₦airaland Forum

plaindealer:
[s][/s]

.

Yeye dey smell.............

Hellraiser77:
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

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!

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

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

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:
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:
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.”

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:
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.