Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
25 comments 
Egyptian Pyramid Sparks Debate After Receiving Hypothesis That Pushes Origin Back to 9,000 B.C. to 37,000 B.C., Based on Erosion and Statistics; On the Other Hand, Traditional Archaeology Cites Carbon-14, Excavations in Giza, Organic Remains, and Administrative Evidence That Firmly Settles the Date Around 2,600 B.C.
The Egyptian Pyramid, in the form of the Great Pyramid of Giza, has returned to the center of a public dispute after a recent study suggested an origin much earlier than the known Ancient Egypt. The proposal shifts dates back thousands, or tens of thousands, of years before the consensus and reignites an old tension between provocative hypothesis and accumulated evidence.
The work attributed to engineer Alberto Donini, affiliated with the University of Bologna, was made available on ResearchGate without peer review. The analysis relies on erosion observed in blocks that would have been protected by the old limestone casing and in exposed blocks, using a statistical model to estimate a construction window that deviates from the accepted standard.
The Study That Pushes Dates Back Before Official History
The starting point of the study is to compare erosion signals in areas of the Great Pyramid of Giza that would have been less exposed due to the limestone casing versus parts that have been exposed for a longer time.
-
How an innovative city combines high technology, well-being, and sustainability to become the largest reference in clean energy on the planet.
-
Couple buys 1846 church in ruins for R$ 660,000, invests R$ 3.2 million in renovations, transforms it into a millionaire mansion, and even preserved a historic cemetery with over 300 graves.
-
He started running at 66 years old, broke records at 82, and is now a subject of study for having a metabolic age comparable to that of a 20-year-old, in a case that is intriguing scientists and inspiring the world.
-
Oldest tree on the planet reappears after 130 years of searches: Wattieza, 385 million years old, was 10 meters tall and had no leaves or seeds; Gilboa fossils in New York solved the mystery in 2007.
From this contrast, the author proposes that the Egyptian Pyramid may carry signs of wear incompatible with just a few millennia.
Based on the statistical model presented, the study indicates a 68% probability that the construction occurred between 9,000 B.C. and 37,000 B.C., with an estimated average around 23,000 B.C.
The hypothesis implies monumental engineering in a period when traditional archaeology does not identify organized societies in Egypt on the scale required for a work like the Great Pyramid of Giza.
Why Erosion Becomes a Fragile Proof When the Gap is Millennia
The use of erosion as a historical clock draws attention for its objective appearance, but experts remind us that the rate of erosion is not fixed and does not occur linearly.
In Egypt, the climate varied over the millennia, alternating between wetter phases and long periods of extreme aridity, and this changes the rate of wear on stone, mortar, and exposed surfaces.
Besides the climate, there are human variables that come into play and disrupt any straight line. Accumulation and removal of sand, constant wind action, tourism, restorations, and interventions over time create a mix of impacts that complicates the use of erosion as a temporal marker for tens of thousands of years.
Assuming linear erosion over 20,000 years is a significant methodological leap, especially when the Egyptian Pyramid is a site with a complex history of use, maintenance, and environmental exposure.
The Shock With the Package of Evidence Supporting 2,600 B.C.
The most direct criticism is that the hypothesis collides with decades of findings in Giza and its surroundings.
Excavations associated with the complex of the Great Pyramid of Giza point to ceramics, inscriptions, administrative records, and organic remains that fit into the period of the Old Kingdom, around 2,600 B.C., supporting the central reading of traditional archaeology.
In this set, carbon-14 dating appears as an operational anchor, applied to materials found on construction sites and contexts related to building.
When carbon-14, stratigraphy, and administrative evidence converge, traditional archaeology tends to treat hypotheses outside this framework as extraordinary and lacking equally extraordinary evidence.
What Changes and What Does Not Change If the Hypothesis Gains Strength
If a hypothesis that repositions the Egyptian Pyramid to 9,000 B.C. to 37,000 B.C. one day holds up, the impact goes beyond the chronology: it would require rethinking technology, social organization, logistics of quarrying and transporting blocks, and the very sequence of regional development.
This raises questions about who would have designed and coordinated a work like the Great Pyramid of Giza, where this culture would have left other traces, and why consistent layers of this same pattern do not appear in equivalent context excavations.
For now, the scenario described by the study remains a statistical provocation based on erosion, published without peer review and still lacking broad validation.
Between a model and archaeological consensus lies a path of replication, criticism, and triangulation of methods, and it is precisely along this path that traditional archaeology often decides what goes into or out of the official calendar.
The Egyptian Pyramid remains a case where the dispute over dates is, in practice, a dispute over methods: erosion and statistics on one side, carbon-14 and a package of contextual evidence on the other.
The useful question is not whether the monument “needs” to be older, but rather which evidence can withstand cross-checking without relying on linear assumptions.
If you had to choose a criterion to trust, what would convince you more in a case like the Great Pyramid of Giza: a model based on erosion, or a collection of findings with carbon-14, records, and archaeological layers? And what would be, for you, the minimum evidence required to change the traditional archaeology’s perspective?
Se todos os estudos são baseados em ciência obviamente, fica difícil escolher um desses caminhos,mas achando a idade real da pirâmide, aí sim, tudo muda.
De acordo com a arqueologia tradicional,se alguem cagou do lado de um monumento com milhares de anos, a datação será feita baseada em m&rda.
A arqueologia tradicional lança uma teoria e explica o inexplicável. Não há como estas construções terem sido feitas com esforço humano, há dois mil anos. Há muito o que descobrir.