Chinese Chronology and Cycles

GENERAL VIEW OF THE QUESTION.

...two nations thousands of years ago, everyone is quite willing to allow any other nation, such as the Chinese, to share in a similarly respected original: "venerable" ancient existence, provided their claim can be proven. It is partly because the records original: "annals" of those undoubtedly ancient nations make no mention of a contemporary original: "coeval" Chinese empire that reasonable doubt arises regarding the accuracy of the chronology on which China's antiquity is based. If China had been a center of science and civilization at that time, possessing the size and power attributed to it, it would have been so prominent in the world that it could not have gone unnoticed or unrecorded. This absence of any mention of China in the records of known ancient nations justifies treating its ancient history with hesitation. It also makes a careful investigation into its truth necessary.

To anyone approaching the question of whether Chinese chronology is authentic, the issue seems to turn on one point: is the historical compilation presented by the Chinese supported by contemporary original: "synchronous" monuments and trustworthy records? Or is it a narrative written in a more recent period, based on weak evidence, and skillfully fitted to fake ancient dates to make it look detailed and accurate?