理論化文化認同與帝國邊疆：從羅馬帝國、清帝國到明帝國史料中的西藏

Theorizing Cultural Identity and Empire’s Frontier: From Rome, Qing, to Tibet in Ming Historical Archives

中國崛起下東亞區域各國的反應，是近年來廣受關注的議題，中國邊疆地區的反應則相對受到忽略。以人類歷史上並不罕見的多民族大帝國視角來看，曾經的外邦可以收入版圖，曾經的境內也可能叛離或喪失，控制程度的深淺時有變動，在尋求跨越時空通論解釋的國際關係理論視角下，這看似南轅北轍的古今中外不同帝國的收放之間、異族的叛服之間，共通的關鍵因素究竟為何？現實主義所聚焦，物質力量的興衰固然重要；但建構主義的脈絡中，異族對帝國有無文化認同，是否也不可忽視呢？於此，既有研究除關注西方的羅馬帝國，更聚焦於東方的清帝國，探究兼有儒家與內亞性格的清朝，是否更能穩固對邊疆的控制。從此延伸出進一步的問題，相較於清帝國對今天蒙古、新疆、西藏等地有成功收服，僅屬儒家與漢人性格的明帝國，卻也成功維持西藏的歸附。較之西藏與清朝之間，西藏與明朝之間，是否也存有某種文化認同？對此本文將探索明代史料中的西藏，以為當代中國的崛起提供參照。

The reaction of countries in East Asia under the rise of China has been a topic of widespread concern in recent years, while the reaction of China’s border areas has been relatively ignored. For multi-nation empires throughout human history, foreign territories can be included, and owned territories may also be lost. The degree of control changes from time to time. From the perspective of international relations theories that seek general explanations over a wide range of times and spaces, what exactly are the key factors accounting for the expansion/retraction of empires? Realism focuses on the distribution of material power. However, in the context of constructivism, whether foreign peoples have cultural identity with the empire is also important. In addition to the studies about Roman Empire in the West, existing researches focused on the Qing Empire, exploring whether the Qing, which had both Confucianism and Inner Asian character, could more firmly control the border areas. From then on, a further question was extended. In contrast to Qing Empire’s successful control of today’s Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, the Ming Empire, which was only Confucian and Han-Chinese in character, also succeeded in maintaining Tibet’s royalty. Was there any cultural identity between Tibet and the Ming? This article will survey Tibet in the Ming archives and provide a reference for the rise of China in contemporary world.