Board of Trustees, Boston University
Solomonic Legend: The Muslims and the Great Zimbabwe
Author(s): Scott T. Carroll
Source: The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1988), pp. 233247
Published by: Boston University African Studies Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/219935 .
Accessed: 08/07/2011 16:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=buafc. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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 [email protected].
Boston University African Studies Center and Board of Trustees, Boston University are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The International Journal of African Historical Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
SOLOMONIC LEGEND: THE MUSLIMS
AND THE GREAT ZIMBABWE*
By Scott T. Carroll
The Great Zimbabwe ruins are the most outstanding archaeological remains of a
vast network of stone edifices covering present-day Zimbabwe, Maputo,
Botswana, and the Transvaal. The Great Zimbabwe is located approximately 300
miles south of the Zambezi River and 250 miles west of the coast of the Indian
Ocean. The word "Zimbabwe" is a Shona word which is considered to have been
derived from a contraction (dzimba dza mabwe) meaning literally "houses of
stone."' The magnificent stone walls at Zimbabwe are among the most impressive
archaeological remains in the world. The anomaly of this kind of grandeur in the
bush of African has long captivated man's imagination. And this interest has
been fanned by the mysterious origin of these spectacular ruins.
ThXemystery of the Great Zimbabwe's provenance has generated more
than intrigue. Since the last century, a debate has ensued with the publication of
rival theories to explain the origin of the ruins. The various arguments that have
been put forth can be categorized into two groups: those who maintain that the
walls were the work of indigenous Africans (the Bantu) and those who argue
that the structures were built by foreigners.
An Historical Overview of Suggested Origins
Among the attempts to solve the dilemma of the Great Zimbabwe's origin, one
noteworthy group maintains that the structures were erected by the Bantu people
who populate the region. The suggestion that Black Africa constructed such
grandiose buildings as the Great Zimbabwe assails tremendous prejudice.
Nevertheless, many prominent twentieth-century archaeologists, anthropologists,
and historians have argued in favor of an indigenous origin for the ruins. The
English archaeologist, David Randall-MacIver, in 1906 was the first to assert that
the architecture showed exclusively African influence and authorship.2 The next
significant .examination of the site was conducted by Gertrude Caton-Thompson
in 1929.She concurred with the appraisal of Randall-MacIver.3 In the 1950s, Roger
*I would like to acknowledge the help I received from Maynard Swanson in the preparation of this
article.
1p. S. Garlake, The Great Zimbabwe (London, 1973), 11. It should be noted, however, that Garlake
himself believes the word is derived from dzimba woye, meaning, literally, venerated houses.
2David Randall-MacIver, "The Rhodesian Ruins: Their Probable Origin and Significance,"
Geographical Journal 27, 4 (1906);and Medieval Rhodesia (London, 1906).
3Gertrude Caton-Thompson,The Zimbabwe Culture: Ruins and Reactions (London, 1931).
The InternationalJournalof AfricanHistoricalStudies, 21, 2 (1988)
233
234
SCOTT T. CARROLL
Summers,4 Keith Robinson5 and Anthony Whitty6 independently studied the
ruins in detail. Each was persuaded of Zimbabwe's indigenous origin. Peter
Garlake is the most recent advocate of a Bantu origin. In 1973, he published a
capsulization of his six-year term as Rhodesia's senior inspector of the
monuments, defending the indigenous nature of the great stone walls.7
The alternative solution to the Zimbabwe riddle argues that the edifices
were erected by foreigners. While there is an apparent homogeneity among the
indigenous interpretations,8 there are several proposed alien authorships which
only hold in common the assumption that the Bantu were incapable of building
the Great Zimbabwe. Basically, there are three different groups of non-Africans
most frequently mentioned as potential builders of the ancient ruins.
The Arabs have been proposed as the true builders of Great Zimbabwe.
James Mullan hypothesizes that the ruins were originally raised by dissident
Arabs who, as a result of an internal upheaval within Islam, migrated to
southeast Africa and constructed the great buildings. A second proposal is that
people from southeast Asia built the Great Zimbabwe. Leo Frobenius insisted
that a culture he named "Erythrean" was responsible for the erection of
Zimbabwe. He further conjectured that the Erythreans originally came from
south India, based upon a supposed structural similarity between the Great
Zimbabwe and remains at Hampi (which, coincidentally, were both located in the
vicinity of gold mines).10 Likewise, Johann van Oordt argued that the Zimbabwe
4Some of Roger Summers'smore seminal works bearing on the subject are listed chronologically: "The
Dating of Zimbabwe Ruins," Antiquity, 29 (1955); Inyanga (London, 1958); Rhodesia and Nyasaland
(London, 1960);"The Riddle of Zimbabwe," in E. Bacon, ed., Vanished Civilizations: Forgotten Peoples of
the AncientWorld (London,1963), 43-54;Zimbabwe:A RhodesianMystery (Johannesburg,
1963);Ancient
Ruinsand VanishedCivilizationsof SouthernAfrica (CapeTown,1971).
5Some of K. R. Robinson's more significant contributions are: "The Leopard's Kopje Culture: Its
Position in the Iron Age of Southern Rhodesia," South Africa Archaeological Bulletin, 21, 81 (1966); K. R.
Robinson, R. Summers and A. Whitty, "Some General Conclusions," Occasional Papers of the National
Museumsof SouthernRhodesia,3, 3A (1961).
6A. Whitty, "The Origins of the Stone Architecture at Zimbabwe," in J. D. Clark, ed., Proceedings of
the Third Pan-AfricanCongresson Prehistory (London,1957).
7Some of Garlake's helpful contributions are: "Rhodesian Ruins - A Preliminary Assessment of Their
Styles and Chronology," Journal of African History, 11, 4 (1970); "The Decline of Zimbabwe in the
Fifteenth Century,"Rhodesian Prehistory, 5 (1970);Great Zimbabwe.
8The major debates between those in agreement over the indigenous origin are in the areas of
chronology and over the question of the nature of the formation of the Zimbabwe state. Regarding
chronology, see Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 76-110,182-200;and, more recently, Martin Hall and J. C. Vogel,
"Some Recent Radiocarbon Dates From Southern Africa," Journal of African History, 21, 4 (1980), 452.
The various positions held by scholars regarding the nature of Zimbabwe's state formation have been
outlined by T. N. Huffman in "The Rise and Fall of Zimbabwe," Journal of African History, 13, 3 (1972),
353, notes 2-3. A pastoral hypothesis should now be added to the religious and trade theories. See P. S.
Garlake, "Pastoralismand Zimbabwe,"Journal of African History, 19, 4 (1978), 479-493, and Roland Oliver,
"The Nilotic Contribution to Bantu Africa," Journal of African History, 23 (1982), 440.
9James Mullan, The Arab Builders of Zimbabwe (Umtali, 1969).
10Wilfrid Mallows, The Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe (New York, 1984), 79.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
235
ruins were built by the Dravidian Indians, who were also from south India.11
Most recently, Wilfrid Mallows has postulated a curious blend of both the Arab
and south Indian interpretation.12
The final popularly suggested foreign source of the great stone walls may
best be categorized as "Solomonic."Like the other alien source hypotheses, there
is a wide variation in this explanation also.13 Generally speaking, this
interpretation attempts to solve the Zimbabwe riddle by maintaining that the
ruins correspond to Biblical accounts of Solomon's activity in a land of gold
called Ophir. The Solomonic explanation is constructed around an account given
in the first Book of Kings that relates that Hiram (king of the Phoenecian city
of Tyre):
sent his servants with the fleet, sailors who knew the sea,
along with the servants of Solomon. And they went to Ophir,
and took four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there,
and brought it to King Solomon.... For the king had at sea
the ships of Tarshish with the ships of Hiram; once every
three years the ships of Tarshish came bringing gold and
silver, ivory and apes and peacocks.14
The veracity of the Solomonic theory is contingent upon the problematic task of
identifying Ophir with the Great Zimbabwe.15To the twentieth-century historian,
this interpretation hints of a reckless "fundamentalist Christian" attempt to prop
up the Bible with unsupported evidence. But the evolution of such an imaginative
explanation is not that simplistic. Unfortunately, the origins of the Solomonic
theory are nearly as elusive as the origin of the Great Zimbabwe itself.
This paper will explore the historiographical origins of the Solomonic
hypothesis, investigating whether the theory is simply the result of unbridled
Christian enthusiasm. By sifting chronologically back through the developmental
stages of the Solomonic interpretation, the theory's actual origin will become
evident. This study will begin with bold affirmations made during the nineteenth
century, by which time the theory had reached full bloom. Next, relevant
historical and geographical sources important to the development of this theory
will be examined. Finally, the Solomonic tradition in Muslim literature and the
sources from which that lore is derived will be investigated. It is the purpose of
11J.F. van Oordt, Who Were the Builders of the Great Zimbabwe? (Cape Town, 1909).
12Mallows,Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe,80-131.
13In the Solomonic or Sabaean theory, the construction of the ruins is variously ascribed to Solomon,
Sheba and Hiram. But with each hypothesis, Solomon is the essential personage. See J. B. Pritchard, ed.,
Solomon and Sheba (London, 1974).
14I Kings 9:27-8 and 10:22.The quotation is taken from the New American Standard Translation.
15The location of Ophir (still an unresolved mystery) has been narrowed down to the coast of
Somaliland or the region of Yemen. See B. Maisler, "Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell Qasile." Journal of
Near Eastern Studies, 10 (1951), 43-49; E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, eds. New International
Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983), 346-347. Note also "Ophir and Hawila" in
Palys Realencyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,Suppl.XII (Stuttgart,1970),cols. 969980.
236
SCOTT T. CARROLL
this paper to accomplish three objectives: to place the responsibility for the
concoction of the incredible Solomonic theory upon sixteenth century Muslim
traders; to uncover the sources available to Muslims for the construction of their
myth; and to offer a rationale for the Muslims' Solomonic strategem.
The Solomonic Theory in the Nineteenth Century
The glamour and fascination posed by the discovery of ancient ruins in southeast
Africa captivated a sizable, contemporary literary audience in Europe. Living in
a secure Victorian world, the British public experienced vicarious pleasure
reading the latest exploits of adventurers in the African interior. Novelists like
H. M. Walmsey, capitalizing on the popular excitement, published a fictional
account of exploration in southeast Africa entitled The RuinedCities of Zululand.16
The story unfolds around several missionaries' quest to find rumored cities of
gold in the African hinterland. Pressed on by a sort of passion, one missionary
proclaims what would be the anthem of the last half of the nineteenth century:
"There lie the gold fields of Solomon somewhere in that neighborhood; the
ruined cities of the mighty Egyptians, the ancient gold diggers, crumbled into
dust."17This notion so stirred the readers' imagination and at the same time
aligned itself with their romantic appreciation for African exploration that they
soon forgot that it was fiction. This work actually marks the beginning of a very
popular genre of literature published particularly in Britain during the last half
of the nineteenth century.
The prospect of allegedly having located the Biblical Ophir in southeast
Africa further gripped the imagination of many, popularized by the likes of
Rider Haggard's best-selling novels King Solomon's Mine and She.18 Solomon's
magical architectural abilities had been lauded as early as 1864 in Robert
Browning's "Abt Vogler" which speaks of the time when Solomon willed that
Armies of angels that soar, legions of demons that lurk, Man,
brute, reptile, fly alien of end and of aim, Adverse, each from
the other heaven-high, hell-deep removed, Should rush into
sight at once as he named the ineffable Name, And pile him a
palace straight, to pleasure the princess he loved.19
The Ophir-Zimbabwe designation even received a visual expression as an
illustration
in Thomas
Baines's The Gold Regions of South Eastern Africa.20 By the
end of the nineteenth century, the Solomonic origin of the Great Zimbabwe had
been accepted carte blanche. Fiction and popular notion had been mistaken for
1H. M. Walmsey, The Ruined Cities of Zululand [1869](Westport, Conn., 1970).
17Ibid., 134-135.
18Mallows,
Mystery of the Great Zimbabwe,75.
19Robert Browning, "Abt Vogler," in John Pettigrew, ed., Robert Browning: The Poems (New Haven,
1981), 1.777. The "princess he loved" is probably referring to Pharoah's daughter, see I Kings 3:1. Had
Browning penned the poem a decade later, he might well have referred to the queen of Sheba instead of
Pharoah'sdaughter.
20Garlake, Great Zimbabwe,64.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
237
fact. Undaunted by the question of truth, the Victorians seemed the more eager
to adopt Solomon as a precedent to attempt to justify their imperialistic designs
in Africa, if not simply to assuage their conscience. Rhodes and company would
exploit Africa after the legendary manner of the Hebrew king (and with twice
his splendor). The imperialists are indicted for their use of Solomon's supposed
African activities as a justification
for their unscrupulous greed in Hilaire
Belloc's satirical poem, "The Modern Traveller" (1898):
Oh! Africa, mysterious
Surrounded by a lot of
Far Land of Ophir!
Mined for gold
By Lordly Solomon of
Who sailing northward
Took all the gold away
Land!
sand....
old,
to Perim
with him21
A watershed marking an escalation in the popularity of the Solomonic
theory can be found with the publication of the correspondence connected with
the explorations
of Karl Mauch. On 5 September 1871, the German geologist
became the first European to reach the Great Zimbabwe since the Portuguese in
the sixteenth century. Mauch's notoriety was the natural result of his actually
evidence.
being the first to attempt to verify any origin with archaeological
Between 1873 and 1876, Mauch's notions about the Solomonic origin of the ruins
were published in Europe.22 Mauch's romantic speculations coupled with some
carelessly reasoned arguments23 confirmed for nineteenth-century
Europe the
existing popular notion that Solomon built the Great Zimbabwe.
Mauch's impact, to a large degree, was contingent on the machinations of
the press. Unlike many forgotten explorers, Mauch enjoyed the singular privilege
21Hilaire Belloc, "The Modern Traveller," stanza 5. From Hilaire Belloc, Complete Verse (London,
1970), 165-205.
22Many of Mauch's speculations about the Solomonic origin of the newly discovered ruins were
disclosed before a Berlin society in 1873 but were not published until 1876 as "Vorlaufige Notiz fiber die
in Ver(d)handlungender BerlinerGesellschaft far Anthropologie,Ethnologie
Ruinenvon Zimbabwe,"
und Urgeschichte. A report with slightly less detail was published in a supplement to Geographischen
Mittheilungen (1874). Translations are contained in F. O. Bernhard, ed. and trans., Karl Mauch: African
Explorer (Cape Town, 1971).
23The following brief synopsis of Mauch's evidence is taken from Mauch's Journal 4 in Burke, ed.,
The Journals of Carl Mauch (Salisbury, 1969). There are also significant excerpts of African Explorer.
Mauch attempts to defend his theory with six arguments.(1) The site is called by the natives "the house of
the great woman"Journal 4 (22 February, 1872). (2) Mauch had acquired from the ruins what he had falsely
taken to be cedar (from the Biblical Lebanon, supposedly), Journal 4 (6 March 1872). (3) There exists for
Mauch (who admits that he does not know Hebrew) an etymological similarity between the words Zimbabwe
and Sheba, Journal 4 (6 March 1872). (4) Mauch relied heavily on an oral tradition related through the
Motsimo, Journal 4 (27 March 1872); "Carl Mauch's Reisen im Inneren von Sfid-Afrika, 1865-1872,"
Geographischen Mittheilungen, 27 (1874), Part 4. (5) Mauch argued that there existed enough similarities
between the native ritual and Judaism to warrant a direct correlation between the religions, Journal 4 (21
May 1872). (6) Mauch also believed that the Solomonic-Zimbabwe theory is further confirmed by the
presentation of gold to Jesus Christ by the magi (one of which Mauch claimed was from Zimbabwe), Journal
4 (4 March 1872).
238
SCOTT T. CARROLL
of being surrounded by publishers. Friedrich Jeppe, an editor of a Potchefstroom
newspaper, The Transvaal Argus, joined himself to Mauch's work.24 Much of
Jeppe's writing was designed to entice European interest in South Africa.25 He
had taken an active role publishing accounts of explorations in southeast Africa,
and was of the greatest utility to Mauch.26Similarly, Mauch's German patron, Dr.
A. Petermann, seized every opportunity to publish all the news of and letters
written by Mauch.27 As early as 1867, Petermann had predicted that certain gold
fields recently discovered by Mauch "are identical with the Ophir of the Bible
and with the places from which Salomo obtained his wealth in gold."28Needless
to say, when Mauch later discovered the ancient ruins, it was enthusiastically
broadcast in an effective way to an eager European audience by way of Jeppe
and Petermann. So the popularity of the Solomonic theory in the nineteenth
century, to a large degree, was the result of the press encompassing both the
novelists and journalists.
Mauch himself was not a dynamic original thinker.29 It appears that his
ideas about the ruins' origin were curiously derived from several earlier sources.
First, his explorations thrust him into the company of those Europeans who were
most familiar with the interior - the missionaries. One member of the Berlin
Mission Society with whom Mauch became most intimate was Reverend A.
Merensky. As a cartographer and explorer of sorts, Merensky proved a valuable
aid to Mauch. Whether for geographical information, supplies or as a liaison (to
Africans and Europeans alike), Mauch depended on Merensky's resourcefulness.30
The most valuable information that he shared with Mauch (according to the
missionary) was his knowledge about Solomon's ruins in southeast Africa. In a
letter from Merensky to Petermann, the missionary confides, "I am glad that
Mauch has found the site, rejoice also that he may have been especially spurred
to make the renewed attempt through information he obtained from me."31The
missionary was convinced that "in the country northeast and east of Mosilikatse,
the ancient Ophir of Solomon is to be found."32 Merensky was so firmly
persuaded in this belief that in 1862 he attempted unsuccessfully to reach the
24Bernard, ed., Karl Mauch, 10.
25Ibid.
26Transvaal Argus, 20 October 1868, in Burke, ed. Journals.
27Bernhard, ed., Karl Mauch, preface. Perhaps, as is pointed out, while Petermann was early-on
Mauch's greatest advocate, he also became the single most probable reason for the young explorer's obscurity.
Dr. Petermann, disappointed in Mauch's person, had nothing more to do with the explorer after Mauch
returned to Germany in 1874.
28Bernhard, ed., Karl Mauch, 27.
29Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 62.
30A perusal of Karl Mauch will illustrate the help Merensky gave to Mauch. For examples, see pages
10, 27, 28, 34, 37, 106, 113.
31Letter, A. Merensky to A. Petermann, 14 November 1871, in Burke, ed. Journals, 264-265.
32Letter, 12 October 1868 to the Transvaal Argus, in Burke, ed., Journals.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
239
rumored
shared his dreams with a young,
city.33 The old missionary
impressionable, and highly idealistic Karl Mauch.
It is important at this juncture to underscore that neither Mauch nor
Merensky intended to utilize the Solomonic theory as a proof to establish the
of the Scripture. Oddly enough, while they were searching
for
reliability
Solomon's lost ruins, Germany, followed by the rest of Europe, would be taken
headlong into Wellhausen's School of Higher Criticism.34 The general consensus
in Mauch's day among the clergy and laity alike was to disregard, in particular,
the historicity of the Old Testament. A grammatical-historical
apologia to the
Higher Critics would not develop until the end of the nineteenth century.35 To
conclude then, that Mauch maintained the Solomonic theory as an attempt to
support the Biblical account, does not fit with the intellectual context of his day.
The sources give no warrant to conclude
that Mauch held convictions
uncharacteristic of his time.36 Nor can it be said that perceiving the onslaught of
the Higher Critics, he attempted to establish the historicity of the Old Testament
by means of the Solomonic theory. Instead, it seems that Mauch, like others of
his day, was infatuated with the likelihood of "an old story" being true, without
being bothered by its relationship to an inerrant Bible. While it is true that the
ideas of the missionary Merensky had an influence on Mauch's thinking, those
ideas were no more or less religious than the next man's.37 Merensky's "calling" as
a missionary
was parenthetical
to the formation
of his own ideas about
Zimbabwe and the impression that he may have made on Mauch. The conviction
of a Solomonic origin of Zimbabwe was popularized in a surprisingly secular
society.
The second source of influence that shaped both Mauch and Merensky's
opinion concerning the origins of the ruins was the available literature on which
they relied, particularly for geographical information. While Mauch specifically
33Transvaal Argus, 20 October 1868, quoted in Bernhard, ed., Karl Mauch, 120.
34Julius Wellhausen was the spokesman representing a century of Biblical scholarship which rejected
the historicity of major portions of the Old Testament. By means of a Documentary Hypothesis, the Higher
Critics attempted to approach the Old Testament as a compilation of several sources written by different
authors at radically different dates. They relied heavily upon Hegelian dialecticism and Darwinian
evolutionism. Wellhausen's classical expressions of this theory were Die Komposition des Hexateuchs
(Berlin, 1876) and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1878). For further information on the
development of Higher Criticism, consult Gleason L. Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, 1964).
35The most thoroughgoing refutation of the Higher Critics was not martialed until the late 1880s and
1890s.See the works of William Henry Green and William Mitchell Ramsay.
36If Mauch's Journal is any indication of the sincerity of his religious conviction, he appears to be an
average nineteenth-century German Lutheran. Mauch, in "Reisen,"pt. 4, contrasts himself with a "pious and
Godfearing" Boer. The contrast underscores Mauch's own estimation of his rather nominal faith. In fact,
Mauch himself discloses at this point that he lacks a personal and intimate understanding of the Bible; a
certain fact that he betrays later with his far-fetched isogesis. See Journal 4 (21 May 1872) or even Garlake,
Great Zimbabwe, 64.
37The "higher calling" of many nineteenth-century missionaries (Merensky included) entailed the
pursuit of cartography and adventure rather than souls.
SCOTT T. CARROLL
240
lists contemporary sources that were not helpful to him,38 he is silent about the
books which he had found informative. Only one intriguing disclosure by Mauch
hints about some unspecified
sources written by the Portuguese which were
valuable in his geographical studies. These unnamed Portuguese books helped
Mauch to shape his understanding about the ruins and their origins.39 The next
task will entail a historiographical
overview
of pertinent
historical
and
sources that preceded Mauch, and to attempt to project
the
geographical
influence of these sources on the Solomonic interpretation
of the Zimbabwe
origin.
Relevant Historical and Geographical Sources
The earliest records of the history and geography of southeast Africa were
written by the Portuguese.40 Interest in the African interior was first fostered by
the contact the Portuguese made with the Congo in the fifteenth
century.
of events - eastward expeditions
in search of the
Through a combination
Empire of the illustrious Prester John as well as the successful circumnavigation
of Africa - Portuguese exploration
became especially fruitful in southeast
Africa. The tales of explorers, missionaries,
and shipwrecked
sailors are
assimilated into historical narratives written during the sixteenth century. These
early Portuguese sources, as will be shown, had a tremendous influence on later
geographers, and on European thinking generally, with respect to the Solomonic
theory of the Great Zimbabwe's origin.
There are eight important references to the Great Zimbabwe written by
the earliest Portuguese. The first reference to the stone fortress is made by Diogo
de Alcagova. In a letter to the king of Portugal in 1506, he gives an account of
the regions of Sofala and, in so doing, makes a reference to "Zunbanhy," the
houses of the King Mwene Mutapa.41 The second reference is in 1511 by Antonio
Fernandes who gives an account of the fortress.42 The third source, written by
38See Journal 4 (22 February 1872). Mauch confesses to have "read much" in preparation to find the
ruins. "News from Karl Mauch,"in Bernhard, ed., Karl Mauch, 107.
39In a letter from Mauch to Petermann, 12 September 1871, Mauch refers to his reliance upon
Portuguese writings. Mauch's dependence upon earlier Portuguese is also assumed by Merensky in a letter
from A. Merensky to A. Petermann, 14 November 1871, and is even implied in Mauch's obituary (of all
places); "GeographicalNecrology of the Year 1875."See Bernhard, ed., Karl Mauch, 115, 133, 121.
40The availability of these early Portuguese sources during the nineteenth century in Europe may,
admittedly, present a problem for depending heavily upon them as influential works. The problem is
compounded by an 1878 letter from the Geographical Society of Lisbon to the Geographical Society of Lyons,
quoted in M. Hutchinson, ed., A Report of the Kingdom of the Congo (London, 1881), xiii. The letter
refers to a neglect by other Europeans of the older Portuguese sources. Ironically, even Petermann had said
"that the work of the Portuguese in the exploration of Africa is almost nil, and their information incomplete
and inaccurate" (Ibid., xiv). Two factors dispel the need for undue caution. First and foremost is Mauch's
personal avowal of reliance on the older Portuguese works and second, much of the impact that the
Portuguese sources had on the nineteenth century was through their ideas being assimilated and filtered
through more contemporary sources.
41Documentson the Portuguesein Mozambiqueand Central Africa: 1497-1840, I (Lisbon, 1964),
395.
42Ibid., III, 183.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
241
Duarte Barbosa in 1514 describes a great town called "Zimbaoche" which, he
notes, "pertains to the heathen" and their King Benametapa.43 A final account
that warrants partial inclusion with the earliest references is Joao de Barros's Da
Asia.44 The work was first published in 1552, much later than the previous
accounts. But parts of Da Asia were extracted from primary sources to which De
Barros had access as the keeper of the archives in Lisbon. His description of the
Great Zimbabwe reflects a dependence on an earlier source.45 However, the
account is also interpolated with contemporary (sixteenth century) notions. The
historian not conscious of the anachronistic description can be left with a
distorted chronological picture of the Great Zimbabwe. Two important factors
should be noted about these first encounters. First, the earliest sources relate that
the stone walls were associated with the personage of a local king and were still
being used. Secondly, these sources do not offer an explanation for Zimbabwe's
origin. This would imply that the origin of the Great Zimbabwe was not
questioned. The first Portuguese to encounter the East African interior assumed
that the local king had erected the stone fortress.
During the generation that followed Alcanova, Fernandes, and Barbosa,
the extant Portuguese sources are conspicuously silent about Zimbabwe. But
between 1549 and 1616,there are five rich accounts of the Great Zimbabwe. Each
of the sources is preoccupied with the origin of the walled fortress. Thomas
Lopez, in 1549, states that Muslim traders affirmed that their ancient writings
relate that the ruins had belonged to King Solomon.46 De Barros also adds to his
primary source description contemporary speculation about the Great
Zimbabwe's origin. He claims that the Muslims denied having constructed the
walls. However, the local African people maintained that the ruins had been built
by devils. De Barros concludes his discussion by suggesting a Solomonic origin
for the ruins.47 The next significant Portuguese account of the Great Zimbabwe
is not made until 1591 by Duarte Lopez, whose account was related by the Italian
Filippo Pigafetta. After a brief discussion of Muslim traders in the interior,
Lopez records that "It is said by these certain ones [the Muslim traders] that from
these regions the gold was brought by sea which served for Solomon's Temple at
Jerusalem."48In 1609, Joao dos Santos, in Ethiopia Oriental,wrote most pointedly
that "some aged Moors assert that they have a tradition from their ancestors"
43G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, ed. and trans., The East African Coast: Select Documents from the
See also The Book of Duarte Barbosa,2
First to the Earlier NineteenthCentury(Oxford,1962),128-129.
vols. (London, 1918).
44Joao de Barros, Da Asia, 1.10.1in G. N. Theal, ed., Records of South-Eastern Africa (Cape Town,
1964) VI, 267-268.
45See E. E. Burke, "Some Aspects of Arab Contact with South East Africa," in Historians in Tropical
Africa (Salisbury, 1962), 96, 104ns. 14-16;Freeman-Grenville, Select Documents, 34, 80; and Garlake, Great
Zimbabwe, 53.
46Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus, I (Glasgow, 1905),75.
4De Barros, Da Asia, 1.10.1.
48M Hutchinson, ed., A Report of the Kingdom of the Congo, 9. For a French source, see Pigafetta
andLopez,Descriptiondu Royaumede Congo et des ContreesEnvironnantes,parWilly Bal,2s Rev.ed.
(Paris, 1965).
242
SCOTT T. CARROLL
which supports the Solomonic origin of the ruins.49 The final early reference is
made by Diogo de Couto in Extractor da Asia in 1616.50 He also mentions that the
is conjectured by some people, without specifically
Solomonic interpretation
naming who they are.51 This second phase of Portuguese writers all suggest a
Solomonic origin of the ruins which apparently had been offered by Muslim
traders.
When the historical sources are grouped into two chronological
phases,
they reflect quite accurately the shift in power that took place during the
and sixteenth
centuries
in southeast
Africa.
The
fifteenth
proceeding
ethnopolitical chronology follows both D. P. Abraham's historical reconstruction
of the kingdom of Mwene Mutapa52 and the most recent radio-carbon dates from
the Great Zimbabwe (which place its construction between 1000 and 1500).53 The
first phase of encounters with the interior recorded by Alcanova, Fernandes, and
Barbosa reflect contact with the Mbire, descendants of the indigenous builders of
the Great Fortress. Their accounts describe a centralized dynastic presence using
the fortress at the end of the fifteenth century. None of the earliest Portuguese
writers even raise the question of the building's origin. A demographic shift took
place beginning in the mid-fifteenth century. A population increase coupled with
a rise in cattle holdings and depletion in salt stores (and possible ecological
problems), caused the Mbire to migrate to the middle Zambezi river valley.54
Prosperous trade routes were abandoned only to be quickly infiltrated by Muslim
traders.55 The second group of Portuguese writers reflects the population shift
and draws a markedly different picture of the Great Zimbabwe from that of the
earlier Portuguese chroniclers. Zimbabwe had been deserted and left in ruins.
These later accounts also demonstrate
Muslim infiltration
into the interior.
Solomonic
Finally, each of the later historians include the Muslim-proposed
theory of the ruins' origin.
Geographical sources published during the later sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries are singularly dependent on the second phase of Portuguese historical
49Dos Santos, Ethiopia Oriental, 2.11;in Theal, VII, 275-280.
50De Couto, Extractor Da Asia, 9.25;in Theal, VI, 390-391.
51Ibid.
52D. P. Abraham, "The Early Political History of the Kingdoms of Mwene Mutapa (850-1589),"in
Historians in Tropical Africa (Salisbury, 1962), 62, 78 n. 17. The migration is also discussed by E. Alpers
in "The Mutapa and Malawi Political Systems to the Time of the Ngoni Invasions," in T. O. Ranger, ed.,
Aspects of Central African History (London, 1968), 9-10; and by P. S. Garlake in 'The Decline of
Zimbabwe in the Fifteenth Century," Rhodesian Prehistory, 5 (October 1970), 6-8, and Great Zimbabwe,
182-200.
53Martin Hall and J. C. Vogel, "Some Recent Radio-carbon Dates From Southern Africa," Journal of
African History, 21, 4 (1980), 452. For a summary of previous radiocarbon dates see Garlake, Great
Zimbabwe, 182-200. Also note T. N. Huffman and J. C. Vogel, "The Controversial Lintels from Great
Zimbabwe,"Antiquity, 53 (1979), 55-57.
54Abraham, "Early Political History," 62, 78 n. 17; Alpers, "Mutapa Political Systems," 9-10, and
Garlake, "Decline," 7.
55The chronology of initial Muslim penetration has not been definitively outlined; see the helpful
contribution of E. E. Burke in "Some Aspects of Arab Contact with South East Africa," in Historians in
Tropical Africa (1962), 93-106.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
243
accounts. The pertinent question for the geographers was not the origins of the
Great Zimbabwe (a question outside of the bounds of their endeavor) but instead:
Where is Ophir? The designations for Ophir are manifold (see Appendix A). But
as early as Sanuto's Geografia in 1588, southeast Africa is considered a plausible
possibility for the location of the elusive Ophir.56 This reflects the influence of
the second group of Portuguese historians. Historical accounts were used by
geographers as they groped for information on place names. The transmission of
Solomon's legendary city of Ophir in southeast Africa would influence English,
Italian, French and Dutch geographers and cartographers for the next two
centuries.57
The historical and geographical sources which nurtured the Solomonic
the Great Zimbabwe's origin had a major affect on the popular mind of
of
myth
Europe. In 1660, Milton could be understood when writing "Sofala thought Ophir"
in Paradise Lost.58 The growing preoccupation with Solomon's supposed activity in
southeast Africa is further reflected by several serious efforts to reach the Great
Zimbabwe. The Dutch Boers, who settled in the Cape in 1652, dispatched several
expeditions in search of Solomon's mines.59Jacob de Bucquoi, a Cape mapmaker,
wrote in 1744 that all nations, except Portugal, were ill-informed about the
location of goldfields in southeast Africa (and that parenthetically, the
Portuguese maps were intentionally obscure so as to deceive other nations as to
their whereabouts). De Bucquoi went on to maintain that the lost region of gold
is actually the Ophir of the Bible.60 But the Portuguese did not hold the location
of Zimbabwe in secret. They even mounted expeditions in search of the ruins. In
the eighteenth century, the Portuguese governor of Goa attempted an expedition
to Zimbabwe "because there is much foundation for the belief that the land is
Ophir."6' Such was the enthusiasm on the verge of the nineteenth century.
Muslim tales, propagated by some
Portuguese historians and adopted by
European geographers, were seized in the nineteenth century by Mauch and
others.
Sources of Solomonic Folklore
The previously considered Portuguese historical texts point to the Muslims as
instigators of the Solomonic theory. But is this allegation historically reasonable?
How familiar would the Muslim traders be with King Solomon? Was this
Solomonic theory a purely original concoction or can the Solomonic motif be
56Sanuto, Geografia. An excellent study of relevant geographical sources has been compiled by W. G.
L. Randles in "South East Africa and the Empire of Monomatapa as Shown on Selected Printed Maps of the
16th Century,"Studia, 2 (1958), 103-163.
57Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 62.
58Milton, "ParadiseLost,"11.400.
59Garlake, Great Zimbabwe, 62.
60Sidney R. Welch, Portuguese and Dutch in South Africa: 1641-1806 (Cape Town, 1951), 405, 861
n. 452, which is a citation of De Bucquoi's journal entitled Aanmerkelyke Ontmoetingen in de Zestien
Jaarige Reize naa de Indien, viii andii.
61Quoted in J. T. Bent's "The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, and Explorations in the Country,
Proceedings of the Royal GeographicalSociety, 14,5 (1892),242.
244
SCOTT T. CARROLL
traced in popular Muslim literature? An expose of the literary origin of this
peculiar Muslim affirmation should underscore the prominent role Solomon plays
in the folk religion of late antiquity and the source of the Solomonic idea.
Although Solomon was a Hebrew king, he is treated with high regard and
imaginative fascination in Muslim sources.62 In the Koran, Solomon is depicted as
one of four of the world's greatest leaders and is transformed from a Jewish king
into Allah's divine prophet and a prototype of Muhammad.63 The Muslim
Solomon is a veritable wonder-worker endowed with esoteric knowledge which
enables him to accomplish his magical feats.64 The Koran asserts that Solomon
wields a power over spiritual beings (djinn).65 The djinn perform prescribed tasks
in Solomon's service. These spirits are employed by Solomon specifically to assist
him in his building projects (including palaces, fortresses, baths and reservoirs.66
Even the stones for Solomon's buildings were hewn by a djinn named Sakhr
using a miraculous pebble (called a samur).67 The djinn are also employed to
dive for pearls and mine precious metals for the king.68 A final note of interest is
that the Koran supplies a romantic rendition of Solomon's encounter with the
Queen of Sheba.69 The Koranic legends contain all the necessary ingredients for
the concoction of the Solomonic theory. Doubtlessly, from this lore the Muslim
traders explained the Great Zimbabwe's origin.
The Koranic legends are an adoption of Jewish Solomonic folklore that
evolved with great popularity through late antiquity. From his role in the Old
Testament, Solomon is given an expanded role in the haggadah, works of
Josephus, the pseudepigrapha and the Midrash.70 In addition, his magical wisdom
and powers are attested to in the Church Fathers, four Nag Hammadi tractates,
scattered across the Roman
Mandaean literature and magical paraphernalia
62Refer to the article on "Sulaiman"in H. A. R. Gibb and J. H. Kramers, eds., Shorter Encyclopaedia
of Islam (Leiden, 1953),549-551;note the Koran and the Arabian Nights for sources.
63Koran, translated with notes by N. J. Dawood (New York, 1956), 21, 38.
64Koran, 21, 27, 28 and 34.
65The djinn were powerful spirits who were subject to Solomon's caprice. If they disobeyed, they were
threatened with punishment in hell (Koran, 34.21).
66Koran, 34.13 "They (djinn) made for him (Solomon) whatever he pleased: shrines and statues, basins
as large as watertroughs and built-in cauldrons."See also Koran, 21.82, 38.37. The account in Da Asia is best
understood in the context of the djinn legend. The garbled message related by the natives of devils is in
harmony with this Muslim tradition.
67"Sulaiman,"550.
68Koran, 21.82, 38.27.
69Koran, 27, 34.
70For Jewish legends and their sources, first consult Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols.
(Philadelphia, 1954). See Josephus, Antiquities, 8.45;"The Testament of Solomon" in J. H. Charlesworth, ed.,
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I (Garden City, N.Y., 1983), 935-987. The following are a list of
Jewish Tannaitic Literature and Midrashim that refer to Solomonic legend: B. Gitlin 68ab; B. Megillah llb;
Exodus Rabbah 52.4; Midrash Canticles 1.1.5;Numbers Rabbah 11.3; Pesikta Rabbati 6.7; and Pesikta of
Rabbah Kahana 5. Note also Preisendanz "Salomo,"in Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. 8 (1956), cols. 660-704; W.
Gundel "Dekane und Dekansternbilder," Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 19 (Hamburg, 1936); and S.
Giversen, "Solomon und die Damonen," Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honor of Alexander
Bohlig, NHS 3 (Leiden, 1972), 16-21.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
245
Empire.71 It has been carefully demonstrated, beginning with the pioneer work of
A. Geiger, that the Jewish legend literature was popularly known throughout
had an important
Arabia and Persia in Muhammad's day and consequently
bearing on the shaping of his ideas and their expression in the Koran.72 The
Jewish source which speaks in the most sweeping terms about Solomon's magical
abilities is the Testament of Solomon. The Testament contains the earliest and most
far reaching description of Solomon's construction of the Temple at Jerusalem
with the aid of demons. While the idea of Solomon the demon-conscribing
architect has its roots in the Greco-Roman
world, the Muslims are clearly
of these very popular notions to the Great
responsible for the application
Zimbabwe.
Conclusion
Although it is undeniable that Karl Mauch and his nineteenth century colleagues
of the fantastic Solomonic-Zimbabwe
mark a watershed in the popularization
theory, they are not its innovators. Similarly, the Portuguese did not invent this
bizarre theory. The theory cannot be written off as another example of unbridled
Christian historiography, vainly trying to demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible.
The Christians' guilt was to buy uncritically
into a sensational,
yet wrong,
tradition. But the tradition itself was Muslim. The notion was sown from midway
through the sixteenth century. The newly migrated people to the Zimbabwe
region had no reason to question the Muslims. They were puzzled about the
ruins' origin as the later Portuguese would be.73 The Muslims' primary objective
was to control the prosperous trade routes in the Zimbabwe
region. The
Solomonic
theory was a fabricated historical precedent. The Muslims used
Solomon to attempt to stake their claim in the interior of southeastern Africa,
71Note the study by C. C. McCown "The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon,"
Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, 2 (1927), 1-24; D. C. Duling "Solomon,Exorcism, and the Son of
David," Harvard Theological Review, 68 (1975), 235-252. For some original sources, see Origen,
Commentaryon Matthew (tractate33) 110,in J. P. Migne,Patrologiae cursus completus,series graeca,
161 vols. (Paris, 1857-1866),vol. 13, col. 1757; The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. J. M. Robinson (New York,
1977), II, 5:107,3;V, 5:78,30,79,3,10;VII, 2:63,11;IX, 3:70,6,27; M. Lidzbarski, Ginza (Gottingen, 1925) on a
Mandaean parallel; and Charles D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (Missoula, Montana,
1975);Zosimus of Panopolis in M. P. E. Berthelot, Histoire des sciences: La Chimie au Moyen-age (Paris,
1893), 2.264-66 and C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (New York, 1961),
31-35 for some of the many early sources on Solomonic magic and demon folklore.
72See Charles C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam (New York, 1967); and "Islam"in the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971).There were many legends about Solomon and Sheba which were
obviously incorporated by the Muslims into their lore. A glaring example is the Muslim tradition that stones
for construction were cut by means of a magic pebble called a samur. According to early rabbinic legend, a
shamir was used by Solomon to cut stones for the Temple at Jerusalem. While the sources are obscure about
what exactly a shamir was, the earliest traditions held the view that it was some sort of insect (b.Gitt 68ab).
The later tradition in the Testament of Solomon was that the shamir was a magic green pebble. The
Muslims show clearly a dependence on this early pseudepigraphic source. And it is this Jewish source which
speaks in the most sweeping terms about Solomon's conscription of demons for building.
73See notes 47 and 66 above.
246
SCOTT T. CARROLL
when political control in the region was in flux.74 By adopting popular Koranic
folklore (which had long-standing traditions in the ancient world), the Muslims
constructed the most elusive myth of all: the Solomonic theory of the origins of
the Great Zimbabwe.
74Garlake, The Great Zimbabwe, 64. The Muslim polemical use of the Solomonic myth has also been
used by the likes of R. Gayre in The Origin of the Zimbabwean Civilization (Salisbury, 1972) to attempt to
maintain a non-African supremacy in Zimbabwe.
SOLOMONIC LEGEND
247
Appendix A
PRE-SEVENTEENTH CENTURY PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF OPHIR
Sofala
Raphael Volaterrano
Ludovic Veneto
Sanuto
Hispaniola
Vatablo Parisiense
Francis Vatablus
Gambia
Cpt. Johnson
Persia
Ormus
Island in Red Sea
Eupolemus
India
St. Jerome
Josephus
Rabano
Nicolau de Lyra
Acostas (East Indies)
Purchas
Eusebius
Peru
Postellus
Goropius Becanus
Arias Montanus
Possevinus
Genebrard
Marinus Brixianus
Sa
Engubinus
Avenarius
Garcia
Noble Morney
Ortelius