Poor addled 'scholar', always on the back foot, immediately leaps to the first dumb assumption he can find that he thinks seems to fit his incorrect view, piling on top of his fallacious presumption of his conclusion as a starting point. (In particular, this idiotic circular reasoning: "as shown by means of the lunar eclipse in VAT 4956".) 🤦♂️
The assertion of a solstice falling in mid-July, observed or calculated, is simply impossible, and further demonstrates that 'scholar' doesn't understand the concepts involved. It is really quite telling that he claims that a solstice was incorrectly 'calculated' for '588 BCE' that is wildly incorrect for that year but that just by 'coincidence' falls on exactly the right date for 568 BCE. 🤣
Back in reality, neo-Babylonian years couldn't begin in May (and certainly not June) because if they did it would eventually require rectification by having a year with only 11 months. PD's tables shows that Babylonian years never began in May, and that they always had at least 12 months. As shown by PD, all the intercalary months for the 6th century BCE are attested from cuneiform records. VAT 4956 very neatly places the eclipse on the correct date of July 5 and the solstice on the correct date of 29 June in the very well established 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 568 BCE.