CBS10673 + CBS10867 · CDLI P265876
About 1650 BCE · museum script-based dating
Copy / manufacture · Approximate pointCOMPOSITION · COPY · DISCOVERY · RESEARCHOne document.
One document.
Several kinds of time.
Explore the selected pilot documents across their distinct life events. Dates are shown as the source reports them; gaps remain unplaced.
25dated pilot events
15unplaced events / date questions
5connected biographies
Read the date label and its basis together.
The shared axis uses historical BCE/CE labels with no year zero. An approximate point stays approximate. A bounded interval keeps its endpoints. Separate calibrated probability components remain separate bands for one event; a gap is not filled in. Modern editions, access receipts and inquiries date research activity, not ancient composition. This display performs no elapsed-year or cosmic-age calculation.
Place the dated evidence
One common scale: 1700 BCE to 2030 CE. Wider bars represent reported ranges; a dot marks a point or approximate point. The full label carries its precision. Modern events cluster at the right.
1700 BCE1000 BCE1 CE1000 CE2030 CE
4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
200–150 BCE · 1993 exhibition copy-date assessment
Copy / manufacture · Range4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
4Q208 parchment · 186–92 BCE, reported 2σ interval in 1995
Material · Historical calibrated interval4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
P904-Fr009 · 165–40 BCE (93.6%) and 10–1 BCE (1.9%)
Material dating · Disjoint calibrated intervals · 95.4% reported levelMingana Islamic Arabic 560 · catalogue 1902
Thirteenth century CE · historical catalogue estimate
Copy / manufacture · CenturyCBS10673 + CBS10867 · CDLI P265876
1896 · expedition / gift credit
Acquisition · Year4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
July 1957 · PAM 42.228 photograph, as dated by Langlois
Photograph · Month reported; plotted at year scale4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
January 1960 · PAM 43.198 photograph, as dated by Langlois
Photograph · Month reported; plotted at year scale4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
1976 · Milik’s cited Aramaic edition
Edition / translation · YearMingana Islamic Arabic 560 · catalogue 1902
1985 · revised catalogue description
Catalogue publication · Year4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
1993 · institutional caption and selected English excerpt
Edition / translation · Year4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
DSS-13 sampling belongs to the 21–22 March 1994 batch
Sampling · Year; two-day batch specified4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
Radiocarbon 37(1) report · 1995
Laboratory publication · Publication year4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
2000 · Stuckenbruck edition of fragments 2–8 in DJD 36
Edition / translation · Year4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
2008 · Langlois fragment 2 study and French rendering
Edition / translation · Year4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
Drawnel edition used by the selected later English excerpts · 2011
Edition · Publication year4Q209 · 4Q Enastrᵇ · IAA plate 847
Drawnel edition used by the selected later English excerpts · 2011
Edition · Publication year4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
IAA colour photograph · November 2013
Photograph · Year; month recorded in source4Q209 · 4Q Enastrᵇ · IAA plate 847
IAA colour photograph · November 2013
Photograph · Year; month recorded in source4Q208 · 4Q Enastrᵃ · IAA plate 814
Jacobus calendar reconstruction and Ratzon comparison · 2019
Research · Publication year4Q209 · 4Q Enastrᵇ · IAA plate 847
Jacobus calendar reconstruction and Ratzon comparison · 2019
Research · Publication year4Q209 · 4Q Enastrᵇ · IAA plate 847
Tigchelaar proposed fragment join · 2022
Research · Publication year4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ
4 June 2025 · study and sample-specific supporting data published
Dating study · YearMingana Islamic Arabic 560 · catalogue 1902
2026 · study catalogue received privately
Research access · YearMingana Islamic Arabic 560 · catalogue 1902
6 November 2026 · Oxford comparison inquiry
Correspondence · Day in label; year on overviewThe dating arguments
Catalogue assessment · Approximate point
Basis: Palaeography / script comparison
The museum explicitly attributes the seventeenth-century estimate to script; no lab measurement is claimed.
Historical assessment · Range
Basis: Exhibition dating; underlying method to trace
Retained with its source date. It is not presented as a newly established consensus.
Material
4Q208 parchment · 186–92 BCE, reported 2σ interval in 1995
Published historical result · Historical calibrated interval
Basis: Arizona AMS: DSS-13 / AA-13245, 2095 ± 20 BP; nine determinations. 1986 calibration references in the report.
Table 2 also gives 1σ 166–102 BCE and historical palaeographic estimate about 200 BCE. No fresh calibration was performed. Material dating does not date the author, ink, calendar epoch or a Flood.
Published material measurement transcribed · Disjoint calibrated intervals · 95.4% reported level
Basis: AMS radiocarbon, 2077 ± 18 BP; OxCal 4.4.4 / IntCal20
Two alternative probability intervals for one parchment sample, not two manufacture events. Neither is an ink, composition or author date. Component percentages are rounded in the published plot.
Copy / manufacture
Thirteenth century CE · historical catalogue estimate
Historical assessment · Century
Basis: Catalogue description; underlying basis to confirm
Printed p. 353 gives an approximate copying period. No dated colophon or radiocarbon result is claimed.
Catalogue-reported · Year
Basis: Museum credit line
An acquisition-history anchor, not a dated ancient event.
Published photographic-history reference · Month reported; plotted at year scale
Basis: Langlois photograph table p. 61 and fragment 2 image p. 389
Documents a photograph, not excavation or antiquity. The table and fragment-study numbering must remain identifiable.
Published photographic-history reference · Month reported; plotted at year scale
Basis: Langlois photograph table p. 61; historical inventory plate concordance
The photographic inventory links this negative to museum plate 904. The modern photograph date is distinct from an ancient writing date or recovery date.
Publication reference located · Year
Basis: Exhibition bibliography
The publication year dates an edition, not the ancient copy.
Catalogue publication
1985 · revised catalogue description
Bibliographic anchor · Year
Basis: Historical catalogue edition
The catalogue publication date is separate from the manuscript estimate.
Selected public translation · Year
Basis: Exhibition publication
Full manuscript translation coverage is not established by the excerpt.
Reported sampling batch · Year; two-day batch specified
Basis: Report p. 11 excludes DSS-50, 52 and 53 from this batch; DSS-13 is not among those exceptions.
Exact within-batch sampling day and fragment-image concordance remain unconfirmed.
Located · Publication year
Basis: Journal issue date
Cambridge’s 2016 online date is digital availability, not the original publication year.
Edition reference corroborated; pages not inspected · Year
Basis: IAA publication list and Langlois p. 51
Establishes that these fragments were subsequently published. The older inventory’s unpublished labels cannot establish their status today; exact English coverage remains unchecked.
Selected edition pages and rendering inspected · Year
Basis: Author-hosted study pp. 389–399
A French rendering exists for this fragmentary unit. Textual placement remains debated and this is not proof that every line survives or that a whole-witness translation audit is complete.
Edition
Drawnel edition used by the selected later English excerpts · 2011
Bibliographic route · Publication year
Basis: Jacobus cites and adapts the edition
The complete 2011 edition was not obtained; the selected later excerpts were inspected.
Edition
Drawnel edition used by the selected later English excerpts · 2011
Bibliographic route · Publication year
Basis: Jacobus cites and adapts the edition
The complete 2011 edition was not obtained; the selected later excerpts were inspected.
Located · Year; month recorded in source
Basis: Custodian photograph metadata
This dates modern imaging, not the ancient writing.
Located · Year; month recorded in source
Basis: Custodian photograph metadata
This dates modern imaging, not the ancient writing.
Research
Jacobus calendar reconstruction and Ratzon comparison · 2019
Selected pages reviewed · Publication year
Basis: Competing mathematical reconstructions
A modern reconstruction fills gaps with an argument; it is not additional surviving ancient writing.
Research
Jacobus calendar reconstruction and Ratzon comparison · 2019
Selected pages reviewed · Publication year
Basis: Competing mathematical reconstructions
A modern reconstruction fills gaps with an argument; it is not additional surviving ancient writing.
Metadata located · Publication year
Basis: Author-deposited preprint
Full join argument and current editorial acceptance still require inspection.
Primary report and supplements checked · Year
Basis: Primary research and supporting sample tables
The study’s publication date is separate from the ancient sample date. The AI model is trained with radiocarbon reference data; it is not an independent second laboratory measurement.
Receipt recorded · Year
Basis: Reviewed project record
Receiving a catalogue does not mean manuscript images, an edition or a translation have been obtained.
Correspondence
6 November 2026 · Oxford comparison inquiry
Automatic acknowledgement only · Day in label; year on overview
Basis: Reviewed dispatch / response record
The acknowledgement supplies no folio, edition or permission answer.
Not yet placed in time
These are visible research tasks, not missing rows. A discovery, composition or material interval needs its own source before it receives a numeric position.
Narrated events
Flood narrative · historical event date unestablished
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Textual narrative
A narrated Flood cannot be dated from the copy alone.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Bibliography needed
The physical witness and first composition have separate histories.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Excavation documentation needed
Do not substitute the credit-line year for a witnessed discovery date.
Literary setting · Unassigned
Basis: Textual attribution
A patriarchal narrative setting is not a laboratory age or the copy date.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Textual and historical analysis needed
Do not apply one date to all sections or substitute the patriarch’s lifetime.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Item-level field / acquisition records needed
Machiela reports mixed 1952 recovery routes and a large fragment associated with official excavation plate PAM 40.985. A candidate image/edition concordance for the sampled piece is now recorded, but its specific field or accession entry remains unverified. Competing fragment numberings cannot establish that it is the same excavated piece.
Composition
Base treatise composition · exact year unassigned
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Author/work bibliography
An author’s approximate period does not provide an exact year for this treatise.
Composition
Supplement composition · separate date unassigned
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Separate work record
The base work and later supplement require distinct composition histories.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Provenance / accession records needed
Collection membership alone cannot reconstruct a complete custody chain.
Composition
Composition of this Astronomical Book recension · not independently dated here
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Distinguish work composition from surviving copy
Neither a literary attribution to Enoch nor a date for another copy establishes this composition date.
Discovery
Cave 4 witness · exact recovery and acquisition trail still to trace
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Item-specific recovery record needed
A photograph date is not the discovery date. A regional find history does not identify an individual finder.
Copy
Copying interval · item-specific handwriting assessment still to reconcile
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Palaeography requires a named comparison and assessment date
No numeric interval is borrowed from 4Q201 or the other astronomical witness.
Composition
Composition of this Astronomical Book recension · not independently dated here
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Distinguish work composition from surviving copy
Neither a literary attribution to Enoch nor a date for another copy establishes this composition date.
Discovery
Cave 4 witness · exact recovery and acquisition trail still to trace
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Item-specific recovery record needed
A photograph date is not the discovery date. A regional find history does not identify an individual finder.
Copy
Copying interval · item-specific handwriting assessment still to reconcile
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Palaeography requires a named comparison and assessment date
No numeric interval is borrowed from 4Q201 or the other astronomical witness.
Download every pilot event and its dating basis ↗Read the existing copy/material chronology ↗Explore the Cosmic Clock’s human-time evidence ↗
Learning in the Light
In Babylon, the Father’s light opens perspective, learning and a chosen next step. Your worth remains intact. Every person is sovereign, with dignity, freedom and room to grow.
Read the learning principle ↗