Thurstan shaw's position on this paper you intentionally hope to misinterpret is that the whatever date obtained from the charcoal and wood radiocarbon tests apply very much to the artifacts discovered, His position is clear as day and if you or anybody else chose to interpret it otherwise then your motive needs to be examined

You don't care what Babatunde was arguing about but you use his points of textile preservation as an evidence that Igbo-ukwu was from a later date even when you know Thurstan himself dismissed this.

You also seem to have chosen to intentionally use only half of your brain power by claiming that Thurstan only considered objections raised by Babatunde lawal and Northrup, i ll gladly help you jump start your brain,
For example Thurstan Shaw had this to say about Babatunde lawals claim that the pottery in three sites was jumbled together ;


The most astonishing remark, however, is that 'the pottery in each
of the three sites was jumbled together',24 quoting page 356, Appendix VII,
of Igbo-Ukwu. There is no page 356 in Igbo-Ukwu; Appendix VII is on
page 325, and charts the find-places of I44 different kinds of pottery from 420 different stratigraphical units. It is incomprehensible how anyone accustomed to read stratigraphical inventories of archaeological finds could read the published evidence and then say 'the pottery in each of the three sites was jumbled together'. in certain areas, clearly designated, there was ancient and modern pottery mixed, for easily accountable reasons; in certain areas, the ancient pottery was uncontaminated with any modern pottery: in certain areas, again for reasons easily explained, there was modern pottery either with no or very little mixture of ancient pottery. Dr Lawal uses the occurrence of a smoking pipe25 to indicate mixture and a late date, when it is clear to anyone comprehending archaeological stratigraphy that it does not indicate that the sealed deposits were disturbed.

But you want me and any other sensible readers to believe the above as just a "consideration" and not a "dismissal " of one of Babatunde lawal's unfounded remarks.

According to you there are indeed "great reasons" to believe that extending the datings of the deposit to bronze themselves is erroneous, Please point is to these "great reasons" that have not already been dismissed by Thurstan shaw himself, again you seem very interested in those objections raised thats why you so firmly want to believe against all common sense that they were "considered and not dismissed.

You simply need Igbo-ukwu arts to be from a later date for reasons best known to you, They may be right when they say you are fraudulent.

cc Tao

TAO11:
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

You continue to dodge my question about how you came to the conclusion that Igbo-ukwu artifacts were from a later period as highlighted above, if you had no regard for Babatunde lawal's objections

Or are you a two faced person thats about to eat his own vomit

Also Babatunde lawal made this curious remark ; "It is to be hoped that future investigations will not be so preoccupied with the search for the "missing link" as to ignore such contradictory evidence as that discussed in this paper''

Mr. Shaw innocently said he did not know the "missing link" Mr Lawal was referring to, But i can take a wild guess, Babatunde lawal just like most yoruba history knowledgeables was afraid for ife and Igbo-ukwu getting linked to it, All his objections were a spirited attempt at saving Ife, He didn't have to worry much as Igbos are generally not a people interested in History

cc Tao11

Cc: Obalatule

Lol! I’m glad I made someone learn something new — which is that, the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronzes’ themselves were not scientifically dated.

But I can understand why you still feel how you feel even after reading the author’s own culminating remarks, i.e. his summarized position.

If I had cited Babatunde Lawal et al., that would have been a different question. But instead I cited Thurstan Shaw himself.

He incorporated a Summary into his work to clarify any misunderstanding you may likely glean from the technical body.

His summary shows clearly that the date associated to the ‘bronzes’ are uncertain and hence non-factual.

How else does he have to say that the ‘bronze’ dates are non-conclusive?

I think I would ask you to do a line-by-line re-phrasing of his summary in your own words if that helps.

Now let’s do it. I’d be waiting for your own re-phrasing of each of the following lines:

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

TAO11:
Cc: Obalatule

Lol! I’m glad I made someone learn something new —. which is that; the Igbo Ukwu ‘bronzes’ themselves were not carbon-dated.

But I can understand why you still feel how you feel even after reading the author’s own culminating remarks, i.e. summary.

If I had cited Babatunde Lawal et al., that would have been a different question. But instead I cited Thurstan Shaw himself.

He incorporated a Summary into his work to clarify any misunderstanding you may likely glean from the technical body.

His summary shows clearly that the date associated to the ‘bronzes’ are uncertain and hence non-factual.

How else does he have to say that the ‘bronze’ dates are non-conclusive?

I think I would ask you to do a line-by-line re-phrasing of his summary in your own words if that helps.

Now let’s do it. I’d be waiting for your own re-phrasing of each of the following lines:

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.”

You can argue till all is blue, still doesn't change the fact that Thurstan shaw maintained his stance on the 9th century dating of Igbo ukwu while calling for further archeological work, In beggining your argument you fraudulently almost wanted us to believe Thurstan shaw wrote the paper in discussion to apologize for the earlier date he put on Igbo-ukwu whereas he spent the bulk of the paper dismissing logics that counter this position

if i hadn't taken out time to read this paper i would have thought it was about Thurstan shaw denouncing the earlier dates as you were fraudulently insinuating

Obalatule:
Also Babatunde lawal made this curious remark ; "It is to be hoped that future investigations will not be so preoccupied with the search for the "missing link" as to ignore such contradictory evidence as that discussed in this paper''

Mr. Shaw innocently said he did not know the "missing link" Mr Lawal was referring to, But i can take a wild guess, Babatunde lawal just like most yoruba history knowledgeables was afraid for ife and Igbo-ukwu getting linked to it, All his objections were a spirited attempt at saving Ife, He didn't have to worry much as Igbos are generally not a people interested in History

cc Tao11

Are you one of those who agree with us that ndi-Igbos are [like all humanity] descended from Ife? Lol.

Or are you one of those who say ndi-Igbos were indeed kicked out of Ife to the south-east by the Yorubas?

But that’s all by the way. Smiles!

Again, Lawal may have argued that the dates obtained for the charcoals and wood were erroneous, but that is not my point — and in fact Shaw has debunked that with different lab reports.

My actual point in relation to which I cited Shaw is instead about the reliance which must be placed on associating such dates (obtained from wood and charcoals) with the ‘bronzes’.

This is what Shaw have admitted to be unsettled and that the ‘bronzes’ (not charcoal or wood) are perhaps more latter as argued by others — especially considering the specific point of pre-European trade patterns in West Africa.

I hope you someday catch this difference.

Cheers!

Obalatule:
You can argue till all is blue, still doesn't change the fact that Thurstan shaw maintained his stance on the 9th century dating of Igbo ukwu while calling for further archeological work, In beggining your argument you fraudulently almost wanted us to believe Thurstan shaw wrote the paper in discussion to apologize for the earlier date he put on Igbo-ukwu whereas he spent the bulk of the paper dismissing logics that counter this position

if i hadn't taken out time to read this paper i would have thought it was about Thurstan shaw denouncing the earlier dates as you were fraudulently insinuating

Lol. What I asked for is actually very simply. Tell us what each of those lines mean — not in my own words, but — in your own words.

Also, you “mistakenly” cut out lines 4, 5, and 6 in your reply. Lol. Those are Shaw’s words in blue that you’ve cut out.

You love ❤️ his words, don’t you? So leave them intact at least. Now let’s do it this time around. Please! Lol.
—————————

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

TAO11:
Are you one of those who agree with us that ndi-Igbos are [like all humanity] descended from Ife? Lol.

Or are you one of those who think ndi-Igbos were supposedly kicked out of Ife to the south-east by the Yorubas?

But that’s all by the way.

Again, Lawal may have argued that the dates obtained for the charcoals and wood were erroneous, but that is not my point — and in fact Shaw has debunked that with different lab reports.

My actual point in relation to which I cited Shaw is instead about the reliance which must be placed on associating such dates (obtained from wood and charcoals) with the ‘bronzes’.

This is what Shaw have admitted to be unsettled and that the ‘bronzes’ (not charcoal or wood) are perhaps more latter as argued by others — especially considering the specific point of pre-European trade patterns in West Africa.

I hope you someday catch this difference.

Cheers!

I'm not here to discuss Ife relationship with Igbo-ukwu, I'm here to expose the figment of your imagination which you tried to dress as a fact by claiming Thurstan shaw wrote the paper in discussion to denounce his earlier stance whereas the paper was mostly to counter objections raised by Babatunde and Northrup while calling for more evidence to solidify his earlier position of a 9th century Igbo-ukwu

i hope someday you will be more honest with your presentations, Also stop liking and sharing your own posts

TAO11:
Lol. What I asked for is actually very simply. Tell us what each of those lines mean — not in my own words, but — in your own words.

Also, you “mistakenly” cut out lines 4, 5, and 6 in your reply. Lol. Those are Shaw’s words in blue that you’ve cut out.

You love ❤️ his words, don’t you. So leave them intact at least. Now let’s do it this time around. Please! Lol.
—————————

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

No you tell me what the below screenshot mean, since you are simply out to push an agenda like Babatunde lawal

Obalatule:
I'm not here to discuss Ife relationship with Igbo-ukwu, I'm here to expose the figment of your imagination which you tried to dress as a fact by claiming Thurstan shaw wrote the paper in discussion to denounce his earlier stance whereas the paper was mostly to counter objections raised by Babatunde and Northrup while calling for more evidence to solidify his earlier position of a 9th century Igbo-ukwu

i hope someday you will be more honest with your presentations, Also stop liking and sharing your own posts

Regardless of what you meant to discuss when you alluded to a supposed Ife/Igbo-Ukwu link; the key thing here is that you have refused to tell us what the following closing and culminating words of Thurstan Shaw actually mean to you.

Let’s hope you would take up the line-by-line challenge this time around.
—————————-

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

Obalatule:
No you tell me what the below screenshot mean, since you are simply out to push an agenda like Babatunde lawal

Yes, I will tell you.

I will tell you the difference between ‘bronzes’ and other items like ‘charcoals, wood, etc., Lol — but you must first have the decorum to be orderly.

I had requested something from you — you do it. Only then can do have any ground to stand upon to put a request before me.

So, I’d be waiting on you so I can write out your request.

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

TAO11:
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

You still haven't answered my question of how you came about the bolded above if you didn't have any regard for the Babatunde lawal's objections as you claim

Or are you a two faced person with an agenda?

Are you about to feast on your own vomit

TAO11:
Yes, I will. I will tell you the difference between ‘bronzes’ and other items like textile, charcoal, wood, etc. but you must first have the decorum to be orderly.

I had requested something from you — you do it. Only then can do have any ground to stand upon to put a request before me.

So, I’d be waiting on you so I can write out your request.

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

I will just leave you to Hellraiser77, He seems to posses the medicine for your fraudulent tendencies

Cc Hellraiser77 come and whip your beach back into line

Obalatule:
I will just leave you to Hellraiser77, He seems to posses the medicine for your fraudulent tendencies

Cc Hellraiser77 come and whip your beach back into line

I engaged you only because I believe that you have the ability to learn. And you did unlearnt old errors and unlearnt new facts.

You unlearnt the popular but erroneous lay-idea that it was the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’ that were carbon-dated.

And you learnt that it was instead some composite charcoals samples (from a different location) and a piece of wood that were actually dated.

Also, I would really love to hear from you as regards your own line-for-line wordings of the following blue statements of Professor Thurstan Shaw.

(1) “SUMMARY” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(2) “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.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(3) “The precise locations of the samples used for dating are recalled and possible sources of error discussed.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(4) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates, •••” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(5) “The latter is probably the most serious objection to a very early date,” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

(6) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.” — What in your own word(s) does this mean?

Cheers!

Obalatule:
You still haven't answered my question of how you came about the bolded above if you didn't have any regard for the Babatunde lawal's objections as you claim

Or are you a two faced person with an agenda?

Are you about to feast on your own vomit

(1) Because Professor Thurstan Shaw dated charcoals and wood, rather than the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’.

(2) Because Professor Thurstan Shaw had the following words to say in his culminating statement:

(A) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(B) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

Cheers!

[s]

TAO11:
(1) Because Professor Thurstan Shaw dated charcoals and wood, rather than the Igbo-Ukwu ‘bronzes’.

(2) Because Professor Thurstan Shaw had the following words to say in his culminating statement:

(A) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(B) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

Cheers!

[/s] lol.....Try again, 'Cos Nowhere does Thurstan shaw insinuate Igbo-ukwu is from a later date than 9th century, He simply called for further archeological work to establish his already held stance.

Immediately you found out i have my hands on Mr. Shaws article debunking Babatunde lawal's baseless objections you had to deny him even though you were comfortable using those objections to counter the 9th century dating up till now

Apart from being fraudulent you clearly also specialise in eating your own vomit

cc Hellraiser77

Obalatule:
[s][/s] lol.....Try again, 'Cos Nowhere does Thurstan shaw insinuate Igbo-ukwu is from a later date than 9th century.

Immediately you found out i have my hands on Mr. Shaws article debunking Babatunde lawal's baseless objections you had to deny him even though you were comfortable using those objections to counter the 9th century dating up till now

Apart from being fraudulent you clearly also specialise in eating your own vomit

cc Hellraiser77

Lol. Those very words you crossed out are Thurstan Shaw’s own words.

I’m not sure I remember ever citing any so-called Mr Lawal in any guise. You may point out where I did.

Instead, I have cited nothing but Thurstan Shaw’s own word.

And here again are two key lines from his conclusion which answers you.

(1) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(2) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

~ p.517

But I can understand why you feel how you feel.

Obalatule:
I will just leave you to Hellraiser77, He seems to posses the medicine for your fraudulent tendencies

Cc Hellraiser77 come and whip your beach back into line

Tao11s tormentor in-chief has arrived with enough tools to get the work done

TAO11:
Lol. Those very words you crossed out are Thurstan Shaw’s own words.

I’m not sure I remember ever citing any so-called Mr Lawal in any guise. You may point out where I did.

Instead, I have cited nothing but Thurstan Shaw’s own word.

And here again are two key lines from his conclusion which answers you.

(1) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(2) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

~ p.517

But I can understand why you feel how you feel.

No its actually you that is feeling some type of way
Simple question you cannot answer,

How did you arrive at your conclusion that Igbo-ukwu must be from a later date than the 9th century when all we have is Thurstan shaw's initial work that still needs further studies?

No matter what you do please dont go back and eat your vomit

Hellraiser77:
Tao11s tormentor in-chief has arrived with enough tools to get the work done

Flog am thoroughly for wasting my time with her lies

this beach is a professional fraudster

TAO11:


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.

Tao11 is promise i wont flog you(at least not yet ) if you kindly tell us how you arrived at the above conclusion that Igbo-ukwu artifacts where from a later date, or was it just your desperate wish for it to be so?

Also point out where Thurstan shaw supposedly denied his ninth century dating of Igbo-ukwu in place of a later date

Obalatule:
No its actually you that is feeling some type of way
Simple question you cannot answer,

How did you arrive at your conclusion that Igbo-ukwu must be from a later date than the 9th century when all we have is Thurstan shaw's initial work that still needs further studies?
•••

These lines from Thurstan Shaw’s own conclusion have answered you again and again.

(1) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(2) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

~ p. 517.

(3) He did not carbon-date ‘bronzes’ — only charcoals from Igbo-Jonah and wood from Igbo-Richard.

~ p.504.

Cheers!

TAO11:
These lines from Thurstan Shaw’s own conclusion have answered you again and again.

(1) “Consideration is given to the arguments for a date later than that suggested by the radiocarbon dates”

(2) “but the question will only be settled with the acquisition of more archaeological evidence.”

(3) He did not carbon-date ‘bronzes’.

~ p.517

You just simply cant let go of being Fraudulent can you?

You have now resorted to qouting Thurstan shaw's words out of context , No more valid arguments to make

Was thurstan shaw not referring to the various debunking statements he made on the claims of Babatunde and Northrup when he said "consideration has been given to the later date suggestions?"

How can somebody with a working brain deny a something with one face and accept it with another?......are you not going mental like this?

What importance have you attached to the various instances where Thurstan shaw debunked objections to his 9th century stance, None?.....Is that not fraud and deliberate stupidity?

The screenshots below from Obalatule are Thurstan shaw's debunks of some objections to his 9th century plausible dating of Igbo-ukwu artifacts.... read them again, this time with your head outta your ass