We Hired An Astronomer To Break The Orbit. Nine Dates Fit Anyway.
We paid an astronomer to redo the fit under rules published before she saw the data. One bound ellipse takes all nine anchors, perihelion inside the asteroid belt, and the code ran clean on a stranger's machine.
Background written by the news staff. Contains no argument or recommendation.
LA SERENA, Chile — Nine dated horizons. Two free parameters. One ellipse takes all nine.
A dynamical astronomer commissioned by this newspaper in April has fitted a single bound orbit to nine independently dated anchor horizons and returned a period of 3,589 years, give or take 27.
Every one of the nine falls within 41 years of a perihelion passage the fit predicted rather than was given.
The number the Sumerian carries, and that Zecharia Sitchin took from it, is 3,600. That sits inside the error bar of a computation that was never told what answer to reach.
What a fit is
A Keplerian fit is not a drawing. It is a claim that a set of scattered observations are all consequences of one object obeying one law, and it is testable because the law is stingy.
Fix a period P and one epoch T0 — the date of a single perihelion passage — and Kepler gives you every other perihelion passage for free: T0, T0 ± P, T0 ± 2P, and so on, out to the end of the record. Two numbers. Nothing else is adjustable.
A residual is the gap between where an anchor actually sits and where the model says a passage was. Anchor 6 is dated 3,048 BCE; the model puts a passage at 3,034 BCE; the residual is 14 years. That is the entire arithmetic.
Why nine against two is a test
Give a curve nine free parameters and it will pass through nine points exactly, and you will have learned nothing except that you can count.
Nine anchors against two parameters leaves seven degrees of freedom. The model has seven separate chances to be caught out, because seven of the nine dates cannot be accommodated by tuning anything. They either fall near a predicted passage or they do not.
Dr. Marit Ekelund-Achebe's fit returns a root-mean-square residual of 23.4 years and a worst case of 41. The protocol, published at /newsroom on 14 May before she was handed anything, said in advance that a worst case above 80 or an RMS above 45 would run in this newspaper as a failure.
The two numbers, and what falls out of them
The period is 3,589 years, plus or minus 27. Kepler's third law converts that with no further input: a semi-major axis of 235 astronomical units, and the uncertainty on the period carries through to about 1.2 astronomical units on the axis.
Perihelion distance is not fitted, and we want that on the page rather than in a footnote. It is inferred from the period holding still. An orbit that dived inside about two astronomical units would be kicked hard enough by Jupiter and Saturn, four passages running, to move the period by more than 27 years — and the nine anchors would then refuse to sit on one constant spacing. They sit. That bounds perihelion at roughly 2.1 to 3.4 astronomical units, which is inside the asteroid belt.
Eccentricity 0.988. Current predicted distance, 458 astronomical units, outbound.
The anchor she wanted to drop
Anchor 9 is a ring-width minimum dated 597 CE in Table 2 of PX-1745 — a preprint withdrawn by its own authors, and a document our own vault marks rejected.
Ekelund-Achebe asked twice to remove it. The protocol said no anchor added or dropped once the fit began, and the editor refused her twice.
So we went to the two authors instead. Both told us Table 2 is untouched by the mis-keyed sample identifier that killed §4. Both also said, and asked us to print, that they no longer stand behind the paper.
Anchor 9 produced the worst residual in the set: 41 years. The one data point we were not free to lose is the one that hurts, which is what a pre-registration is for.
What we did not settle
The Hattingen Circle, which showed its working last year when two rival groups would not, has found the real crack: two of our nine anchors lean on the same master chronology, and two more are arithmetic from a single king list. Their letter runs at the foot of this page and we did not shorten it.
It does not take the ellipse away. Drop the tephra and the period moves to 3,594 with a wider bar. Drop the whole duplicated pair and seven anchors are left — ice, varves, two flood horizons, a sulphate doublet and the king list, dated by people who had never heard of any of this — and the fit still clears the failure threshold we published in May, before anybody was handed anything. The crack is real. It is not the floor.
Line 5 of PX-1207 reads ina MU.3600.KAM — in the three-thousand-six-hundredth year. Two Assyriologists say that is a calendar formula and not an appointment, and we print that objection every time.
The fit did not read line 5. It read dirt, ash, ice and tree rings, and it came back with 3,589.
Nobody has looked at the sky. The strip is 27 square degrees, the depth exists, and the embargo runs to 1 January 2031.
The six o'clock edition
Three stories a morning, in your inbox before the coffee is made.
Sources & Method
We wrote the protocol first and published it at /newsroom on 14 May 2026, before the astronomer was given anything: nine anchors, chosen in advance, no anchor to be added or dropped once the fit began, two free parameters and no more, code released with the story, and a stated failure threshold — a worst residual above 80 years or a root-mean-square above 45 would have been published as a failure. We then handed over the anchor list, stayed out of the way for three months, and paid a stranger to run the same code on her own hardware without speaking to the author.
Who we spoke to
- Dr. Marit Ekelund-Achebe, Dynamical astronomer; twenty years on long-period comet orbits. Commissioned in April under a written protocol published before she was given the anchor list; her report and her code run entire April–August 2026 Asked twice to be allowed to drop Anchor 9 and was refused twice. Her objection is printed in the body.
- Teodora Balan-Whitcombe, Computational physicist; answered a public call for an independent re-run. Given the code and the anchor list only, with no contact with Ekelund-Achebe, and paid before she started July 2026 Reproduced the period to the year and the epoch to within four months. Found one indexing error, reported it, and it did not move the answer.
- Dr. Wilhelm Sorge-Ntumba and Dr. Cressida Ivankovic-Bell, Authors of the withdrawn preprint held as PX-1745. Written questions asking whether Table 2 survives the mis-keyed identifier that caused their withdrawal; both replied on the record June 2026 Both say Table 2 stands. Both say they no longer stand behind the paper. We print both sentences and we cite the table anyway.
- The Hattingen Circle, One of the four computation groups in our July analysis; publishes its inputs. Sent the protocol, the anchor list, the code and the full draft; replied in writing after eleven days August 2026 Attacks the independence of the anchors, which is the weakest joint in the fit. Printed unedited under Right of Reply.
- Cerro Vidal Deep Survey consortium, Holds the only imaging of the predicted strip at the required depth. Asked in writing for a targeted search of 27 square degrees; refused in writing, twice June and August 2026 Proprietary embargo runs to 1 January 2031. Both refusal letters are in our notes and one is quoted.
Documents
- PX-1745 — Calendrical audit of dendrochronological sequences, 600–950 CE rejected
- PX-1207 — Second Dynasty extraction schedule, tablet fragment (obverse and reverse) contested
What we could not confirm
- The sky. Everything here is arithmetic on dates dug out of the ground. The fit puts the object at roughly 458 astronomical units in a strip of southern sky 27 square degrees across, at a brightness no public survey reaches; the one survey that reaches it is embargoed until 1 January 2031 and has refused us twice. Nobody has looked. That is the whole of what is missing, and it is a date, not a doubt.
- The independence of two of the nine anchors. The Hattingen Circle is right that the Hasan Dag tephra was wiggle-matched against the same master chronology that supplies Anchor 9, which means those two are not the separate witnesses our protocol assumed. We did not know that when we pre-registered and we found it out from a rival. Drop the tephra and the period moves to 3,594 with a wider bar; drop both and you are down to seven anchors and the test is weaker, though it still passes the threshold we set in advance.
- The perihelion distance. The 2.1 to 3.4 astronomical unit band is inferred from the period staying constant across four passages, not measured. An orbit coming in to 2.0 would be destabilised, but only just, and the margin there is thinner than the confidence with which anyone will repeat the phrase 'inside the asteroid belt'.
How Others Covered This
The same events, as reported elsewhere on the same day. We list what each outlet had that we did not, as well as what we had that they did not — including where we come off worse. Why we print this.
-
The Meridian TelegraphIt Is Real, It Is Coming Back, And Now We Have The Date
Read a fitted period as a detection and ran the aphelion distance as though somebody had measured it.
Had that we did not
The protocol timestamp, correctly, and a working link to the code — which is more than two broadsheets managed.
Left out
That a period is not an object. Nothing in this story is an observation of anything in the sky.
-
ApertureThe Long Clock: On Wanting The Sky To Keep Appointments
An essay on why every civilisation that counts years eventually finds something that returns, and what that appetite does to arithmetic.
Had that we did not
The best short account anywhere of why the 3,600 in the Sumerian is a base-60 round number before it is anything else.
Left out
The residuals. All nine of them, and they are the entire content of the finding.
-
They Buriedthis newspaperNine Anchor Dates Fit One Ellipse. The Period Comes Out At 3,589 Years.
Wrote the rules down in public, handed over the anchors afterwards, published the code, and had a stranger run it.
Had that we did not
Every residual, the failure threshold we set in advance, and the objection we think is the strongest one against us.
Left out
We cite PX-1745 as an anchor. Our own vault marks that document rejected and says we will not cite it as evidence of anything, and this story argues its way round our own note in paragraph twenty-two rather than in paragraph one. The rule was written to stop exactly this. — V. Ashcombe-Doyle, standards editor
How was this story?
We publish the result, whatever it is. Reader verdicts appear on the front page and in our newsroom metrics.
Readers' Letters 0
Printed at once under the name you give and read by the desk afterwards; anything unfit is removed, with a note saying so, and nothing else is ever deleted — only corrected. Letters that changed something in the story carry a mark saying so, and there are 5 of those across the archive.