{
  "title": "Human-timekeeping evidence · selected review",
  "reviewed": "2026-11-05",
  "scope": "Human historical time; not the age of the universe. Bibliographic and convention review; no fresh eclipse calculations or complete modern literature survey.",
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "early-counting",
      "title": "A surviving numerical record before the proposed era",
      "reference": "3300–3100 BCE · museum production range",
      "kind": "Physical accounting evidence",
      "status": "Catalogue evidence checked",
      "evidence": "British Museum 140853 records barley using three kinds of numerical symbol. Its date range is evidence of early written counting, not a precisely dated astronomical observation.",
      "limit": "It cannot identify the first human to count, the beginning of a universal calendar, or a unique day from which every later era follows.",
      "next_step": "If the clock is to begin with a particular human practice, define whether that means numerical accounting, calendar recording or an astronomically dated observation.",
      "sources": [
        "barley"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ur-iii-reference",
      "title": "The 2095 BCE eclipse reference has a published history",
      "reference": "25 July 2095 BCE · proposed identification",
      "kind": "Ancient-text / astronomical-event correlation",
      "status": "Published proposal located; identification disputed",
      "evidence": "The 1998 Chicago volume reports Huber’s proposed 2095 BCE identification for an EAE 20 eclipse associated with an Ur III king. It contrasts this with a 27 June 1954 BCE proposal and evaluates an associated second eclipse.",
      "limit": "The analysis depends on the recension, directions, watches, calendar and assumed historical interval. A modelled event and its identification with an omen are different claims. No physical EAE witness has yet been matched in this dossier.",
      "next_step": "Obtain the cited Rochberg-Halton 1988 edition, pp. 189–192 and 248; select the exact recension and museum witness before assessing the observations.",
      "sources": [
        "chicago",
        "koch"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "eclipse-comparison",
      "title": "The competing interpretation must stay visible",
      "reference": "1954 / 1912 BCE versus 2095 / 2053 BCE · proposed pairs",
      "kind": "Scholarly comparison",
      "status": "Argument and critique consulted",
      "evidence": "Gasche and colleagues favor the lower-date identification in the inspected discussion. Koch’s response disputes parts of the matching procedure, especially the text recensions, direction of darkening and night-watch interpretation.",
      "limit": "These publications document a debate. They do not establish a settled starting point for all human chronology. Koch prints 24 July for the 2095 candidate and 17 March for the 1912 candidate in his recalculations; the other study uses 25 July and 16 March. The day-label differences remain to be reconciled.",
      "next_step": "Record each author’s date convention, astronomical assumptions and chosen textual reading. Compare later scholarship before claiming a current consensus.",
      "sources": [
        "chicago",
        "koch"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "assyrian-checkpoint",
      "title": "A later historical eclipse checkpoint",
      "reference": "15 June 763 BCE · NASA’s Assyrian eclipse entry",
      "kind": "Historical record and modern calculation",
      "status": "Institutional reference located",
      "evidence": "NASA lists the Assyrian eclipse at astronomical year −762, corresponding to 763 BCE, beside an Assyrian chronicle reference.",
      "limit": "This is a useful independent comparison target, not a proposed beginning of counting. NASA cautions that inclusion in its historical table does not itself validate an event association.",
      "next_step": "Identify the exact eponym-list witness and edition, then record the calendar and observing location used for the comparison.",
      "sources": [
        "nasa-history",
        "nasa-calendar"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "archaeology-scenario",
      "title": "The 2900 BCE scenario needs an identified archaeological anchor",
      "reference": "2900 BCE · provisional clock scenario",
      "kind": "Babylon model convention",
      "status": "Scenario documented; historical identification open",
      "evidence": "The reviewed clock documentation uses 2900 BCE as a provisional archaeological candidate. The arithmetic to 2026 CE gives 4,925 elapsed years at the matching anniversary.",
      "limit": "A broad candidate date supplies neither a named flood stratum nor evidence of one universal flood. No site-specific dating assessment is completed here.",
      "next_step": "Name the site, excavation report, stratum, dating method and uncertainty before connecting the scenario to a historical event.",
      "sources": [
        "clock"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "six-thousand-scenario",
      "title": "A six-thousand-year count is reproducible arithmetic",
      "reference": "3975 BCE → 2026 CE · 6,000 elapsed years",
      "kind": "Babylon model convention",
      "status": "Arithmetic checked; ancient anchor unestablished",
      "evidence": "The reviewed clock documentation assigns 3975 BCE to make 6,000 elapsed years in 2026 CE. A starting year labelled Year 1 would instead make the ordinal label Year 6,001 at the matching anniversary.",
      "limit": "This result follows from the chosen reference. It does not independently date the Flood or establish when people began counting.",
      "next_step": "State whether the display means elapsed years or an ordinal era year, then supply separate evidence for the reference event.",
      "sources": [
        "clock",
        "nasa-calendar"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "barley",
      "title": "British Museum · numerical barley record, 140853",
      "url": "https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1989-0130-2",
      "scope": "Museum catalogue description consulted. Late Uruk, 3300–3100 BCE; registration 1989,0130.2. The entry identifies barley and three numerical-symbol types."
    },
    {
      "id": "chicago",
      "title": "Gasche, Armstrong, Cole and Gurzadyan · Dating the Fall of Babylon (1998)",
      "url": "https://isac.uchicago.edu/publications/dating-fall-babylon-reappraisal-second-millennium-chronology",
      "scope": "Institutional publication page and linked PDF consulted. Selected printed pp. 74 and 79 / PDF pp. 82 and 87. This is a chronology argument, not a consensus date."
    },
    {
      "id": "koch",
      "title": "Johannes Koch · Neues von den UR III-Mondeklipsen (1998)",
      "url": "https://sepoa.fr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1998-4.pdf#page=34",
      "scope": "N.A.B.U. 1998/4, note 132, pp. 126–129 / PDF pp. 34–37. Critique of eclipse-text matching, watch divisions and proposed dates; original German consulted."
    },
    {
      "id": "nasa-history",
      "title": "NASA · Solar Eclipses of Historical Interest",
      "url": "https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html",
      "scope": "Historical references and calculated events are presented for comparison. NASA explicitly does not validate every event association by listing it."
    },
    {
      "id": "nasa-calendar",
      "title": "NASA · Calendar Dates",
      "url": "https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/calendar.html",
      "scope": "Calendar cutover and astronomical year-numbering conventions. These are rules for comparing labels, not an origin date for human timekeeping."
    },
    {
      "id": "clock",
      "title": "Babylon Cosmic Clock",
      "url": "https://clock.babylonencyclopedia.com/",
      "scope": "Clock documentation reviewed 5 November 2026: proposed 2095 BCE reference and separate 2900 BCE / 3975 BCE scenarios."
    }
  ]
}