Home/The Master Source Register

The Master Source Register

Every source numbered once, permanently.

This is the reference spine of the timelines project. Every source used by any period page holds one master number, issued once and never reused or renumbered; new sources are appended as coverage grows. Reference codes on every page read source . work . passage — 9.1.83 is source 9 (Suetonius), work 1 (Divus Julius), chapter 83 — and mean the same thing on every page, forever. Missing sources are entries in the same register: what is lost is part of the record.

Surviving Sources

  1. 1 · Julius Caesar and his officers — written 48–45 BC, contemporary, participants. Survives complete; ends before the events of 44.1.1 Civil War · 1.2 Alexandrian War (continuation by his officers) — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  2. 2 · Cicero — 46–43 BC, contemporary, senior participant. Cleopatra in Rome (“reginam odi,” 2.1.15.15), her departure (2.1.14.8), the Lupercalia (2.2.2.84–87), the charge that Antony forged entries in Caesar’s acta (2.2.1). Never mentions the Cinna bill — the silence is noted and weighed in Memo 1.2.1 Letters to Atticus · 2.2 Philippics · 2.3 De Divinatione

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90

  3. 3 · Cleopatra VII — 33 BC, contemporary, the queen’s own chancery. One Greek word, ginesthō (“let it be so”), subscribed on a royal ordinance papyrus — the entire surviving output of her side in anything possibly her own hand.3.1 Papyrus subscription, 33 BC — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  4. 4 · The Egyptian stone record — contemporary and official, the only substantial body of evidence for Caesarion outside the reach of the Roman victor’s editing.4.1 Serapeum birth stele, Memphis · 4.2 Armant mammisi cartouches (recorded by Napoleon’s savants and later travellers; demolished 1861–62) · 4.3 Dendera reliefs (standing) · 4.4 Bronze coinage with the infant · 4.5 Egyptian regnal dating — stone, coin and dating record; no single edition to link

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  5. 5 · Nicolaus of Damascus — c. 64 BC – after 4 BC. Philosopher-historian of Damascus, and the one source in this register who stood, in person, in all three courts of the period’s triangle. In Cleopatra’s Alexandria: the Suda (47) records him as tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra — the household in which Caesarion was raised; the notice is a tenth-century lexicon’s, a thousand years distant, and carries that condition. In Herod’s Jerusalem: chief counsellor and envoy of the king — Josephus (42) records him advocating for the Jews of Ionia before Marcus Agrippa at Herod’s side (~14 BC), leading the embassy that restored Herod to Augustus’s favour after the Nabataean affair (~9–8 BC), and, after Herod’s death, arguing the succession of Archelaus before Augustus in Rome. In Augustus’s circle: author of the Life of Augustus, the earliest surviving connected account of Caesar’s assassination and of Octavian’s youth — written inside the victor’s patronage network by a man who had served the other side twice over. His Universal History ran to 144 books and is the lost channel beneath Josephus’s Herod (the condition stated at 42). Its transmission trail has four sightings in a thousand years: the original at Herod’s court, written at the king’s urging by Nicolaus’s own account; a copy under Josephus’s hands in Rome, ~AD 90s; a copy quoted by Athenaeus, ~AD 200; and a copy, or parts of one, before the excerptors of Constantine VII in Constantinople, mid-10th century — whose Excerpta are the largest fragments now possessed. After that, silence: no later author shows direct access. And the condition inside the trail: the Constantinian excerpts preserve the early books and the autobiography — the Herodian books are not among them. Their content reaches the present through one reader only, Josephus; access to Herod’s commissioned record effectively closed when he closed his copy, and every century since has known Herod through the rework alone.5.1 Life of Augustus (fragments) · 5.2 Universal History (144 books; fragments only — the Herodian books lost; unlinked, no connected text survives) · 5.3 Autobiography (fragments; unlinked, no connected text survives)

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  6. 6 · Augustus — completed AD 14, the victor’s own official account, inscribed across the empire. Actium and the taking of Egypt are claimed (6.1.25–27); Antony and Cleopatra are never once named.6.1 Res Gestae Divi Augusti

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  7. 7 · Velleius Paterculus — ~AD 30, army officer under Tiberius. Brief loyalist compendium.7.1 Roman History

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  8. 8 · Plutarch — ~AD 100–120, some 150 years after. Greek biographer using earlier sources now lost, including Asinius Pollio and, for Cleopatra’s death, her physician Olympos. The Lupercalia scene, the Donations, “too many Caesars.” The opening of the Caesar is lost in transmission.8.1 Caesar · 8.2 Antony · 8.3 Brutus · 8.4 Life of Antony (cited by chapter; 61 lists the subject kings with Antony at Actium, Herod among them)

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  9. 9 · Suetonius — ~AD 121, imperial secretary to Hadrian with access to the archives. The will (9.1.83), the Cinna bill (9.1.52.3), the Oppius pamphlet (9.1.52.2), the funeral and Cinna’s death (9.1.85). The opening of the Divus Julius is lost in transmission; it begins in Caesar’s sixteenth year.9.1 Divus Julius · 9.2 Divus Augustus · 9.3 Tiberius · 9.4 Nero · 9.5 Divus Titus · 9.6 Divus Vespasianus

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  10. 10 · Appian — ~AD 150s, Alexandrian Greek in Roman service, drawing on Pollio. The statue in Venus Genetrix (10.1.2.102), the funeral, the triumviral wars.10.1 Civil Wars

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  11. 11 · Cassius Dio — ~AD 200–230, some 250 years after, Roman senator writing in Greek. The fullest connected narrative; the Sibylline report “whether true or false” (11.1.44.15); the fate of the statue (11.1.51.22); the end in Alexandria (11.1.51.10–15).11.1 Roman History

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  12. 19 · Genesis — the primary text of the patriarchal period. Traditions older; composition and redaction generally placed in the first millennium BC, final form ~6th–5th centuries BC. Earliest manuscripts: Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, ~2nd century BC onward.19.1 Genesis (cited by chapter)

    Cited in Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100&nd

  13. 20 · The traditional chronologies — the systems that produce the patriarchal dates from the text’s internal ages; they disagree by nearly two centuries on Abraham’s birth.20.1 Seder Olam Rabbah (~2nd century AD) · 20.2 Ussher, Annales (AD 1650) — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100&nd

  14. 21 · Mesopotamian chronology — king lists, date lists and synchronisms (middle chronology) anchoring the fall of Ur and Hammurabi.21.1 King lists and synchronisms (composite) — composite of scholarly editions; no single text to link

    Cited in Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100&nd

  15. 22 · Egyptian chronology — king lists and the Turin Canon for the Hyksos span.22.1 King lists and Turin Canon (composite) — composite of scholarly editions; no single text to link

    Cited in Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100&nd

  16. 24 · Pliny the Elder — Natural History, ~AD 77, encyclopaedist writing ~120 years after Caesar’s death. The caesus etymology of the family name; the sudden death of Caesar’s father; the pearl given to Servilia.24.1 Natural History — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  17. 32 · Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, surviving books — Augustan-era narrative history; Book 1 carries the Alban chain, the destruction of Alba Longa and the transplant of its noble houses — the Julii named — to Rome (1.30). Distinct from the lost books of the Caesarean era (item 17).32.1 Ab Urbe Condita Book 1 (edition) · 32.2 Books 2–10 (the early Republic)

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  18. 33 · Homer, Iliad — the oldest Greek epic; Book 20 carries Poseidon’s prophecy that Aeneas’s descendants will rule — the root of the whole Julian tradition, centuries before Rome.33.1 Iliad Book 20 (edition)

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  19. 34 · The Bovillae altar — stone altar dedicated by the gens Julia to Vediovis at Bovillae, inscribed leege Albana — by Alban law; dated on letter-forms to c. 100 BC. The one surviving physical document of the family’s own Alban claim.34.1 The inscription (CIL I² 1439) — stone; no single edition to link · 34.2 imperial fasti and inscriptions (later consular lists; not one document — cited as a class, unlinked)

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD · The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  20. 35 · Virgil, Aeneid — the canonical Troy-to-Latium epic. Commissioned and written under Augustus, after the Julian name had become the state: the tradition’s codification by the dynasty that ruled by it.35.1 Aeneid (edition)

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  21. 36 · Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities — Augustan-era Greek history of early Rome; the fullest surviving Aeneas-to-Romulus narrative.36.1 Roman Antiquities (edition)

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  22. 39 · The consular fasti — the inscribed magistrate lists (Fasti Capitolini and related), carrying the Julii Iuli consulships of 489–434 BC, the decemvir of 451, and the first Caesar consul of 157 BC.39.1 Fasti Capitolini — stone; no single edition to link

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  23. 40 · The Venus–Aeneas denarius — silver coinage struck by Caesar 47–46 BC: Venus obverse; Aeneas carrying Anchises and the Palladium reverse. The descent claim minted into army pay.40.1 The coin type (Crawford 458/1) — coin; no single edition to link

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  24. 43 · The Memoirs of King Herod — Herod’s own account of his reign, cited by Josephus as a source (42.1.15.174). Lost.

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  25. 44 · Justus of Tiberias — the rival Herodian-court historian; his chronicle ran to the death of Agrippa II and was still read by Photius in the ninth century. Lost.

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  26. 46 · The Memoirs of Agrippina the Younger — the account of her own life and her family’s ruin, written by a great-granddaughter of Augustus and mother of Nero; cited by Tacitus as a source (41.1.4.53). Lost.

    Cited in The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90

Physical Sources

Sources for the TOE series. These are graded differently from the textual sources above, because the question is not how many channels carry a claim but how well the value is established. Three dots is a recommended value adjusted across many independent measurements; two is independently replicated; one is a single measurement by a single group. Where the grades fall is part of the argument — a prediction resting on a one-dot measurement is a different proposition from one resting on three, and the memos say which.

  1. 70 · CODATA — the Committee on Data for Science and Technology recommended values, adjusted across every independent measurement of each constant. Source of the proton and neutron masses, both magnetic moments, the electron mass, the proton charge radius (70.1) and the neutron mean-square charge radius. Every constant in the TOE series traces here or to 71; none is quoted from memory.70.1 CODATA Internationally Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants (2018 adjustment, published 2021)

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice · 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure · 2.3 The Neutron

  2. 71 · Particle Data Group — the international compilation of particle properties, revised biennially. Source of the neutron mean lifetime, the beta-decay endpoint energy, and particle masses across the zoo. Carries the unresolved beam-versus-bottle discrepancy in the neutron lifetime rather than averaging it away.71.1 Review of Particle Physics (current edition)

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  3. 72 · Bureau International des Poids et Mesures — the SI brochure. The speed of light is a defined constant, not a measured one, which is why it carries no uncertainty anywhere in this series.72.1 The International System of Units (SI), 9th edition (2019)

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice · 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  4. 73 · A.-L. Cauchy — 1828. The relations between elastic constants that hold for a lattice of particles interacting through central forces, with every particle at a centre of inversion symmetry. The whole of memo 1.3 rests on this result: with isotropy it forces K/G = 5/3 and Poisson’s ratio to one quarter. Page reference recorded from secondary sources and not verified against the original.73.1 Sur l’équilibre et le mouvement d’un système de points matériels sollicités par des forces d’attraction ou de répulsion mutuelle, Exercices de Mathématiques 3 — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice · 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  5. 74 · M. Born & K. Huang — 1954. The modern statement of the Cauchy relations, the inversion-symmetry requirement, and the use of Cauchy violation as a measure of how non-central a real material’s bonding is. The standard reference for why most crystals break the relation and the idealised Aether lattice does not.74.1 Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices, Oxford University Press — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice

  6. 75 · L. D. Landau & E. M. Lifshitz — the standard treatment of isotropic linear elasticity: two independent constants, the relations between them, and the longitudinal and transverse wave speeds. Supplies the framework memo 1.3 works inside rather than any result particular to it.75.1 Theory of Elasticity, Course of Theoretical Physics Vol. 7, 3rd edition — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice

  7. 76 · F. Birch — 1938. The pressure correction to the Cauchy relations. Used in memo 1.3 to check that the void being under slight tension shifts K/G only in the thirteenth decimal place. Volume and page recorded from secondary sources and not verified.76.1 The Effect of Pressure upon the Elastic Parameters of Isotropic Solids, according to Murnaghan’s Theory of Finite Strain, Journal of Applied Physics 9 — paywalled

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice

  8. 77 · J. E. Lennard-Jones — 1924. The 12–6 potential. Cited in this series as the thing being excluded: the exponent 12 was chosen because r−12 is the square of r−6 and so was cheap to compute by hand, and memo 2.4 shows it cannot reproduce the proton’s internal pressure.77.1 On the Determination of Molecular Fields, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 106 (1924) 463–477

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice · 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  9. 78 · A. C. Eringen — 1999. Micropolar (Cosserat) elasticity: media whose particles carry independent rotation. Source of the coupling constant κ and the two transverse branches. Carries the caveat that guards the whole series — light strictly travels at √((μ+κ)/ρ), and identifying the shear modulus with μ alone holds only if κ is small.78.1 Microcontinuum Field Theories I: Foundations and Solids, Springer — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice · 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  10. 79 · J. C. Maxwell — 1861–62. The mechanical model of the electromagnetic medium — molecular vortices separated by idle-wheel particles — from which displacement current emerged. Part III derives the wave speed of the medium as the square root of rigidity over density and identifies it with light. That derivation is equation (1) of memo 1.3; it is Maxwell’s, not this series’. He called the model provisional, and it is cited for the method and for his belief in a medium, not for the idle wheels.79.1 On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine Series 4, vols 21 and 23 · 79.2 A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field (1865) — the machinery dropped, the medium kept

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice

  11. 80 · V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri & F. X. Girod — 2018. The first extraction of the pressure distribution inside the proton, from deeply virtual Compton scattering. Reports a strong repulsive pressure near the centre, stated as exceeding that inside a neutron star, with a binding pressure further out. This is the measurement memo 2.4 is aimed at, and it is a single-group result. It must always be cited with 81.80.1 The pressure distribution inside the proton, Nature 557 (2018) 396–399 — paywalled

    Cited in 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  12. 81 · K. Kumerički — 2019. A published challenge to whether the proton’s internal pressure is measurable from the data of 80 at all. Entered here as a first-class source because citing 80 without it is a defect — the error that had to be corrected in the earlier Aether and GAM white papers.81.1 Measurability of pressure inside the proton, Nature 570 (2019) E1 — paywalled

    Cited in 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  13. 82 · B. Duran et al. — 2023. Gluonic gravitational form factors of the proton, from J/ψ photoproduction near threshold. The programme that will test memo 2.4’s prediction, and the source of the proton mass radius of roughly 0.55 fm — smaller than the charge radius, which is flagged in that memo’s ledger as an unresolved choice.82.1 Determining the gluonic gravitational form factors of the proton, Nature 615 (2023) 813–816 — paywalled

    Cited in 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  14. 83 · V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorcé, P. Schweitzer & P. E. Shanahan — 2023. The review of the field: what gravitational form factors are, what has been measured, and what remains contested. The entry point for anyone checking memo 2.4 against the current state of the programme rather than against its first result.83.1 Colloquium: Gravitational form factors of the proton, Reviews of Modern Physics 95 (2023) 041002

    Cited in 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  15. 84 · R. Pohl et al. — 2010. The proton charge radius from muonic hydrogen, 0.8409 fm, against the then-accepted electron-scattering value of 0.8751 fm. The proton radius puzzle moves memo 2.4’s prediction by about eleven per cent, which sets the precision the measurement must beat to be decisive.84.1 The size of the proton, Nature 466 (2010) 213–216 — paywalled

    Cited in 2.4 The Proton’s Internal Pressure

  16. 85 · J. Chadwick — 1932. The discovery of the neutron as a distinct particle, which ended the proton-plus-electron composite model that had stood since Rutherford proposed it in 1920. Cited as the objection memo 2.3 has to meet, not as support for it.85.1 Possible Existence of a Neutron, Nature 129 (1932) 312

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  17. 86 · S. Galster et al. — 1971. The neutron electric form factor from elastic electron-deuteron scattering: a positive core with negative charge at larger radius. Memo 2.3 derives that arrangement from the magnetic moments alone and then finds it matches this measurement, which was not an input.86.1 Elastic electron-deuteron scattering and the electric neutron form factor, Nuclear Physics B 32 (1971) 221–237 — paywalled

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  18. 87 · F. E. Wietfeldt & G. L. Greene — 2011. The review of neutron lifetime measurement, including the beam-versus-bottle discrepancy — about 877.8 s counting survivors against about 888 s counting products, a nine-second gap at roughly four sigma, unresolved for over a decade. Listed in memo 2.3 as a live problem the model has not explained.87.1 Colloquium: The neutron lifetime, Reviews of Modern Physics 83 (2011) 1173

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  19. 88 · W. Pauli — 1930. The letter to the Tübingen conference proposing the neutrino to account for the continuous beta spectrum. The particle that carries away the balance of the 782 keV released when a neutron comes apart.88.1 Letter to the group of radioactives at the Gäu-Verein meeting, Tübingen, 4 December 1930 — no stable public edition to link

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  20. 89 · Planck Collaboration — 2020. Cosmological parameters from the Planck mission. Source of the dark-energy density of 5.25 × 10−10 J/m3, which memo 1.3 converts into the lattice tension used to check that the void is effectively unstressed.89.1 Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (2020) A6

    Cited in 1.3 The Lattice

  21. 90 · J. MacCullagh — 1839. A medium resisting absolute rotation yields Maxwell’s equations exactly. Abandoned because no ordinary elastic solid resists rotation. Prior art for the electromagnetic derivation in Part 4 of this series, where the rotational rigidity comes from aligned magnetic moments.90.1 An Essay towards a Dynamical Theory of Crystalline Reflexion and Refraction, Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 21 — no stable public edition to link
  22. 91 · M. E. Yousif — 2021. Independently proposes the neutron as a proton and an electron bound by the interaction of their rotating magnetic fields, with a comparable architecture and a stacking rule forbidding adjacent protons. Self-archived, single author, and the reference chain is largely to the author’s own prior work — cited as independent arrival at a similar structure, not as corroboration. The figure carries a copyright notice and is not reproduced.91.1 Explaining the Stern-Gerlach Experiment: Using the Spinning Magnetic Field (SMF), ResearchGate publication 356641828

    Cited in 2.3 The Neutron

  23. 92 · P. von Neumann-Cosel et al. — 2024. Candidate toroidal electric dipole mode in 58Ni. Recorded here with its correction history: the earlier GAM white paper credited this result to a different first author and described it as confirmation, where the paper’s own title says candidate and an erratum followed in 2026.92.1 Candidate Toroidal Electric Dipole Mode in the Spherical Nucleus 58Ni, Physical Review Letters 133 (2024) 232502 — paywalled · 92.2 Erratum, Physical Review Letters 136 (2026) 179901
  24. 93 · Nikola Tesla — his written objections to curved space, made between 1932 and 1938. Tesla’s argument is the same distinction this series draws: space itself has no properties, only matter filling it does, so curvature attributes a property to something that has none. Cited for the objection only. His promised dynamic theory of gravity was announced repeatedly from 1925 and never published; no manuscript has surfaced, so there is no alternative to cite, only a criticism.93.1 Statement relating to force and matter, to Einstein’s theories, and Tesla’s own theory of gravitation, 15 April 1932 — Nikola Tesla Papers, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University · 93.2 Dynamic Theory of Gravity, statement of 10 July 1937 · 93.3 Written statement issued in place of a speech, 1938, at the age of 82

    Cited in T.1 Space Is the Void

Missing Sources

Nothing in this list links out: these works are lost — their absence is the entry.

  1. 12 · Caesar’s private papers and the acta — secured by Antony from Calpurnia on the evening of 15 March 44; contested at the time (Cicero’s forgery charge, 2.2.1). Not one document survives.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  2. 13 · The drafted Cinna bill — attested only at 9.1.52.3; its carrier was killed on 20 March 44 and the text is never heard of again.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  3. 14 · Cleopatra’s archive — the entire chancery, correspondence and any memoirs of a reigning literate monarch of twenty-one years: nothing survives beyond 3.1. The largest single silence in the record.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  4. 15 · Gaius Oppius, the paternity pamphlet — the book denying Caesar’s paternity of Caesarion, commissioned into the record (attested 9.1.52.2), then itself lost; known only from its citation.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  5. 16 · Asinius Pollio, Histories — written by a commander who fought these wars, the acknowledged backbone of Plutarch and Appian. Lost entirely.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  6. 17 · Livy, books 109–133 — the Augustan-era narrative of 49–30 BC. Lost; survives only as one-line summaries (Periochae).

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC

  7. 18 · Augustus, De vita sua — his memoirs in thirteen books. Lost; its account shaped the surviving tradition before disappearing.

    Cited in Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90

  8. 23 · Any contemporary attestation of Abraham — no inscription, document, seal or monument naming Abraham exists in any archive of the period — not at Ur, Mari or Ebla. The earliest naming is the biblical text, over a millennium after the traditional dates.

    Cited in Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100&nd

  9. 25 · Caesar’s lost works — the speeches (one fragment survives, the Julia eulogy, in Suetonius 6); the Anticato; De Analogia (one rule survives in Gellius 1.10); the poem Iter; the youthful works — Praises of Hercules, the tragedy Oedipus, collected sayings — whose publication Augustus forbade in a letter to Pompeius Macer (attested Suetonius 56); the letters to the Senate, to Cicero, and the enciphered private letters (Suetonius 56). Of his writing, the war commentaries survive; the rest is lost, and for the juvenilia the suppression order itself survives.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  10. 26 · The Acta Diurna and Acta Senatus — the daily published record of Senate and people, instituted by Caesar as consul in 59 BC (attested Suetonius 20). No issue from his lifetime survives.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  11. 27 · Sulla, Memoirs — twenty-two books, completed shortly before his death in 78 BC, used by Plutarch. The dictator’s own account of the years in which he spared the young Caesar. Lost.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  12. 28 · Sallust, Histories — the narrative of 78–67 BC, the decade of Caesar’s eastern service and return. Fragments only.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  13. 29 · Tanusius Geminus, history — a hostile contemporary account cited by Suetonius and Plutarch for damaging claims. Lost; its citations cannot be checked against it.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  14. 30 · Oppius, life of Caesar — the biography by Caesar’s intimate Gaius Oppius, distinct from his book denying Caesarion’s paternity (item 15). Lost; known from citations.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  15. 31 · Cicero’s letters to Caesar — a published collection existed in antiquity, with Cicero’s secret memoir De consiliis suis. Lost. One side of the correspondence survives (item 2).

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  16. 37 · Fabius Pictor — Rome’s first historian, writing ~200 BC, who carried the Aeneas tradition a century and a half before Caesar. Lost.

    Cited in The Julii: Troy to the Ides, trad. 118

  17. 41 · Tacitus — ~AD 110–120, senator writing under Trajan, two generations after the events of the Julio-Claudian court he records. The Clemens interrogation (41.1.2.39–40); the adoption of Nero (41.1.12.25); the first false Nero (41.2.2.8).41.1 Annals · 41.2 Histories

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90

  18. 42 · Josephus — ~AD 75–94, Judaean priest and Flavian client, writing within living memory of the Herodian court, on Flavian patronage — the dynasty that destroyed Jerusalem. For Herod’s reign he depends substantially on Nicolaus of Damascus (5), the king’s own court historian, whose lost apologia he reworks with the tone reversed: the surviving conduct tradition on Herod is a single channel, filtered twice, and is cited here for genealogy and dated record only. A note carried from Haensch (55) and referenced at section 2: Julius was the nomen gentile of every family that obtained Roman citizenship from Caesar, Augustus or Tiberius, and of every family freed by a member of those houses; by the end of the second century hundreds of thousands of persons used it, so a Julius in the record is not by itself evidence of connection to the gens. Josephus states the first filter himself: at 42.1.16.183–186 he charges Nicolaus by name with writing to please the king, dwelling on what glorified him and covering the rest — and then rebuilds Herod from that same work with the tone reversed. The second layer’s confession of the first is in the text. Caesar’s grant of citizenship to Antipater, 47 BC (42.1.14; 42.2.1.194); the reigns of the enfranchised kings (42.1.18–19).42.1 Antiquities of the Jews · 42.2 The Jewish War

    Cited in The Building Programme, 40 BC – · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90

  19. 45 · The Acts of the Apostles — ~AD 80–90, within living memory of the Herodian court it describes. The death of Agrippa I at Caesarea (45.1.12); Agrippa II and Berenice hearing Paul (45.1.25–26).45.1 Acts (cited by chapter)

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  20. 47 · The Suda — ~10th century AD, Byzantine lexicon-encyclopedia: a thousand years from the events, compiled from earlier notices now lost. Cited here for its biographical entry on Nicolaus of Damascus, including the tutorship of Antony and Cleopatra’s children (47.1); every claim resting on it carries the millennium’s distance as its condition.47.1 Suda On Line (cited by entry)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  21. 48 · The Gospel of Matthew — anonymous; the name is second-century tradition (Papias, ~AD 125, via Eusebius). Greek, c. AD 80–90, outside Judaea — eighty-five years and more after Herod’s death. Sole source for the massacre of the infants (48.1.2), told in a visible Moses-typology frame with fulfilment citations; the earliest surviving physical witness of those verses is Papyrus 70, c. AD 250–300.48.1 Matthew (cited by chapter)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  22. 49 · The Gospel of Mark — anonymous; the earliest gospel, c. AD 70. Cited here for an absence: it carries no birth narrative at all, and Matthew builds upon it.49.1 Mark (cited by chapter)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  23. 50 · The Gospel of Luke — anonymous, c. AD 80–90. Cited here for its independent infancy account (50.1.1–2), which contains no flight to Egypt and no massacre, and cannot be reconciled with Matthew’s in itinerary.50.1 Luke (cited by chapter)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  24. 51 · Macrobius, Saturnalia — ~AD 400, four centuries from Herod. Carries the pig-joke anecdote and a garbled massacre notice that conflates the infants with the son’s execution; plausibly drawn from Christian tradition, and therefore not independent confirmation of either. Cited only with that condition. Unlinked — no standard open edition; cited by book.

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  25. 52 · The Greek epigraphic corpora — the published collections of Greek inscriptions on stone: Inscriptiones Graecae (IG), Dittenberger’s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS), the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), and Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis (IJO). Inscriptions are contemporary with their subjects, carved by the people who erected them, dated by letter-forms and archaeological context, and wholly independent of the manuscript tradition — the only channel on this house that is neither Josephus nor archaeology of buildings, and the only one still growing. Cited here by corpus number.52.1 PHI Greek Inscriptions (searchable texts) · 52.2 Attic Inscriptions Online (Athens, with translations)

    Cited in The Herod Question · The Julii of Judaea: Herod’s Hou · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  26. 53 · The Latin epigraphic corpora — Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), L’Année Épigraphique (AE), Dessau’s Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS), and for this region Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie (IGLS) and the Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (CIIP). Cited by corpus number. Includes the Berytus building architrave (AE 1928, 82) and the Roman epitaph of Coetus Herodianus (CIL VI 9005 = ILS 1795).

    Cited in The Herod Question · The Julii of Judaea: Herod’s Hou · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  27. 54 · The Masada and Herodium amphora inscriptions — painted Latin and Greek labels (tituli picti) on wine and foodstuff jars excavated at Herod’s desert palaces; twenty-two known. Fourteen name the consignee outright, regis Herodi Iudaici. Household documents, not literature: nobody wrote them to be read by posterity, and they record what was actually shipped to the king’s table.54.1 Cotton & Geiger, Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents (1989), nos. 804–836 · 54.2 Cotton, Lernau & Goren, ‘Fish Sauces from Herodian Masada’, JRA 9 (1996)

    Cited in The Herod Question · The Julii of Judaea: Herod’s Hou

  28. 55 · Haensch, ‘The Contributions of Inscriptions to our Knowledge of the Herodian Dynasty’ — Rudolf Haensch, Scripta Classica Israelica 33 (2014), 99–116. The survey of the whole Herodian epigraphic corpus by the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik of the German Archaeological Institute; the guide followed here for what the inscriptions are, what they say, and — expressly — what they do not say. A modern study, cited as such, not as an ancient source.55.1 Full text (PDF)

    Cited in The Herod Question · The Julii of Judaea: Herod’s Hou · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  29. 56 · Krumeich & Lichtenberger, »Seiner Wohltätigkeit wegen« — Ralf Krumeich and Achim Lichtenberger, ‘Zur statuarischen Repräsentation Herodes’ I. von Iudaea’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 129 (2014), 173–209. The catalogue of Herod’s statue monuments, monument by monument, with dimensions, find-dates, present locations and plates; the title quotes the Athenian inscription’s own words. The source of the Acropolis data cited in section 11. A modern study, cited as such.56.1 Full text (PDF) · 56.2 catalogue no. 42 = Athens, Acropolis inv. 13249 = IG II² 3440

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  30. 57 · Eck, on erasures and statue bases in Jerusalem — Werner Eck, ‘Eine Rasur auf einer Statuenbasis aus Jerusalem’ and ‘Die Basis einer Ehrenstatue mit dem cursus honorum für einen senatorischen Amtsträger in Jerusalem’. Cited here for the method rather than the conclusion: deliberate ancient erasure (rasura) is physically detectable on stone and is published when found, which is what makes the erasure question testable rather than speculative. Eck co-edits the Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae.57.1 Jerusalem cursus honorum base (the erasure paper is linked from it)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  31. 58 · Lichtenberger, ‘Bilderverbot oder Bildervermeidung?’ — ‘Figürliche Darstellungen im herodianischen Judäa’, in L.-M. Günther (ed.), Herodes und Jerusalem (Stuttgart 2009), 71–97. On whether the absence of figural representation in Herodian Judaea reflects a prohibition or an avoidance — the question behind one of the candidate explanations for the missing inscriptions in section 11.58.1 Full text (PDF)

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  32. 59 · Jacobson, ‘King Herod, Roman Citizen and Benefactor of Kos’ — David M. Jacobson, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 13 (1993–94), 31–35. The argument that the wording of the Kos statue base attests Herod’s possession of Roman citizenship — the epigraphic support for the grant of section 2.59.1 Abstract and text

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  33. 60 · Jacobson & Kokkinos (eds), Herod and Augustus — papers presented at the Institute of Jewish Studies conference, University College London, 21–23 June 2005; IJS Studies in Judaica 6 (Brill, Leiden and Boston 2009), 502 pp., nineteen studies. Cited here for four papers in particular: Toher on Herod, Augustus and Nicolaus (60.1); Sievers on the divergence between the War and the Antiquities (60.2); Barrett on the procuratorship (60.3); and Goodblatt on the documents and Herod’s titles (60.4). A modern collection, cited as such.60.1 M. Toher, ‘Herod, Augustus, and Nicolaus of Damascus’, 65–82 · 60.2 J. Sievers, ‘Herod, Josephus, and Laqueur: A Reconsideration’, 83–112 · 60.3 A. A. Barrett, ‘Herod, Augustus, and the Special Relationship: The Significance of the Procuratorship’, 281–302 · 60.4 D. Goodblatt, ‘Dating Documents in Herodian Judaea’, 127–156 · 60.5 Front matter and editors’ introduction

    Not cited — listed for what it would have told us had it survived, or as a source discussed in prose without a reference code.

  34. 61 · The coinage of Herod: Ariel & Fontanille and the numismatic literature — D. T. Ariel and J.-P. Fontanille, The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Brill, Leiden and Boston 2012), the near-complete die study built on 2,504 examined specimens; with Ariel’s paper in the IJS volume (60), Fontanille on the Year 3 iconography (American Journal of Numismatics 25, 2013, 127–169), and Lichtenberger on whether the coinage is Romanised or self-referential. Coins are a fourth evidence channel: struck by the king’s own mint, in his own lifetime, surviving in thousands, and independent of the manuscript tradition. Modern studies, cited as such; the coins themselves are the primary material.61.1 Fontanille on the Year 3 iconography · 61.2 Ariel & Fontanille, Understanding Herod through his coins

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  35. 62 · Fontanille & Ariel, ‘What Are the Motifs on Herod the Great’s “Year 3” Coins?’ — a three-part study devoted entirely to the iconography of the single dated Herodian issue: the helmet, the tripod and lebes, the star, the palm branches, the aplustre and the tau-rho monogram, with the competing readings set against one another. Cited for the disputes it records as much as for its conclusions. Modern studies, cited as such.62.1 Part I · 62.2 Part II · 62.3 Part III · 62.4 catalogue concordance: Hendin 1169 · Meshorer 44 · RPC 4901 · HGC 10, 651

    Cited in The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD

  36. 38 · Cato, Origines — the first history written in Latin, treating the Alban and Italian origins. Fragments only.
Format — TIMELINE-FORMAT-SPEC v1.0

Master numbers are permanent: issued once, never reused, never renumbered. Period pages display their relevant subset and keep these numbers. Register entries record: author · written when · distance from events · relationship to power · what it preserves · survival condition.

Register in use by: Rome and Egypt, 100–30 BC · Abraham and the Patriarchs, c. 2100–1600 BC · The Julii, Troy to the Ides · The Julii of Rome, 44 BC – AD 90 · The Julii of Judaea, 47 BC – AD 117.