At first glance, these Bronze Age monuments appear both archaic and architecturally sophisticated. Beneath their layered stone constructions lie burial chambers, which is why they are often interpreted as funerary monuments. Yet their terraced, stepped design evokes broader architectural traditions of early monumental building in the Mediterranean world.

Pantelleria was never isolated. The island occupied a strategic position along important maritime routes linking North Africa, Sicily, and the eastern Mediterranean. Its obsidian was traded widely in prehistoric times — clear evidence of early seafaring networks and long-distance exchange. The Sesi therefore represent not only a local architectural expression, but also the cultural dynamism of an island that stood at the intersection of civilizations for millennia.

For me, Pantelleria remains a key site — a stone archive rising from the sea.

Typical monumental stone structures from the Bronze Age on Pantelleria. At first glance, they appear somewhat megalithic, yet surprisingly well-constructed. Due to the numerous burial chambers, they are often interpreted as burial mounds.

Pantelleria is located halfway between Sicily and Tunisia. The small island covers approximately 83 km². It is of volcanic origin, with its highest point being Montagna Grande (836 m).

Because of their terraced construction, they are often confused with the step pyramids of the Mediterranean. However, they are not related to them at all. They are more than 1,000 years younger than the ziggurats in Sicily and Sardinia, which also places their origin in the Middle Bronze Age.

Entrance to one of the so-called burial chambers. The stone arrangements are constructed using dry stone masonry. I personally visited the largest chambers in 1999.

A view inside the stone burial chambers. At the time, there was no further information about finds or any excavations at the structure. Some of the passages extend more than 6 meters deep into the building. Others are quite short. With very few exceptions (perhaps added later?), such "chambers" are not found in classic stepped pyramids.

The so-called "Pantelleria Cemetery." Archaeologists believe this to be the burial site of the Sesi's master builders. Here, too, the form and architecture reveal connections to neighboring islands. This site suggests that the chambers of the circular buildings likely served other purposes, but what those purposes were remains unknown.

Der Beitrag Pantelleria – Stufenarchitektur im Herzen des Mittelmeeres erschien zuerst auf Mission Abora.

Donini concludes that there is a 68.2% probability that the construction period of the Great Pyramid could lie between 10,979 and 38,903 BC, with an average value around 24,941 BC. Such a dating would fundamentally call into question all previous archaeological and scientific findings.

A detailed discussion of this would go beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, here are just three key facts that argue against such an early dating:

1. 1. The Wadi al-Dscharf Papyrus meticulously documents the transport of Tura limestone blocks for the pyramid's casing and clearly dates it to the reign of Khufu (around 2.600 BC). Carbon-14 analyses confirm this dating.

1. 1. AMS dating of charcoal samples from the lime mortar of the cornerstones yielded growth dates between 3.030 and 2.905 BC – in close agreement with further carbon-14 data from the workers' quarters behind the Pyramid of Khafre.

1. 1. Astro-archaeological investigations by Robert Bauval show that the orientations of the so-called "soul shafts" only precisely align with the relevant star constellations during the period between 2.700 and 2.500 BC.

I am curious to see how the academic community will react to Donini's approach. Based on current knowledge, however, I consider this extremely early dating untenable. Regardless, the question remains open whether structures below the Giza Plateau – such as the Valley Temple and the Sphinx – might actually be older than previously assumed; this is an aspect that should be further discussed intensively.

The age of the pyramids on the Giza Plateau was already debated by scholars of antiquity. According to the accounts of one of the most important scholars, Herodotus (around 500 BC), the largest pyramid was first built by Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops) in the 4th Dynasty, some 4,600 years ago. However, whether the megalithic structures beneath the large pyramids are located there remains a matter of debate.

Excerpt from the publication by Alberto Donini (University of Bologna). In it, Donini presents an innovative method – the so-called Relative Erosion Method ). It is based on comparing two erosion patterns of the same rock type under identical environmental conditions: one of known age, the other of unknown age. From the ratio of the erosion degrees, he then intends to derive an age estimate.

Using specific formulas, he ultimately calculates the determined age of the weathering. The Gaussian curve (from the publication) shows the probability of 68.2% that the value lies within plus or minus one standard deviation.

Fragment of one of Egypt's oldest inscribed papyri – the approximately 4,600-year-old fragments from Wadi al-Dscharf on the Red Sea. The texts document the work of a construction crew that shipped limestone from Tura to Giza. The stone was used to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops). Does this papyrus thus prove the authenticity of Herodotus's accounts?

Robert Bauval's calculations revealed that the precision of the Earth's axis, in conjunction with the alignment of the so-called "soul shafts," allows for the astronomical dating of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Only within a relatively narrow time window between 2.700 and 2.500 BC do the shafts point to specific stars or constellations.

Inspired by the author John Anthony West, Professor Robert Schoch, through his research on the Sphinx in the early 1990s, revealed that the erosion patterns might indicate strong water erosion rather than purely wind erosion. His hypothesis: The weathering could date back to a significantly wetter climatic period—around 10.000 BC. My colleague Prof. David Rohl and I reject this paleo-age based on own observations on predynastic structure at the Giza-Plateau.

Der Beitrag Neudatierung der Cheops-Pyramide auf 40.000 v. Chr.? erschien zuerst auf Mission Abora.

More information is available here ->

Das Spendenkonto für Ihren Gebrauch:

Sparkasse Chemnitz
IBAN:   DE44870500003583006193
BIC:     CHEKDE81XXX
Motto: Kanaren/Canarias

Der Beitrag 05.12.2024, Die Bestimmung des Alters der Pyramiden Teneriffas erschien zuerst auf Mission Abora.