A Planting Calendar Counted in Moons: The Drift Bound and the Intercalation Rule That Holds It

A calendar of twelve lunations contains 354.36708 days, which is 10.87512 days short of the tropical year of 365.2422 days, so a planting date fixed by counting moons falls earlier against the seasons by that amount every year. This paper computes how quickly such a calendar fails, and designs and tests a correction rule that a community can apply with no instrument beyond watching one seasonal sign. Without correction, a fixed moon-count planting date is half a lunation (14.765 days) wrong after 1.358 years and a full lunation (29.53059 days) wrong after 2.715 years. The rule proposed here is to keep a running count of the accumulated drift and to insert a thirteenth month ahead of the planting date in any year in which the drift, as estimated from the seasonal sign, reaches half a lunation, 14.765 days. In a 200-year simulation with the sign judged to plus or minus 3 days, the rule inserted 74 intercalary months and held the planting-date error to a maximum of 17.24 days with a mean absolute error of 7.47 days, inside the stated success window of plus or minus 20 days and inside the analytic worst-case bound of half a lunation plus the observation error, 17.77 days. With a perfectly judged sign the maximum error was 14.75 days and the mean 7.38 days. The guarantee behind the rule reaches the edge of the 20-day window when the sign-judging error reaches 5.235 days, and in the error sweep the first simulated failures of the window appear at a judging error of 7.5 days, where the worst maximum error over the trials run was 21.92 days. The fixed 19-year pattern of 7 intercalations, computed for comparison, accumulates almost no long-run drift (0.0868 days per 19-year cycle, 0.91 days over 200 years) but lets the planting date swing further within each cycle under the definitions used here, reaching a maximum error of 26.35 days with a mean of 12.19 days, because it waits for the count rather than responding to the observed drift. This study is simulated, not measured.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-11-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24114708
Primary Topic
Historical Astronomy and Related Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

A Planting Calendar Counted in Moons: The Drift Bound and the Intercalation Rule That Holds It

William Alexander Aldred
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Historical Astronomy and Related Studies
article

A Planting Calendar Counted in Moons: The Drift Bound and the Intercalation Rule That Holds It

William Alexander Aldred
article en

Abstract

A calendar of twelve lunations contains 354.36708 days, which is 10.87512 days short of the tropical year of 365.2422 days, so a planting date fixed by counting moons falls earlier against the seasons by that amount every year. This paper computes how quickly such a calendar fails, and designs and tests a correction rule that a community can apply with no instrument beyond watching one seasonal sign. Without correction, a fixed moon-count planting date is half a lunation (14.765 days) wrong after 1.358 years and a full lunation (29.53059 days) wrong after 2.715 years. The rule proposed here is to keep a running count of the accumulated drift and to insert a thirteenth month ahead of the planting date in any year in which the drift, as estimated from the seasonal sign, reaches half a lunation, 14.765 days. In a 200-year simulation with the sign judged to plus or minus 3 days, the rule inserted 74 intercalary months and held the planting-date error to a maximum of 17.24 days with a mean absolute error of 7.47 days, inside the stated success window of plus or minus 20 days and inside the analytic worst-case bound of half a lunation plus the observation error, 17.77 days. With a perfectly judged sign the maximum error was 14.75 days and the mean 7.38 days. The guarantee behind the rule reaches the edge of the 20-day window when the sign-judging error reaches 5.235 days, and in the error sweep the first simulated failures of the window appear at a judging error of 7.5 days, where the worst maximum error over the trials run was 21.92 days. The fixed 19-year pattern of 7 intercalations, computed for comparison, accumulates almost no long-run drift (0.0868 days per 19-year cycle, 0.91 days over 200 years) but lets the planting date swing further within each cycle under the definitions used here, reaching a maximum error of 26.35 days with a mean of 12.19 days, because it waits for the count rather than responding to the observed drift. This study is simulated, not measured.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Historical Astronomy and Related Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon