The term "Western Pseudohistory Theory" (simplified Chinese:西方伪史论;traditional Chinese:西方偽史論;pinyin:Xīfāng wěi shǐ lùn) is a catch-all term referring to a series of Russian-inspired Chinesefringe theories that question the authenticity and reliability of Western history, and which generally hold that the histories ofancient Greece,ancient Egypt, andancient Rome contain a large number of fabrications, or even that all of them are fabricated. Many elements of this theory are borrowed from Russian mathematicianAnatoly Fomenko'snew chronology theory, and have thus been traced back to 18th century French priest and classical scholarJean Hardouin. In 2013, afterHe Xin [zh], a former researcher at theChinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), published his bookResearch on Pseudo-history of Greece questioning the existence of ancient Greece, this theory gradually spread on the Chinese Internet. The Chinese historiography and classics community either completely disagrees with this theory or simply does not want to spend time refuting these claims.
At the end of the twentieth century, Fomenko put forward some fringe theories in his books that questioned world history, for example, he argued that no artifacts had been found in Russia prior to the 10th century A.D., and therefore world history could not have predated the 10th century A.D.[1] Fomenko's theory was heavily criticized by historians. An article inXinmin Weekly,[2] an article inSouthern Weekly,[1] and an article by Chow Hin inOrange News, all cite Fomenko as one of the origins the theory,[3] with theXinmin Weekly's article going even further back to Hardouin.
In 2013, He Xin publishedResearch on Pseudo-history of Greece, which claimed that there were a large number of fabrications in thehistory of Greece.[4] In 2015,Du Gangjian put forward the theory of Out-of-Hunan, which argued that human beings did notoriginate from Africa, but fromHunan.[5] In 2018, a documentary produced byGleb Nosovsky made Fomenko's theories spread on the Chinese Internet,[6] and in July 2019, the Chinese-British scholar Zhu Xuanshi said that there was no history of Europe before the 15th century, and that Western civilization had faked the three civilizations of ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome with reference toChinese culture.[7] The same year, Xiang Qianjing, the CEO of Beijing Tairen Classic Chinese Medicine Technology Co., Ltd, interested in the theory, funded and proposed to hold a "Western History Falsification and Chinese Culture Renaissance Symposium" every two years, which led to the further dissemination of the theory in China.[8]
In February 2021, Huang Heqing, a professor ofart history atZhejiang University, stated in a lecture that theGreat Pyramid of Giza and theGreat Sphinx of Giza were fakes.[9][10] An analysis of videos on the Chinese video siteBilibili shows that the earliest relevant videos were posted in 2019, after which the number of relevant videos rose in 2021 and became popular on the platform in 2022.[11] In June 2025, a number ofpersonal media accounts promoting the theory were banned.[12]
Fomenko asserted that the pyramids were fabricated by the Egyptian government in 1901 usingconcrete blocks for the development oftourism because of small holes in the construction materials.[1][6] Huang Heqing said in 2021 that the pyramids were fabricated by the Egyptians using concrete in order to "belittle the Chinese civilization".[10]
In August 2025, Huang Heqing and others debated with Tang Jigen and others on issues such as the age of the grass-woven artifacts in theShanghai Museum's ancient Egyptian artifact exhibition. Huang Heqing said that the artifacts in the exhibition were "brand new."[13][14]
In 2013, He Xin, a former researcher at the CASS, publishedResearch on Pseudo-history of Greece.[4] In the book, He Xin argues thatLeontius Pilatus andGiovanni Boccaccio tampered with the original text of theIliad in the course of translating it from Greek to Latin, commissioned byFrancesco Petrarch, and that this tampered Latin translation became the reference text for later translations in other languages, and He Xin claims that this series of events wasmanipulated by the Freemasons. In addition, the existence ofAristotle has also been questioned, as He Xin argues that Aristotle himself did not exist, based on the fact that, due to the problem of transcription,Miao Litian, the author of the Chinese edition of theWorks of Aristotle, has stated that some of Aristotle's writings may have been incorrectly copied by later generations.[15][16] In 2017,Chen Ping [zh], a professor ofeconomics atFudan University,[17] expressed his agreement with Fomenko and He Xin, and stated that due to the high value ofpapyrus andparchment, it is impossible forancient Greek documents to have survived intact into theRenaissance, and therefore "could only have been fabricated by people hired by Italian bankers during the Renaissance". In addition, documents in Arabic introduced to Europe during the Renaissance were also thought to be non-existent, and Chen Ping believed that they were fabricated by theHouse of Medici.[18] In 2023, a video clip ofJin Canrong went viral on the Internet in which he claimed that ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle, did not exist because no relevant written records, according to him, could be found prior to the 13th century.[4]
In 2024, in an interview withSouthern Weekly, Huang Heqing argued thatancient Greek sculpture andarchitecture were too fine, and also argued that ancient Greece at that time could not have had iron tools, so it was impossible to sculpt; while ancient Greece's rivals in this period were fabricated to play as a rivalry to Western history, for example, the temperature of theIranian plateau was very high in the spring so that it was not possible to give birth to such a state as theAchaemenid Empire.[8]
According to some self-publishers, thesteam engine andelectricity were alleged ancient Chinese inventions, and theIndustrial Revolution was allegedly based on stolen technology from theYongle Dadian.[19]
Fomenko's theories have been heavily criticized by the Russian scientific community.[20]
A 2013 article, "The Triumph of the 'Academic Boxer Rebellion'" by Gao Fengfeng, accused He Xin of being "unreasonable without evidence" and claimed that He Xin's theory lacked evidence and argument.[4][15] In 2018,Science and Technology Daily interviewed Guo Zilin, a researcher at the CASS who conducts archaeology in Egypt, who said that the small holes in the pyramid are caused by theweathering of sandstone, one of the main materials of the pyramid, making part of the sand flow out.[6] Gao Fengfeng gave a rebuttal to Huang Heqing's claim in 2024, citingMarbleworkers in the Athenian Agora andFeeding the Democracy, through which he specifically analyzed ancient Greek sculpture andancient Greek agricultural production.[21]
In 2024, reporters fromSouthern Weekly tried to contact Chinese scholars ofclassical studies to ask them to talk about their views on the Western Pseudohistory Theory, but most of the scholars refused to be interviewed, and most of them said that they did not want to waste their time with these absurd remarks. One professor, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the theory did not "respect basic historical facts" and did not "reason with you";[8] Gao Fengfeng, a professor atPeking University, was the only one willing to be interviewed under his own name, and said that the believers are committing areverse onus clause.[21] A 2024 article in theJournal of Central China Normal University argued that China's economic takeoff and national power growth, the deterioration ofU.S.–China relations and even China's relations with the West, andChina's anti-Western sentiments gave rise to a "strong mentality of arrogance and self-importance", which was embodied in the "Western Pseudohistory Theory".[22]
The Chinese government has never formally endorsed the theory,[23] and it faced repeated criticisms from state-run media organizations. For instance, a September 2019 article in thePeople's Daily criticized the theory for its unfounded arrogance towards other cultures,[24] while a June 2025 article inXinmin Evening News criticized its outlandish claims and its inability to provide a credible alternative to the conventional historiography, which sowed confusion and division among the general public.[25]
In addition, a July 2025 article inChina Youth Daily argued the theory represented a form of cultural insecurity, as well as damaged the reputation of Chinese academia.[26]
 | This articleneeds additional or more specificcategories. Pleasehelp out byadding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.(July 2024) |
