Thank you for the question because it allows for clarification of some pseudo-archaeology. This matters to me a lot as not only an archaeologist but also as a proud son of the Great Lakes state.

​

Okay - so Mr. Graham Hancock's claim stems from the 2002 paper, which I am not familiar with, but which focuses on the purity of the copper. Graham points out that -

1. The copper from the wreck was remarkably pure
2. Superior copper ore is remarkable (naturally) pure
3. The researchers did not test isotopes against superior copper, thus
4. It can't be proved that the copper didn't come from Superior.

Taken as those points alone, it has the typical hallmarks of water-tight pseudo-archaeological arguments.

​

However, in Monroe (2010) there was isotope analysis done to the ingots and they are consistent with copper production from Cyprus, considered to be a significant source of bronze-age ore production. There really isn't anything fishy going on here.

Also worth noting, Graham insists that the copper was not the product of smelting (to imply that there purity was natural). But the copper recovered from the wreck was in the form of ox-hide ingots. Ingots are, by definition, the product of smelting. You do not cold-hammer ingots (cold hammering being the method of copper work done to by the Copper Culture of the Great Lakes Bronze age).

​

So I hope that clears things up. The ingots are likely from Cyprus, not the beautiful, wonderful, underappreciated shores of Superior.

They are still interesting though! The wreck is a great insight into trade practices of the BA Mediterranean, and for further reading I would recommend getting a hold of:

Monroe, C. (2010). Sunk Costs at Late Bronze Age Uluburun. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, (357), 19-33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27805158

​

You may have a difficult time getting answers as what you linked to stems from pseudoarchaeology and has not been peer reviewed nor is it a valid historical or scientific claim as it has zero backing. It’s part of a long chain of rubbish closely connected to a fraud (Graham Hancock). This particular author is more obscure than Hancock but you may be interested in a previous discussion by /u/commodorecoco regarding this type of work.

There exists evidence of trade in bronze articles between the Old World and the far Northwest in the prehistoric period according to this Journal of Archaeological Science article. And the trade of indigenous copper from the Great Lakes region throughout the Eastern Woodlands is well documented. Recent research demonstrates trade of copper from the Great Lakes region to the American Southeast (coastal Georgia) pretty early, around 4,000 years ago. So extensive trade systems did exist in the prehistoric period. Some of them pretty early. And some of them crossed between the Old and New Worlds. However, there is no indication of trade of copper or anything else across the Atlantic Ocean by Native Americans.

The first thing you need to ask about claims like these whether it is presented in a peer reviewed publication. The answer is clearly not. The second question you need to ask is if this information is being presented by a qualified archaeologist. The article provides, in part, this info about the author:

He was educated at Dartmouth and the University of Washington, in Biology. He was married in 1977 to former Suzanne Winslow Mygatt PhD, now a retired high school counselor. He has done real estate construction and development, and was president of small property management and research organizations. He has been a computer newsletter editor and book editor, and built a 46’ ketch and chartered it as its licensed skipper. Following a 4-generation family history of archaeological collecting, he has devoted the last 15 years to the study of megalithic monuments and petroglyphs.

Clearly the author is not a qualified archaeologist and further he is identified as a collector. Collecting is the antithesis of professional research. You can safely place this article in the rubbish category.

Edit: /u/SleepyScholar posted as I was writing this or I would not have put it up because s/he has the better data.

Thanks for the responses! I'm glad some geology footwork occurred with this find. That's some solid proof that the ore sample did not originate in Michigan. I'm glad I asked!