In 19th century, West began to deny authenticity of certain Xia and Shang. Among them, archeology of Yin ruins confirmed Shang Dynasty, but there was no archaeological evidence of Xia Dynasty, so West has not yet recognized.

Using archaeological data as hard evidence seems very reasonable and can explain problem to greatest extent, so many Chinese also joined Xia Dynasty's army of denial or believed that in absence of hard evidence, at least "the Xia Dynasty doubts."

However, author believes that in absence of conclusive evidence for denial of Xia dynasty, any denial or suspicion of Xia dynasty is unreasonable, since archeology has not found ironclad evidence for denial of Xia dynasty.

China is rich in reliable history, but West lacks reliable history

The biggest difference in basis of historical research between China and West is that China is rich in authentic history, while West lacks authentic history. In fact, China is rich not only in unofficial history, but also in unofficial history, there are indeed many real stories in unofficial history, but they need to be analyzed and verified.

At least until 16th century, there was no official history in West, and many things of past could not be understood, so we could only rely on archeology to discover history. In view of lack of reliable history and limitations of archeology, history of ancient Greece, history of decline and fall of Roman Empire, etc., in thick and large volumes with a clear indication of time and place, must contain many revised elements.

Unlike West, China's history is extremely rich, undoubtedly first in world, so archeology is not only way for us to understand past, we can also learn about it through Historical Records, Zuo Zhuan, Shangshu and so on through ancient history. At least history after Yao, Shun and Yu, history of writing can give us a general idea.

Therefore, basis of historical research in China and in West is not exactly same, and archaeological goals on this basis will also be different. "Of course, archeology is very important for ancient history that is not covered by official history of China, or history that is not covered by official history (such as Sanxingdui civilization).

Is Xia dynasty reliable in history of writing?

The so-called "authentic history" refers to "rough" records of people, events and words in history according to strict order of time and space. The reason why it is called "authentic history" is because of its authenticity. However, this kind of plausibility is not completely reliable, but historical events are mostly trustworthy, and some details may not be reliable, so it is quite normal that some details recorded in historical records are reversed.

The "Historical Records of Xia Benji" were not fabricated by Sima Qian, but he compiled them from pre-Qin historical material. Some of original historical materials may have been lost, and some historical materials were not used by Sima Qian, such as "Yu Zheng" in "Mozi" "Three Seedlings" and so on. The question is, is "Xia Benji" that records Xia Dynasty credible?

The author draws an inappropriate analogy: in Zhang San's family tree, many ancestors are recorded, among which great-grandfather is called "Zhang", and great-grandfather is called "Zhang".... According to genealogical records, Zhang San roughly -due to a long history in past, there was no tombstone with name engraved on it, so it is impossible to confirm great-grandfather's grave. So, can Zhang San deny or question existence of great-grandfather because of this?

"Historical records" are like genealogy of Chinese nation. The historical context recorded in it turned out to be mostly reliable. The most typical of these is Shang Dynasty lineage recorded in Yin Ben Ji, which is largely consistent with oracle bone inscriptions. The inscriptions on bones of Oracle have confirmed that "Yin Benji" is trustworthy, so it can be seen that "Xia Benji" is also trustworthy. More importantly, we have no reason not to believe in Xia Dynasty recorded in history until there is convincing literary or archaeological evidence for overthrow of the Xia Dynasty. Of course, it's another matter to doubt certain details, such as whether Xia Chao claims to be "Xia".

Xunxia archaeological discoveries cannot deny Xia dynasty

Although archeology has not been able to find iron evidence of "self-certification" or "other evidence" of Xia Dynasty, archaeological evidence discovered today not only cannot refute records of Xia Dynasty in history of writing, but also supports records of history of writing, such as Three things:

The first one is "Yu Zheng Sangmiao". The third phase of Wanwan settlement in Jianxi District, Luoyang is dated to about 4,000 years ago and is located near Erlitou settlement in Yanshi, Luoyang. The Shijiahe cultural site in Tianmen, Hubei province was suddenly destroyed 4,000 years ago, and 20 cities were destroyed or abandoned almost simultaneously. The Shijiahe culture was then replaced by third phase of Wanwan culture, including style of sacrifice and tombs. Combined with records of Sangmiao and Daiyu in historical books, Shijiahe culture must be "Yu's conquest of Sangmiao" when third period of Wanwan culture perished.

The second one is "Xia Qi Residence". The Biography of Mu Tianzi states that Xia Qi's residence is located on Huangtai Hill. The famous scholar Ding Shan pointed out that Xia Qi's residence is between cities of Xinzheng and Xinmi, and "Huangtai Hill" is Huangtaigang. At beginning of this century, "Xinzhai ruins" were discovered in Xinmi, Zhengzhou, covering an area of ​​about 1 million square meters. It has a large building with triple moats and ancestral temples inside and outside, as well as many workshop rooms, reflecting urban nature of New City -fortresses. Therefore, Xinzhai must be "residence of Xia Qi".

It is worth noting that many cultural elements of Dongyi suddenly appeared in Xinzhai territory a little later, and historical records indicate that Taikang, son of Xia Qi, once lost his country, that is, "Taikang lost his country." " or "Houyi (Dongyi people) on behalf of Xia".

The third one is "Xia Du Pouring". According to historical records, Xia Jie used Chongzhen as his capital. According to historical records, Xia Dynasty was located between Heluo. Guo Di Zhi of Tang Dynasty records: "The ancient city is fifty-eight miles southwest of Gong County, Luozhou, where Gai Ze lived." descriptions are not far off). More importantly, archeology now confirms that Erlitou site is "an urban city with a dynastic atmosphere and extensive royal power".

In addition, there are many archaeological discoveries, time, place, event, etc. mostly "coincidences" with historical records, so I won't reveal them one by one.

On contrary, there are still no archaeological discoveries capable of overthrowing Xia dynasty recorded in history.

That is, while archeology has not found ironclad evidence for existence of Xia Dynasty, it has not found evidence to negate Xia Dynasty. More importantly, archeology can better confirm deeds of the Xia Dynasty recorded in historical records.

Why don't we believe historical records if there is no solid evidence to deny existence of Xia Dynasty? Therefore, at least for now, any denial or doubt about existence of Xia Dynasty is completely unfounded.

Western scholars deny Xia Dynasty. Frankly, they probably don't know much about Chinese historical traditions. They imagine China based on absence of Western history. Probably because they are too arrogant and biased towards China. , or perhaps they concealed some other purpose by deliberately requesting archaeological evidence.