The option that best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes was A. 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.
How was the Indian Ocean trade route larger ?
The Indian Ocean trade route was historically more significant than the Trans-Saharan trade route due to its extensive network connecting regions across Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa.
This trade route facilitated the exchange of valuable commodities like silk, spices, porcelain, precious metals, and other luxury goods.
It connected major civilizations and contributed to cultural exchanges, technological diffusion, and economic prosperity in a broader geographical area. In contrast, while the Trans-Saharan trade was important for the exchange of resources like salt, gold, and ivory, its scope and reach were more limited in comparison to the vast Indian Ocean trade network.
The full question is:
Which of the following best explains the relative significance of the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trade routes?
(1 point)
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.
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.
Trans-Saharan trade was more significant because it had more valuable resources such as salt, gold, and ivory.