For much more see this source Here!

Supposed Origin
The composition of the `MW' and the difference between its composition and that of the non-metallic, local ware indicate that the metallic vessels found in these parts were not manufactured in the immediate vicinity of most sites at which they were found. The raw materials must have been located at a distance, in the vicinity of the Mt. Hermon massif or perhaps further north, in Lebanon, where extensive outcrops of the Hatira formation are found. They were made closer to where they were found.

These were made from the marl of the Pakhna formation that is distributed in Kouklia, Alassa and Kalavasos. But not in Enkomi. Like the tablets, this marl is remarkable for its cream to buff color, its plasticity and the hard fabric it forms.

EA#37 is made up of basalts, radiolarian mudstone, flint, limestone, fine-grained, low-grade metamorphic greywacke and their derived minerals.

"Too often the material record is related in a somewhat naive way to known historical events. On the contrary, one should expect to study the archaeological record independent of the historical record before connecting them, to find an absolut date for archaeological finds. All too often it is assumed that a historical change led to an immediate change in the material culture. However, an archaeological periodization system should be based only on an analysis of the material record. Furthermore, it should be related to the historical record only after it appears completely consistent internally."

While the above statements have been voiced for quite some time, the research presented here at CIAS shows that interpreting occupation layers without written instructions is a hazardous task indeed, as far as historical interpretation is concerned, and has led to many erroneous conclusions.

Comments: Here at CIAS we also believe that a whole new historical criteria needs to be considered which is consistent with ancient written sources like the Hebrew Bible. Archaeologists should very much acquaint themselves with the newest information on the evolutionary/creationist debate and basic philosopical recognition of interpretations on what `science' is and what it is not. Proven criteria like, `Normal, operational science' vs `Origins or historical science' needs to be understood and applied. Archaeologists need to get away from bankrupt Darwinian Evolutionary Thinking, the billions, hundreds and tens of thousands of years. Civilization is not that old as amply demostrated.[030] The baleful consequences of evolutionistic tendencies to connect man with some Neanderthal or even supposed older types of humanoids (s.t. monkey types) has wrecked havoc on interpretations in ancient history. It is time to face up to this situation and begin to correct the record. When dealing with the days of creation and the age of the earth, whom do you trust today - the latest secular findings that use assumptive dating methods or the more reliable method of consulting a history book provided by the Eyewitness account - God who inspired the Bible? Even among Christians there are various views on the age of the earth. So, how old is the earth? From the view of evolutionistic scholars, who seem to put their trust in the US Geologic Survey, the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. From the view of biblical creationists like Martin Luther who said:

"When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are." [Martin Luther, What Martin Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian. AiG, June 14, 2005]

Comment: But, you may bristle up and say, Dr. Martin Luther had no knowledge of science. How can you quote him? What did he know about anything? Like we said before, is it knowledge today's scientists teach or assumptions? Origins science which no one observed and where no one was present and which cannot be reproduced today, are pure belief and not science. Evolutionists are their own brand of `theologians', as such Dr. Martin Luther is very well qualified to speak up on the subject. We trust the Eyewitness account.

A map of northern Israel survey areas includes: Tel Dan, Abel Abel Bet Ma`acah, Te'o (Teo), Kinnerot, Reqet (Khirbet el-Quneitra), Bet Yerah, Qishyon, Qashish, Ta'anakh, Yoqne'am, Yaqush; All located between Bet Shean, the Med. Sea and the Hula Valley. The southern Lebanese Beqa, the Golan plateau, Galilee, the Jezreel Valley and Tel Taanakh is the source of much EB II and III metallic ware, pottery ware that sounds metallic when lightly struck. [100] The article describes the petrography of ware from Tel Dan and Tel Teo.

EB IV Petrographic Differences from the following sources: 1) Har Dimon located in the Negeb SE of Beth Pelet and W of the Dead Sea. Described as `Lower Cretaceous group, Ferruginous shales with Nubian sandstone quartz grains.; 2) Nahal Refaim not far from Bethelem, south of Jerusalem; described as Moza clay and dolomitic sand group.; 3) Mashabei Sadeh, located W of Har Dimon; described as Arkose group, Granitic arkose; 4) Beer Resisim (nearby); described as Mollusk fossil shell fragments and from the same location 5) a) Loess and calcareous/ quartz sand group. b) Nile silt group.[200]