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.
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 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 statement best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes, we need to consider the arguments made in each option.
1. Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.
This statement argues that the trans-Saharan trade route was more significant due to the presence of valuable resources like salt, gold, and ivory. However, it doesn't provide a comparison to the Indian Ocean trade route.
2. Neither of them was significant because both were limited in whom they could reach.
This statement suggests that neither trade route was significant because they had limited reach. However, it doesn't acknowledge the potential significance of either route.
3. 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.
According to this statement, both the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes were equally significant. It emphasizes that the cultural developments along the routes and the overall worth cannot be solely measured by the goods traded. This option considers broader aspects beyond just the trade of valuable goods.
4. 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 statement argues that the Indian Ocean trade route was more significant. It highlights connections between various regions and mentions important goods like silk and porcelain.
Based on these explanations, the option that provides the most comprehensive and balanced viewpoint is option 3: "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 significance of both routes and acknowledges that their worth extends beyond the goods traded.