A recent geological study is reigniting debate around the origins of Egypt’s Great Pyramid of Giza. Released in late 2025, the report presents a bold claim: the monument’s exposed limestone blocks may have been weathered for tens of thousands of years longer than conventional archaeology suggests.

At the center of the research is a dating model based on erosion, developed by Italian engineer Alberto Donini. If correct, the findings would place the pyramid’s construction not in the 26th century BC, as widely believed, but potentially as early as 22,941 BC. That estimate falls thousands of years before the rise of dynastic Egypt.

A Weathered past Points to Ancient Origins

The report, titled Preliminary Report on the Absolute Dating of the Khufu Pyramid Using the Relative Erosion Method (REM), was uploaded to ResearchGate in January 2026. Donini’s methodology compares the degree of erosion between two types of limestone surfaces on the pyramid: those that have been continuously exposed since construction and those protected by outer casing stones until the year 1303 CE, when a major earthquake led to their removal.

By measuring the surface loss across twelve points along the pyramid’s base, Donini derived exposure durations ranging from 5,700 to over 54,000 years. The model calculates a mean estimated construction date of 22,941 BC. A statistical confidence interval places the potential range between 8,954 BC and 36,878 BC.

The technique does not provide a definitive date. Instead, it establishes a probabilistic window, described in the study as a tool to estimate the order of magnitude of exposure rather than an exact chronology.

“REM is not intended to determine an exact date of construction for an ancient building, but rather to identify a temporal interval and assign a probability to it,” the report states.

Erosion Isn’t Constant, and That’s a Problem

The REM model relies on a key assumption: that limestone erosion occurs at a steady, measurable rate. However, geologists note that erosion rates are affected by complex environmental conditions. Egypt’s historical climate has shifted over the millennia, especially during the African Humid Period, when rainfall levels were significantly higher than they are today. Increased humidity during those eras could have accelerated the degradation of exposed stone surfaces.

Additional complicating factors include wind exposure, burial by sand, microbial activity, and visitor traffic. Some parts of the pyramid may have been shielded for centuries or more, resulting in an uneven erosion profile. Without controlling for these variables, the model’s accuracy remains uncertain.

These concerns are echoed in critical coverage by IFLScience, which highlights that surface weathering is influenced by numerous environmental fluctuations. The report warns that REM may underestimate or overestimate exposure time unless changes in historical climate and micro-environmental conditions are fully accounted for.

The method also assumes that the composition and condition of the compared surfaces are equivalent, which has not yet been independently verified. These limitations have led many researchers to advise caution before using REM as a standalone dating tool.

The Traditional Timeline Still Holds Firm

Mainstream Egyptology continues to date the construction of the Great Pyramid to around 2560 BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Khufu. This dating is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, including stratigraphy, architectural context, and tool marks. Inscriptions found in nearby tombs and quarries attribute the project to Khufu, aligning with records from Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty.

Radiocarbon dating has further reinforced this timeline. Organic materials recovered from construction mortar, including charcoal and plant matter, have been radiometrically dated. These samples confirm a building window in the third millennium BC. The consistency of results across independent teams, including those at the University of Oxford and Egyptian antiquities institutions, adds further weight to the conventional dating model.

The IFLScience article further emphasizes that this convergence of ceramic typology, written sources, and carbon-based dating continues to form a robust foundation for the accepted chronology. These methods are less vulnerable to the environmental variability that affects erosion-based models.

Was Khufu a Builder or a Renovator?

Donini’s study introduces an alternate hypothesis that has circulated in speculative archaeology for decades. If the pyramid significantly predates Khufu, the pharaoh may not have commissioned its original construction. Instead, the report suggests that Khufu could have restored or repurposed a much older structure and claimed authorship through later inscriptions or additions.

“It is therefore plausible that the pharaoh Cheops merely renovated the Khufu pyramid, attributing its authorship to themselves,” the report notes.

The report does not present direct material evidence for this theory, but positions it as a potential outcome if the REM model proves reliable. This scenario, while not supported by conventional archaeological data, has captured public interest due to the pyramid’s longstanding aura of mystery and debate.

The erosion-focused study is part of a broader body of unconventional research published by Donini, who has also explored topics involving ancient contact with non-human intelligences and anomalous megalithic structures. These unrelated works have prompted some academics to approach his findings with heightened scrutiny, although the REM study itself is presented with a formal methodology and supporting statistical models.