Hi Brendan!

Thanks for your questions.

To answer them, I need to provide some explanations that are not explicitly stated in my article.

The sequence of lunar days depicted in the Ptolemaic temples begins with psd(n)tjw, and Day 6 and Day 15, which have numerals in their names, are respectively in positions 6 and 15. That is, these lists do not demonstrate apparent internal contradictions.
Parker took the Ptolemaic sequence unchanged, numbered it, and got what is now considered the generally accepted sequence (and numbering) of Egyptian lunar days.

This generally accepted sequence has two problems:
1. Since the average synodic month is 29.53 days, the period between two counter-phases of the Moon (new moon and full moon; first and last quarter) should be 29.53 : 2 = 14.77 ~ 15 days. This is not true for psd(n)tjw (LD 1) and smdt (LD 15): 15 - 1 = 14, nor is it true for two dnjt (LD 7 and LD 23): 23 - 7 = 16.
2. Luft's 'date net' based on the Illahun data shows that smdt should be LD 16, not LD 15 as its name indicates.

If we apply selection rules to the input lunar dates to eliminate data inconsistency, then, as you have seen, psd(n)tjw exhibits its intercalary nature; and moving mspr 2-nw from the second half of the list to the first half normalizes the interval between quarters as well as the interval between new moon (prt Mn) and full moon.
Moreover, following Borchardt in his assumption that mspr is the m-derivative of spr - 'rib', I get the sequence mspr, mspr 2-nw, which are naturally located at the beginning of the cycle, when the moon looks like a rib.

As to the source of the alleged error, it seems likely to me that it was a scribal error.
My proposal does not affect the dating of the Carlsberg papyrus 9 in any way, because at the time of its creation, a corrupted sequence of lunar days was already used.

Alex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2024 08:35AM by keeperzz.