The Disappearance and Rediscovery of Zamzam and the 'Well of the Ka'ba'

Author(s): G. R. Hawting
Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 43,
No. 1 (1980), pp. 44-54
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/616125
Accessed: 10-05-2015 16:32 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM
AND THE 'WELL OF THE KA'BA'

By G. R. HAWTING

According to Muslim tradition, some time after the spring of Zamzam had
been caused by God to gush forth for Hagar and Ishmael following their
expulsion into the wilderness by Abraham, it disappeared. Because of the sins
of the tribe of Jurhum, which until then had possessed Mecca and the control
of its sanctuary (wildyat al-bayt), Zamzam, the well of the sanctuary, dis-
appeared or was hidden, and Jurhum was driven out of Mecca and lost the
wildyat al-bayt. The rediscovery of the well is associated with the grandfather
of the Prophet, 'Abd al-Muttalib. At a much later, but unspecified date, we
are told, he experienced a dream in which the place of Zamzam was revealed
to him. From this time on the well, according to tradition, enjoyed a con-
tinuous existence, it being one of the features of the Meccan sanctuary which
were taken over when Muhammad adopted the sanctuary for Islam. Zamzam,
however, is not the only well associated with the Meccan sanctuary. Muslim
tradition knows too of a dry pit inside the Ka'ba which is sometimes referred
to as the 'well of the Ka'ba '.
In this paper an attempt is made to elucidate the background and signifi-
cance of the traditions concerning the loss and rediscovery of Zamzam and
the ' well of the Ka'ba '.1
It seems likely that the tradition of the loss and rediscovery of Zamzam
has been developed from an earlier sanctuary tradition found in Judaism. First,
there are indications that traditions now concerned with Zamzam may not have
made any reference to it originally. For example, in the different versions we
have of 'Abd al-Muttalib's dream in which the place of Zamzam was revealed,
although the name Zamzam does occur, there are signs that it may have been
introduced secondarily. In several of the versions the thing which, in his
dream, 'Abd al-Muttalib is commanded to excavate is referred to by one or
more cryptic names: Tayba or Tiba, Barra, al-Madnfina, Khabi'at al-Shaykh
al-A'zam.2 While such designations may obviously have been introduced into
the tradition to increase the atmosphere of mystery, they do not really indicate
the nature of the thing to be uncovered, not even that it was a well, and there
seems to be some difficulty about introducing the name Zamzam into those
traditions in which it does appear.
One version of the tradition in which the name Zamzam does occur is given
in different sources on the authority of 'Ali from 'Abd al-Muttalib himself.
In the presentation of this tradition found in the Sira of Ibn as trans-
mitted by Ibn Hisham, 'Abd al-Muttalib has to have four separate Ish.q dreams
before the name Zamzam is introduced: in the first three the object to be
uncovered is referredto as Tayba, Barra and al-Madnfina,and 'Abd al-Muttalib
does not know what is meant. Only in the fourth dream is the mystery revealed,
albeit in the style of a riddle: 'Dig Zamzam ! '-' What is Zamzam ? '-' It

1 1 am grateful to Professor P. M. Holt, Mr Michael Cook, and Dr J. Wansbrough for reading

earlier versions and offering advice.
2
Al-Azraqi, Kitdb Akhbdr Makka, apud F. Wiistenfeld, Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, I,
Leipzig, 1858, 282 ff.; Ibn Hishim, S'ra, second ed., Cairo, 1375/1955, I, 142 ff.; Ibn Sa'd,
Kitdb al-tabaqjt al-kabir, Leiden, 1904-21, i/1, 49 ff.; al-Ya'qfibi, Trilkh, Beirut, 1390/1970,
I, 246 ff.; al-FAkihi, Tdrikh Makka, MS Leiden, Or. 463, fols. 338a ff.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM 45

never runs dry and is not found wanting (/5 tudhammu)'.3 It might have been
expected that the resolution of the puzzle would be given in the third dream,
and indeed two other presentations of the same tradition do introduce the
name Zamzam in the third dream. As compared with Ibn Hisham, both
al-Azraqi and al-Fdkihi, who also transmit the tradition from Ibn omit
the third dream in which the name is given as al-Madnfina and make into the
Isha.q,
third dream what appears as the fourth in Ibn Hishdm's presentation.4 It may
be, therefore, that the fourth dream, in which the name Zamzam is supplied,
has been added to a tradition which originally had only three. Comparison
with other versions of the tradition indicates a preference for three dreams,
although some do have four.5
A more positive indication that the tradition of the loss and recovery of
Zamzam has been developed from material not originally concerned with it is
provided by another feature of the reports. Nearly all recount that when
'Abd al-Muttalib was digging, in accordance with the instructions given in his
sleep, he came upon a number of objects. Most frequently he is reported to
have found some armour, swords of a type called qala'7, and two golden
gazelles.A It seems significant that occasionally these objects appear to be the
real focus of attention in the tradition, to the extent that it becomes doubtful
whether the point of the dreams was to reveal the place of Zamzam or rather
the objects themselves. For example, Ibn Sa'd's chapter on 'Abd al-Muttalib's
recovery of Zamzam begins with two traditions. The first tells of his discovery
of a well of water and a consequent dispute with Quraysh over the ownership
of the well; there is no mention of any objects being found during the excava-
tion. The second tradition, however, is concerned with the finding of the above-
mentioned objects; there is no reference to Zamzam or water, and the dispute
with Quraysh is over the ownership of the objects uncovered, not the place in
which they were found.' One is led to ask, therefore, whether 'Abd al-Muttalib's
dreams were really to tell him the place of the Zamzam well, as the sources
present them, or were they rather to reveal the objects to him ?
The same uncertainty arises over the accounts of the previous loss of
Zamzam. At a remote time in the Jahiliyya, Jurhum began to violate the
sanctity of Mecca and to commit sacrileges, and as a punishment the tribe was
driven out of Mecca and Zamzam was lost.8 How the well disappeared,
however, is reported in a confused way. According to one version, it simply
dried up some time before Jurhum was expelled, and knowledge of its site was
lost. Just before the expulsion, however, the Jurhumi chief took out certain
objects from the Ka'ba and buried them in the place of Zamzam--the origin
of the objects later found by 'Abd al-Muttalib. (Wa-kdna m&' Zamzam qad
nadaba wa-dhahaba lammdiahdathat Jurhum fi'l-haram hatt5 ghubiya makan
al-bi'r wa-darasa ... fa-hafara fi mawdi' Zamzam wa-a'maqa thumma dafana
fihi al-asydf wa'l-ghazdlayn.)sa But in another version, the objects are put into
Zamzam itself (fi Zamzam)and Jurhum then buries the well (wa-kdnatJurhum
dafanathi hina za'ani min Makka).9 Again, therefore, there seems to be a
r
JIbn Hishim, Sira, I, 143.
4 A1-Azraqi, Akhbtr Makka, 284, 11.9 ff.; al-Fdkihi, Tdrikh M2lakka,339a, 11.17 ff.
5 A-Ya'qfibi, Tdrikh, I, 246 (3 dreams); al-Fdkihi, 338a, 11.16 ff. (3), 338b, 11.6 ff. from
foot (3), 338b, 11.12 ff. (4).
6
A1-Azraqi, 286; Ibn Hishim, Sira, I, 146; Ibn Sa'd, I/1, 50; al-Fdkihi, 338, 11.16 ff.
7 Ibn Sa'd, i/1, 49-50.
8 A1-Azraqi, 52.
8a Loc. cit.
9 Ibn Hish~m, Sira, I, 111, 114; al-Fdkihi, 339a, 1. 12.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 G. R. HAWTING

slight shift of focus. In the former version the emphasis seems to be on the
burial of the objects, in the latter of Zamzam itself. Once again the question
arises whether the tradition is concerned mainly with Zamzam or with the
buried objects.
From the way these reports are presented in the sources one might conclude
that the well of Zamzam is the real focus of attention and that the details
about the objects buried by Jurhum and found by 'Abd al-Muttalib are intended
only as embellishments to the story. In al-Azraqi's work, for instance, the
traditions are included in the section which deals with Zamzam, its fada'il,
its history, and the institution of the siqdya (provision of drink for the pilgrims)
which Muslim tradition associates with Zamzam.1o No special significance
seems to be attached to the objects which were buried and later rediscovered.
When they are explained, it is usually suggested or implied that they were
a part of the sanctuary treasure, votive offerings which were brought by
pilgrims and kept in the pit or well inside the Ka'ba which served as the
treasury (khizanat al-bayt). Al-Tabari, for example, has a section on the
gazelles of the Ka'ba which were among the objects buried by Jurhum and
found by 'Abd al-Muttalib. This section is included in the middle of his account
of the rebuilding of the Ka'ba by Quraysh in the boyhood of the Prophet, the
motive being the desire to prevent theft from the treasures brought by pilgrims
and cast into the well inside the Ka'ba. Having stated this motive, al-Tabari
then introduces his traditions about the gazelles of the Ka'ba.11 It seems
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the gazelles were part of the offerings
brought by pilgrims, and other traditions suggest the same.12
The wording of al-Tabari's tradition (which he cites from Ibn al-KalbI)
could, however, suggest that the gazelles were something more than this.
Whereas al-Azraqi refers to the swords and gazelles ' which were in the Ka'ba ',
al-Tabari's tradition says ' the two gazelles of the Ka'ba ' (ghazilay al-Ka'ba),13
which could suggest that the gazelles were of some cultic significance and not
merely part of the votive offerings. This possibility is strengthened when, in
the same tradition, it is reported that along with the gazelles and swords the
Jurhumi chief buried the hajar al-rukn.14 In connexion with the Muslim
sanctuary at Mecca the term al-rukn is most commonly used as a designation
of both the Black Stone, the object of great cultic significance embedded in
the south-east corner of the Ka'ba, and the corner itself. Elsewhere I have
suggested that al-rukn may in some traditions have a different significance,
probably unrelated to the Meccan sanctuary,15but whatever we understand
by the expression hajar al-rukn in al-Tabari's tradition about the hiding of the
objects from the Ka'ba, it seems likely that we are dealing with something of
fundamental importance for the sanctuary and not merely with votive offerings
brought by pilgrims. Most other versions of the tradition do not refer to the
hajar al-rukn, mentioning only the gazelles, swords and armour; 16 it may

10 Al-Azraqi, 279 ff.

11Al-Tabari, Tirikh, Leiden, 1879-1901, i, 1130 ff.
12Al-Azraqi, 287: after finding the gazelles, 'Abd al-Muttalib places one of them above the
door of the Ka'ba and the other ' in the belly (batn) of the Ka'ba in the pit (jubb) which was
there and into which were put the things which were brought to the Ka'ba '.
13 Al-Tabari, Tdrikh,
I, 1132; so too Ibn Hishdm, Sira, I, 114; cf. al-Azraqi, 52, 281.
14 Al-Tabari, loc. cit.; Ibn Hishdm, loc. cit.
15 Aspects of Muslim political and religious history in the lst/7th century, with special reference
to the development of the Muslim sanctuary, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1978, 91-6.
16e.g., Ibn Hishdm, Sira, I, 146; al-Tabari does not have any detailed account of 'Abd
al-Muttalib's discovery, but neither of his two allusions to it mentions the finding of the hajar
al-rukn (I, 1088, 1134).

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM 47
therefore be suggested that al-Tabari's version is an older form of the tradition
and that elsewherethe tradition has been developed so that instead of describing
the burial and recovery of certain objects of great significance for the sanctuary
and cult, it has come to concern only sanctuary treasures and, more generally,
the hiding place itself, the well of Zamzam.
The occurrence in various forms of these different elements-the burial of
cultic objects and the loss of their burial place-suggests a connexion between
these Muslim traditions and similar traditions found in Judaism. A tradition
that at a certain time objects associated with the sanctuary were taken out
and buried exists in Judaism in both normative and Samaritan forms."7
Probably the best known version is that in 2 Maccabees 2: 4-8, according to
which Jeremiah, at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, took out ' the tent, the
ark, and the incense altar' and buried them in a cave on the mountain from
which Moses had viewed the Promised Land. The cave then vanished and
could not be found. According to a similar account in 2 Maccabees 1: 19 if.,
when the Jews were carried off into exile, Jeremiah ordered the priests to take
fire from the altar and conceal it in a dry well. Later Nehemiah was sent back
to recover the fire but found in its place a thick liquid which was taken out
and used in the performance of sacrifice. In later Rabbinic literature the
tradition is developed: there is a tendency to replace the figure of Jeremiah
with that of king Josiah, and the recovery of the buried objects becomes an
eschatological sign; most frequently it is said that Elijah will restore them
at the end of time.'8
The earliest evidence for the existence of a similar tradition in Samaritanism
seems to be the report of Josephus concerning a Samaritan rebel who, in the
time of Pontius Pilate, attempted to win the support of his co-religionists by
claiming to be able to uncover the sacred vessels hidden on Mount Gerizim.'9
Here too, therefore, the recovery of the objects seems to have an eschatological
significance, and in later Samaritanism the recovery of the vessels is associated
with the Samaritan mahdi figure, the Taheb.20 In Samaritan literature there
are different traditions concerning the loss of the sacred vessels. According to
the Sifer ha- Yamim, which has proved difficult to date but may be earlier than
the fourteenth century after Christ in its present form,2' at the time when Eli
established the sanctuary at Shiloh, and consequently abandoned that on
Gerizim, the High Priest Uzzi hid 'the holy vestments, the gold and silver
utensils, the ark of the testimony, the lampstand and altars and all the holy
vessels ' in a large cave beside the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. The cave then
disappeared.22 However, an earlier work, the Memar Marqah, which seems to
be pre-Islamic, associates the event with the death of Moses.23For Samaritanism
the loss of the vessels seems to be epoch-making in a way which does not apply
for normative Judaism. For the Samaritans not only will the recovery of the

17For an attempt to establish the relationship of the different Jewish versions and the
development of each, see M. F. Collins, ' The hidden vessels in Samaritan tradition ', in Journal
for the Study of Judaism, II, 1972, 97-116; for the tradition in Samaritanism, see H. G. Kippen-
berg, Garizim und Synagoge, Berlin, 1971, 234-54.
18 L. Ginzberg, The legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1911-38, Ini, 48, 158, 161, Iv, 24, 320-1;
M. F. Collins, loc. cit.
19 Josephus, Antiquities, xvIn, 4.i-ii; H. G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 113-14.
20 On the Taheb, see H. G.
Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 276-305; S. J. Isser, The
Dositheans, Leiden, 1976, esp. pp. 127-31, 140-2.
21
J. MacDonald, The theologyof the Samaritans, London, 1964, 44.
22
J. MacDonald (ed.), The Samaritan chronicleno. II, Berlin, 1969, 114 if., 126.
23Memar Marqah, ed. and tr. J. MacDonald, Berlin, 1963, v, 2 (= Eng. tr., 197); see also
v, 4 (= Eng. tr., 207).

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 G. R. HAWTING

vessels be one of the signs of the end of time, but their loss marked the main
turning point in history, the end of the period of Divine Favour known as the
Rehuta and the beginning of the period in which God has turned away from
His people, the Panuta.24
There are, therefore, a number of obvious similarities between these
traditions and the Muslim traditions associated with the loss of Zamzam. The
loss of objects of great importance for the sanctuary and its cult, which is the
main theme of the Jewish traditions, can be discerned in the Muslim traditions
adduced to account for the loss of Zamzam. The recovery of the objects, which
in Judaism is consigned to eschatology, has in Islam become an historical fact.
The loss and recovery of the hiding place of the sacred objects, which is the
main theme of the Muslim traditions, can also be seen in the Jewish traditions
about the loss of the sacred objects. In nearly all the versions the loss of the
objects and the place in which they were hidden is associated with important
developments in the history of the sanctuary: the destruction of the Jerusalem
temple and the carrying off of the Jews to exile, the abandonment of Gerizim
in favour of Shiloh, the loss of the sanctuary by Jurhum and their expulsion
from Mecca. Furthermore, all three versions of the tradition seem to make the
loss of the sacred objects and the place in which they were hidden almost
equivalent to the loss of the sanctuary itself. According to the SFferha- Ydmim,
when Uzzi hid the vessels 'the Lord hid away His sanctuary from the sight of
all His people Israel, since they had done evil before Him '.~2 In the Muslim
traditions Jurhum not only lose the objects from the Ka'ba and the Zamzam
well, but they are expelled from Mecca and lose the control of the sanctuary.
In the normative Jewish version the loss of the vessels is accompanied by the
destruction of the Temple and the carrying off of the Jews to exile from
Jerusalem. While the association in the Muslim tradition of the expulsion of
Jurhum and the loss of the objects from the Ka'ba is quite reminiscent of a
similar connexion with the exile of the Jews in the normative Jewish version,
the list of objects buried by the Jurhumi chief, although it does not have a
complete parallel elsewhere, seems closer to the list given in the S0ferha- Yimim:
the holy vestments and the gold and silver utensils.""
One further group of Muslim traditions seems relevant here as an indication
that Islam knew of and developed the tradition of the loss of the sanctuary
vessels. It is well known that Muslim tradition divides the caliphate of the
third caliph, 'Uthmdn, into two equal periods of six years, six years of good
rule and six of bad, and that the division between the two is marked, possibly
caused, by the loss of the signet ring of the Prophet (khatamal-nabi) by 'Uthman.
The ring was lost when it fell from 'Uthmdn's finger into a well at Medina
called Aris. In spite of efforts to find it, including the bailing out of the well,
the ring was never found again.27 This tradition looks like another variant of
that of the loss of the sanctuary vessels. The expression khatamal-nabi is used
in Islam in a number of ways. Not only is it the designation for the Prophet's
signet ring, it may also mean the mark on the body of the Prophet indicating
his prophetic status. Furthermore, Muhammad himself is regarded as the

24 M. Gaster, The Samaritans. Their history, doctrineand literature, London, 1925, 91 ; H. G.

Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 238-46.
25 The Samaritan chronicleno. II, 126.
26 Ibid., 114. It may be relevant that Rabbinical polemic against the Samaritans accused
them of knowing that golden idols were hidden on Gerizim and revering it for that reason:
M. F. Collins, op. cit., 114-15.
27 Al-Tabari, Trilkh, I, 2856 ff.; Ibn Sa'd,
I/2, 164-5; al-Mas'aidi, Tanbih, Cairo, 1938,
254-5; G. Levi Della Vida, ' 'Othmin b. 'Affin ', in Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM 49

khatam al-nabiyyin, the seal of prophets.28 Given this, it seems possible that
'Uthmdn's loss of the khatamal-nabi is a symbol of the loss of something more
important than a signet ring, and it may be significant that, according to
certain midrashim, 'the holy spirit' (riiah ha-q6dhesh)was among those things
lost at the time of the destruction of the Temple.29 Ginzberg interpreted this
as 'the holy spirit of prophecy '.30 The well of Aris, although later writers
describe it and its position near Medina,31appears very mysterious, almost
magical. Al-Tabari says that it had never been fathomed, and all the traditions
agree that constant searching in it failed to find the khttam.32 The most striking
thing about the tradition of the loss of the khatam al-nabi, however, is that it
marks one of the main turning points in Muslim history. The change in the
character of 'Uthman's rule indicates more than just a qualitative difference
in his caliphate. In Muslim tradition it is regarded as the end of the golden
age in which the community was guided by the principles laid down by the
Prophet, and the opening of the time of troubles which culminates in the
murder of 'Uthmdn and the first civil war in Islam. In other words, the loss of
the khdtamal-nabi seems to mark the beginning of the Fitna.33 Although the
Fitna is usually taken to open with the murder of 'Uthman, the troubles
actually begin with the loss of the ring and the murder of the caliph is part of
those troubles. Furthermore, the tradition according to which the Prophet
foretold to 'Uthman that he would be on the right path in the Fitna 34 seems
to support the suggestion that the Fitna actually begins during 'Uthman's
lifetime. If this is accepted, then the loss of the khatamal-nabi can be said to
play a role for Islam similar to that of the loss of the sanctuary vessels for
Samaritanism, ending the Rehuta and opening the Panuta. Whether the
concepts of Fitna and Panuta show further points of contact may be worth
further research.
There are grounds, then, for considering the traditions adduced in con-
nexion with the loss and recovery of Zamzam as developments of the tradition
of the loss of the sanctuary objects. But why should Islam have chosen to
develop this particular tradition in connexion with Zamzam ? It may be that
the references to the cave or hole which disappeared when the sanctuary
objects were hidden in it would suggest the tradition as a suitable one for
application to the Zamzam well, but in Islam the tradition seems devoid of
real significance. Whereas for Judaism and Samaritanism the loss of the
sanctuary was a fact and the hope of its restoration in the last times is under-
standable, in Islam the tradition seems rather pointless since the sanctuary
has not disappeared and there does not seem to be any messianic or eschato-
logical flavour to the traditions about 'Abd al-Muttalib's recovery of the objects
or the well. Furthermore, Zamzam, a well of water, seems inappropriate as
the hiding place for the sanctuary objects, a consideration which may explain

28Ibn Sa'd, 1/2, 15, 131, 160-6; H. Hirschfeld, New researches into the composition and
exegesis of the Qoran, London, 1902, 22-4; J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, Oxford, 1977, 64-5.
29 Midrash Rabba on Numbers, xv, 10; Midrash Tanfiima, ed. S.
Buber, Wilna, 1885,
Iv, 50.
30 L. Ginzberg, Legends, III, 161.
31Ibn al-Najjdr, Durra, apud al-Fisi, Shifd' al-ghardm, Cairo, 1956, 341-2; Ydqfit, Mu'jam
al-bulddn, Leipzig, 1866-73, I, 430; F. Wiistenfeld (tr.), Geschichteder Stadt Medina, ch. 6, ? 1
(p. 147).
32 Al-Tabari, Tarikh,
I, 2856, 2858.
33For an example of the difficulties involved in establishing the earliest usage of the term
fitna, see G. IH.A. Juynboll, ' The date of the great fitna ', in Arabica, xx, 1973, 142-59.
34 Ibn MAja, Sunan, Cairo, 1952, muqaddima, bib 11 (p. 41, no. 111); A. J. Wensinck,
' Muhammad und die Propheten ', in Acta Orientalia, II, 1924, 178.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 G. R. HAWTING

the insistence that the well had dried up before the objects were put into it in
the tradition cited above.35 In its original form, too, the tradition is focused
upon the sanctuary objects rather than the place in which they were hidden,
but the cult at Mecca as we know it does not really have any equivalent to the
kind of sanctuary objects referred to in the Jewish and Samaritan traditions.
It is rather difficult to see why Islam as we know it, therefore, should adapt
this tradition and attach it to Zamzam.
The suggestion to be made here is that the tradition was already an
important part of Muslim sanctuary ideas before the Meccan sanctuary and its
well became established as the Muslim sanctuary. When the Meccan sanctuary
was adopted by Islam the tradition, which was originally part of Jewish
sanctuary ideas, was adapted and made to refer to the Zamzam well. It may
be that other Muslim sanctuary traditions originated and developed in the
same way. Support for the suggestion may be found in the traditions about
the 'well of the Ka'ba '.
It seems likely that the cave, well or pit into which the sanctuary objects
are put in the various forms of the tradition is connected with the idea that
the sanctuary was situated at the navel of the earth. Wensinck, in his dis-
cussion of this circle of ideas, discussed the function of the pits, wells and
caves which occurred at various Semitic sanctuaries and argued that they were
to be seen as channels of communication with the nether world, the three
parts of the universe-the earth, the lower and the upper worlds-coming into
contact at the place of the sanctuary, the navel of the earth.36 Although the
various traditions about the hiding of the sanctuary objects do not appear to
identify the hiding place as a feature of the navel of the earth in any explicit
way, the association of the hole or cave with the sanctuary does suggest this
connexion. Furthermore, it is clear that the cave or well in which the sanctuary
objects are hidden is no ordinary one since it disappears once it has received
the sacred objects.37 When we examine the material on Zamzam from this
aspect, however, there does not seem to be much to associate it with the navel
of the earth theory. Although, as Wensinck has shown, Muslim sanctuary
traditions have many details which indicate that Islam too regarded the
sanctuary as the navel of the earth, on the whole such details are not associated
with Zamzam. Apart from the tradition of the burial of the sanctuary objects,
the Zamzam material does not show the influence of the navel of the earth
theory. Where this theory does occur in connexion with a hole at the Meccan
sanctuary, it is related to the 'well of the Ka'ba ', the pit or well inside the
Ka'ba. The way that some of the traditions about this pit or well overlap
with those of Zamzam seems to support the suggestion that some Muslim
sanctuary traditions were modified to take into account the features of the
Meccan sanctuary.

35See above, p. 45, n. 8a.

36A. J. Wensinck, ' The ideas of the western Semites concerning the navel of the earth ', in
Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen,Afdeeling Letterkunde, nieuwe
reeks, deel xvII, 1, 1916, pp. 25-30.
37 2 Macc., 2: 4-8; The Samaritan chronicle no. II, 114. According to 2 Macc., loc. cit.,
the cave was situated on the mountain from which Moses viewed the Promised Land. According
to the Memar Marqah. II, 12, v, 3 (= Eng. tr., 83, 206), Moses was buried in a cave on Mt. Nebo,
the mountain from which he viewed the Promised Land. This association of ideas is reminiscent
of the Syriac Cave of Treasures (Me'dirathGazzF)in which Adam was buried and in which God
deposited gold, frankincense and myrrh. This cave was situated immediately below Paradise,
a feature which associates it with the navel of the earth circle of ideas : C. Bezold, Die Schatzh6hle,
2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-8; E. A. Wallis Budge, The cave of treasures, London, 1927; Wensinck,
Navel, 27.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEDISAPPEARANCE OFZAMZATM
ANDREDISCOVERY 51
The sources give us a variety of information about this well or pit inside
the Ka'ba. In some places it is referred to as a jubb, in others as a bi'r.38
Sometimes it is al-bi'r (jubb)f-ijauf al-Ka'ba,39sometimes bi'r (jubb) al-Ka'ba.40
On occasion the proper name al-Akhsaf is given to it.41 The only tradition
about its origin seems to be that which says it was dug by Abraham to serve
as a receptacle for the offerings or gifts brought to the sanctuary by pilgrims.42
As already mentioned, this pit or well is said to have been used as the treasury
of the Ka'ba (khizdnatal-Ka'ba), and the traditions report various attempts to
steal from it.43 Following one of these attempts, God sent a serpent to guard it.
This serpent dwelled inside the well or pit so that when Quraysh wanted to
demolish the Ka'ba to rebuild it they were afraid to approach it, the serpent
having come out of the hole and taken up a position on the wall. Only when
a bird appeared, picked up the serpent and carried it away, was it possible to
begin the demolition.44 Some traditions mention that the idol Hubal stood
over this hole inside the Ka'ba.45
Wellhausen and others have compared this pit or well inside the Ka'ba
with the ghabghabsabout which we are informed at certain other pre-Islamic
Arab sanctuaries.46 The ghabghabseems to have been a pit or hollow place in
front of an idol or altar in which sacrificial blood or other offerings were
collected. Similar institutions appear to have existed at other Semitic
sanctuaries, such as that at Jerusalem. Wensinck has related these ghabghabs
and other apertures to the navel of the earth idea, and has indicated how the
information in the Muslim sources seems to place the well or pit inside the
Ka'ba within the same circle of ideas. In particular the details regarding the
serpent which took up residence in it indicates that it was seen as a link with
the nether world.47
Further consideration of the traditional material concerning Zamzam and
the ' well of the Ka'ba ' seems to lead to the conclusion that, in some cases at
least, there is a noticeable tendency for the, in theory separate, entities to
fulfil the same function. In other words, in some traditions Zamzam and the
'well of the Ka'ba' come near to being interchangeable. Furthermore, the
historical reality of the 'well of the Ka'ba', insofar as the Meccan sanctuary
is concerned, is questionable. Taken together, this evidence leads to the
suggestion that the ' well of the Ka'ba ' is a remnant of sanctuary ideas which
had developed before the Meccan sanctuary was adopted by Islam. When that
sanctuary was adopted, some of these ideas were applied to the well of the
Meccan sanctuary, Zamzam, but at the same time the previous stage of tradition
is discernible in the idea of the ' well of the Ka'ba '.
The first detail concerning the ' well of the Ka'ba ' which seems remarkable
and suggests an area of overlap with the Zamzam well, is the use of the word
38
e.g., al-Azraqi, 169-70 : kdnafi'l-Ka'ba .jubb
. 'amiq .. . fa-summiyat tilka'l-bi'ral-Akhsaf . ..
39e.g., ibid., 73 (also ft batn al-Ka'ba).
40 Ibid., 43.
41Ibid., 73, 170 (it was called al-Akhsaf ' and the Arabs called it al-Akhshaf'!); R. Dozy,
Die Israeliten zu Mekka, Leipzig, 1864, 176-7, attempts to derive the name from Aramaic
hasap in the sense of pot or vessel; al-Azraqi, 170, seems to want to derive it from the fact that
a thief was shut up (?khusifa) by God in the pit.
42 Ibid., 31, 73, 169.
43 Al-Tabari, Tdrikh, I, 1130 f.
44Al-Azraqi, 49, 104 ff.; 'Abd al-Razzdq, Musannaf, Beirut, 1970 ff., v, 9103, 9105, 9106.
45Al-Azraqi, 73.
46 J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischenHeidentums, third edition, Berlin, 1927, 103 ; W. Robertson
Smith, The religion of the Semites, second edition, London, 1894, 197-8, 228, 340; T. Fahd,
Le pantheon de l'arabie centralea la veille de l'higire, Paris, 1968, 38-41.
47 Wensinck, Navel, 29-30, 59-63.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 G. R. HAWTING

bi'r to describe it. Normally the word bi'r indicates a water source, a well or
possibly a spring, but none of the traditions say that the 'well of the Ka'ba '
had anything to do with water. The possibility of confusion with the well of
the Meccan sanctuary, Zamzam, when expressions such as 'the well of the
Ka'ba ' are used seems obvious and, given the prominence of the Zamzam well
at the Muslim sanctuary at Mecca, it seems surprising that there should be a
place for another 'well'. Furthermore, as has been noted, tradition says that
it was Abraham who dug the 'well of the Ka'ba '.48 However, although most
traditions say that the well of Zamzam appeared after Abraham had departed
and left Hagar and Ishmael alone in the place of Mecca, there are some
references in Muslim tradition to Zamzam as the well of Abraham and to
Abraham's having dug it.49 There is even a tradition which repeats the story of
Genesis 21: 25 ff. concerning Abraham's dispute with Abimelech over the well
at Beersheba in connexion with Zamzam.50Moreusual, of course, is the adapta-
tion by Muslim tradition of the story of Genesis 21: 12 ff. to account for the
appearance of Zamzam.s5 In midrash the well mentioned in Genesis 21: 19,
identified by Muslim tradition with Zamzam, is identified with Beer-lahoi-roi
(Gen. 16:17 ff.).52 This association of Abraham with the well of Zamzam
provides a further similarity between it and the ' well of the Ka'ba '.
The most striking similarity, however, is the fact that both the Zamzam
well and the 'well of the Ka'ba' have objects cast into them. Admittedly,
as presented in tradition, there is a difference between the two. The bi'r or
jubb inside the Ka'ba is a treasury dug specifically for the reception of votive
offerings while the well of Zamzam on only one occasion and in very special
circumstances is used as the hiding place for certain sanctuary objects. In
spite of this, however, Wellhausen and others have been impressed enough by
the similarity to speculate that Zamzam itself was a ghabghab.53However, the
inappropriateness of Zamzam, a well of water, as either a ghabghabor the
hiding place for sanctuary objects makes it seem doubtful whether it was in
fact used as such. If it is then further taken into account that the objects
said to have been cast into Zamzam were of essential importance for the
sanctuary and not merely votive offerings, and this is considered in the light
of Wensinck's remarks about the pit inside the Ka'ba as a channel of com-
munication with the lower world, the possibility that the tradition of the
casting of objects into Zamzam is related to that of the objects kept in the
'well of the Ka'ba ' becomes even greater.
Furthermore, it seems that in tradition the two holes are to some extent
associated with the same objects. It has already been indicated that the golden
gazelles recovered from Zamzam by 'Abd al-Muttalib are seen as part of the
treasure of the sanctuary, normally kept in the ' well of the Ka'ba '.5 They
are, therefore, associated in tradition with both holes. The same also seems to

48 See above, p. 51, n. 42.

49Al-Fdkihi, 337b, 1. 5 from foot; al-FMsi, Shifd', I, 247; note too the speech of KhUlid
al-Qasri comparing the sweet water of the caliph with the bitter waterof Abraham, when he tried
to supplant Zamzam by a water source he had constructed on the orders of the caliph (al-Tabari,
Tarikh, 11, 1199-1200).
50 Al-Fdkihi, 337b.
51D. Sidersky, Origines des legendes musulmanes, Paris, 1933, 50-1; M. Griinbaum, Neue
Beitrdge zur semitischen Sagenkunde, Leiden, 1893, 103.
52Midrash Rabba on Genesis 21:29. Ibn Ezra identifies Beer-lahoi-roi with Zamzam
(M. Griinbaum, Sagenkunde, 106).
53 J. Wellhausen, Reste, third edition, 103; W. Robertson Smith, Semites, 167-8; T. Fahd,
Pantheon, 40.
54See above, p. 46, n. 11.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM 53

be true of the rukn. It has been mentioned that according to one report the
Jurhumi chief put the hajar al-rukn into Zamzam along with the other objects.55
In Muslim tradition the rukn is frequently associated with an inscription
containing a divine promise which is said to have been found at the Meccan
sanctuary. There are various traditions naming the place where this inscription
(kitab)was found.56 In the present context the two relevant traditions are that
which says 'in the rukn' and that which says 'in the well of the Ka'ba'
(fi bi'r al-Ka'ba).57 In other words it seems that the rukn, as well as the
gazelles, was associated with both the Zamzam well and the 'well of the
Ka'ba '.
Concerning the reality of the bi'r or jubb inside the Ka'ba, scholars have
generally accepted that it did exist at the Meccan sanctuary and, as has been
noted, they have used it as evidence in discussions about the function of
ghabghabsat Semitic sanctuaries. However, in Islamic times there is no such
well or pit inside the Ka'ba, and whether it ever existed at the Meccan sanctuary
seems questionable. In the traditions it is mentioned in connexion with the
rebuilding of the Ka'ba by Quraysh in the boyhood of the Prophet. At that
time, it is said by some traditions, the hole was redug by Qurayshand established
again in the place where it had existed hitherto.58 In the traditions about
Muhammad's conquest of Mecca and his ' purification' of the Ka'ba there are
few references to this hole inside the Ka'ba,59 although there are accounts of
Muhammad's destruction of the idol Hubal which is said to have stood over it.
There are references to the khizinat al-bayt or khizinat al-Ka'ba in traditions
referring to the Islamic period, but it is difficult to ascertain what it is they
refer to. Al-Azraqi, for instance, has a section headed Dhikr al-jubb alladhi
kana fi'l-Ka'ba fi'l-jihiliyya wa-mil al-Ka'ba alladhUyuhdd lahd wa-mi jd'a
fi dhAVlik.60 The first traditions in this section deal with the hole inside the
Ka'ba and later ones with various treasures, some of which were hung inside
the Ka'ba and some of which were put in the khizina. There is nothing to
indicate what the khizdna was, but elsewhere al-Azraqi refers to a gift sent to
the Ka'ba by a king of Tibet who had accepted Islam. This gift was placed in
the treasury of the sanctuary (khizinat al-bayt) in the house of Shayba b.
'Uthman.61 None of al-Azraqi's traditions say what happened to the jubb at
the time of the fath. Without further evidence, therefore, it seems permissible
to question whether this jubb or bi'r ever really existed at the Meccan sanctuary.
The evidence discussed in this paper, therefore, seems to allow the following
tentative reconstruction of the background to the traditions about the burial
and rediscovery of Zamzam and the 'well of the Ka'ba'. Developing certain
Jewish ideas, early Islam associated the sanctuary with a pit or well. This idea
was connected with the theory that the sanctuary was the navel of the earth
and in particularwas associated with the tradition of the burial of the sanctuary
objects. Before the Meccan sanctuary became firmly established as the Muslim
sanctuary, these ideas found expression in traditions about the well of the

55 See above, p. 46, n. 14.

56A1-Azraqi, 42-3; Ibn Hisham, Sira, I, 195-6; al-Tabari, Tafs8r, Cairo, 1954-, III, 61.
-5 Al-Azraqi, loc. cit.; cf. al-FAkihi, 339a, where 'Abd al-Muttalib finds three stones with
inscriptions in Zamzam.
58 Al-Azraqi, 111.
59According to al-Azraqi, 171, Muhammad found 70,000 awqiya of gold in the jubb which
was in the Ka'ba at the time of the fat4.
60
Al-Azraqi, 169-73.
61
Ibid., 157-8; cf. al-Ya'qfibi, II, 452-3; W. Barthold, ' Tibet ', in Encyclopaedia of Islam,
first edition.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 THE DISAPPEARANCE AND REDISCOVERY OF ZAMZAM

sanctuary, the bi'r al-Ka'ba. When the Meccan sanctuary was taken over by
Islam, however, the well of that sanctuary, Zamzam, came to displace the
earlier bi'r al-Ka'ba, and the tradition of the burial of the sanctuary objects
was attached to Zamzam. Since the sanctuary objects were now no longer
relevant, however, the tradition was reworked and became a tradition about
the burial of Zamzamitself. At the same time the bi'r al-Ka'ba was reinterpreted
and the material about it adapted to give it a place in the new scheme of things.
Now it came to be explained as a treasury or receptacle for votive offerings.
This development can only be expressed generally, and many details remain
obscure, but it is considered that it fits in with the evidence of the traditions
as interpreted here.

This content downloaded from 132.203.227.63 on Sun, 10 May 2015 16:32:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions