The Chinese Front Load
Dr. Yan Lin, a classical literature scholar and respected historian from Peking University, came across Yong Liang’s posts and she took them seriously. Something about the script caught her eye.
She commented beneath his post, asking for more photos of the text. Yong Liang responded with several clear images from the family books.
After some time reviewing what she could, Dr. Yan Lin replied:
“While I cannot verify the authenticity of the books, the writing style and structure—particularly the radicals and stroke sequences—are consistent with a much older form of Chinese writing style than the official timeline allows. Many of the characters used are quite antiquated and are no longer used today. I would need to do more research to understand what is going on.”
The mockery that had followed Yong Liang for days fell silent.
More researchers—from Peking University and later Tsinghua and Fudan Universities began following the thread. The conversation spread through the academic circles and other universities.
Yong Liang continued posting excerpts and images from his family's collection. But rather his uploads drew sharp skepticism from China’s wider intellectual community. Many accused him of staging it.
Some questioned if it was AI-generated fabrication. Others claimed Yong Liang of staging the entire thing as a hoax. A few even suggested the documents were forgeries planted to mislead the public.
The overwhelming consensus was cautious disbelief. After all, anybody could post anything online.
So Yong Liang decided to send Dr. Yan Lin four of his family’s books — and what happened next in China could only be described as an “Earthquake.”
The Man Who Blew A Hole in China’s Intellectual Foundation
When Dr. Yan Lin received the books, she didn’t know what to expect. She examined everything. The binding, the texture, the scent of the paper, the weight of the ink. Every character was read, every margin studied. She had to know: was this a trick? A forgery? A hoax buried in an old attic?
She called in colleagues. Experts from Peking University. Scholars of ancient Chinese linguistics. Calligraphy historians. Paleographers. Classical document restorers. For weeks, the team pored over every page with surgical precision.
They argued. They challenged one another. They debated for months.
But on one point, they all agreed.
The books were real.
Not fakes. Not replicas. They were old. Unmistakably old.
The writing style, the brush strokes, the grammatical patterns — all consistent with a time long before the official historical record began.
As for what the books contained?
That would be the debate of a generation. But the foundation — the official foundation of Chinese historical truth — had just been cracked wide open.
And Debate They Did
The top researchers in China came to one consensus: the books were old. Undeniably old. The figures mentioned in the texts—officials, scholars, envoys, military strategists—had all lived. Their names were found in government records. Even Yong Liang’s family line had held scholarly and clerical positions stretching back generations. That too was verified.
But the agreement stopped there.
The dates. The chronology. The events. The alliances. The claims of foreign correspondence. The origin of The Battle of Red Cliff. The very timeline of China’s birth as a civilization. That was where the fire started.
A fierce debate erupted across China’s academic circles. Top historians clashed publicly in articles, forums, and university panels.
“I don’t care how authentic the ink is,” said Dr. Meng Zhao of Tsinghua University. “The Battle of Red Cliff does not go back to 5800 BC. That’s absurd.”
“Absurd?” snapped Professor Lin Qiao from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “And yet we’ve never been able to account for the sudden appearance of writing, irrigation, and legal structures in the middle Yellow River basin. Where did they come from, then?”
Another scholar, Professor Wei Tang, took a more cautious stance. “The texts are real. The people were real. But until we reconcile these dates with geological and archaeological evidence, we must proceed with extreme care. This is not just history—it’s the foundation of the nation.”