score:10
TL;DR: Multiple factors conspired to make big sailing ships impractical.
There is a multitude of factors that, put together, caused the American cultures not to develop significant seafaring capability. If I were to point out the most important ones, they would be:
To elaborate:
The development of seafaring capabilities in Eurasia occurred primarily in two locales: The mediterranean, and later the North Atlantic area (with the North Sea, Baltic sea, etc.). Why this happened had a lot to do with what there was to gain; after a bunch of civilisations sprung up in the fertile crescent, north Africa and Greece, there was a lot of money to be made by trade. There was also the silk road, spice trade with the Indies, and the Norse of course loved to go viking for fun and profit.
Now, technological development happens on the margins. If you can make a small improvement that impacts your bottom-line, you will take it; if it requires a significant investment with an uncertain result, you probably won't. This means that technological development is more likely to happen by increments, and if you take a look at the development of ships in Europe; from rafts and rowboats, to lateen-sailed ships, to Viking drakars, to caracks and galeons, you'll see that it is very gradual.
Basically, someone figured out they can make more by transporting the goods for cheaper and more quickly by water than overland, and started shipping them; from there, a sequence of small improvements resulted in the current state of technology.
In America, there was little reason to do anything like that; the big empires were all inland, and the cultures living on the islands of the Carribean mostly just lived on subsistence agriculture, and didn't have anything for sale that you couldn't just as easily grow or make on the mainland.
You don't need metal to make a seaworthy ship, but it helps a lot. Iron nails and tools alone make shipbuilding a lot easier. This doesn't mean it's impossible to build a ship without them, but it does make it more work-intensive and therefore expensive, so anyone is less likely to actually invest in the endeavour (see above) and thus to discover that establishing sea routes can really pay off.
Eurasia and Africa put together are huge. Remember what I wrote above about progress being a sequence of small improvements; any small improvements that helps somebody's bottom line is highly likely to spread as soon as it's seen in use. This means that the successive steps tend to happen more quickly (since there's more people looking at the same issue), and thus the overall development is sped up.
In comparison, the American empires were mostly isolated; certainly the trade routes didn't extend over such a humongous area and huge population, which again also contributed to relative lack of trade opportunities.
Upvote:-3
There is a problem here. The native Americans had access to the largest body of fresh water in the world....the Great Lakes. And yet they had no sailing vessels despite having one of the largest forested areas in the world....hardwoods and soft woods of amazing varieties to build all kinds of ships with of many shapes and sizes. The people of the Nile and the Euphrates and Tigress had them with Egyptian sail vessels operating 3400 BC or some 6500 years ago. The natives also had access to animal skins which could have been used as sails. I do not know if they had cloth, as the Mesopotamians did 5000 years ago.
Many tribes lived around the Great Lakes but, other than canoe, there does not appear to have been any interest in developing larger sailing vessels to traverse the Great Lakes as well as the numerous rivers in North America - eg. Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Hudson etc.
In addition, why didn't the natives of North America sail south along the Atlantic Ocean or south along the Pacific coast to explore the North, Central, and South American continents? Or why didn't the natives of South America sail north? (Along the coast of the Atlantic or the Pacific). Not sure if Jared Diamond has a theory about this.
What we do know is that water did not appear to create a barrier to ancient civilizations in Europe and the mid East , -Phinecians, Greeks,, Chinese, Phoenicians, Romans or Vikings.
During the same eons when Europeans were exploring their own continents and seas and oceans, we have little evidence North Americans were exploring North, Central and South America
Why not? That is the ultimate question. It is not about cows and pigs and goats as Diamond would have us believe. It is simply about curiosity
Europeans, Chinese, Muslims, and Polynesians were curious. North, South and Central Americans natives for some reason were not. And that has made a big difference.
Q. Why did you climb the mountain?
A. Because it was there.
Upvote:1
They really didnt need to sail anywhere on a large scale. I suspect that the largest native american ships would be near the hudson river, but other than that, nope. They had a 3000 mile land mass to work with. No boats needed.
Upvote:3
At the time of discovery of America, the Europeans also did not have especially large sailing ships. The epoch of large sailing ships starts only in 17s century.
In general the American civilizations when discovered by the Europeans were very far behind of the Europeans (ans Asians) in technology. They did not use wheels or iron on large scale, the things which were already common in Europe for more that 2500 years. So boats and ships of the native Americans should be compared with boats and ships of the Bronze age Europeans, not with 19 century Europeans (as you do when you mention clippers:-)
Polynesians certainly do not fit to the general pattern. Because the very existence of the Polynesians is due to ability of their ancestors to sail in the ocean. How else could these islands be populated?
Another important reason was geographical. The more developed American civilizations did not depend much on the sea. Unlike the Europeans North Africans, Middle Easterners and Far Easterners in Asia. And those living in the Caribbean were really very far behind in the technological development.
EDIT. I could predict that this answer will result in commentaries blaming me in violation of PC rules. And I am perfectly aware that Americans had some achievements. Nevertheless the fact remains: their technology in general was thousands years behind, in those respects which are important for shipbuilding. Perhaps this can be explained by geographical reasons that I mentioned: there was no much need in seafaring. Unlike in Mediterranean and East Asia.
EDIT2. It is an interesting question by the way, whether native Americans used sail at all. I am aware of T. Heyerdal's theories, but as I understand they were never widely accepted.
Upvote:5
Depends how big 'big' is. The Tlingits had 70 foot long ocean-going 'canoes'. They didn't sail, but they weren't small:
Head Canoe: A large ocean-going canoe that was up to 70 feet long with a large prow and stern, used for long voyages and warfare. As trade flourished along the Northwest coast, this type of canoe became less prominent.
Northern Canoe: Designed for long journeys over open-ocean. It had flaring sides and a rounded bottom, designed for buoyancy and speed; the beam was from 5 to 9 feet and ranged from 40 to 60 feet in length. The Northern canoe had the ability to cut through small waves and ride over large swells. The large Northern canoe allowed for long voyages and the trans- port of goods and supplies. It also supported trade along the Northwest coast.
Small Canoes: From 10 to 20 feet in length, they were used for local transport and fishing. They were usually paddled in the kneeling position and used in protected bays and estuaries.
There might have been incentive to build even larger ships, but you also have to realize that most Native American trade tended to be from the interior to the coast (and back) instead of along the coast, as the available items to trade varied more as you go inland as opposed to going down the coast.