The Arabic historiographical tradition is considered to be one of the most important textual sources for the reconstruction of Sāsānian history. Historians such as al-Ṭabarī, al- Masʿūdī or al-Thaʿālibī explicitly claimed to have used older material of Persian origin. The basis of their accounts seem to have been translations, excerpts and adaptations of translations, which commonly are traced back to the Middle-Persian “Book of Kings”, the Khwadāynāmag. While it may be assumed a scientific consensus that there were in the late Sāsānian period books dealing with Iran’s history, the opaque character of this historical tradition has repeatedly given rise to scientific controversy over the question of whether there was one or several books bearing the title Khwadāynāmag, when the content was first written down, whether the tradition could be regarded as sound or not, which earlier sources finally became a part of the Khwadāynamag, etc. In the following, two inspiring recent contributions to the research on the Khwadāynāmag will be presented.

阿拉伯历史学传统被认为是重建撒南历史的最重要的文字资料之一。诸如al-Ṭabarī，al-Masʿūdī或al-Thaʿālibī之类的历史学家明确声称使用了波斯的较旧材料。他们陈述的基础似乎是翻译，摘录和翻译改编，通常可以追溯到中波斯语的“国王之书”，Khwadāynāmag。虽然可以假定科学上已经达成共识，即在萨萨尼亚时代​​晚期有涉及伊朗历史的书籍，但这种历史传统的不透明特征一再引发了关于是否存在一本或几本带有标题的书籍的科学争议。夸瓦尼玛格，当内容被首次写下来时，是否可以将其视为声音的传统，早期的资源最终成为Khwadāynamag的一部分，等等。在下文中，将提出两个对Khwadāynāmag的研究具有启发性的最新贡献。。