A new claim that the Great Pyramid of Giza could be closer to 20,000 years old than to the 4,500 years accepted by most Egyptologists has jolted one of archaeology’s most settled timelines. The suggestion, which would make the monument roughly 10,000 years older than current estimates, leans on unconventional methods and has already sparked a sharp divide between enthusiasts of lost civilizations and specialists who see little reason to abandon the established chronology.
The debate is not just about a single monument. If the Great Pyramid truly predated pharaonic Egypt by many millennia, it would imply an unknown, highly organized culture capable of quarrying, transporting, and precisely setting multi‑ton stone blocks long before the Nile Valley’s documented kingdoms emerged.
What we actually know about the Great Pyramid’s age
Before weighing radical new dates, I have to start with what is firmly on the record. The Great Pyramid is widely understood to have been built for the Fourth Dynasty king Khufu, also known as Cheops, around the middle of the third millennium BCE, as part of a larger funerary complex on the Giza Plateau that includes subsidiary pyramids, boat pits, and extensive cemeteries for elites and workers. That framework is supported by inscriptions naming Khufu inside the structure, the layout of the surrounding necropolis, and the broader historical sequence of Old Kingdom monuments that can be traced from earlier stepped pyramids to the more refined geometry at Giza, all of which is laid out in detail in standard references on the Great Pyramid.
Specialist field projects have spent decades tightening that timeline using radiocarbon samples from mortar and organic material, cross‑checking them against king lists and stratigraphy. One long‑running research effort on the plateau has focused specifically on “how old are the pyramids,” combining carbon dating, ceramic typology, and analysis of construction ramps to argue that the major pyramids cluster in a relatively narrow window in the Old Kingdom, with the Great Pyramid’s construction falling squarely in Khufu’s reign according to these chronological studies. Within that framework, the monument is already ancient, but not tens of thousands of years old.
The new 20,000‑year claim and Alberto Donini’s method
The latest controversy centers on a preliminary paper that pushes the Great Pyramid’s origins back toward the end of the last Ice Age. In that work, Italian engineer Alberto Donini proposes that the structure could be closer to 20,000 years old, a figure that, if taken at face value, would make it roughly 10,000 years older than the standard Old Kingdom date and place its construction in a world of hunter‑gatherers rather than centralized states. Donini’s argument is framed as a challenge to conventional Egyptology and is presented as a way to “upend” the accepted origins of the monument, with one report describing the idea as a 20,000-Year claim that would require a previously unknown level of prehistoric organization in Egypt.
Donini bases his proposal on what he calls the Relat method, a nontraditional dating approach that compares geometric and astronomical relationships rather than relying on organic samples or stratified artifacts. In a paper released earlier this year, he outlines how this Relat technique is applied to the pyramid’s dimensions and alignments, and he explicitly acknowledges that his work is not yet peer-reviewed and must be interpreted within archaeological science rather than as a replacement for it. The study’s own description notes that it is a preliminary effort that invites further measurements and collaboration, a caveat that is easy to overlook when the headline number is so dramatic but is clearly spelled out in the discussion of the Relat approach.
Erosion, weathering and the 40,000‑year speculation
Donini’s proposal is not the only attempt to stretch the pyramid timeline far beyond the Old Kingdom. Another scientist has argued that the erosion visible on some pyramid stones is so advanced that it must record tens of thousands of years of weathering, suggesting that parts of Egypt’s pyramids could be as much as 40,000 years old. This line of reasoning compares the wear on blocks in the Great Pyramid complex with nearby stones that are assumed to be younger, then extrapolates a vast age difference from the contrast in surface degradation, a leap that has been summarized in coverage of the 40,000 years claim.
From a scientific standpoint, I find this erosion argument particularly fragile. Weathering rates depend on a complex mix of factors, including microclimate, stone quality, salt content, and human intervention, and cannot be safely converted into a simple “years per millimeter” formula. Egyptologists also point out that many blocks have been exposed, reburied, and re‑exposed over time, and that some surfaces were deliberately roughened or recut in antiquity, which further complicates any attempt to read age directly from their condition. Without independent checks from radiocarbon dating, tool mark analysis, or stratified deposits, the erosion comparison remains an intriguing observation rather than a reliable clock, even if it continues to fuel headlines about pyramids that might be tens of thousands of years older than the Fourth Dynasty.
Lost civilizations, Cheops and the lure of deep time
The idea of a Great Pyramid that predates recorded history by 10,000 years taps into a broader fascination with lost civilizations. Advocates often point to other enigmatic sites to argue that advanced cultures may have risen and fallen long before the familiar sequence of Mesopotamia and Egypt. One travelogue about “Egypt Mystery” tours, for instance, leans into stories of hidden chambers, unexplained alignments, and supposed cover‑ups around the Great Pyramid and its surroundings, while also highlighting how little physical evidence we actually have for Khufu himself, including a tiny two inch statue of Cheops that has become a touchstone for those who doubt the conventional narrative. In that same context, the author notes that some proposed alignments and structures in the region are dated by enthusiasts to around 10500 BC, a figure that appears in discussions of Mysteries tied to the plateau.
These stories resonate because they promise a deeper, stranger human past, one in which the Great Pyramid becomes a surviving fragment of an otherwise vanished world. Yet when I compare them with the archaeological record, the gap is stark. The Giza Plateau is not an isolated megalith but part of a dense landscape of tombs, workers’ villages, quarries, and causeways that fit neatly into the social and political fabric of Old Kingdom Egypt. The logistics of quarrying and hauling limestone and granite blocks, organizing labor crews, and feeding thousands of workers are all documented in inscriptions and settlement remains that match the accepted chronology. That is why, despite the romance of a 10,000‑year‑older pyramid, most specialists continue to see Khufu’s project as the culmination of a visible architectural evolution rather than an inexplicable outlier dropped into history from nowhere.
How the new claims fit into a global pattern of ancient‑age debates
The Great Pyramid is not the only monument caught in a tug‑of‑war between mainstream dating and much older speculative timelines. Debates over Japan’s Yonaguni Monument, a submerged rock formation off Yonaguni Island, follow a similar script, with some researchers arguing that its terraces and steps are natural and others insisting they are the remains of a sunken city. One of the most intriguing aspects of that argument is age: while the Great Pyramids of Giza are generally dated to about the middle of the third millennium BCE, some proponents of a human‑made Yonaguni structure suggest it could be more than 10,000 years old, a contrast that is often highlighted in discussions of the Yonaguni Monument.
More from Morning Overview