Such evidence, if it existed, would render obsolete the orthodox Egyptological theory about the origins, function and dating of the Great Pyramid since it would destroy the Saqqara ~ Meidum ~ Dashour ~ Giza sequence by making the technologically-advanced Great Pyramid far older than its supposed oldest ancestor, the far more rudimentary step-pyramid of Zoser.
With the sequence no longer valid, it would then be even more difficult than it is at present for scholars to explain the immense architectural competence and precision of the Great Pyramid (since it defies reason to suppose that such advanced and sophisticated work could have been undertaken by builders with no prior knowledge of monumental architecture).
If so, Id spend the money in a great clearance and exploration [of the Pyramid base] ...
Ill beg them after their existence [the Epilogue relics] become known Your remark as to the terminology of the new channels is forceful and good but I dissent from adopting on too hasty an assumption the theory that they are air channels for the obvious reason that they have been so carefully formed up to but not into the chamber.
But suppose those four pyramids were proved to be not earlier but later structures?
Suppose, for example, that objective and unambiguous archaeological evidence were to emerge- say, reliable carbon dated samples -which indicated that work on the Great Pyramid had in fact begun some 1300 years before the birth of Khufu and that the monument had stood substantially complete some 300 years before his accession to the throne?According to orthodox Egyptologists, the Great Pyramid is the result of only just over 100 years of architectural development, beginning with the construction of the step-pyramid of Zoser at Saqqara not earlier than 2630 BC, passing through a number of experimental models of true Pyramids (one at Meidum and at two Dashour, all attributed to Khufus father Sneferu) and leading inexorably to the technological mastery of the Great Pyramid not earlier than 2551 BC (the date of Khufus own ascension to the throne).An evolutionary sequence in pyramid-construction thus lies at the heart of the orthodox Egyptological theory -a sequence in which the Great Pyramid is seen as having evolved from (and thus having been preceded by) the four earlier pyramids.It is important to note that we do not date the construction of the Great Pyramid to 10,500 BC.On the contrary, we point out that its internal astronomical alignments -the star-shafts of the Kings and Queens Chambers -are consistent with a completion date during ancient Egypts Old Kingdom, somewhere around 2500 BC.The whereabouts of the piece of wood, however, is today unknown. Being organic, wood can be accurately carbon dated.Since this particular piece of wood is known to have been sealed inside the Pyramid at the time of construction of the monument, radiocarbon results from it could, theoretically, confirm the date when that construction took place. Fortunately, however, as we also reported in Chapter 6, it is probable that another such piece of wood is still in situ at some depth inside the northern shaft of the Queens Chamber.That 5 inches of so carefully left stone is the stumbling block to such a supposition.And again, one at any rate of them I am convinced from its appearance - so clean and white as the day it was made - cannot have any connection with the external atmosphere.On the contrary, its implications have been and continue to be and have not been widely published or considered in either the academic or the popular press.We are at a loss to explain this apparent failure of scholarship and are equally unable to understand why there has been no move to extract and carbon-date further samples of the Great Pyramids mortar in order to test Lehners potentially revolutionary results.