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. 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. 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.

To determine the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes, we need to consider their geographical reach, cultural developments, and the goods traded along these routes.

The trans-Saharan trade route, which connected North Africa with West Africa, was significant due to the valuable resources it facilitated the exchange of, such as salt, gold, and ivory. These resources played a crucial role in shaping the economies and political structures of the regions involved.

On the other hand, the Indian Ocean trade route, which connected the Middle East, parts of Africa, and Asia, had its own significance. It facilitated the exchange of goods like silk and porcelain, connecting different civilizations and fostering cultural development through the vibrant exchange of ideas, religions, and technologies.

Based on the explanations provided, both options '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' and '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' are plausible.

Ultimately, the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes cannot be solely determined by the goods traded, but also by their impact on cultural developments and connectivity among civilizations.

The Indian Ocean trade route 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 also had valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory, but it was limited in terms of the regions it connected.