Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?(1 point)
Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.
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.
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 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 correct answer 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.
To determine the best answer choice that explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes, let's analyze each option:
1. "Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory."
This option suggests that the trans-Saharan trade route was more significant due to its valuable resources. However, it only focuses on the resources traded and does not consider other factors that contribute to significance.
2. "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 recognizes the cultural developments facilitated by both trade routes and emphasizes that worth cannot solely be measured by the goods traded. It takes a more comprehensive view of significance by considering multiple factors.
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 argues that the Indian Ocean trade route was more significant due to its connection between different regions and the presence of important goods. It acknowledges the specific geographical and economic advantages of the Indian Ocean route.
4. "Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach."
This option claims that neither trade route was significant because of their limited reach. However, it ignores the positive impacts and historical significance of these routes.
Considering these options, the most comprehensive and balanced answer is option 2: "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 answer choice acknowledges the importance of cultural developments fostered by both trade routes and suggests that significance extends beyond the exchanged goods.