A:Based on current scholarship, probably a bit of both. Even the earliest classical historians wrote of the Xia more than 1500 years after the dynasty supposedly fell, and no evidence has been found of written records from the Xia period. Consequently, the historians would need to rely heavily on oral tradition, and details from some of the accounts are also clearly mythical. However, modern archaeological discoveries, particularly of the Erlitou culture, have confirmed that a complex, urban culture did exist in the same time and area ascribed to the Xia.
Q:So the Erlitou culture was the Xia kingdom?
A:Not necessarily; there is still no direct evidence linking the society of the Erlitou sites to the Xia dynasty of traditional Chinese history. However, if the Xia did exist, the Erlitou culture is the strongest candidate for the actual remnants of their society.
Q:If so little is still known about the Xia, how was the map drawn?
A:Some traditional accounts describe the borders of Xia territory, and these descriptions actually have significant overlap with known archaeological sites of the Erlitou culture. The map doesn't presume to mark exact borders, but conservatively draws a line around those sites, centered on the main site at Erlitou.
Q:Do scholars' views on the Xia split along Eastern vs. Western lines?
A:For the most part, no. On average, Western scholars may emphasize archaeological evidence and downplay written records slightly more than their Eastern colleagues, but this is only slight and in the aggregrate. The leading, reputable scholars on Ancient China will rely on all types of evidence to reach their conclusions.
Q:So politics have no influence on Xia scholarship?
A:As the saying goes, history is always political, and political motives can certainly color both scholarly and layman views on the Xia. For example, very West-centric views can show total skepticism of all traditional accounts and fixate on later dates of establisment, or even that the Xia never existed. Those of a strong, Chinese-nationalist persuasion tend to make sweeping statements in the opposite direction. However, most Xia historians of all stripes have made a good-faith attempt to reach their conclusions from evidence, not their own biases, and this shows in the scholarly consensus.
