10d • Culture and History
How Old Are the Pyramids and the Sphinx? A Radical Claim and the Evidence Behind Every Theory
Most people are taught a simple answer to one of history’s biggest questions: the Great Pyramid of Giza was built around 4,500 years ago as the tomb of Pharaoh Khufu, and the Sphinx belongs to the same Old Kingdom building programme. That explanation isn’t invented and it isn’t weak, but it also isn’t the only one that exists.
The article below makes a much more radical claim. It suggests that the Great Pyramid may be vastly older than the accepted timeline, possibly tens of thousands of years old, based not on texts or archaeology, but on erosion analysis. Whether that claim turns out to be right or wrong is almost secondary. What matters is that it forces a better question:
How do we actually know how old the pyramids and the Sphinx are, and what evidence are different theories really relying on?
This post uses the article as a conversation starter, then expands outward to look at every major theory about the age of the pyramids and the Sphinx, from orthodox Egyptology to the most extreme alternatives, and the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The mainstream position places the construction of the Great Pyramid in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom, during the reign of Khufu, roughly in the mid-third millennium BCE. This view isn’t based on tradition or assumption. It rests on multiple independent lines of evidence.
Administrative papyri discovered at Wadi al-Jarf describe the transport of limestone from Tura to Giza during Khufu’s reign and reference a project widely identified as the Great Pyramid. Radiocarbon dating of organic material found in mortar and construction debris consistently falls within an Old Kingdom timeframe, with known offsets explained by the reuse of older wood. The wider archaeological context matters too: causeways, temples, worker settlements, and quarries all form a coherent state-run building programme rather than a monument inherited from the distant past.
Some researchers argue for a softer alternative. They accept that the pyramids were completed in the Old Kingdom, but suggest they may sit on earlier foundations or reuse an older sacred landscape. This idea is reasonable in principle, as many ancient monuments were built over earlier sites. However, at Giza it remains speculative. No securely dated pre-Old Kingdom construction phase directly connected to the pyramids has yet been demonstrated.
More radical ideas move away from archaeology entirely and into astronomy. The Orion Correlation Theory proposes that the layout of the three main pyramids mirrors the stars of Orion’s Belt as they appeared around 10,500 BCE. Supporters point to symbolic links between Orion and Osiris and argue that the pyramids represent a terrestrial reflection of the heavens. Critics counter that the alignments are approximate, often selectively interpreted, and that symbolic astronomy does not imply construction at the date a star pattern happens to best align. Egyptians used stellar symbolism throughout their history without encoding Ice Age timelines into stone.
The article shared above belongs to an even more extreme category. It suggests the Great Pyramid could be far older than civilisation as we understand it, possibly around 23,000 BCE, based on erosion patterns. The difficulty with erosion-based dating is that limestone decay at Giza is driven by many overlapping processes: wind abrasion, salt crystallisation, moisture cycling, stone quality, burial in sand, and modern restoration. Any such claim must explain why Old Kingdom administrative records describe active construction, why radiocarbon results repeatedly align with dynastic Egypt, and why the wider Giza complex fits a single historical moment. At present, these arguments are provocative but do not outweigh the combined archaeological and textual evidence.
The Sphinx complicates the picture further. Most scholars place it within the same Old Kingdom construction environment, often linked to Khafre, based on its integration with nearby temples and causeways and the way stone quarried from its enclosure was used in surrounding structures. A competing view argues that erosion patterns on the Sphinx enclosure indicate prolonged heavy rainfall, implying a much earlier date when the Sahara was wetter, possibly between 7000 and 10,000 BCE. Critics respond that salt weathering and groundwater effects can produce similar erosion patterns and that the archaeological context still firmly anchors the Sphinx within dynastic Egypt. A small middle-ground position suggests the Sphinx could be slightly older than Khafre but still within early dynastic Egypt rather than deep prehistory.
Alongside these debates sit the familiar fringe explanations: ancient aliens, lost Ice Age civilisations, or the idea that Egyptians merely restored monuments built by an unknown earlier culture. These ideas persist largely because Giza feels exceptional, not because the evidence requires them. They tend to rely on gaps in knowledge rather than positive proof.
If there is a disciplined way to approach this question, it is to be clear about evidence. Contemporary administrative records and archaeological context should carry more weight than symbolic interpretation. Scientific dating with transparent methods should come before geological inference. Intuition about what ancient people “couldn’t” have done should come last.
Giza remains extraordinary, but it is not unknowable.
Discussion question:
If you had to trust only one type of evidence when dating ancient monuments, which would it be and why: texts, archaeology, radiocarbon science, geology, or astronomy?
9
2 comments
How Old Are the Pyramids and the Sphinx? A Radical Claim and the Evidence Behind Every Theory
skool.com/the-worldmind-society-1949
A home for curious minds exploring culture, story, place, and history through thoughtful learning, writing, and meaningful discussions.
Leaderboard (30-day)
1
+1
2
+1
3
+1
Powered by