In the 1920s, under the influence of the West, the Chinese skeptical school arose, and they were blindly skeptical of the historical materials before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, advocating that "it is better to doubt the ancient and lose it, and not to trust the ancient and lose it", that is, it cannot prove its existence, that is, it does not exist. Influenced by this trend of thought, many people began to question the existence of the Xia Dynasty, just as Western scholars questioned the Xia Dynasty, that is, there were no archaeological discoveries that directly proved the existence of the Xia Dynasty.
Over the past hundred years, modern Chinese archaeology has made great progress, but in the journey to find the Xia Dynasty, although there are many breakthrough discoveries, there is still a lack of archaeological evidence.
Then, when there is no sufficient archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of the Xia Dynasty, should we learn from Western scholars and question the existence of the Xia Dynasty with a "scientific and rigorous" attitude? In fact, many records in ancient and modern Chinese and foreign literature cannot be confirmed by archaeology one by one, how did Sima Qian know about the conspiracy between Zhao Gao and Li Si? What evidence does Archimedes' words before his death confirm? The correct attitude toward the reliability of ancient historical works is just like Hu Shi's point of view, and he put forward a simple verification method: if a suspect is a thief, there must be solid evidence of his being a thief; if a suspect is a thief, there must be at least an example of his fraud. If you want to prove that ancient historians fictionalized the Xia Dynasty, then you must find examples of ancient historians fabricating other historical events.
Sima Qian, as a historian of the Han Dynasty, compiled and edited the history of Xia Shang on the basis of a large number of classics collected by the Han Dynasty, and the Xia Ben Ji and the Yin Ben Ji are the two most systematic and detailed articles in the history of Xia Shang.
Due to wars and other reasons, many texts of the pre-Qin Dynasty have been lost, and many of the original materials compiled by Sima Qian have been lost, but before modern times, no one doubted the authenticity of these two articles, including most European scholars during the "China Fever" period, when they praised and marveled at the long history of China. With the rise of Europe, Eurocentrism began to flourish, more and more cultural superiority, at this time the voice questioning the existence of Xia Shang gradually appeared, began to doubt the authenticity of the "Xia Benji" and "Yin Benji", in the late 19th century has been generally believed that Xia Shang did not exist, that Sima Qian's two articles are not credible, and that Chinese history began with the Zhou Dynasty.
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, China fell into the lowest valley of history, and Chinese extremely unconfident in Chinese civilization, but at this time, the Yin Ruins Oracle came out of nowhere, as if a lightning bolt cut through the dark night sky, telling Chinese that the Shang Dynasty did exist, and the history of Chinese civilization was really very long. In addition to confirming the existence of the Shang Dynasty, scholars have found that the "Zhou Sacrifice Genealogy" (periodic sacrifices of the Shang Dynasty And The Shang Dynasty King) found by scholars to sort out the oracle bones and bu ci is almost exactly the same as the "Yin Benji", which undoubtedly confirms the accuracy and reliability of the "Yin Benji". In the face of ironclad facts, Western scholars have to admit that the Shang Dynasty did exist.
Dr. Cullen of the Oriental College in London pointed out invaluablely that "Sima Qian was a thousand years away from the Shang Dynasty, and there is basically no empirical evidence since then (the Lineage of the Shang Dynasty contained in the Records of history)." However, the Yin Ruins oracle bone documents discovered more than two thousand years later eloquently prove the high accuracy of Sima Qian's records and confirm Sima Qian's honesty and reliability. ”
In fact, in addition to the "Five Emperors Benji" and "Xia Benji", other chapters in the "History" have basically been confirmed today, of course, some details are debatable. That is to say, for some major historical events of the pre-Qin Dynasty, including the Records of History, there is no evidence that they have committed fraud. Just as Hu Shi said, "Suspects of cheating must at least have examples of their falsification", but without examples of falsification, how to affirm that the "Xia Benji" and the Xia Dynasty documents are not credible, and how to question the existence of the Xia Dynasty?
A scholar engaged in scientific and technological research in North America pointed out in an article published in Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao a few years ago, "From the Xia Shang Zhou Project on the Western Prejudice against China", which pointed out that at that time, a simple cross-examination was proposed to all "doubtful Summer Theorists": "Cite any empirical evidence that Sima Qian or other ancient Chinese historical writers fabricated major historical events." So far, no scholar has been able to answer this simple cross-examination of this author head-on. ”
Ancient Chinese historians may avoid concealing evil, may be able to write in the Spring and Autumn Period, and may tamper with details, but who has ever seen the ancients fabricate major historical events? Since this is the case, there is no reason to say that the ancients fabricated the Xia Dynasty, and what reason did the Zhou Dynasty and Sima Qian of the Han Dynasty have to invent a Xia Dynasty that had no interest to them?
Western scholars' "archaeology as the fundamental method of proving history" questions the existence of the Xia Dynasty, which is actually full of prejudice, a sense of civilization superiority, and a lack of basic understanding of ancient Chinese historiography.
China has a complete historical record, which is very different from the short history of Faith in the West
Unlike the Western history of faith, which is short (only a few hundred years of faith history) and has few, China has a long and rich credible historical material, and it is impossible to basically abandon historical materials and take archaeology as the only credible material like the West. Western scholars do not understand China, and they think that China is the same as them. Therefore, when we discuss the history of the Xia Dynasty, there is no need to take archaeology as the only ironclad evidence. If we abandon the history books to talk about the Xia Dynasty and rely solely on archaeological discoveries to speak, it is both historical nihilism and idealism, and it is also difficult to do.
If the Xia Dynasty did not exist, the ancient Greek civilization would most likely be fictional
If the documentary records are completely abandoned and archaeology is the only criterion, then the existence of the Xia Dynasty is indeed doubtful, but the authenticity of ancient Greek civilization, Christ Jesus, and so on, should also be questioned. But we all know that in the same lack of sufficient archaeological evidence, Western scholars have no doubt about the ancient Greek civilization and Jesus, but question the existence of the Xia Dynasty. When it comes to itself, it is not to take archaeology as the only criterion; when it comes to China, archaeology is the only criterion, which is a typical example of "leniency toward oneself and strict discipline of others."
Western scholars' questioning of the Xia Dynasty is a challenge to the reliability of Sima Qian and other Chinese literature
The country is like a person, a person has lied, then this person is difficult to believe. If we think that the Xia Dynasty is fictitious, the conclusion drawn from this will be that Sima Qian and others have lied, and more seriously, the Chinese literature is not credible, and the 5,000-year history of civilization is full of falsehood and lying. Therefore, the suspicion of Western scholars about the Xia Dynasty is a challenge to the reliability of Sima Qian and other Chinese literature, which shows the expansion of its sense of civilization superiority and the sinister intentions behind it.
It can be said that behind the Western scholars' doubts about the Xia Dynasty, most of them are not really objective academic reasons, but have other purposes.
In short, judging from the historical situation in China, as Scholars such as Hu Shi said, the Xia Dynasty must have existed when there was no ironclad evidence of the absence of the Xia Dynasty, and no examples of major incidents of falsification by ancient historians were found.