Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point) Responses 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. 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. Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.

Answer 1

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 the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes played crucial roles in facilitating not only the exchange of goods, such as gold, salt, silk, and porcelain, but also the exchange of ideas, culture, and technology between diverse civilizations. Each route had its unique significance based on the regions it connected and the goods it facilitated, impacting the societies along their paths in various ways. Therefore, measuring their worth solely by the goods traded does not capture the entirety of their importance.