本文意圖探索法醫史家長久以來所關心的「中國傳統法醫學」與「中醫」之間的關係。分析的策略是回到現代法醫學被採行之前，考察古人原本是如何定位、閱讀，與實踐今日我們稱為「中國傳統法醫學」的「檢驗」知識。從書目學的角度來看，這些著作均被歸類為「法家」，而中醫則遲遲不願承認他們與「法醫」有關。其次，中國傳統「法醫學」的作者與讀者主要是執法的官吏與仵作，並非專職的醫生。從法律規定仵作的活動和他們與官員的互動關係，可以看出其知識操作特性與現代法醫學的精神差異。在此基礎上，本文逐一檢討學者們有關中國「法醫學」與醫學關係諸多紛歧論點的得失。首先，學者們之所以煞費苦心解釋兩者間關係而難下定論，關鍵在於忽略「法醫學」與醫學雖然有共同關心的對象，卻有不同關切面向。據此，本文主張爭議的根源有二：一在經過近代化、西方化的洗禮後，古今中國的知識分類已經有所位移；其次中西醫學所處理的問題與探討範圍原本不盡相同，而當代人難免以現代醫學的預設來考量傳統醫學的問題。

　　　　　This paper explores the relationships between "traditional Chinese forensic medicine" and "traditional Chinese medicine," a topic long of considerable interest to historians. The analytic strategy employed here is to examine how, in traditional society, so-called traditional Chinese forensic medicine was read, practiced, and classified bibliographically. First, in traditional bibliographies, the relevant books are categorized under the "legalist school" (fajia). On the other hand, experts in traditional Chinese medicine denied that "forensic medicine" was a part of their knowledge. Second, the practitioners of "traditional Chinese forensic medicine" were mainly magistrates and wuzuo (the Chinese-style coroner), rather than physicians. Furthermore, the contents of the relevant legal codes, which defined the dynamics of forensic practices, reveal differences from modern Western forensic medicine. Based on these observations, this paper then evaluates the views of previous scholars regarding the relations between "traditional Chinese forensic medicine" and "traditional Chinese medicine." In sum, historians have neglected the fact that while these two modes of learning shared the same research object, they focused on different aspects. Thus, I argue the roots of the debates lie in two factors. After the modernization, the taxonomy of Chinese knowledge was changed; and as well, modern scholars unconsciously used the premises of modern medical knowledge to study traditional Chinese medicine, even though the two differed in focus and scope.