Passage Ruins of a Fabled City
Ruins of a Fabled City
The African country of Zimbabwe took its name from the Shona word meaning “stone enclosures” or “venerated houses.” In fact, today dozens of stone ruins are scattered throughout Zimbabwe and other areas in southeastern Africa. One of these ruins, known as Great Zimbabwe, was once a fabled city that inspired tales that circulated throughout Europe. Where was this remarkable city, and who had built it? For centuries the mystery occupied the minds of explorers and treasure seekers.
The first reports to Europeans of Great Zimbabwe were spread a thousand years ago by Arab traders sailing between the Middle East and the east coast of Africa. The traders told of the fabulous wealth of a mysterious stone city in the African interior. In the trader’s tales, that city became associated with the Europeans’ understanding of Middle Eastern history—the Queen of Sheba, King Solomon and his legendary gold mines, long since lost to the world. By the sixteenth century, Portuguese explorers regularly visited East Africa, searching for King Solomon’s gold, but they never found Great Zimbabwe. In 1552, a Portuguese historian, João de Barros, recorded a story told by Arabs about a city with a “square fortress of masonry within and without, built of stones of marvelous size, and there appears to be no mortar joining them.”
In fact, Great Zimbabwe was a marvel. In one area a massive wall more than thirty feet high and twenty feet thick created a great enclosure. Another area contained a fortress-like series of walls, corridors, and steps built into the bluff that overlooks the ruins. Throughout the city, each stone was precisely fitted to the others without the use of mortar.
In the 1870s Karl Mauch, a German geologist, was the first European to see Great Zimbabwe, by then in ruins. Mauch realized that he had “rediscovered” the fabled city from de Barros’s story. He jumped to the conclusion that Great Zimbabwe had been built by the Queen of Sheba. British authorities sent a British journalist, Richard Hall, to Great Zimbabwe to investigate Mauch’s report. Archaeology was still in its infancy, and Hall, convinced that the structures had been built by ancient people from the Middle East, dug up and discarded archaeological deposits that would have revealed much about the true history of Great Zimbabwe. Later European excavations destroyed even more valuable evidence.
In the twentieth century, after excavating areas that had not been disturbed, David Randall-MacIver, a Scottish Egyptologist, and Gertrude Caton-Thompson, an English archaeologist, concluded that the ruins were unmistakably African in origin. Great Zimbabwe was most likely built during the fourteenth or fifteenth century by the ancestors of the present-day Shona people. Recent carbon-14 dating supports their conclusion. Great Zimbabwe was once home to an estimated 20,000 people, the center of a great Shona kingdom. Wealthy Shona kings traded their ivory and gold in coastal towns for other goods, thus accounting for the discovery of beads and other foreign wares in the ruins.
One mystery of Great Zimbabwe had been solved. Another mystery remains: why was the settlement at Great Zimbabwe abandoned, leaving the magnificent stone architecture to fall into ruins?
Question
The conclusions of David Randall-MacIver and Gertrude Caton-Thompson were significant because they
- Aproved that Great Zimbabwe was much older than previously thought.
- Bquestioned why the Shona people left Great Zimbabwe.
- Csupported the idea that the ancient Shona had a robust society at Great Zimbabwe.
- Drevealed that Great Zimbabwe was African in origin.
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The answer is (D)
The question asks for the impact of Randall-MacIver and Caton-Thompson’s discovery. David Randall-MacIver and Gertrude Caton-Thompson’s conclusions were significant because their excavation of the ruins revealed that Great Zimbabwe was most certainly built by the ancestors of modern-day Africans (paragraph 5), discrediting the long-standing idea that the structure was Middle Eastern in origin. This conclusion is stated in Option D.
Option A is incorrect because paragraph 5 states that Randall-MacIver and Caton-Thompson determined that the city was likely built in the fourteenth or fifteenth century, which was later than earlier explorers had assumed.
Option B is incorrect because the question of why the great city was abandoned was not part of Randall-MacIver and Caton-Thompson’s discovery.
Option C is incorrect because, while paragraph 5 also indicates that the Shona society was strong and healthy, this idea was not the main focus of Randall-MacIver and Caton-Thompson’s discovery.
Question analysis
This question asks why the conclusions of David Randall-MacIver and Gertrude Caton-Thompson about Great Zimbabwe mattered. Students must judge significance, not just recall facts, by weighing several details from paragraph 5 and deciding which one the passage treats as most important.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Weighing why a finding matters is typical grade 7 informational reading. The researchers' conclusion is easy to find, but students must use the earlier theories to see why it mattered, which keeps the task at grade 7.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 524 words; question and choices: about grade 9, 52 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
The finding itself is stated almost word for word, so the work is judging significance. Paragraph 5 piles several facts after the conclusion, a date, a population and trading kings, and one of them invites the reading that the researchers' point was a thriving society. Students who remember what Mauch and Hall believed see that overturning the Middle Eastern theory is what the passage treats as the turning point.
Reading between the lines minor Working it out
“Significant” is never explained; students must set “unmistakably African in origin” against the Queen of Sheba and Middle Eastern theories of paragraph 4 to see why it mattered. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Read paragraph 5 alongside paragraph 4, note what earlier investigators believed, and judge each choice by how much it changes or confirms that earlier picture.
Traps
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- Reversed relationship: Cause and effect, or the order of events, turned around.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
The wrong answers, classified
A Reversed relationship (King et al., 2004)
Gets the time relation backward: a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century date makes the city far younger than the King Solomon and Queen of Sheba legends implied.
B Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Borrows the open question of why the settlement was abandoned, which the author raises in the last paragraph, not something these researchers addressed.
C True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Picks the true picture of a large, wealthy Shona kingdom from the same paragraph, but that detail follows the conclusion and is not what made it significant.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks why the two scientists’ conclusion was significant, or important. To see why it mattered, compare it with what people believed before.
Recall the earlier beliefs
Paragraph 4 tells what people believed. Mauch thought the city “had been built by the Queen of Sheba.” Hall was sure it was built “by ancient people from the Middle East.” For centuries, who built the city was a mystery.
Find what they concluded
Paragraph 5 says Randall-MacIver and Caton-Thompson dug in places no one had disturbed. They “concluded that the ruins were unmistakably African in origin.”
Unmistakably means with no doubt. Origin means where something comes from. Their finding proved the old Middle East ideas wrong. That is why it was so important.
Check each choice
- A The passage dates the city to the 1300s or 1400s. That makes it much younger than the King Solomon legends, not older.
- B Why the Shona left is the open question in paragraph 6. These two did not study it.
- C Paragraph 5 does describe a rich kingdom. But that detail is not what made their finding important.
- D fits. They showed the city was African in origin.
Choose the answer
Their work was significant because it revealed that Great Zimbabwe was African in origin. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest trap, because paragraph 5 does show a strong Shona kingdom of “an estimated 20,000 people.” But that detail comes after their conclusion. What mattered most was proving the city African, which overturned the Middle East theories. That is D.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Ruins of a Fabled City” as printed (page 68)
