Journal of

Near Eastern Studies

The Sanʿā
̣ ʾ Palimpsest: Materializing
the Codices
É LÉ ONORE CELLARD, Colleg̀ e de France*

Introduction The analysis conducted here demonstrates that the

Considered one of the most important documents in
the history of the transmission of the Qurʾā n, the S ̣anʿā ʾ
palimpsest (Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1) is remarkable because of its
unique lower text (i.e., erased text), which differs from
the canonical edition in both wording and the arrange-
ment of the sū ras (chapters). To this day, the text remains
the only evidence of a separate textual tradition from
the hundreds of early Qurʾā n manuscripts in which the
text resembles the Vulgate. As a fragmentary document,
however, the S ̣anʿā ʾ palimpsest is difficult to study and
has been the focus of diverse hypotheses concerning its
nature and function. The present study seeks to physi-
cally describe Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1, including the lower text,
and provide a snapshot of its initial appearance, as well
as new perspectives regarding its textual organization.
* I am grateful to Christian J. Robin and the CNRS UMR 8167
for providing me the photographs and ultraviolet images of the
DAM 01-27.1 folios. I also wish to thank Michael Marx, who made
Razan Ghassan Ḥ amdū n’s dissertation available to me, as well as
François Dé roche, Fred Donner, Guillaume Dye, Marijn van Putten,
Behnam Sadeghi, and Hythem Sidky for their helpful comments.
[Ed.: Note also Nick Posegay’s article on a related topic in this issue
of JNES entitled “The Marking of Poetry: A Rare Vocalization System
from an Early Qurʾā n Manuscript in Chicago, Paris, and Doha.”]
fragments did indeed form a complete codex, and
one which when recontstructed reveals an early non-
ʿUtmānic text, sharing some similarities with the so-called
“Companions’ codices.”
The discovery of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1
In 1973, during restorations of the roof of the S ̣anʿāʾ
mosque in Yemen,1 thousands of ancient documents,
including hundreds of old parchment Qurʾā nic manu-
scripts, were found between the ceiling and the roof.
This storage site may have functioned as a genizah, a
1
The exact date of the discovery remains unclear. The most likely
date is 1973, as noted by the archaeologist Paulo Costa, who super-
vised the restoration work of the mosque. According to his article,
published in 1974, the manuscripts were found during these restora-
tion work in the course of 1973. See Costa, “Moschea” (1974): 487,
1. Sergio Noja Noseda also suggests the year 1973 in Noseda, “Mia
Visita” (2003). Publications by the German-Yemeni project staff re-
fer to the year 1972, however. Actually, the Yemeni Director of An-
tiquities and Libraries, the Qādı̄ Ismāʿı̄l al-Aqwaʿ reports only that the
Ministry of Religious Affairs took the decision to undertake the re-
construction of the walls in the year 1392 A H / 1972 A D (“Ğāmiʿ”
[1985], 21), while Gerd-Rü diger Puin indicates 1971/1972 in “Meth-
ods” (1985), 9. According to Christian J. Robin (personal communica-
tion), the manuscripts were probably found sometime between Novem-
ber 1972 and July 1973.

[JNES 80 no. 1 (2021)] © 2021 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2968/2021/8001-0001$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/713473

1
2 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
repository for worn documents.2 It is not known how
long the site had been in use,3 nor is the precise
condition of the manuscripts at the time of discovery
well understood, although they clearly showed signs
of neglect, dust, and water damage. Nor, finally, is it
known whether the leaves of the fragmentary books/
codices were found together or were scattered and/
or mixed with leaves from various volumes.4
Between 1980 and 1989, the Yemeni Department
for Antiquities launched a project, financed by the Ger-
man Foreign Ministry, to restore and curate these frag-
ments. A team of specialists under A. Noch of Hamburg
University restored approximately 8,000 parchment
sheets, which they then classified, collating folios that
had originally belonged to the same manuscripts. The
collection was then microfilmed5 and placed into stor-
age in the Dār al-maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t (DAM) alongside the Great
Mosque of S ̣anʿāʾ.
A few palimpsests were identified among these
Qurʾā nic fragments, including one of particularly signif-
icant scholarly interest. Before discussing this any case
further, however, it is important to provide some back-
ground regarding palimpsests more generally. A pa-
limpsest is a document whose text has been intention-
ally erased in order to reuse the material, sometimes
more than once. This ancient recycling practice has been
noted in texts as old as the 3rd century BC. It became
more widespread with the advent of parchment, partic-
ularly after the 5th century AD,6 in geographical and cul-
2
Sadan, “Genizah” (1986): 42 and Dé roche, Le Coran (2019),
174–76 and 218. Both authors identify this storage site as a genizah
(from the Hebrew root GNZ ).
3
Costa, “Moschea” (1974): 505–506. The Qādı̄ Ismāʿı̄l al-Aqwaʿ
(“Ğāmiʿ” [1985], 20) assumes that the storeroom was already in use
in the beginning of the 4th/10th century, when the Arabic handwrit-
ing evolved from Kū fic to Nasḫ ı̄ and a number of old manuscripts had
become useless and illegible.
4
Dreibholz (“Treatment” [2003]: 132) mentions that “in a
number of cases, a substantial part of the text block is still preserved,”
later describing “such a fragmentary and dispersed state.” In another
Islamic storage site, located in the ʿAmr mosque in Fustạ̄ t,̣ extensive
groups of folios were found, still stitched together. See Dé roche,
Transmission (2009), 21–22, and Cellard, Codex (2018), 3.
5
By Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer in winter 1996–97, who
kept a copy of these microfilms (Puin, “Observations” [1996]: 107–
111). For additional detail, see Sadeghi and Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1”
(2012).
6
This practice was well known in antiquity, as the chemical proper-
ties of inks and erasure techniques are mentioned in Roman literature,
and several literary and documentary Greek papyri from the 3rd century
th
BC to the 9 century AD are palimpsests. See Schmidt, “Palimpsestes”
(2009).
tural areas and scribal traditions that ranged from Latin
to Greek and Syriac. In most cases, several centuries
elapsed between the first writing (“lower” text or scriptio in-
ferior) and the reuse of the material for a second script
(“upper” text or scriptio superior). It is therefore assumed
that the books that were erased were perceived as “obso-
lete” or had become illegible because they were in “dam-
aged or defective condition.”7 Interestingly, palimpsests
appear to be uncommon in the early Qurʾā nic scribal
tradition. Indeed, only three or four examples of early
Qurʾā nic palimpsests are known besides the Codex
Sạ nʿā ʾ 1.8
The Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1 is remarkable for a number of rea-
sons. First, it consists of an extensive set of leaves repre-
senting more than 40% of a complete Qurʾā n codex
(see below, “The Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1 and its Fragments”).
Second, the codex was first produced (i.e., its scriptio in-
ferior) and then reused (for writing the scriptio superior)
during the early Umayyad period, or slightly earlier accord-
ing to carbon dating data.9 Its character as a palimpsest
7
Declercq, “Introduction” (2007), 13.
8
This corresponds to approximately 0.01% of the entire available
Qurʾā nic documentation. Aside from the Mingana-Lewis palimpsest
at Cambridge University Library (Ms. Or. 1287), which contains orig-
inally Qurʾā nic folios that were erased and reused in a Christian context,
others were produced in different contexts. The S ̣anʿā ʾ collection ap-
pears to preserve two additional palimpsests. A first was inventoried in
the collection of S ̣anʿā ʾ (DAM 18- ?.a). Like the DAM 01-27.1, both
layers of this folio palimpsest are also entirely Qurʾā nic; its scriptio supe-
rior could date from the 3rd or 4th century AH. An additional four Qurʾā n
leaves belonging to another copy (DAM 01-18.10) from the 3rd or
4th century AH are also probably palimpsests. For the present, this as-
sumption is based solely on my observations of the UNESCO photo-
graphs and needs to be confirmed. Another palimpsest was identified
from a facsimile available in the unpublished manuscript Mss. simulata
orientalia 6 from the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, Photographien von
ausgewählten Fragmenten aus der Omayyaden-Moschee in Damaskus
in verschiedenen Sprachen (1908), pls. 3a and 4a. It is a folio from the
collection of the Great Mosque of Damascus, with a Greek undertext
that was erased in the 3rd century AH to transcribe a Qurʾā nic text.
The last example is the Copto-Qurʾā n palimpsest: a Coptic biblical text
reused in the middle of the 2nd century AH for writing the Qurʾā n (see
Cellard and Louis, “New Palimpsest” [2021]).
9
These dates indicate that further investigation of the material
and textual features of both layers is needed. First, the ornamentation
and titles of sū ras between chapters present in the text, as well as spe-
cific symbols for separating groups of one hundred verses, are be-
lieved to represent later features from around the end of the 1st cen-
tury AH. Second, several carbon dating studies suggest an earlier date.
The Stanford ’07 folio, which was carbon-dated at the University of
Arizona, has a 68% (1σ) probability of belonging to the period be-
tween 614 CE to 656 CE and a 95% (2σ) probability of belonging to
the period between 578 CE and 669 CE, see Sadeghi and Bergmann,
“Codex” (2010): 353. Three other samples, from DAM 01-27.1, were

is also unusual for two reasons. First, very short interval
of time—between a decade and a half a century—
elapsed between the two layers of script, and the two
scripts are oriented in the same direction, independently
of any efforts to economize parchment. As a conse-
quence, this codex challenges our understanding of
the raison d’et̂ re behind the creation of the palimpsest.
Second, the most striking feature of this text is that both
the upper and lower texts are Qurʾā nic. The scriptio in-
ferior, which is readily visible, has now been partially resus-
citated, revealing substantial variants in consonants and se-
quences of the sū ras 10 by comparison to the canonical
ʿUṯ mānic text of the scriptio superior, as well as nearly
all other known Qurʾā nic materials.11
One of the most significant challenges facing scholars
is gaining access to such a document. In addition to the
black-and-white microfilms created by the German team,
a second set of images was made between 2005 and 2008
using both normal light and UV light as part of the digi-
tization project “De l’Antiquité tardive à l’Islam,” with
support from the Agence nationale de la recherche
(ANR), a French research agency. These images were of
decisive significance to scholars, although much work re-
mains to be done, as illustrated by folios belonging to this
palimpsest that have surfaced since the German project.
Since 2014, access to the S ̣anʿāʾ mosque libraries that
house most of the materials has become impossible due
to the Yemeni civil war. The preservation status of the
leaves of Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 and hundreds of other Qurʾā nic
manuscripts in the collection is presently unknown.
dated by different laboratories (as part of the project CORANICA).
Here are the results published by Robin, “L’Arabie” (2015), 65. The
results obtained in the Lyon laboratory were assigned a 68% (1σ) prob-
ability: F.2: 543–643 CE; F.11: 433–599 CE and F.13: 388–535 CE.
These were submitted to dating by three additional laboratories. Ox-
ford obtained 1423 ± 23 BP, while the Zurich result was 1437 ± 33
BP, which corresponds after calibration to 595–650 CE (1σ) or 565–
660 (2σ) and 595–658 (2σ) for Oxford. Kiel found a result of 1515 ±
25 BP, which corresponds to 430–495 CE (1σ) or 530–610 CE (2σ).
The implications of these various dating efforts will be the subject of a
future publication.
10
Already recorded in the catalogue of the exhibition in Kuwait;
see Masạ̄ h ̣if S ̣anʿā ʾ (1985).
11
I chose to use “ʿUṯ mānic text” as the official appellation of the
standard edition, whose textual tradition “reportedly began with the
codices ʿUṯ mān disseminated as the ancestors of all the manuscripts in
the textual tradition” (Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” [2010]: 347).
With few exceptions, most Qurʾā nic manuscripts are consistent with
the “ʿUṯ mānic text” in terms of the sequencing of sū ras, as well as
verses within the sū ras and individual words, independent of spelling
variations.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 3
What is Currently Known About
the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1?
The Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 has been the focus of a number of
parallel scholarly investigations in the past fifteen years
which have resulted in a range of divergent opinions
and hypotheses about the reconstruction of the scriptio
inferior, as well as the nature of the document. The
present essay considers this second set of questions.12
While the physical nature of the documents is essen-
tially a matter of codicology, their implications extend
far beyond the objects themselves to include important
questions regarding the nature and function of the text.
Indeed, there are currently two divergent opinions
about the nature of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1.
According to one hypothesis, Elisabeth Puin, Beh-
nam Sadeghi, and François Dé roche assume that the
Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 was a complete codex that became dis-
persed over time.13 In this view, S ̣anʿāʾ 1 was a codex
whose text was intended as a whole. It is clearly possible
that Qurʾā nic codices were used for various purposes de-
pending on the size of the volumes. A large, heavy codex
such as S ̣anʿāʾ 1 may have been publicly displayed and
made accessible to the Muslim community.14 Because
it was in the form of a bound volume, studying it entails
comparisons to other representative examples of the
written transmission of the Qurʾā n. It is indeed possible
12
In his article “La Mia Visita,” Sergio Noja Noseda provided a
description of DAM 01-27.1, as well as information about the auc-
tioned folios from Sam Fogg and Bonhams. In addition to extensive
descriptions by Sotheby’s, Oriental (1992), lot 551 and Sam Fogg, in
Fendall, Islamic Calligraphy (2003), Alba Fedeli studied both auc-
tioned folios in “Early Evidences” (2005). Elisabeth Puin published
five articles between 2008 and 2014, primarily based on the micro-
films of DAM 01-27.1. See E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest (2008),”
“Koranpalimpsest II” (2009), “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010), “Ko-
ranpalimpsest IV” (2011), and “Koranpalimpsest V” (2014). Mean-
while, Behnam Sadeghi published a study of the auctioned folio Stan-
ford ’07 in 2010: see Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” (2010). In
2012, B. Sadeghi and M. Goudarzi published the first complete edi-
tion of the lower text of DAM 01-27.1 in addition to four auctioned
folios, see Sadeghi and Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012). Dé roche also
addressed several issues regarding the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 in Qur’ans
(2014), and more recently in Coran (2019). Last, Asma Hilali pub-
lished several articles: “Palimpseste” (2011), “S ̣anʿāʾ” (2015), “Writ-
ing” (2018), and a partial edition of DAM 01-27.1: Sanaa (2017).
13
In E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010), the author used the
terms “Primären Kodex” (p. 236) and “Sekundäre Kodex” (p. 238).
Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” (2010): 357. Sadeghi and Goudarzi,
“S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012): 11 n. 21. For Dé roche’s opinion regarding the S ̣anʿāʾ
palimpsest, see Qurʾans (2014), 48–56, and Coran (2019), 201–229.
14
Dé roche, Coran (2019), 216.
4 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

that this artifact offers unique “direct documentary evi- entifically problematic. After careful examination of the
dence for the reality of the non-ʿUṯ mānic text types.”15 photographs and a review of observations by scholars,
According to a second hypothesis, Asma Hilali sug- conservators, and scientists, however, I concluded that
gests that neither the first nor second Qurʾā nic layer a preliminary study was possible. It is my assumption
was intended to be part of a codex. Instead, Hilali that my additions to this knowledge base will be reex-
contends that the lower text was a “collection of dispa- amined and supplemented under more favorable con-
rate leaves”16 from the outset rather than a Qurʾā n co- ditions in future research.
dex. In view of the variations in layout and amend-
ments and corrections of both layers, Hilali believes
The Codex Sanʿa
̣ ̄ ʾ 1 and Its Fragments
that the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest consists of Qurʾā n passages
“written in a fragmentary fashion consisting of multiple The Dispersal of Fragmentary Books
sessions of teaching or dictation circle. [. . .] The frag-
Ancient books inevitably reach us in a fragmentary
mentary nature of the Qurʾā n seems to define the com-
state. Some are well-preserved, but most lose their bind-
position of the lower text.”17 In this view, if the Codex
ings or stitching, ultimately breaking bound volumes into
S ̣anʿāʾ 1 constituted only temporary student notes,
isolated folios. Fragments of a single manuscript can thus
completed and revised over time in a teaching circle,
become widely dispersed, as occurred with the Qurʾā n
it parallels the written transmission of the Qurʾā nic
manuscripts collection of the ʿAmr Mosque in Fustạ̄ t.̣
book. Its text therefore remains ʿUṯ mānic, with variants
In the early nineteenth century, two French scholars—
that result from dictation and interpretation, as well as
Jean-Joseph Marcel and Jean-Louis Asselin de Cher-
the “mobility” of specific passages in teaching environ-
ville—gained unrestrained access to the collection which
ments.18 If this is the case, however, the artifact does
enabled them to compile two significant collections, the
not, in fact, shed new light on the early history of the
first of which is now in St. Petersburg and the second
Qurʾā n codex and its formative stages.
currently housed in Paris. Although access to the manu-
Dé roche has very recently presented several elements
scripts in Egypt later became more difficult, the manu-
refuting Hilali’s hypothesis and supporting the idea of a
script trade never truly stopped circulating isolated
codex structure.19 In addition to the physical features,
folios from the ʿAmr Mosque, which still occasionally sur-
he assumes that the relationship between the lower and
face on the antiquities market.22
upper text reveals the true nature of the original manu-
Because it was apparently unknown until recent de-
script as a codex that was written and perhaps used for
cades, however, the S ̣anʿāʾ collection presents a unique
public rituals.20 However, Dé roche does not continue
case. Launched soon after the fragments were found,
his reconstruction of the initial structure of the codex,
the restoration project provided some protection for
emphasizing the lack of information about the hair and
the DAM collection, although these fragments are only
flesh sides in Hilali’s book and in the other publication.21
a part of a larger group. Indeed, some fragments had
This essay pursues this fundamental question by us-
already been discovered (damaged by heavy rains) dur-
ing the tools of codicology: what was the original ap-
ing a roof inspection in 196523 and transferred to the
pearance of Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1? The primary purpose of
Awqāf Library (or Eastern Library, al maktaba al-
the study is to reconstruct the original physical struc-
s ǎ rqiyya). According to the Yemeni Director of Antiq-
ture of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 in order to evaluate how
uities and Libraries, the Qādı̄ Ismāʿı̄l al-Aqwaʿ, several
the text was organized.
manuscript leaves were removed from this storage site
I initially believed that codicological analysis without
and circulated on the commercial market trade.24 The
direct physical observation would be pointless and sci-

15 22
Sadeghi and Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012): 19. Cellard, “Manuscrits” (2019): 667–69.
16 23
Hilali, Sanaa (2017), 19. According to local newspapers, other hiding places holding man-
17
Ibid., 67. uscript fragments were discovered behind the upper section of a wall in
18
Ibid. March/April 2007, (http://www.sabanews.net/ar/news128835
19
Dé roche, Coran (2019). His observations are based on DAM 01- .html, last accessed March 17, 2019, but no longer available by Decem-
27.1 and the four auctioned folios. However, he mentions the existence ber 2020) and, in 2013, in the roof (http://yemenat.net/2013/01
of another part of the palimpsest in the mosque’s library (see below). /98807, last accessed December 2020). As of this writing, no addi-
20
Ibid., 216. tional information is available concerning these fragments.
21 24
Ibid., 215. al-Aqwaʿ, “Ğāmiʿ” (1985), 20.

auctioned leaves of the palimpsest that emerged on the
antiquities market between 1992 and 2008 did not nec-
essarily originate in the DAM collection—which includes
the fragments discovered in 1973—but may belong to an
earlier find.25
The Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1 and its Dispersed Folios
Reuniting the leaves (a “leaf,” or folio, designates a sheet
of a book comprising two pages, the recto and the verso)
of a single manuscript demands close study of the pale-
ography, codicology, and texts of leaves potentially be-
longing to the same manuscript. Paleographical and co-
dicological evidence have made it possible to unite eighty
folios for the purposes of the present study. We can iden-
tify three groups of folios. The first one, DAM 01-27.1,
has thirty-five folios. The second one, preserved in the
Eastern Library (with no shelfmark until now), has forty
folios. The last group gathers five folios dispersed on the
antiquities market (see Table 1).
The Thirty-five Folios of DAM 01-27.126
The DAM 01-27.1,27 discovered above the mosque ceil-
ing, consists of thirty-eight leaves or fragmented leaves
and only thirty-five folios that were originally part of the
S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest. Three small leaf fragments (F.8, 14
and 2928), also numbered DAM 01-27.1, should be ex-
cluded from this set because they are not part of the pa-
limpsest but belong to another manuscript, DAM 01-
25.1.29 Folio 22 is missing from the photographs of the
25
Witkam, “Review Masạ̄ h ̣if S ̣anʿā ʾ ”: 124.
26
My observations regarding DAM 01-27.1 are based on images
from the DATI project, kindly provided to me by Ch. J. Robin. I primar-
ily used the set of unretouched pictures (folder “27.1 scatti”) and did not
modify the folios’ numbering. The images are 4888 × 6510 pixels.
27
The signature represents the principal criteria of classification:
“01” is related to an inconsistent number of lines per page; “27” is
the maximum length of the lines given in centimeters. The last number
“1” is the numbering of different volumes sharing these same criteria.
28
My numbering follows that of the photographs from the
French-Italian project. Folios numbering changes depending on the
publications.
29
According to Hilali (Sanaa [2017], 33), the thirty-eight folios
of DAM 01-27.1 belong to the palimpsest. However, E. Puin (“Ko-
ranpalimpsest IV” [2011]: 312) and Sadeghi and Goudarzi limit the
total number to thirty-six. In addition to ff.14 and 29—already ex-
cluded in the publications of Puin and Sadeghi and Goudarzi—f.8
should also be excluded from DAM 01-27.1. These three folios
should be reconnected to DAM 01-25.1: DAM 01-27.1, f.29 is part
of DAM 01-25.1, f.22; DAM 01-27.1, f.8 is part of DAM 01-25.1,
f.13; and DAM 01-27.1, f.14 is part of a lost folio of DAM 01-25.1.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 5
French-Italian project, although an illustration of its recto
is included in the catalogue of the exhibition in Kuwait.30
The leaves are damaged, clearly due to conditions
above the mosque ceiling.31 Nearly all of them consist
of isolated folios, approximately half of which are dam-
aged only on their edges, while some are reduced to
one-tenth of their original size. The better-preserved
folios measure between 365 mm high × 280 mm long
and 371 × 280 mm. These dimensions, let us remem-
ber, correspond to materials which have been restored
and processed using humidification and flattening.32
There are three primary textual sequences of the
Qurʾā n in the scriptio superior, although they are inter-
rupted by significant lacunae. The first two folios range
from Kor 6, 49 to 7, 11 (with a lacuna); the third folio
is isolated with Kor 9, 112 to 127. The final sequence
(ff.4 to 38) ranges from Kor 14, 32 to 60, 1, with many
short lacunae.
The Forty Folios in the Eastern Library (al maktaba
al-s ǎ rqiyya)33
In 2012, an unexpected discovery revealed forty addi-
tional folios that can be indeed connected with the same
palimpsest. These leaves are stored in the Eastern Li-
brary, the awqā f library, which is located in the S ̣anʿāʾ
mosque. The text was identified thanks to a 2004 Mas-
ter’s thesis by Razan Ghassan Ḥ amdū n.34 In her study,
Ḥ amdū n provides images of nearly all of the leaves,35 as
well as the transcription and analysis of the upper text.
30
Kuwait, Ibid., 59/44. The deciphering of the scriptio inferior
was performed by Puin, “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010).
31
The dry environment and unusually low humidity (10–20%)
did not damage the parchment itself. However, curators noted a layer
of dust as well as water and insect damage. See Dreibholz, “Preserv-
ing” (1999): 21–25.
32
Ibid.: 27–28.
33
The existence of these folios is mentioned in scholarship pub-
lished since 2012. See Dé roche, Qurʾans (2014), 52 n. 50, and Coran
(2019), 218–19; and Puin, “Koranpalimpsest V” (2014): 477–78.
Hilali’s edition does not take them into account, although she admits
that “they might be a missing part of MS 01-27.1” but called for a
“thorough codicological study [. . .] in order to confirm that there is
a link,” in Sanaa (2017), 15.
34
Ḥ amdū n, Maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t (2004). The information given by Ḥ amdū n
concerning the size of the leaves and the average number of lines per
page helped re-establish the link between these leaves and the S ̣anʿāʾ pa-
limpsest. See the Islamic Awareness website: https://www.islamic
-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/soth.html (last accessed: December
2020). E. Puin also mentions the similarity between the script of this
set and DAM 01-27.1 in “Koranpalimpsest V” (2014): 477–78.
35
Seventy-two plates of a total of eighty pages.
6 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Table 1—The Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 and its fragments
Location
S ̣anʿāʾ Great Mosque, Eastern Library (al maktaba al-s ǎ rqiyya)
Copenhagen, David 86/2003
Stanford ’07
Bonhams 2000
Christie’s 2008
Louvre Abu Dhabi
S ̣anʿāʾ Great Mosque, DAM
Curiously, however, she appears to consider them as sep-
arate entities (“maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t”) and not as leaves from a single
volume.36 Moreover, Ḥ amdū n does not establish a rela-
tionship between these folios and DAM 01-27.1. Be-
cause of the war in Yemen, no further information about
these leaves is currently available.
The leaves are in better condition than the folios of
DAM 01-27.1. The outer edges of several folios are
damaged, however, and have not been treated using hu-
midification and flattening (like DAM 01-27.1), which
explains the smaller dimensions—350 × 265 mm—pro-
vided by Ḥ amdū n.37 Furthermore, they remain gathered
in eight quires (see below, “The S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest: a
multigathering codex”), with some missing folios.
These folios hold two primary and almost continuous
textual sequences: The first is from Kor 2, 246 to 5, 111
(ff.1-22), with several missing folios; and the second is
from Kor 7, 40 to 12, 49 (ff.23-40), also with lacunae.
The Five Folios From the S ̣anʿāʾ Mosque
In addition to these fragments, five isolated folios have
circulated on the antiquities market and are now in
public or private collections. All of them complete the
group stored in the Eastern Library.38 These include
the following:
David 86/2003: This folio appeared for the first time
in a Sotheby’s auction in October 1992.39 It is now in the
36
Ḥ amdū n, Ibid., 50.
37
However, she added that the height varies slightly from one fo-
lio to the next: Ibid., 50.
38
Previously referred to by E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest V” (2014):
478.
39
Sotheby’s, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 23 October
1992, lot 551. It was then sold by Christie’s in 2001 (Islamic Art
Textual Sequences of the Upper Text
Number of Folios (See Table 3 for detail concerning contents,)
40 Kor 2, 246 – 5, 111 (with lacunae)
Kor 7, 40 – 12, 49 (with lacunae)
1 Kor 2, 265 – 2, 277
1 Kor 2, 277 – 286
1 Kor 4, 33 – 56
1 Kor 4, 171 – 5, 9
1 Kor 5, 9 – 32
35 Kor 6, 49 – 7,11 (with lacunae)
Kor 9, 112 – 127
Kor 14, 32 – 60, 1 (with lacunae)
David collection in Copenhagen (David 86/2003).40 Its
dimensions are 366 × 282 mm. The upper text begins
from Kor 2, 265 and ends at 2, 277, with twenty-four
lines per page on the recto and twenty lines on the verso.
The lower text has Kor 2, 206–223.
Stanford ’07:41 In October 1993, Sotheby’s sold an-
other folio to a private collector.42 Fortunately, in 2007
Sadeghi and Bergmann had the opportunity to study this
folio at Stanford University.43 The folio—the upper text
runs from Kor 2, 277 to 2, 286—precisely follows David
86/2003 and measures 365 × 281 mm, with twenty-
three lines per page on the recto and twenty-two lines
on the verso. The lower text has Kor 2, 191–205.
Bonhams 2000: Bonhams auctioned this folio in
2000,44 which measures 368 × 276 mm. The upper
text—Kor 4, 33–56—is written with twenty-six lines
per page on the recto and twenty-seven lines on the
verso. The lower text has Kor 5, 41–54.
Christie’s 2008: Christie’s sold this folio, now in a
private collection, in 2008.45 The folio measures 363 ×
280 mm. The upper text—from Kor 4, 171 to 5, 9—
has twenty-eight lines per page on the recto and thirty
and Manuscripts, 1 May 2001, lot 12) and came to Sam Fogg Art
Gallery. See Fraser, Ink and Gold (2006). It seems to have transited
through the Schøyen collection (MS 4584) before reaching the Da-
vid collection.
40
Images available on: https://www.davidmus.dk/en/collec
tions/islamic/materials/calligraphy/art/86-2003 (last accessed De-
cember 2020).
41
For this folio and the next three, I have retained the names as-
signed by Sadeghi and Bergmann, in “Codex” (2010).
42
Sotheby’s, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 22 October
1993, lot 31.
43
Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” (2010).
44
Fedeli, “Early Evidences” (2005). Bonhams, Islamic (2000),
1–14.
45
Christie’s, Art (2008), 24–27.

lines on the verso. The lower text has Kor 63, 1–11;
62, 1–11 and 89, 1–90, 6.46
Louvre Abu Dhabi: This last folio has recently been
identified, although only a photograph of its verso is
currently available.47 The upper text is consecutive to
the Christie’s folio. The recto should have Kor 5, 9–18,
while the verso preserves Kor 5, 18–32. Following this
sequence, the text continues on f.19 the Eastern Library.
The lower text is partially decipherable: it has the end of
Kor 80, followed by the complete sū ra 83.
Codicology and Paleography of the Codex S ̣anʿā ʾ 1
Eighty folios currently belong to this artifact. The upper
text retains approximately 40% of the ʿUṯ mānic text. The
complete codex probably consisted of between 160 and
180 folios,48 slightly fewer than the reconstructed Codex
Parisino-Petropolitanus.49
The manuscript is large, but in its original state, it was
even larger. The dimensions of the largest folios currently
measure 365 mm high × 280 mm long and 371 × 280 mm.
The codex margins appear to have been trimmed, as
shown by DAM 01-27.1, f.7, where the top line of the
scriptio inferior has been partly cut. The primary codex
was probably over 370 mm in height. Moreover, parch-
ment retracts slightly over time; considering the treat-
ment using humidification, we could still reasonably add
10 mm, meaning the parchment’s original height would
have been 380 mm at the very least. A slight cropping
and retraction would similarly be true of the horizontal
axis or width of the folios. The original dimensions of
Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 could therefore have been at least 380 ×
290 mm. The volume would originally have been bigger
than other early volumes, such as Codex Parisino-
Petropolitanus (330 × 240/48 mm) or Paris BnF Arabe
328c (330 × 245 mm).
The Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 used a medium-quality parch-
ment that is consistent with the manufacture of Qurʾā nic
manuscripts in the early period. The parchment often
has a high degree of opacity and reveals slight irregulari-
ties. For example, some of the DAM folios have small
46
This identification needs to be confirmed using higher quality
images.
47
A newspaper published a photograph on Dec 29, 2017 (https://
fridaymagazine.ae/life-culture/to-do/20-must-see-pieces-at-the
-louvre-abu-dhabi-1.2146523, accessed December 2020; see no. 13).
48
This figure should be viewed with caution given variations in
the number of lines of text from one page to the next, even within
sections written by a single copyist.
49
Dé roche, Qurʾans (2014), 17.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 7
holes caused by weaknesses in the animal skin. The holes
are smaller than in other manuscripts, such as Codex
Parisino-Petropolitanus or BnF Arabe 330g. Another
common defect in early Qurʾā nic manuscripts is the irreg-
ular outer edges of the parchment, which correspond to
the natural edges of the animal skin. These edges should
have been eliminated by slight trimming. These natural
edges can also be seen on some DAM folios, although
they do not affect the layout or the script, except on
f.9, where a slight misalignment is visible. Similar and
sometimes more obvious anomalies are frequent in other
early Qurʾā nic manuscripts, such as the Codex Parisino-
Petropolitanus.
The Lower Text
Nearly all of the existing folios are palimpsests, except
for the first of DAM 01-27.1, in which the scriptio in-
ferior cannot be discerned in the existing photograph.50
These palimpsests all use folios from the same original
document with the following five features in common.
First, they were written by at least two scribes—A(SI)
and B(SI)—who collaborated throughout the copy.51
Their script styles were highly similar and sometimes in-
tersected because they do not have a fixed script typol-
ogy. However, it is possible to discern different tenden-
cies. Copyist A(SI) wrote with a thicker, stockier nib
than B(SI) and made vertical strokes slightly angled to
the right. Regarding the letter shapes, four are highly sig-
nificant, as shown in Table 2.
Second, the copyists systematically alternated with
each other between the recto and the verso of the same
folio.52 This collaboration is not surprising in early
50
Darker traces between the lines of the upper script are present,
however, suggesting that an earlier text was erased, possibly using a dif-
ferent process than the other folios. This needs to be confirmed based
on direct analysis or higher quality images. Regarding the folios in the
Eastern Library, Fedeli visually inspected the leaves and confirmed that
they are palimpsests, see Hilali, Sanaa (2017), 29, n. 111. On f.19, the
lower script is no longer visible, but we should consider this observa-
tion with caution, as the image quality is poor.
51
The distinction of hands could not be performed on the other
leaves as they are not sufficiently clear for looking at such paleographic
details. Thus, all of the folios in the Eastern Library and the folio in
Louvre AD have not been taken in account.
52
Copyist A(SI) wrote the Stanford ’07 recto, Bonhams 2000,
Christie’s 2008 verso, and DAM 01-27,1, ff.2, 3B, 4, 5A, 6B, 7,
10, 11, 16, 17A, 19, 20, 21, 23A, 24B, 32A, 33, 36B and the copyist
B(SI) wrote the others. Some copyists remain unidentified: DAM 01-
27.1, ff.1 (presence of lower text?), 3B, 12, 15, 18, 22, 25, 24A, 34A,
35, 37, 38A.
8 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Table 2—The Scribes of the Lower Text
Copyist A(SI)
The letter hā ʾ displays a heart-shape
(image: DAM 01-27.1, f.23A)
The final mı̄m has an almost nonexistent tail
(image: Stanford ’07 recto).
The nū n has a semicircular shape and tends
to incorporate the dots used to mark the verses
(image: Stanford ’07 recto)
Wā w and fā ʾ/qā f have a triangular head
(image: Stanford ’07 recto).
Qurʾā nic scribal practices.53 It is worth noting that in
seven observed occurrences, the changing of hands does
not necessarily coincide with the end of a verse (such as
Stanford ’07 recto and DAM 01-27.1, f.23A), but often
occurs within a verse.54 Consequently, such a habit could
imply copying from a written exemplar rather than via
dictation, in which case one would not expect copyists to
relay to each other in the middle of a textual unit. In any
event, this practice—which seems to be a well-known
53
For more detail, see Dé roche, Transmission (2009), 127–30.
54
This phenomenon is clear in DAM 01-27.1, ff.5A-5B, 6A-6B
and in Christie’s 2008 recto-verso. This could also be the case in the
fragmentary folios DAM 01-27.1, ff.32A-32B and f.36A-36B.
Copyist B(SI)
The letter hā ʾ has a rounded or pear shape,
with the vertical bar bent to the left
(image: DAM 01-27.1, f.23B).
B(SI) prefers a clear upward tail
(image: Stanford ’07 verso).
The nū n has a straighter, longer stroke,
ending with a short return
(image: Stanford ’07 verso)
Wā w and fā ʾ/qā f have a more rounded head
(image: Stanford ’07 verso).
scribal rule within the h ̣iğā zı̄ manuscripts55—requires
further study.
Third, the scribes employed a script style close to the
h ̣iğā zı̄ group,56 with slight variations in writing den-
sity.57 Fourth, both copyists also shared similar habits
55
See for example Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus, S ̣anʿāʾ DAM 01-
25.1 and 01-29.1.
56
For a definition of the h ̣iğā zı̄ script, see Dé roche, Catalogue
(1983), 35–36.
57
I.e., the number of lines per page. Both copyists have a close
writing density: A(SI) writes between twenty-two and thirty-one lines
per page, and B(SI) writes between twenty-three and thirty-five lines
per page. The latter corresponds to the verso of Christie’s 2008. This
number does not take into consideration the unidentified folios. As a
result, it should be recalculated once all of the folios are identified.
 The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 9

Figure 1—DAM 01-27.1, f.20B, lower text: Ornament traced by

A(SI). (Courtesy CNRS-DATI).
Figure 3—Ḥ amdū n, MS 22A.

Figure 2—Christie’s 2008, recto, lower text: Ornament traced by

B(SI) in (Courtesy Christie’s).

to trace ornaments for separating the sū ras, as well as

the hundred-verse groups. Regarding the latter, they
drew medallions on Kor 2, 101 (DAM 01-27.1, f.2B)
and Kor 2, 203 (Stanford ’07 verso).58 When the copyists
arrived at the end of a sū ra, they almost always wrote a
subscript title formula (had̲ ihi ḫ atima sū ra . . .), and then
sometimes drew an elaborate ornament (see Figs. 1–3)
using the same black ink, with a single exception between
sū ra 8 and sū ra 9, where the title follows the basmala of
the following sū ra instead of preceding the ornament.59
Fifth and last (but not least), the basmala is not nec- Figure 4—Stanford ’07. Hand A of the scriptio superior (Courtesy of
B. Sadeghi and U. Bergmann).
essarily postponed at the beginning of a new line, but
was sometimes immediately written after the ornament,
tell us more about the background of the copyists or
when there was enough space. I have never encountered
possibly about their written exemplar.
such an economic presentation in the large Qurʾā nic
manuscripts like the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1, though this fre-
quently occurs in smaller early manuscripts.60 That could The Upper Text
Close examination of the upper script in the eighty folios
58
The medallion typology—close to 1.A.II in Dé roche, Cata- reveals that two copyists collaborated on the writing, as
logue (1983), 29—is similar to that of other early manuscripts, such in the lower text, although they organized their work
as Codex Amrensis 1. However, it is worth noting that all of the other differently. The first hand, A (see Figs. 4 and 5), may
manuscripts use these medallions to separate groups of ten verses, but have written the beginning of the codex. His contribu-
not for the hundred verses.
59
tion is now confirmed only in the first six existing fo-
DAM 01-27.1, f.5A. According to Puin’s reading in “Koran-
palimpsest III” (2010): 272, the title formula of sū ra 9 is written on lios (S ̣anʿāʾ, Eastern Library, Ḥ amdū n, MS ff.1-2, Stan-
lines 8 and 9. At the beginning of line 9, the end of the title “[a]l- ford ’07, David 86/2003 and Ḥ amdū n, MS ff.3-4).
anfal” is followed by a short basmala, used here for separating the con- His script is broad—the folios contain between nineteen
tents. My own reading supports this interpretation. Puin’s reading, as and twenty-five lines per page—and shows straight ver-
mine, does not include any reading instruction “lā taqul bi-smi llā hi ”
tical strokes, smooth angles—more in accordance with
on line 9, as it is assumed by Hilali in Sanaa (2017), 39–40, and
Dé roche, Coran (2019), 208, or, with a slight difference, by Sadeghi
documentary scripts—and a slight accentuation in the
and Gourdarzi in “S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012): 53, n. 157. According to the ed- treatment of the curves.61 However, the letter shapes
itors, the copyist “wanted to write lā taqul bi-smi llā hi” here but con-
fused the grapheme with the similar [a]l-anfal).
60 61
See, for example, Dé roche, Qurʾans (2014), Figure 16, Istan- Note the particular treatment of lā m-alif, with strokes curved
bul, TIEM, ŞE12827/1. towards each other and the final kā f shaped like a hairpin.
10 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Figure 5—Ḥ amdū n, MS 1B. Hand A of the scriptio superior.
Figure 6—DAM 01-27.1, f.30A. Hand B of the scriptio superior
(Courtesy CNRS-DATI).
are not significantly different from those of the other
copyist. He left his work to copyist B at the end of Ḥ am-
dū n, MS f.4b, in the midst of a quire.
Copyist B (see Figs. 6 and 7), a professional copyist,
wrote the other seventy-four existing folios of the codex,
using a more variable writing density (from twenty-three
to thirty-seven lines per page). The general appearance
of the writing style tends to improve as the copy pro-
gresses. However, the letter shapes remain highly homo-
geneous, despite the use of allographs for certain letters,
Figure 7—Ḥ amdū n, MS 31B. Hand B of the scriptio superior.
such as the final h ̣ā ’/ğı̄m/ḫ ā ’ or lā m-alif.62 The script
reflects a hybrid style, including certain tendencies of the
h ̣iğā zı̄ style, especially in the leading strokes and the
shapes of medial hā ’ and final/isolated tạ̄ , ended by a
short tail. On the other hand, it tends to reveal a more
elaborated angular script similar to C.I according to
Dé roche’s classification.63
In addition to the copyists, an illuminator (or possibly
several) was responsible for adding headbands between
the sū ras and medallions to mark groups of verses. The
ornaments are not systematic, however, and vary consid-
erably. Unlike the lower text, they were not traced during
the writing process—although the copyists left a larger
space for that purpose—but were added later.64 For mark-
ing the groups of ten and hundred verses, medallions
were inserted. They were sketched in brown ink (as in
Figure 6), and the majority were then painted in red
and green, except on DAM 01-27.1, ff.30-38. This se-
quence of folios also employed a different way to separate
62
These allographs may have misled Hilali (Sanaa [2017], 73),
who identified at least four scribes.
63
See Dé roche, Catalogue (1983). The shapes of several letters
could indeed be consistent with C.I. First, the medial ǧım ̄ , does
not cross the baseline but is laid down, implying a shift in the base-
line. Second, the final or isolated nū n has a crescent shape, with all
three parts well-defined. Third, the final or isolated qā f has a long,
oblique tail before a U-shaped return.
64
In many instances, medallions were not added in the intended
spaces, but elsewhere (See, for example, DAM 01-27.1, f.11B where
the original space is left on Kor 20, 105; while the medallion appears
on Kor 20, 102). These medallions were clearly added by a different
hand.

the sū ras, by adding colored headbands in the blank space
(See ff.35-38).65
Consequently, at first sight, the layout of the upper
text appears formally heterogeneous, an impression
that fades when we consider the original organization
of the codex before it deteriorated. We shall return to
this later.
The Sanʿā
̣ ʾ Palimpsest: A Multigathering Codex
The bifolios and their arrangement
By definition, a codex is composed of sheets made of
papyrus, parchment, or paper which are folded to form
bifolios. The latter are then gathered into either one vol-
ume (a single gathering codex) or multiple quires (a
multigathering codex).66 As it is not always easy to find
sheets large enough to make bifolios, they are quite fre-
quently replaced by artificial bifolios, composed of two
smaller sheets joined together with a stub. When dealing
with fragments, detailed analysis—coupled with the col-
lation of the text—helps in the reconstruction of a docu-
ment’s original condition. In the specific case of palimp-
sests, this analysis should go back gradually in time, first
focusing on the presentation of the codex with the scrip-
tio superior before considering the original codex and its
scriptio inferior. In the following demonstration, I use
the term “primary codex” to refer to the original codex
before it was disassembled, and “secondary codex” to des-
ignate the subsequent codex.67
Most currently-known palimpsests reveal a transfor-
mation in format between the primary codex to the sec-
ondary one. Indeed, the direction of writing of the
scriptio inferior is typically perpendicular to that of the
scriptio superior. This implies the re-use of isolated folios
that were rotated 907 to produce bifolios with a new
fold, which is necessary for stitching quires together
(see Fig. 8). A single folio of the primary codex thereby
produces two folios in a secondary codex. The primary
motivation for this practice is clearly to economize valu-
able writing materials.68
65
Another header, sketched in pencil only, can be found in the
folios kept in the Eastern Library (Ḥ amdū n, MS f.11A). The orna-
mental vocabulary used in these headers recalls that of several
Qurʾā nic manuscripts in C.I script. See Cellard, Transmission (2015).
66
Muzerelle, Vocabulaire (1985).
67
These terms are used by E. Puin in “Koranpalimpsest III”
(2010): 236–38.
68
However, when the time interval between the lower text and
the reuse of the material for the upper text extends beyond several
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 11
The few known exceptions to these scribal practices,
particularly in Qurʾā nic manuscripts, are exemplified by
the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest (see Fig. 9).69 The direction of the
writing in the lower and upper text is identical, except
for seven instances in which the script is upside down
(1807).70 This indicates that the format of the primary
codex is maintained in the secondary codex, implying
the reuse of original bifolios and folds in the secondary
codex.71
Bifolios and Stitch-marks
Hilali examined the DAM 01-27.1 manuscript in 2012,
emphasizing the “scattered nature of the leaves”72 and
lack of evidence of existing bifolios. However, pictures
from the French-Italian project clearly show that ff. 23B
and 24A remain joined together,73 as previously noted
by Noseda, Puin, and Dé roche.74 The textual sequences
in this bifolio are continuous from one folio to the next
in both the scriptio inferior and scriptio superior (see
Table 3 below). Moreover, because this bifolio was placed
in the same position in both primary and secondary codi-
ces at the center of a quire, it is possible that part of the
arrangement of the leaves in the primary codex was re-
tained when it was reused.
Previous studies also highlight other parallel se-
quences in both codices. Puin, for example notes three
similar sequences in thirteen folios of DAM 01-27.1.75
centuries, it is highly probable that the original bifolios were already
disassembled. The craftsman thus had to work with isolated folios.
69
Among exceptions, the other Qurʾā n palimpsests found in
S ̣anʿāʾ appear to adhere to the same practice as the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1.
The Copto-Qurʾā n palimpsest constitutes also a unique case in which
the vertical Coptic folios were folded or cut, creating an oblong co-
dex with a fold strangely located at the bottom or at the top. See
Cellard and Louis, “New Palimpsest” (2020). In addition to Qurʾā -
nic scribal practices, see Sokolov, “Christian” (1979).
70
For folios preserved in the Eastern Library, see ff.3, 8, 13, 14.
And DAM 01-27.1, ff. 17, 20 and 32.
71
Dé roche also discusses this issue in Coran (2019), 211–12.
72
Hilali, Sanaa (2017), 66.
73
The folios are joined together in their upper part for about
150 mm, including 80 mm glued using a sheet of paper (observation
based on unretouched pictures).
74
Noseda, “Mia Visita” (2003): 54; Puin, “Koranpalimpsest IV”
(2011): 316; Dé roche, Le Coran (2019), 212. Von Bothmer pro-
vided an illustration of this bifolio in “Masterworks” (1987). The
same bifolio is also illustrated in Blair, Calligraphy (2008), 119.
75
See ff. 3, 4, and 5 (with a lacuna between f.3 and f.4); ff.21–24;
ff.19–20. (E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010): 252). The num-
bering of the folios provided by Puin has been converted using the
numbering of the CNRS-DATI images.
12 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Figure 8—Qurʾānic palimpsest written over a Greek text, rotated 907 (Photographien von ausgewählten Fragmenten aus der Omayyaden-
Moschee in Damaskus in verschiedenen Sprachen).
Sadeghi also observes that Stanford ’07 and David 86/
2003 are “adjacent in both the lower and upper lay-
ers.”76 These continuous sequences may therefore be
indicative of remnants of quires from both the primary
and the secondary codex.
The folios in the Eastern Library are in better con-
dition: several quires remain visible and remain more or
76
Sadeghi notes that in Stanford ’07 and David 86/2003, “the
2 folios are adjacent in both the lower and upper layers” (Sadeghi
and Bergmann, “Codex” [2010]: 357).
less stitched together, revealing longer continuous se-
quences, at least for the upper script (ff. 3–9; 10–12;
13–18; 19–22; 23–32; 33–40). It remains unclear
whether the scriptio inferior is also continuous on these
leaves.
Regarding the stitching of the gatherings, unlike the
set in the Eastern Library, DAM 01-27.1 has no thread
remnants. Wherever the inside edges of the folios are
preserved, however, they contain a number of holes that
correspond to symmetrically arranged stitches (at least
five, but several others can be observed at the top and bot-
tom edges). Some holes include small V-shaped nicks,

Figure 9—Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 (DAM 01-27.1, f.5B). The lower and upper texts are written in the same direction (Courtesy CNRS-DATI).
but in most cases, stitches are indicated by small, regular
tears.77
Identifying Hair and Flesh sides: Palimpsesting
Considerations
Since its emergence in the first centuries CE, the fabrica-
tion of the codex involved technical rules. For each
77
See DAM 01-27.1, ff. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 (here, one sewing station
is still visible, and there are maybe traces of another fold close to the
text justification: evidence of a stub?), 10, 11, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25,
30, 32, 33, and 38.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 13
quire, the craftsman established a given number of
bifolios, arranging the sides of the parchment—hair
and flesh—according to a specific pattern.78 For this
78
These rules varied from one cultural tradition to the next:
Greek, Coptic, and Christian-Palestinian Aramaic traditions appear
to have promoted the quaternion (consisting of four bifolios, i.e.,
eight folios) with the parchment bifolios respecting Gregory’s rule:
flesh faces flesh, and hair faces hair; while the Syriac tradition adopted
the quinion (composed of five bifolios, i.e., ten folios) alternating
such that flesh faces hair.
14 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Table 3—Upper and lower script contents of folios included in the present investigation and parchment sides (hair/flesh).
Hypothesis
Traces about the side
Quire Folio (+ Sadeghi’s numbering if different) Upper text Lower texta of erasures of the parchment
1 Stanford ’07, recto Kor 2, 265 – 271 Kor 2, 191 – 196 No Hair
Stanford ’07, verso Kor 2, 271 – 277 Kor 2, 197 – 205 Yes Flesh
David 86/2003, recto Kor 2, 277 – 282 Kor 2, 206 – 217 No Hair
David 86/2003, verso Kor 2, 282 – 286 Kor 2, 217 – 223 Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 3Ab (reversed folio) Kor 2, 286 – 3, 10 [Kor 7, ? – 37] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 3B Kor 3, 11 – 20 ? Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 4A Kor 3, 20 – 28 ? No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 4B Kor 3, 28 – 37 [Kor 2, 243 – ?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 5A Kor 3, 37 – 47 [Kor 2, 249 – 255] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 5B Kor 3, 47 – 57 [Kor 2, 255 – 259] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 6A Kor 3, 57 – 71 [Kor 2, 259 – 266?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 6B Kor 3, 71 – 81 [Kor 2, 266? – 275] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 7A Kor 3, 81 – 94 [Kor 2, 275 – 284] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 7B Kor 3, 94 – 107 [Kor 2, ? – 7, ?]c No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 8A (reversed folio) Kor 3, 107 – 119 [Kor 2, 230/1?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 8B (reversed folio) Kor 3, 119 – 133 [Kor 2, 223 – 230/1?] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 9A Kor 3, 133 – 145 [Kor 7, 38 – 53?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 9B Kor 3, 145 – 154 ? No Hair
2 Ḥ amdū n, MS 10A Kor 3, 179 – 187 ? No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 10B Kor 3, 187 – 199 [Kor 5, 115 – 120] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 11A Kor 3, 199 – 4, 7 [Kor, 5, 91 – 99?] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 11B Kor 4, 7 – 14 [Kor 5, 100 – 107] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 12A (no picture) ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 12B Kor 4:24 – 4:33 ? Yes Flesh
Bonhams 2000 Kor 4, 33 – 43 Kor 5, 41 – 48 Nod Hair
Bonhams 2000 Kor 4, 43 – 56 Kor 5, 48 – 54 Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 13A (reversed folio) Kor 4, 56 – 64 [Kor 10, 59 – 69] ? ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 13B Kor 4, 64 – 76 [Kor 10, 44 – 58] ? ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 14A (reversed folio) Kor 4, 77 – 84 ? Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 14B Kor 4, 84 – 92 [Kor 5, 72 – 81] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 15A Kor 4, 92 – 100 [Kor 10, 97 – 11, ?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 15B Kor 4, 100 – 108 ? No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 16A Kor 4, 108 – 120 ? Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 16B (no picture) ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 17A Kor 4, 131 – 140 [Kor 10, 22 – 31] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 17B Kor 4, 140 – 151 ? No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 18A Kor 4, 151 – 161 [Kor 10, 1 – 10] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 18B Kor 4, 161 – 171 ? No Hair
3 Christie’s 2008, recto (reversed folio) Kor 4, 171 – 5, 3 Kor 62, 11 – 89, 1 – 90, 6 No Hair
Christie’s 2008, verso Kor 5, 3 – 9 Kor 63, 1 – 62, 11 Yes Flesh
Louvre AD, recto (reversed folio) (no picture) [Kor 83, ? – ?]
Louvre AD, verso Kor 5, 18 – 32 [Kor 80, 31 – 83, 36]
Ḥ amdū n, MS 19A Kor 5, 32 – 42 ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 19B (no picture) ?
Ḥ amdū n, MS 20A Kor 5, 49 – 61 [Kor 78, 24 – 76, 13?] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 20B Kor 5, 61 – 71 [Kor 76, 14 – 75, ?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 21A Kor 5, 71 – 82 [Kor 75, 18 – 81, 28/9?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 21B Kor 5, 82 – 93 [Kor 79, 1? – 40] No Hair
Ḥ amdū n, MS 22A Kor 5, 93 – 104 [Kor 79, 40 – 64, 10?] Yes Flesh
Ḥ amdū n, MS 22B (no picture) ?
4 DAM 01-27.1, 4A Kor 14, 32 – 41 Kor 11, 105 –112 ? ?
4B Kor 14, 52 – 15, 16 Kor 11, 120 – 8, 3 ? ?
5A Kor 16, 73 – 89 Kor 8, 73 – 9, 7 Yes Flesh
5B Kor 16, 89 – 102 Kor 9, 7 – 16 No Hair
 The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 15

Table 3— (continued)
Hypothesis
Traces about the side
Quire Folio (+ Sadeghi’s numbering if different) Upper text Lower texta of erasures of the parchment

6A Kor 16, 102 – 118 Kor 9, 17 – 26 Yes Flesh

6B Kor 16, 118 – 17, 6 Kor 9, 26 – 34 No Hair
5 7A Kor 17, 40 – 58 Kor 22, 15 – 26 No Hair
7B Kor 17, 59 – 77 Kor 22, 27 – 39 Yes Flesh
9A Kor 19, 38 – 64 Kor 33, 51 – 57 Yes Flesh
9B Kor 19, 64 – 98 Kor 33, 57 – 72 No Hair
10A Kor 20, 1 – 43 Kor ? – 24, 13 Yes Flesh
10B Kor 20, 44 – 74 Kor 24, 13 – 23 No Hair
11A Kor 20, 74 – 98 Kor 24, 23 – 32 Yes Flesh
11B Kor 20, 98 – 130 Kor 24, 32 – 40 No Hair
12A Kor 21, 16 – 29 Kor ? Yes Flesh
12B Kor 21, 38 – 42 Kor ? No Hair
6 13A Kor 21, 42 – 72 Kor 16, 26 – 37 No Hair
13B Kor 21, 72 – 92 Kor 16, 37 – 59 Yes Flesh
15A (14A) Kor 21, 111 – 22, 1 Kor 16, 68 – 69 No Hair
15B (14B) Kor 22, 15 – 16 Kor 16, 78 – 79 Yes Flesh
16A (15A) Kor 25, 10 – 34 Kor 20, 23 – 61 Yes Flesh
16B (15B) Kor 25, 34 –59 Kor 20, 61 – 80 No Hair
7 17A (16A) (reversed folio) Kor 26, 155 – 176 Kor 28, 30 – 35 Yes Flesh
17B (16B) Kor 26, 198 – 221 Kor 28, 19 –24 No Hair
18A (17A) Kor 27, 25 – 29 ? ? ?
18B (17B) Kor 27, 46 – 49 ? ? ?
19A (18A) Kor 28, 58 – 74 Kor 15, 4 –33 Yes Flesh
19B (18B) Kor 28, 74 – 86 Kor 15, 33 – 74 No Hair
20A (19A) (reversed folio) Kor 29, 29 – 40 Kor 25, 14 –27 No Hair
20B (19B) Kor 29, 43 –54 Kor 15, 87 – 99; 25, 1 – 8 Yes Flesh
8 21A (20A) Kor 30, 26 – 40 Kor 9, 70 – 81 No Hair
21B (20B) Kor 30, 40 – 54 Kor 9, 81 – 90 Yes Flesh
22A (21A)e Kor 31, 24 – 32, 4 Kor 9, 106 – 113 No Hair
22B (21B) Kor 32, 4 - 20 Kor 9, 114 – 120 Yes (?) Flesh (?)
23A (22A) Kor 32, 20 – 33, 6 Kor 9, 121 – 19, 5 No Hair
23B bifolio (22B) Kor 33, 6 – 18 Kor 19, 6 – 29 Yes Flesh
24A, bifolio (23A) Kor 33, 18 – 29 Kor 19, 29 – 53 Yes Flesh
24B (23B) Kor 33, 30 – 37 Kor 19, 54 – 74 No Hair
9 25A (24A) Kor 34,52 – 35, 9 ? No Hair
25B (24B) Kor 35, 10 – 18 Kor 30, 38 – 50 Yes Flesh
26A (25A) Kor 37, 38 – 59 Kor 39, 25 – 36 Yes Flesh
26B (25B) Kor 37, 73 – 88 Kor 39, 42 – 47 No Hair
27A (26A) Kor 37, 102 – 134 Kor 39, 51 – 70 Yes Flesh
27B (26B) Kor 37, 134 – 172 Kor 39, 70 – 40, 8 No Hair
28A (27A) Kor 38, 73 – 75 ? ? ?
28B (27B) Kor 39, 6 ? ? ?
10 30A (28A) Kor 41, 17 – 27 Kor 37, 15 – 33 Yes Flesh
30B (28B) Kor 41, 33 – 43 Kor 37, 33 – 43 No Hair
31A (29A) Kor 41, 47 – 42, 5 Kor 37, 82 – 103 Yes Flesh
31B (29B) Kor 42, 10 – 16 Kor 37, 118 – 144 No Hair
32A (30A) (reversed folio) Kor 42, 21 – 29 Kor 21, 5 – 19 Yes Flesh
32B (30B) Kor 42, 38 – 48 Kor 20, 122 – 133 No Hair
11 33A (31A) Kor 43, 63 – 69 Kor 12, 17 – 20 No Hair
33B (31B) Kor 43, 89 – 44, 11 Kor 12, 27 – 31 Yes Flesh
34A (32A) Kor 47, 15 – 20 Kor 12, 111 – 18, 5 Yes Flesh
34B (32B) Kor 47, 32 – 48, 2 Kor 18, 15 – 18 No Hair
12 35A (33A) Kor 55, 16 – 56, 4 Kor 34, 13 – 23 No Hair
16 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Table 3— (continued)
Hypothesis
Traces about the side
Quire Folio (+ Sadeghi’s numbering if different) Upper text Lower texta of erasures of the parchment

35B (33B) Kor 56, 5 – 69 Kor 34, 23 – 33 Yes Flesh

36A (34A) Kor 57, 1 – 10 Kor 34, 40 – 47 No Hair
36B (34B) Kor 57, 16 – 22 Kor 13, 1–5 Yes Flesh
37A (35A) Kor 57, 27 – 58, 6 Kor 13, 6 – 14 No Hair
37B (35B) Kor 58, 11 – 22 Kor 13, 16 – 21 Yes Flesh
38A (36A) Kor 59, 1 – 10 Kor 13, 25 – 31 No Hair
38B (36B) Kor 59, 14 – 60, 1 Kor 13, 33 – 40 Yes Flesh
a
The content of the auctioned and DAM 01-27.1 folios is based on Sadeghi’s edition (“S ̣anʿāʾ 1” [2012]: 37–39). The content of the folios of
the Eastern Library, based on Sidky’s partial decipherment (pers. comm.), is set in brackets, indicating that this should be verified and com-
pleted when better images become available.
b
In Ḥ amdū n’s dissertation (Maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t [2004]), the photographs of the leaves and the printed edition are numbered consecutively. For the
present purpose, I renumbered the folios according to manuscripts’ rules (ex. F.1A for recto, F. 1B for verso).
c
The lower text is very difficult to read on that folio.
d
This observation is based on a picture of the printed catalogue and needs to be confirmed.
e
The pictures of this folio (recto and verso) are missing in the French-Italian pictures. Only the recto is illustrated in the catalogue Masạ̄ h ̣if.

reason, hair sides must be distinguished from flesh sides
in order to reconstruct the quires.
In many cases—and often with early Qurʾā nic manu-
scripts—the hair or grain side is characterized by traces
of hair follicles on the folio edge, in the form of residual
pigmentation and a yellowish tinge, while the flesh side
is whiter. In the present case, however, these differences
are not discernible in part due to the specific treatment
of the parchment during its original manufacture or sub-
sequent palimpsesting, which made the two sides highly
homogeneous.
This raises the difficult but critical question of the
techniques used to delete the scriptio inferior. Scholars
who examined the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest offered a number
of observations. Hilali reports “various type of erasures,
which could be due to damage to the parchment or due
to the palimpsesting technique.”79 Dé roche states that
only scraping could remove the metal-gall ink of the
lower text.80 Sadeghi occasionally observes such scrap-
ing on the verso of Stanford ’07,81 but does not provide
further comment, noting only that the lower script was
“erased by scraping or washing.”82 Puin offers the most
affirmative hypothesis by identifying two stages in the
deletion of the scriptio inferior. She assumes that an ini-
79
Hilali, ibid., 32.
80
Dé roche, Coran (2019), 211.
81
Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” (2010): 357.
82
Sadeghi and Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012): 5.
tial treatment was performed to correct the scriptio in-
ferior where parts of the text of the primary codex had
been scraped off 83 and re-written in black ink in some
instances. This correction process was never completed,
however, as it was decided to completely erase the pri-
mary codex by soaking the sheets and stretching them
again on a frame. Puin’s assumption of such a process ac-
tually implies that the original sheets were considerably
larger because their edges, fastened to the frame, would
have been cut after they had dried.84
During my examination of DAM 01-27.1, I discov-
ered a significant feature of the technique used to erase
the scriptio inferior that enabled me to distinguish the
hair side from the flesh side. In effect, one side of each
folio of DAM 01-27.1 (except for f.1) is more damaged
than the other (see Figs. 10 and 11), because some ar-
eas of the scriptio inferior were submitted to a deeper
erasure technique, permanently destroying the script
remnants.85 The same observation can be made con-
cerning the auctioned folios Stanford ’07, David 86/
83
E. Puin, “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010): 253–55.
84
Ibid.: 253. This process is similar to the initial treatment of
skins. For more information, see Reed, Skins (1972). Stretching im-
plies that frames were specifically manufactured to fit the dimen-
sions of the bifolios.
85
Sadeghi notes examples of similar scraping on the verso of
Stanford ’07. E. Puin assumes that some instances of scraping were
linked to a first attempt to correct the scriptio inferior before the com-
plete removal of the text, in Puin, “Koranpalimpsest IV” (2011): 314.

Figure 10—DAM 01-27.1, f.16B: hair side (Courtesy CNRS-DATI).
2003, and Christie’s 2008, as well as the leaves in the
Eastern Library, as far as can be determined based on
available photographs.
Given this background, the question is what tran-
spired with the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest. Chemical analyses of
the writing materials would help clarify this question.
A non-destructive analysis performed in 2007 by Uwe
Bergmann on the Stanford folio revealed the presence of
calcium in the parchment.86 Later analysis by Ira Rabin
and Oliver Hahn (of Hamburg University) as part of
the CORANICA project confirmed this finding. Analy-
ses based on X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) and Raman
spectroscopy were performed on several samples from
S ̣anʿāʾ manuscripts and two Egyptian Qurʾā n fragments
preserved in Munich and Dublin.87 The results high-
lighted the singularity of the DAM 01-27.1 parchment,
which contains substantial traces of calcite, unlike other
Egyptian samples that were prepared using starch or
alum. It is therefore possible that the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest
was treated with lime.
It is worth recalling a few aspects of the fabrication
of parchment in ancient times. Lime was used at differ-
ent stages of the preparation of parchment, both via im-
86
Bergmann, “Chemical” (2012).
87
The six samples from S ̣anʿāʾ were obtained as part of the DATI
project. Additional fragments came from Dublin CBL (Is.1615 I)
and Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Cod. Arab. 2569). I. Ra-
bin presented her conclusions in the Symposium Autour de Fustạ̄ t,̣
Collège de France, 25 June 2015.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 17
Figure 11—DAM 01-27.1, f.16A: Flesh side with traces of scraping
(Courtesy CNRS-DATI).
mersion in a lime bath to soften and release the hair and
epidermis and to treat the surface during drying.88 The
use of lime was not systematic in ancient times, how-
ever, as illustrated by the Qurʾā n samples from Dublin
and Munich.89 In the present case, the use of lime could
be related either to the original parchment manufactur-
ing process or to later palimpsesting. Indeed, because
the palimpsesting process implies chemical removal,
as in most of the cases, it is possible to resuscitate the
buried script.90 On the contrary, a mechanical abrasion
would permanently destroy the material. Several medi-
eval Latin recipes record the use of lime in various treat-
ments,91 followed by polishing with pumice stone and
chalk. Mechanical abrasion was perhaps used to com-
plement and finalize the work, as prescribed by certain
Latin formulas.
It is not currently possible to precisely identify the era-
sure technique applied to the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest.92 My
88
Reed, Skins (1972), 132–51.
89
Liming (immersion in a lime bath) may have been replaced by
enzyme treatments. For a discussion of parchment production tech-
niques, see Rabin, “Building” (2017).
90
According to numerous studies of palimpsests, most were washed
off. For example, see Irigoin, “Palimpseste” (1951): 447. See also
Tchernetska, “Cambridge” (2002): 318, and Easton and Knox, “Dig-
ital” (2004): 3.
91
As a mixture of unslaked lime, vitriol, and alum. See Declercq,
“Introduction” (2007), 8.
92
This should be compared to another palimpsesting technique,
which occurs in DAM 01-29.1, f.33A. See Cellard, “Nouveau té mo-
ignage” (2020).
18 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Figure 12—Stanford ’07, verso in natural light, non-scraped area
(Courtesy of B. Sadeghi and U. Bergmann). These images were
uploaded to the web by B. Sadeghi, U. Bergmann, and M. Goudarzi
as companions to the papers “The Codex” and “S ̣anʿāʾ 1.”
observations indicate two steps, the first one soft—per-
haps involving washing with a sponge—and a second
mechanical abrasion of only one side. The need to
scrape the parchment may have been due to the metallic
compounds in the ink used for the scriptio inferior. Indeed,
the XRF analysis of Stanford ’07 has revealed a high level
of copper, as well as iron and zinc, in the ink used for the
scriptio inferior.93 Metals, particularly copper, are highly
corrosive of parchment. When applied to the flesh side,
which is more permeable than the hair side, metallic com-
pounds are able to penetrate into the collagen fibers be-
neath the surface. As a consequence, the script is more
difficult to delete on the flesh side (note the difference be-
tween the hair side in Figs. 12–13, and the flesh side in
Figs. 14–15)94 and its traces remain visible—although per-
haps not as clearly as today95—after washing. This could
explain frequent signs of scraping on the flesh side, al-
though dating this operation remains problematic.96
Traces of scraping likely characterize the flesh side, in
any event, meaning that it is possible to reconstruct the
organization of the consecutive folios that have been
preserved.
93
Sadeghi and Bergmann, “Codex” (2010): 358 n. 13.
94
Cohen, “Composition” (2015).
95
This is because the metals eventually tend to oxidize.
96
The correction of the rasm has been scraped as well, implying
that this correction was made prior to erasure.
Figure 13—Stanford ’07, verso under XRF analysis, copper on non-
scraped area (Courtesy of B. Sadeghi and U. Bergmann).
My observations clearly demonstrate that the S ̣anʿāʾ
palimpsest consisted of bifolios, one of which has been
preserved intact, evidence that the separated leaves
originally formed an earlier codex that was subsequently
recycled into another one. The question remains, how-
ever, whether it is possible to reconstruct the original ap-
pearance of these codices. Was each codex fabricated by
simply assembling sheets of parchment, or was it a multi-
gathering codex that resulted from a more complex
structure consisting of several quires? What technical
rules were observed in each codex? Reconstructing the
unity of the codex could help us understand the organi-
zation of scribal work.
The Remnants of the Quires: A Hypothetical
reconstruction
The following investigation focuses first on the continu-
ous sequences of the second codex in order to physically
recreate the quires (see Table 4). Second, I attempt to
assess the links between the structure of the second
and primary codices based on both textual sequences.
I expect that this detailed investigation of the structure
of the initial book also provides new insights regarding
the organization of the initial text.
This reconstruction of the quires will include the fo-
lios DAM 01-27.1, ff.4-38 (the first three are excluded
because they are isolated text sequences), the auctioned
folios and, to a lesser extent, the ff. 3–22 preserved in
the Eastern Library, as these are connected to the pre-
vious examples. The contents of the scriptio inferior in
 The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 19

Figure 14—Stanford ’07, verso in normal light, scraped area (Cour-

tesy of B. Sadeghi and U. Bergmann). Figure 15—Stanford ’07, verso under XRF analysis, scraped area
(Courtesy of B. Sadeghi and U. Bergmann).
these folios is partially identified thanks to the efforts of
Hythem Sidky (see Figs. 16 and 17).97
and 9 were composed of four bifolios, folded to obtain
My reconstruction of the quires of the secondary co-
eight folios (quaternion). Quire 7 was an exception be-
dex rests on several assumptions. First, I assume that the
cause it may have been composed of six bifolios (senion).
erasures identify the flesh side. Second, because the
All of the quires conformed to the same practice of col-
number of lines per page is slightly irregular, my compu-
lating leaves of parchment so that the hair side was
tation of the missing folios depends on the proportion of
systematically outside of the quire, while inside of the
text kept on the undamaged folios within the same
quire the flesh side faced the hair side.100 This practice
quire.98 Third, on many occasions, several patterns could
was not systematically observed, however, in the re-
be possible. For this reason, I chose the most coherent
versed folios—where the scriptio inferior turned to
option based on comparison with other quires.
1807, as in ff.17 and 20.101
In any event, this reconstitution of the quires enables
The Quires reexamination of the physical features of the secondary
codex and the supposed heterogeneity of the lay-out.
From a physical point of view, this reconstitution clearly
Indeed, during the realization of a codex (writing and
demonstrates that the folios currently preserved in DAM
illuminating), it is commonly agreed that craftsmen did
(except ff.1 to 3) represent a continuous sequence of
not work on previously-bound manuscripts, but on sep-
fragmentary quires. Like the folios in the Eastern Library
arate quires.102 How much time elapsed between the
(including the auctioned folios), the DAM folios be-
writing of two quires? Did the copyist again carve his
longed to a series of nine consecutive quires in the sec-
nib? A number of parameters could alter the conditions
ondary codex.99 A final quire that would have included
of copying and generate wide disparities from one quire
the final section of the Qurʾā nic text (from Kor 60, 1 up
to the next. The quire thus constitutes the only genuine
to Kor 114, 6) is presently missing.
unit of work for the copyists and illuminators.
This reconstitution reveals at least three types of
In fact, reshaping the quires provides valuable insight
quires. The majority typically consist of five bifolios that
into the working logic of Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1, and allows us
were folded to yield ten folios (quinion). Quires 6, 8,
to evaluate its homogeneity. As previously stated, the
97
density of copyist B’s writing varied from one page to
My thanks to Hythem Sidky for this information (pers.
the next (density refers here to the number of lines per
comm.). Twenty-four pages have been partially deciphered (see Ta-
ble 3) based on Ḥ amdū n’s dissertation. On most pages, only a few page). However, reconsidering this question by taking
lines—sometimes only a few words—are legible. The identified text the reconstructed quires into account reveals that varia-
is set in brackets in Table 3. tions of writing density reflect a planned and organized
98
When all of the folios in a quire were damaged, I performed writing process. On the one hand, the variation is sig-
several calculations based on the previous quires with respectively
nificantly reduced within the quires. Thus, Quire 2 has
greater or fewer lines per page, which permitted me to select the most
coherent results for reconstructing a regular quire.
99 100
My hypothesis is that the folios in the Eastern Library, including Except, naturally, for the central bifolio, in which flesh side
the five sold at auction and DAM 01-27.1, ff.1-3, belonged to seven faces flesh side.
101
consecutive quires in the secondary codex. A first quire—correspond- And perhaps the folio in the Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum.
102
ing to the beginning of the Qurʾā n—appears to be completely missing. See Turner, Typology (1977), 74.
20 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Table 4—The Quires: partial reconstruction of the quires of the secondary codex (author drawings)

Quire 1 Quire 2 Quire 3

Stanford 07, David 83/2006,
al-maktaba al-šarqiyya (MS), ff.3–9 MS ff.10–18, Bonhams 2000 Christie’s 2008, Louvre AD, MS ff.19–22a

Quire 4 Quire 5 Quire 6

DAM 01-27.1, ff. 4–6 DAM 01-27.1, ff.7–12 DAM 01-27.1, ff.13–16

Quire 7b Quire 8 Quire 9

DAM 01-27.1, ff.17–20 DAM 01-27.1, ff. 21–24 DAM 01-27.1, ff.25–28

Quire 10c Quire 11d Quire 12

DAM 01-27.1, ff.30–32 DAM 01-27.1, ff.33–34 DAM 01-27.1, ff.35–38
a
The DAM 01-27.1, f.1 may have been part of either this quire or the next (with DAM 01-27.1, f.2). Traces of a potential lower script are rare,
however, and there are no traces of erasure. For these reasons, it is difficult to distinguish the hair side from the flesh side.
b
Because Quire 7 is irregular, it is difficult to firmly establish a link to the other quires. There are two possible explanations. The first hypothesis,
which is supported here, was to reconstruct a senion for Quire 7 (a quire with six bifolios), and a quaternion for Quire 8, as well as Quires 6
and 9. The other possible reconstruction was to identify Quire 7 and 8 respectively as a quinion and a quaternion, with one additional folio
with a stub in each one of them. My initial hunch was to identify f.17 and f.20 as a bifolio for two reasons: they share the same arrangement
in parchment, unlike the others, and the primary script is reversed in both relative to the secondary script. However, the calculation of the
missing folios does not support this assumption.
c
For this quire, it is assumed that the missing folios were written using twenty-three to twenty-five lines per page, as with the previous folio.
d
The calculation for the missing folios in Quires 11 and 12 is based on folios with twenty-eight to thirty-one lines per page.

Figure 16—Ḥ amdū n MS 15A. Scriptio superior: Kor 4, 92 – 100. (Image from R. Ḥ amdū n, Al-maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t al-qurʾā niyya fı̄ S ̣anʿā ʾ min al-qarn
al-awwal al-hiğrı̄, plate 75, p. 178).
between twenty-four and twenty-eight lines per page,
while Quire 3 has between twenty-six and thirty lines.
On the other hand, there is no significant increase of den-
sity in the last pages of each quire, or apparently in the last
quires of the codex. These observations are unfortunately
based on fragmentary evidence.103 We should note that
Quire 12, the penultimate one in the complete codex,
103
All of the final folios of DAM 01-27.1 except f.35 are dam-
aged and reduced to fragments. To overcome this difficulty, one
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 21
has a high writing density (thirty-one to thirty-five lines
for f.35), but it is no greater than previous quires,
particularly the last one from the Eastern Library (from
approximately Kor 9, 112 to Kor 12, 49),104 which
would need to take into account the ruling unit, the distance between
two lines of script.
104
According to my reconstruction, DAM 01-27.1, f.3 could be
the first folio of this quire.
22 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Figure 17—Ḥ amdū n MS 15A. Scriptio inferior in red: [Kor 10, 97 – 11, 5]; H. Sidky tracing. (Image from R. Ḥ amdū n, Al-maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t
al-qurʾā niyya fı̄ S ̣anʿā ʾ min al-qarn al-awwal al-hiğrı̄, plate 75, p. 178).

exhibits the greatest writing density (thirty-one to thirty-
seven lines).
Similarly, the illuminator’s interventions, previously
described as heterogeneous, turn out to be a more log-
ical mode of operation in light of the structure of the
quires. Indeed, the ornamental headers, added only
on DAM 01-27.1, ff.35–38, actually belong to a single
quire: the penultimate quire in the whole codex before
its deterioration. Among possible scenarios, one could
assume that the illuminator began by the last quires with
an overly ambitious project and reduced his work to
only the medallions. The disappearance of the colored
headbands may be linked to the subsequent painting
of the medallions, which were initially only drawn with
a lead pencil (Quires 10 to 12) and were later filled with
colors in the other quires. In any event, and whatever

Figure 18—Arrangement of quires (author drawing).
the possible scenario, the structure of the quires con-
tains critical cues to the process of writing and illustrat-
ing a manuscript on parchment.
The Sequence of the Quires: From the Primary
to the Secondary Codex
The tables reveal that several consecutive textual se-
quences of the scriptio superior are also adjacent in the
scriptio inferior. This would confirm Puin’s hypothesis
that the quires of the primary codex remained more
or less bound together before they were dismembered,
quire by quire. This ultimately explains why the leaves
from the same original quire were reused together within
the same quire in the secondary codex, sometimes in the
same sequence (as ff.21–24; ff.35–38).
By contrast, the process did not necessarily respect the
sequence of the original quires. Indeed, Quires 1 and 2
could be placed at the beginning of the primary codex,
while Quire 3 (including Christie’s 2008 and Louvre
AD) could be the penultimate quire—or at least one of
the last—in the primary codex. However, the quires of
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 23
the DAM folios are probably close to each other and even
consecutive, as is the case in the secondary codex. The
fragmentary condition of the quires—perhaps even at
the time of their re-use—offers evidence of only two
continuous sequences of text between the quires: the
first between Quires 4 and 8, and the other between
Quires 6 and 10. This signifies that these two sequences
of quires were consecutive in the primary codex but
have been separated by three quires respectively in the
secondary codex (see Fig. 18). Following the same rule,
Quires 5 and 9 may also have been consecutive. It is
currently difficult to establish a clear connection, because
the recto of the first folio of Quire 9 is illegible. It is im-
portant to explore these questions further by extending
this investigation to the physical folios in the Eastern
Library.
The codicological analysis of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 thus
supports a codex structure for both secondary and pri-
mary folios. In addition to the existing bifolio (DAM
01-27.1, ff.23-24) and traces of stitches, reconstituting
the quires, most of which follow the same structure, re-
veals that both primary and secondary codices were re-
spectively a multigathering codex.
24 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Table 5—From the secondary to the primary quire: The case of Quire 5 (author drawings)

1. The secondary quire 2. Reordering of the folios in the primary quire

The Quires of the Primary Codex fluctuations in the number of lines per page (between
and the Order of the sū ras twenty-two and thirty-five lines).107
According to this reasoning, it is possible to establish
Previous studies of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 have highlighted
connections between seemingly unconnected textual
distinctive features of the organization of the primary
sequences, provided that they are preserved within
text. While the sequence of the verses within a sū ra is
the same quire. For this reason, it can be assumed that
nearly identical to the standard ʿUṯ mānic sequence,105
sū ras 22, 24, and 33 were consecutive because they
the sequencing of the sū ras reveals a significant number
were bound within the same quire. Table 5 proposes
of discrepancies. Indeed, the existing fragments from
a reorganization of the likely position of the folios within
DAM reveal eleven transitions between two sū ras oc-
Quire 5 (ff.7–12) in the primary codex. This reorganiza-
curring in the same folio. Only four transitions follow
tion conforms to the rule of situating the hair side to the
the standard ʿUṯ mānic order (sū ras 8–9; 20–21; 39–
exterior (meaning that ff.9–11 necessarily belong to the
40 and 89–90106). Another transition is simply reversed
second part of the quire) and relies on the calculation of
(sū ras 63–62), while the six others follow a different or-
the missing folios.
der, sharing similarities with the codices of the Com-
Indeed, there are two missing sequences of text.
panions, according to traditional reports (see below).
The first missing sequence is between Kor 22, 39 (end
The present demonstration allows us to pursue the
of f.7B) and Kor 24, 1 (second text line of f.10A). The
reconstruction of the lower text and its arrangement
single missing folio exactly spans the verses of sū ra 22,
of the sū ras. Indeed, while the structure of the quires
from the verse 40 until the end. The second missing se-
was maintained from the primary to the secondary co-
quence is between Kor 24, 40 (end of f.11B) and Kor 33,
dex, this practice limits the extent to which the folios in
51 (beginning of f.9A). Only two folios are missing
each quire are out of order. As a consequence, because
from the reconstituted primary quire (including the il-
the sequence of the verses in the primary text is nearly
legible f.12). It is possible that they span Kor 24, 40
identical to the standard sequence, it supports calcula-
to verse 63 and Kor 33, 1 to verse 51, with some adjust-
tions regarding the missing folios, although this calcu-
ments.108 Sū ras 24 and 33 were therefore consecutive.
lation could slightly vary due to rasm variations and

105
Except in two instances: one the omission of Kor 9, 85 that was
probably due to copyist error, and the second a reversal of verses 31
and 32 in sū ra 20. See Sadeghi and Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1” (2012): 23.
106
For conciseness, I refer to the sū ras numbers in the standard
edition.
107
My calculations are based on the textual reconstruction pro-
posed by Sadeghi and Goudarzi, ibid., which is currently the most
complete edition of the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest.
108
Calculations based on the Cairo edition regarding the missing
text indicate that approximatively three folios are missing, more than
the two existing folios.
 The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 25

Table 6—The Order of sū ras in the S ̣anʿāʾ primary codex and the Companions codices. The sū ras’ numbering in boldface type are those
present in the manuscript.
Companion According to Ibn al Nadı̄m, According to As-Suyū tı̣̄ ,
Position In the primary codex codex Fihrista al-Itqā nb
Quire 1 2, 7 Ibn Masʿū d 2, 4, 3, 7 2, 4, 3, 7
Ubayy 2, 4, 3, 6, 7 2, 4, 3, 6, 7
Quire 2 5, 10, 11 Ibn Masʿū d 5, 10, 9, 16, 11 5, 10, 9, 16, 11
Ubayy 5, 10, 8, 9, 11 5, 10, 8, 9, 11
Quire 4 + Quire 8 11, 8, 9, 19 Ibn Masʿū d 9, 16, 11, 12, 17, 21, 23, 26, 77, 9, 16, 11, 12, 18, 17, 21, 20,
38, 28, 24, 8, 19 23, 26, 37, 33, 22, 28, 27,
24, 8, 19
Ubayy 8, 9, 11, 19, 26, 22 8, 9, 11, 19, 26, 22
Quire 11 12, 18 Ibn Masʿū d Sū ra 18 is missing in the list 12, 18
Ubayy 12, 18 12, 18
Quire 7 15, 25 Ibn Masʿū d Sū ra 15 is missing from the list 25, 15
15, 42, 30, 43, 41, 32, 14, 35,
Ubayy 48, 47, 57, 58, 25 Sū ra 25 is missing from the list
Quire 6 + Quire 10 16, [17], 20, 21, [23/26/ Masʿū d 16, 11, 12, 17, 21 (sū ra 20 is 16, 11, 12, 18, 17, 21, 20, 23,
27/29 or 31+32/32 missing), 23, 26, 37 26, 37
+35/ 32+36], 37 16, 33, 17, 39, 45, 20, 21, 24, 16, 33, 17, 39, 20, 21, 24, 23,
Ubayy 23, 40, 13, 28, 27, 37 34, 29, 40, 13, 28, 27, 37
Quire 5 22, 24, 33 Masʿū d 33, 28, 24, 8, 19, 29, 30, 36, 25,
22 33, 22, 28, 27, 24
22, 12, 18, 16, 33, 17, 39, 45, 22, 12, 15, 16, 33,17, 39, 20,
Ubayy 20, 21, 24 21, 24
Quire 9 30, [35/36/38], 39, 40 Ibn Masʿū d 30, 36, 25, 22, 13, 34, 35, 14, 30, 36, 25, 15, 13, 34, 35, 14,
47,31, 39, 40 38, 47, 31, 39, 40
39, 45, 20, 21, 24, 23, 40, nine 39, 41/43, 20, 21, 24, 23, 34,
Ubayy sū ras, 30 29, 40, eight sū ras, 30
Quire 12 34, 13 Ibn Masʿū d 13, 34 13, 34
Ubayy Sū ra 34 is missing from the list 34, 29, 40, 13
Quire 3 78, 76, 75, 81, 79, 64, [. . .], Ibn Masʿū d 64, 63, 62, 61, 72, 71, 58, 60, 64, 63, 62, 61, 72, 71, 58, 60,
80, 83, [. . .], 63, 62, 89, 66, 55, 53, 51, 52, 54, 69, 56, 66, 55, 53, 52, 51, 54, 56,
90 68, 79, 70, 74, 73, 83, 80, 79, 70, 74, 73, 83, 80, 76,
76, 75, 77, 78,81, 82, 88, 87, 77, 75, 78, 81, 82, 88, 87,
92, 89, 84, 85, 96, 90 92, 89, 85, 84, 96, 90
Ubayy 77, 78,76, 75, 81, 79,80, 83, 77, 78, 75, 81, 65, 79, 64,
84, 95, 96, 49, 63, 62, 65, 80, 83, 84, 95, 96, 49, 63,
89, 67, 92, 82, 91, 85, 86, 87, 62, 66, 89, 90, 92, 82
88, 64, 98 (Sū ra 90 is missing
in the list)
a
Nadı̄m, Fihrist (1971), 29.
b
Suyū tı̣̄, Itqā n (1997), vol.1: 181–82.

Quire 9, which hypothetically followed Quire 5 in
the primary codex, includes verses of sū ra 30 (f.25B:
Kor 30, 38–50) and parts of sū ra 39 (f.26A: begins at
Kor 39, 25), followed by sū ra 40. Approximately three or
four folios are missing between ff.25 and 26. Calculations
indicate that the missing sections of sū ras 30 and 39 rep-
resent approximately 2.8 pages. The best-fitting sū ra is
the thirty-sixth. However, due to possible rasm variants,
sū ras 35 or 38—with some adjustments—may also fit.
It is similarly possible to identify the potential inter-
mediate sequence between two sū ras within a quire. In
the sixth quire (ff.13–16), the arrangement of the sū ras
between sū ras 16 and 20 in the primary codex did not
contain sū ras 18 and 19, as their presence is observed in
two other quires. The five lost folios between ff.15 and
16 are therefore sufficient to contain the end of sū ra 16
and the entire sū ra 17.
Quire 10 should follow Quire 6 in the primary
codex, as it contains the end of sū ra 20. Based on my
calculations, the reversed f.32 can be situated in the
first half of the primary quire, following a first missing
folio, where the primary text ran from Kor 20, 80 to
26 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
approximately Kor 20, 112 (beginning of f.32).109 In
this quire, the missing sequence between Kor 21, 19
(f.32A) and Kor 37, 15 (f.30A) is the equivalent of four
folios, which certainly contained the end of sū ra 21
(two folios), another unidentified sū ra, and the begin-
ning of sū ra 37. The question remains: which sū ra was
contained in the two folios between the sū ras 21 and
37? It is already possible to exclude seven of the fifteen
intermediate sū ras of the traditional order (22, 24, 25,
28, 30, 33, 34), which are already present in other se-
quences/quires. There are thus seven remaining possi-
bilities that match calculations regarding the missing
text: one sū ra (23, 26, 27, or 29) or two sū ras (31 and
32, 32 and 35, or 32 and 36). Another manuscript from
S ̣anʿāʾ—DAM 01-32.1—may offer evidence in favor of
the sequence 21 → 26 → 37, because it shows sū ra 26
followed by 37 on the same page.110
Last, there are three additional observations regarding
new sequences of the sū ras, based on Hythem’s identifi-
cation of the folios from the Eastern Library (see Table 3).
For the present, these points should be considered with
caution, given that the observations are primarily based on
the Ḥ amdū n photographs. The first occurs in Quire 1,
Ḥ amdū n MS 7B. Here, the scriptio inferior displays the
end of sū ra 2 followed by the beginning of sū ra 7 on
the same page.111 The second appears on Quire 2. The
partial decipherment of Ḥ amdū n MS 10B, 15A, and
18A reveals two new transitions between the sū ras. The
first transition occurs between f.10 and f.18. At the end
of f.10B, it is possible to identify the end of sū ra 5 and,
at the beginning of f.18A, the beginning of sū ra 10. Ac-
cording to my reconstruction, these two folios consti-
tute a single bifolio that should be placed at the center
of the primary quire. Regarding f.15A, it displays the
transition between sū ras 10 and 11 on the same page.
We can therefore assume that the primary Quire 2 dis-
played the sequence 5 → 10 → 11.
The third is related to Quire 3, which now comprises
six folios, including four from the Eastern Library
(Ḥ amdū n MS 19A to 22B), the Louvre AD folio, and
the Christie’s 2008 folio. The decipherment of Ḥ amdū n
MS 20 and 21—which certainly formed a central bifo-
109
However, my calculations indicate that this final folio retained
a shorter sequence of the Cairo edition (only thirty-eight lines).
110
UNESCO photographs. In DAM 01-28.1, sū ra 37 is omitted
between sū ras 36 and 38, meaning that it should appear in another
sequence, which has been lost.
111
The basmala is visible between lines 11 and 12 of the upper
text.
lio—followed by MS 22, indicates a new sequence of
six sū ras: Kor 78 → 76 → 75 → 81 → 79 → 64.112 In
the Christie’s and Louvre AD folios, the scriptio inferior
is reversed. Consequently, as they are halves of bifolios,
they should be replaced in the second half of the primary
quire, after MS 22. The Christie’s folio displays the se-
quence of the sū ras Kor 63 → 62 → 89 → 90, while
the verso of the Louvre AD folio has the sequence Kor
80 → 83. Based on their text content, the Louvre AD
folio was probably placed after MS 22 and prior to the
Christie’s folio. Unfortunately, the pictures of MS 22
verso and Louvre AD recto (which was the verso in re-
gard to the primary quire) are missing.
Before concluding, it is worth noting that the hypo-
thetical sū ras sequence of the S ̣anʿāʾ primary codex re-
flects a strong connection to the so-called “Compan-
ions’ codices” described by medieval authors. Those
codices were attributed to several members of the com-
munity, such as Miqdād ibn al-Aswād, Ibn Masʿū d, and
Ubayy ibn Kaʿb. With the expansion of the Muslim em-
pire, some of these collections began to be considered
as authoritative to a certain extent in different centers,
before the establishment of a standard text by the caliph
ʿUṯ mān. Little information has reached us regarding
the two codices of Ibn Mas’ū d and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb.
Two principal sources—Ibn al-Nadı̄m (d. 380/995
or 998)113 and al-Suyū tı̄ (d. 911/1505)114 —record
variations in the arrangement of the sū ras as a feature
of these codices. They also preserve lists of the sū ras
for both codices, with some discrepancies between
the two authors. Ibn al-Nadı̄m also insists on the het-
erogeneity of Ibn Masʿū d codices he saw (“no two of
the Qurʾā nic copies were in agreement”115). Despite
their differences from the standard ʿUṯ mānic text, how-
ever, the arrangement of the sū ras in these codices fol-
lows the same principle of arrangement of the sū ras ac-
cording to decreasing length.116
112
This sequence partially records another sequence recently
identified in another S ̣anʿāʾ manuscript, the DAM 01-29.1, where
the sequence is Kor 80 → 75 → 81. See Cellard, “Nouveau té mo-
ignage” (2020).
113
Nadı̄m, Fihrist (1971).
114
Suyū tı̣̄, Itqā n (1997).
115
Dodge, Fihrist (1970), vol. 1, 57.
116
Nö ldeke observed that this “cannot be accidental but must be
the result of textual relationships” between these Companions’ codi-
ces and the first collection of Zayd ibn Ṯ abit, referring to the leaves/
suh ̣uf of Ḥ afsạ (Nö ldeke, History [2013], 246). Blachère stated that
the principle of decreasing length was perhaps more rigorous in Ibn
 The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 27

Compared to reports about these codices, the hypo- Conclusion

thetical sequence of sū ras in the S ̣anʿāʾ primary codex
Was the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 a codex/musḥ ̣af that was dis-
shows connections with the Companions’ codices, al-
mantled and re-used to produce another codex? Codi-
though there is no perfect match with either report. In
cological observations of the eighty fragmentary folios
several instances, the similarity with the Companions’ co-
from the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest offer evidence of bifolios
dices is obvious: the sequence of sū ras 5 → 10, 12 → 18,
and quires for both successive texts. In addition, the
63 → 62, and 76 → 75 are identical to both Ibn Masʿū d
current state of conservation of both sets of folios from
and Ubayy codices. The potential sequence of sū ras 26 →
the Eastern Library and DAM reflects the secondary
37 is noted in Ibn Masʿū d’s codex, while the long se-
structure of the codex because the DAM folios be-
quence of sū ras 78 → 76 → 75 → 81 → 79 → 64 is al-
longed to nine consecutive quires. Further physical
most identical to Ubayy’s codex, such as the sequence
analysis of the folios in the Eastern Library is clearly
80 → 83 (see the sequences in Table 6). The palimpsest
needed to definitively address these questions. For
most often exhibits the same gatherings of sū ras as the
the present, close study of the DAM folios reveals a
Companions codices, but in a different sequence. Accord-
clear connection between these secondary quires and
ingly, the gathering of sū ras 11 → 8 → 9 → 19 in the pa-
the scriptio inferior, while also offering clues regarding
limpsest is reported for Ubayy’s codex, but in a different
the palimpsesting process itself. It appears highly prob-
order (8 → 9 → 11 → 19). The same observation goes
able that the primary codex—which had perhaps al-
for the gathering of sū ras 78 → 76 → 75 → 81 → 79 →
ready lost its bindings and become fragmented—was
64, which stands prior to the gathering 63 → 62 →
re-used quire by quire. Its status as a codex is now de-
89 → 90, such as in Ubayy’s codex. The gathering of
scribed and can thus be compared to other codices in
sū ras 15 → 25, 22 → 24, and 34 → 13 is closer to the
order to situate it in the history of the written transmis-
sequences of Ibn Mas’ū d’s codex (sū ras 25 → 15; sū ras
sion of the Qurʾā n.
33 → 22 → two sū ras → 24; sū ras 13 → 34).
Material analysis has proven significant because it
Despite these connections to the two Companions’ co-
provides a snapshot of the initial appearance and layout
dices, the order of sū ras of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 shows a ten-
of the fragmentary folios. Several of the characteristics
dency towards the ʿUṯ mānic order. Several sequences are
of the primary codex point to a professional and planned
indeed congruent with both the ʿUṯ mānic order and one
work. The collaboration of two experienced scribes,
of the two Companions codices, as sū ras 8 → 9, 20 → 21
probably copying from a written exemplar, could reflect
and 89 → 90 (like Ubayy’s codex) and 39 → 40 (like Ibn
the context of a local scriptorium active during the early
Masʿū d’s codex). Certain other sequences, such as sū ras
Umayyad period. This analysis also opens new perspec-
16 → 17 → 20 or 30 → [35/36/38] → 39, are far closer
tives on the study of the text and the sequencing of sū -
to the ʿUṯ mānic order than to the Companion codices.
ras, underscoring the existence of alternative sequences
Moreover, the sequence 10 → 11 is specific to the ʿUṯ -
of sū ras and confirming that several sequences did not
mānic order. It is thus possible to consider this order
follow the standard ʿUṯ mānic order. These findings sug-
of sū ras as falling between that of the two Companions
gest the need to reconsider the rules behind the organi-
codices—as the narratives reported them—and the ʿUṯ -
zation of the sū ras.118 The original sequence in the Co-
mānic order. Finally, the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 agrees with
dex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 resonates with that of the two Companion
these codices (i.e., those of both ʿUṯ mān and the Com-
codices, although without being perfectly consistent
panions) concerning the arrangement of the sū ras by
with either of them. This is an insufficient basis for ex-
decreasing length, which obviously implies an original
cluding affiliation with these textual traditions, however,
complete text.117
because we lack an exact idea of the order of the sū ras
or text variants in the original Companion codices. Un-
like the ʿUṯ mānic text, these written recensions, which
may still have existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AH,
Masʿū d’s codex than in Ubayy’s, which was itself stricter than in the
Ḥ afsạ leaves (Blachère, Introduction [2002], 46). Regarding the never experienced official standardization. They remain
chronological arrangement of the sū ras that would have character-
ized a supposed ʿAlı̄’s codex, Nö ldeke affirmed that this cannot “be 118
Several studies of the Qurʾā n conclude that the canonical sū ra
expected of a contemporary of the Prophet” (Nö ldeke, History sequencing—at least certain clusters of sū ras—is inherent in the com-
[2013], 250). position of the text, because sū ras beginning with similar “mysterious
117
This could explain why sū ra 7 follows sū ra 2. letters” are grouped together. See S ̣aleh, “End of Hope” (2016).
28 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies
plural and heterogenous, as they were depicted in later
centuries.119 Ultimately, different iterations of these co-
dices may have existed throughout the centuries, possi-
bly with locally-specific variations. They may also have
interacted with the ʿUṯ mānic tradition to give rise to
eclectic codices.120
The only way to increase our certainty about the tex-
tual affiliation and status of the Codex S ̣anʿāʾ 1 will be to
extend this study to other early manuscripts, including
but not limited to the S ̣anʿāʾ collection,121 in which at
least three other fragmentary codices indicate the exis-
tence of different sū ra sequences.122 An initial survey
of these codices reveals a stronger connection to the
ʿUṯ mānic text, at least in the existing folios. The central
question for future studies will be the relationship be-
tween these manuscripts and the S ̣anʿāʾ palimpsest. Is
it possible that they belong to the same scribal tradition?
And if so, what does this living tradition tell us about the
status and evolution of the ʿUṯ mānic text?
Works Cited
al-Aqwaʿ, Ibrā hı̄m, “Ğāmi’ S ̣anʿāʾ, abrāz maʿālim al-h ̣ad ̣āra
al-islamiyya fı̄ l-yaman,” in Masạ̄ h ̣if S ̣anʿā ʾ, 19 March –
19 May 1985 (Kuwait, 1985), 9–23.
Bergmann, Uwe, et al., “Chemical mapping of paleontolog-
ical and archeological artifacts with synchroton X-rays,” in
Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry (2012): 361–89.
Blachère, Ré gis, Introduction au Coran, 2nd ed. (Paris, 2002).
Blair, Sheila, Islamic Calligraphy, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh, 2008).
Bonhams, Islamic And Indian Works Of Art (London, Oc-
tober 2000).
Cellard, É léonore, Transmission (2015): La Transmission
manuscrite du Coran. Etude d’un corpus de manuscrits data-
bles du 2e s. H./8e s. ap. J.-C. (Ph.D. dissertation, INALCO,
Paris, 2015).
——— Le Codex Amrensis 1 (Leiden, 2018).
——— “Les manuscrits coraniques anciens,” in Le Coran des
historiens, ed. Ali Amir-Moezzi and Guillaume Dye (Paris,
2019), 667–69.
119
Ibn al-Nadı̄m emphasized that he never found two similar
copies of Ibn Masʿū d’s recension.
120
We have little information about the “secondary codices,” at-
tributed to the tā biʿı̄na. For some of them, such as the codex of Saʿı̄d
ibn al-Ğubayr (d. 94/692), the data highlight the mixed nature of
the text. See Jeffery, Materials, 245. See also Cellard, “Nouveau
té moignage” (2020): 1117.
121
See Karimi-Nia, “A New Document” (2019).
122
A. Fedeli reports some instances of deviation in the order of
sū ras in DAM 01-32.1 and numerous deviations in DAM 01-28.1.
See Fedeli, “Manoscritti” (2008). Another example of deviation is
in DAM 01-29.1, see Cellard, “Nouveau té moignage” (2020).
——— “Un nouveau té moignage sur la fixation du canon
coranique dans les dé buts de l’Islam: le manuscrit S ̣anʿāʾ
DAM 01-29.1,” Comptes-Rendus de l’Academ ́ ie des Inscrip-
tions et Belles-Lettres 2018/2 (Paris, 2020): 1107–1119.
Cellard, É lé onore and Catherine Louis, “ A New Palimp-
sest and the Early Transmission History of the Qurʾan,”
Journal of the International Qurʾanic Studies Association
5 (2021) forthcoming.
Christie’s, Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds (London,
April, 2008).
Cohen, Zina, et al., “Composition of the primary inks in
medieval palimpsests—effects of ink removal,” Opuscula
musealia 23 (2015): 75–82
Costa, Paolo, “La Moschea Grande di S ̣anʿāʾ,” Annali
del’Instituto Orientale di Napoli 34 (1974): 487–506.
Declercq, Georges, “Introduction,” in Early Medieval Pal-
impsests, ed. G. Declercq (Turnhout, 2007), 7–22.
Déroche, François, Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Deuxiem ̀ e
partie: Manuscrits musulmans, Tome I, 1, (Paris, 1983).
——— La transmission manuscrite du Coran dans les deb́ uts
de l’islam: Le Codex parisino-petropolitanus (Leiden, 2009).
——— Qurʾans of the Umayyads (Leiden, 2014).
——— Le Coran, une histoire plurielle: Essai sur la formation
du texte coranique (Paris, 2019).
Dodge, Bayard, ed. and trans., The Fihrist of al-Nadı̄m: A
Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols., (New
York, 1970).
Dreibholz, Ursula, “Preserving a Treasure — The Sanaʿa
Manuscripts,” in Museum International, UNESCO 203:
51/3 (Paris, 1999), 21–25.
——— “Treatment of early Islamic manuscript fragments
on parchment. A case history: the find of Sanaʿa, Yemen,”
in Proceedings of the 3rd conference of al-Furqan Islamic Her-
itage Foundation, 2nd ed., (London, 1423/2003), 131–
45.
Easton, Roger and Keith T. Knox, “Digital Restoration
of Erased and Damaged Manuscripts,” in Proceedings of
the 39th Annual Convention of the Association of Jewish Li-
braries, ed. E. Gensler and J. Biella, (New York, 2004), 1–
8.
Fedeli, Alba, “Early Evidences of Variant Readings in Qurʾanic
Manuscripts,” in Die dunklen Anfä nge, neue Forshungen
zur Entstehung und frühen Geschichte des Islam, ed. Karl-H. Ohlig
and Gerd-R. Puin (Berlin, 2005), 293–316.
——— “I manoscritti di Sanaa: fogli sparsi che diventano
corani,” in Il mio cuore e ̀ a Oriente: Studi di linguistica storica,
filologia e cultura ebraica dedicati a Maria Luisa Mayer
Modena, ed. F. Aspesi, et al. (Milan, 2008), 25–48.
Fendall, Ramsay, Islamic Calligraphy (London, 2003).
Fraser, Marcus and William Kwiatkowski, Ink and Gold:
Islamic Calligraphy (London, 2006).
Jeffery, Arthur, ed., ʿAbd Allā h ibn Sulaymā n Sijistā nı̄, Ma-
terials for the history of the text of the Qurʾan: the old codices
(Leiden, 1937).

Ḥ amdū n, Razan Ghassan, Al-maḫ tụ̄ tạ̄ t al-qurʾā niyya fı̄
S ̣anʿā ʾ min al-qarn al-awwal al-hiğrı̄ (M.A. thesis, Al-
Yemenia University, 2004).
Hilali, Asma, “Le palimpseste de S ̣anʿāʾ et la canonisation du
Coran: nouveaux é lé ments,” in Les Cahiers Gustave Glotz
21 (2011): 443–48.
——— “Was the S ̣anʿāʾ Qur’ān Palimpsest a Work in Pro-
gress?” in The Yemeni Manuscript Tradition, ed. D. Hollen-
berg, Christoph. Rauch, and Sabine Schmidtke (Leiden,
2015), 12–27.
——— The Sanaa palimpsest (London, 2017).
——— “The Writing Process in a 7th century Qurʾān Manu-
script: The Upper text of the ‘Sanaa Palimpsest’ as exam-
ple,” in Palaeography Between East and West. Proceedings
of the Seminars on Arabic Palaeography at Sapienza Uni-
versity of Rome, ed. A. D’Ottone Rambach (Rome, 2018),
141–53.
Irigoin, Jean, “Le palimpseste de Sophocle,” Revue des
́
Etudes Grecques, 64/302–303 (1951): 443–55.
Karimi-Nia, Morteza, “A New Document in the Early His-
tory of the Qurʾān,” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 10
(2019): 292–326.
Masạ̄ hif
̣ : Masạ̄ h ̣if S ̣anʿā ʾ, 19 March – 19 May 1985 (Kuwait :
Dār al-Athār al-Islamiyya, 1985).
Muzerelle, Denis, Vocabulaire codicologique: Reṕ ertoire
met́ hodique des termes français relatifs aux manuscrits (Paris,
1985).
al-Nadı̄m, Ibn, Kitā b al-Fihrist, ed. R. Tajaddud (Teheran,
1971).
Nö ldeke, Theodor, et al., The History of the Qurʾā n, trans.
Wolfgang H. Behn (Leiden, 2013).
Noseda, Sergio Noja, “La Mia Visita a Sanaa e il Corano
Palinsesto,” Rendiconti dell’Instituto Lombardo Academia
di scienze e lettere. Rendiconti, Classe di lettere 137/1 (Milan,
2003): 43–60.
Puin, Elisabeth, “Ein frü her Koranpalimpsest aus Sanʿaʾ
(DAM 01-27.1),” in Schlaglichter: Die beiden ersten
islamischen Jahrunderte, ed. Markus Groß and Karl-H.
Ohlig (Berlin, 2008), 461–93.
——— “Koranpalimpsest II” (2009): “Ein frü her Koranpa-
limpsest aus Sanʿaʾ (DAM 01-27.1) – Teil II,” in Vom Koran
zum Islam, ed. Markus Groß and Karl.-H. Ohlig, (Berlin,
2009), 521–81.
——— “Koranpalimpsest III” (2010): “Ein frü her Koranpa-
limpsest aus Sanʿaʾ (DAM 01-27.1) – Teil III: Ein nicht-
ʿutmanischer Koran,” in Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion
I: Von der koranischen Bewegung zum Frü hislam, ed. Markus
Groß and Karl.-H. Ohlig, (Berlin, 2010), 233–305.
——— “Koranpalimpsest IV” (2011): “Ein frü her Koran-
palimpsest aus Sanʿaʾ (DAM 01-27.1) – Teil IV: Die scriptio
inferior auf den Blättern 17, 18 und 19,” in Die Entstehung
einer Weltreligion II: Von der koranischen Bewegung zum
Frü hislam, ed. Markus Groß and Karl.-H. Ohlig, (Berlin,
2011), 311–402.
The S ̣anʿā ʾ Palimpsest ✦ 29
——— “Koranpalimpsest V” (2014): “Ein frü her Koran-
palimpsest aus Sanʿaʾ (DAM 01-27.1) – Teil V: Die scriptio
inferior auf den Blättern 14 und 15 sowie Auseinander-
setzung mit den Thesen und der Edition des Koranpalimp-
sests von Behnam Sadeghi und Mohsen Goudarzi,” in Die
Entstehung einer Weltreligion II: Die heilige Stadt Mekka -
eine literarische Fiktion, ed. Markus Groß and Karl.-H.
Ohlig, (Berlin, 2014), 477–618.
Puin, Gerd-Rü diger, “Methods of Research on Qurʾanic
Manuscripts — A Few Ideas,” in Masạ̄ h ̣if Sanʿā ̣ ʾ, 19 March –
19 May 1985 (Kuwait, 1985), 9–17.
——— “Observations on Early Qurʾān Manuscripts in S ̣anʿāʾ,”
in The Qurʾan as Text, ed. S. Wild (Leiden, 1996), 107–
111.
Sadan, Joseph, “Genizah and Genizah-like Practices in Is-
lamic and Jewish Traditions: Customs Concerning the Dis-
posal of Worn-out Sacred Books in the Middle Ages, Ac-
cording to an Ottoman Source,” Bibliotheca Orientalis
43 (1986): 37–58.
Sadeghi, Behnam and Mohsen Goudarzi, “S ̣anʿāʾ 1 and
the Origins of the Qur’ān,” Der Islam 87/1–2 (2012):
1–129.
Sadeghi, Behnam and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a
Companion of the Prophet and the Qurʾan of the Prophet,”
Arabica 57 (2010): 343–436.
Saleh
̣ ̣, Walid A., “End of Hope: Sū ras 10–15, Despair and
a Way Out of Mecca” in Qurʾanic Studies Today, ed. An-
gelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells (Abington 2016),
105–123.
Al-Suyū tı̣̄ , Al-Suyū tı̣̄ , al-Itqā n fi ʿulū m al-Qurʾā n, (Beirut:
al-maktaba al-’asriyya,
̣ 1418/1997).
Schmidt, Thomas, “Les palimpsestes litté raires grecs sur pa-
pyrus,” in Palimpsestes et ed́ ition de textes. Les textes
litteŕ aires, ed. Vé ronique Somers (Leuven, 2009), 83–
100.
Sokolov, Michael and Joseph Yahalom, “Christian palimp-
sests from the Cairo Geniza,” Revue d’histoire des textes
8 (1979): 109–132.
Sotheby’s, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 23 Octo-
ber 1992.
Tchernetska, Nathalia, “Cambridge University Library
Nn.4.8, a Greek Palimpsest described and deciphered,”
Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society
12/3 (2002): 313–21.
Rabin, Ira, “Building a Bridge from the Dead Sea Scrolls to
Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Jewish Manuscript Cul-
tures, ed I. Wandrey (Berlin, 2017), 309–322.
Reed, Ronald, Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers
(London, 1972).
Robin, Christian J., “L’Arabie dans le Coran” in Les origines
du Coran, le Coran des origines, ed. F. Dé roche, Ch.
J. Robin, and M. Zink (Paris, 2015), 27–74.
Turner, Eric G., The Typology of the Early Codex (Eugene,
OR, 1977)
30 ✦ Journal of Near Eastern Studies

von Bothmer, Hans-Caspar, “Masterworks of Islamic bia Felix, ed. Werner Daum (Innsbruck, 1987), 178–
Book Art: Koranic Calligraphy and Illumination in 93.
the Manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in Sanaa,” Witkam, Jan Just, review of Masạ̄ h ̣if S ̣anʿā ʾ, 19 March – 19 May
in Yemen: 3000 Years of Art and Civilisation in Ara- 1985, Manuscripts of the Middle East 1 (1986): 123–24.