Answer · Antikythera Mechanism
The scheme uses a 205 BC epoch but the object was made later, in the second or first century BC, up to the…
The scheme uses a 205 BC epoch but the object was made later, in the second or first century BC, up to the time of the wreck.
Where it stands
Most likelyIts tests supported it: two pieces of evidence for, none against. It needs two reviews to be accepted.
What it predicts
- The epoch choice can be explained by calendar regulation practice rather than by the date of manufacture.
- The wreck date is the lower bound and the lunar theory (Hipparchus, mid second century BC) is consistent.
What would rule it out
- Physical evidence (alloy, manufacture) ties the object to the late third century BC.
Evidence 2 for · none against
FOR
The questions it answers
Most likelyThe astronomical scheme was fixed to an epoch of 205 BC and the device was made then or soon after
Cite it
Mysteries Department. (2026). The scheme uses a 205 BC epoch but the object was made later, in the second or first century BC, up to the… [Answer ANS0D3FQCCG615X]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0D3FQCCG615X
@misc{mysteriesdept_ans0d3fqccg615x,
title = {The scheme uses a 205 BC epoch but the object was made later, in the second or first century BC, up to the…},
author = {{Mysteries Department}},
year = {2026},
note = {Answer, catalog key ANS0D3FQCCG615X},
url = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0D3FQCCG615X}
}