Regarding the calendar information in the time table of the explorers Barthel comments:

"It is exactly one-half year from the departure of the explorers from Hiva to their return to the homeland.

Whatever method one uses to convert the six months into days (six synodical months = 177 days, six lunar months = 180, and six solar months = 182) , there still appears to be an artificially constructed scheme.

Arrival and departure are accompanied by intermediate stages that amount to ten days.

In all, the actions of the explorers are fixed by fourteen dates, which can be arranged into seven pairs of dates. These seven pairs, whose number corresponds to the number of explorers, are made up of 35 + 5 + 5 + 5 + (corrected) 5 + 10 = 70 days or seven groups of ten days each.

Half the time is taken up by the sea voyage, the other half by events on land."

Earlier I have scrutinized the time table of Manuscript E:

Now when equipped with a better understanding of both the dates in Manuscript E and of the C text I wish first of all underline how Barthel has manipulated the number of days at Papa O Pea to be 5 ('corrected') instead of the true value which is Hora iti 26 - Hora iti 20 = 6 days.

Likewise did he count the number of days at Ahu Akapu to be 2 in spite of the simple calculation Hora iti 29 - Hora iti 26 = 3 days.

I have suggested a connection between the explorers' stay at Oromanga - the birthplace of the new king - and the days from February 23 to the March equinox:

... North of the equator September 20 is not far from autumn equinox and we should on Easter Island look for a corresponding date at the other side of the year. I find it hard to avoid the dates February 23 respectively March 20. March 20 is a technically more correct date for the northern spring equinox than the Church date March 21, and once the end of the old year was at Terminalia = February 23.

Are these days 27 in number as Barthel has stated?