keeperzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Brendan!
> I withdraw my question; it turns out that
> Egyptologists have not yet examined this problem
> in detail. Strange omission.

I finally had a chance to read your paper and found it very interesting. I had some questions when reading it:
On pp100-101, when discussing the dnjt separated by an overly long interval and non-symmetrical sj3w, you state "This effect can only be caused by a superfluous day within the ranges of these two pairs, namely, the incorrect position of LD 16, mspr 2-nw, which got there by mistake." Did you consider scribal error, or observational error and rule them out? In your opinion, was the source of this mistake Parker's interpretation or something else?
It is known from the Roman Period Papyrus Carlsberg 9 that the synodic period of ~29.53 days could be calculated via a simple period relation - 25 Egyptian years of 365 days relates to 309 synodic months. Neugebauer in "A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy" on p563 states "Parker has given good reasons for dating the origin of the scheme to the fourth century B.C. because at that time the dates provided by the text would coincide with the date of the last visibility of the moon which defines the beginning of the Egyptian lunar months." Would your new proposal for the beginning of the lunar month affect Parker's proposed origin date?