Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point)
Responses
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.
Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.
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.
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.
To determine which option best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes, let's examine each option.
Option 1: "Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach."
This option suggests that neither trade route was significant due to limited reach. However, this statement does not provide any evidence or reasons to support this claim.
Option 2: "Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory."
This option argues that the trans-Saharan trade route was more significant due to its valuable resources like salt, gold, and ivory. It implies that the presence of valuable commodities enhanced the significance of this trade route.
Option 3: "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."
This option asserts that the Indian Ocean trade route was more significant because it connected various regions like the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, specifically China. It further suggests that the presence of important goods such as silk and porcelain contributed to its significance.
Option 4: "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 argues that both trade routes were equally significant, emphasizing that their importance lies in the significant cultural developments that occurred along these routes. It suggests that the worth of these routes should not be measured solely by the goods traded.
Given these options, option 3, "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," provides the most comprehensive explanation for the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes. It highlights the geographical reach, connections between regions, and the presence of important goods, which contribute to the overall significance of the Indian Ocean trade route.