Follow CT 46, 5 from its joined fragments to a published edition, then explore the questions behind Babylon’s Great Flood thesis and human-time clock.
The author’s scope
Babylon’s new count concerns the time humans have been counting and recording. It does not measure the age of the universe. A chosen historical reference lets the clock count consistently; establishing the beginning of human timekeeping is a separate historical question.
Chapter Four reads the very long pre-flood reigns as a possible precessional pattern. This dossier follows that question through named objects, surviving passages and published editions. The proposed relationship is Babylon’s interpretation to investigate. The manuscript comparison must show which numbers are actually preserved, which are supplied and why a conversion would be justified.
FOUR BOUNDED CASES · REVIEWED 5 NOVEMBER 2026
What the next layer reveals
These cases connect an older bibliography to later identifications and current reading routes. They are selected investigations, not a census of untranslated tablets.
Object identity and selected edition-line concordance checked
CT 46, 5 · a joined Dynastic Chronicle witness
P285813 · K.11261 + K.11624 + K.12054
Identity and evidence
CDLI classifies this as the Dynastic Chronicle, ABC 18. Its joined accession numbers agree with eBL. The British Museum links K.11261 to the same CDLI record and a three-object join group.
The selected reading
The inspected eBL main record presents transliteration lines 1′–19′. The city and ruler sequence includes Bad-tibira, Sippar, Larak, Shuruppak and Ziusudra, with losses and supplied readings marked. These are edited readings, not a new independent decipherment.
Edition and English coverage
Glassner’s publisher-hosted edition treats the Babylonian Royal Chronicle as no. 3: introduction p. 126, transliteration p. 128, English p. 129 and continuation pp. 130–131. This is an edition reading across the textual tradition, not an English translation newly collated against this individual photograph.
The precise remaining gap
The selected edited-text concordance below maps eBL 7′–14′ to Glassner i22–29. Next collate the photograph and damaged reign figures; no complete numerical total is preserved in the selected summary. A discrepant older middle-number reference remains a bibliographical check.
Oxford’s older bibliography retains a tentative Flood-story association. Veldhuis’s 2001 appendix identifies fragment B as part of Bilgames’ Death and reports a join to the main Nippur source, at its fourth column.
The selected reading
The published placement is the passage in which Enki recounts the flood, corresponding to M157–162. Its flood subject matter belongs within a different composition.
Edition and English coverage
The article supplies a new translation of Bilgames’ Death and a source-language appendix. The exact English correspondence for each surviving sign on fragment B remains to be collated.
The precise remaining gap
Verify the current museum record and photograph for fragment B, then align its lines with the joined source. Retain the older proposal as research history rather than an unresolved identification.
Object and translation routes located; photograph mapping open
The Sumerian Flood tablet · the physical comparison
CBS10673 + CBS10867 · P265876
Identity and evidence
Penn identifies a Sumerian flood tablet from Nippur, joined with CBS10867, with a manufacture date of about 1650 BCE. Its record provides thirteen object images.
The selected reading
Our existing study locates the storm and returning-sun episode in ETCSL Segment D1–11. The column V photograph-to-edition match remains open.
Edition and English coverage
An English reading is already linked through the existing passage study. The research task concerns exact surviving lines and joins, not the assumption that the work has never been translated.
The precise remaining gap
Compare both inscribed sides and the join with edition line conventions. Separate lost clay, unreadable signs, editorial restoration and uninspected coverage.
The King List · count the stated numbers carefully
AN1923.444 · source WB in the ETCSL apparatus
Identity and evidence
The Ashmolean identifies a four-sided prism, with two columns per side. Its account combines legendary and historical material in a political presentation of succession.
The selected reading
ETCSL’s composite gives eight pre-flood kings in five cities and a stated total of 241,200 years. That total must remain attached to its edition and witness selection.
Edition and English coverage
The public English composite and our existing flood-boundary passage are linked. They are not an independently established elapsed chronology of human timekeeping.
The precise remaining gap
Compare individual reign readings and variants. Establish the ancient unit and the grounds for any proposed conversion before interpreting the count as precession.
The eBL main record and Glassner’s printed p. 128 align in this selected sequence. The corresponding English passage is on p. 129. This is an edition-to-edition concordance; direct photographic sign collation remains pending. Brackets and uncertainty marks in each source must be retained.
K.11261 joined witness · selected eBL lines and Glassner’s composite
eBL line
Glassner column / line
Reading addressed
7′
i22
Sippar → Larak
8′
i23
Larak ruler and partly restored reign figure
9′
i24
Larak dynastic summary; damaged numerical reading
10′
i25
Larak → Shuruppak
11′
i26
Ubar-Tutu entry
12′
i27
Ziusudra, son of Ubar-Tutu
13′
i28
Two Shuruppak kings; missing reign total
14′
i29
Five cities, nine kings; missing overall years
The selected final entry counts nine kings, but its years are lost in the edited reading. The King List’s stated 241,200-year total must not be inserted into this gap.
The eBL records list the K.11624 join in June 1964 under Lambert and the K.12054 join in August 1971 under Reiner. They list Grayson, TCS 5, pp. 139–144, no. 18, alongside other edition references. The middle number in the current join is K.11624. We retain discrepancies in older references for checking rather than silently substituting an object.
An English edition has been found
The publisher-hosted Glassner volume provides a lawful reading route for the chronicle’s edited transliteration and English text. The full translation and photographs remain with their sources. A selected edited-line concordance is recorded here. Its photograph check and a comparison of all versions remain open.
HUMAN TIMEKEEPING · DECLARED CONVENTIONS
What is the clock counting?
The reviewed clock documentation’s main explanation selects the March-equinoctial season of 2095 BCE as PF Year 1, with a proposed Ur III eclipse reference. That is a working anchor, not evidence that people first counted time in that year. Its documentation also contains 2900 BCE and 3975 BCE scenarios. These starting points answer different model questions and require reconciliation in the clock’s version history.
Clock reference conventions reviewed 5 November 2026 · comparison at the matching anniversary in 2026 CE
Reference
Elapsed years
Ordinal year, if the starting year is Year 1
Main clock explanation · proposed Ur III reference 2095 BCE
At a matching anniversary, from A BCE to Y CE: elapsed years = A + Y − 1. If the starting year is labelled Year 1, the ordinal year is elapsed years + 1. Historical BCE/CE labels have no year zero.
2095 BCE to 2026 CE: 4,120 elapsed years; ordinal Year 4,121, when the starting year is Year 1.
The example compares the same point of the year. It does not calculate an exact eclipse interval, lunar month, Flood date or the beginning of human counting. Those need their own dated evidence and calendar rules.
A focused catalogue question has been sent
On 5 November 2026, Babylon asked CDLI for existing join documentation, the history of an older identifier discrepancy and any photograph-to-edition concordance for this selected sequence. A reply is pending. The request does not establish a new reading or independently validate the clock’s historical reference.
A tablet’s manufacture date, its narrated reigns, a modern edition date, the clock’s selected human-era reference and a calculated astronomical cycle each have their own meaning. The reviewed clock documentation uses approximate precession periods of 25,622 and 25,772 years in different sections. A hypothesis test should name its chosen model and explain its uncertainty; a resemblance between numbers is not sufficient evidence of an ancient conversion rule.
What would strengthen the thesis next?
Finish one line concordance. Match the joined photograph, eBL’s primed lines and the English edition, preserving damage and restoration marks.
Compare the versions. Keep the King List’s eight-kings total separate from the Dynastic Chronicle’s damaged nine-kings entry and from the Berossus tradition discussed in Babylon’s thesis.
State a test before calculating. Identify the ancient unit, chosen precession model and conversion rule. Record evidence that would support or challenge the proposed relationship.
Document the human-era anchor. Identify the earliest evidence relevant to the chosen count, its dating confidence and the reason for selecting it. Older surviving evidence of counting would require a revised historical claim.
The next result should be a documented reading that another reader can check.
Catalogue records, an edited transliteration, a translated composite and Babylon’s own thesis are named separately. Access and reuse conditions are taken from the responsible source. An unsuccessful page load does not establish an institutional restriction.
The catalogue abstract gives K.11264 as a middle number; current CDLI and eBL records give K.11624. Check the original publication before explaining the discrepancy.
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.