Kayberg:


Bros… I have no idea, but she is really good about these stuffs.
I smell royalty about her/him. I really do smell royalty.

Roya gini? , Tao11 is a pathological liar and fraud, He just says things you like to hear thats why

TAO11:
Lol. Who informed “the whole world” that Igbos casted bronze earlier?

Long story short: No, it is NOT a fact.

Between Igbos and Ifes, who casted bronze earlier?

EzeNri:
Between Igbos and Ifes, who casted bronze earlier?

You must have mistakenly missed my question to you.

After your answer, then I’d move on to the new topic of answering your own question too.

So my question one more time is:

“Who informed “the whole world” that Igbos casted bronze earlier?”

TAO11:
You must have mistakenly missed my question to you.

After your answer, then I’d move on to the new topic of answering your own question too.

So my question one more time is:

“Who informed “the whole world” that Igbos casted bronze earlier?”

HISTORY

EzeNri:
HISTORY

Lol! You’re actually begging the question.

Some person(s) must have put such information into the sphere of history? So, who did?

Moreover, I asked “who,” NOT “what”?

In other words, the question again:

“Who informed “the whole world” that Igbos casted bronze earlier?”

Cheers!

TAO11:
Lol! You’re actually begging the question.

Some person(s) must have put such information into the sphere of history? So, who did?

Moreover, I asked “who,” NOT “what”?

In other words, the question again:

“Who informed “the whole world” that Igbos casted bronze earlier?”

Cheers!

Very stupid question.

Very unclever way to dodge the subject matter.

No wonder people see you as FRAUD here.

EzeNri:
[s]Very stupid question.
Very unclever way to dodge the subject matter.
No wonder people see you as FRAUD here.[/s]

The question became a “vErY sTuPiD” one only after you had tried your best to answer it (only to fail) earlier on.

Now who is the mo.ron, thief and fraud?

TAO11:
The question became a “vErY sTuPiD” only after you had tried your best to answer it (only to fail) earlier on.

Now who is the slowpoke, thief and fraud?

Who told the world that Oduduwa established monarchy in Yoruba land.

Give me a name or I will label you a FRAUD forever.

Cc: EzeNri

Assuming you’re capable of learning anything, then read the following with your mind open.

The dates associated with the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ are those submitted by Professor Thurstan Shaw in the 20th century.

However, Professor Thurstan Shaw himself issued his disclaimers regarding these dates which he associated with the ‘bronzes’.

His disclaimers is simply to effect that those dates (as associated with the ‘bronzes’) are NOT facts based but on assumptions.

In simple terms, the ‘bronzes’ themselves were never dated — either by radiocarbon or another technique.

The actual samples dated are entirely different items most of which are also from an entirely different place.

These samples are:

(1) Four (4) “composite charcoal samples” from Igbo-Jonah.

(2) The “sample I-2008” — that is, a piece of “wood from what is interpreted as a stool” from Igbo-Richard.

It is the actual radiocarbon dates obtained from these samples that he has admittedly assumed to be perhaps of the same date as the actual ‘bronze’ artifacts from Igbo Richard.

In fact, he later considered other arguments which points him to the conclusion that the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronze’ artifacts are actually not that early but from a much latter period.

However, he has called for more archaeological work in order to pinpoint the specific and actual latter-date of the ‘bronzes’.

But as we wait for such definitive work, it is fair to work with the assumed date, while knowing for a fact that the ‘bronzes’ are actually from a much latter period.

Let me know if you need the references from Thurstan Shaw himself.

Cheers!

Give me a name or I will label you a FRAUD forever.

Have you considered the fact that your personal opinion doesn’t count?

But anyways ...

EzeNri:

Who told the world that Oduduwa established monarchy in Yoruba land.

I will give you the names of more than one Professor of Yoruba & African History.

Omotosho Eluyemi, Frank Willett, Robert Smith, Robin Law, Banji Akintoye, Samuel Johnson, Adeagbo Akinjogbin, Ade Obayemi, et al.

My fingers hurt, so I would stop listing. Lol.


So, what’s your point?

TAO11:
Have you considered the fact that your personal open doesn’t count?

But anyways ...
I will give you the names of more than one Professor of Yoruba & African History.

Omotosho Eluyemi, Frank Willett, Robert Smith, Robin Law, Banji Akintoye, Samuel Johnson, Adeagbo Akinjogbin, Ade Obayemi, et al.

My fingers hurt, so I would stop listing. Lol.


So, what’s your point?

Were they contemporaries to Oduduwa?

EzeNri:
Were they contemporaries to Oduduwa?

NO!
—————————————
Below is a comment which you probably missed?

“Assuming you’re capable of learning anything, then read the following with your mind open.

The dates associated with the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ are those submitted by Professor Thurstan Shaw in the 20th century.

However, Professor Thurstan Shaw himself issued his disclaimers regarding these dates which he associated with the ‘bronzes’.

His disclaimers is simply to effect that those dates (as associated with the ‘bronzes’) are NOT facts based but on assumptions.

In simple terms, the ‘bronzes’ themselves were never dated — either by radiocarbon or another technique.

The actual samples dated are entirely different items most of which are also from an entirely different place.

These samples are:

(1) Four (4) “composite charcoal samples” from Igbo-Jonah.

(2) The “sample I-2008” — that is, a piece of “wood from what is interpreted as a stool” from Igbo-Richard.

It is the actual radiocarbon dates obtained from these samples that he has admittedly assumed to be perhaps of the same date as the actual ‘bronze’ artifacts from Igbo Richard.

In fact, he later considered other arguments which points him to the conclusion that the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronze’ arteafcts are actually not that early but from a very latter period.

However, he has called for more archaeological work in order to pinpoint the specific and actual latter-date of the ‘bronzes’.

But as we wait for such definitive work, it is fair to work with the assumed date, while knowing for a fact that the ‘bronzes’ are actually from a much latter period.

Let me know if you need the references from Thurstan Shaw himself.

Cheers!”

TAO11:
Cc: EzeNri

Assuming you’re capable of learning anything, then read the following with your mind open.

The dates associated with the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ are those submitted by Professor Thurstan Shaw in the 20th century.

However, Professor Thurstan Shaw himself issued his disclaimers regarding these dates which he associated with the ‘bronzes’.

His disclaimers is simply to effect that those dates (as associated with the ‘bronzes’) are NOT facts based but on assumptions.

In simple terms, the ‘bronzes’ themselves were never dated — either by radiocarbon or another technique.

The actual samples dated are entirely different items most of which are also from an entirely different place.

These samples are:

(1) Four (4) “composite charcoal samples” from Igbo-Jonah.

(2) The “sample I-2008” — that is, a piece of “wood from what is interpreted as a stool” from Igbo-Richard.

It is the actual radiocarbon dates obtained from these samples that he has admittedly assumed to be perhaps of the same date as the actual ‘bronze’ artifacts from Igbo Richard.

In fact, he later considered other arguments which points him to the conclusion that the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronze’ arteafcts are actually not that early but from a very latter period.

However, he has called for more archaeological work in order to pinpoint the specific and actual latter-date of the ‘bronzes’.

But as we wait for such definitive work, it is fair to work with the assumed date, while knowing for a fac ext that the ‘bronzes’ are actually from a much latter period.

Let me know if you need the references from Thurstan Shaw himself.

Cheers!

Lol.

TAO version of the history. Igboukwu bronze is over 100 years older than Ife art.

Your ancestors where playing with clay 100 years after Igboukwu first casted with bronze.

EzeNri:
[s]Lol.
TAO version of the history. Igboukwu bronze is over 100 years older than Ife art.
Your ancestors where playing with clay 100 years after Igboukwu first casted with bronze.[/s]

The contrary facts are staring hard at your emotions. Try!

TAO11:
The contrary facts are staring hard at your emotions. Try!

Like someone rightly said, only TAO fact is fact.

FRAUD!!!

EzeNri:
[s]Like someone rightly said, only TAO fact is fact.FRAUD!![/s]

No, it’s like this:

Thurstan Shaw’s information is a scholarly submission.

Your contrary desire is delusional & inconsequential.

Cheers!

[s]

TAO11:
Cc: EzeNri

Assuming you’re capable of learning anything, then read the following with your mind open.

The dates associated with the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ are those submitted by Professor Thurstan Shaw in the 20th century.

However, Professor Thurstan Shaw himself issued his disclaimers regarding these dates which he associated with the ‘bronzes’.

His disclaimers is simply to effect that those dates (as associated with the ‘bronzes’) are NOT facts based but on assumptions.

In simple terms, the ‘bronzes’ themselves were never dated — either by radiocarbon or another technique.

The actual samples dated are entirely different items most of which are also from an entirely different place.

These samples are:

(1) Four (4) “composite charcoal samples” from Igbo-Jonah.

(2) The “sample I-2008” — that is, a piece of “wood from what is interpreted as a stool” from Igbo-Richard.

It is the actual radiocarbon dates obtained from these samples that he has admittedly assumed to be perhaps of the same date as the actual ‘bronze’ artifacts from Igbo Richard.

In fact, he later considered other arguments which points him to the conclusion that the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronze’ artifacts are actually not that early but from a much latter period.

However, he has called for more archaeological work in order to pinpoint the specific and actual latter-date of the ‘bronzes’.

But as we wait for such definitive work, it is fair to work with the assumed date, while knowing for a fact that the ‘bronzes’ are actually from a much latter period.

Let me know if you need the references from Thurstan Shaw himself.

Cheers!

[/s] All this rubbish without qouting Any article
Where did you pull this gibberish and totally fraudulent assumptions from?..... qoute the article where thurstan shaw made the above baseless statements you lying machine, Fraudulent Fat f***ck

[s]

TAO11:
No, it’s like this:

Thurstan Shaw’s information is a scholarly submission.

Your contrary desire is delusional & inconsequential.

Cheers!

[/s] Delusions should actually be your second name, then fraud your third ....... Igbo-ukwu will forever be the oldest known culture and artifact in Nigeria perhaps even the whole West-Africa, Tao11s insecurity and emotional tantrums cant change anything

Hellraiser77:
[s][/s] Delusions should actually be your second name, then fraud your third ....... Igbo-ukwu will forever be the oldest known culture in Nigeria perhaps even the whole West-Africa, Tao11s insecurity and emotional tantrums cant change anything

Further radio carbon datings will only reveal igbo ukwu to be much older than is currently accepted, Thurstan shaw wasn't the only archeologist to acknowledge the antiquity of Igbo-ukwu

Obalatule:
Further radio carbon datings will only reveal igbo ukwu to be much older than is currently accepted, Thurstan shaw wasn't the only archeologist to acknowledge the antiquity of Igbo-ukwu

The dates associated with the ‘bronzes’ are those published by Thurstan Shaw. And the bronzes themselves weren’t dated.

You can only hope for more work in the future which will in fact pinpoint the actual latter date argued by Shaw himself and others.

————————
“SUMMARY
In the discussion of the reliance which should be placed on the Igbo-Ukwu radiocarbon dates, it is necessary to make certain that what evidence we have is correctly used. The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed. Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, stemming from the state of preservation of the textiles, the character of the beads, the pottery evidence, analogies with the presumed dating of Ife and Benin, the quantity and the source of the copper, and what is known of pre-European trading patterns in West Africa. The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date, but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

~ Thurstan Shaw, “Those Igbo-Ukwu Radiocarbon Dates: Facts, Fictions and Probabilities”, The Journal of African History, Vol. 16, No. 4, (1975), p.517.

TAO11:
The dates associated with the ‘bronzes’ are those published by Thurstan Shaw. And the bronzes themselves weren’t dated.

You can only hope for more work in the future which will in fact pinpoint the actual latter date argued by Shaw himself and others.

————————
“SUMMARY
In the discussion of the reliance which should be placed on the Igbo-Ukwu radiocarbon dates, it is necessary to make certain that what evidence we have is correctly used. The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed. Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, stemming from the state of preservation of the textiles, the character of the beads, the pottery evidence, analogies with the presumed dating of Ife and Benin, the quantity and the source of the copper, and what is known of pre-European trading patterns in West Africa. The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date, but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

~ Thurstan Shaw, “Those Igbo-Ukwu Radiocarbon Dates: Facts, Fictions and Probabilities”, The Journal of African History, Vol. 16, No. 4, (1975), p.517.

I think more radiocarbon datings have been carried out on the Igbo-ukwu artifacts, The date on all scholarly articles is pegged at 9th century, After Thurstan shaw a whole lot of other anthropologists have worked with the artifacts and none mentioned a later date

Obalatule:
I think more radiocarbon datings have been carried out on the Igbo-ukwu artifacts, The date on all scholarly articles is pegged at 9th century, After Thurstan shaw a whole lot of other anthropologists have worked with the artifacts and none mentioned a later date.

Don’t think, know instead.

And if you claim to know, then name me one expert who claimed to have dated the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ themselves. None! Not even Thurstan Shaw.

Yes, it is only fair that all scholarly articles should publish the assumed date pending when a definitive work will pinpoint the ‘bronzes’ to their later dates.

But if we’re asking about the nature of the dates usually associated with the ‘bronzes,’ we have read from the horse’s mouth that they aren’t factual or conclusive.

What has been dated are some composite charcoal samples, as well as a piece of wood from what was interpreted as a stool.

And the radiocarbon dates obtained for these samples (charcoal, wood, etc.) are the very ones submitted by none other than Professor Thurstan Shaw.

He simply assumed that the dates from these charcoals and wood should be the same date for the ‘bronzes’.

But to be complete and fair, he issued the disclaimers highlighting the assumptive nature of associating the dates from those samples to the actual artifacts.

In fact, a number of arguments have been put forward by experts (including Shaw), noting that the ‘bronzes’ are from a much more later period than those samples’s.
————————

To put this in a clearer perspective for you, take a look at the Ife bronze at my DP, it was found ‘in situ’ lying on a potsherd pavement and around some composite charcoal samples. These samples date to circa 900AD.

However, a thermoluminescence test of this ‘bronze’ itself came to date it to centuries later than the dates for those samples around which it was found.

PS insertion:
www.nairaland.com/attachments/13361585_46afe9462fce4d8c88a8e41fca967e57_jpeg_jpeg01dff5b337a91baf4e939f8d016659c9

~ Thurstan Shaw, “Those Igbo-Ukwu Radiocarbon Dates: Facts, Fictions and Probabilities”, The Journal of African History, Vol. 16, No. 4, (1975), p.504.

[s]

TAO11:
Don’t think, know instead.

And if you claim to know, then name me one expert who claimed to have dated the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ themselves. None! Not even Thurstan Shaw.

Yes, it is only fair that all scholarly articles should publish the assumed date pending when a definitive work will pinpoint the ‘bronzes’ to their later dates.

But if we’re asking about the nature of the dates usually associated with the ‘bronzes,’ we have read from the horse’s mouth that they aren’t factual or conclusive.

What has been dated are some composite charcoal samples, as well as a piece of wood from what was interpreted as a stool.

And the radiocarbon dates obtained for these samples (charcoal, wood, etc.) are the very ones submitted by none other than Professor Thurstan Shaw.

He simply assumed that the dates from these charcoals and wood should be the same date for the ‘bronzes’.

But to be complete and fair, he issued the disclaimers highlighting the assumptive nature of associating the dates from those samples to the actual artifacts.

In fact, a number of arguments have been put forward by experts (including Shaw), noting that the ‘bronzes’ are from a much more later period than those samples’s.
————————

To put this in a clearer perspective for you, take a look at the Ife bronze at my DP, it was found ‘in situ’ lying on a potsherd pavement and around some composite charcoal samples. These samples date to circa 900AD.

However, a thermoluminescence test of this ‘bronze’ itself came to date it to centuries later than the dates for those samples around which it was found.

[/s] Tao11 can you atleast try to be less fraudulent in your submissions, Provide evidence of where thurstan shaw reportedly left the actual artifacts and was testing Wood and charcoal

why you must you lie through your gworo teeth all the time?, Igbo ukwu is 400 years older than anything that was unearthed in Ife(which is just an extension of Igbo-ukwu anyway) , No one except your fellow yoruba brittle ego will believe you

For your information no archeologist has linked Ife arts to the modern yoruba people that occupy the area , Evidence overwhelmingly point to Ife arts being made by a group that preceded the influx of yoruba people from Kogi state

TAO11:
Don’t think, know instead.

And if you claim to know, then name me one expert who claimed to have dated the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ themselves. None! Not even Thurstan Shaw.

Yes, it is only fair that all scholarly articles should publish the assumed date pending when a definitive work will pinpoint the ‘bronzes’ to their later dates.

But if we’re asking about the nature of the dates usually associated with the ‘bronzes,’ we have read from the horse’s mouth that they aren’t factual or conclusive.

What has been dated are some composite charcoal samples, as well as a piece of wood from what was interpreted as a stool.

And the radiocarbon dates obtained for these samples (charcoal, wood, etc.) are the very ones submitted by none other than Professor Thurstan Shaw.

He simply assumed that the dates from these charcoals and wood should be the same date for the ‘bronzes’.

What you posted here is at best a half-truth or possibly a straight falsehood
Thustan shaw never wrote the paper you quoted to discredit the antiquity or age of the Igbo-ukwu artifacts as you would like readers to believe.

infact this paper was a response to people like like Dr babatunde lawal and T.northtrup that raised objections to his 9th - 11th century dating of Igbo-ukwu, This paper was to strengthen his earlier stance, but in shear desperation you tried to pass this off as disclaimer, Kindly point me to where Thurstan shaw stated that his earlier datings of Igbo-ukwu were false if not that they require further archeological study to precisely establish the date?

Dr Babatunde lawal was busy putting up a straw-man and knocking it down even qouting what was not in Mr shaws original report on Igbo-ukwu, All his unfounded claims about Igbo-ukwu being from the 16th century were rubbished by thurstan shaw in this same paper and i will now post screenshots

About Mr. Babatundes claims that the preservation of the textiles point to a much later date even though he knew how proximity to copper and bronze preserves materials, he went ahead to fraudulently claim there were no copper around the find.

Thurstan shaw had this to say about Babatunde lawals claim "It is difficult to understand how anyone who had
read pp. 240-2 of Igbo- Ukwu with any attention could have made such
a statement, since ten textile specimens are there described as being asso-
ciated with copper or bronze objects, and six others as being actually
wrapped around them.

I'm sure you must have come across this dismissal by Thurstan shaw himself but chose to be blind

cc Tao11

Thurstan Shaw in strengthening his 9th century stance also treated the arguments raised by Northrup in the screenshots below

cc Tao11

Tao11 assuming that you somehow missed all the above attempts by Thurstan shaw to defend his the datings of the Igbo-ukwu artifacts to around the 9th century did you also choose to ignore the summary where he categorically stated that All available evidences where correctly put to use ? , Or you so desperately wanted anybody that came across your posts to fallaciously believe that Thurstan shaw published a paper apologizing for his claim that Igbo-ukwu was from the 9th century.

Until Further Archeological studies is carried out, Its by far more plausible to believe that the 9th century stance of Thurstan shaw which he vehemently defended in this paper stands true

cc Tao11

TAO11:
In fact, he later considered other arguments which points him to the conclusion that the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronze’ arteafcts are actually not that early but from a very latter period.

He considered and dismissed them, Why will you choose to deliberately overlook this all important fact, Just so you could be right?

Obalatule:
He considered and dismissed them, Why will you choose to deliberately overlook this all important fact, Just so you could be right?

You see why i keep Calling Tao11 a fraud? He will twist and lie about everything, i went through that paper too and all i could see was thurstan shaw dismissing the claims of that yoruba fake Dr Babatunde lawal who i suspect is Tao11s father cos they both shamelessly lie through their teeth

Cc: Obalatule

(1) Don’t get needlessly worked up. No, Thurstan Shaw didn’t claim to have carbon dated the ‘bronzes’ [be specific].

You may show me where he said he did if you dispute this.

(2) What he admitted to have carbon-dated are samples of wood & charcoal. And the dates for those samples have remained fairly correct.

So, if he “strengthened” anything at all, then it is the very idea that there has been human activities at those Igbo-Ukwu locations by the 9th century.

(3) My comment wasn’t about what Babatunde Lawal (or any of the other scholars), neither did I care enough to bring them up.

Instead, I simply considered Shaw’s own position on extending the radio-carbon dates of the wood and charcoals to the ‘bronzes’ themselves.

And his position both within the body of the paper and in his summarized culmination shows that:

(A) He dated charcoal samples and a piece of wood, not ‘bronze’ artifacts.

(B) There are indeed great reasons to conclude that extending the radio-carbon dates (obtained from the wood & charcoals) to the ‘bronzes’ is erroneous.

(C) He admitted that the issue of whether or not to adopt these samples’ dates for the artifacts too (or to adopt a more latter date suggested by other arguments) will only be settled in the future from more work.

In English language, will be settled later is another way of saying it is not settled yet.


(4) For the ‘bronzes’: No, he didn’t dismiss all the arguments for a latter date; rather he simply “considered” them, and then incorporated some of them into his own summary.

(5) No, he didn’t say reliance should be placed on the dated samples (for the artifacts); rather he said in discussing the issue of the reliance to be placed on the dates, we must be very careful of certain things.
————————

“SUMMARY
In the discussion of the reliance which should be placed on the Igbo-Ukwu radiocarbon dates, it is necessary to make certain that what evidence we have is correctly used. The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed. Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, stemming from the state of preservation of the textiles, the character of the beads, the pottery evidence, analogies with the presumed dating of Ife and Benin, the quantity and the source of the copper, and what is known of pre-European trading patterns in West Africa. The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date, but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

Cheers!