This bold re-dating has already jumped from preprint-style publication into popular coverage, with tabloid reporting repeating the most dramatic interpretation: that the Great Pyramid’s origins could point to an advanced “lost civilization” around 20,000 years ago.
- New Great Pyramid "Internal Pulley System" Theory Examined
- Did You know Giza's Great Pyramid Was Once Dazzling White?
What the New Study Actually Claims
The non-peer reviewed report, uploaded to Zenodo, is titled Preliminary Report on the Absolute Dating of the Khufu Pyramid Using the Relative Erosion Method (REM) and is authored by Italian engineer Alberto Donini. It proposes the “Relative Erosion Method” (REM), comparing erosion on two limestone surfaces at the same location: one exposed since construction, and another exposed only since the outer casing was removed. The logic is that if the younger-exposed surface shows a measurable amount of wear over ~675 years, the older-exposed surface’s wear could be scaled to estimate total exposure time.
Donini’s approach focuses on measurements at twelve points around the pyramid’s base. In the report’s summary (as echoed by secondary coverage), the results vary widely by point, but an overall average is presented that clusters around roughly 25,000 years “before present,” with a probabilistic range extending from about 11,000 to nearly 39,000 years before present, according to Daily Mail reporting.
A key implication is not simply “older pyramid,” but “older core”: Khufu may have refurbished or re-attributed a pre-existing monument rather than initiating it from scratch. That idea is explicitly framed as a possibility rather than a proven conclusion.
- Hidden Geometry in Khufu's Subterranean Chamber
- Has the True Function of the Great Pyramid of Giza Finally Come to Light?
Base of the Great Pyramid of Khufu with the few remaining limestone blocks of the cladding. (Donini, A. 2026/Zenodo)
Why REM Is Controversial (and What It Would Need to Prove)
The reason the news of the claim has quickly hit the headlines is that erosion-based “absolute dating” sounds like a way to bypass historical texts and dynastic assumptions. But the same thing that makes REM attractive also makes it fragile - erosion is not a simple stopwatch. Even sympathetic summaries note uncertainty from changing climate, sand coverage, tourist footfall, and modern pollution effects that may accelerate surface wear. If those factors changed substantially over millennia, scaling 675 years of erosion up to 25,000 years can become a high-risk extrapolation.
Mainstream Egyptology, by contrast, rests on a broader web of evidence: archaeological context, quarrying and transport systems, and inscriptions associated with Khufu’s pyramid complex. Ancient Origins has previously covered disputes where sensational re-datings were strongly rejected by Egyptian authorities, emphasizing that extraordinary claims need extraordinary documentation and transparent sampling protocols.
Donini’s study attempts to calculate the difference in erosion between areas which have been exposed since the pyramid was built, and parts which were only exposed 675 years ago. (Donini, A. 2026/Zenodo)
In practical terms, for REM (or any alternative chronology) to shift scholarly consensus, it would need independent replication, careful controls for micro-environment differences around the base, and cross-checks against other dating strategies, not just a single-model inference. At the moment, even supportive write-ups describe Donini’s work as “preliminary” and “controversial,” which is a fair summary of its status, emphasizes La Brujula Verde.
Why the Great Pyramid Still Draws Radical Theories
Part of the reason radical timelines keep resurfacing is that the Great Pyramid is not only iconic, it is also technically strange. Debates continue about how it was built, including a recent peer-reviewed proposal suggesting internal pulley-like systems and counterweights may have played a role, reframing interior corridors as engineering features rather than purely symbolic spaces.
At the same time, the pyramid’s interior still yields interpretive arguments, including geometric and symbolic readings of lesser-discussed spaces such as the subterranean chamber, which Ancient Origins has highlighted as a renewed area of debate.
So, while the “20,000-year pyramid” claim is far outside the current mainstream date, it lands in a cultural moment where people are already primed to ask whether conventional models fully explain construction methods, labor organization, and long-term site history.
Top image: The Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt. Source: romantiche/Adobe Stock
By Gary Manners
References
Donini, A. 2026. Preliminary Report on the Absolute Dating of the Khufu Pyramid Using the Relative Erosion Method (REM). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18315238
Holloway, A. 2013. Egyptian Antiquities Ministry refutes claim that the Great Pyramid is much older. Available at: /news-general/egyptian-antiquities-ministry-refutes-claim-great-pyramid-much-older-001071
Garcia, A., 2026. An Italian engineer claims that the Great Pyramid of Khufu may be more than 20,000 years old, according to the controversial Relative Erosion Method. LabrujulaVerde. Available at: https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2026/01/an-italian-engineer-claims-that-the-great-pyramid-of-khufu-may-be-more-than-20000-years-old-according-to-the-controversial-relative-erosion-method/
Liberatore, S., 2026. Origins of Egypt's Great Pyramid upended as new clues point to lost civilization from 20,000 years ago. MailOnline. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15506163/Egypts-Great-Pyramid-advanced-civilization.html
