiocarbon study of the royal cemetery at Abydos found that its dates agree with the archaeological order of the tombs but come out 100-150 years earlier than the historical chronology established until then. What that says about dating the First Dynasty, and what it does not.

3 min read, approximately

Related reading.

Reading, accessibility & privacy tools

Adjust the reading experience to suit you. These tools complement your browser and device accessibility settings. Changes apply to this page; they are kept for another visit only if you allowed that in the privacy dialog.