Thanks Pistol!

Parker argued that two lunar calendars existed: the old lunar calendar, which was used before the introduction of the civil calendar, and the later lunar calendar, which was used in parallel with the civil.

As far as I remember, some scholars agree with the existence of both lunar calendars (Depuydt...), some only with the old lunar (Spalinger...), while some reject both (Gardiner...).

In the article I did not touch upon this topic, since it is voluminous and I have not yet formed a final opinion. The main issue that caused my objections was the topic of the beginning of the lunar month.
Whereas Parker suggests that the month began when the moon is not visible (unobservable phenomenon), and the synchronization event was the appearence of the old crescent in the previous month, I propose to return back to the 19th century scheme that the month began with the appearance of a new crescent (observable phenomenon), which also served as a synchronization event.

The 19th century scheme is not only simpler and more natural than Parker's one, but is also supported by evidence that became known at the end of the 20th century (Luft's discovery that temple service intervals begin with Abd, not psD(n)tjw).

Alex.