论文的研究问题是肯尼亚诸多行动主体如何用历史要产权。土地冲突是肯尼亚社会的痼疾，因土地产权纠纷造成的流血事件无休无止。土地冲突的根本原因在于土地资源稀缺，而呈现出来的则是对土地产权的争夺。由于法律理性主义与生活脱节，与历史割裂，难以回答“谁是肯尼亚土地所有者”，故肯尼亚朝野有一种声音，希望通过追溯历史解决土地问题。基于多点民族志的研究范式，作者以沿海基利菲镇和首都内罗毕的Milimani土地法院为田野点追踪土地冲突线索，调查土地冲突事件的来龙去脉。论文按照历时性原则设置，首先讲述肯尼亚早期土地制度和阿拉伯人的古代殖民主义及其余波；后描述英国殖民主义到来后，如何“合法”地占有土地，又如何奠定了肯尼亚如今的土地产权制度和土地占有格局；再之后，将研究聚焦于肯尼亚独立后对英国殖民政府土地产权制度的继承和改造，解释“新土地精英”的崛起逻辑和“小族群”的土地委屈；最后阐释与全球化时代伴随的“人与动物争地”、干旱和海外资本圈地，再将目光锁定到家庭和社区，讲述个体主义兴起后，“弑老”案和女性权利意识觉醒对父权和夫权土地产权正当性的冲击。研究沿着韦伯正当性理论的解释思路，剖析出肯尼亚土地冲突中不同文明方式、殖民主义、部落主义、环境主义和个体主义所依赖的正当性基础。为了阐释史学与利益的关系，研究提出“史学资本”概念，用于解释可筛选、可考证、可组合、有价值偏好的史学如何被实用性地应用于建构土地产权正当性。史学资本存在三种层次，史学事实提供技术上的路径依赖，道德话术提供情绪上的士气驱动，正当性提供思想上的价值引领。正当性是土地产权存在与否的基础，除了彻底摧毁存在本身和持续的强力压制外，正当性是可以妥协和协商的，没有妥协和协商而自我利用史学资料建构的正当性只是单一主体的自娱自乐，不仅形成不了正当性本身，反而不断诱发冲突。对土地产权正当性建构而言，史学永远是难以逾越的资本。这也就是说，在土地冲突问题上，肯尼亚社会依旧困在历史里。
The question of this paper is how different actors claim property from historiography. Land dispute is a stubborn headache in Kenyan society, with endless bloodshed caused by disputes over land titles. The root cause of land conflict is the scarcity of land resources, but it is always been presented as fightings for land titles. Legal rationalism, isolated from real life and history, could not answer the question——‘who is real owner of land in Kenya? ‘ There is a voice in Kenya to ask for historical origin to settle land disputes. Based on a multi-ethnographic research paradigm, the author set Kilifi town and Milimani Land Court of Nairobi as field sites to follow the trails of land disputes, and investigate the cause and effect of land disputes.This paper is set in chronological order, beginning with ancient land system in Kenya , colonialism of the Arabs and its aftermath; followed by a description of how British colonizers ‘legitimized‘ the occupation of land, established the present land tenure system, and shaped the land occupation layout. Furthermore, during the Kenya independent government period, this paper focuses on inheritance and transformation of the British colonial land tenure system, explaining the logic trend of the ‘new land elite‘ and the land grievances among ‘small communities‘. Finally, the paper portrays the impact on land grabbing caused by globalization and individualism, i.e., ‘human-animal competition for land‘, continuous drought, land enclosure by capital overseas, ‘killing elders ‘, the awakening of women‘s right awareness, and etc.This paper follows the legitimacy theory of Max Weber, dissecting the legitimate foundations of civilizationalism, colonialism, tribalism, environmentalism and individualism in land disputes. In order to explain the relationship between historiography and interests, this research proposes the concept of ‘historiographical capital‘ to interpret how historiography—selectable, verifiable, composable and value-preferring—could be used to construct legitimacy for land property. Historiographical capital consists of three dimensions: historiographic facts providing technical path dependence, moral discourses providing morale, and legitimacy providing ideological value direction. Legitimacy is the basis for the existence of land property. As long as actors do not completely wipe out the existence of others or impose constant powerful suppression, legitimacy could be compromised and negotiated. Without compromise and negotiation, the self-constructed legitimacy is just self-entertainment, which not only fails to create legitimacy itself, but induces conflicts unremittingly. For the construction of the legitimacy of land property, historiography would be an insurmountable capital. This is to say, in terms of land disputes, Kenya society is still trapped in the history.
