The word "Coir" is very important to this part of the discussion as that was what was transported out of India.
I agree 100%, which is why I've been avoiding that word. Coir can apparently mean a couple of different things. I've seen it used when describing the fibers in a coconut's husk, the same fibers with some processing, and the finished goods made from those fibers. We sling it around a bit too freely here and, I suspect, the people digging holes on Oak Island have as well. I can understand why. "Coir" is fast to type, fast to say, and a bit mysterious. "Coconut fiber" is more cumbersome and a bit boring. However, I think that it's a more appropriate term - regardless of how the fibers at Oak Island were or were not processed, how they were used, or where they came from, "coconut fibers" is always accurate.
According to Wikipedia at least, "coir" means the same thing as "coconut fiber." If I'm understanding it correctly, it does not imply anything more than that...it's just the hairy part of the coconut. However, others have used the term in the case of Oak Island to imply more than that, and I believe that some confusion has resulted from that.
I did not want to delve into semantics, but I wound up going there anyway. I apologize for this.
Nobody manufactured coir in Panama and no coconuts grew on the Eastern Coast of Panama during that time period.
If by "manufactured coir," you mean, "used the inedible part of the coconut for something," well...I don't know. I wouldn't be comfortable stating that anyone did or did not as a fact. I would think that anyone eating coconuts would figure out that the leftovers might be useful for something.
Even if a few did, I can't picture a couple of Central American natives in canoes carrying a load of the fibres to Nova Scotia.
Can you imagine a couple of Indians getting a load of fibers to Nova Scotia? I'm looking at a packet of Hafco licorice candies next to my keyboard. All evidence points to them as having been made in Denmark, but the Danes didn't put those candies on my desk. Knowing where the coconuts came from doesn't necessarily mean that the people from that area were the ones that moved them afterwards.
If the dating's are correct, (and there have been several) then I believe we know the origin at least well enough to construct a theory.
I don't have a problem with the dating, but the dating doesn't guarantee an origin. I feel that we're missing an important part of the puzzle here. Refer back to my licorice and imagine that I was trying to figure out how it got on my desk. Knowing that it was made in Denmark still doesn't tell me how it got there, but it gives me something to work with. If I didn't even know where they'd come from...man, this would be a real head-scratcher. I'd have nothing. (Nothing besides the licorice, anyway.)
Not true. We know all the places it didn't come from only leaving one other option.
One other option that we know of. I haven't delved too deeply into this, but I was rather surprised when I discovered that coconuts were in the New World before Columbus was. I don't remember that being discussed on this forum since I've been here, but perhaps I missed it. Why did we just start talking about this recently? And more to the point, what other obvious things have we all missed until now? What less-than-obvious things have we overlooked?