The Pate Chronicles Revisited: Nineteenth-Century History and Historiography
The Pate Chronicles Revisited: Nineteenth-Century History and Historiography
复制标题
重温佩特编年史：十九世纪的历史和史学
DOI：
10.2307/3171945
复制
发表时间：
1996
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Pouwels
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Pouwels
几年前，我对佩特的《编年史》进行了评估，认为它是东非海岸历史的一个基于传统的来源。这篇论文借鉴了当时对他们的历史编纂感兴趣的研究人员随时可用的校订和版本。由于篇幅和范围的原因，在论文的结尾引用了限制讨论的苏丹福莫·马迪B。阿布伯克尔和他的前任（苏丹号。1-24），也就是说，直到希拉战役的时间，约。1807-13.为了重申，在那篇论文中，我确立了以下几点：（1）所有记录的版本似乎都是基于世纪中后期纳巴哈尼家族成员之间现存的口头传统。沃纳和普林斯提到的“佩特国王之书”的存在是有问题的（见下文第3段）。(2)尽管有许多版本的佩特“编年史”，他们似乎实际上只来自两个线人，Bwana Kitini和Mshamu bin Kombo，谁是一个亲戚或可能，因为Tolmacheva声称，Bw。基蒂尼的兄弟。(3)除了双方提供的苏丹名单之间有细微的差异外，大多数版本都是一致的，达到了令人惊讶的程度。这似乎是因为只有两个告密者，Kitini和Mshamu，他们也是亲戚，因此他们自己可能有相同的消息来源。考虑到国王名单之外的细节差异，如果这些早期的来源之一是书面的，比如一本真正的《佩特国王之书》，那么这个来源似乎除了名字和王朝日期之外，几乎没有提供任何信息。
A few years ago I offered an assessment of the Pate “Chronicles” as a tradition-based source for the history of the East African coast. That paper drew on recensions and versions that were readily available at that time to researchers interested in their historiography. Reasons of length and scope, cited at the end of the paper, restricted discussion to Sultan Fumo Madi b. Abu Bakr and his predecessors (Sultan nos. 1-24), that is to say, up to the time of the Battle of Shela, ca. 1807-13. To reiterate, in that paper I established the following points: (1) All recorded versions appear to have been based on an oral tradition that was extant in the mid- to late nineteenth century among Nabahani family members. The existence of a “Book of the Kings of Pate,” mentioned by Werner and Prins, is problematic (see 3 below). (2) Despite the number of versions of the Pate “Chronicles,” they appear to have actually come from only two informants, Bwana Kitini and Mshamu bin Kombo, who was a relative or possibly, as Tolmacheva claims, Bw. Kitini's brother. (3) Except for minor, though discernible, differences between the lists of the sultans given by both informants, most versions are consistent to a surprising degree. This seems attributable to the fact that there were only two informants, Kitini and Mshamu, who also were related, and who therefore themselves probably shared the same source(s). Given the differences of detail beyond the kinglists, if one of those earlier sources was a written one, such as an actual “Book of the Kings of Pate,” that source seems to have afforded the informants little beyond names and regnal dates.