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 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.
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.
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 best explanation for the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes is:
- 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.
To determine the answer to this question, we need to compare the significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes.
The first response suggests that both routes were equally significant in their own ways, as they led to significant cultural developments along the routes. This response argues that the worth of the trade routes should not be measured solely by the goods that were traded.
The second response argues that the Indian Ocean trade route was more significant because it connected various regions such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, specifically China. It also mentions the presence of important goods like silk and porcelain.
The third response highlights the significance of the trans-Saharan trade route by pointing out the valuable resources it facilitated trade in, such as salt, gold, and ivory.
The final response suggests that neither of the trade routes was significant because they were limited in terms of whom they could reach.
Considering these options, the response that best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes is likely the second response. It states that the Indian Ocean trade route was more significant because of the broader range of regions it connected and the presence of important goods like silk and porcelain. However, it is important to note that different viewpoints exist regarding the significance of these trade routes, and there may not be a definitive answer.