Talk:Antikythera wreck

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Antikythera wreck appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Antikythera wreck, discovered by Greek sponge divers in 1900, contained one of the first forms of a mechanised clock?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/June.

Wikipedia

Comments

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 161.6.233.65 (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am directly involved in the ongoing excavation of the shipwreck, and therefore am avoiding any COI by editing beyond minor corrections. It's clear from the position of the wreckage on the sea floor that the ship simply struck the cliffs of the island and sank, certainly in a storm. Ishkabibble (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discrepency between reported location of the wreck (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Antikythera+wreck&btnG=Google+Search&meta= returns a link to http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_005700_antikytheraw.htm , 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? 83.104.55.73 10:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right - the exact position is protected by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports to help prevent looting. Ishkabibble (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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 ... http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/kythera/kythera97.ppt 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?

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 76.28.77.142 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Date ambiguity

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)[reply]

2014 dive expected

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229724.300-wearable-submarine-to-hunt-for-2000yearold-computer.html?page=2#.U5PRg3bb4aA tells of plans to use a hardsuit to search the site in 2014. Kdammers (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

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

Vandalism

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 62.74.23.249 (talk) unexplained changes to stable text) (undo | thank)

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

Skeletal remains

A recent CNN article discusses the skeletal remains reported in Nature: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/europe/antikythera-shipwreck-human-remains-discovered/Kdammers (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]