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

Question

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.

While each trade route connected different regions and facilitated the exchange of unique goods and cultural practices, their importance can’t be fully captured by the physical products alone. Both had profound impacts on the societies they connected.