Tomb of Athena & time line q's?

[BumpOnnaHalfApple]

Berg417448 -

This doesn't make sense. If they left 3,000 years ago and then built the Temple 1,000 years later it would be 2,000 years old, not 4,000 years old. The way they have stated the numbers in the show, the Temple is older than the exodus from Kobol.

DOE! You're right.
And now I'm even MORE confused than when I started this thread.

Anybody got any theories or timelines that DO seem to make sense?

[Berg417448]

One assumption that I have been guilty of making is that the beacon was 3,000 years old.

What Doc Cottle actually said was that the disease was similar to one that spread 3,000 years ago, against which humans developed a natural immunity later on. This told us how old the virus was but not necessarily much about the age of the beacon. The beacon could be much younger than the disease itself.

[Lady Snow]

From Our Lady Snow -

Just an "FYI" kinda thang ;-) the term "continuity error", generally applies to the kind of thing a script super would miss on set. Things like there being, say, a glass of wine and two forks on a table in one shot, but then a glass of wine, a fork, and a spoon, on the table in another shot, where the two shots, although possibly filmed on different days, are supposed to be "continuous". Script supers actually take pictures of things like table settings, the actors (to document precisely what they were wearing, and even how they were wearing it, in any given shot), among lots of other things, and they keep 'em in a bound book full of hand written notes, so that if a shot has to be duplicated later, things like forks magically turning into spoons don't occur. A script super (actually called a "script supervisor") works with the "property master" (aka "props"), and the "set dresser" to keep "continuity errors" from happening. Only fans that have never worked on set refer to inconsistencies in back-story, or dialog, as "continuity errors". As far as I know there is no "official" term for inconsistencies in back-story, or dialog. Honestly they're just reffered to as ;-), well,.. "Fu__ ups" in most writers' rooms.

Haha. Thanks! Turns out I've been using it generically - and incorrectly - all this time!

One assumption that I have been guilty of making is that the beacon was 3,000 years old.

What Doc Cottle actually said was that the disease was similar to one that spread 3,000 years ago, against which humans developed a natural immunity later on. This told us how old the virus was but not necessarily much about the age of the beacon. The beacon could be much younger than the disease itself.

One assumption I've been guilty of making is that the medical records from 3000 years ago are accurate. How would Cottle know that the virus is an "exact match"? Heck, we don't even know what the plague was that wiped out the Athenians in 430 BCE! Sure, their technology is/was/will be superior to ours, but that's one heck of a detailed record-keeping...

[Morbius]

One assumption that I have been guilty of making is that the beacon was 3,000 years old.

What Doc Cottle actually said was that the disease was similar to one that spread 3,000 years ago, against which humans developed a natural immunity later on. This told us how old the virus was but not necessarily much about the age of the beacon. The beacon could be much younger than the disease itself.

It's my opinion you're making the same mistake i read in a lot of both papers and articles on archeology.

Example:

A temple is excavated, inside durring the digging the remains of a fire are found in the temple and are radio carbon dated.

The fire's remains are 2000 years old.

The temple is dated at 2000 years old due to the radio carbon dating of the fire.

WTF?!?!?!?

This has to be the biggest most idiotic mistake i've ever read and i have read it made many times.

Such a scenario, just like with the disease and the beacon only means that the temple is AT LEAST 2000 years old because some time after the temple was built the fire was lit in the temple.

It might have been the day the temple was finished being built, making the temple 2000 years old, or it might have been 4000 years after the temple was built making the temple 6000 years old.

When discussing something like a solid metal space beacon floating in empty space time could become irrelevant, it could have been made 6000 years ago and assuming it's power supply lasts it could still be active.

All i could see stopping it would be the random chance of a significant impact.

Since these records suggest this disease was in full circulation about 3000 years ago we know that the human immunity and relative "death" of the disease occurred sometime in the last 3000 years.

This means the disease had to be placed on the beacon before the immunity was developed, which could be AS LONG AS, BUT NOT LONGER THAN 3000 YEARS AGO.

Thus since the beacon then must be at least 3000 years old but could be much older a date of 4000 years ago for the temple lines up perfectly.

There is no way the temple or the beacon could be younger than the death of the disease which was last reported about the time of the exodus.

[Lady Snow]

Thus since the beacon then must be at least 3000 years old but could be much older a date of 4000 years ago for the temple lines up perfectly.

There is no way the temple or the beacon could be younger than the death of the disease which was last reported about the time of the exodus.

Fo' shizzle. What we have is a terminus ante quem for the beacon - that's not my issue with the quotes and/or dates. For me, it's an issue of a thousand years "lining up" with the exodus of the thirteenth tribe.

But good clarification on that anyway!

[Berg417448]

Maybe I just missed it but where was it stated that the virus "died"? As far as I recall it was just stated that humans developed an immunity to the virus. My understanding (and perhaps I understand incorrectly) is that viruses may exist fairly harmlessly within living organisms. It seems possible that humans could be "carriers" and could have left the virus on the beacon whether it still affected them or not. It would still affect Cylons who never developed immunity.

Of course, I do realize that maybe I'm wasting my time even wondering about this and maybe the writers intended all along that we assume the age of the beacon to be exactly 3,000 years and this was their way of doing it.

[Morbius]

Maybe I just missed it but where was it stated that the virus "died"? As far as I recall it was just stated that humans developed an immunity to the virus. My understanding (and perhaps I understand incorrectly) is that viruses may exist fairly harmlessly within living organisms. It seems possible that humans could be "carriers" and could have left the virus on the beacon whether it still affected them or not. It would still affect Cylons who never developed immunity.

Of course, I do realize that maybe I'm wasting my time even wondering about this and maybe the writers intended all along that we assume the age of the beacon to be exactly 3,000 years and this was their way of doing it.

Fair point, to save words i used the term and implied the virus died but you are right. Carriers are tricky and questionable as to if there could even be one, so i ignored the possibility. Partially because i think the writers were intentionaly trying to only give very vague dates for the exodus of the tribes and such for a reason that ties into the end of the series.

It is a very valid point that the exodus records are so vague yet the records from a disease of the same period were much better.

Still it is established that the virus on the probe was not a more modern version, mutation over time alone would keep it from being "an exact match" for a disease from 3000 years ago. IIRC "exact match" is Doc's words in the show not mine.