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

Question

Responses

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

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.

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.

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.

This option acknowledges the unique contributions of both trade routes to cultural exchange and development, recognizing that the significance of trade is not solely based on the material goods exchanged but also on the broader impacts on societies and civilizations involved.