1. For the Portuguese account, see de Barros, João, Da Asia (4 vols.: Lisbon, 1945–1946), 1:pp. 323–28.Google Scholar References will also be made to the English translation in Theal, George M., Records of South-Eastern Africa (7 vols.: London, 1898–1903), 6:pp. 233–44.Google Scholar The extant copy of the Kitab is at the British Museum, MS Or. 2666. It was published in Strong, “History of Kilwa,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (1895), pp. 383–430.Google Scholar

2. Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P., The Medieval History of the Coast of Tanganyika (London, 1962), p. 44Google Scholaret passim. Idem, “Coin Finds and Their Significance for Eastern African Chronology,” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th Ser., 11, (1971), pp. 233-301.

3. Chittick, H.N., “The Shirazi ‘Colonization’ of East Africa,” JAH, 6(1965), pp. 275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Idem, “On the Chronology and Coinage of the Sultans of Kilwa,” Numismatic Chronicle, 7th Ser., 13, (1973), pp. 192-200.

4. The translation is in Freeman-Grenville, , ed., The East African Coast: Select Documents (Oxford, 1962), pp. 34–49.Google Scholar Freeman-Grenville does not indicate his omission of the marginal comments nor does he note his departure from the text at points where alternative readings seemed to him necessary. My disagreements with his translation concern the most difficult paragraphs and will be noted as we proceed.

5. Compare Kitab, fols. 8–9 (Strong, pp. 415–17) with de Barros. The manuscript of the Kitab is not foliated and to avoid confusion I follow the enumeration adopted by Strong.

6. A genealogical reconstruction was attempted by Walker, John, “The History and Coinage of the Sultans of Kilwa,” Numismatic Chronicle, 5th Ser., 16 (1936), pp. 41–81.Google Scholar Walker had recourse to the pedigrees but often subordinated them to the confused (and, as we shall see, biased) information in the Portuguese account. Among other problems he showed the mid-fourteenth century Talut b. Husain as brother of the mid-fifteenth century Ismaʿil b. Husain b. Sulaiman. Additionally, he attached the last Shirazis to the genealogy of the Mahdali family while dissociating the last amirs from it.

7. See Yaqut, , Kitab Muʿjam al-Buldan (Jacut's Geographisches), (6 vols.: Tehran, 1965).Google Scholar Malindi is mentioned next to Brava (Brawa, misspelled Bwara) under the letter “B”, but not separately. Tumbatu is mentioned as a new city to which the inhabitants of Languja had moved. See, for example, 1: p. 485; 4: p. 366. Cf. Chittick, , Kilwa: An Islamic Trading City on the East African Coast (2 vols.: Nairobi, 1974), p. 237.Google Scholar

8. For a discussion of possible Shiʿi influence at Kilwa, see Hamdun, S. and King, N., Ibn Battuta in Black Africa (London, 1975), Appendix II.Google Scholar

9. See Flury, S., “The Kufic Inscriptions of Kizimkazi Mosque, Zanzibar,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1922), pp. 257–64.Google Scholar The unknown monarch is identified as Abu ʿAmran Musa b. al-Hasan b. Muhammad. Cf. Velten, C., Prosa und Poesie der Suaheli (Berlin, 1907), pp. 243–52.Google Scholar For possible connections between Shirazi and Shiʿa of the Zaidi sect, as well as “Amranis” see Pouwels, R., “The Medieval Foundations Of East African Islam,” JAHS, 11 (1978), esp. p. 225.Google Scholar

10. The identity of the Mutamandalin is problematical; the name may be a corruption of al-Mutamandhirin, i.e. “those claiming Mandhiri descent or nisba.” One of the rulers appointed by them over Kilwa is identified as Muhammad b. al-Husain al-Mandhiri. As is well known, the adoption of a prestigious Middle Eastern nisba, much as in the case of Shirazis and Mahdalis, does not preclude a local origin. The local home of the Mutamandalin is said to be Shagh, a name with many associations in the oral traditions but nonetheless obscure.

11. Al-Masʿudi, , Muruj al-Dhahab wa-Maʿadin al-Jawhar (4 vols.: 1948), 1: pp. 59-65, 244–246Google Scholar, suggests that Omani and Sirafi captains sailed directly on the open sea to Qanbalu (Pemba) without putting in further north along the coast. Al-Jahiz in the ninth century mentions Qanbalu as the port par excellence to which Muslim navigators went. His brief and second-hand information suggests that Languja (at Zanzibar) was a major power ruled by blacks at the time. Muslim influence at both places, by Shiʿi fugitives who themselves may have been partly or fully black, cannot be ruled out. See al-Jahiz, , Kitab Fakhr al-Sudan ʿala al-Bidan, in Tria Opusaula Auctore, ed. Vloten, G. (Leiden, 1903), pp. 57–66.Google Scholar

12. See Chittick, , Kisimani Mafia: Excavations at an Islamic Settlement on the East African Coast (Dar es Salaam, 1961).Google Scholar One of the early mosques now stands at the shoreline, part of it having already been destroyed by water, while masonry blocks attest to previous buildings in parts of the site now submerged. For Manda see Chittick, , “Discoveries in the Lamu Archipelago,” Azania, 11(1976), pp. 37–67.Google Scholar Elsewhere Chittick has not laid much emphasis on the implications of the rising sea-table. See his “A New Look at the History of Pate,” JAH, 10(1969), pp. 375–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. See Kirkman, James, Men and Monuments on the East African Coast (London, 1964).Google Scholar At Mkumbu on Pemba, believed to be Qanbalu, Kirkman observed that the remains extended over land now submerged. One submersion legend, concerning the island town of Ghama, is recorded in Kitab al-Zunuj.

14. See Chittick, , “On the Chronology,” pp. 193–94Google Scholar and Kilwa, 2 :pp. 269–70.Google Scholar The Portuguese account involves confusing the nomenclature of ʿAli b. Husain b. ʿAli (the founder). At one point it is reduced to ʿAli b. ʿAli, (Ale Bumale). At another point he appears as Hocem, presumably a reference to his father, while in a third case he is identified simply as “Ale.”

15. See Chittick, , Kilwa, 2: pp. 274–301Google Scholar, for the provenance and stratigraphy of the coins. For reasons discussed by Chittick the stratigraphy supplies only a rough chronological index, especially in cases (such as the coins of Daud b. Hasan) where few samples have been recovered.

16. Barros, De, Da Asia, 1: pp. 324–25Google Scholar (Theal, , Records, 6: pp. 241–42Google Scholar). The Portuguese ‘translator’ at first treated “Ibn” (Bin, ‘Bnu, depending on context) as an integral part of the name. Subsequently, his informant must have corrected him for he identified the Mahdali kings only by their personal names while indicating their parentage (often defectively) separately.

17. Freeman-Grenville, , The Medieval Coast, pp. 66–73Google Scholar, dates the Shirazis from 957 to 1277 and assigns the last grandson of the founder, the problematical Hasan b. Daud, to 1106–1129.

18. See Kitab, fol. 8 (Strong, pp. 414-15). The statement that ʿAli b. Daud b. ʿAli was the last descendant of the Shirazi founder is questioned by the invocation “God knows best.”

19. Barros, De, Da Asia, pp. 324–25Google Scholar (Theal, , Records, 6:241–42Google Scholar). The Portuguese account described Ale Daute, the last Shirazi, as grandfather of Hasan b. Talut, the Mahdali founder, but this may be an extension of the confusion between him and his earlier namesake. The Kitab and its genealogical evidence leave little doubt that the Mahdalis were a new dynasty, though kinship on the maternal side cannot be excluded.

20. Walker, “History and Coinage,” understood the description of Sulaiman as “of royal blood” to mean that he may have been a usurper from whom the Mahdalis descended. Chittick, “Shirazi colonization,” followed this proposition while stipulating further that Sulaiman and his eight successors duplicate the names of other kings.

21. The Portuguese text reads as though succession among the first four of the omitted kings was from father to son. The clue in the name of Soleimao Hacen, however, alters the picture. As Sulaiman b. Hasan he cannot have been son of Daud. Likewise, Boni Soleimao cannot have been a nephew of Daud (the second of that name among the omitted kings) unless the latter was brother (rather than son) of Soleimao Hacen. Compare Barros, De, Da Asia, 1:pp. 324–25Google Scholar (Theal, , Records, 6:pp. 241–42Google Scholar) with our genealogy of the Shirazis.

22. Batuta, Ibn, Voyages d' Ibn Batoutah, ed. and trans. Defrémery, C. and Sanguinetti, B.R. (4 vols.: Paris, 1969 [reprint of 1877-93 ed.]), 2: pp. 192–95.Google Scholar

23. For reasons not altogether persuasive, Chittick believes that Muhammad al-ʿAdil's coins were minted at Mogadishu. See his “On the Chronology,” p. 195.

24. Concerning the coins of Nasir al-Din wa'l-Dunya Muhammad, Chittick, ibid, p. 194, says “On archaeological grounds I cannot believe that these coins date from before the fifteenth century … If the name is really that of a sultan of Kilwa, I prefer a sixteenth century date, since presumably if he ruled before c. 1520 he would be mentioned in the Chronicles.” In fact, the Kitab mentions two Muhammads from the fifteenth century, besides Muhammad al-ʿAdil.

25. See, for example, Kitab, fol. 10 (Strong, p. 418). The death of Sulaiman b. Muhammad al-ʿAdil confronted the kingmakers with a choice between “two grandsons who were of equal descent on their fathers’ and their mothers’ sides.” The two may be [20]Saʿid b. Hasan b. Sulaiman and [25]Sabhati b. Muhammad al-ʿAdil b. Sulaiman. Al-Amir Muhammad apparently objected to both, and therefore their enthronement was long delayed. The notables finally chose [15]Ismaʿil b. Husain b. Sulaiman, whose claims were apparently weak owing to questions surrounding the reign of his father [10]Husain Ashazifiki.

26. Yaqut, , Kitab Muʿjam, 4: p. 602Google Scholar, indicated that Mogadishu was ruled by several elders, each representing a section of the population. The Portuguese text suggests that this system survived only at nearby Brava.

27. For example, when Saʿid b. Hasan unsuccessfully disputed the enthronement of Ismaʿil, he sought refuge at the house of the qadi but found the latter unobliging. See Kitab, fol. 11 (Strong, p. 419).

28. Kitab, fol. 8 (Strong, p. 415). The reference to al-Amr in this context confirms its identification with the emirate. Hasan b. Talut was assigned the emirate but he seized the throne by force. The reference to ahlihi (its people or his people) could easily be mistaken (as in Freeman-Grenville, East African Coast, p. 38) as indicating Hasan's “people” or his family. Rather, it indicates “the people of the throne,” or the Shirazi kings.

29. Kitab, fol. 9 (Strong, p. 416). This certainly suggests that the Shirazis had continued to reign at Mafia; Abu'l-Mawahib was the first Mahdali to enjoy sovereignty over that island.

30. Kitab, fol. 9-10 (Strong, p. 417). Freeman-Grenville's, translation, East African Coast, p. 40Google Scholar, recognizes the gaps or “lacunae” in this paragraph but abbreviates and misreads the second sentence as follows: “Then Sabhati was agreed as amir and the other notables of the government?” As far as we can tell, Sabhati may have stood at the tail-end of one of the pedigrees, probably that of al-Amir Muhammad. If by any chance he was a descendent of Bashati b. ʿAli, a grandson of the Shirazi founder (whose name in that case would appear to have been misspelled), then the Shirazis may have preserved some influence under the Mahdalis.

31. Compare Kitab, fol. 10 (Strong, pp. 417-18) with De Barros, Da Asia. In fact the reign of Sulaiman b. Muhammad al-ʿAdil (and hence its duration) would seem to be affected by the gap. It is mentioned only in a digression concerning the restoration of the main mosque, which, as we shall see, provides inconsistent and controversial information.

32. The word al-dunya (the world) implies wealth and power in distinction to al-din (religion) which is more concerned with the hereafter. Conceivably, Muhammad acquired these honorifics before he became sultan.

33. See Kitab, fol. 11 (Strong, p. 420). In fact the text has Abu'l-Madhhab in this case, apparently a scribal error, although we considered the possibility that Abu'l-Muwahib, having studied in Arabia, may have been the first king to patronize the Shafiʿi school (madhhab). Ibn Batuta suggested that Orthodox Shafiʿism was prevalent along the coast by the time of his visit.

34. Muhammad al-ʿAdil is the only king whose ancestry is traced back to a great-grandfather. This may have been deliberately intended to distinguish him from Muhammad (al-Mazlum) b. Husain b. Sulaiman. In one instance, however, Muhammad al-ʿAdil is referred to more briefly as Muhammad b. al-Husain. Compare fols. 3, 15 with fol. 10 (Strong, p. 406, 427, 418).

35. See Martin, B.G., “Arab Migrations to East Africa in Medieval Times,” IJAHS, 7(1975), p. 374.Google Scholar

36. The inscriptions are in Chittick, , Kilwa, 2:pp. 259–64.Google Scholar One of them bears the name of Hasan b. Sulaiman, presumably Abu'l-Mawahib. Another one, whose date is also no longer extant, bears the name of al-Sultan Sulaiman b. al-Sultan Ismaʿil. This may be a son of [15]Ismaʿil b. Husain and hence a brother of [14]Hasan b. Ismaʿil. On genealogical grounds, he could not have reigned at a date much later than 1512. Possibly, he succeeded [34]Saʿid b. Sulaiman b. Muhammad al-Mazlum sometime before the accession of [35]Husain b. Sulaiman b. Muhammad al-ʿAdil. The number and sequence of reigns after 1512 in unknown.

37. Freeman-Grenville's, translation, East African Coast, pp. 39–40Google Scholar, reads: “There succeeded him Talut Ibn al-Husain, whose reign was two years, four months and fourteen days. He journeyed to Mecca and left as his regent his son al-Husain b. Sulaiman.” How, one wonders, could Talut be father of Husain son of Sulaiman? The translation confuses between [8]Talut and [6/9] al-Maʿzul (who clearly was named Sulaiman). For my own reading see note 38 below.

38. If we were to reconstruct the gaps in the Kitab on basis of the Portuguese account, the relevant passage would read as follows: “Then [Abu'l-Mawahib] died and was succeeded by his brother Daud, the ascetic and pious king, the man of proofs in his time. The duration of his reign was twenty-four years. He was succeeded by his nephew Sulaiman b. Hasan b. Sulaiman al-Matʿun for twenty days. Then the latter was deposed by al-Husain b. Sulaiman al-Matʿun. He reigned after him six and a half years then went out to fight the pagans of the Mulli in a holy war and died a martyr. Then Talut b. Husain succeeded him for one year and at his death the deposed Sulaiman once again attained the throne. The length of the reign of the deposed one was two years, four months and fourteen days. He then travelled to [or towards] Mecca and left his son al-Husain b. Sulaiman, the one nicknamed Ashazifiki, as his regent ….” The words in italics are added to compensate for gaps in the text. Compare Kitab, fol. 9 (Strong, p. 417) with De Barros, Da Asia.

39. For some reason Freeman-Grenville's translation reads “Hasha Hazifiki” in place of “Ashazifiki.” We are unable to interpret the meaning of his archaic Swahili nickname, but it seems to bear somehow on the conditions of Ashazifiki’ s return, if at all, to Kilwa. Freeman-Grenville, , East African Coast, p. 40.Google Scholar

40. The statement may mean that Abu'l-Mawahib's descendants uninterruptedly enjoyed the emirate of Mafia to the exclusion of other Mahdali lineages. If the kingdom was divided during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, then Abu'l-Mawahib's descendants may have claimed sovereignty at Mafia while their opponents reigned at Kilwa. See Kitab, fol. 9 et passim (Strong, esp. pp. 416-17).

41. The reunification of the kingdom under Muhammad al-ʿAdil may have given his descendants a claim on the throne stronger than that of other lineages. This may explain why the amirs recurrently enthroned them, though they apparently enjoyed no real power.

42. The Kitab (fol. 13, Strong, p. 423) attributes Kiwab's action to “a motive he had in opposing the people of the sultanate,” but it seems that his main opponents were Saʿid's immediate kinsmen. Compare with Barros, De, Da Asia, I, 326Google Scholar (Theal, , Records, 6, p. 243).Google Scholar

43. In fact, Kiwab's action weakened Kilwa and left it in a state of disarray before the arrival of the Portuguese. Hasan b. al-Wazir Sulaiman enjoyed connections with Zanzibar and managed to regain the throne one more time and outlived Kiwab. Ultimately, he fled Kilwa with his followers, but only after a series of bloody struggles at a time when the Portuguese were making their first appearance along the East African coast. see Kitab fol. 13 ff. (Strong, pp. 423ff).

44. Batuta, Ibn, Voyages, 2, pp. 193–95.Google Scholar

45. Kitab, fols. 16-17 (Strong, p. 429). The statement that Rukn al-Din and his brother Ayyub “owned the land by virtue of their generosity and their rescue of Muslims” may partly refer to the fact that they provided a ransom to Da Gama when Ibrahim refused to give him a tribute demanded by the admiral on behalf of the Portuguese monarch in 1502. See Correa, Gaspar, The Three Voyages of Vasco Da Gama (London, 1869), pp. 293–99.Google Scholar

46. See de Gois, Damião, Chronicle of the Most Fortunate King Dom Emanuel, Extracts and translation in Theal, Records, 3:pp. 114–15.Google Scholar See also ibid, 6:pp. 244-45.

47. Barros, De, Da Asia, 7:p. 420Google Scholar (Theal, , Records, Records, 6 pp. 286–87Google Scholar). Mikate claimed that he was descended from the kings who “founded and populated the town.” Compare note 19 above.

48. The Kitab (fol. 17, Strong, p. 429) stops short of recording the full episode, but the details are known from the Portuguese records. See Correá, , Three Voyages, p. 298.Google Scholar

49. Kitab, fols. 15-16 (Strong, p. 427). Reference to Hasan of Maghamghub as muʿasir of Muhammad al-ʿAdil may suggest that the two came to the throne at roughly the same time. However, it might also imply that Hasan (still living at the time of writing) had predeceased al-'Adil, for the word usually designates the past.

50. The ambiguity of this paragraph may result from a gap affecting a sentence or two which might have been more explicit concerning the earlier history. Strong misread “intiyajihi” which seems to represent a coloquialism for “intihajihi.” Kitab, fol. 2 (Strong, p. 405).

51. Compare ibid, with Freeman-Grenville, East African Coast, p. 34.

52. Where “the people of the history” are first mentioned, the copyist added the plural form (reading “the people of the histories, ahl al-tawarikh”) over the line in the manuscript. In the second instance, the text reads directly ahl al-tawarikh, thereby leaving evidence of a scribal error. Kitab, fols. 6, 10 (Strong, pp. 411, 417-18).

53. The text here makes a point of indicating that al-Amir Muhammad sent the bribe to the Zanzibari amir in the name of al-Sultan Ismaʿil. See Kitab, fols. 10-11 (Strong, p. 419).

54. The details concerning the use of wood in the repairs may relate to the method of raising the domes rather than the actual material used for the pillars. See Batuta, Ibn, Voyages, 2:p. 191.Google Scholar Cf. Chittick, , Kilwa, 1:passimGoogle Scholar

55. Freeman-Grenville's translation reads “The latter [Sulaiman] gave the order for the rebuilding of the mosque ….” There is nothing explicit or implicit which could signify “the latter.” The phrase “Muhammad b. Husain b. Sulaiman” was simply the man's full name in the system of nomenclature involved, so that anything that follows refers to Muhammad rather than Sulaiman. Cf. Kitab, ff. 10-11, and Freeman-Grenville, , East African Coast, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

56. We have considered the possibility that the birthdate of 1499 applies to the king rather than the author. It is quite plausible, though, that the two authors shared a common name, possibly even the name Muhammad, also shared by the two kings. Kitab, fol. 16 (Strong, p. 428).

57. All the marginal comments begin with “gifʿala” (Find out about). Kitab, fols. 8-10 (Strong's publication omits them). These may have been added by the king to show his dissatisfaction with the information in the text, but the author himself showed his uncertainty by repeating the expression “God knows best.”

58. Freeman-Grenville's translation reads: “I do not know his circumstances but will deduce them.” Sa'astakhbiru ʿan halihi admits of no other reading than “I will enquire about his circumstances.” Cf. Kitab, fol. 9 (Strong, p. 416) with Freeman-Grenville, , East African Coast, p. 39.Google Scholar

59. The British Museum manuscript may have been copied from the author's rough draft. In that case, the original may have had a blank before the reference to the mother or a line or two in it may have been effaced. In any case, the copyist would have reproduced only what was legible.

60. The structure of the sentence is quite awkward. It might have read: “at the time of al-Sultan Sulaiman b. Muhammad al-ʿAdil there collapsed the mosque which had been built at the time of Abu'l-Mawahib.” Kitab, fols. 9-10 (Strong, pp. 416–17).Google Scholar

61. Following the defective opening paragraph and of the projected ten chapters, the Kitab includes a long prolegomenon which is quite coherent and detailed, though, as it deals with “the intellect and its arts,” it has little bearing on the historical narrative. Among other possibilities, the author may have intended it as an invitation for his readers to apply inference in understanding his difficult text.

62. Kitab, fol. 17 (Strong, pp. 429-430). One probable scribal error has already been mentioned in note 52 above. In one case, next to Manfasiyya (which evidently means Mafia), the copyist adds “that is, Mombasa.” The Portuguese sources have Monfia while Yaqut (Kitab Muʿjam, 4: p. 969) has Manfiyya. A stretch preceding the Arabic “y” of Manfiyya, for purposes of calligraphic style, apparently misled the copyist to read Manfasiyya, and in some cases simply Manfasa.