Talk:Antikythera wreck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


No idea what that stuff above is on about. Anyone know if it's still relevant.

Question: Does anyone have any hypotheses as to why the ship sunk? It would be nice to have some info about that on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a discrepency between reported location of the wreck ( returns a link to , which requires a log-in, but is in the cache) and the position of the island. I've posted the island's position to the Antikythera page, since that's not in dispute (35.87N / 23.30E), but the cited page gives 35°52N/ 23°20E as the wreck's location. This is closer to Crete than Antikythera! And it's out in the middle of the sea, which is inconsistent with the story of a sponge-diving ship sheltering from bad weather. And my atlas tells me the sea is over 200m deep here too, well beyond the limit of "standard gear" divers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Greek Govt. doesn't like publishing the accurate location of wrecks (to deter vandalism or amateur excavation). Anyone know? 10:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(an hour later) Still haven't found any other location on the web. Guess it's going to need ink-on-paper technology.

Some more searching ... gives another location (lat long) in the middle of the island, but also describes the wreck as being "50 meters long Located 15 - 25 meters off Point Glyphadia In 43 m of water, 140 ft" The associated comments are sane from a diving point of view, which puts some confidence on the rest of the author's data. Unfortunately, that comment has been repaeatedly copied across the Net, with no other mentions to tie down the location better. A photograph of the dive site is shown, which is consonant with the other data ; that suggests a location on the NE side of the island.

OK, I'll be brave. The photograph shows some landforms, and the resolution on GE is adequate ... the west coast appears too rugged (and the shadows are wrong); . 35.889758,23.30780 is possible ; 35.873073,23.320144 might be, but I don't like the gully; 35.885725,23.313337 is a maybe, but the walls/ livestock enclosures onshore don't appear in the photograph; 35.887212,23.309979 ... again the foreshore looks wrong ; 35.889711,23.307994 is on a "point", looks good. That's 35d 53'23" (35.8897)N and 23d 18'28" (23.3078)E.

Still explored?[edit]

Have there been any plans for modern exploration of the wreck? I mean, divers dying of decompression sickness in the early 1900s doesn't seem like a big concern now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the text doesn't explicitly state that the deaths occurred in the early 1900s; Antikythera mechanism says that Jacques Cousteau himself explored the wreck in 1978, and implies that his dives were the most recent attempt to gather artifacts. Perhaps it is an unusually deep dive. It would be interesting to know if the site is still accessible, although I surmise that it has long been stripped of any hidden treasures. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Date ambiguity[edit]

The phrase "date in the late 80s BC" is ambiguous. If it was AD, it would mean ~88, but since it is BC, does it mean ~82? We are accustomed to "late" when referring to a date to mean the larger numbers, but in the case of BC, "late" would mean the smaller numbers. Lriley47 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

2014 dive expected[edit] tells of plans to use a hardsuit to search the site in 2014. Kdammers (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


We have both artEfact and artIfact. Let's choose one. Kdammers (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


I noticed a garbled sentence and traced it back to probably vandalism. See History just prior to:

18:37, 26 July 2014‎ Pinethicket (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,841 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Undid revision 618573007 by (talk) unexplained changes to stable text) (undo | thank)

I hope he didn't do anything else.--guyvan52 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Skeletal remains[edit]

A recent CNN article discusses the skeletal remains reported in Nature: (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Is it correct to call it a skeleton, when so far only some of the bones have been recovered?Kdammers (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)