About a decade ago, I wrote "The Black Knight in Shining Armour" and people said I was eurocentric. But I ignored them, because they were ignorant of the history of blacks on planet Earth.
Blacks have been on earth before the creation of Africa as the Igbos already had a Kingdom before the birth of Abraham, because as I have stated in several articles that the Igbos did not descend from Abraham. The Igbos had an advanced civilization before the primitive civilization of Ur of the Chaldeans, the birthplace of Abraham.
Cast bronzes are known to have been produced in Africa by the 9th century BC in Igboland (Igbo-Ukwu) in Nigeria, the 12th century BC in Yorubaland (Ife) and the 15th century BC in the kingdom of Benin. 
Igbo Ukwu Kingdom was already flourishing in the 9th century.
Abraham was born in the 11th century.
So Igbos were already Igbos before Abraham was born. Anyone saying Igbos are Jews is ignorant of the facts of history.

There were black knights in Europe before Don Quixote of La Mancha.

Abraham was born in the 11th century AD?

Do you understand what you just wrote?

You are right.
Igbo Ukwu was 9th Century BC.
Abraham was 11th Century BC.
The 11th century is the period from 1001 (MI) through 1100 (MC) in accordance with the Julian calendar, and the 1st century of the 2nd millennium.

Igbo Ukwu, Ife and Benin civilization began during the Bronze Age.
The Bronze Age started in the third millennium B.C. But White historians have deliberately lied that they were situated during AD to relegate our ancient civilizations under the ancient Egypt when in actual fact the oldest monarchies in Africa were in Igbo Ukwu, Ife and Benin.

KERMA AND NAPATA
The Kushites were first based in Kerma, and then at Napata - both towns in what is now northern Sudan.

Kerma was an advanced society and archaeological evidence shows that ceramics were being produced by 8,000 BC - earlier than in Egypt. By about 1700 BC, the town had grown into a town of 10,000 people with a complex hierarchical society.

There is evidence of Late Stone Age (late Paleolithic) human presence from at least 10,000 years ago. Early settlement of Igboland is dated to 6000 BC based on pottery found in the Okigwe, Oka Igwe, and known today as Awka.

Nice one... Keep it up

IbileIfe:
You are right.
Igbo Ukwu was 9th Century BC.
Abraham was 11th Century BC.
The 11th century is the period from 1001 (MI) through 1100 (MC) in accordance with the Julian calendar, and the 1st century of the 2nd millennium.

Igbo Ukwu, Ife and Benin civilization began during the Bronze Age.
The Bronze Age started in the third millennium B.C. But White historians have deliberately lied that they were situated during AD to relegate our ancient civilizations under the ancient Egypt when in actual fact the oldest monarchies in Africa were in Igbo Ukwu, Ife and Benin.

KERMA AND NAPATA
The Kushites were first based in Kerma, and then at Napata - both towns in what is now northern Sudan.

Kerma was an advanced society and archaeological evidence shows that ceramics were being produced by 8,000 BC - earlier than in Egypt. By about 1700 BC, the town had grown into a town of 10,000 people with a complex hierarchical society.

There is evidence of Late Stone Age (late Paleolithic) human presence from at least 10,000 years ago. Early settlement of Igboland is dated to 6000 BC based on pottery found in the Okigwe, Oka Igwe, and known today as Awka.

LOL. So many things to unpack here.

First of all, it appears you don't understand chronology. 11th century BC came before 9th century BC. So, by your own dating, Abraham still came before Igbo-Ukwu.

Secondly, you say the white people lied about the age of Igbo-Ukwu. Alright. Did you carry out an independent radiocarbon-dating or any other form of dating of the archaeolgocal sites and came up with a date older than the ones obtained by Thurstan Shaw? If you did, why didn't you publish your findings? If you published your findings, where can one read it?

RedboneSmith:


LOL. So many things to unpack here.

First of all, it appears you don't understand chronology. 11th century BC came before 9th century BC. So, by your own dating, Abraham still came before Igbo-Ukwu.

Secondly, you say the white people lied about the age of Igbo-Ukwu. Alright. Did you carry out an independent radiocarbon-dating or any other form of dating of the archaeolgocal sites and came up with a date older than the ones obtained by Thurstan Shaw? If you did, why didn't you publish your findings? If you published your findings, where can one read it?

Abraham never came before Igbo Ukwu.
There is evidence of Late Stone Age (late Paleolithic) human presence from at least 10,000 years ago. Early settlement of Igboland is dated to 6000 BC based on pottery found in the Okigwe, Oka Igwe, and known today as Awka.
It has been confirmed that there was an Igbo Kingdom before Abraham.
Igbo Ukwu existed since the Bronze Age.
Abraham existed afterwards in the Iron Age.

I will not debate this.

Canadian scholar John Van Seters argued in his 1975 book Abraham in History and Tradition the Biblical patriarchs were Iron Age creations, based on the content, names and messages of their stories.

Case closed.

IbileIfe:


Abraham never came before Igbo Ukwu.
There is evidence of Late Stone Age (late Paleolithic) human presence from at least 10,000 years ago. Early settlement of Igboland is dated to 6000 BC based on pottery found in the Okigwe, Oka Igwe, and known today as Awka.
It has been confirmed that there was an Igbo Kingdom before Abraham.
Igbo Ukwu existed since the Bronze Age.
Abraham existed afterwards in the Iron Age.

I will not debate this.

Canadian scholar John Van Seters argued in his 1975 book Abraham in History and Tradition the Biblical patriarchs were Iron Age creations, based on the content, names and messages of their stories.

Case closed.

You need to spend many many more years studying history before you can talk about it. Because frankly you are just jumbling a lot of things up! Like, I do not even know where to begin correcting you on the chronology mistakes you keep making.

The stone age findings at Okigwe, Afikpo, Nsukka etc are older than "Abraham". But the bronze findings from Igbo-Ukwu ARE NOT!

I put "Abraham" in inverted commas because it seems you understand that Abraham might have been a myth. If however we accept him to be a historical figure, there is no way we can place him as late as the later half of the first millennium AD, which is where radiocarbon dating places Igbo-Ukwu. By the later half of the first millennium AD, Christianity, the daughter-religion of Judaism (a religion associated in its early more primitive days with Abraham) was already a world religion, which means that we cannot place a historical Abraham anywhere near as late as the first millennium AD. Simple logic!

Stop throwing around words like "the Bronze Age" when you don't really understand the context that they are used in world history.

The Middle East/Europe entered the Bronze Age long before the use of bronze was recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africans (outside of Kush) learnt to work iron quite early, but didn't use bronze until much later in their history, in the centuries after Christ. For this reason, Sub-Saharan Africans didn't have a true bronze age, because we went from the stone age straight into the iron age; whereas, Eurasians went from a stone age to a bronze age and finally to an iron age.
I doubt that you'll even understand what I am saying, given how screwed up your understanding of history is.

Policy makers in this country really messed up by not taking history education serious, leaving people to miseducate themselves on the internet.

RedboneSmith:


You need to spend many many more years studying history before you can talk about it. Because frankly you are just jumbling a lot of things up! Like, I do not even know where to begin correcting you on the chronology mistakes you keep making.

The stone age findings at Okigwe, Afikpo, Nsukka etc are older than "Abraham". But the bronze findings from Igbo-Ukwu ARE NOT!

I put "Abraham" in inverted commas because it seems you understand that Abraham might have been a myth. If however we accept him to be a historical figure, there is no way we can place him as late as the later half of the first millennium AD, which is where radiocarbon dating places Igbo-Ukwu. By the later half of the first millennium AD, Christianity, the daughter-religion of Judaism (a religion associated in its early more primitive days with Abraham) was already a world religion, which means that we cannot place a historical Abraham anywhere near as late as the first millennium AD. Simple logic!

Stop throwing around words like "the Bronze Age" when you don't really understand the context that they are used in world history.

The Middle East/Europe entered the Bronze Age long before the use of bronze was recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africans (outside of Kush) learnt to work iron quite early, but didn't use bronze until much later in their history, in the centuries after Christ. For this reason, Sub-Saharan Africans didn't have a true bronze age, because we went from the stone age straight into the iron age; whereas, Eurasians went from a stone age to a bronze age and finally to an iron age.
I doubt that you'll even understand what I am saying, given how screwed up your understanding of history is.

Policy makers in this country really messed up by not taking history education serious, leaving people to miseducate themselves on the internet.

1) I doubt that there was ever any radiocarbon dating of "Igbo ukwu"
2) Nigerians don't understand the very concept of history, they confuse it with myth or "story", it is very hard to discuss history with Nigerians.
3) Nigerians can't generally understand the concept of dating, they don't know what you mean if you say "the year 1490", to Nigerians you are just speaking jibberish. Just know you are speaking to people with a very limited intelligence.