研究范式与学术脉络：蒙古帝国制度研究的演进与转向 | Research Paradigms and Academic Context: The Evolution and Turn of Mongol Empire Institutional Studies

蒙古帝国作为人类历史上疆域最广的陆上政权，其横跨欧亚大陆的超大规模治理实践始终是历史学、政治学与社会科学的交叉研究热点，而支撑这一治理体系的制度网络——尤其是作为物质载体的驿站系统与作为规则保障的法典体系的内在联动——长期以来未能进入主流研究的核心视野，这一学术疏漏直接导致我们对蒙古帝国欧亚整合作用的认知始终停留在功能主义的表层描述，未能深入到制度运作的深层逻辑。As the largest land-based empire in human history, the Mongol Empire's trans-Eurasian governance practice has always been a core topic of interdisciplinary research in history, political science, and social sciences. However, the institutional network supporting this super-scale governance system, especially the internal linkage between the material carrier of the postal and relay system (yam) and the rule guarantee of the legal code system, has long failed to enter the core vision of mainstream research. This academic omission directly leads to our cognition of the Mongol Empire's role in Eurasian integration remaining at the surface level of functionalism, failing to penetrate the deep logic of institutional operation.

一、学术脉络的阶段划分与研究范式演进

蒙古帝国制度研究的演进与全球史、区域研究范式的转向高度绑定，过去两个世纪的研究可划分为四个具有明确范式特征的阶段，每个阶段的成果与局限共同构成了本研究的学术起点。The evolution of Mongol Empire institutional studies is highly bound to the paradigm shift of global history and regional studies. Research over the past two centuries can be divided into four stages with clear paradigm characteristics, and the achievements and limitations of each stage together constitute the academic starting point of this study.

（一）19世纪东方学阶段：文献整理与初步研究的奠基

19世纪是蒙古学作为独立学科的奠基期，研究核心以一手文献的搜集、校勘与翻译为主，俄罗斯与西欧的东方学家是这一阶段的主导力量。The 19th century was the foundational period of Mongol studies as an independent discipline, with research focusing on the collection, collation, and translation of primary documents, led by Russian and Western European orientalists. 俄罗斯东方学家的贡献集中于《蒙古秘史》（*The Secret History of the Mongols*）的整理与研究：1840年，帕拉季奥诺夫（P. S. Palladius）出版了首个俄文全译本，1860年，科特维奇（B. Ya. Kotvich）完成了《蒙古秘史》的蒙古文原文校勘本，为后续研究提供了可靠的文本基础[^1]；同期，巴托尔德（V. V. Bartold）通过对中亚史料的梳理，首次系统考证了蒙古帝国驿站系统（站赤，yam）的空间布局与运作规则，其1880年出版的《突厥斯坦史》中专门设章讨论蒙古驿站的起源与功能，开创了站赤制度研究的先河。Russian orientalists made contributions focused on the collation and research of *The Secret History of the Mongols*: in 1840, P. S. Palladius published the first full Russian translation, and in 1860, B. Ya. Kotvich completed the Mongolian original collation of *The Secret History of the Mongols*, providing a reliable textual basis for subsequent research[^1]; at the same time, V. V. Bartold, through combing Central Asian historical materials, first systematically examined the spatial layout and operation rules of the Mongol Empire's postal and relay system (yam), with a dedicated chapter on the origin and function of Mongol post stations in his 1880 *History of Turkestan*, pioneering the research on the yam system. 西欧汉学家与东方学家的贡献集中于波斯文、阿拉伯文史料的整理：1871年，法国学者儒勒·古兰（Jules Guignard）出版了《世界征服者史》（*Tarīkh-i Jahān-gushā*）的法文节译本，1913年，伯希和（P. Pelliot）在《通报》（*T'oung Pao*）上陆续发表《史集》（*Jami' al-Tawarikh*）的校勘与翻译研究，首次将拉施特（Rashid al-Din）编纂的这部蒙古帝国官方史书的核心内容介绍给西方学界；1874年，英国学者亨利·玉尔（Henry Yule）出版了《马可·波罗游记》的校注本，为研究蒙古时代的欧亚旅行与驿站运作提供了珍贵的欧洲视角。Western sinologists and orientalists made contributions to the collation of Persian and Arabic historical materials: in 1871, French scholar Jules Guignard published a French abridged translation of *Tarīkh-i Jahān-gushā* (History of the World Conqueror), and in 1913, P. Pelliot successively published the collation and translation research of *Jami' al-Tawarikh* (Compendium of Chronicles) in *T'oung Pao*, first introducing the core content of this official history of the Mongol Empire compiled by Rashid al-Din to Western academia; in 1874, British scholar Henry Yule published the annotated edition of *The Travels of Marco Polo*, providing a precious European perspective for the study of Eurasian travel and relay station operation in the Mongol era. 这一阶段的研究局限十分明显：一方面，文献整理工作集中于少数核心文本，大量散见于中亚、东亚、欧洲的地方史料与出土文书尚未进入研究视野；另一方面，研究者普遍受“文明-野蛮”的二元史观影响，将蒙古制度视为游牧部落习惯法的简单延伸，未意识到其作为跨区域治理体系的独特性，更未关注驿站系统与法典体系的潜在关联。The limitations of research in this stage are very obvious: on the one hand, the collation of documents focuses on a small number of core texts, and a large number of local historical materials and unearthed documents scattered in Central Asia, East Asia, and Europe have not yet entered the research perspective; on the other hand, researchers are generally influenced by the binary historical view of "civilization-barbarism", regarding the Mongol system as a simple extension of nomadic tribal customary law, failing to realize its uniqueness as a cross-regional governance system, and not paying attention to the potential connection between the postal and relay system and the legal code system.

（二）20世纪上半叶帝国史研究阶段：制度史专题梳理的深化

20世纪上半叶，随着近代民族国家史学体系的成熟，蒙古帝国制度研究从文献整理转向专题史梳理，西方、苏联与中国学者分别从不同视角推进了制度史研究的深化。In the first half of the 20th century, with the maturity of the modern nation-state historiography system, Mongol Empire institutional research shifted from document collation to thematic history combing, and Western, Soviet, and Chinese scholars promoted the deepening of institutional history research from different perspectives. 西方学者的研究聚焦于蒙古行政与法律制度的整体梳理：1939年，法国学者勒内·格鲁塞（René Grousset）出版《草原帝国》（*The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia*），首次将蒙古帝国置于欧亚游牧帝国演进的脉络中，系统梳理了从匈奴到蒙古的驿站制度与法律传统的传承关系；1940年，美国学者道布森（J. B. Dobson）出版《蒙古法典》（*The Mongol Code*），首次对《元典章》《大元通制》中的法律条文进行系统整理，提出蒙古法典具有“游牧习惯法与中原成文法典融合”的特征。Western scholars' research focused on the overall combing of Mongol administrative and legal systems: in 1939, French scholar René Grousset published *The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia*, first placing the Mongol Empire in the context of the evolution of Eurasian nomadic empires, and systematically combing the inheritance relationship between the postal system and legal tradition from the Xiongnu to the Mongols; in 1940, American scholar J. B. Dobson published *The Mongol Code*, first systematically organizing the legal provisions in *The Yuan Code* and *The Great Yuan Unified System*, proposing that the Mongol code has the characteristics of "integration of nomadic customary law and Central Plains statutory law". 苏联学者的研究则集中于蒙古对欧亚本土制度的调适：1928年，巴托尔德出版《蒙古入侵时期的突厥斯坦》（*Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion*），详细分析了蒙古帝国在波斯、中亚地区实行的“达鲁花赤”（daruqachi）制度、土地税制度与驿站制度的运作；1934年，苏联学者符拉基米尔佐夫（B. Ya. Vladimirtsov）出版《蒙古法制史》（*The Mongol Law and Customs of the Mongols*），首次对成吉思汗大札撒（Yassa）的条文内容、司法程序进行系统考证，提出大札撒是蒙古帝国“所有汗国的共同根本法”。Soviet scholars' research focused on the adaptation of the Mongols to local Eurasian systems: in 1928, Bartold published *Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion*, which analyzed in detail the operation of the "daruqachi" system, land tax system, and postal and relay system implemented by the Mongol Empire in Persia and Central Asia; in 1934, Soviet scholar B. Ya. Vladimirtsov published *The Mongol Law and Customs of the Mongols*, which first systematically examined the content of the provisions and judicial procedures of Genghis Khan's Yassa, proposing that the Yassa was the "common fundamental law of all khanates" of the Mongol Empire. 中国学者的研究集中于蒙古对中原制度的继承与改造：1919年，王国维发表《蒙古史料之四考》，首次对《蒙古秘史》《元史》中的驿站记载进行考证，提出元朝站赤制度“源于金制，参用蒙古古制”的论断；1930年代，陈寅恪在清华大学讲授元史时，专门讨论了蒙古法典与唐宋律法的关系，指出蒙古法典“因俗而治”的特征是元朝能够稳定统治中原的核心原因。Chinese scholars' research focused on the inheritance and transformation of the Mongols to the Central Plains system: in 1919, Wang Guowei published *Four Studies on Mongol Historical Materials*, which first examined the records of postal stations in *The Secret History of the Mongols* and *The History of the Yuan Dynasty*, proposing the argument that the Yuan Dynasty's yam system "originated from the Jin system, combined with ancient Mongol systems"; in the 1930s, when Chen Yinke lectured on the history of the Yuan Dynasty at Tsinghua University, he specifically discussed the relationship between the Mongol code and the Tang and Song laws, pointing out that the "rule according to local customs" of the Mongol code was the core reason why the Yuan Dynasty could stably rule the Central Plains. 这一阶段的研究局限在于