美国网友问：夏朝没有得到国际承认，为什么中国人坚持夏朝存在？

美国的中学教材对中国历史的记载，大都是从商朝开始的。他们认为，中国历史学家以夏朝为中国历史的开始不具说服力。因此在美国教材中，对于夏朝的描写很少，只是一笔带过。在美国问答论坛Quora上，美国网友问：夏朝没有得到国际承认，为什么中国人坚持夏朝存在？这引起各国网友的热议，我们看看他们的观点。

美国网友卡尔逊的回答

Indeed, the specific location of the capital city of the Xia Dynasty has not yet been found, and there are no books written by the Xia Dynasty. However, we can infer from other sources that there must have been a "Xia" dynasty.

确实，夏朝的都城还没有找到具体位置，也没有任何夏朝写成的书籍。然而，我们可以从其他来源推断，一定有一个“夏”王朝存在。

The first source is ancient Chinese script, which was recorded in other materials such as turtle shells and animal bones during the Shang Dynasty in the Xia Dynasty. It is called oracle bone script.

第一个来源是古中国文字，夏朝在商代的龟甲和兽骨等其他材料上有记载，它被称为甲骨文。

The earliest oracle bone inscriptions date back to between 1300 and 1046 B.C.

最早的甲骨文可以追溯到公元前1300年至1046年之间。

It is the earliest known writing system in China and East Asia, inheriting the original carved symbols and being a key form of Chinese character development. The current regular script has gradually evolved from the commercial script. In addition to oracle bone script, Shang Shu also includes Shang Jin script, which is usually a more formal style than oracle bone script.

它是中国和东亚地区已知最早的文字系统，继承了原始的雕刻符号，是汉字发展的关键形式。现在的楷书是从商书逐渐演变而来的。商书除了甲骨文之外，还包括商金文，这通常是一种比甲骨文更正式的文体。

Less than 5,000 characters of the Yin Shang oracle bone script have been discovered, but only between 1,500 and 2,000 characters have actually been deciphered.

目前发现的殷商甲骨文字不到5000个，但实际破译的文字只有1500到2000个。

As the oracle bone script itself was already a very well-developed writing system, scholars believe that it originated from a more primitive script.

由于甲骨文本身已经是一个非常发达的书写系统，学者们认为它起源于一个更原始的文字。

There are 154000 existing oracle bones, including more than 100000 in Chinese Mainland, more than 30000 in Taiwan, about 100 in Hong Kong SAR, and about 27000 in 12 countries, including Japan, Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, etc.

现存甲骨15.4万块，其中中国大陆10多万块，台湾地区3万多块，香港特区约100块，日本、英国、德国、加拿大、瑞典等12个国家约2.7万块。

As you can imagine, a writing system this sophisticated was obviously not created in a matter of days or even years or decades. Clearly an era of civilization existed before this.

正如你所能想象的，一个如此复杂的写作系统显然不是在几天甚至几年或几十年内创造出来的。很明显，在这之前就存在着一个文明时代。

The second is that ancient Chinese history books, especially those dating back more than 2,000 years, record the existence of the Xia Dynasty.

第二，中国古代史书，尤其是2000多年前的史书，记载了夏朝的存在。

But this time is still a little too late.

但这些史书还是有点晚了。

According to records, the Xia Dynasty may have existed between 2070 BC and 1600 BC. In other words, it was formed over a thousand years earlier than these ancient books. Although there are more records of the Xia Dynasty in traditional Chinese literature, their existence has been questioned by many in the modern historical community due to their late writing and the lack of direct evidence of their existence, such as texts from the same period of the Xia Dynasty as self evidence.

根据记载，夏朝可能存在于公元前2070年至公元前1600年。换句话说，它比这些古籍形成的时间早了一千多年。尽管中国传统文献中有更多关于夏朝的记载，但由于它们都写得很晚，而且迄今为止还没有发现公认的夏朝存在的直接证据，例如夏朝同期的文本作为自证，夏朝的存在受到了现代史学界许多人的质疑。

The Erlitou site, found in western Henan Province and southern Shanxi Province, has the basic conditions for a chronological and geographical location belonging to the Xia culture, but it has never been possible to confirm that it came from the Xia dynasty because no written records from the same period, similar to the oracle bone divination at Yinxu, have been unearthed.

河南省西部和山西省南部发现的二里头遗址，具有属于夏文化的时间和地理位置的基本条件，但由于没有出土类似殷墟甲骨卜辞的同期文字记录，因此一直无法确认它来自夏代。

In fact, if one follows the Western approach to European civilization, the Xia dynasty can be identified (because of the ancient records).

事实上，如果遵循西方对欧洲文明的确认原则，夏朝是可以被确认存在的（因为古代有记录）。

To sum up.

综上所述：

1. A large number of ancient history books record the existence of the Xia dynasty, but because they are more than a thousand years removed from it, they are of limited persuasion.

1.大量的古代史书记载了夏朝的存在，但由于与夏朝相隔一千多年，说服力有限。

2. The existence of oracle bone inscriptions proves that a mature civilisation must have existed before the Shang dynasty.

2、甲骨文的存在，证明了商朝以前一定存在一个成熟的文明。

3. More information is awaited from new archaeological excavations

3.新的考古发掘正在等待更多信息证明

In addition, from 2003 to 2006, archaeologists discovered primitive carved symbols at the Pinghu Zhuangqiao Tomb Site in Zhejiang Province, which were believed by experts in ancient script research to be primitive characters. The primitive characters on the two unearthed stone battle axes were basically the same as the other characters in terms of carving methods, except for the six characters on the front, with lighter strokes and slightly different styles. This indicates that their carving methods and stroke order are more standardized and mature More preliminary system text. These ancient scripts, like oracle bones, are pictographic characters rather than ideographic characters. They have a history of 5300 to 4000 years, but their quantity is too small to make any further confirmation.

此外，2003年至2006年，考古学家在浙江平湖庄桥墓遗址发现的原始雕刻符号，被古文字研究专家认为是原始文字，而出土的两把石战斧上的原始文字与其余文字的雕刻方式基本相同，除了正面的六个字，笔痕较浅，风格略有不同，这表明它们的雕刻方式和笔划顺序更加规范，是更成熟、更初步的系统文字。这些古代文字，就像甲骨一样，是象形文字，而不是表意文字。它们有5300到4000年的历史，但数量太少，无法做出任何进一步的确认。

网友吴辉健的回答

The so-called international non recognition actually comes more from some Western historians, and the most interesting thing is that if we look at the way they treat Chinese history, ancient Greek civilization actually does not exist.

所谓的国际不承认实际上更多地来自一些西方历史学家，最有趣的是，如果按照他们对待中国历史的方式来看，古希腊文明实际上也不存在。

The earliest excavated ancient Greek document is a copy of a papyrus (Derveni papyrus) from 340 BC, unearthed in the Derveni region of Macedonia in 1962. This is a commentary on Orpheus's six meter poem

最早出土的古希腊文献是公元前340年复制的一张纸莎草（Derveni papyrus），1962年出土于马其顿的Derveni地区，这是对俄耳甫斯六米诗的评论

So, the other so-called ancient Greek books are basically manuscripts from after 100 AD. In other words, what if these classics are fake? What if it was forged by people at that time?

那么，其余所谓的古希腊书籍基本上都是公元100年以后的“手稿”。换句话说，如果这些典籍是假的怎么办？如果它是由当时的人们伪造的呢？

What if these classics are forged? What if this is a forgery of 3000 years of history written in so-called "manuscripts" dating back less than 2000 years?

如果这些典籍是伪造的怎么办？如果这是人们用不到2000年的所谓“手稿”书写3000年历史的时间的伪造呢？

China was able to write 3,000 years of history because of the discovery of archaeological artefacts such as turtle shells and bamboos.

中国之所以能够书写3000年的历史，是因为发现了龟壳和竹子等考古文物。

You tell me that sagebrush and sheepskin can be kept for hundreds of years?

你告诉我山艾树和羊皮可以保存数百年吗？

This is actually a double standard. Western "codices" from over a thousand years ago can be considered history, but Chinese records from even earlier times, such as bamboo scrolls, do not count.

这不是双重标准吗？一千多年前的西方“典籍”可以被视为历史，但更早的中国记录，如竹卷，却不能算在内。

It is normal to exchange different opinions. However, those who still deny them in the face of ironclad evidence, such as those who claim to have discovered artifacts with very similar styles near two archaeological sites and whose scientific dating still denies their association. I am not interested in discussing this issue with them again, let them talk to themselves.

交换不同的意见很正常。但是，那些在铁一般的证据面前仍然否认他们的人，例如，说在两个考古遗址附近发现了风格非常相似的文物，并且这些文物经过了科学年代测定，仍然否认它们有关联。我没有兴趣再和他们讨论这个问题，让他们自己自说自话吧。

新加坡网友Yu-Hsing Chen的回答

Because by the logic and standard you're using, Troy STILL doesn't exist.

按照你使用的逻辑和标准，特洛伊根本就不存在。

The settlement we now think is Troy, still never found any writing that calls itself Troy, contemporary era stuff from either side of the Aegean sea also don't say “That place is Troy” ( We suspect it's the same city as the Hittite source Wilusa but again it's not a certainty.)

我们现在认为的遗址是特洛伊，但从未发现任何特洛伊的文字，爱琴海两岸的当代作品也没有说“那个地方就是特洛伊”（我们怀疑它与赫梯人的来源威卢萨是同一个城市，但这也不确定。）

We know the existence of Troy because of the Iliad, which was mainly passed down orally from the dark era of Greece. This era was full of fantasy and chaos, as well as places and things that had enough intersection with the Iliad.

我们知道特洛伊的存在是因为《伊利亚特》，这部作品主要是由希腊黑暗时代的口头相传流传下来的，这个时代充满了幻想和混乱，以及与伊利亚特有足够交集的地点和东西。

At the same time, we believe that the existence of Xia is due to the sources of information from the Zhou Dynasty, such as people outside of Confucius himself, who of course believe that they were based on literature from his time, or at least partially from oral records. There is also other indirect evidence, such as the small principality of Qi - Qi, which is said to be the bloodline of the Xia people during that period. We know that all the Zhou fiefdoms will carefully trace their clan origins.

同时，我们认为夏的存在是因为周时代的资料来源，如孔子本人以外的人，当然认为他们是基于他那个时代的文献，也可能至少部分来自口头记录。还有其他的间接证据，比如齐国的小公国—杞 据说这是那个时期夏人的血脉，我们知道所有的周封地都会非常认真地追踪他们的氏族起源。

子曰：「夏禮，吾能言之，杞不足徵也；殷禮，吾能言之，宋不足徵也。文獻不足故也，足則吾能徵之矣。」

This is a line in Confucius where he's talking about the rites before the Zhou, aka the Shang and Xia, we know the Duchy of Song was the sons of the Shang Kings pretty definitively, here he implies he has visited both Song and Qi to look up the ancient rites but found insufficient documents.

这是孔子的一句话，意思是孔子说 夏朝,商朝的礼仪制度我能说出来,但是在他们的后代 杞国,宋国不能证实,这是两国文献保存不足的原因,如果有足够的文献就能证明我的说法。他说的是周之前的礼仪，也就是商和夏，我们非常清楚地知道宋公国是商王的儿子，在这里他暗示他访问了宋和杞，以查找古代的礼仪，但发现的文件不足。

Perhaps more over both the early 20th century skeptics and folks like Confucius put Xia and Shang in the same breath, thus the rather definitive proof of the Shang certainly gives major credence to the possibility that the Xia existed at least somewhat like what the old historians described.

也许在20世纪初，怀疑论者和像孔子这样的人都把夏和商放在了同一个位置，因此，对商的相当明确的证明无疑大大证明了夏的存在，至少有点像老历史学家所描述的那样。

So my general take is that Xia is probably as historical as Troy, we have about as much and probably more reason to believe it existed than say… the Exodus and Moses.

所以我的总体看法是，夏可能和特洛伊一样具有历史意义，我们有同样多的理由相信它的存在，可能比《出埃及记》和《摩西》更有理由相信它。

The general take on ancient history that is beyond the scope of current archaeological evidence is that you should probably believe them as long as there aren't overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as long as what's described was remotely feasible and plausible.

对古代历史的普遍看法超出了当前考古证据的范围，即只要没有压倒性的相反证据，只要所描述的内容是完全可行和可信的，你就应该相信它们。

So, within the time frame we have learned from archaeology, a dynasty in the Yellow River region did indeed have a significant level of civilization, based on at least the ability to govern a famous flood prone river. Isn't this reasonable?

那么，在我们从考古中了解到的时间范围内，黄河地区的一个王朝确实具有显著的文明水平，建立在至少有能力治理一条著名的易发洪水河流的基础上，这难道不是合理的吗？

中国网友Aozao Zhou的回答

There were very few actual artifacts that support the existence of the Xia Dynasty.

支持夏朝存在的事物很少。

So, archeologically speaking, it is as though it did not exist. We have zero knowledge about what Xia people ate, what the people wore, what they did for fun, what kind of language they spoke, the architecture, tools, and customs they subscribed to in the Xia dynasty.

所以，从考古学的角度来说，它似乎并不存在。我们对夏人的饮食、穿着、娱乐活动、语言、建筑、工具和习俗一无所知。

How do we know Xia dynasty? Because people in the ancient times talked about it all the time. They call the dynasty before Shang dynasty, Xia.

我们怎么知道夏朝？因为在古代人们一直在谈论它，把它写进历史和诗歌里。他们把商朝之前的朝代叫做夏。

All the records feels more like legend, than records.

所有的记录感觉更像是传奇，而不是记录。

Imagine summer as "dark matter" in astrophysics. Dark matter is not matter, it is a placeholder for all gravitational anomalies that have not yet been explained in astrophysical observations.

把夏想象成天体物理学中的“暗物质”。暗物质不是物质，它是天体物理体观测尚未解释的所有引力异常的占位符。

We won’t know for sure, and there is no evidence, yet, but we know for sure some form of primitive civilization precedes Shang, so Xia serves as a placeholder. No one can know what Xia Dynasty looks like, exactly.

我们还不能确定，也没有证据，但我们可以肯定的是，某种形式的原始文明早于商，所以夏是一个占位符。没有人知道夏朝到底是什么样子。

Maybe someday, by accident, its artifacts will be excavated. Have hope, there’s not a nail in the coffin, yet.

也许有一天，由于意外，夏朝的文物会被挖掘出来，我觉得有希望吧，一切都还没盖棺定论。

Just like the unexpected discovery of the bamboo slips from the Sleeping Tiger Qin Tomb, people today have gained a new understanding of the laws and customs of the Qin Dynasty (221 BC -207 BC). Even people from the Han Dynasty (202-220 BC) have a better understanding of Qin's laws. In fact, some basic facts about Qin's laws by Han historians are incorrect, and the gap between them is less than 100 years!

就像意外发现的睡虎地秦墓竹简，使今天的人们对秦朝（公元前221年-公元前207年）的法律和习俗有了全新的认识。甚至比汉代（公元前202-220年）的人更了解秦律，实际上，汉代历史学家对秦律的一些基本事实是错误的，他们之间的差距只有不到100年！

海外网友Adnan Khan的回答

The archaeological evidence of the Xia Dynasty is very lacking. There is evidence to suggest that there was indeed a country during the Xia Dynasty, but this evidence is far from certain. Therefore, archaeologists and historians cannot confidently say that it does indeed exist.

夏朝的考古证据非常缺乏。有证据表明夏朝时期确实存在一个国家，但这一证据还远未确定。因此，考古学家和历史学家不能肯定地说它确实存在。

However, I must point out that the Xia Dynasty (if it really existed) is very ancient! For a Chinese scholar from the Three Kingdoms period, the Xia Dynasty is even older than today's Three Kingdoms period! No civilization is stagnant. With the development of various dynasties on the land of China, their population and complexity are increasing. Therefore, we should not expect exquisite palaces or huge urban ruins during the Xia Dynasty.

然而，我必须指出，夏朝（如果它真的存在的话）是非常古老的！对于一个三国时期的中国学者来说，夏朝甚至比我们今天的三国时期还要古老！没有哪个文明是停滞不前的。随着中国大地上各个国家王朝的发展，它们的人口和复杂性都在增加。因此，我们不应该期望夏朝时期有精致的宫殿或巨大的城市遗址。

In addition, China's early civilization developed in the Yellow River basin and the North China Plain. Over the past few thousand years, this region has experienced countless floods, earthquakes, and foreign invasions. In addition to these disasters, this area is also very conducive to urban development and reconstruction. If the Xia Dynasty existed, a considerable amount of evidence may have been hidden deep in modern cities.

此外，中国早期的文明在黄河流域和华北平原发展起来。在过去的几千年里，这个地区经历了无数的洪水、地震和外来入侵。除了这些灾难，这个地区也非常有利于城市的发展和重建。如果夏朝存在，那么相当一部分证据可能隐藏在现代城市的深处。

So the answer is, we do not have strong evidence to prove the existence of the Xia Dynasty, so we cannot say that its existence is conclusive evidence; However, considering the Xia Dynasty era and the geography and history of the region, it is difficult to find evidence.

所以答案是，我们没有强有力的证据证明夏朝的存在，所以我们不能说它的存在是证据确凿的；但考虑到夏朝的时代以及该地区的地理和历史，很难找到证据。