The Bakhshālī Manuscript: A Response to the Bodleian Library's Radiocarbon Dating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular attention has recently been captured by the results of the Bodleian Library's 2017 project of radiocarbon datingportions of the birch-bark fragments constituting what is known as the Bakhshālī Manuscript. In this paper, we disagree with the interpretation of the findings announced by the Bodleian team. In particular, we argue that the earliest dated folio of this manuscript is unlikely to be the date of the whole text. Rather, the latest dateable folio is logically the date of the scribal activity. This fits well with past estimates of the date of the Bakhshālī Manuscript based on historical, philological and palaeographic arguments.. And we argue that the Bakhshālī Manuscript does include written zeros that function as arithmetical operators, i.e., as numbers in their own right, and not merely as place-holders, as asserted by the Bodleian team. Finally, we express regret that the Bodleian Library chose to announce scientific results without peer-review and through a press release to newspapers and a YouTube video.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".