Video Summary
An Italian engineer (Alberto Danini) applied a Relative Erosion Method (REM) comparing long‑exposed and recently exposed stone and derived an average age near 23,000 years BP.
Conventional lines of evidence—Khufu-era quarry graffiti, a workers’ town, Merer’s logbook, and radiocarbon samples—point to about 4,500 years ago.
REM is attractive because it uses measurable erosion and a natural ‘control’ (protected vs exposed stone), but results show large scatter across sampling points.
Climate change, tourist wear, past repairs, sand burial and rock variability can all alter erosion rates, making the REM clock hard to read without calibration.
Archaeologists would require the method to be validated on structures of known age before accepting a radical revision of the pyramid’s date.
REM measures erosion depth on stone that has been exposed for millennia versus adjacent stone that was protected under the pyramid’s casing and only exposed after the casing was stripped (~675 years ago). By comparing the ratio of weathering, the paper estimates how long the exposed surface has been eroding and infers建
Several independent lines: Khufu-era red ochre quarry graffiti found in sealed chambers, Mark Lehner’s excavation of a large workers’ town with food and facilities, Merer’s logbook recording limestone transport in Khufu’s year 27, and radiocarbon dates from mortar-charcoal consistent with the Old Kingdom.
Because erosion rates are not constant: past climate variability, tourist traffic, later repairs, sand burial, and local rock differences can distort the REM signal. The REM results also show large scatter across sampling sites, indicating uncontrolled variables.
Demonstration that REM yields accurate ages when applied to multiple structures of known historical date (calibration), reproducibility by independent teams, and an explanation that integrates all existing evidence (graffiti, workers’ town, Merer’s logbook, radiocarbon).
It would place the pyramid’s construction in the Last Glacial Maximum environment—before farming, cities, and known Egyptian civilization—forcing a major revision of prehistoric human capabilities and timelines, but such a conclusion requires exceptionally strong, cross-validated evidence.
"A paper published this year claims the date is wrong by 20,000 years."
The Great Pyramid of Egypt, traditionally thought to be around 4,500 years old, is now said by a recent study to be nearly 25,000 years old, suggesting it was constructed during the last Ice Age.
If this new dating method is accurate, it would imply that the pyramid predates not only farming and cities but also the civilization of ancient Egypt itself.
"In 1837, British colonel Howard Vyse used gunpowder to blast his way into a sealed chamber."
The story regarding the age of the pyramid traces back to 1837, when Vyse discovered red ochre graffiti in a sealed chamber, believed to indicate the workers' association with Pharaoh Khufu.
While some have accused Vyse of forging these markings, the majority of Egyptologists uphold that they align with known Old Kingdom construction practices.
"Mark Lehner's team excavated an entire workers' town south of the plateau."
Throughout the 1990s, archaeological efforts led by Mark Lehner uncovered a workers' town with evidence, such as bakeries and livestock remains, indicating a substantial workforce was necessary for the pyramid's construction.
Further compelling evidence from 2013, which included a logbook from a boat inspector confirming limestone transport during Khufu's reign, supports the conventional dating of the structure.
"In 1303, a quake loosened the pyramid's outer casing."
A pivotal element in revising the pyramid's timeline involves an earthquake in 1303 that affected its outer casing. This resulted in varying weathering effects on the base, leading to two distinct erosion patterns around the pyramid's perimeter.
Alberto Danini proposes a dating method based on measuring erosion between exposed and protected surfaces, yielding significant data on the potential age of the Great Pyramid at around 23,000 BC.
"A clock that speeds up and slows down with the weather is a very difficult clock to read."
The study's implications could dramatically alter our understanding of history, but skepticism remains due to various climate-related concerns that could impact erosion rates.
Uneven weathering caused by factors such as climatic changes, tourism, and repairs complicates the dating process, bringing into question the accuracy of deriving age from erosion measurements.
Critical to validating Danini's method would be testing it against known historical structures to confirm its accuracy; without this step, its findings about the Great Pyramid's age cannot be fully accepted.
"Averaging that scatter produces a number, but a number is all it produces."
Researchers have gathered various age estimates for the Great Pyramid, with figures ranging from 18,000 to 30,000 years. This wide gap indicates that factors beyond age alone may be influencing these measurements.
The correlation between the ages suggested by different measurements resembles the situation of 12 witnesses estimating the age of a man, resulting in vastly different answers.
"A revolutionary theory doesn’t just have to fit new evidence; it has to carry all the old evidence too."
Any new theory proposing the Great Pyramid to be 23,000 years old must also account for established historical and archaeological evidence, such as Khufu's inscriptions and remnants related to ancient Egyptian civilization.
This includes the necessity of explaining various findings, like Merer's logbook, food remains, and construction materials, which tie the pyramid to a specific timeframe.
"The likely verdict wouldn’t necessarily be dismissal; it would probably be something shorter than that."
Although no formal archaeological response exists yet for the recent study on the pyramid's age, the field generally welcomes new dating techniques that are demonstrable and repeatable.
Archaeologists would likely ask for verification through calibration and concrete methods applied to historically dated constructions, emphasizing a rigorous scientific approach to validate claims.
"The field isn’t holding this idea at the door because it’s unconventional; it’s holding it there because the method hasn’t yet shown it can tell time."
The success of new dating techniques often depends on their ability to produce accurate results correlated with historically known dates, much like radiocarbon and tree-ring dating methods had to prove themselves.
Only methods that consistently deliver correct ages on established or widely accepted historical objects survive the initial scrutiny and gain acceptance within the archaeological community.
"The pyramid has outlasted every one of those generations so far; I think it can afford to wait while we learn to read it properly."
The Great Pyramid originally bore a polished limestone casing and its age was defined according to the king list at the time. Over the years, as environmental factors peeled away that casing, the pyramid began inscribing its own historical narrative through graffiti, logbooks, and other remnants.
Understanding these nuances provides deeper insights into the construction and evolution of the pyramid, demonstrating the complexity of interpreting ancient monuments.
