🏛️ What if the Great Pyramid of Giza wasn't built 4,600 years ago — but 25,000?
An Italian engineer has developed a brand-new dating method based on stone erosion, and his results suggest the iconic pyramid could be far older than anyone imagined. If true, Pharaoh Khufu didn't build it — he just gave it a facelift. Here's the full story behind a claim that's shaking the foundations of ancient history.
A Dating Method Nobody Has Tried Before
For over a century, the Great Pyramid of Giza has been attributed to Pharaoh Khufu, who reigned around 2580 BCE during Egypt's Fourth Dynasty. Radiocarbon dating of mortar used between stone blocks, analysis of pottery found at the site, and historical texts have all supported a construction date of roughly 4,600 years ago. This timeline has been one of the most well-established facts in Egyptology.
But in January 2026, Alberto Donini — an engineer affiliated with the University of Bologna in Italy — published a preliminary report that challenges this consensus entirely. His paper, uploaded to the academic repositories ResearchGate and Zenodo, introduces a novel technique he calls the Relative Erosion Method (REM).
The core idea is surprisingly straightforward. The Great Pyramid was originally covered in smooth, white limestone casing stones. Most of these were stripped away around 675 years ago — primarily after a devastating earthquake in 1303 CE — and reused for construction projects in Cairo. This means the pyramid now has two kinds of exposed stone surfaces side by side: those that have been weathering since the pyramid was first built, and those that were protected by casing stones until relatively recently.
By comparing how much each surface has eroded, Donini argues, you can estimate how long the older surfaces have been exposed — and therefore, when the pyramid was originally constructed.
Measuring 12 Points Around the Base
Donini selected 12 measurement points around the pyramid's base, examining either pitting erosion (small cavities caused by chemical and physical weathering) or uniform surface wear. At each point, he estimated the volume of stone material that had been lost over time.
The results varied wildly. One measurement point (Point 1) yielded a date of roughly 5,700 years ago — not far from the conventional timeline. But Point 2 suggested approximately 18,000 years ago. Point 5 indicated over 30,000 years. And Point 9 pushed the estimate to an astonishing 54,000 years.
Donini explains that this wide variation is actually expected. Different parts of the pyramid face different directions, experience different wind patterns, and have been affected differently by sand burial, foot traffic from tourists, temperature fluctuations, and even acid rain. Some blocks may have been shielded by sand for centuries, dramatically slowing their erosion.
To account for this variation, Donini applied a statistical approach using a Gaussian probability curve. After averaging all 12 data points, his calculation produced a mean construction date of approximately 24,941 years before present — or roughly 22,941 BCE. The study also suggests a 68.2% probability that the pyramid was built somewhere between approximately 9,000 BCE and 37,000 BCE.
Was Khufu Just a Renovator?
The implications are staggering. If these estimates are even roughly correct, the Great Pyramid would predate every known advanced civilization. There was no dynastic Egypt 25,000 years ago. There was no Mesopotamia, no Indus Valley civilization, no written language anywhere on Earth. Humans at that time were still in the late Paleolithic era — the Old Stone Age.
Donini doesn't shy away from the implications. In his report, he writes that "around 20,000 years before Christ, there existed a civilization in Egypt capable of constructing at least the Khufu Pyramid." He also suggests that Pharaoh Khufu may not have built the pyramid at all — instead, Khufu may have simply renovated an already ancient structure and claimed credit for it.
Interestingly, the study also examined two smaller "Queens' Pyramids" located next to the Great Pyramid. Unlike the main structure, these smaller pyramids produced dates consistent with the conventional timeline of around 2,500–5,000 years ago. Donini interprets this as supporting his theory — the main pyramid was built by an unknown, far older civilization, while the smaller pyramids were later additions by the pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty.
Why Mainstream Archaeologists Are Skeptical
Despite the buzz this study has generated, the archaeological establishment remains deeply skeptical — and for good reasons.
First, the study has not been peer-reviewed in any major archaeological or geological journal. It was self-published on open-access platforms, and the entire project was funded exclusively by Donini himself.
Second, erosion is notoriously difficult to model over long periods. Egypt's climate has changed dramatically over the millennia. During the "African Humid Period" (roughly 11,000 to 5,000 years ago), the Sahara region received far more rainfall than it does today. These changes in moisture, temperature, and wind patterns mean that erosion rates have not been constant — a critical assumption in Donini's method.
Third, Donini's own data shows enormous scatter. Individual measurements range from about 5,700 to over 54,000 years. Critics argue that averaging numbers with this much variation doesn't necessarily produce a meaningful result.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the conventional dating of the pyramids is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Radiocarbon dating of organic materials in the mortar, analysis of pottery styles at the site, inscriptions and historical records, the discovery of workers' villages, and even the 2013 discovery of "Merer's Diary" — a papyrus written by an overseer who helped transport limestone blocks to Giza — all consistently point to a construction date in the Third Millennium BCE.
As one archaeologist summarized: the pyramids fit perfectly into the known evolution of Egyptian architecture, from early mastaba tombs through step pyramids to the true pyramid form. Pushing the Great Pyramid back 20,000 years requires explaining why this architectural progression exists at all.
The Eternal Fascination with the Pyramids
Regardless of where you stand on the controversy, Donini's study has accomplished something remarkable: it has reignited global fascination with one of humanity's most enduring mysteries. The Great Pyramid has always attracted alternative theories about its origins — from ancient astronauts to lost civilizations like Atlantis. The appeal of these theories speaks to a deep human desire to believe that our distant ancestors were capable of more than we give them credit for.
Donini himself acknowledges that REM is a preliminary tool, not a definitive answer. He has invited archaeologists worldwide to collaborate in refining the method and expanding measurements across the entire Giza Plateau.
Whether REM ultimately gains scientific acceptance or joins the long list of debunked alternative theories, it has given the world one more reason to stare at those ancient stones and wonder: what secrets are they still hiding?
In Japan, this story has sparked intense discussion, with many people fascinated by the possibility of unknown ancient civilizations while others urge scientific caution. How would people in your country react to a claim like this? Do you think it's possible that some ancient structures are far older than we currently believe? We'd love to hear your thoughts!
References
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399913321_Preliminary_Report_on_the_Absolute_Dating_of_the_Khufu_Pyramid_Using_the_Relative_Erosion_Method_REM
- https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202601.0852
- https://greekreporter.com/2026/01/28/great-pyramid-date/
- https://allthatsinteresting.com/when-was-the-great-pyramid-of-giza-built
- https://dailygalaxy.com/2026/02/great-pyramid-egypt-built-before-pharaohs-40000bc-study-claims/
Reactions in Japan
25,000 years ago… that's way before even the Jomon period in Japan. The idea that the pyramid existed when people here hadn't even made pottery yet — that's almost too romantic. But I can't deny it's exciting.
Hold on. Measurements ranging from 5,700 to 54,000 years across 12 points? Way too much scatter. As someone who's worked with statistics, I seriously doubt averaging those gives you anything meaningful.
I've always accepted the 4,600-year timeline, but actually there have been researchers questioning it for a long time. Same with the Sphinx water erosion theory. I don't think it's right to keep dismissing things just because they don't fit existing narratives.
The fact that this was picked up by 'Mu' magazine (Japan's occult/mystery publication) kind of tells you everything… It's a fun story, but uncritically accepting a non-peer-reviewed preprint is risky.
The idea of estimating age from stone weathering rates is interesting in itself. But over tens of thousands of years, climate change, sand burial, human-caused wear… there are too many variables for a linear model. Much more sampling and verification is needed.
I don't think we can rule out the existence of ultra-ancient civilizations. Flood legends exist worldwide, and it wouldn't be strange if a civilization that perished at the end of the Ice Age left behind the pyramids. Science should always be updated.
Radiocarbon dating, pottery typology, workers' village ruins, Merer's papyrus… All this evidence supports 4,600 years. You can't overturn that with erosion alone. This is amateur archaeology by an engineer.
So the Great Pyramid is 20,000+ years old but the Queen's Pyramids right next to it match the conventional timeline? Doesn't this actually show a flaw in the REM method? Larger structures just have more weathering variables.
Assuming constant erosion rates without accounting for the African Humid Period is a serious problem. The Sahara was lush 6,000 years ago. Averaging data that spans periods with completely different climate conditions won't give you accuracy.
I like this kind of 'challenge the conventional wisdom' research. Even if it turns out to be nonsense, attempts to verify established theories from different angles are healthy for science. The problem is when fringe groups start using it to suit their agenda.
This is material I'd love to use in class. Having students think about 'why this research is hard to accept' would make a great exercise in scientific thinking. It's also a good way to teach about the importance of peer review.
Hmm… entirely self-funded, solo research, preprint publication… The ambition is admirable, but from the academic world's perspective, the response is probably 'find collaborators and run replication experiments first.'
I just visited Giza last year. Seeing that overwhelming scale in person, I honestly wondered — could 4,600-year-old technology really build this? When someone says 25,000 years, there's a strange persuasiveness to it… like 'maybe it's possible.'
Pyramid architecture evolved step by step: mastaba → step pyramid → bent pyramid → true pyramid. Having only the Great Pyramid suddenly jump back 20,000 years completely contradicts this technical lineage. I understand the romance, but the evidence is far too thin.
Topics like this go viral regularly because humans long for a 'great unknown past.' UFO theories have the same structure. Even if we never get answers, I think the joy of imagining is worth preserving.
As someone who's worked in archaeology for 30 years, deriving dates from erosion patterns is an extremely crude method. The Giza Plateau's climate changed dramatically from the Ice Age through the Holocene. Estimating tens of thousands of years with a linear model isn't scientifically sound.
Honestly, this is exciting. Mainstream archaeology hasn't figured everything out. The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis was laughed at initially, but now more people study it seriously. New perspectives should be welcomed.
As an Egyptian, parts of this feel uncomfortable. The implication that 'Egyptians couldn't have built it' echoes a racist trope that was debunked decades ago. Our ancestors absolutely built the pyramids. Papyrus records prove it.
I'm Italian like Donini and honestly a bit embarrassed. I respect his passion, but self-funding and publishing without peer review disrespects the scientific process. He should have at least collaborated with geologists.
Every time research like this goes viral, it reminds me that humans love mysteries. People get more excited by 'what if' than whether it's scientifically correct. That's not inherently bad, but let's not forget critical thinking.
Brazil has giant geoglyphs made by indigenous peoples too. Many aren't dated. The sense that official archaeology might be missing ancient technologies is shared in South America as well.
From a materials science perspective, limestone weathering is a non-linear process. Initial weathering is fast, then slows as a stable surface forms. Donini's model doesn't seem to account for this non-linearity, which could cause overestimation.
India also has many sites claimed to be older than official dates, like the submerged ruins of Dwarka. I worry this kind of research gets co-opted to support 'alternative chronology' movements. Science shouldn't lose to sensationalism.
Former military, saw the pyramids while stationed in the Middle East. The precision is insane. Even if it was possible with 4,600-year-old tech, it's still an almost unbelievable feat. Regardless of age, my awe for human capability stays the same.
China has also found unexpectedly ancient and advanced civilizations, like Sanxingdui. We should be humble about not knowing everything, but accepting unverified hypotheses is a different matter entirely.
I'm an archaeology student. Showed this paper to my professor and got a flat 'interesting, but this methodology wouldn't pass even an undergrad thesis' lol. Still, it has value as a conversation starter.
As a Graham Hancock fan, part of me wants to say 'told you so,' but honestly this data alone isn't strong enough. It would be much more convincing if independent researchers verified the REM method.
As a historian from the Middle East, theories that diminish ancient Egyptian achievements should be handled carefully. Claims of alien or ultra-ancient builders can implicitly deny the intelligence of African and Middle Eastern peoples.
Looking back at Russian science history, there are cases where rejected theories were later proven correct. Completely dismissing this now is premature. However, the burden of proof lies with the proponent.
As a French person, I'll note that Westerners have been obsessed with pyramid 'mysteries' since Napoleon. Research like this looks less like science and more like cultural projection — awe at something we can't fully understand.