The article discusses the long-standing debate over whether the Erlitou culture in central China corresponds to the legendary Xia dynasty, revealing the stark differences between Chinese and overseas perspectives. Chinese scholars generally assume that Erlitou site represents the capital of Xia, drawing on later historical texts to confirm that existence. Critics, however, challenge the uncritical acceptance of ancient documents and point out that archaeological data alone cannot confirm an ethnic or dynastic identity. Chinese archaeology of Erlitou is rooted in a traditional, culture-historical paradigm, wherein specific artifact types are used to define the Xia culture, while modern scholarship elsewhere  favores theories of social evolution, population pressure, and settlement archaeology. Further complications arise from disagreements about radiocarbon dates, transitions in ceramic styles, unclear urban remains, and the difficulty of matching textual records—often composed centuries after the events—to archaeological data. Scholars advocating a neutral, international standard argue that more rigorous, problem-oriented fieldwork and theoretically grounded analysis is needed, rather than presupposing the Xia’s historical reality. The debate illuminates fundamental questions of method, evidence, and role of national narrative in shaping archaeological conclusions about China’s earliest state society.