Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis

Cross Cross2003 claimed that his model was pegged by a series of absolute datings, in scores if not hundreds of documents inscribed on a variety of materials, especially from the late first century BCE and first century CE. Puech Puech2017 provided additional pegs, specifically for the less formal Hasmonaean hands. Cross and Puech relied on inscriptions on other surfaces such as stone and metal, but here too there are no absolute dates, not even for the most important pegs, such as the Benei Ḥezir tomb and the Jason’s tomb inscriptions. Avigad Avigad1965 acknowledged this, but his caution seems to have been forgotten.

A telling example is the estimated date of the Benei Ḥezir tomb inscription in Jerusalem’s Kidron Valley (CIIP 137 eck2010corpus ), which, according to Cross, had been dated securely, on the basis of archaeological and historical evidence, to the end of the first century BCE. Based on architectural typology of the Hellenistic-style façade and Josephus’s description of the Maccabees’ family tomb in Modi\laspin, Avigad avigad1954 initially suggested to date the tomb to the mid-second century BCE. He then estimated the inscription, which lists eight priests from two generations who had been interred in the tomb, to have been made on the façade one or two generations after the construction of the tomb, in the first half of the first century BCE. Later, he dated the inscription palaeographically to the second half of the first century BCE, or to the Herodian period, and on that basis redated the tomb to the end of the Hasmonaean period Avigad1965 . The precise length of time between the construction of the façade and the writing of the inscription (how many years are one to two generations?) is a conjecture.

After the 2000–2001 exploration of the Benei Ḥezir and Zechariah tombs, Barag Barag2003 put forward new data and interpretations which would indicate that the tomb dated to the period of flourishing in Jerusalem between ca. 132/1 and 63 BCE, most likely in the first century BCE. For example, it features the new type of tombs typical of the Hasmonaean period, which became common in the first century BCE. In the same direction point correspondences with Nabataean tomb architecture (undated but supposed to go back to the first century BCE), which, Barag argued, likely inspired the Benei Ḥezir tomb. As for the inscription, which he conjectured to be 50–100 years younger than the construction of the tomb, he compared its writing to that of the bronze coins of the 25th year of Alexander Jannaeus (79/8) BCE, and posited that the script of the Benei Ḥezir inscription would seem to be slightly later, from the late Hasmonaean or early Herodian period.

Without mentioning the Benei Ḥezir inscription, Naveh Naveh1986 had identified the script on the Alexander Jannaeus coinage as ‘vulgar semiformal’ and saw its closest parallels to the letters found on ossuaries. Cross Baillet1962 had described this style as a “crude simplified derivative” of the formal Herodian hand. Naveh’s aligning of the letters of the coins with those of the ossuaries might suggest that this type of Herodian hand was already anticipated by the Jannaeus coins. Naveh therefore referred to the palaeographical significance of these coins. One should note, however, that neither Naveh nor Barag carefully analysed the letters of the coins.

Summarizing, all scholars associate the Benei Ḥezir tomb with the Maccabaees or the Hasmonaean period (either early or late), and date its inscription to the first century BCE. Yet, Cross’s claim that a late first-century BCE date is secure and an absolute peg, cannot be sustained. The date estimates of the tomb and its inscriptions are not only based on architectural typology, but also on the palaeographic typology. None of the evidence argues against a mid-first century BCE or even earlier date of the inscription.

This is one example to demonstrate that inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic on other surfaces, such as stone and metal, cannot fill the void of absolute dating pegs between the third century BCE until the first century CE. In addition to the Benei Ḥezir burial inscription, this applies also, for example, to the so-called Queen Helena inscription (CIIP 123 eck2010corpus ) and Uzziah plaque (CIIP 602 eck2010corpus ) from the first century CE. Strictly speaking, these are not absolutely dated. The same applies to the Jason’s tomb inscriptions (CIIP 392-397 eck2010corpus ), the date of which is not fixed either. Puech Puech2001 ; Puech1983 had initially argued on the basis of his reconstruction of the historical background of the inscriptions that the main one in Aramaic (CIIP 392) must be dated to 82/1 BCE, but more recently he stated that the Aramaic inscription dates palaeographically to about the middle of the first century BCE or slightly earlier Puech2017 . Yet, Yardeni dated the inscription shortly before the destruction of the tomb by an earthquake in 31 BCE eck2010corpus .

Another example are the hundreds of ossuary inscriptions, which Cross Cross1955 said to virtually all belong to the Herodian era. A post-20/15 BCE date for the ossuaries may be archaeologically correct Magness2005 , but the political and historical framing to the Herodian period does not limit the emergence of the script exhibited on the ossuaries to that period. The question when the so-called Herodian script came into being is decided somewhat arbitrarily. Cross took 30 BCE, Milik and Baillet 50 BCE Tigchelaar2020 . Avigad also took 50 BCE or slightly earlier. Furthermore, Avigad already acknowledged that scrolls referred to as ‘Herodian’ may easily be earlier than this period Avigad1965 . In other words, even for the ‘Herodian’ script, just as for the ‘Hasmonaean’ script (see below), the emergence is difficult to establish. In terms of typological development, we have to reckon with the possibility of longer, broader time frames for both scripts.

Even if one were to accept Cross’s recourse to a series of absolute datings, these would support mainly late first-century BCE and first-century CE comparisons. They do not help to establish the beginnings of the ‘Hasmonaean’ script. Lacking dated material from the third and second centuries BCE, Cross had to take further recourse to two premises to attempt to establish the upper range of the oldest scripts, ‘Archaic’ and ‘Hasmonaean’, from the scrolls, and to limit the earliest dating of the scrolls mainly to the second century BCE, with only a few exceptions for older ‘Archaic’ manuscripts such as 4Q52 and 4Q70.

In addition to a lack of time markers, two palaeographic and historical premises by Cross, Yardeni and others stand out: a slow development of the Aramaic/Hebrew script in the early Hellenistic period (third century BCE); and the emergence of a national script as a watershed around 200–150 BCE.

The presumed slow development of the Aramaic/Hebrew script in the early Hellenistic period is not supported by any dated evidence of that period. The assumption was in part based on a few undated cursive Aramaic papyri from Egypt containing Greek names (hence assumed to be from the third century BCE), but the later discovery of the dated Wadi Daliyeh papyri showed that there were different lines of development, some having taken place much earlier Cross1974 ; Yardeni1990 , thus challenging the premise of the slow development, and reducing the importance of those Hellenistic Egyptian Aramaic papyri for establishing the evolution of the Aramaic/Hebrew script. For Judaea, Cross Cross1955 also referred in passing to a conservative palaeography for the copying of sacred texts, but without further explanation or supporting evidence.

Cross initially dated 4Q52 (4QSam^b) to “the last quarter of the third century B.C.” Cross1955 , “no doubt late in the century” Cross1961 , but after the discovery of the Wadi Daliyeh manuscripts, simply to “ca. 250 B.C.” Cross1974 or “the mid-third century BCE” Cross1998 ; Cross2003 . He seems to have been reluctant to date 4Q52 and also 4Q70 (4QJer^a) earlier, and therefore assumed a very slow evolution of the script, so as not to have a large time gap with the manuscripts written in what he called the “early Hasmonaean” script and which he dated to ca. 150 BCE.

Yardeni, too, regarded 4Q52 and 4Q70 as examples of a transitional stage from the fourth and third century BCE Aramaic script in the direction of the ‘Hasmonaean’ script Yardeni1990 . Her conclusion that these two manuscripts could therefore be dated to the late third or early second century BCE seems to be based rather on the supposed proximity to this national script than on the correspondences with the earlier Aramaic scripts.

However, the palaeographic principle is to date an undated manuscript by comparing its script to that of dated writings with a similar script. This means that the oldest manuscript of the scrolls, 4Q52, must be compared to the Aramaic evidence from Wadi Daliyeh from the fourth century BCE. 4Q52 should then be chronologically closer to those manuscripts, especially WDSP 1 (335 BCE).

The hypothesis of the emergence of a national script around 200–150 BCE and the supposition that the ‘Hasmonaean’ script was a development of the Hasmonaean period after 150 BCE are not supported by any dated evidence but based on historical assumptions, given in passing, about a “nationalistic expansion and resurgent Orientalism” Cross2003 after the death of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (164 BCE). These unfounded assumptions were then imposed as an interpretative framework on the manuscript evidence. But, given the absence of dated material from the third and second century BCE, there are no historical, typological or other palaeographic reasons for limiting the rise of the script which Cross called ‘Hasmonaean’ to the mid-second century BCE.

This means that manuscripts written in ‘Hasmonaean’ script may date already from the early second century or from the third century BCE. This older dating is also realistic when manuscripts written in so-called ‘Archaic’ script, such as 4Q52 or 4Q70, can be dated earlier in the third century BCE or, for 4Q52, even perhaps in the late fourth century BCE. Furthermore, this older dating can be independently supported by the ¹⁴C dating results in this study (see Section D.1 in Appendix D).

Upon arrival of the samples in Odense, they were photographed, if this was not already done in Groningen. Detailing what was said in section B.2, the chemical cleaning procedure developed to remove later added contamination such as, e.g., castor oil, was the following. Three Soxhlet apparatuses were operated in parallel, with three samples mounted simultaneously one in each chamber. The Soxhlet apparatuses had different volumes: the first one operated with 100 mL of solvent, the second with 70 mL and the third with 50 mL of solvent. All solvents were of the highest quality available (LC-grade for Liquid Chromatography).

The cleaning procedure was initiated by running the whole set of solvents with no sample mounted, intended to clean the apparatus, the stainless-steel cage and glass utensils. Then a sample was placed in the stainless-steel cage mounted in a Soxhlet apparatus chamber. The first solvent was added to the lower flask. The first solvent was LC-grade ethanol LiChrosolv (1.11727.2500 from Merck). This was operated for one hour corresponding to ca. 50 turnovers of the solvent over the sample. The second solvent was LC-grade n-hexane LiChrosolv (1.03701.2500 from Merck), which was operated for four hours, corresponding to ca. 240 turnovers of the solvent over the sample. The third solvent applied was LC-grade ethanol LiChrosolv (1.11727.2500 from Merck), operated for one hour, corresponding to ca. 50 turnovers. After each step in the cleaning procedure samples of 8 mL of each of the solvent were transferred to pre-cleaned glass vials. That is, three samples of 8 mL of ethanol, hexane, and ethanol were procured after each step in the cleaning procedure. They were placed in a heating apparatus operating at 80°C, which evaporated the solvents in the glass vials to dryness, after which the glass vials were sealed with a lid. The condensate was later to be re-dissolved and analyzed by HPLC-MS in Pisa (see section 7.2). After cleaning, the samples were removed from the stainless-steel cages and brought to dryness for one night at 60°C at zero humidity in a Memmert HCP 108 Climate chamber. Following this, the samples were weighed, packed, and shipped to Groningen, there to undergo pretreatment and dating following ¹⁴C protocols.

This three-step Soxhlet protocol, which was developed by rasmussen2009effects , was applied to the first batch of 10 samples (4Q52, 4Q114, 4Q161, 4Q176, 4Q185, 4Q216, 4Q504, 11Q20, Mur88, 5/6Hev1b) which were analyzed in the project. Following the chromatographic-mass spectrometric analyses in Pisa of this first set of solvents, it was decided that a fourth cleaning step should be added to the procedure for the remaining 20 samples. This was done for redundancy, and not because of proof or suspicion that the three-step procedure was not sufficient within the given dating uncertainty. The fourth step was added to further ensure that castor oil and many other contaminants were removed even in the worst case scenario. The fourth Soxhlet step was performed using a 30:70 mixture of dichloromethane:hexane, both of LC-grade purity (dicholoromethane CHROMASOLV 34856 by Sigma-Aldrich, and n-hexane as described above), operated for one hour, corresponding to ca. 60 turnovers of the solvent over the sample.

The study of the materials constituting the scrolls was performed in Pisa using a multi-analytical approach based on chromatographic and spectroscopic analytical techniques. The use of these complementary approaches allowed us to characterize both the original materials of the parchments and to evaluate the possible occurrence of modern materials used for consolidating/restoring the scrolls. These results were used to define the best cleaning strategy to remove from the scrolls the modern materials that could affect the dating, and to evaluate the efficiency of the purification steps. In detail:

• •

  Raman spectroscopy and optical microscopy (OM) were used as non-invasive and non-destructive methods to evaluate the general appearance of the parchments and to characterize the possible occurrence of inorganic materials.

• •

  Analytical pyrolysis coupled with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS) analyses were performed on small (ca. 100 µg) sub-samples of the samples before these went into cleaning treatment by Soxhlet and AAA to characterize the organic material constituting the scrolls and to evaluate the possible presence of modern synthetic materials used as consolidating materials. This technique represents one of the best methods to obtain a complete picture of the organic materials in a sample degano2018recent . Pyrolysis consists of a thermal decomposition of organic materials in absence of oxygen. This process leads to the formation of low molecular weight species that can be separated by gas chromatography and identified by mass spectrometry. This analytical approach allows to obtain specific molecular markers that can be used to identify the source of organic materials.

• •

  Liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) was applied to evaluate the content of lipid materials present in Soxhlet extracts from parchments during the cleaning steps. This is among the best approaches for the separation and characterization of complex mixtures of lipid materials, such as castor oil. The use of mass spectrometry as detection system allows to obtain information on the glyceride chemical structure la2021liquid . This information cannot be achieved using more conventional analytical approaches such as GC/MS. Moreover, this method allows to detect very low amounts of analytes.

The microscopy observations and micro-Raman analyses were performed on samples 4Q2, 4Q3, 4Q27, 4Q30, 4Q114, 4Q201/4Q338, 4Q206, 4Q216, 4Q259, 4Q267, 4Q375, 4Q416, 4Q521, 4Q541, Mas1k, Mur19, XHev/Se2. All these samples were characterized by similar appearance, except for sample Mur19 that showed a different morphology, suggesting the use of a different material as a writing support.

Several samples featured microscopic black spots with diameters in the range of 10-200 µm, except for sample 4Q114 that was characterized by one black spot of approximately 600 µm. Raman spectroscopy was applied to investigate the chemical composition of the spots. For several samples, the Raman spectra featured the typical peaks at 1350 and 1580 cm^-1 corresponding to the Raman wavenumbers typical of C-C of amorphous carbon (signals not detected in the background). For example, Figure 6 reports the spectrum obtained from one spot on the sample 4Q216, and Table LABEL:tab:B7XX presents the OM photographs along with a description of the observed surface and summarizes the relevant information obtained by Raman spectroscopy.

The biggest black spot from the scroll 4Q114 was sampled separately, and radiocarbon dated to 2390±60 BP (GrM-13256). The size of the black spot was ca. 600 µm in diameter, with an observed thickness of ca. 50 µm, translating into a calculated mass of ca. 14 µg. Thus, with a sample mass of 6.2 mg for the sample radiocarbon dated for 4Q114, the contamination mass fraction from the black spot would be ca. 0.2% and thus, the effect of such contamination is negligible, whatever its age.

Py-GC/MS was used in order to evaluate the possible presence of synthetic materials used as consolidating materials on the scrolls and to characterize the original parchment material: the 17 samples (4Q2, 4Q3, 4Q27, 4Q30, 4Q114, 4Q201/4Q338, 4Q206, 4Q216, 4Q259, 4Q267, 4Q375, 4Q416, 4Q521, 4Q541, Mas1k, Mur19, XHev/Se2) were directly analyzed without any prior sample pretreatment using a multi-shot pyrolyzer EGA/PY-3030D (Frontier Lab, Japan) coupled with a 6890 N gas chromatography system with a split/splitless injection port, and with a 5973 mass selective single quadrupole mass spectrometer (Agilent Technologies). The complete instrumental conditions are reported in la2019synthetic .

The pyrolytic profile of all these 17 samples featured molecular markers that can be related to the pyrolysis of animal hide or scroll (pyrrole and diketopiperazines), except for sample Mur19 that was instead characterized by the presence of anhydro sugars and levoglucosan, typical of a cellulose-based material colombini2009organic . This is consistent with the observation that Mur19 is a papyrus fragment. Figure 7 reports the chromatogram obtained for the sample from the parchment of 4Q521.

Samples 4Q3 and 4Q206 showed the presence of the markers of polyethylene glycol. The pyrograms of samples 4Q3 and 4Q30 also contain the peaks due to hexadecanonitrile and octadecanonitrile, which are the Py-GC/MS markers characteristic for egg. Samples 4Q521 and Mur19 were characterized by the presence of an acrylic resin. Finally, samples 4Q2, 4Q267, 4Q541, and Mur19 showed the presence of retene: this molecule is a marker characteristic of the combustion of resinous wood and can be indicative of the exposure of the scrolls to a fire in the space where writing took place or could be due to residues related to the illumination with torches. Table 6 summarizes the materials detected in the different parchment samples.

Pyrolysis allowed us to pinpoint the presence of exogenous materials, as consolidation synthetic materials (acrylic resin), or lipids. After disclosing the nature of the contamination, we were able to design the proper cleaning procedures to remove any unwanted consolidant.

The use of a further cleaning step using dichloromethane ensured the total removal of all the synthetic materials, as proven by pyrolysis analyses performed on a subsection of the samples after cleaning and prior to ¹⁴C dating.

HPLC-MS was applied to evaluate the presence of lipid materials. The dried extracts were reconstituted in 150 µL of iso-propanol/methanol, 10:90, filtered (PTFE syringe, 0.45 µm pore size) and analyzed. HPLC-ESI-Q-ToF analyses were carried out using a 1200 Infinity HPLC, coupled with a Quadrupole-Time of Flight tandem mass spectrometer 6530 Infinity Q-ToF detector by a Jet Stream ESI interface (Agilent Technologies, USA). The complete instrumental conditions are reported in la2013core .

The analyses were performed on the extracts from the two different sample pretreatments by Soxhlet, i.e., the three-step and the four-step extraction.

The comparison of the results obtained on the extracts with reference blanks allowed us to highlight the effective performances of the cleaning procedures, showing that the glyceride content after the last step was below 7.0 micrograms for both the approaches. The cleaning procedure proved to be effective for removing the lipid materials from the scroll samples, since all the solutions obtained after the last extraction step were characterized by the presence of triglycerides and fatty acids at or below blank level. Figure 8 shows a comparison of all final cleaning steps with the respective blanks for both the fatty acids and the triacylglycerols.

In particular, the worst case encountered in the entire data set was 7.0 µg of acylglycerols detected in the fourth cleaning step of 4Q3. These triglycerides can originate from the original parchment, or they can originate from later contamination such as castor oil. There is no way to determine the origin; it can also be a mixture of ancient and recent materials. If we, as a worst-case scenario, assume that all the triglycerides detected in 4Q3 were modern contamination, then it would skew a 2000-years old parchment sample with only 12.6 years.

As stipulated, this is a worst-case scenario depending on all triglycerides to be modern, which is an unlikely assumption because triglycerides are a normal ingredient of animal skin ghioni2005evidence . Furthermore, all other samples are well below the 7.0 µg level.

C

Comparing previously given palaeographic estimates and our ¹⁴C 2$\sigma$ results, shows that 17 of the 26 sampled manuscripts in our project have whole or partial overlap. This applies to: 4Q23, 4Q47, 4Q52, 4Q70, 4Q161, 4Q176, 4Q201/4Q338, 4Q255/4Q433a, 4Q259, 4Q504, 4Q521, 4Q541, 11Q5, Mas1k, Mur19, 5/6Hev1b, XHev/Se2.

4Q47 is a good example of how palaeographic estimates cannot be precise or clearly substantiated. Ulrich DJD14 reports that Cross had identified its script as Hasmonaean—thus dating it probably in the second half of the second century or the first half of the first century BCE—but refrained from offering a more precise estimate within the Hasmonaean period. Langlois Langlois2011 and Puech Puech2015 favoured the first half of the first century BCE. Langlois referred to some letters showing a typologically older form (bet, dalet, vav, khet, nun), while others would have a form more in line with those seen in late Hasmonaean or early Herodian periods (aleph, he, tet, samek, pe). However, considering, e.g., aleph one can see two forms, one of them being a typologically older form where the left leg often connects to the middle of the diagonal instead of more toward the top of it; the same for samek that appears in both closed (younger) and open (older) form. Also, ayin is often small, considered an older form, while yod shows the triangular head, seen as typical for the late Hasmonaean period. Instead of trying to fit this manuscript overall into a linear date estimate, the mixed typological evidence can be better explained as demonstrating overlapping or partly adjacent style developments.

In Section B.4 in Appendix B we noted that our calibrated results are often bimodal, especially for 2$\sigma$ distributions. 4Q47 is an example of such bimodal calibrated results, also for the 1$\sigma$ distribution. The ¹⁴C 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–100 BCE (61.6% probability) overlaps with the broad palaeographic estimate ‘Hasmonaean’—but less with the more specific ones of Puech and Langlois—and also allows for dating the script style of 4Q47 to the first half of the second century BCE.

The older 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 355–290 BCE (33.8%) is far removed on the timeline from previous palaeographic estimates. Although the older 2$\sigma$ peak represents a mathematically valid solution of the dating process, the younger calibrated peak must be preferred for 4Q47 over the older calibrated peak. Following the palaeographic principle to compare the script of an undated manuscript to that of dated writings with a similar script (see Section A.2.2 in Appendix A), it should be noted that 4Q47 does not compare to the extant typological evidence from date-bearing Aramaic manuscripts from the fourth century BCE. Typologically, the script of 4Q47 does not correspond to that of the script in date-bearing documents from the Persian period such as those from Bactria or from Wadi Daliyeh from the same region as the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, from a palaeographic perspective, 4Q47 is clearly younger than where the older calibrated peaks appear on the timeline.

Prior to the discovery of the Wadi Daliyeh documents, 4Q52 was argued by Cross to be the oldest manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it certainly has the best cards for being the oldest biblical manuscript. In the official publication, Cross et al. estimated 4Q52 to ca. 250 BCE DJD17 .

The ¹⁴C evidence is bimodal for the 2$\sigma$ distribution. The younger peak of 285–230 BCE (16.6% probability) agrees well with the palaeographic estimate. The older calibrated range is 410–355 (78.9%). Although it cannot be ruled out completely from a palaeographic perspective, this older date seems typologically slightly too early for the script in 4Q52 in comparison to date-bearing documents from Elephantine from the late fifth century BCE and date-bearing documents from Bactria from 353 to 324 BCE, although it is difficult to factor in consequences of geographical variance for script variations. A date range in the second half of the fourth century BCE would seem more suitable for 4Q52. Following palaeographic principle, 4Q52 would have to be dated chronologically nearer to the Wadi Daliyeh manuscripts, especially WDSP 1 from 335 BCE (see Section A.2.2). But for that date range there is no ¹⁴C result.

Hence, from a palaeographic perspective a clear preference for one of the two peaks in the probability distribution cannot be substantiated. The 2$\sigma$ range of 410–355 is perhaps only a few decades too old and not one to two centuries as for most other bimodal results of our ¹⁴C measurements. So, in the case of 4Q52, the older peak cannot be rejected as a possible solution with as much confidence as for most other ¹⁴C samples with bimodal evidence.

4Q176 has two script styles (plausibly from two scribes): the script of fragment 1–2 i looks entirely different from 1-2 ii. The ¹⁴C sample in this study was taken from fragment 1-2 ii. Strugnell Strugnell1970 and Tigchelaar Tigchelaar2019 characterized its script as ‘middle Hasmonaean’, i.e., ca. 125–75 BCE. Strugnell’s palaeographic analysis can be easily misunderstood. He explains that many of the letter forms of the second script style seem to be Herodian, such as bet, tet, mem, and qoph. Yet, because the script is not formal but semiformal these forms must be dated to the middle Hasmonaean period. Fragment 1-2 ii shows less uniformity in size than fragment 1-2 i, e.g., kaph or medial mem. This can be understood as a typologically older feature where kaph and medial mem are still larger other than letters. The ideal of a base line seems not yet well developed. The three-stroke he and the small-sized ayin seem archaic. On the other hand, the bet has a broad base stroke and protrudes to the right, in formal script generally typologically connected to late Hasmonaean or early Herodian. But if the distinction between formal and semiformal cannot be clearly made, 4Q176 is another example of mixed evidence.

4Q176 is another example of bimodal calibrated results, having in addition also minor peaks of low probability. The 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–100 BCE (64.2% probability) and the minor peak of 70–60 BCE (0.7%) are consistent with previous palaeographic assessments. The 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–100 BCE also makes an older dating of the script style possible.

These assessments for 4Q47, 4Q52, and 4Q176 also apply to 4Q23, 4Q70, 4Q161, 4Q255/4Q433a, 4Q259, 4Q504, 4Q521, 4Q541, Mas1k, and XHev/Se2. Only in the case of 4Q201 and 11Q5 do the ¹⁴C results indicate a date range that goes in the direction of a younger possible date, whereas in almost all cases the direction is toward an older possible date range.

Regarding 4Q201, Milik’s edition Milik1976 suggested the first half of the second century BCE, and most scholars have accepted this estimate. He considered its script to be quite archaic and connected to the third and second-century BCE semicursive or semiformal scripts, perhaps more dependent on the Aramaic writing of northern Syria or Mesopotamia than on those of Judaea or Egypt. Similar comparisons with northern Syria have been made for 4Q17 and 4Q109, but concrete connections cannot be substantiated. Puech Puech2017 also saw the script as semiformal/semicursive, dating from ca. 200 BCE, while Langlois Langlois2011 gave an estimate of ca. 150 BCE.

4Q201 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 165–40 BCE (93.6%) and a minor peak of 10–1 BCE (1.9%). This overlaps with the palaeographic estimates, but instead of an older date, a younger date than previously considered is also possible.

The script of 4Q201 is hard to assess, in part because the scribe used a pen with a thick, worn nib to write small letters, which may account for the atypical aleph. Yet, apart from archaic forms of samek and shin nothing is typologically incongruent with the early Hasmonaean script.

As for 11Q5, Sanders DJD4 understood its script as transitional from early to late Herodian, comparing it to 4Q113 and also 1QM, 4Q27, 4Q37, and 4Q51. He estimated its script to the first half of the first century CE, possibly slightly earlier than 4Q113, Cross’s specimen for “a developed Herodian formal script”. However, clear typological distinctions on the level of individual letters between ‘early’, ‘developed’, and ‘late’ Herodian according to Cross’s specimens are not that easily made. For example, one may consider aleph which from early to late Herodian would advance to an inverted “v” form of the left leg and oblique axis, or dalet, where the horizontal stroke breaks through the right leg, and see that there is no difference here between the ‘developed’ and ‘late’ Herodian specimens of 4Q113, 4Q37, and 4Q85. On the other hand, the sharp bent in the right leg of ayin and sin/shin may be seen in early as well as developed and late Herodian exemplars, whereas in some manuscripts that are considered to be late Herodian the sharp bent is not clearly shown, e.g., Mur88 and 5/6Hev1b. As to more general features of the Herodian formal script, one may consider a generally uniform letter size, a base line, ligatures, and the development of keraiai or serifs. But beyond a general impression, these features are difficult to use for a clear typological differentiation of manuscripts within the Herodian formal script.

11Q5 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 5–120 CE (92.2%) and a minor peak of 35–15 BCE (3.3%), showing clear overlap with the different presumed Herodian palaeographic periods, even post-Herodian. The measurement has a standard deviation of only 18 in ¹⁴C years (BP). The length of the 2$\sigma$ calibrated range, 35 BCE–120 CE, is caused by the shape of the calibration curve in this period when converting the BP dates to calendar dates. Scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls may consider a date later than 70 CE for 11Q5 unlikely because the scrolls found in the Qumran caves are assumed to have been hidden in the summer of 68 CE Popovic2012 .

4Q259 is notorious for its widely varying palaeographic estimates in the second-first centuries BCE. Cross Charlesworth1994 described 4Q259 as written in an unusual semicursive with mixed semicursive and semiformal script features. He gave 50–25 BCE as a date estimate. Earlier, Milik Milik1976 had suggested the second half of the second century BCE (Milik used the older reference number 4Q260), while later Puech Puech1998 suggested the first half of the first century BCE, preferably shortly after 100 BCE. Puech argued for this date on a combined basis of a palaeographic analysis of Cryptic A script (compared to 4Q298 and especially to 4Q249 and 4Q317) and the ¹⁴C dating of 4Q317 Jull1995 .

4Q259 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–100 BCE (69.7%) and a minor peak of 70–55 BCE (1.4%). The 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–100 BCE agrees with the two older palaeographic estimates of Milik and Puech, whereas the minor peak of 70–55 BCE is nearer to Cross’s estimate. The bimodal evidence for 4Q259 shows an older 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 350–310 BCE (24.3%), but, as for 4Q47, this older peak can be rejected as possible solutions based on typological comparison with date-bearing Aramaic manuscripts from the fourth century BCE.

Following Cross’s typology, Puech Puech1998B analysed 4Q521 as a Hasmonaean formal script and estimated it between 100–80 BCE. This manuscript was also radiocarbon dated in the 1990s Jull1995 . That BP date (1984 ± 33) now has to be recalibrated according to the IntCal20 calibration curve (reimer2020intcal20 ), which results in a 2$\sigma$ date range of 45 BCE–120 CE. According to the bimodal evidence of our study, the younger 2$\sigma$ calibrated range is 230–100 BCE (57.5%), while the older peak in the 2$\sigma$ range of 355–285 BCE (38.0%) can be rejected as a possible solution due to comparative typological evidence from date-bearing Aramaic manuscripts from that period. The difference in age between the two radiocarbon tests may be due to the Soxhlet procedure cleaning castor oil from the sample, but it is not possible to quantify or ascertain that. The palaeographic estimate of 100–80 BCE and our 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 230–100 BCE connect in the year 100 BCE. So, considering measurement uncertainties, 4Q521 can be taken as a partial overlap.

The script of 5/6Hev1b was considered by Cross Cross2003 to be a post-Herodian formal, estimated from 75–100 CE (Flint DJD38 suggested 50–68 CE). This sample was the least precise ¹⁴C result in our study, with a standard deviation of 28 years in BP, and calibrated in 2$\sigma$ to 10–205 CE. The large calibrated date range, caused by the shape of the calibration curve in this period, clearly encompasses previous palaeographic estimates, but also moves in both a much older and a much younger direction of possible dates.

Nine out of 26 samples yield (accepted) 2$\sigma$ calibrated ages that do not overlap with previous palaeographic estimates. In all 9 cases, the ¹⁴C results give calibrated age ranges that are older than previous palaeographic estimates. Yet, in light of our critical assessment, the older ¹⁴C age ranges are in most cases also palaeographically possible and realistic. This applies to: 4Q2, 4Q3, 4Q27, 4Q30, 4Q114, 4Q206, 4Q267, 4Q375, 4Q416.

4Q30 was Cross’s “typical Hasmonaean” script specimen from the middle of the period, 125–100 BCE, like 1QIsa^a Cross2003 . The calibrated result for this sample in our study is bimodal. According to the ¹⁴C measurement, 4Q30 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 235–165 BCE (36.7%) and a minor peak of 260–245 BCE (1.4%). The older 2$\sigma$ peak of 360–275 BCE (57.4%) can be rejected as a possible solution based on palaeographic comparison with date-bearing manuscripts in Aramaic script from the period. Though Cross gave the more narrow estimate from 125–100 BCE, White Crawford estimated more broadly from 150–100 BCE DJD14 . An earlier date range, say in the first half of the second century BCE, as indicated by ¹⁴C, is realistic and possible. In general, there is no reason to chronologically limit the script identified as Hasmonaean to the upper range of the political-historical period of the same name in the mid-second century BCE (see Section A.2.2). The sequence of relative typology can chronologically easily be moved to an older age range. Though in general 4Q30 shows a more uniform letter size, at the level of individual letters, the often not yet ‘standard’ letter size of aleph and the often small ayin point to earlier typology in the Hasmonaean script. As we also argued for, for example, 4Q47 and 4Q176 (Section D.1.1), 4Q30 shows mixed typological evidence.

4Q27 was Cross’s “typical exemplar of the extremely popular Round semiformal style”, initially estimated by him to be early Herodian (ca. 30 BCE–20 CE) but later slightly revised by Jastram and Cross to the latter half of the first century BCE DJD12 . 4Q27 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 200–50 BCE (94.2%) and a minor peak of 340–330 BCE (1.3%) that can be rejected as a possible solution for palaeographic reasons. The 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 200–50 BCE comes near the revised palaeographic estimate. The calibrated date has a large range. This is caused by the measurement’s standard deviation of 26 ¹⁴C years (BP) in combination with the shape of the calibration curve in this period.

Interestingly, the 2$\sigma$ calibrated range for another specimen of the Herodian round semiformal, 4Q161, is 55 BCE–30 CE (92.1%), with two minor peaks of 90–80 BCE (1.7%) and 45–60 CE (1.7%). This may suggest a longer and somewhat older age range for this Herodian-type script than only the latter half of the first century BCE. Palaeographically, there are also many differences between 4Q27 and 4Q161. In 4Q161 the long extending base strokes of kaph, broad dalet, ligatures, and strikingly penned tet and shin stand out, whereas 4Q27 shows less tendency to broadening of letters. Although possible from a ¹⁴C perspective, a date in the first half of the second century BCE for 4Q27 seems unlikely from a typological perspective in comparison with other manuscripts. Nonetheless, there are four more Herodian-type manuscripts dated to that range by ¹⁴C in our study: 4Q3, 4Q267, 4Q375, and 4Q416.

4Q267 is another example of Cross’s early Herodian round semiformal. Yardeni related 4Q267 to 4Q397 as possibly written by the same scribe and estimated it from 30 BCE–20 CE DJD18 (Yardeni did not take over Cross’s round semiformal categorization and understood its script as formal). 4Q267 was also radiocarbon dated in the 1990s Jull1995 . That BP date (2094 ± 29) now has to be recalibrated according to the IntCal20 calibration curve (reimer2020intcal20 ), which results in a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 200–40 BCE (94.0%) and a minor peak of 10 BCE–5 CE (1.5%). According to our study, 4Q267 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 210–95 BCE (65.3%) and a minor peak of 70–55 BCE (1.6%), whereas the older 2$\sigma$ range of 355–290 BCE (28.6%) can be rejected as a possible solution due to comparative typological evidence from date-bearing Aramaic manuscripts from that period. The difference in age between the two radiocarbon tests may by due to the Soxhlet procedure cleaning castor oil from the sample, but it is not possible to quantify or ascertain that.

From a typological perspective it is difficult to understand the script of 4Q267 being chronologically so near to quite different typological specimens in the second century BCE. We may have to reckon with overlapping or partly adjacent style developments but in this case it would severely impact the relative typology dominant in the field, not just moving it chronologically and keeping the relative typology intact.

4Q267 might be an outlier, yet this ¹⁴C result raises the fundamental issue of how the absolute, chronological dating of typological differences in a linear sequence has been substantiated. Cross assumed a slow development of the Aramaic/Hebrew script in the third century BCE and he assumed a rapid evolution of the script in the Hasmonaean and Herodian eras, but he could not substantiate either assumption, due to the lack of date-bearing documents. He assumed but did not demonstrate that the finer typological distinctions had to be chronologically sequenced one after the other instead of existing partially next to each other (see, similarly, Sirat1986 ).

Cross wavered with his palaeographic estimate of the ‘semicursive’ 4Q114 from the late second century BCE (125–100) to ca. 100–50 BCE, and, under influence of the finds of Wadi Daliyeh, back to the late second century BCE DJD16 , “no more than about a half century younger than the autograph”, Cross said Cross1961B . Interestingly, Cross dated 4Q114 contemporary to the formal hand of 4Q30. 4Q114 preserves Daniel 8–11, a part of the book which scholars argue on literary-historical grounds to have been composed in the 160s BCE. 4Q114 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 230–160 (45.9%) and an older 2$\sigma$ range of 355–285 (49.5%) that can be rejected as a possible solution based on comparative typological evidence from date-bearing Aramaic manuscripts from that period.

Because of its scribal errors, it is unlikely that the scribe of 4Q114 was the author. But the early date and low scribal quality of 4Q114 shed new light on the production and circulation of literature in ancient Judaea: its date is indicative for the speed of the text’s spread, and the low quality of the manuscript may indicate it originated in a social context close to the original author Popovic2023 ; future research may further validate this. 4Q114 would then have been copied very soon after the assumed composition of Daniel 8–11. The ¹⁴C 2$\sigma$ date of 230–160 BCE for 4Q114 is matched by a very much comparable older ¹⁴C date of 4Q30.

For 4Q206, Milik Milik1976 gave an estimate from the first half of the first century BCE, and simply referred to four of the exemplary Hasmonaean manuscripts given by Cross (4Q30, 4Q51, 4Q114, 4Q398), apparently with no concern for their differences in style and for Cross dating these quite differently. In his recent edition in consultation with Puech, Drawnel Drawnel2019 estimated 4Q206 to be from the middle of the first century BCE. It is interesting that two of Milik’s typological comparanda, 4Q30 and 4Q114, have ¹⁴C results in our study similar to 4Q206: the 2$\sigma$ calibrated range for 4Q206 is 235–145 BCE (45.8%) with a minor peak of 135–120 BCE (1.1%); the older 2$\sigma$ range of 360–280 BCE (48.6%) can be rejected as a possible solution for palaeographic reasons. In each of these cases the ¹⁴C results indicate an earlier chronological date than the palaeographic estimates. But typologically some letters are slightly different and commonly seen as a later development of the letter form, e.g., bet, mem, and ayin. Yet, other letters show varied forms within 4Q206 and some compare well with instances from 4Q30, e.g., aleph, he. So 4Q206 may be another example of mixed typological evidence.

Then there are four Herodian-type manuscripts whose ¹⁴C dates extend into the second century BCE: 4Q2, 4Q3 and 4Q375 and 4Q416.

The script of 4Q2 has been described as late Herodian or even post-Herodian (ca. 50–68+ CE), in part because of the increasing use of keraiai DJD12 . While the script is typologically certainly Herodian, the assumption that calligraphic features are typical for its latest period cannot be substantiated. 4Q2 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 125 BCE–10 CE (90.3%) with a minor peak of 155–130 BCE (5.2%), providing a date range up to 10 CE, which seems realistic to us.

The case of 4Q3 is more difficult. Its script was tersely described as “an Herodian formal hand dating from the middle to end of that period (c. 20-68 CE)” DJD12 . Indeed, the script of 4Q3 features several letters and elements generally regarded to be developed Herodian, like the small tick above the crossbar of the final mem. Yet, some letters have older shapes which are uncommon in those developed Herodian formal hands, such as the ‘horned’ dalet. 4Q3 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 200–50 BCE (92.0%) and a minor peak of 340–325 BCE (3.5%) that can be rejected as a possible solution for palaeographic reasons. The palaeographic rule of thumb that the latest forms are indicative for its age would militate against the 2$\sigma$ range of 200–50 BCE. Yet, the exact moment when those latest forms have arisen has not been substantiated in the field. Future evidence may further validate this.

Strugnell provided a judicious analysis of the palaeography of 4Q375, comparing its style to that of the round or rustic semiformal series which is generally associated with early Herodian, but also arguing that, typologically, it must be an early exemplar since some letters do not yet have the typically Herodian forms DJD19 . True to his custom, he did not translate this typological assessment into a calendar date, but in Cross’s correspondence between hand and style this would amount to ca. 50–25 BCE, which would nearly agree with the 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 205–50 BCE (89.5%). Considering the uncertainties in the palaeographic estimate, this is acceptable. The 2$\sigma$ peak of 340–320 BCE (6.0%) can be rejected as a possible solution for palaeographic reasons.

Also for 4Q416, Strugnell carefully analysed its individual letters, arguing that in most cases these should be placed between 4Q51 and 1QM, hence “in a date transitional between the late Hasmonaean and the earliest Herodian hands” DJD34 . He judged the script of 4Q416 to be earlier than those of 4Q415, 4Q417, and 4Q418 by some twenty-five years so that a palaeographic estimate of 50–25 BCE presents itself. 4Q416 has a 2$\sigma$ calibrated range of 205–90 BCE (78.1%) and a smaller peak of 80–50 BCE (9.4%). Considering the uncertainties in the palaeographic estimate, this is acceptable. The 2$\sigma$ peak of 345–320 BCE (8.0%) can be rejected as a possible solution for palaeographic reasons.

Based on this comparison between (accepted) 2$\sigma$ calibrated dates and previous palaeographic estimates we make the following concluding observations.

Overall, the ¹⁴C results indicate older date ranges for individual manuscripts. Only two manuscripts, 4Q201 and 11Q5, have date ranges that go in the direction of a younger possible range (5/6Hev1b has a range both a bit older and much younger). Thus, Hasmonaean-type manuscripts have ¹⁴C date ranges that allow for older dates in the first half of the second century BCE, and sometimes also up to the latter part of the third century BCE, instead of the late second century or early first century BCE. There are no compelling palaeographic or historical reasons that preclude these older dates as reliable time markers for the Hasmonaean script (this also applies to the solid third-century BCE range for 4Q70 and its Archaic-type script).

The ¹⁴C results for most manuscripts confirm the basic distinction between Hasmonaean-type manuscripts that are older, and Herodian-style manuscripts that are younger, and, for that matter, also between Archaic-type (4Q52 and 4Q70) and Hasmonaean-type manuscripts. However, the ¹⁴C date ranges for manuscripts that are traditionally considered Hasmonaean and Herodian are quite differently distributed across the timeline.

As can be seen in Figure 1 in the main article, the twelve Hasmonaean-type manuscripts in our sample set have (accepted) 2$\sigma$ calibrated date ranges from the second and first century BCE, as expected, and most extend also into the late third century BCE. Three Herodian-type manuscripts (4Q161, Mas1k, XHev/Se2) have (accepted) 2$\sigma$ calibrated date ranges from the latter half of the first century BCE and the first century CE, as expected. Two Herodian-type manuscripts have date ranges in the first century CE, as expected, but also extend into the second century CE (11Q5 and 5/6Hev1b, the latter even into the early third century CE). 4Q2 has a date range extending from the early first century CE back to the early second century BCE. And five Herodian-type manuscripts have (accepted) 2$\sigma$ calibrated date ranges in the second century BCE (4Q3, 4Q27, 4Q267, 4Q375, and 4Q416), though 4Q27 extends into the first century BCE.

This adds a third component to our critical assessment. In addition to critiquing the application of traditional typology to individual manuscripts and dismantling unsubstantiated historical suppositions and chronological limitations, the results of this study also question the validity of the relative typology as such. The traditional relative typology can be maintained but not in all cases. The spread of the Hasmonaean-type manuscripts over the timeline does not affect Cross’s relative typology in a major way but the older, second-century BCE date ranges of the Herodian-type manuscripts do affect the relative typology potentially in a major way.

Individual manuscripts frequently show mixed typological evidence: a manuscript can have different forms of individual letters that are considered ‘older’ or ‘younger’ according to the traditional palaeographic framework. There is, however, not a good method to assess what this means in terms of relative placement of the individual manuscript, nor, for that matter, what it means for relative typology in general. The rule of thumb that the typologically latest forms should determine one’s palaeographical estimate of a manuscript, presupposes existing palaeographical date markers and a decision which features are typologically important or indicative. The dated Wadi Daliyeh discoveries showed that features that were supposed to be significantly later, already appeared many decades earlier than previously expected. Moreover, it is assumed but not substantiated that typological differences must be translated to chronological linear sequences. Instead of a linear development, as Cross and others have assumed, the possibility of overlapping or partly adjacent style developments must be considered.

So, the so-called Hasmonaean script can indeed be regarded older than the so-called Herodian script but the ¹⁴C results of this study indicate that the Herodian script was present earlier than previously thought. This suggests that these scripts were not transitioning from the mid-first century BCE onward (the so-called late Hasmonaean/early Herodian category of manuscripts) but that much earlier they already existed partially next to each other.

This study shows that there are no cogent reasons for limiting the palaeographic dating of style developments to political-historical periods such as Hasmonaean or Herodian. The terms ‘Hasmonaean’ and ‘Herodian’ might still be employed for types of script, but these cannot be converted to specific date ranges. For date estimations of individual manuscripts, one should rather use concrete age ranges.

We start with the multispectral band images for each fragment to use an image fusion technique designed in-house dhali2019binet to create pseudo-colour images from a weighted combination of the band images (see Figure 10). The resultant pseudo-colour images offer high contrast and facilitate better separation of ink from backgrounds, a task commonly known as binarization. Both training and test images go through the same preprocessing techniques. It is important to note that although many modern deep-learning methods can be trained directly using the colour/grayscale without binarization, this approach is not suitable for dating the scrolls. Direct end-to-end solutions, i.e., classification or clustering of the training images with testing images, may seem feasible, but there is a risk of obtaining completely inaccurate results. Artificial neural networks, for instance, may make decisions based on superficial correlations with the texture of the parchment, leading to erroneous outcomes. Therefore, isolating only the ink traces (foreground) and excluding any other material features in the images (background) is crucial. BiNet is a deep-learning-based method specially designed to binarize scroll images. Instead of using a simple filtering technique, BiNet uses a neural network architecture for the binarization task and therefore yields better output dhali2019binet (see Figure 11).

Once the binarization process is complete, additional cleaning of the images is performed. This cleaning step aims to remove any extra noise or speckles that were not completely removed by the binarization technique. This is a crucial procedure to ensure that features are extracted only from the characters of each image. Subsequently, rotation and alignment correction are also performed. If the images are rotated at some angle to the horizontal axis, it can affect feature calculations that rely on rotation invariance. Therefore, rotation correction is applied to align the text lines horizontally. In some cases, a minor affine transformation and stretching correction are executed in a selective manner. These corrections are specifically intended to align the twisted text lines caused by the degradation of the parchment. In many cases, one manuscript contains multiple fragments. In these cases, we put the fragments together and arrange them into a single image (see Figure 12). The GIMP tool, a free and open-source graphics editor, is used for rotation and arrangement correction gimp . It is important to note that the alignment and arrangement corrections are mostly done with the training images to obtain accurate feature extractions for the style periods represented by those images. However, these corrections are only done for some of the test images due to the limitation of time and resources. Most test images are used directly after binarization, sometimes leading to an unrealistic prediction due to damaged and deformed characters (see Figure 13). If any test images need special attention in the future, extra steps can be performed to obtain a better image for a better prediction from Enoch.

The input of the date prediction model is the feature vectors of the training images, along with their probability distribution from radiocarbon dating as labels. We obtain the probability distribution as unmodelled raw values of 5-year resolution after the radiocarbon calibration was performed using OxCal v4.4.2 Oxcal ; Oxcal2 . We created a new project code for the 26 sample manuscripts using the ¹⁴C age (BP) and sigma (BP) values (see Table LABEL:tab:summarized-c14 for the BP values. For the code, please check the Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11371749)). Using the measured BP values, the code (entirely reproducible) uses the simple format:

Plot()
  {
  R_Date("Q-number", age(BP), sigma(BP));
   };

Having performed the radiocarbon dating in its entirety (Appendix B) and then the palaeographic evaluation of the calibrated dates (Appendix D), as was also done in Bonani1992 ; Jull1995 , we use the calibrated dates from the 2$\sigma$ range for firmer grounding of our date-prediction model. In the case of bimodal evidence, palaeography determines that in most cases the younger 2$\sigma$ peak should be used for analysis. But, palaeography cannot be characterised as a specific quantitative prior (an expected date with mean and standard deviation) in the timeline. The issue is that we cannot assume a single point-spread density (Gaussian) along the time axis. Palaeography, in this sense, does not deliver a point-wise prior. What palaeography can deliver, is the identification of a point on the timeline that represents the historical impossibility of a range of dates on the left or right. This knowledge is based on intersubjective expert knowledge (Section D.2). Therefore, the use of expert knowledge in our case is not based on the usual Bayesian-plus-Gaussian method but on a more direct use of existing, qualitative, and intersubjective palaeographic knowledge, which allows splitting the 2$\sigma$ calibrated date range into a ‘left-half’ vs. ‘right-half’ time region of interest.

Specifically, palaeographic knowledge allows to make a binary split in the OxCal distribution of bimodal 2$\sigma$ ranges using the Heaviside function with the position of the step being placed at an innocuous low-probability point on the curve, where the probability has a plateau around zero. Applying a Heaviside multiplicative bias on the empirical density function is a valid Bayesian approach to perform peak selection. Another, e.g., smooth logistic variant of the step function or a cumulative Gaussian could have been used. In either case this would require the specification of a steepness parameter, the value of which is unknown. Similarly, from the palaeographic constraints, the standard deviation which would be needed under a Gaussian, i.e., point-localized density assumption in the Bayesian reasoning process, is not known. Note that apart from the Gaussian, many other distribution functions exist, e.g., Poisson, Weibull, Gamma, etc., for other applications in Bayesian reasoning. Such distribution functions could be used, if there are reasons to assume them. We do not have any reason for a detailed distribution choice and can only choose to disregard ‘impossible time regions’. In our case, for most bimodal 2$\sigma$ calibrated ranges we assume that the palaeographic evaluation that a left-most or right-most) region is impossible is correct (see Section D.2 in Appendix D), leading to a collapse of the probabilities in that range. The shape of the remaining distribution reflects the likelihood of dates.

Thus, the procedure we use is as follows:

1. 1.

   We perform the radiocarbon dating in its entirety, with the calibrated dates having been generated using OxCal data with only ¹⁴C (BP) and $\sigma$ (BP), see Appendix B.

2. 2.

   We use the calibrated dates from the 2$\sigma$ range for firmer grounding of our date-prediction model. Only in the case of bimodal evidence in these 2$\sigma$ ranges do we apply the Heaviside-function at a near-zero probability point on the curve to reject older peaks and accept younger/‘right-hand’ peaks as a possible solution, on the basis of expert palaeographic knowledge (Appendix D).

3. 3.

   From OxCal, we obtain the raw data of the probability densities of the 2$\sigma$ ranges, which are used as input in our date-prediction model.

4. 4.

   We work with the inclusion and exclusion of so-called minor or smaller probability peaks, which in 12 out of 14 instances have a probability of less than $4\%$; in the remaining two cases, it is 5.2% and 9.4%. The inclusion or exclusion of these peaks has minimal and insignificant consequences for the interpretation of the results (see Section E.7).

5. 5.

   Because applying the Heaviside function for bimodal evidence leaves less than $95.4\%$ of the entire 2-$\sigma$ probability for each sample, we normalise the accepted 2$\sigma$ calibrated probabilities. The output probability predictions of the dating model are also balanced and normalised using both weights and data augmentation (see Section E.7).

6. 6.

   Within the accepted part of the 95.4% confidence range, the points in the probability distribution curve as calculated by OxCal are used as target values in the training of Enoch. The output distribution delivered by the Enoch model is a mixture of Gaussians approximating the shape of the OxCal curve. From those outputs, we select the 1$\sigma$ range for a clear, narrow visualization of the predicted date ranges (see Figure 1 in the main article). This choice is independent of the original selection of OxCal calibration ranges because the two methods are fundamentally different.

We emphasise that we do not perform modelling within the OxCal programme as is commonly used in radiocarbon dating practice. This does not compromise the transparency and reproducibility of our procedure. Using the ¹⁴C dates in BP and their measurement uncertainties ($\sigma$), all plots can be reproduced using OxCal. Our reasoning for rejecting part of the bimodal data (see Appendix D) and the exact 2$\sigma$ probabilities we use (see Table E.6.2) are provided. Yet, other researchers can also use all our ¹⁴C data instead of following our reasoning for accepting part of the bimodal data, and justify their reasoning.

In the following subsections, we present the mathematical derivation of the Bayesian regression from simple linear regression as used in Enoch, our date prediction model.

Given a set of training data $\{(\mathbf{x_{n}},t_{n})\}^{N}_{n=1}$ comprising $N$ observations of dimensionality $M$, where $\mathbf{x}_{n}\in\mathbb{R}^{M}$, $t_{n}\in\mathbb{R}$, the goal in a regression model is to find a linear mapping $f:\mathbb{R}^{M}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ which approximates $t_{n}$ given $\mathbf{x_{n}}$ as close as possible. Furthermore, the mapping should generalize to values outside the training data. From a probabilistic perspective, the aim is to model the predictive distribution $p(t_{n}\mid\mathbf{x}_{n})$. In a linear regression model, the assumption is that the target variable $t$ is given by a deterministic function $f(\mathbf{x}_{n},\mathbf{w})$ with added Gaussian noise, such that:

where $\epsilon$ is a Gaussian random variable with mean 0 and inverse variance parameter $\beta$, also called the precision. In a linear model where $f(\mathbf{x}_{n},\mathbf{w})=\mathbf{w}^{T}\mathbf{x}$, the predictive distribution takes the form

Even though the predictive distribution is indirectly used to optimize the parameters of the linear regression model, we do not explicitly model this distribution. We will see in the next section that in the Bayesian interpretation of linear regression, we instead stay within a probabilistic framework and model the full predictive distribution, leading to several advantages over the standard linear regression model.

We first turn to parameter estimation for a linear model. This means estimating a value for the weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ that fits the data well. Most commonly, the least-squares criterion is used to estimate the weight vector $\mathbf{w}$:

This can be justified using maximum likelihood estimation if we assume that the training data is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). This works as follows. Let $\mathbf{X}=(\mathbf{x}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{x}_{N})^{T}$ and $\mathbf{t}=(t_{1},\dots,t_{N})^{T}$. The log-likelihood of the training data can then be written as

where we make use of (3). The $E_{D}(\mathbf{w})$ term represents a sum-of-squares function, defined as

Considering that maximizing the likelihood function with respect to $\mathbf{w}$ only depends on $E_{D}(\mathbf{w})$, expression (5) can be maximized by maximizing $-E_{D}(\mathbf{w})$, or equivalently, minimizing $E_{D}(\mathbf{w})$. This corresponds to the least-squares objective shown in (4).

We now turn to the ridge regression model, an extension of the linear regression model with more desirable properties, such as mitigating over-fitting. Concretely, we add a prior distribution over the weights $\mathbf{w}$, leading to the following log-likelihood function:

The prior distribution over the weights can be interpreted with the Bayes rule, showing the relationship to a posterior distribution over $\mathbf{w}$:

where we omit the $\mathbf{X}$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ terms to keep the notation uncluttered. In other words, maximizing (7) corresponds to maximizing a posterior distribution over $\mathbf{w}$. The question now arises what is a suitable form of the prior distribution $p(\mathbf{w})$? To ensure that $p(\mathbf{w}\mid\mathbf{t})$ has the same functional form as $p(\mathbf{t}\mid\mathbf{w})$, we choose $p(\mathbf{w})$ to be a conjugate prior of $p(\mathbf{t}\mid\mathbf{w})$, namely a multivariate isotropic Gaussian distribution, taken to be zero-centered with precision parameter $\alpha$. The log-likelihood then becomes