Michael J. Marx and Tobias Jocham, “Zu den Datierungen von Koranhandschriften durch die 14C-Methode,” Frankfurter Zeitschrift für islamisch-theologische Studien 2 (2015): 9–43.
According to 14C measurements, the four Qurʾān fragments University Library Tübingen Ma VI 165, Berlin State Library We. II 1913 and ms. or. fol. 4313, and University Library Leiden Cod. or. 14.545b/c are older than had been presumed due to their paleographical characteristics. They have been dated for comparison and turn out to be reliable according to dating by 14C measurement.
The University of Birmingham Library had been asked by our project in 2013 to give permission for carbon dating of an ancient fragment of the Qurʾān (M 1572). The university took samples of that fragment to send them to the laboratory of Oxford University. The obtained measurement dated the carbon of M 1572a (a fragment containing 2 fol.) to be from the interval between 568 and 645CE. Of special importance to the discussion was the fact that alternative and counterarguments about the emergence of the Qurʾān, such as the one by John Wansbrough (1928–2002; see Wansbrough 1977), were definitely refuted. Enthusiasm, emotion, and fascination must not mislead one into thinking that the conducted dating has ended the debates on Qurʾān textual history, even though they make the hypothesis of Islam emerging in the 8th century highly unlikely. Much more significant is probably the fact that the dating will contribute new findings to the research of textual history, although the limits of dating by 14C measurement have also to be kept in mind.
The so-called Ḥiǧāzī style of writing of the earliest Qurʾān manuscripts strikes us as a rather uncalligraphic style that can also be recognized in dated papyri of the 7th centur (Grohmann 1958: 213–231; 1959: 272–273)
Hijaz Type:
Why C14 method is a reliable dating technique (e (see Arnold/Libby1949: 77–123):
Carbon dating (95.4% 606-652 CE):
Carbon dating (95.4% 649-675 CE):
Carbon dating (89.3% 652-694 CE):
Carbon dating (72.8% 662-714 CE):
Even without an ink analysis, the orthography gives important indications about a manuscript’s age: Archaic writing forms in the manuscripts Ma VI 165, ms. or. fol. 4313, and We. II 1913—such as dwʾd for Dāwūd, šʾy for šayʾ (“thing, issue”), or the variant readings (see Fedeli 2012, vol. III: 403–440) in Ma VI 165—can be considered indications for being older. Also, the frequency of the spelling qāf-alif-lām for qāla, i.e., with alif for the long vowel /ā/, as compared to the spelling qāf-lām, can serve as an indicator for the dating together with other keywords; yet it is also conceivable, of course, that the scribe had copied an archaic spelling. Figure 6.13 contains six keywords, each with an image section of the four manuscripts: (1) qāla spelled ql (without the alif ) or qʾl; (2) ǧannāt generally with alif for the long vowel /ā/; (3) Dāwūd in the archaic orthography dwʾd; (4) archaic spelling of šayʾ as šʾy; (5) Qurʾān often without alif; (6) ḏū spelled ḏwʾ, but interestingly in Tübingen sometimes with ḏāl-alif.
- The observations on the four manuscripts can be summarized as follows:
- (1) Tübingen Ma VI 165, in a Kufic script, although paleographically located in the 8th century CE, belongs according to the 14C datings, and as confirmed by orthography, in the 7th century. The additions and modifications of the first ink layer through the use of a similar ink can be seen with the naked eye (in the word Qurʾān, originally just qrn, an alif was added) and this should be supported through scientific ink-analyses. Moreover, the manuscript includes archaic spellings and variant readings that are not mentioned in later exegetical literature
- (2) Berlin ms. or. fol. 4313, difficult to classify paleographically, shows similarities to the Ḥiǧāzī style of writing, yet according to its orthography and 14C dating it belongs to the oldest textualwitnesses preserved. The simple handwriting of the manuscript, without any vowel dots and ornamentation, appears to be among the oldest.
- (3) The fragments of Leiden Cod. or. 14.545b/c—sheets from a codex to which originally the fragment Paris Arabe 331 (56 fol.) and Marcel 3 (26 fol.) had belonged—are paleographically to be classified as Kufic B 1a and, according to 14C, to be dated in the 7th century, although the orthography shows only very few archaic spellings. In this case the 14C dating questions the fragments’ classification as Kufic, because such a high age would better match a parchment in the Ḥiǧāzī style, with its upright format and its slightly uncalligraphic appearance.
- (4) The 14C measurement results of the Berlin codex We. II 1913 (210 folios that comprise about 85% of the Qurʾān text, perhaps the oldest next-to-complete codex of the Qurʾān existing today)—together with the six folios of Arabe 6087 (Paris)—range over a long period of time, due to the calibration curve. Its orthography shows archaic forms such as dwʾd for Dāwūd, but also spellings of the letter alif to note the long /ā/ in a central position, which is generally a feature of later manuscripts. All in all, the further philological evaluation of Berlin We. II 1913 will hardly be possible without the analyses of the different layers of ink—inter alia through the usage of ultraviolet images and scientific ink analyses.
- Due to a quite impressive number of textual witnesses—a first list of fragments from European collections, without consideration of auction sales, and the still-unknown manuscript collection of Sanaa count more than 2,000 folios (= 4,000 pages)—the Qurʾān is presumed to be a historically rather well-documented text. Up to the mid 8th century the transmission of knowledge was apparently oral, from teacher to student.
- Fragments securly dated to early 8th century:
Charts
Leave a Reply