BABYLON RESEARCH · MINGANA FINDINGSFollow the manuscript.
Find the next answer.
A focused review of Qur’an folios, an astronomical instrument treatise and a dated calendar—connecting historical catalogue descriptions to current public records.
What has changedThree supplied catalogue PDFs have been received and retained privately. Selected descriptions now have comparison records and specific next questions. No supplied PDF, catalogue scan or private incoming email is reproduced here.
SIX SELECTED CASES · NO GLOBAL TRANSLATION COUNTThe evidence, the gap, the next check
Identities and dating boundaries checkedThree Qur’an shelfmarks need separate records
Islamic Arabic 1572a · 1572b · 1563
What we can document
The historical catalogue used an unsplit 1572 entry. Current Birmingham records distinguish 1572a’s two leaves from 1572b’s seven. Its radiocarbon result for 1572a dates parchment, not ink; it must not be transferred to 1572b. The failed 1572b sample provides no radiocarbon result.
What remains open
Reconcile the historical folio order with modern shelfmarks and images. Preserve the old catalogue’s dating estimates as historical descriptions, not replacements for current assessments.
The next check
Make a folio-by-folio concordance before combining coverage or dates.
Two published descriptions compared; explanation unconfirmedA specific Hud verse-numbering discrepancy remains open
Islamic Arabic 1563 · old 11a/11b and current 11r/11v
What we can document
The historical catalogue gives 11:46–51 and 11:51–57 on these faces. Corpus Coranicum aligns the current faces with 11:44–49 and 11:49–54, including partial verses. Different numbering conventions are a possible lead; a precise concordance has not established the explanation.
What remains open
Cadbury’s latest reply clarified manuscript-reference notation but did not resolve these verse boundaries. Surah 71 must not be described as a missing chapter in these fragments merely because it is absent from their recorded coverage.
The next check
Compare visible wording on each face against the cited editions, numbering systems and folio identities; record partial verses explicitly.
Historical losses described; comparison route locatedA damaged instrument treatise has comparison witnesses
Catalogue 1902 (560) · printed p. 353
What we can document
The catalogue describes a later first leaf, the main al-Khujandi work beginning on folio 2, a substantial break in its sequence and a surviving fragment on folio 30. ISMI lists four witnesses of the base work: Birmingham 560, Bursa Haraççıoğlu 1217, Cairo Miqat 970 and Oxford Huntington 566.
What remains open
A loss in Birmingham’s copy is not proof that the work is lost in every witness. Oxford’s exact folios, completeness and study-image availability remain to be confirmed.
The next check
Obtain existing Oxford catalogue and image references, then select a short matching passage for a documented comparison.
Separate work identified; parallel copy unconfirmedThe Hibatallah appendix is a separate research question
Birmingham 560 · folios 31–35
What we can document
The catalogue describes a Hibatallah supplement following the main treatise and notes possible incompleteness at its end. ISMI identifies it as a separate work within the same codex. Its work record lists Birmingham 560.
What remains open
Huntington 566’s association with the base text does not establish that it preserves this supplement. Marsh 663, folios 163–189, is a possible related-work lead, not a confirmed duplicate.
The next check
Ask for the correct Marsh catalogue record and compare title, opening and closing words before treating it as a parallel witness.
Scholarly lead located; present coverage unverifiedAn edition lead needs a current bibliographical answer
Al-Khujandi · Kitab al-alah al-shamilah
What we can document
Hogendijk’s guide reports Richard Lorch’s edition and translation work as unpublished. A 2025 institutional report documents further research on al-Shāmila. Neither source supplies a verified complete edition for this dossier.
What remains open
An unpublished-work report is not a worldwide census of translations. Current publications, research papers and the status of Lorch’s materials require specialist confirmation.
The next check
Request existing references and referrals, rather than label every witness wholly untranslated.
Historical catalogue description checkedA dated calendar can test methods of human timekeeping
Catalogue 1915 (571) · printed p. 356
What we can document
The catalogue identifies an anonymous Ottoman astrological calendar for 1055 AH / 1645 CE, associated with Ibrahim I, in fourteen leaves. This is a defined later witness for studying calendar practices.
What remains open
The actual tables, place, computational method and epoch have not been read from manuscript images. This description supplies no independent date for an ancient Flood or the first human act of counting.
The next check
Locate existing images and an edition; transcribe a selected table with its labels and units before testing its calculation.