Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point)

Question

Responses

The Indian Ocean basin was more significant because it connected the Middle East and parts of Africa with Asia, specifically China, and it had important goods such as silk and porcelain.
The Indian Ocean basin was more significant because it connected the Middle East and parts of Africa with Asia, specifically China, and it had important goods such as silk and porcelain.

Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach.
Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach.

The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.
The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.

Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.

Answer 1

The best explanation for the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes is:

The routes were equally significant—each in its own way—as they both contributed to significant cultural developments along the routes, and worth cannot be measured simply by the goods that were traded.

Both trade routes played crucial roles in connecting different cultures, facilitating the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies, and shaping the societies they touched. Each route had its unique significance in the context of the regions it connected, impacting trade patterns and cultural interactions without one being inherently more important than the other in a broad historical context.