DAM 01-29.1 has it (Corpus C, no picture). It is C14' ed 640-660
DAM 01-29.1 in French:https://www.academia.edu/38824798/Un_nouveau_t%C3%A9moignage_sur_la_fixation_du_canon_coranique_dans_les_d%C3%A9buts_de_lIslam_le_manuscrit_%E1%B9%A2an_%C4%81_DAM_01-29.1._CRAI_2018-II_avril-juin_%C3%A0_para%C3%AEtre
the DAM 01-29.1, both with material and graphical characteristics attributable to the early period (late 7th - early 8th century AD).
The different types of writing used in this manuscript - all tending towards B.Ia of F. Deroche's classification20 - are chronologically consistent: they were probably used during the first half of the 8th century. Moreover, these writings share common points with the types of writing used by the lower layer of the palimpsest DAM 01-27.1: in addition to the inclination and elongation of the vertical hastes, several letters have a similar layout21. The number of lines on the page, varying between sixteen and fifty lines, is also a common point between these fragments.
According to various material observations, this manuscript was probably copied at the beginning of the 8th century AD. The format and the writings used associate it with a set - whose writing is classified B.Ia - relatively well represented in the various collections that we know of. The similarities noted between our volume and the lower layer of the palimpsest DAM 01-27.1 assume that there is a close link between these two copies. A study of the text will make it possible to clarify the nature of these relationships.
The Qur'anic text of DAM 01-29.1 is clearly related to the textual tradition 'uṯmānienne. There are, however, some variations of the consonant text. Some of them belong to the same types of variations found in other manuscripts belonging to the same tradition, such as the modification of a pronoun suffix23 , the addition of a conjunction or a particle24 or a pronoun25. However, other variations of DAM 01-29.1 are more unusual. In terms of spelling, this manuscript has the originality of frequently inserting the vowel attack (hamza), represented by the letter alif26. Other variants go beyond the orthographic framework: apart from the rather frequent omission of a word or a particle, which can be considered as a simple omission, two terms are sometimes inverted27, words are sometimes added28, chords in the masculine become feminine29.
But it is to the order of the suras and the anomaly, encountered between suras 80 ('abasa) and 81 (at-takwīr), that we devote the following study. In DAM 01-29.1, the order observed for the twenty-four transitions between suras corresponds exactly to the review of 'Uṯmān, except for one time, on the front of f.33. There, between the end of sura 'abasa and the beginning of sura at-takwīr, there was a text of about a dozen lines.which was vigorously scraped and then rewritten. The damage caused by deleting the text makes deciphering it extremely difficult. Nevertheless, there are still some rare clues that can be seen. First, the basmala, the introductory formula of each sura, at the beginning of the first line, has remained intact; it attests that it was certainly a sura. Second, in the last line, the tail of a ya' (or maqsura alif) - a letter much less frequent than a simple nun - is identifiable three times. Finally, if we cross this data with the approximate calculation of the portion of text represented, only one Qur'anic passage seems to coincide: that of sura 75 (al-qiyāma).
In short, this manuscript originally reflected a text relatively close to the Koranic canon embodied in the tradition 'uṯmānienne, much more so than is the palimpsest DAM 01-27.1. However, the preserved fragments show that, on at least two occasions, it underwent the same treatment: a substantial part of the text was deleted. On the one hand, the order of the suras was restored, on the other hand, divergent verses were rewritten. These variations are of the same nature as those already identified in the palimpsest31 ; but in the latter, they are more frequent and more pronounced: to give just one example, Suras 9 and 19 follow one another. No folio is free of textual variants involving transpositions, synonyms or omissions.
According to Islamic sources, these types of variations would also characterize the competing codices, destroyed by 'Uṯmān. Some of these reviews seem to have survived several centuries, so that some information is available about their specificities, some of which coincide with our manuscript. In the codex of Ibn Mas'ūd, very popular in the city of Kūfa, the order of suras was different: suras 'abasa (80) and at-takwīr (81) were not consecutive, but were separated by a group of three or four suras, among them, sura al-qiyāma (75)32.
which was vigorously scraped and then rewritten. The damage caused by deleting the text makes deciphering it extremely difficult. Nevertheless, there are still some rare clues that can be seen. First, the basmala, the introductory formula of each sura, at the beginning of the first line, has remained intact; it attests that it was certainly a sura. Second, in the last line, the tail of a ya' (or maqsura alif) - a letter much less frequent than a simple nun - is identifiable three times. Finally, if we cross this data with the approximate calculation of the portion of text represented, only one Qur'anic passage seems to coincide: that of sura 75 (al-qiyāma).
In the same codex, exegetes mention variants relating to the consonant text. These variants are numerous and unevenly distributed throughout the Qur'an; some passages are particularly affected by the variation, notably between verses 21 and 25 of Sura seventy-one. This is the very place where the text has been erased. However, the variants of DAM 01-29.1 - like those of the palimpsest - do not completely coincide with the literary descriptions in the codices of the Companions. A reminiscence of these variants can still be found in f. 3v, Q. 3:49, where the sentence is given in feminine form, following the example of the codex of Ibn Mas'ūd33.
Can we think, as for the palimpsest, that we have here a codex inherited from the recension of another Companion of Muḥammad? Its proximity to the canon suggests that such a recension does not represent another branch of the transmission, but rather an alteration of the official text, contaminated by another recension. Our manuscript certainly confirms the existence of these codices of the generation following that of the Companions,
such as that of Sa'īd al-Jubayr (died in 692); codices that were openly eclectic34 but whose recollection in the texts is very imprecise.
The manuscripts of Ṣan 'ā' - the palimpsest DAM 01-27.1, the DAM 01-29.1 and others no doubt35 - show, in any case, that the review of 'Uṯmān did not impose itself from the outset, but that it underwent a more nuanced phase of reception, and a more fluid transmission. A stage which we can reach today, thanks to the testimony of the manuscripts.