Perhaps we do have a right to the Americas. An amateur historical speculation.

a reply to: Solvedit

I know anyone can post and that is not a thesis defence, but I think speculation should be based in facts, otherwise is just letting your imagination run wild.

One of the reasons I post in forums is to make people aware of other points of view and to try to present as much facts as I can, not only because of the people participating in the discussion but also for those that are only reading it.
My intention is never to make think that I am against them but just to try to make them think more about the subject, in the same way I think about what other people participating say.

Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to make you abandon your idea or something like that, that wasn't my intention.

Not directed solely at ArMaP:

Some people are not comfortable discussing the subject of whether some of the peoples of the New World had their start from pre-Columbian contact, but in this day and age, DNA testing is inexpensive and available to all.

There probably already is enough data to conclusively prove or disprove my speculation, if only someone would analyze millions of individual DNA test results for this particular purpose.

originally posted by: ArMaPI hope someone learned something from this discussion.

You have not made any points strong enough to deserve this attitude.

Your dismissive, poorly thought out objections mostly would be germane if I was making a thesis defense, not raising possibilities.

It was starting to waste my time. Then I had to take a sick day.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
They may have built some sort of causeway with wooden walls and earth fill which later mineralized.

No remains of wood were found.

From "Reference.com":

How Did the Aztecs Build Causeways?
By Staff WriterLast Updated March 24, 2020
The Aztecs built causeways by using a foundation of wooden stakes, rocks and clay covered with a puzzle-like layer of fitted wood pieces. The upper layer provided a firm foundation and made it possible for the Aztecs to quickly disassemble the causeways if the city came under attack.

So there is a way there could have been a causeway which mineralized into beachrock before the wooden exterior was taken away, although there is no proof the builders had any contact with the Aztecs. It is also identical to another site in the Mediterranean which militates against it being natural.

Port Royal was an entire city which vanished during one of the area's earthquakes. It could have happened in other places as well. The area does have earthquake and volcano activity.

True, do you know if the Bimini road has any signs of having been affected by earthquake activity? I haven't found any.

There are definitely signs of earthquake activity. Like Port Royal, Jamaica, it is manmade. It is also under water and no longer attached to the shore. It is also in an earthquake prone area.

originally posted by: ArMaPSome, or even most, but not all, that's why they are able to find old ships.

Two things.

They almost never find complete old ships unless the conditions are unusual, like the hypoxic layer deep within the Black Sea.

And, the users of the causeway or dock could have removed much of the wooden part of the causeway when they were through with whatever they were doing.

originally posted by: ArMaPFor example, you are ignoring that crossing the ocean in a ship with a square sail like those of the Viking ships was very difficult, as they could only sail with the wind close to its back. A ship stranded in the middle of the ocean with a contrary wind was a dead ship. Only after the Portuguese developed the caravel, adapting the lateen sails from the ones used in the Mediterranean ships, it became easier to sail with contrary winds.It was also only after the Portuguese voyages of the 15th century that the trade winds in the South and North Atlantic were discovered and mapped, making it easier for the ships to catch the right wind to return to Europe.

Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible with the voyage of the Ra II. listverse.com...

It is possible but not currently provable that the trade winds had been discovered and mapped before the Portuguese in the 15th century. The discovery could have been kept secret. Would pirates or smugglers or even honest shippers have given away all their trade secrets?

Just to be clear, there's no proof. But there is no reason it is impossible someone had sailed west like Thor Heyerdahl, found a continent with commercial possibilities, then set about mapping those winds, all without telling anyone so as not to lose their competitive advantage. Operators of square rigged ships depended on getting a good idea of what direction the winds blow.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ArMaPI hope someone learned something from this discussion.

You have not made any points strong enough to deserve this attitude.

What attitude?

originally posted by: Solvedit
It is also identical to another site in the Mediterranean which militates against it being natural.

I have some sites saying that, but I didn't find which Mediterranean site they were talking about.
Do you know what site they are talking about?

a reply to: Solvedit

I never said it was impossible, only that it was too hard for people to leave their daily life and risk an enterprise that would take them months (and a lot of resources) to achieve.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Solvedit

I never said it was impossible, only that it was too hard for people to leave their daily life and risk an enterprise that would take them months (and a lot of resources) to achieve.

If no one ever ventures anything then how do you explain the stock market?

originally posted by: Solvedit
If no one ever ventures anything then how do you explain the stock market?

It's obvious someone did, otherwise the Americas would have been found much later than they were, but what I meant was that that kind of expedition had to be a risk for several people and would need a big money support to stock the ships for a voyage of unknown length.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
If no one ever ventures anything then how do you explain the stock market?

It's obvious someone did, otherwise the Americas would have been found much later than they were, but what I meant was that that kind of expedition had to be a risk for several people and would need a big money support to stock the ships for a voyage of unknown length.

Do you know what Thor Heyerdahl's budget was when he built the Ra II?

originally posted by: Solvedit
Do you know what Thor Heyerdahl's budget was when he built the Ra II?

I don't have the slightest idea, but I know this:
- wood ships cost a lot more to build than reed boats;
- food that lasts for several weeks was cheaper and much easier to get in the 1970s than it was on the 14th century or so.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
Do you know what Thor Heyerdahl's budget was when he built the Ra II?

- wood ships cost a lot more to build than reed boats;

Please explain what you think this means.

a reply to: Solvedit

It's supposed to mean that more money is needed to build a ship with a wood structure and covered with wood planks than it is to build a large boat like the Ra II, made of tied reed. The difference is a result not only of the price of the materials used but also of the cost of the workmanship and man-hours needed.

Any expedition from Europe in the 14th century or so would use a wood-based construction and not a reed-based one that nobody used at the time (at least in Europe), much less to make a voyage with an unknown destination.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Solvedit

It's supposed to mean that more money is needed to build a ship with a wood structure and covered with wood planks than it is to build a large boat like the Ra II, made of tied reed. The difference is a result not only of the price of the materials used but also of the cost of the workmanship and man-hours needed.

Costs became lower with wooden ships because they lasted longer and worked better. It would be easier to buy a used example to risk on a voyage of discovery.

Any expedition from Europe in the 14th century or so would use a wood-based construction and not a reed-based one that nobody used at the time (at least in Europe), much less to make a voyage with an unknown destination.

I think the point was to show ancient Egyptians could have done it with a reed boat. Ra II reached its destination.

And, you're still treating the prospect of undiscovered lands like it was worth nothing. Even if you did need an expedition rather than an adventurous pirate or smuggler captain who was getting tired of the danger, it could easily attract venture capital on the strength of the possibility.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Costs became lower with wooden ships because they lasted longer and worked better. It would be easier to buy a used example to risk on a voyage of discovery.

At the time, ships large enough to carry a crew and supplies for a voyage with no clear duration and no known ports to resupply were very few, so they had to be made on purpose. An used ship would be cheaper, but they would need to find someone with a ship that didn't have a use for it, and as they were very few, everyone had a use for them.

I think the point was to show ancient Egyptians could have done it with a reed boat. Ra II reached its destination.

I agree, if it could be done then it could have been done before.

And, you're still treating the prospect of undiscovered lands like it was worth nothing. Even if you did need an expedition rather than an adventurous pirate or smuggler captain who was getting tired of the danger, it could easily attract venture capital on the strength of the possibility.

The prospect of undiscovered land had two sides: they could find it or they couldn't. If they did find it then there were other two possibilities, it had riches or it didn't.

As for "venture capital", that's what Christopher Columbus was looking for when he contacted the Portuguese king, that answered that he wasn't interested (some people say that Portugal wasn't interested because they already knew there was land there and it wasn't Asia, like Columbus thought. Then Columbus tried the Spanish king, that wasn't that convinced either, but finally decided to pay for the voyage.

The fact that Columbus only contacted kings shows that they were the only with enough "venture capital", that kind of expedition was extremely expensive and money was in the hands of only a few people (even more than today). Besides kings (or other similar levels of monarchy), the only with enough money were the rich merchants (mostly from the Netherlands and surrounding areas) that controlled the commerce of the expensive things that came from the East (mostly spices and silk), but as they were connected to land commerce they were probably (my speculation) not interested in such a drastic change from a lucrative business to try something uncertain and that would be extremely expensive, as the ships they used were made just to sail along the shores of northern France, southern England, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.
It was because of the monopoly those merchants had over those expensive items that Portugal decided to try a sea route to India, which was achieved in 1498. That was the result of the "expansion of faith" Portugal decided to do along the coast of Africa (that way they had some support from the Church) while making lucrative commerce with the natives.

As all these things were connected, I don't see how some nobody would be able to get a pair (at least) of high seas ships to try to find fortune in an unknown place, at an unknown distance.

originally posted by: ArMaPAt the time, ships large enough to carry a crew and supplies for a voyage with no clear duration and no known ports to resupply were very few, so they had to be made on purpose. An used ship would be cheaper, but they would need to find someone with a ship that didn't have a use for it, and as they were very few, everyone had a use for them.

Sheer supposition.

As for "venture capital", that's what Christopher Columbus was looking for when he contacted the Portuguese king, that answered that he wasn't interested (some people say that Portugal wasn't interested because they already knew there was land there and it wasn't Asia, like Columbus thought. Then Columbus tried the Spanish king, that wasn't that convinced either, but finally decided to pay for the voyage.

The fact that Columbus only contacted kings shows that they were the only with enough "venture capital"...

Columbus did not want venture capital to explore whether there were new continents.

He wanted to sail to the other side of the Indies and establish diplomatic relations.

He went the expensive route but that does not imply it was the only way.

You keep forgetting that individuals have rowed across the Atlantic and someone sailed a reed boat across on his second try.

A desperate pirate crew with a ship full of stolen goods might try another way. Who would want to imprison them for their knowledge? If they were let go, they might bring more goods. And the alternative was to risk making landfall where people were looking for the ship they stole, which could get them killed.

The last Guanche king of Tenerife was named Tegueste. He was captured and taken to Spain in 1494. It is not known exactly how or where he died.

The tribe which inhabited the Miami area in pre-Columbian times was called the Tequesta. Their culture is thought to be thousands of years old. They did not have a written language so it is not known when they started to call themselves the Tequesta.

The Guanches are thought to have descended from the Berbers of North Africa. Perhaps they also had contact with the Eastern United States.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Columbus did not want venture capital to explore whether there were new continents.

He wanted to sail to the other side of the Indies and establish diplomatic relations.

He went the expensive route but that does not imply it was the only way.

Trying a route to a known destination (although he was seriously wrong) is cheaper than a voyage into the unknown, with an unknown duration, as it would need supplies for an unknown time.

You keep forgetting that individuals have rowed across the Atlantic and someone sailed a reed boat across on his second try.

No, I do not forget that, I only think that it only proves it is possible, not that it ever happened.

A desperate pirate crew with a ship full of stolen goods might try another way. Who would want to imprison them for their knowledge? If they were let go, they might bring more goods. And the alternative was to risk making landfall where people were looking for the ship they stole, which could get them killed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you explain it?
Thanks in advance.