Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Tolkien didn't have a final First Age timeline. Or rather, he had several: the Annals of Aman and associated Tale of Years (HoME X: Morgoth's Ring) seem to be his latest thoughts on the period before the Awakening of the Elves and the period after their arrival in Aman, but with the publication of The Nature of Middle-earth, we now have his later thoughts on the Great March (NoME 1.VII "The March of the Quendi"), and his even later thoughts on the period between the Awakening and the March (NoME 1.XIII "Key Dates", text 1). Throw in a smattering of later notes, such as a birthdate for Galadriel (NoME 1.XVIII "Elvish Ages & Numenorean") and a mention of the March crossing Caradhras (NoME 3.XVII "Silvan Elves & Silvan Elvish"), and what we have is a complex picture that Tolkien never put together.

But the pieces are there. It's taken a lot of calculating, cross-referencing, and tearing my hair out over Tolkien's entirely unreasonable habit of, um, not taking his 1960s thoughts into account in the 1950s (that monster), but I've pulled together what I think is a fair rendering of what Tolkien's "Final Timeline" would have looked like.*

EDIT 2022-06: recovered link Tolkien's Final First-Age Timeline (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSIyuBM8eUGC4vBdWaqsZcTChCgeCZz-Ooyz6ZiZFYsg5JaYFlGROatDJCF5ZI4iVLsSf_2clV5l-ki/pub)

EDIT 2024-07: substantially revised version, incorporating Men and Dwarves for the first time: Tolkien's Final First-Age Timeline, Version 2 (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub)

EDIT 2024-09: after a few more changes, I updated to Late-Tolkien First-Age Timeline, Version 4 (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub). I also made a quick Unified Tolkien Timeline (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1uN9F0FmBjkQCm7ezxqr0lBkLTTHjmF_oRRopWitt6ds/pubhtml) from the arrival of the Valar to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers, which is little more than a rough (and silly) exercise.

*It wouldn't have. If he'd written it, he would have come up with a whole new set of dates, added several characters, and accidentally made Finwe the son of Maglor somehow. But I can dream.

I've not bothered to include the Beleriand years, because there's no change to them: they span about 600 years at the end of the very long First Age, just as they always have.

Notes on what in the world I was thinking at every stage are at the end, along with the parts where my common sense got the better of me. I'm happy to explain, discuss, or defend any points people want to pull out, though if it involves too much of Tolkien's inability to count in 144s I won't have any hair left to tear out. :D

Anyway so that's what I've been up to since NoME appeared.

hS

[Galadriel55]

*It wouldn't have. If he'd written it, he would have come up with a whole new set of dates, added several characters, and accidentally made Finwe the son of Maglor somehow. But I can dream.

:D


This is fascinating stuff, and a lot of dedication. Many kudos to you Hui!


I read through the timeline, and one thing that kinda baffled me is the insistence on counting generations from Cuivienen. To me, this makes no sense in the context of an immortal society. This sort of counting is possible for us, humans, when each generation has a finite time span, and an even more finite fertility span; while there may be overlap with two - three - even four generations with a stretch, there's a limit to how much overlap you can get. When you are immortal, there is nothing stopping a person from the 24th generation marrying a person from the 3rd generation, making their child a member of... which generation exactly? Is he the 25th generation, on the premise of accounting for the highest number of "degrees of separation"? But simultaneously he is a belated member of the 4th generation - which sort of invalidates any comment along the line of "Generation N complete", because what's to stop Elves from just having more children? It's not like they die or become infertile after a certain age. They can always hypothetically have more.

Counting Elf generations makes sense when there is a "baby boom", and there is a wave of children that comes at a predictable period of time related to some reproductive cycle physiology. It makes sense for the first few generations. It makes sense in Aman, because apparently all the Elves there went "We made it! The future is bright! Let's make babies!", and proceeded to do so at the shortest intervals within reason. That is what maintains the chronological structure of the family tree, where each generation is older than the next (something that is also confirmed by the various hints scattered in the text). Technically speaking, there is nothing preventing a nephew to be ages older than his uncle, if the uncle's parents decide to have a "late child"... and again right back to it: there are no "late children" when there is no limitation to your period of fertility! When (hypothetically) one sibling can be born in the FA and one in the TA, with anything you want happening in between, how can you still count generations by the number of degrees removed from Cuivienen? How does this system even hold up, except during those periods when generations flow smoothly from one to the next, or when there is a time point acting as reference (e.g. arrival in Aman, or departure from Aman, or other significant "generational" event)?

Would it not make more sense to name generations by the other definition, a cohort of people who are born around the same period of time and go through the same set of shared experiences? That would put the child of the 24th and 3rd generation Elves into the generation of whichever children are born around the same time, whether sired by the 3rd or 50th generation (because again, what's to stop the 3rd from having more children later in life?). And generations would be defined along the lines of "Those who remember Cuivienen", "Those who were born after Orome's coming", "Those who were born after crossing Landmark X" - just the same way as defined as "Those who were born in Aman" are naturally considered a new and separate generation from their parents who made the March and remembered Middle-earth.


On another note, I think I spotted a math error, or possibly I'm just not doing it right. When trying to see how long it took the Elves to build Tirion, I get 50 years by FA count, but 72 years by the VY count. Either way, that's impressively little time. I don't believe they've really built any cities before on their previous stops on the road, so it's a remarkable amount of time to get into architecture and perfect the skill and build Tirion, and then decide that it's perfect and finished and not keep tinkering with it till the end of days.

Other things I noticed... Galadriel was still a teen at the Death of the Trees. That goes against everything I imagined about her being a mature woman making a mature decision... And also makes me look sideways at Feanor, who apparently creeped a kid for a piece of hair.

...And more math questions. There is a discrepancy between Death of Trees and Doom of Mandos timelines. But either way - I sort of imagined that the entire Flight of the Noldor happened on one breath, in a matter of weeks. What did they do for 2+ years???

[Huinesoron]

I read through the timeline, and one thing that kinda baffled me is the insistence on counting generations from Cuivienen. To me, this makes no sense in the context of an immortal society. This sort of counting is possible for us, humans, when each generation has a finite time span, and an even more finite fertility span; while there may be overlap with two - three - even four generations with a stretch, there's a limit to how much overlap you can get. When you are immortal, there is nothing stopping a person from the 24th generation marrying a person from the 3rd generation, making their child a member of... which generation exactly? Is he the 25th generation, on the premise of accounting for the highest number of "degrees of separation"? But simultaneously he is a belated member of the 4th generation - which sort of invalidates any comment along the line of "Generation N complete", because what's to stop Elves from just having more children? It's not like they die or become infertile after a certain age. They can always hypothetically have more.


Tolkien's final view of the generations of the Quendi borders on ritualistic. He decided that (at Cuivienen at least) they had a very specific pattern to their lives. To take the 24th generation as an example (Ingwe, the parents of Finwe and Elwe, and the last to be complete before the March): each member would marry at age 108, have their first child a year later, and then have other children - typically just the two, though Elwe's family shows that three was possible - at 48 year intervals. Obviously this means each new generation is more spread out, because the first child of the eldest members is further ahead of the last child of the youngest; those figures mark the start and end dates of the generation. Tolkien specifically gives the dates of the first and last births, and first and last marriages. He also cheerfully talks about the "number of births" in a generation: "At the Great March... of gen. 25, probably 16 births would have occured from 1488 to 2223". That's not individual children born - that's rounds of births, with elvish women giving birth in groups (and always in the spring).

He does acknowledge that this maths is kind of weird, on a previous scheme: "the last of the 3rd gen. is born in 800, while the 5th gen. was in progress, so that [?] generations would not keep intact. Plainly a child could be born in practically any year..." But he kept on doing it! And I have a suspicion Ingwe is only one generation above Finwe so that Indis can be the same generation as her husband...


Would it not make more sense to name generations by the other definition, a cohort of people who are born around the same period of time and go through the same set of shared experiences? That would put the child of the 24th and 3rd generation Elves into the generation of whichever children are born around the same time, whether sired by the 3rd or 50th generation (because again, what's to stop the 3rd from having more children later in life?). And generations would be defined along the lines of "Those who remember Cuivienen", "Those who were born after Orome's coming", "Those who were born after crossing Landmark X" - just the same way as defined as "Those who were born in Aman" are naturally considered a new and separate generation from their parents who made the March and remembered Middle-earth.


You'd think, right? The final seven generations of Tolkien's scheme are all going on at the same time, so... yeah. And realistically, they probably did - this is probably just a maths exercise.

To "what's to stop them having more children" - they just didn't, apparently. The Quendi married, had a set of children, and then washed their hands of the whole affair. Tolkien spent a lot of time thinking about 'relative aging' and the like, partly in an effort to justify this, but it's really difficult to know where he ended up on that front.


On another note, I think I spotted a math error, or possibly I'm just not doing it right. When trying to see how long it took the Elves to build Tirion, I get 50 years by FA count, but 72 years by the VY count. Either way, that's impressively little time. I don't believe they've really built any cities before on their previous stops on the road, so it's a remarkable amount of time to get into architecture and perfect the skill and build Tirion, and then decide that it's perfect and finished and not keep tinkering with it till the end of days.


That's a maths (or maybe incomplete correction) error, yeah. The Annals of Aman make it 7 "VY", which should be just about 50 years; I suspect I wanted it to be half a VY and so tweaked one of the figures. Nothing else depends on it, so I'll just switch it back to Tolkien.

They didn't build cities beforehand - we actually know what they did build, from NoME 3.VI "Dwellings in Middle-earth". The word mbara meaning 'dwelling' "was probably a development during the period of the Great Journey to the Western Shores, during which many halls of varying duration were made by the Eldar at the choice of their leaders, as a while, or for separate groups". He goes on to say that "permanent buildings or dwelling-houses" were developed in Aman, and that "the Sindar lived in primitive conditions, mostly in groves or forest-land; permanent built dwellings were rare, especially those of a smaller kind corresponding more or less to our 'a house'." Cirdan was the first in Beleriand to use masonry, in his harbours and towers; and even after the return of Morgoth the Sindar mostly build for defense, "undomestic". In fact, even the Noldor mostly focussed on towers and fortresses: "only in Gondolin... was the art of the Exiles fully employed in building fair houses as dwellings. But the Noldor generally built family houses in their territories, and often established communities within encircling walls in the manner of 'towns'. The Men who later entered Beleriand and became their allies adopted the same customs."


Other things I noticed... Galadriel was still a teen at the Death of the Trees. That goes against everything I imagined about her being a mature woman making a mature decision... And also makes me look sideways at Feanor, who apparently creeped a kid for a piece of hair.


Galadriel is meant to be 20 in "relative years" at the beginning of the Exile, which I take to mean the death of the Trees. Those relative years are at a 3:1 rate, so she ought to be 60. Okay, phew, she is. (Through various mathsy loops, Tolkien establishes that her "mortal equivalent" age when she eventually sailed back to Aman was 54, having just passed her 'youth'. Midlife crisis, anyone?) Yeeeeeah... assuming Feanor creeped on her before he was banished to Formenos, she would have been "relatively" 7-10 years at the oldest. I hope she kicked him on the ankle.*

*Actually, "The Shibboleth of Feanor" [HoME XII] kind of agrees with this! "From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her good will from none save only Feanor. In him she percieved a darkness that she hated and feared..." Yeah, Uncle Feanaro was Galadriel's personal childhood nightmare, and then he came over and started trying to steal her hair - little "Man-maid" definitely kicked him on the ankle.


...And more math questions. There is a discrepancy between Death of Trees and Doom of Mandos timelines. But either way - I sort of imagined that the entire Flight of the Noldor happened on one breath, in a matter of weeks. What did they do for 2+ years???

I'm not immune to these off-by-one errors myself; different calculations give me +- 1 to various numbers. I've corrected the last few dates now.

And yes: you'd think! But Tolkien consistently tried to make it take flippin' ages. He considered having Fingolfin basically settle down in "Arvalin" (= Araman; he seems to have pulled in an earlier name for what we usually call Avathar and used it for Araman) to let him tweak the timing of the coming of Men, saying "Fleeing Aman, crossing the Ice, sojourn in Arvalin could take a [great while?]." The Annals of Aman (HoME X) have 50 sun-years between the death of the Trees and the launch of the Moon, and at one point (NoME 1.X) Tolkien declared that this was "insufficient"! (He did at least acknowledge that 720 years was a bit much.) He actually seems to have wanted a full VY for the Exile to unfold; but luckily the same late text that discusses Galadriel's birthdate says that the elves each aged by one life-year during the journey back. Galadriel's life-year at that time would be 3 years, so unless we assume her aging dramatically slowed to match her elders' 144-year span, the trip should be relatively short. (I've set it at 10 years for the sole reason that it lets me keep the 888 date for the death of the Trees while maintaining the length of the traditional "First Age" at the 600 years set by Tolkien in the Galadriel text.)

I suppose they were walking from the equator to the north pole with tens of thousands of people. It might take a little while.

hS

[Mithadan]

To what extent was JRRT's use of generations in his timeline not linked to "tradition" or mortality but rather a device to assist in calculation of population, to which he clearly assigned a great degree of importance? He seems to have felt that, for his work to be logical and internally consistent, there needed to be some critical mass of Elves ultimately transported to Valinor in order to explain how large the Beleriandic hosts were.

[Huinesoron]

To what extent was JRRT's use of generations in his timeline not linked to "tradition" or mortality but rather a device to assist in calculation of population, to which he clearly assigned a great degree of importance? He seems to have felt that, for his work to be logical and internally consistent, there needed to be some critical mass of Elves ultimately transported to Valinor in order to explain how large the Beleriandic hosts were.

He definitely did, though his idea of how many that needed to be seems to have changed constantly, and there is a definite argument that the generations were just a mathematical exercise. In talking of calculations based on schemes 1 and 2, he says "this is a purely abstract calculation", and then proceeds to discuss how the generations spread out.

But he does seem to have viewed them as a physical reality, as well: he assigns generations to the three Ambassadors, for example, even though they're so deep in the tree that it should be impossible to calculate these. He talks about how many birth intervals were complete at various times across multiple schemes, and goes out of his way to explain (in scheme 1) that the reason the 6th-generation Ambassadors have diverging birth-dates, despite being direct eldest-son descendents of the first three, is "due to intrusion of earlier-born daughters".

So I guess the answer is in that very Tolkienian space, where he creates something which he acknowledges is a simplification - like the 144 original elves - and then treats it as absolute fact in the rest of his workings. Imin, Tata, and Enel have speaking roles in the Great Debate before the March, the populations of the three tribes are directly based on the division of the 144 in the Cuivienyarna, and the elves had ritualistically-delineated reproductive habits.

hS

[gondowe]

I believe that the fact that he counted generations was due more to his eagerness to make the Tale of Years very reliable and realistic according to the nature of the Quendi and in the context of a world with sun and moon from the beginning.
I was not doing accounts, but I am trying to adapt the "old" Tale of Years to the new duodecimal system and I find it very difficult to adjust it without a "new narrative". I think that a lot (not all) of the new information can be inserted but keeping the old decimal system. I can be wrong and it would be necessary to give it more lapses but ...
On the other hand I think Tolkien always thought and wanted the three ambassadors to be First Born hence the "option" for Imin Tata and Enel to go to Valinor and join them Ingwë Finwë and Elwë, their "young descendants", and that also contributed to the calculations to make it more credible.

Greetings

[Huinesoron]

I believe that the fact that he counted generations was due more to his eagerness to make the Tale of Years very reliable and realistic according to the nature of the Quendi and in the context of a world with sun and moon from the beginning.

He certainly was very preoccupied with "realism", hence his boosting of the number of generations from 6 to 25 almost off the cuff. Whether even immortal elves could create a language from scratch in 2000 years doesn't seem to have bothered him, though.


I was not doing accounts, but I am trying to adapt the "old" Tale of Years to the new duodecimal system and I find it very difficult to adjust it without a "new narrative". I think that a lot (not all) of the new information can be inserted but keeping the old decimal system. I can be wrong and it would be necessary to give it more lapses but ...


It is difficult, which is why I basically gave up and just kept the precise spacing. If Tolkien had written it, he would probably have kept 'blocks' of events spaced the same as before - eg the gap between the Noldor and Teleri arriving in Valinor - and shuffled those blocks relative to each other. He would certainly have pinned precise birth and marriage dates on the House of Finwe, given his preoccupation with the same in the generation schemes.

But... all we can do is all we can do. There are several approaches to take, one of which is to literally keep the Annals timeline and just change the numbering scheme to duodecimal, taking the "3100 years is probably an elvish underestimate" as the latest authority (heck, at one point 14,000 years was too short for him!) My timeline would maybe better be described as pseudo-Christopher Tolkien: it's how I imagine Christopher would have reconstructed a consistent timeline for a hypothetical New Silmarillion, not what Tolkien would have produced with his own hands.


On the other hand I think Tolkien always thought and wanted the three ambassadors to be First Born hence the "option" for Imin Tata and Enel to go to Valinor and join them Ingwë Finwë and Elwë, their "young descendants", and that also contributed to the calculations to make it more credible.


Now that was a weird little interlude. His whole reason for introducing the generation schemes was to make Finwe et al young enough that Finwe could reasonably not be married before Valinor, and he wrote all his generational schemes and two(?) accounts of the Debate with just the Three Ambassadors. But then he seems to have decided - or realised - that the Three Fathers ought to have been there too, and so Tolkien's final position is that there were six Ambassadors.

It gives some lovely interactions, but it's really hard to know what to do with it. That's why my timeline just says "Ambassadors" - it's a problem for someone else to sort out!

hS

[gondowe]

I don't think Tolkien's final position was that there were six ambassadors. Rather I think he put it as an option. Because, as you say, he logically thought that the Three Fathers should be ambassadors (as I think he had always thought since the Lost Tales).
Of course this also brings up some problems such as that then "the light of Aman" was also "in the eyes" of the Three Fathers and perhaps that would have to be developed narratively.
In my case and in my reconstruction of the story, before knowing the information contained in NoME and the reasons why the Professor decided to write it, I had taken Cuivienyarna as a non-real Fairy Tale (related to numerals), at least that it was what I understood. From what I thought (I wanted, as I think Tolkien wanted) that Ingwë, etc were First Born and preserve the beautiful story of the Awakening that they told Manwë in the Lost Tales. I can only keep that if there are all six of the Ambassadors. But it is a difficult decision, you have said it.

Greetings

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I think that in general Tolkien's late writings became much too concrete and literal for his own good. The "Dome of Varda" is a gimcrack replacement for the original flat-earth cosmology.

[Galin]

I dunno, for myself, I find the Dome of Varda quite magical with its Star-imagines. I wonder how it would have been received if it had been presented to readers first, or in a published tale without being accompanied by draft texts?
And I agree it was seen as part of a replacement in around 1959, or the MT "phase" in general, but not later --
at least in my current, pre-NOME opinion (!) . . .

. . . and not that anyone said otherwise.

[Inziladun]

I dunno, for myself, I find the Dome of Varda quite magical with its Star-imagines. I wonder how it would have been received if it had been presented to readers first, or in a published tale without being accompanied by draft texts?

As a brief aside, could there possibly be any connection between that and the Dome of Stars in Osgiliath?

[Huinesoron]

I don't think Tolkien's final position was that there were six ambassadors. Rather I think he put it as an option. Because, as you say, he logically thought that the Three Fathers should be ambassadors (as I think he had always thought since the Lost Tales).
Of course this also brings up some problems such as that then "the light of Aman" was also "in the eyes" of the Three Fathers and perhaps that would have to be developed narratively.

You're quite right - I meant 'final' as in it's the last thing he wrote down. Whether he then rejected the "Alternative" is unknowable - he was just thinking on paper, and never wrote a "final decision" piece.


In my case and in my reconstruction of the story, before knowing the information contained in NoME and the reasons why the Professor decided to write it, I had taken Cuivienyarna as a non-real Fairy Tale (related to numerals), at least that it was what I understood. From what I thought (I wanted, as I think Tolkien wanted) that Ingwë, etc were First Born and preserve the beautiful story of the Awakening that they told Manwë in the Lost Tales. I can only keep that if there are all six of the Ambassadors. But it is a difficult decision, you have said it.


I think everyone is slightly taken aback by how literally Tolkien treats the fairy-tale of the Awakening. Like, he literally calls it a "legend"! But then he goes and treats every single aspect of it as essential to the later course of Quendian history. He's an odd one, is Tolkien.

I don't know how he would have come down on the 3/6 ambassadors question. The fact that none of the Seniors joined the March shows that having the Three Fathers being stubborn and refusing to even visit Aman (or perhaps, too connected to their land, if we take the view that the March was a bad idea) was a very plausible idea. I'd forgotten the lovely account the Ambassadors gave to Manwe, but that could be kept by having it given to Orome at the Finding. (Later Manwe probably wouldn't even have asked!)

(From a fan-writer perspective, I'd probably be cheeky and give it to the Three Elderwomen at the Finding, while their husbands refused to come near Orome. But that's me.)

I think that in general Tolkien's late writings became much too concrete and literal for his own good. The "Dome of Varda" is a gimcrack replacement for the original flat-earth cosmology.

I dunno, for myself, I find the Dome of Varda quite magical with its Star-imagines. I wonder how it would have been received if it had been presented to readers first, or in a published tale without being accompanied by draft texts?
And I agree it was seen as part of a replacement in around 1959, or the MT "phase" in general, but not later --
at least in my current, pre-NOME opinion (!) . . .

. . . and not that anyone said otherwise.

NoME doesn't really add anything on the Domes of Varda, except to consistently refer to them in the plural and to say that their presence lengthened elven growth cycles (though this may have been rejected). My view is that they are a bit too much of a replacement, because... why would the Valar set up a fake "starry sky without sun and moon" if the sun and moon predated the world? It isn't something they should be calling back to, because it never existed; and as Varda created the actual stars (which I believe NoME somewhere says are... y'know, actual stars), why would she be satisfied with cheap replicas.

If it was the first story I'd heard, I think it would still have felt like a justification for some old legend of the Trees being the only lights in the world. And since that's not something from Primary World mythology, that would have felt a little strange.

hS

[Galin]

My view is that they are a bit too much of a replacement, because... why would the Valar set up a fake "starry sky without sun and moon" if the sun and moon predated the world? It isn't something they should be calling back to, because it never existed;

My answer is: in the Two Trees they have the golden (sun) and silver (moon) lights, and still wanted stars.

With respect to domes, plural, I wonder if this is not a slip -- but if so, admittedly twice! I checked the NOME index here: the first reference isn't plural, but merely states: "since Valinor was domed over" Of course there are two plural references in NOME however, one from Difficulties in Chronology (page 71) c. 1959, and another from Ageing of Elves (page 77) 1959.

But in Morgoth's Ring there are no dome-s that I could find (unless I missed something of course).


The Later Quenta Silmarillion II chapter 6

Ungoliante sees "the dome of Varda"

MT text III

"What happened in Valinor after the Death of the Trees? Aman was "unveiled" -- it had been covered with a dome (made by Varda)" ( . . . ) it was removed and Aman was lit by the Sun"

Aman was unveiled. Christopher Tolkien: "and Aman was lit beneath the Dome by the Two Trees"

MT Text IV

"it was Varda who made the great dome above Valinor"


The Problem of Ros

[concerning the Great Hall of the Throne of Elwe and the Menelrond] " . . . because by the arts and aid of Melian its high arched roof had been adorned with silver and gems set in the order and figures of the stars in the great Dome
of Valmar in Aman, whence Melian came."

Again the Dome of Varda "above Valinor" is referenced [note 21]. Admittedly the "Dome of Valmar" might suggest other domes, but generally speaking, names can be tricky!


In an earlier version of QS, Ungoliant saw the "silver domes of Valmar" > so maybe Tolkien confused this and slipped
a couple times, or maybe remembered the "domed halls of Varda" from another passage?

If there were to be domes, it would seem that only one would have the light of the trees! Although that said, if these two references are not mere slips, perhaps that was the point? Places for any who wanted only a starry night sky.

[Galin]

Galadriel is meant to be 20 in "relative years" at the beginning of the Exile, which I take to mean the death of the Trees. ( . . .) Yeeeeeah... assuming Feanor creeped on her before he was banished to Formenos, she would have been "relatively" 7-10 years at the oldest. I hope she kicked him on the ankle.*

I think the idea that Feanor asked Galadriel for her hair only shows up in The Shibboleth of Feanor however, which is later than any 1959 text (in GNOME), or even Elvish Ages and Numenorean, dated to 1965.

*Actually, "The Shibboleth of Feanor" [HoME XII] kind of agrees with this! "From her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others, but judged them with mercy and understanding, and she withheld her good will from none save only Feanor. In him she percieved a darkness that she hated and feared..." Yeah, Uncle Feanaro was Galadriel's personal childhood nightmare, and then he came over and started trying to steal her hair - little "Man-maid" definitely kicked him on the ankle.

In your chart linked above you've got Feanor making the Silmarils before Galadriel was even born -- okay, based on NOME texts . . .

. . . but in The Shibboleth (1968 or later), Galadriel was born in the Bliss of Valinor (which includes the vague addition: "it was not long in the reckoning of the Blessed Realm, before that was dimmed") and the Eldar said that her hair had snared the light of the two trees, and many thought that this this saying gave Feanor the idea of blending the light of the Silmarils that later took shape as the Silmarils: "For Feanor begged three times . . ."

My interpretation is that Feanor begged for her hair before making the Silmarils. And if so, thus, in what "mode of thinking" was Tolkien involved with here, in 1968 or later? Noting too, that in another late text, Eldarin Hands and Fingers:

"nette meant "girl approaching the adult" (in her "teens": the growth of Elvish children after birth was little if at all slower than that of the children of Men). The Common Eldarin stem (wen-ed) wendé "maiden" applied to all stages up to the fully adult (until marriage)."

JRRT, from Vinyar Tengwar 47, texts generally dated 1967-70 (reproduced in NOME as well)

Carl Hostetter then refers the reader to XVI where Tolkien notes that the Elvish growth rate from conception to maturity should be comparable to Humans, with Elves reaching maturity at 24 loar (Sun Years), and in which, with respect to later weddings in the "Early Years" before the March, the Elves were usually 24/21-24 [granted CFH also refers to Elvish Ages and Numenorean too, but this text still pre-dates the "nette remark"].

In other words, I don't think we necessarily have a text in which Feanor begs a notably young Galadriel for her hair, as by the time the idea arises, we don't know where Tolkien was with respect to certain earlier notions or dates.

[Huinesoron]

I think the idea that Feanor asked Galadriel for her hair only shows up in The Shibboleth of Feanor however, which is later than any 1959 text (in GNOME), or even Elvish Ages and Numenorean, dated to 1965.

In your chart linked above you've got Feanor making the Silmarils before Galadriel was even born -- okay, based on NOME texts . . .

. . . but in The Shibboleth (1968 or later), Galadriel was born in the Bliss of Valinor (which includes the vague addition: "it was not long in the reckoning of the Blessed Realm, before that was dimmed") and the Eldar said that her hair had snared the light of the two trees, and many thought that this this saying gave Feanor the idea of blending the light of the Silmarils that later took shape as the Silmarils: "For Feanor begged three times . . ."

My interpretation is that Feanor begged for her hair before making the Silmarils. And if so, thus, in what "mode of thinking" was Tolkien involved with here, in 1968 or later? Noting too, that in another late text, Eldarin Hands and Fingers:

Carl Hostetter then refers the reader to XVI where Tolkien notes that the Elvish growth rate from conception to maturity should be comparable to Humans, with Elves reaching maturity at 24 loar (Sun Years), and in which, with respect to later weddings in the "Early Years" before the March, the Elves were usually 24/21-24 [granted CFH also refers to Elvish Ages and Numenorean too, but this text still pre-dates the "nette remark"].

In other words, I don't think we necessarily have a text in which Feanor begs a notably young Galadriel for her hair, as by the time the idea arises, we don't know where Tolkien was with respect to certain earlier notions or dates.

This is some good detective work. I think you're right that the "nette remark" probably indicates that Tolkien returned to the 1:1 Elvish growth rate - "little slower" could still mean 3:1 (by contrast with the 144:1 he occasionally wandered into), but "if at all" precludes that. And it does seem to be the latest text on aging. It probably doesn't mean they married at 24, though - that would undo all the work on getting the Ambassadors to be unmarried adults, which doesn't rely on growth rates anyway. (One caveat: the "nette remark" is undated except in that it preceeds a 1968 text; it could concievably by pre-"Elvish Ages".)

It's a great catch that the story of Galadriel's hair only shows up in the Shibboleth (as quoted in Unfinished Tales): that really surprises me! I'd always assumed that her gift to Gimli was written to be a mirror of her rejection of Feanor, but it looks like the Feanor story may actually have been written to explain the Gimli one!

I think the only way to reconcile "teen Galadriel" with "inspired the Silmarils" is to shift the date the Silmarils were made right down to just before Feanor drew his sword on Fingolfin. The Annals of Aman say the making of them took 10 sun-years, so there's just enough room in my timeline for Feanor to pester Galadriel at about age 10 and still make them before he breaks the peace. ... except that Melkor's work to sow discord in Valinor was because of the Silmarils, so he would have to have corrupted Feanor in under 10 years, which seems unlikely.

Hmm...

Okay. The published Silmarillion makes Feanor's exile 12 years. The Annals of Aman has 40 years [of the Trees] between the forging of the Silmarils and the breaking of the Peace, and one year [of the Trees] for Feanor to make the Silmarils.. If we take both those figures to be sun-years, we get this:

- 5413: Birth of Galadriel.
- 5420: Feanor begins work on the Silmarils.
- 5421: Completion of the Silmarils.
- 5461: Breaking of the Peace of Aman, banishing of Feanor.
- 5473: Death of the Trees.

So Feanor saw 7-year-old Galadriel, was wowed by her hair, and when she kicked him on the ankle he went off in a sulk to make some jewellery. That kind of hangs together.

It means neglecting the "nette remark", but in various places in NoME Tolkien considered that aging should run slower in Aman under the Trees. It's not perfect, but at least it hangs together.

EDIT: Actually, the "nette remark" is specifically talking about the Common Eldarin period, and uses the past tense to describe Elvish aging. I don't think it conflicts with "Elvish Ages" at all.

hS

[Galin]

Admittedly, I'm making a broader statement here about Tolkien's possible mindset in the later phases of his writing. We can't know, but what I'm suggesting is that by the time this idea (Feanor asking for Galadriel's hair) rolled into JRRT's mind, much of what he'd written nearly 10 years earlier could have been forgotten . . .

. . . or replaced with something simpler. And if so, when Tolkien wrote The Shibboleth of Feanor, can we even be certain he had not reverted to the old date of Galadriel's birth in the Annals of Aman and injected the new ratio. I agree it would undo much of what he thought 10 years before (if he even remembered it) and even 3 years before (if he remembered that), but for all we know, an older Tolkien might have undone certain things for simplicity, or undone certain things because he no longer had his old texts to hand in any case, and was "creating anew" so to speak.

That said, I can certainly understand the approach that Tolkien was thinking X in 1959, and even Y in 1965, so why should we assume he simply dropped so much of it in 1968 or later. I agree it makes sense to approach things this way too -- but I keep in mind that Tolkien, just for one often-used example, actually chose to publish Celeborn as one of the Sindar in 1967 RGEO . . .

. . . then in 1968 "or later" seemingly forgets this, and writes at least two different Celeborn histories! And I'll admit that "maybe Tolkien changed his mind" due to a lack of evidence -- the Shibboleth providing no dates nor any trace of how fast Galadriel became a mature woman -- is not the most compelling of arguments, but there that is.

Before NOME was published, for example, some folks on the web have compared the "young" Galadriel who takes part in the rebellion to the more mature Galadriel who ultimately rejects the One. Perhaps an older Tolkien came to believe that the reader needed no more than this?

Perhaps not :D

EDIT: Actually, the "nette remark" is specifically talking about the Common Eldarin period, and uses the past tense to describe Elvish aging. I don't think it conflicts with "Elvish Ages" at all. hS

Can you expand on this?

So far, in my head anyway, Tolkien's "final" thought here is based on the "nette remark" (I had thunk so before NOME actually, given that this was published in VT) -- and now in combination with XVI (from NOME), but if you think the two are internally consistent I'd like to see more of your argument as to why.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, in trying to assign weight to various things Tolkien wrote down, one can't go exclusively by chronology, because it's certainly the case that T had in his mind, and committed to paper, everything from considered ideas worked out in great detail with full commitment, to on the other hand passing notions he jotted somewhere and soon rejected or forgot. To me the "nette remark" smacks more of the latter than the former.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Second post because utterly unconnected to the first:

While Tolkien wavered as to precisely the rates at which Elves (and Numenoreans) matured, the consistent thread in all of these writings is that these longeval races nonetheless grew from birth to first maturity (~20 years in human terms) at a much faster rate than the rate of their aging, compared to humans. Roughly speaking, we spend a quarter of our lives (0-20) growing up, and then the remaining 3/4 (20-80) decaying. For both Elves and Dunedain, though, while Tolkien vacillated on what the ratio was it was much, much greater than 1:3. Aragorn's was about 1:10, and Elves naturally way, way more.

This reflects back to a position I have long held, which was a minority position even before PJ cast a teenager to play Frodo and carved it in pop-culture stone: Frodo was not physically a teenager at 33 (and thereafter, because Ring). He was 33 in our regular human terms.* Hobbits, like Dunedain and Elves would fit the pattern: growth to adulthood at our rate, but slower decline thereafter. In ratio terms 1:4, since the average Hobbit life expectancy ("as often as not") was 100.

I have always thought that Hobbits coming of age at 33, (besides the maths of one gross), was the university don's droll little joke-- No society as sensible as the Shire would ever consider young people in their twenties to be "adults!"

*Mentally and emotionally, of course, he was 50, a middle-aged bachelor, not an ingenue. PJ never understood that.

[Aiwendil]

Admittedly, I'm making a broader statement here about Tolkien's possible mindset in the later phases of his writing. We can't know, but what I'm suggesting is that by the time this idea (Feanor asking for Galadriel's hair) rolled into JRRT's mind, much of what he'd written nearly 10 years earlier could have been forgotten . . .

. . . or replaced with something simpler. And if so, when Tolkien wrote The Shibboleth of Feanor, can we even be certain he had not reverted to the old date of Galadriel's birth in the Annals of Aman and injected the new ratio. I agree it would undo much of what he thought 10 years before (if he even remembered it) and even 3 years before (if he remembered that), but for all we know, an older Tolkien might have undone certain things for simplicity, or undone certain things because he no longer had his old texts to hand in any case, and was "creating anew" so to speak.

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal. On its own, this doesn't specifically invalidate the date he had arrived at for Galadriel's birth, but taken together with the new element of Galadriel's hair as inspiration for the Silmarils, it certainly suggests very strongly that Tolkien did not consider the final form of the c. 1959 chronology to be fixed or correct.

*It is fairly clear that in the writings from this time period, Tolkien had occasional lapses of memory. Nonetheless, I think it unlikely, given the amount of time he had evidently devoted ten years earlier to working out the details of Elvish growth and ageing, that this can be attributed simply to forgetfulness.

[Galin]

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal.

Well, that's what I get for skipping around! Hadn't read XIX yet (still haven't read XX) even though I've jumped to much later sections of the book. As I say, I'd been aware of the nette remark since Vinyar Tengwar, and indeed, looking at text II in XIX for example -- erm, now that you point it out --

Elves lived in life-cycles? sc. birth, childhood to bodily and mental maturity (as swift as that of Men) . . ."

So, so far, for me, still going with the external chronology and the nette description.

[Huinesoron]

So far, in my head anyway, Tolkien's "final" thought here is based on the "nette remark" (I had thunk so before NOME actually, given that this was published in VT) -- and now in combination with XVI (from NOME), but if you think the two are internally consistent I'd like to see more of your argument as to why.

Unfortunately my claim is weakened (though not destroyed) by a misreading of the text. Most of "Eldarin hands..." is spent discussing Common Eldarin, and so the meanings and details it gives can be attributed only to that period when the elves spoke CE. So, for instance, "No distinction was felt between right and left by the Eldar" could be treated as referring only to the eldest days, if one were really concerned by the conflict with Maedhros' "learned to wield his sword with his left hand".

But the "nette remark" isn't one of these: it's referencing the Quenya word nette, a descendent of the CE neter. So I was wrong.

The reason I wasn't completely wrong is that the main text goes on to highlight how old a word "nette" is - appearing very closely in Sindarin and Telerin. So it could still be a word from the period of the March, which means that "the growth of Elvish children after birth was little if any slower" could still mean "in the period when this word was formed" - ie, the March.

However, in trying to assign weight to various things Tolkien wrote down, one can't go exclusively by chronology, because it's certainly the case that T had in his mind, and committed to paper, everything from considered ideas worked out in great detail with full commitment, to on the other hand passing notions he jotted somewhere and soon rejected or forgot. To me the "nette remark" smacks more of the latter than the former.

This is an important point to remember when trying to mind-read Tolkien. :D And ultimately, despite all the work he put into them, I think all his First Age timelines fall into the "transient" category: he was perfectly happy to change the dates, and indeed the entire dating system, repeatedly. (Heck, at one point in NoME he even considered changing the published, LotR Tale of Years!) So the 'definitive timeline' concept is one Tolkien never really had in his later years.

In fact, we know that by about the time of the writing of "The Shibboleth of Feanor", Tolkien had either rejected or forgotten* much of what he had developed over the course of the many "Time and Ageing" texts of c. 1959, since in the two texts given in ch. XIX, "Elvish Life-Cycles", he presents a completely different approach to Elvish longevity in the form of cycles of renewal. On its own, this doesn't specifically invalidate the date he had arrived at for Galadriel's birth, but taken together with the new element of Galadriel's hair as inspiration for the Silmarils, it certainly suggests very strongly that Tolkien did not consider the final form of the c. 1959 chronology to be fixed or correct.

*It is fairly clear that in the writings from this time period, Tolkien had occasional lapses of memory. Nonetheless, I think it unlikely, given the amount of time he had evidently devoted ten years earlier to working out the details of Elvish growth and ageing, that this can be attributed simply to forgetfulness.

Okay, yeah, I totally misread the date on 1.XIX and had it down as yet another 1959 piece... :D Okay, quick timeline on Elvish aging:

- 1959a: NoME 1.IX,X. Growth from birth was 1:144 in Aman, 1:100 outside; Galadriel is said to be 20 at the exile, or "in years about 20 x 144 = 2880". Pregnancy was briefly calculated to be 900 months (75 years). At another point, growth-years were 1:10 in Middle-earth, 1:100 in Aman, and 1:50 for Aman-born elves in Middle-earth.
- 1959b: NoME 1, most text before 1.XV. 9-12 year pregnancy, maturity at 1:12 rate, and then 1:144 (sometimes 1:100 in Middle-earth). In some texts, in later Ages the mature rate quickened even more: 1:48 "in these latter days" (1.IX). At a later date, Tolkien specifically noted that the increased rate should not happen.
- 1959c: NoME 1.XVI,XVII. 1 year pregnancy, to maturity at 1:1 rate, then at 1:144. Tolkien states that slower growth is "unlikely".
- 1965: NoME 1.XVIII. In Middle-earth, "the Growth Years were relatively swift". 3 year pregnancy, grow to 24 at 1:3 rate, then 1:144 after that. The return to Middle-earth was at these rates.
- 1967-8: NoME 2.III, the "nette remark". Growth after birth is "little if at all slower than that of the children of Men". If referring to a specific time-period, it's probably the Great March, but could be Third Age (the "writer" seems to be Gondorian).
- 1969: NoME 1.XIX, Text 1. Elves age in cycles, and none had actually entered a new cycle before the end of the Third Age.
- 1970: NoME 1.XIX, Text 2. "birth, childhood to bodily and mental maturity (as swift as that of Men)". Cycles, with the first being the bearing and raising of first set of children, followed by a "youth-renewing" and then a second set of children. This renewal weakened over time, until by the end of the Second Age such renewals were rare.

It's clear that elves in Middle-earth, probably both before and after the sojourn in Aman, should be viewed as having a 1-year gestation, 24 years to full-grown, and then a 1:144 rate thereafter. The outstanding question is whether Tolkien intended this to apply in Aman, under the Trees. Every time he wrote separately about that period, he gave it a longer growth rate; but the specific note in 1.IX saying "No quickening" would seem to negate this. On the other hand, the 1965 1.XVIII seems to imply a quickening took place: "The [Growth-Years] were relatively swift, and in Middle-earth = 3 loar". And the 1970s 1.XIX indicates that elves were reaching "old age" sooner as time passed, implying some form of quickening still existed.

The view that Galadriel was "young and eager" at the exile was long-held; her specific age of 20 is mentioned in multiple texts from 1959, as well as the 1965 text. I think it's dangerous to assume Tolkien tossed this out when he came up with the hair story, especially since the Shibboleth itself discusses her ill-will towards Feanor in conjunction with "from her earliest years".

Given that the 1:3 rate is from a text mostly discussing Middle-earth, I think we have to assume that it was forgotten entirely. That makes the only options for growth in Aman either 1:1, or 1:12. At 1:12, Galadriel would be born around 5233, giving 240 years for Feanor to be inspired, harass her, make some jewels, make a sword, get kicked out, and come back. That's... feasible.

It would mean that the Silmarils took ca. 1 growth-year to make, which is nicely poetic; and that Feanor was exiled for 1 growth-year, ie, "go away for as long as it took Miriel to bear you".

(Unless there's a later source for how long either of those things took; I think both those dates come from the Annals of Aman.)

hS

[Aiwendil]

Okay, yeah, I totally misread the date on 1.XIX and had it down as yet another 1959 piece..

An easy mistake to make! Though Hostetter did a fine job for the most part in putting this book together, I do miss Christopher Tolkien's way of very clearly laying out the relations of the texts, and noting the appearance of important new ideas.

[Huinesoron]

An easy mistake to make! Though Hostetter did a fine job for the most part in putting this book together, I do miss Christopher Tolkien's way of very clearly laying out the relations of the texts, and noting the appearance of important new ideas.

Agreed. Hostetter did an amazing job, and I'm incredibly glad to have the book; but I'm always being caught out by the handful of Part 1 texts which are conceptually later than chapters which follow them! I think he was following Tolkien's numbering, or at least ordering, but 1.XIII consists of four texts, numbered 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; 1 is the latest of the set, 2B seems to include Tolkien making decisions adopted in 2A, and 3 is dated with reference to the following chapter, but not to either of the other texts! This is why I keep making potted timelines - I'm trying to get my head round it all!

(Actually, that would be a more useful timeline than the one I started this thread with: a chronology of when the NoME texts were all written, and how they fall into HoME. Hmm...)

hS

[Aiwendil]

(Actually, that would be a more useful timeline than the one I started this thread with: a chronology of when the NoME texts were all written, and how they fall into HoME. Hmm...)

A while back, I put together an incomplete document summarizing the dates of all the HoMe texts, and I've started to add the NoMe texts to it as well. If I finish, I'll let you know.

[Galin]

Unfortunately my claim is weakened (though not destroyed) by a misreading of the text. Most of "Eldarin hands..." is spent discussing Common Eldarin, and so the meanings and details it gives can be attributed only to that period when the elves spoke CE. So, for instance, "No distinction was felt between right and left by the Eldar" could be treated as referring only to the eldest days, if one were really concerned by the conflict with Maedhros' "learned to wield his sword with his left hand".

On this point, GA simply notes: "Thereafter Maedros wielded his sword with his left hand." while QS note that he: "lived to wield his sword with left hand more deadly than his right had been."

Okay, after a very brief bit of research on the web, with nothing answering my question specifically, I'll just toss it out here: if one is truly ambidextrous, but chooses a specific hand to learn a skill -- such as sword fighting -- won't the person be better at this with the chosen hand? And if so, wouldn't Maedros, despite being ambidextrous, have to do some amount of training to get just as good, or better, at swordplay, as he had been with his right hand.

I guess one might wonder why he didn't initially train equally with both hands, but that's avoiding the question ;)


The reason I wasn't completely wrong is that the main text goes on to highlight how old a word "nette" is - appearing very closely in Sindarin and Telerin. So it could still be a word from the period of the March, which means that "the growth of Elvish children after birth was little if any slower" could still mean "in the period when this word was formed" - ie, the March

If we take this as so, if the nette remark refers to an early period of the March, what time period does Elvish Ages and Numenorean refer to? In EA&N the GYs were said to be: "relatively swift and in Middle-earth = 3 loar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 loar."

So while the word swift here appears to refer to/contrast to the 1:144 Life Years, the March of the Quendi was in Middle-earth in any case.

Or have you changed your mind that the "nette remark" and EA&N can be pressed into one internal narrative, considering this . . .

It's clear that elves in Middle-earth, probably both before and after the sojourn in Aman, should be viewed as having a 1-year gestation, 24 years to full-grown, and then a 1:144 rate thereafter.

I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what to do with EA&N here. I lean toward tossing it out (for my "final" mindset on the matter) -- even if EA&N can be stitched in without contradiction -- I'm not sure it needs to be, and the "as swift as that of Men" from XIX is steering me toward that end.

:D

[Huinesoron]

A while back, I put together an incomplete document summarizing the dates of all the HoMe texts, and I've started to add the NoMe texts to it as well. If I finish, I'll let you know.

That would be excellent. :)

If we take this as so, if the nette remark refers to an early period of the March, what time period does Elvish Ages and Numenorean refer to? In EA&N the GYs were said to be: "relatively swift and in Middle-earth = 3 loar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 loar."

So while the word swift here appears to refer to/contrast to the 1:144 Life Years, the March of the Quendi was in Middle-earth in any case.

"Elvish Ages and Numenorean" is... actually a bit of a pain. It seems to cover everything: Galadriel's return to Middle-earth, the death of Arwen, but also Celeborn's aging between the March and the fall of Morgoth.


Or have you changed your mind that the "nette remark" and EA&N can be pressed into one internal narrative, considering this . . .

I'm not arguing. I'm just wondering what to do with EA&N here. I lean toward tossing it out (for my "final" mindset on the matter) -- even if EA&N can be stitched in without contradiction -- I'm not sure it needs to be, and the "as swift as that of Men" from XIX is steering me toward that end.


I still think it's possible to reconcile "Elvish Ages" as the post-March data, with the "nette remark" as pre-March. So those two can be reconciled with each other. The trouble, as you rightly note, is NoME 1.XIX, which is explicitly discussing the post-March period (it mentions the Second Age), and so directly contradicts "Elvish Ages".

So - despite the birth-dates in Galadriel's line being the original cause of Tolkien's messing about with aging rates, and "Elvish Ages" being his final word on the subject - I think we reluctantly have to accept that "Elvish Ages" was forgotten or rejected. That leaves us with the very simple picture that elves in Middle-earth have always reached full growth in about 24 solar years (per "Generational Schemes", the "nette remark", and "Elvish Life-Cycles").

So in the wide view: yes, my mind has changed. :)

Elvish aging in Aman is... unresolved, and basically hinges on whether one chooses to accept that Tolkien's repeated citing of Galadriel as effective-age 20 at the exile (NoME 1.IX, X, XI, & XVIII) still holds true when she's also the inspiration for the Silmarils. I think it does; and the last explicit "slower aging in Aman" text appears to be NoME 1.XI, "Ageing of Elves", which sets a 1:12 growth rate.

(It's worth noting that the 1:1 rate was introduced in NoME 1.XVI, which states that "All the elaborate calculations based on... 12:1... are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awakening, and Finding, March, etc.) quite unworkable. Also unlikely." That puts aging in Aman into a grey area, after the "early narrative"; and I don't believe it is ever explicitly brought out of this uncertainty.)

hS

[Galadriel55]

Tolkien's final view of the generations of the Quendi borders on ritualistic. He decided that (at Cuivienen at least) they had a very specific pattern to their lives. To take the 24th generation as an example (Ingwe, the parents of Finwe and Elwe, and the last to be complete before the March): each member would marry at age 108, have their first child a year later, and then have other children - typically just the two, though Elwe's family shows that three was possible - at 48 year intervals.

So, somehow, this piece of information entered my sleep-deprived thoughts as I was returning home from a night call, and perhaps I was still under the influence of work, but I started wondering if this somewhat prolonged reproductive cycle might be the reason that half-Elven children tend to be single children - I was obviously thinking of Dior and Earendil; I thought, perhaps the couples can't have more children because the Elf's physiology prevents them from having more kids within a reasonable mortal timespan. However, I immediately thought of some counter examples. Nimloth had at least 2 pregnancies (are Elured and Elurin twins? Make it 3 if not), and Arwen, aside from Eldarion, had some number of unnamed daughters. I don't remember the timelines exactly, but I have a feeling that they did not wait the standard 48 years. You could argue that Arwen had already chosen to become mortal and was already subject to mortal physiology, but Nimloth did no such thing. Two possible conclusions that I draw from this: the 48 year gap is not a physiological limitation but more of a social norm or custom; or else Tolkien might not have thought about his latter generations when he was planning the former.

(I still find the idea of timed generations absurd. It belongs to the group of concepts that I choose to ignore when daydreaming Tolkien. But maybe the absurdity is what makes me keep thinking about it, trying to find a way to comprehend it.)

[Huinesoron]

So, somehow, this piece of information entered my sleep-deprived thoughts as I was returning home from a night call, and perhaps I was still under the influence of work, but I started wondering if this somewhat prolonged reproductive cycle might be the reason that half-Elven children tend to be single children - I was obviously thinking of Dior and Earendil; I thought, perhaps the couples can't have more children because the Elf's physiology prevents them from having more kids within a reasonable mortal timespan. However, I immediately thought of some counter examples. Nimloth had at least 2 pregnancies (are Elured and Elurin twins? Make it 3 if not), and Arwen, aside from Eldarion, had some number of unnamed daughters. I don't remember the timelines exactly, but I have a feeling that they did not wait the standard 48 years. You could argue that Arwen had already chosen to become mortal and was already subject to mortal physiology, but Nimloth did no such thing. Two possible conclusions that I draw from this: the 48 year gap is not a physiological limitation but more of a social norm or custom; or else Tolkien might not have thought about his latter generations when he was planning the former.

The latest text on aging in NoME, 1.XVIII, actually discusses both Elrond and Arwen, but also cuts down the 'resting period' dramatically: he gives the usual length as 6 years for full elves. This is a post-Valinorean text, though, so it's still possible they did things differently at Cuivienen; I've had to assume they did for the timeline, because otherwise all of Tolkien's details go out of the window.

Those 6 years translate to 2 "Growth-years", and Tolkien states that Elros had a 1:1 growth-year rate, so we can assume that a half-elven woman would want 2 years between pregnancies. Arwen was, indeed, "mortal" before she had any kids (specifically matching Aragorn's rate of aging, about 1:2), so she probably wanted a 2-year gap as well.

Tolkien's first two children were born 3 years apart, which is 2 years + a pregnancy. ^_~

The same text gives Earendil's age at marriage in 525 as 23, which would make him born in 502, seven years before the Second Kinslaying. If Elwing is the same age, there's just about room for Nimloth to have a 6-year gap between Elwing's birth and the twins. (Tolkien may have been considering this when he said it was 'never less than 1 GY, more usually 2'.) So it does all hang together.

Honestly, I think you're right about the whole concept being a social taboo more than anything. Tolkien talks repeatedly about the fact that elves put a lot more effort into their children than mortals do - hence Miriel's death - but given how happy he was to change the numbers around by factors of ten or more, it was probably just considered unsavory.

~~~

"You have how many siblings?"

Barahir combined a shrug with an adjustment of his sodden cape. "Only the four," he said. "Did I muck up the pronunciation again? I can say it in Quenya if you need."

"But that's-" Finrod held up a hand and stared at it, counting on his fingers. "Bregor your father had only ninety summers when he died!"

"Eighty-nine," Barahir corrected. "Maybe you need to work on your pronunciation, Sire."

"It was enunciation," Finrod said, giving the mortal a quelling look. "But whether it was eighty-nine or nine twelves, I cannot see how he found the time."

Barahir blinked, and not from the rain. "There's a good three years between each of us," he pointed out. "I'd probably have a younger sister or two, had Mother not... well, you know."

Finrod nodded, remembering the previous Lord of Dorthonion's sorrow, but refused to be diverted. "It still seems unreasonable," he said. "With so little time between them, how did your parents recover their energy?"

Barahir raised one mud-smeared eyebrow. "If there's one problem Father never had, it was lack of energy."

Finrod chuckled, the sound muffled by the falling rain. "Granted, granted. But even so..." He gestured with one hand, which happened to be his sword-hand. "I know you age swifter than we, but to devote only two years to raising one child before begetting the next..."

Barahir coloured slightly at the king's indelicacy, but then rallied. "What I think you're asking, Sire, is 'why are mortals different from the Eldar?'."

"That isn't-" Finrod hesitated. "It rather is, at that."

Barahir nodded, and had to push his ragged hair away from his face yet again. "I happen to be acquainted with the foremost authority on that question; so perhaps next time you're in Nargothrond-"

"All right, yes."

"- you could look up one Finrod Felagund, who is of some renown in that place-"

"I said all right, Bëor; you've made your point." Finrod sighed and swept his own hair back, mirroring his vassal's gesture. "I almost preferred being hunted by Orcs to debating philosophy with Men."

Barahir grinned, his teeth white in his grubby face. "Better to be hunter than hunted, Sire."

"On that, we agree." Finrod leant forward, peering around the mouldy bush at the party of Orc raiders pushing into the mires of Serech. "Shall we, my friend?"

Barahir drew his dark iron sword and crawled forward to his king's side. "Gladly."

(It was this, or Luthien quizzing Beren about his many uncles and aunts.)

hS

[Tar Elenion]

but I've pulled together what I think is a fair rendering of what Tolkien's "Final Timeline" would have looked like.*

The First Age of Middle-earth (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQKRRiqDVClTo3n5OcAec6FKDoN7VF0kyACkj_HgB-tzs3gN1xfkPcsGamm70TjZ8eUAVgmboRs9YNM/pub)


No access.
If possible I would like to look at what you came up with.

[Urwen]

Tolkien didn't have a final First Age timeline. Or rather, he had several: the Annals of Aman and associated Tale of Years (HoME X: Morgoth's Ring) seem to be his latest thoughts on the period before the Awakening of the Elves and the period after their arrival in Aman, but with the publication of The Nature of Middle-earth, we now have his later thoughts on the Great March (NoME 1.VII "The March of the Quendi"), and his even later thoughts on the period between the Awakening and the March (NoME 1.XIII "Key Dates", text 1). Throw in a smattering of later notes, such as a birthdate for Galadriel (NoME 1.XVIII "Elvish Ages & Numenorean") and a mention of the March crossing Caradhras (NoME 3.XVII "Silvan Elves & Silvan Elvish"), and what we have is a complex picture that Tolkien never put together.

But the pieces are there. It's taken a lot of calculating, cross-referencing, and tearing my hair out over Tolkien's entirely unreasonable habit of, um, not taking his 1960s thoughts into account in the 1950s (that monster), but I've pulled together what I think is a fair rendering of what Tolkien's "Final Timeline" would have looked like.*

The First Age of Middle-earth (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQKRRiqDVClTo3n5OcAec6FKDoN7VF0kyACkj_HgB-tzs3gN1xfkPcsGamm70TjZ8eUAVgmboRs9YNM/pub)

*It wouldn't have. If he'd written it, he would have come up with a whole new set of dates, added several characters, and accidentally made Finwe the son of Maglor somehow. But I can dream.

I've not bothered to include the Beleriand years, because there's no change to them: they span about 600 years at the end of the very long First Age, just as they always have.

Notes on what in the world I was thinking at every stage are at the end, along with the parts where my common sense got the better of me. I'm happy to explain, discuss, or defend any points people want to pull out, though if it involves too much of Tolkien's inability to count in 144s I won't have any hair left to tear out. :D

Anyway so that's what I've been up to since NoME appeared.

hS


I can't access it.

[Huinesoron]

I can't access it.

Bother. I'll see if I have a backup copy when I get a chance.

EDIT: Yeah, this has been eaten by Google. I have an early draft, and with that + the notes in this thread I may be able to reconstruct it, but it'll be a bit of work. I'll post when I've assembled it again.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

If you can, then many thanks,

[Huinesoron]

So I'm working on reconstructing this, and with Aiwendil's Sequence of Composition (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19554) to hand it's almost trivially easy. If you've got a copy of NoME, you can replicate my work as follows:


Based on XVIII, treat Elves as growing to maturity at a 3:1 rate. This agrees with the other late document, XIX (which says they grow "as swiftly as Men", but Tolkien often meant "in their own terms" rather than "in Sun-years").
Directly copy the timeline in XIII.1. This is the final Timeline Tolkien wrote.
Add details from XVII.3(7), the final generation scheme. The gap from conception to birth is wrong, but as general dates these generations work fine.
Dip into XVII.3(1) to pull out the rest of Ingwe's family tree. Adjust his wife's birth-date to be 3 Growth-Years after his, instead of three sun-years.
Look at XIII.3 and VI.B for Tolkien's latest thoughts on the war around Angband. It was invested (= besieged) while the Ambassadors were in Valinor, and defeated midway between their return and the start of the March.
Go to VII for Tolkien's final full timeline of the March. The length matches the length given in XIII.3, so simply translate all the dates into the adjusted calendar from XIII.1.


That's what I'm in the middle of. The justification for the Elves' long pauses on the March vanishes - they were calculated on a 9-year pregnancy and 108-year childhood, while the latest model uses 3 and 72 years - but people aren't computers anyway, so a bit of leeway is acceptable. The sources above have already given me a date for the death of the Trees (VY 888/1), and that it's 600 years from there to the end of the Age, so the only troublesome section ahead is tying Galadriel's youth (XVIII) to her hair as the inspiration for the Silmarils (Shibboleth of Feanor, same approximate date), while staying true to the spirit of the Annals of Aman (which predate most of NoME and serve as the latest timeline of the Valinor years).

hS

[Huinesoron]

The timeline is restored (https://docs.google.com/document/u/3/d/e/2PACX-1vSIyuBM8eUGC4vBdWaqsZcTChCgeCZz-Ooyz6ZiZFYsg5JaYFlGROatDJCF5ZI4iVLsSf_2clV5l-ki/pub)! Making use of the now-accepted order of the NoME part 1 texts, I've constructed it from the latest sources back.

A lot of it fits together really nicely - the founding of Tirion (from the Annals of Aman) falls naturally at the beginning of a yen, and things like Melkor's release and the making of the Silmarils can be made to do so too. There are three main things I've missed off entirely:

- The Awakening of Men. Tolkien wanted this to be both well before the fall of the Trees, and at least 50 (long) Valian Years after the Awakening of the Quendi. But he also wanted only 38 VY between Elves awakening and the Trees going dark. It doesn't fit; I'd have to invent a date.

- The birth of Galadriel. With the timelines we have, she cannot simultaneously be pre-adult at the Darkening, and older than the Silmarils, but that's what the two latest sources tell us. If Tolkien wanted to reconcile them, he would have needed to dramatically reduce the timeline between those two events, and he never indicated such a change.

- The birth of Aredhel. I'm annoyed by this, because it's actually one of the last dates Tolkien added to the Annals of Aman. But the Annals make the Aman years about 1.5x the length they are in later timelines, and I just can't fit her in before the Silmarils are created without pretty much inventing dates for all Finwe's descendents. So she has been excluded.

I also see from this thread that there's a mention of the March crossing Caradhras somewhere in NoME 3. I'm... just gonna hope that's earlier than the timelines that say otherwise.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

Thank you.

[Arvegil145]

The timeline is restored (https://docs.google.com/document/u/3/d/e/2PACX-1vSIyuBM8eUGC4vBdWaqsZcTChCgeCZz-Ooyz6ZiZFYsg5JaYFlGROatDJCF5ZI4iVLsSf_2clV5l-ki/pub)! Making use of the now-accepted order of the NoME part 1 texts, I've constructed it from the latest sources back.

A lot of it fits together really nicely - the founding of Tirion (from the Annals of Aman) falls naturally at the beginning of a yen, and things like Melkor's release and the making of the Silmarils can be made to do so too. There are three main things I've missed off entirely:

- The Awakening of Men. Tolkien wanted this to be both well before the fall of the Trees, and at least 50 (long) Valian Years after the Awakening of the Quendi. But he also wanted only 38 VY between Elves awakening and the Trees going dark. It doesn't fit; I'd have to invent a date.

- The birth of Galadriel. With the timelines we have, she cannot simultaneously be pre-adult at the Darkening, and older than the Silmarils, but that's what the two latest sources tell us. If Tolkien wanted to reconcile them, he would have needed to dramatically reduce the timeline between those two events, and he never indicated such a change.

- The birth of Aredhel. I'm annoyed by this, because it's actually one of the last dates Tolkien added to the Annals of Aman. But the Annals make the Aman years about 1.5x the length they are in later timelines, and I just can't fit her in before the Silmarils are created without pretty much inventing dates for all Finwe's descendents. So she has been excluded.

I also see from this thread that there's a mention of the March crossing Caradhras somewhere in NoME 3. I'm... just gonna hope that's earlier than the timelines that say otherwise.

hS

Out of sheer curiosity, what would that same timeline you posted look like when translated into the 'Annals of Aman' tradition (i.e. YT 1050 - YT 1500) with the Valian year lasting for 9.582 solar years?

[Huinesoron]

Out of sheer curiosity, what would that same timeline you posted look like when translated into the 'Annals of Aman' tradition (i.e. YT 1050 - YT 1500) with the Valian year lasting for 9.582 solar years?

Okay, let's do a quick rundown, converting "Final Timeline" dates into "AAm YT" dates:

YT 1050: Awakening of the Quendi.
YT 1110: Melkor discovers the Quendi and builds Angband.
YT 1260 (AAm 1085): Orome discovers the Quendi.
YT 1265 (AAm 1090): Valar decide to attack Melkor.
YT 1280 (AAm 1102): Ambassadors travel to Valinor.
YT 1281 (AAm 1104): Great Debate.
YT 1282 (AAm 1105): Great March begins.
YT 1303: March reaches Greenwood.
YT 1304 (AAm 1115): March reaches Anduin.
YT 1333 (AAm 1125): March reaches Beleriand.
YT 1334 (AAm 1128): Teleri reach Beleriand.
YT 1349 (AAm 1130): Elwe lost.
YT 1350 (AAm 1133): Noldor and Vanyar land in Aman.

Most of the events in Aman are dated in my timeline from the Annals anyway, so I'll just end with:

YT 1615 (AAm 1495): Death of the Two Trees.

The biggest difference is that the later timelines add almost 200 "YT" between the Awakening and the Finding. That was, ultimately, the reason Tolkien made all these changes: to give the Quendi time to grow a big enough population for all the trials he needed to put them through. The later timeline also extends the stay by Anduin, and the stay in Beleriand; but then chops the years in Aman down by about 100 YT.

Put another way: if Imin went with the March and reached Valinor, then by the time the Trees died he would have spent 5/6 of his life living under them by the Annals - but only 1/2 of it under the "Final Timeline".

hS

[Arvegil145]

Okay, let's do a quick rundown, converting "Final Timeline" dates into "AAm YT" dates:

YT 1050: Awakening of the Quendi.
YT 1110: Melkor discovers the Quendi and builds Angband.
YT 1260 (AAm 1085): Orome discovers the Quendi.
YT 1265 (AAm 1090): Valar decide to attack Melkor.
YT 1280 (AAm 1102): Ambassadors travel to Valinor.
YT 1281 (AAm 1104): Great Debate.
YT 1282 (AAm 1105): Great March begins.
YT 1303: March reaches Greenwood.
YT 1304 (AAm 1115): March reaches Anduin.
YT 1333 (AAm 1125): March reaches Beleriand.
YT 1334 (AAm 1128): Teleri reach Beleriand.
YT 1349 (AAm 1130): Elwe lost.
YT 1350 (AAm 1133): Noldor and Vanyar land in Aman.

Most of the events in Aman are dated in my timeline from the Annals anyway, so I'll just end with:

YT 1615 (AAm 1495): Death of the Two Trees.

The biggest difference is that the later timelines add almost 200 "YT" between the Awakening and the Finding. That was, ultimately, the reason Tolkien made all these changes: to give the Quendi time to grow a big enough population for all the trials he needed to put them through. The later timeline also extends the stay by Anduin, and the stay in Beleriand; but then chops the years in Aman down by about 100 YT.

Put another way: if Imin went with the March and reached Valinor, then by the time the Trees died he would have spent 5/6 of his life living under them by the Annals - but only 1/2 of it under the "Final Timeline".

hS

Interesting!

But the motive behind my original question (other than curiosity) was that I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, so to speak:

1) The 'square peg' being Tolkien's various 144:1 SY to VY conversions, the messing around with the dates in general, and the plethora of other things incompatible with:

2) The 'round hole' - being Tolkien Gateway's policy of adopting the 'Annals of Aman' timeline + the 9.582:1 SY to VY conversion.


So now I'm left trying to include as much information as possible from Tolkien's 'latest' writings on these subjects (such as the birth-years for certain characters such as Ingwe, Finwe, Elwe, etc.), while also following the YT 1050-1500 timeline!

And as if that was not enough, there is the question of whether I should use Tolkien's later '24/25 generations scheme at the time of the Great Debate', or the previous (and much more manageable for TG purposes) '5/6 generations scheme'.



All in all, since Tolkien Gateway uses the flat-world, published Silmarillion, 'Annals of Aman' scheme, I think the best approach would be to convince the recalcitrant folks there to simply tweak the year of the Awaking of the Quendi from YT 1050 to YT 1000 or something along those lines...but I'm getting ahead of myself.

[Huinesoron]

So now I'm left trying to include as much information as possible from Tolkien's 'latest' writings on these subjects (such as the birth-years for certain characters such as Ingwe, Finwe, Elwe, etc.), while also following the YT 1050-1500 timeline!

Yikes. Um, hmm. Probably the best approach on the birth years would be to keep their ages at the Debate the same - that was what Tolkien was trying to fix when he set their birthdates. It still keeps them born between the Finding and the Debate, without having to alter the time before the Finding.


And as if that was not enough, there is the question of whether I should use Tolkien's later '24/25 generations scheme at the time of the Great Debate', or the previous (and much more manageable for TG purposes) '5/6 generations scheme'.


Um. Hmm. The Annals has a much shorter timeframe here - 330 years or so compared to 2000 in Tolkien's later schemes, or 800-odd in the earliest ones in XVII.3. You'd have to assume a generation of ca. 50 years to get six in, which means Ingwe (born 140 years before the March) should be waiting eagerly for his great-grandchildren by the time they set out. That does actually fit with... is it LaCE that says Elves reached adulthood in 50 years? It means a lot of characters (Finwe, Elwe, Indis) put off getting married for a long time, but I suppose you could rationalise that as being because of the changes taking place in their society.


All in all, since Tolkien Gateway uses the flat-world, published Silmarillion, 'Annals of Aman' scheme, I think the best approach would be to convince the recalcitrant folks there to simply tweak the year of the Awaking of the Quendi from YT 1050 to YT 1000 or something along those lines...but I'm getting ahead of myself.

That seems like it would be hard to reference?

I do want to say that the Gateway is a fantastic reference source, so thank you for all your work over there. :)

hS

[Arvegil145]

- The birth of Galadriel. With the timelines we have, she cannot simultaneously be pre-adult at the Darkening, and older than the Silmarils, but that's what the two latest sources tell us. If Tolkien wanted to reconcile them, he would have needed to dramatically reduce the timeline between those two events, and he never indicated such a change.

- The birth of Aredhel. I'm annoyed by this, because it's actually one of the last dates Tolkien added to the Annals of Aman. But the Annals make the Aman years about 1.5x the length they are in later timelines, and I just can't fit her in before the Silmarils are created without pretty much inventing dates for all Finwe's descendents. So she has been excluded.

Does your project treat works published during Tolkien's lifetime as taking precedence over those that are later but unpublished?

I ask because I think that Galadriel being pre-adult at the Darkening is at odds with what is said about her in The Road Goes Ever On (p. 60):

She [Galadriel] was the last survivor of the princes and queens who had led the revolting Noldor to exile in Middle-earth. - emphasis mine


Well, technically, not literally at odds with it, but rather I find it unlikely (or at least unsatisfactory) that a teenager (for all intents and purposes) was one of the principal leaders of the rebellion of the Noldor. (Her being pre-adult would also drastically reduce her share of responsibility in the rebellion IMO.)

And, regardless of how you feel about the above argument, I'd still think the simplest solution to all this mess with Galadriel is to just bite the bullet and incorporate the AAm date instead (which also solves the Aredhel problem since they share the same birth year).



- The Awakening of Men. Tolkien wanted this to be both well before the fall of the Trees, and at least 50 (long) Valian Years after the Awakening of the Quendi. But he also wanted only 38 VY between Elves awakening and the Trees going dark. It doesn't fit; I'd have to invent a date.

I'm curious about how you would handle this (even though you said you wouldn't, but, indulge me?).

Not quite sure if this was Tolkien's 'final' idea (pretty sure it isn't, actually), but my favorite is the one where Sauron was responsible for the fall of Men (which at least gives a clear lower limit for the Awaking of Men, which is after Melkor is taken captive).



EDIT: I was thinking that, perhaps, it is possible to Sherlock our way to a rough date of the Awaking of Men by constraining the dates via the clues given to us about the Awaking of the Dwarves. There are two major sets of evidence I'd like to present.


1) In The War of the Jewels, there are two rough dates given for the Awaking of the Dwarves:

- a) the Dwarves awake at about the same time that the Eldar leave for Valinor (dates from c. 1958):

But it is not known when Durin or his brethren first awoke, though some think that it was at the time of the departure of the Eldar over sea. - WotJ, 'Later Quenta', 'Concerning the Dwarves', Text 'e', pp. 211-2


- b) the Dwarves are already awake before the Eldar reached Beleriand (dates from c. 1959/1960):

Indeed it was one of their grievances against the Eldar that they had hunted and slain their lesser kin [Petty-dwarves], who had settled in Beleriand before the Elves came there. - WotJ, 'Quendi and Eldar', 'Appendix B', 'The Petty-dwarves', pp. 388-9

So, in conclusion, if we adopt the earlier 1.a, then the Dwarves awake either in c. VY 870 (Noldor and Vanyar depart) or c. VY 872 (Teleri depart). Alternatively, if adopt the later 1.b, then the Dwarves awake some time before c. VY 869.


The next piece of evidence is:

2) In The Peoples of Middle-earth, there are likewise two contradictory ideas as to when the Dwarves awake in relation to Men:

- a) the Awaking of the Dwarves precedes that of Men (dates from c. 1969):

They refer to legends of the Ages of Awakening and the arising of the Speaking Peoples: first the Elves, second the Dwarves (as they claimed), and third Men. - PoME, 'Of Dwarves and Men', Note 21, pp. 321-2


- b) the Awaking of the Dwarves postdates that of Men (dates from c. 1972/3):

Durin I, eldest of the Fathers, 'awoke' far back in the First Age (it is supposed, soon after the awakening of Men), ... - PoME, 'Last Writings', p. 383

Therefore, depending on whether we adopt 2.a or 2.b, the Awaking of Men either predates (2.b) or postdates (2.a) the Awaking of the Dwarves - whose awaking took place either in c. VY 870-2 (1.a), or some time before c. VY 869 (1.b).


In other words, if we assume the later texts from both 1 and 2, the Dwarves should awake before c. VY 869, and Men should awake not long before the Dwarves.

To be perfectly honest, I kind of prefer the earlier version of 1 (1.b) because it at least gives us a nice, concrete figure (VY 870/2) - and if we take the 'Dwarves awake when the Elves leave for Valinor' to mean 'when the Teleri leave', then that gives us c. VY 872 as the date for the Awaking of the Dwarves: and since it is said in 2.b that the Dwarves awoke shortly after Men, depending on your definition of 'shortly', one could put a provisional date for the Awaking of Men as, say, c. VY 870 (departure of Noldor and Vanyar). Which also means that Men existed for almost 3,000 years before they arrived in Beleriand.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.


P.S. What do you think about this timeline (based on yours) that I found on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/yqqakg/my_revised_attempt_at_an_updated_first_age/

+ the image (https://i.imgur.com/VZ3LnUK.png)

[Huinesoron]

Does your project treat works published during Tolkien's lifetime as taking precedence over those that are later but unpublished?

It does not, which is one reason it isn't anywhere near the New Silmarillion forum. The reason I've excluded Galadriel is that "Galadriel is older than the Silmarils" and "Galadriel is a teenager at the Death of the Trees" are both later statements than "this is how many years there were between the making of the Silmarils and the death of the Trees". I have a horrible feeling that last statement is actually sourced to the Annals of Aman, so yes, using the AAm date would be by far the easiest option. I can't, though, because the point is "latest" - but I couldn't bring myself to hypercompress the Silmarils-to-Exile timeline as the sources would indicate.


I'm curious about how you would handle this (even though you said you wouldn't, but, indulge me?).


Okay, so. NoME 1.VI(B) gives a timeline of:

VY1000: Awakening of Eldar
VY1090: Finding of Eldar
VY1100: Arising and Fall of Men, during the Captivity of Melkor.


The simplest solution would be to simply scale the Finding:Arising gap to the final Awakening:Finding gap. There are 14 VY from the Awakening to the Finding; so there should be 1.56 VY between the Finding of the Quendi and the Arising of Men. That would place the Arising in VY 866/80, which... actually works really well? It's 9 years after the March begins, when the Eldar are camped out at Rhun. There is no clear date for the fall of Utumno, but if we read "The Valar delay moving against Utumno for fear that war would affect the Quendi" to mean "the Valar did not attack Utumno until the Eldar had moved away", then Utumno probably falls sometime in those 9 years (why would they wait longer?). In fact, the Arising of Men might have occured because of the fall of Utumno, mystically speaking. Sauron is free to move around at this point - he's not attested harassing the Eldar for at least another solar century.


EDIT: I was thinking that, perhaps, it is possible to Sherlock our way to a rough date of the Awaking of Men by constraining the dates via the clues given to us about the Awaking of the Dwarves. There are two major sets of evidence I'd like to present.


Oops, I forgot about the Dwarves entirely! Taking your sources, Tolkien's latest written ideas on them are:


They "'awoke' far back in the First Age (it is supposed, soon after the awakening of Men)" - PoME p.383, ca. 1972-3
They (specifically the Petty Dwarves) "settled in Beleriand before the Elves came there" - WotJ p.389, ca. 1959-60


So I think I have to take the reverse of your position: the Dwarves awoke not long after Men, somewhere in the later years of VY866. If we call this VY866/144, it gives them 2VY + 54SY (ie 342SY total) to invent racism and drive the petty-dwarves into Beleriand proper. I have no problem with that timeline, and when I get a chance I will integrate both this and Men above into the document.


P.S. What do you think about this timeline (based on yours) that I found on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/yqqakg/my_revised_attempt_at_an_updated_first_age/

+ the image (https://i.imgur.com/VZ3LnUK.png)

Oh, neat! I didn't realise I was Reddit-famous. :D It looks like they have a more reliable VY > SY conversion (I freely admit I didn't check for off-by-one errors, or typos in Tolkien's calculations), so I should probably adopt those. That probably means going back and checking that the dates are originally VY, and that I haven't misplaced something by wrongly converting a SY date.

I disagree on their methodology for the Valinorean years; I still agree with what I said on the timeline, that "It seems likely that Tolkien would have retained the relative spacing within each of these sets of dates". But that's a judgement call! It's entirely legitimate to do it their way - I just didn't.

One interesting point is that they said it was "too at variance with the established chronology for comfort". They're right, and that means that if someone was trying to use this timeline, they should probably use the Reddit variant. But I'm trying specifically to work out what Tolkien's "final version" would have been - and he was in no way bound by his own earlier dating schemes.

And one thing that worries me is that they say "We know that the Valar delayed moving against Utumno until after the Elves... came to Valinor." That would mess up my tidy logic on the Arising of Men, so I have to go and hunt down that source and see if it actually says that... and when it was written.

hS

[Arvegil145]

One interesting point is that they said it was "too at variance with the established chronology for comfort". They're right, and that means that if someone was trying to use this timeline, they should probably use the Reddit variant. But I'm trying specifically to work out what Tolkien's "final version" would have been - and he was in no way bound by his own earlier dating schemes.

And one thing that worries me is that they say "We know that the Valar delayed moving against Utumno until after the Elves... came to Valinor." That would mess up my tidy logic on the Arising of Men, so I have to go and hunt down that source and see if it actually says that... and when it was written.

In regards to mistakes Tolkien made when calculating VY into SY, I'd rather keep the sun-years as fixed, and alter the VY to fit them - since this is the 'Round World' conception we're talking about, so Sun existed from the beginning, and the Elves would naturally track time via the Sun, the VY being secondary.

As for Utumno, I checked the index to look for reference to it throughout NoME, but I can't remember anything that says that the 'Valar delayed moving against Utumno until after the Elves came to Valinor'...though I could be wrong of course.



As an aside, where do your 'Beleriand Years' begin? With the coming of the Noldor (Fingolfin or Feanor)?

Because the latest mention of the duration of 'Beleriand Years' I could find was in the chapter XVIII ('Elvish Ages and Numenorean' from 1965), p. 150:

Eärendil his father wedded Elwing in FA 525, being then 23. Elrond may have been born about 527–530. He was thus at least 70 at the fall of Thangorodrim in c. FA 600.

So this text has the 'Beleriand Years' lasting for 600 years, instead of 590.

[Huinesoron]

In regards to mistakes Tolkien made when calculating VY into SY, I'd rather keep the sun-years as fixed, and alter the VY to fit them - since this is the 'Round World' conception we're talking about, so Sun existed from the beginning, and the Elves would naturally track time via the Sun, the VY being secondary.

I disagree. The timeline is sourced to NoME 1.XIII(1), in which the key error (SY 2016 = VY 864/144) is actually expressed as "end of VY 864". Tolkien was clearly treating the VY as primary, so for this specific project, I have to follow his lead. I can totally see the argument for using the SY dates throughout in other contexts, though!


As for Utumno, I checked the index to look for reference to it throughout NoME, but I can't remember anything that says that the 'Valar delayed moving against Utumno until after the Elves came to Valinor'...though I could be wrong of course.

I think the source is 1.VI(B), which states "It seems clear that the rescue of the Quendi must be secret (as far as possible) and before the assault upon Utumno - otherwise this very peril ["involv the Children in misery or destruction"] would have occurred. The Great March must occur behind a screen of investment, and before any violent assault had begun."

Which... might well mean that the March was completed before Utumno was attacked. Except this is the [I]same source as I was using for the Arising of Men! In the span of six paragraphs, Tolkien establishes:


The Captivity began after the March completed.
Men awoke during the Captivity.
Men awoke 1440 SY after the Finding


Which... could work. If we say the March was completed when the Teleri sailed, that's about 1100 SY after the Finding. Men would then awaken 300 years later, around the time Alqualonde was built. They then have, oh, call it 1500 years before they arrive in Beleriand.

But, that directly contradicts the last information on the Dwarves (that they awoke after Men and entered Beleriand before the Eldar. Is there a solution that satisfies both?

Maybe. VI(B) uses the term "Arising and Fall of Men", which doesn't quite say that the Arising is the same as the Awakening. VI(A), a slightly earlier text, begins with: "Men must 'awake' before the Captivity of Melkor. [Footnote:] But see later. men were probably corrupted by Sauron after the Captivity (100 VYs later)." So we could have a situation where Men awaken during the March, but are only discovered after it.

But... that's absolutely not what VI(A) was angling for (it specifically has Melkor discovering Men before the Finding), so maybe I was best to leave it out. ^_^


As an aside, where do your 'Beleriand Years' begin? With the coming of the Noldor (Fingolfin or Feanor)?

Good question. It looks like I've treated "the Noldor arrive in Middle-earth" and "FA 1" as synonyms. I don't think I have a source for that; I certainly didn't write one down.

hS

[Arvegil145]

I think the source is 1.VI(B), which states "It seems clear that the rescue of the Quendi must be secret (as far as possible) and before the assault upon Utumno - otherwise this very peril ["involv the Children in misery or destruction"] would have occurred. The Great March must occur behind a screen of investment, and before any violent assault had begun."

Which... might well mean that the March was completed before Utumno was attacked. Except this is the [I]same source as I was using for the Arising of Men! In the span of six paragraphs, Tolkien establishes:


The Captivity began after the March completed.
Men awoke during the Captivity.
Men awoke 1440 SY after the Finding


Which... could work. If we say the March was completed when the Teleri sailed, that's about 1100 SY after the Finding. Men would then awaken 300 years later, around the time Alqualonde was built. They then have, oh, call it 1500 years before they arrive in Beleriand.

But, that directly contradicts the last information on the Dwarves (that they awoke after Men and entered Beleriand before the Eldar. Is there a solution that satisfies both?

Maybe. VI(B) uses the term "Arising and Fall of Men", which doesn't quite say that the Arising is the same as the Awakening. VI(A), a slightly earlier text, begins with: "Men must 'awake' before the Captivity of Melkor. [Footnote:] But see later. men were probably corrupted by Sauron after the Captivity (100 VYs later)." So we could have a situation where Men awaken during the March, but are only discovered after it.

But... that's absolutely not what VI(A) was angling for (it specifically has Melkor discovering Men before the Finding), so maybe I was best to leave it out. ^_^



Good question. It looks like I've treated "the Noldor arrive in Middle-earth" and "FA 1" as synonyms. I don't think I have a source for that; I certainly didn't write one down.

hS

I think that quote from VI.(B) is pretty vague.

"The Great March must occur behind a screen of investment, and before any violent assault had begun." - the way I see it, this could mean two things:

1) The assault on Utumno doesn't start until the March is completed (i.e. all three groups arriving in Valinor)

2) The assault doesn't begin until the March is started, and the Eldar are sufficiently far away to be relatively safe (I suppose Avari are screwed though either way...but I digress...)


I much prefer interpretation no. 2, and not just because it gives me less of a headache - I prefer it mainly because I just can't see the Valar hanging around for hundreds of years waiting and waiting, especially since the assault of Angband was already under way when the Eldar started the March, and that would undoubtedly be of terrible proportions - but still evidently not terrible enough to not do it while the Eldar were still in Middle-earth.

In regards to VI.(A) - what about that footnote about Sauron corrupting Men after the Captivity of Melkor?




Anyway, in regards to the 'Beleriand Years' - I think that Tolkien still treated the arrival of Fingolfin as 'YS 1'/'FA 1'/'Bel. 1' regardless of 'flat-world'/'round-world' frameworks.


By the way, what source did you use for the 20 solar years figure for the exile of the Noldor? And if it's unsourced and we're making stuff up, I'd lean more toward the figure in the Difficulties in Chronology (p. 71):

Therefore the Crossing of the Ice should be in FA 1496.

This was a change from YT 1500, given that he thought 720 years is a bit too much - so it's "only" one VY now: of course the VY here is 144 solar years, but, like I said - if it's a matter of making up a figure, you can just take this up but convert it into the old c. 10 years duration of VY...or you can just take Tolkien on his word and make it 144 years! (Please don't...what was he thinking!!??)

And as if that wasn't bad enough, take a look at this from the same text as the above (pp. 72-3):

A better solution is 3) The Rate of Growth of those born in Beleriand was 10 = 1. But of those born in Aman it was 50 = 1 in Beleriand. But it began to increase as soon as they left Valinor, say after the Doom of Mandos. The Valian Year spent in reaching Beleriand via the ice aged all the Exiles about 2 years (it took 144 Sun-years) = 72 (but Fëanor reached Beleriand in one half the time = Bel. 50 and so only aged 1 year).

So not only did Fingolfin and co. take 144 solar years (!) to reach Beleriand, but, get this, Feanor (who was in something of a hurry!) took 72 years (!!) by SHIP (!!!) to reach Losgar...:confused::confused:


Anyway, I'm only pointing out this quote because I had to get it off my chest. If you ever decide to give a date for Feanor's landing in Middle-earth, I'd just make something up and give it, say, a (normal) year after the destruction of the Trees (and even that is still too much IMO).

[Huinesoron]

I much prefer interpretation no. 2, and not just because it gives me less of a headache - I prefer it mainly because I just can't see the Valar hanging around for hundreds of years waiting and waiting, especially since the assault of Angband was already under way when the Eldar started the March, and that would undoubtedly be of terrible proportions - but still evidently not terrible enough to not do it while the Eldar were still in Middle-earth.

I prefer it myself, and for the same reason. But I don't feel confident saying it's definitely what Tolkien preferred.

In regards to VI.(A) - what about that footnote about Sauron corrupting Men after the Captivity of Melkor?

Okay, I've had to take a step back and think about this. if the "Awakening of Men" (VI.A) and the "Arising and Fall of Men" (VI.B) are separate events, then both accounts can be true: men Awaken before the Finding of the Quendi, and are corrupted during the Captivity of Melkor.

VI.A's final timeline has:


VY 1000: Quendi awake
VY 1075: Men awake
VY 1085: Quendi found


Rescaling to the Final Timeline, that puts the awakening of Men around VY 862/50. The "arising and fall" takes place after the Finding - "not very long (in Elvish terms)" - for which the VY 866/80 date works nicely. Men have been around for about 600 years by the time they "arise" (move out of their original lands?) and are corrupted by Sauron. Perhaps we should be picturing something like the Fall of Numenor - Numenor reached its greatest power right before its fall, and perhaps the original Men did too.


By the way, what source did you use for the 20 solar years figure for the exile of the Noldor? And if it's unsourced and we're making stuff up, I'd lean more toward the figure in the Difficulties in Chronology (p. 71)

I think it's just the Annals of Aman, which kill the trees in 1495, and land Feanor in Beleriand in 1497.

You looked at 1.X, but I think 1.XVIII actually supersedes it. 1.XVIII claims "the March took a whole life-year of the survivors at whatever rate they were living, sc. to the young [but] "grown" it added 1 growth-year (3 loar); to the older and full-grown 1 life-year (144 loar)." The Timeline assumes that when Tolkien later said Elves aged as fast as Men he still meant "in their own terms", so this puts an [B]upper limit of 3SY between the death of the Trees and Fingolfin reaching Middle-earth. If we keep the AAm ratio of 2:5 for Feanor and Fingolfin's journeys, then yes, Feanor takes something like a year, and with no making up of stuff. :)

hS

[Huinesoron]

Okay! I've gone back and redone all of the calculations, and reassembled the Timeline for the third time (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub).


There may still be some off-by-one errors, but they shouldn't carry through to other dates (I calculated everything at once).
Men and Dwarves are in. Galadriel and Aredhel are still out.
I've tried to explain my reasoning a bit better in some of the notes.
Every item is footnoted to show which source it comes from. Lower number footnotes are later sources.


I am quite pleased to have worked out a solution to the whole Men/Utumno issue. It doesn't match the Reddit version, but I believe it holds up as a plausible "Final Timeline".

hS

[Arvegil145]

Okay! I've gone back and redone all of the calculations, and reassembled the Timeline for the third time (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub).


There may still be some off-by-one errors, but they shouldn't carry through to other dates (I calculated everything at once).
Men and Dwarves are in. Galadriel and Aredhel are still out.
I've tried to explain my reasoning a bit better in some of the notes.
Every item is footnoted to show which source it comes from. Lower number footnotes are later sources.


I am quite pleased to have worked out a solution to the whole Men/Utumno issue. It doesn't match the Reddit version, but I believe it holds up as a plausible "Final Timeline".

hS

Yay! I like your timeline better than the Reddit one for what it's worth!

However, the date of the Awakening of Men is flaring up my OCD - are you sure you can't move it up to (solar year) 1800? It would also move it to the exact middle of VY 862 (SY 72).

Not that I have any rational argument or anything...


Also, shouldn't Fingolfin's arrival to Middle-earth be in 5476 instead of 5474? Given what you said about the 3 solar years exile of the Noldor across Helcaraxe, with Feanor taking only 1 year to arrive at Losgar?

And shouldn't the defeat of Morgoth be 600 years after the coming of Fingolfin? Right now it's 6073 (which is 599 years after the arrival of Fingolfin in your current scheme).


Again, sorry for nitpicking.



EDIT: A random question - do you think that Feanor's AAm date of birth needs revising in the context of the Shibboleth given that in the latter he is at least somewhat grown up by the time of Miriel's death?

[Huinesoron]

However, the date of the Awakening of Men is flaring up my OCD - are you sure you can't move it up to (solar year) 1800? It would also move it to the exact middle of VY 862 (SY 72).

Not that I have any rational argument or anything...

There are so many places I want to wriggle things into SY 1 or 72. In this case, technically all Tolkien wrote is that Men awoke in VY 1075 - a span of 144 SY. But he did generally mean "at the beginning of", which means that when the 85 VY Awakening:Finding span was reduced to 14 VY, the awakening of Men fell in an awkward spot.

Also, shouldn't Fingolfin's arrival to Middle-earth be in 5476 instead of 5474? Given what you said about the 3 solar years exile of the Noldor across Helcaraxe, with Feanor taking only 1 year to arrive at Losgar?

I deliberately changed my mind on that one: given that Tolkien is talking about the Exiles aging at an accelerated rate, I think 3 SY must be longer than the actual time. I've gone for 1 SY, meaning that during the Exile the elves aged at mortal rate.


And shouldn't the defeat of Morgoth be 600 years after the coming of Fingolfin? Right now it's 6073 (which is 599 years after the arrival of Fingolfin in your current scheme).

6073 - 600 = 5473, but 600 - 600 = 0. Since FA 1 is numbered, er, 1, FA 600 is actually 599 years after it. (In other words: you've made the exact same fencepost/off-by-one error that Tolkien and I both did repeatedly in earlier versions.)


EDIT: A random question - do you think that Feanor's AAm date of birth needs revising in the context of the Shibboleth given that in the latter he is at least somewhat grown up by the time of Miriel's death?

Interesting. I've left Miriel's death entirely off the timeline, which might have been for exactly this reason. I think we almost have to retain his birthdate - it's the only date in that section of the timeline mentioned in any NoME source. But it would certainly be reasonable to tweak the date of Miriel's death based on the Shibboleth.

The other legitimate change that could be made is switching to the VII begetting date for Feanor, and placing his birth date 3 SY later; that might actually be more true to VII, which only explicitly gives a SY calculation for the begetting. That would push his birth back to 3234, though unfortunately that still isn't far enough back to bring Aredhel before the Silmarils.

... technically we could apply the same adjustment to every birthdate, moving it back by 87 SY to match the later begetting-birth gap. But it's a big assumption/invention to say that Tolkien would have a) done that, but b) not moved anything else around at the same time.

hS

[Huinesoron]

Okay, I got this stuck in my head, so: what if we converted the Finwean births into the new aging system?

From AAm, plus the statement in VII that Feanor was begotten 9 VY before he was born, we have this timeline:


1160 - Begetting of Feanor
1169 - Feanor born
1170 - Death of Miriel
1181 - Begetting of Fingolfin
1190 - Fingolfin born
1221 - Begetting of Finarfin
1230 - Finarfin born
1251 - Begetting of Fingon
1260 - Fingon born
1280 - Finarfin m. Earwen
1291 - Begetting of Finrod & Turgon
1300 - Turgon & Finrod born
1353 - Begetting of Aredhel
1362 - Aredhel born


What aging system was Tolkien using? VII comes shortly after V in the NoME chronology. V states that Eldar gestated for 9 SY (and the slightly earlier X implies this was 10 times longer in Aman), then grew at a rate of 12:1 (compared to mortals) until 24 (male) / 18-21 (female), and then at a rate of 144:1 thereafter. Under this system, Finarfin is 25.5 (equivalent) at his marriage, and nearly 27 at the birth of Finrod. (Interestingly, whatever system we use, Fingon and Finrod were born at the exact same point in their fathers' lives.)

Under the aging system used in the Final Timeline, from XVIII, gestation took 3 SY, a growth year = 3 SY, and a life-year (after 24 GY) = 144 SY. Finarfin now takes only 396 SY to reach the "age" he was at Finrod's begetting, compared to 610 SY in the AAm. We could apply that same compression to all the dates, assuming (eg) Fingon should be the "same age" when his brother Turgon is begotten, and end up with a significantly compressed Finwean timeline that would definitely pull Aredhel back before the making of the Silmarils.

But... the XVIII aging scheme specifically states 'in Middle-earth', and elsewhere says something like 'whatever aging system is assumed for Aman'. That's great for Galadriel, since it means that her "20 growth-years" can be more than 60 SY, but it doesn't pin down how long they should be instead. I've looked over the texts immediately before XVIII, and it doesn't look like Tolkien ever really pinned that down.

I actually suspect that's because of this exact problem: if he specified how fast the Eldar aged in Aman, he would have to edit the Annals/Tale of Years. That was a big task, and I get the feeling he just didn't want to touch it.

EDIT: I went through and calculated it out how the Final Timeline would look with faster aging, and to my amazement it actually... fits together?

https://i.imgur.com/zhnlqrH.png

Crucially, the two methods of calculating Finrod & Turgon's birth give the same value. Only one event moves around, and I don't see "Finarfin was married only after Fingon was born" as a crucial point in Tolkien's mind.

The ages given by the AAm timeline / aging system look very deliberate: both Finarfin and Turgon were begotten almost exactly when their older siblings reached full growth (meaning that blisteringly short gap between Feanor and Fingolfin hits even harder). I would actually quite like to use this.

But... is it too much? Am I mind-reading Tolkien too far? Is this really justified as "simple calculations" when I'm moving entire blocks of the timeline around?

hS

[Arvegil145]

EDIT: I went through and calculated it out how the Final Timeline would look with faster aging, and to my amazement it actually... fits together?

https://i.imgur.com/zhnlqrH.png

Crucially, the two methods of calculating Finrod & Turgon's birth give the same value. Only one event moves around, and I don't see "Finarfin was married only after Fingon was born" as a crucial point in Tolkien's mind.

The ages given by the AAm timeline / aging system look very deliberate: both Finarfin and Turgon were begotten almost exactly when their older siblings reached full growth (meaning that blisteringly short gap between Feanor and Fingolfin hits even harder). I would actually quite like to use this.

But... is it too much? Am I mind-reading Tolkien too far? Is this really justified as "simple calculations" when I'm moving entire blocks of the timeline around?

hS

Some issues I have (not sure if they're actual issues, or just me feeling incredulous):

1) it says in the table that Feanor was only 2 (regular) years old when Miriel died, but can't be the case according to 'Shibboleth' (or even the AAm)

2) why is the time difference between the begetting of Finrod and Finarfin & Earwen's marriage 105 years, while the time difference between the begetting of Fingolfin and Finwe & Indis' marriage is less than 30 years - besides, Findis is said to have been Fingolfin's older sister, which makes this matter even worse! I think this needs some consultation from the text on 'Finwe and Miriel' in MR

3) I still think maybe the best course is to simply keep the relative spacing between the dates in AAm (unless otherwise stated)

4) (unrelated to the above) - I've been re-reading PoME, and have my doubts about the whole 'Sauron corrupting Men' business...Anyway, in both Of Dwarves and Men and in a note to the Problem of Ros, it is Melkor who is consistently mentioned as the instigator of the original Fall of Men - for example:

The Atani and their kin were the descendants of peoples who in the Dark Ages had resisted Morgoth or had renounced him, and had wandered ever westward from their homes far away in the East seeking the Great Sea...

- PoME, 'Of Dwarves and Men', p. 306

and

When their vanguards at last reached Beleriand and the Western Shores they were dismayed. For they could go no further, but they had not found peace, only lands engaged in war with Morgoth himself, who had fled back to Middle-earth. "Through ages forgotten," they said, "we have wandered, seeking to escape from the Dominions of the Dark Lord and his Shadow, only to find him here before us."

- PoME, 'Of Dwarves and Men', p. 306

+

Their tongues had already diverged, with the swiftness of the speeches of Men in the 'Unwritten Days', and continued to do so; though they remained friends of acknowledged kinship, bound by their hatred and fear of the Dark Lord (Morgoth), against whom they had rebelled.

- PoME, 'The Problem of Ros', note 13, p. 373


All these things considered, I think we should push back the Awaking of Men even earlier - maybe we should adopt the (of course) modified and adjusted date of VY 1075 from VI.(Text A)?

Then again, though, one could always interpret the above quotes as being done in the name of Melkor/Morgoth and not literally by him in person. I'm not sure - you know the NoME texts much better than I do.


P.S. Maybe you could also add this in your timeline:

The Elvish loremasters were of opinion that both languages [Hadorian and Beorian] were descended from one that had diverged (owing to some division of the people who had spoken it) in the course of, maybe, a thousand years of the slower change in the First Age. Though the time might well have been less, and change quickened by a mingling of peoples; for the language of Hador was apparently less changed and more uniform in style, whereas the language of Beor contained many elements that were alien in character. This contrast in speech was probably connected with the observable physical differences between the two peoples.

- PoME, 'Of Dwarves and Men', p. 308

+ this quote (which I gave an excerpt of above)

It was not until they had developed a craft of boat-building that the people afterwards known as the Folk of Hador discovered that a part of their host from whom they had become separated had reached the same sea before them, and dwelt at the feet of the high hills to the south-west, whereas they [the Folk of Hador] lived in the north-east, in the woods that there came near to the shores. They were thus some two hundred miles apart, going by water; and they did not often meet and exchange tidings. Their tongues had already diverged, with the swiftness of the speeches of Men in the 'Unwritten Days', and continued to do so; though they remained friends of acknowledged kinship, bound by their hatred and fear of the Dark Lord (Morgoth), against whom they had rebelled. Nonetheless they did not know that the Lesser Folk had fled from the threat of the Servants of the Dark and gone on westward, while they had lain hidden in their woods, and so under their leader Beor reached Beleriand at last many years before they did.

- PoME, note 13 to The Problem of Ros, p. 373


By the way, does the last sentence imply that Beor was living by the Sea of Rhun at some point in his life, or am I misinterpreting the quote?




P.S. Do you have any plans of forming an ultimate timeline?

[Huinesoron]

1) it says in the table that Feanor was only 2 (regular) years old when Miriel died, but can't be the case according to 'Shibboleth' (or even the AAm)

2) why is the time difference between the begetting of Finrod and Finarfin & Earwen's marriage 105 years, while the time difference between the begetting of Fingolfin and Finwe & Indis' marriage is less than 30 years - besides, Findis is said to have been Fingolfin's older sister, which makes this matter even worse! I think this needs some consultation from the text on 'Finwe and Miriel' in MR

The answer to both of these is that this timescale was calculated by taking the AAm dates and adjusting only for the revised growth rates (ie, keeping everyone's ages the same at the various life events that affect them). In AAm, Miriel died 1 VY after Feanor's birth, which makes him less than 1 "growth-years" at the time.

It would be quite ridiculous to try and apply both the altered growth-rates and the Shibboleth to the timeline, and so of course I've done exactly that:

https://i.imgur.com/whLpf94.png

(The Shibboleth states that Miriel hung on until Feanor reached full growth - 72 years at this point. Finwe & Miriel 4, which postdates January 1959, gives the 12/12/3-year gaps from her death to Finwe's remarriage. XVIII provides that an Elf-woman needed to rest for at least 2 growth-years = 6 SY between children, more if she gave more of her vigour to the child. The rest is explained inline.)

It's silly. Turgon took 8 Life-Years, but Fingolfin only took the standard 2? The dude who faced down Morgoth single-handed? But any extension of the rest-period after Fingolfin's birth means extending the rest-period after Fingon's, to keep Turgon and Finrod in the same year - or changing Fingolfin's age when Fingon was born - or making Irime and Finarfin twins, which isn't actually contradicted by the text - or something. In any event, once you start down this path it leads to madness.


3) I still think maybe the best course is to simply keep the relative spacing between the dates in AAm (unless otherwise stated)


It's certainly the sanest course, but it means explicitly ignoring the later developments on Elvish lifecycles.


4) (unrelated to the above) - I've been re-reading PoME, and have my doubts about the whole 'Sauron corrupting Men' business...Anyway, in both Of Dwarves and Men and in a note to the Problem of Ros, it is Melkor who is consistently mentioned as the instigator of the original Fall of Men - for example:

All these things considered, I think we should push back the Awaking of Men even earlier - maybe we should adopt the (of course) modified and adjusted date of VY 1075 from VI.(Text A)?


The Awakening is already in the Timeline in 1778, which is the 1075 date as amended. It looks like 'Dwarves and Men' in particular is directly drawing from the Athrabeth here, which also explicitly connects the Master to Morgoth. It looks like "Sauron corrupting Men" is a discarded idea, and the best date we have is that 1075 (though at the time, while Melkor found Men, it was still Sauron corrupting them during the Captivity; never mind, never mind...)

EDIT: Actually, yes mind. ^_^ If "Of Dwarves and Men" is drawing from the Athrabeth / the Tale of Adanel, then there are two separate visits of "the Master" to early Men. He finds them very early, gives them gifts and proclaims himself Lord of the Dark. He then goes away for "a long time", and returns on a day when "the Sun's light began to fail, until it was blotted out and a great shadow fell on the world" and has them build a Temple.

I think that second visit is supposed to be Sauron, playing exactly the same trick he did in Numenor. The story holds that they are the same person - but it's a tale carried down the ages, and retold by someone who doesn't exactly believe it. This fits perfectly well with the later statements, since the original corruption is indeed by Melkor.


P.S. Maybe you could also add this in your timeline:

The Elvish loremasters were of opinion that both languages [Hadorian and Beorian] were descended from one that had diverged (owing to some division of the people who had spoken it) in the course of, maybe, a thousand years of the slower change in the First Age. Though the time might well have been less, and change quickened by a mingling of peoples; for the language of Hador was apparently less changed and more uniform in style, whereas the language of Beor contained many elements that were alien in character. This contrast in speech was probably connected with the observable physical differences between the two peoples.


This I like. It has a precise date - 1000 years before the Hadorians entered Beleriand. I'm not sure we can precisely date the sojourn by the Sea of Rhun, so I have to leave that out for now.

On which point: Beor could have led the "Lesser Folk" all the way from Rhun to Beleriand, but the quote doesn't require it. "The Noldor departed Middle-earth, and eventually returned under their leader Feanor".


P.S. Do you have any plans of forming an ultimate timeline?

Outside the period from the Awakening to the Exiles reaching Beleriand, I feel like the timeline is pretty well known. All I'd be doing is copying the tables from Tolkien Gateway; it doesn't seem necessary.

hS

[Arvegil145]

The answer to both of these is that this timescale was calculated by taking the AAm dates and adjusting only for the revised growth rates (ie, keeping everyone's ages the same at the various life events that affect them). In AAm, Miriel died 1 VY after Feanor's birth, which makes him less than 1 "growth-years" at the time.

It would be quite ridiculous to try and apply both the altered growth-rates and the Shibboleth to the timeline, and so of course I've done exactly that:

https://i.imgur.com/whLpf94.png

(The Shibboleth states that Miriel hung on until Feanor reached full growth - 72 years at this point. Finwe & Miriel 4, which postdates January 1959, gives the 12/12/3-year gaps from her death to Finwe's remarriage. XVIII provides that an Elf-woman needed to rest for at least 2 growth-years = 6 SY between children, more if she gave more of her vigour to the child. The rest is explained inline.)

It's silly. Turgon took 8 Life-Years, but Fingolfin only took the standard 2? The dude who faced down Morgoth single-handed? But any extension of the rest-period after Fingolfin's birth means extending the rest-period after Fingon's, to keep Turgon and Finrod in the same year - or changing Fingolfin's age when Fingon was born - or making Irime and Finarfin twins, which isn't actually contradicted by the text - or something. In any event, once you start down this path it leads to madness.

All this, I think, could be resolved by assuming an unknown rate of Elvish existence in Aman and therefore adopting the AAm spacing of the dates (+ perhaps some modifications in Feanor/Finwe/Miriel case to bring it in line with MR and Shibboleth?).



This I like. It has a precise date - 1000 years before the Hadorians entered Beleriand. I'm not sure we can precisely date the sojourn by the Sea of Rhun, so I have to leave that out for now.

On which point: Beor could have led the "Lesser Folk" all the way from Rhun to Beleriand, but the quote doesn't require it. "The Noldor departed Middle-earth, and eventually returned under their leader Feanor".

Just a reminder that the 'c. 1000 years of separation' is immediately followed by this:

Though the time might well have been less, and change quickened by a mingling of peoples; for the language of Hador was apparently less changed and more uniform in style, whereas the language of Beor contained many elements that were alien in character.

- PoME, 'Of Dwarves and Men', p. 308



Outside the period from the Awakening to the Exiles reaching Beleriand, I feel like the timeline is pretty well known. All I'd be doing is copying the tables from Tolkien Gateway; it doesn't seem necessary.

You'd be surprised. Oh, it's well known sure, but there are hidden gems not included, as well as modifications that contradict many of the dates. Not to mention all the dates from family trees which diverge here and there ever so slightly...

[Arvegil145]

Also, I see that you didn't include the birth years for Idril and Finduilas. Is there any reason why?

[Huinesoron]

All this, I think, could be resolved by assuming an unknown rate of Elvish existence in Aman and therefore adopting the AAm spacing of the dates (+ perhaps some modifications in Feanor/Finwe/Miriel case to bring it in line with MR and Shibboleth?).

So! Excitingly, "adopt the AAm spacing of the dates" starts out really strong. Shibboleth tells us Miriel lived until Feanor was "full-grown"; the Statute tells us Finwe waited 12+12+3 years before remarrying; the latest life-cycles give (in Middle-earth) 3 years gestation, 72 years to full growth. So we will always need at least 72+12+12+3+3 = 102 SY between Feanor and Fingolfin's births.

The Final Timeline (rev 3) (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub), which maintains the AAm SY gaps between the Finwean births, says Feanor and Fingolfin are born 105 SY apart. Allowing 3 years for Finwe and Indis to actually conceive, that's spot on! Feanor grew up at a 3:1 speed, which presumably means a 144:1 speed once he hit 24.

Unfortunately that means Findis doesn't exist, unless she and Fingolfin were twins. Which... isn't impossible. Let's go with that.

Finarfin is born 383 SY after Fingolfin, making Fingolfin 26.14 at his begetting. That seems a long gap between children - but of course there's Irime to consider. If we assume an even split, Findis/Fingolfin and Irime would all be full-grown plus about 115 SY at the next birth; in other words, Finwe and Indis started planning the next child when the previous was an adult. (That's slighly longer than Finwe waited after Feanor, which probably only annoyed Feanor more: "you only gave me 30 SY! Why do they get a hundred?!")

There are 680 years between Fingolfin and Fingon's births; that makes Fingolfin 28.14 when he has his first child. That's a bit old, but not unreasonable, and he may have married late. Turgon is born when Fingon is 26.14; that's the first date which seems intractably late, but since the most usual pattern was to have only one child, Turgon may have been a late decision.

Finarfin was also 28.14 at Finrod's birth, and we know he married at 26.83. We're seeing a pattern here of "wait a VY after the last thing happened", whether it's your wedding or your previous child reaching adulthood; yet another reason for Feanor to be annoyed by his father's haste!

(EDIT: It's tempting to say that the generation of Fingon, Turgon, and Finrod are typically born when their older sibling is 26. Trouble is, despite only being 1 extra life-year, it means doubling the space between children. That would push all of Aegnor, Galadriel, and Argon past the Silmarils, and mean Galadriel was actually born 200 years after the Exile. Obviously we're not doing that!)

So... as far as it goes, the AAm timeline actually works. We would expect the full birth pattern of the House of Finwe (per the Shibboleth lists) to look like this:


3321 - birth of Feanor
3420 - marriage of Finwe and Indis
3426 - birth of Findis & Fingolfin
3617 - birth of Irime
3809 - birth of Finarfin
4001 - birth of Maedhros
4096 - birth of Fingon
4192 - birth of Maglor
4383 - birth of Celegorm
4480 - birth of Turgon & Finrod
4574 - birth of Caranthir
4671 - birth of Angrod & Aredhel
4765 - birth of Curufin
4862 - birth of Aegnor & Argon
4956 - birth of Amrod & Amras
5041 - creation of the Silmarils
5053 - birth of Galadriel


That actually looks really good! The only problem is the girls: Galadriel ends up after the Silmarils, but still about EDIT:26 at the Exile, and Aredhel comes in about 600 years earlier than she should per XXII. Ironically, putting her in her AAm birthdate would place her in 5074 - close enough that she could easily share a birth year with Galadriel, given the approximations in here. But then they'd both be younger than the Silmarils, and Argon would be younger still.

But... we can just leave them out. :D I'm convinced; the AAm ages can stay, we'll just assume some unattested Valinoran practices.

Also, I see that you didn't include the birth years for Idril and Finduilas. Is there any reason why?

Because they weren't in the sources I was working with. Assuming the Gateway has Idril's birthdate right as 1479, she would be born when Turgon was 35, which is really really late.

EDIT2: So I Have My Books(TM) now. The source for Idril is NoME 1.X, and it's not a year: it's a calculation. Tolkien wanted her to be 22 in 495. Under the XVIII aging rules I'm following, she's actually still growing at that point, making her less than 72!

We can instead use the "mortal equivalent" aging from XVIII, in which 24 life-years is equivalent to 18 mortal years. If Idril is equivalent to mortal 22, that makes her actual effective age 29. She aged about 3.43 life years in Beleriand, making her about 25.5 when she reached it. If the exile took 1 life-years, she was 24.5 when the Trees died. She had lived at that time 81 + 72 = 153 years, meaning she was born 5320: a century before Feanor broke the peace.

To my continued amazement, that's about the same time as the 1479 date in AAm. I love how these keep lining up. She's older than Tolkien had her on entering Beleriand (he wanted 17, which is about a year younger than her even in mortal-equivalent dating), and still doesn't fit with "young Galadriel", but she works.

Finduilas, per Shibboleth (Parentage of Gil-Galad), was born to Arothir/Orodreth and a Sindarin lady. Per X, she was either 20 or 21 in FA 472; if we take those as "mortal equivalent", she would have been either 26.7 or 28. At 26.7, she would have been born in FA 16, making her not the "youngest Exile" but the "oldest Beleriandic Noldo".

If 20/21 is her actual age, then she was born in FA 409/412; shortly after Finrod found Beor. But she would have been far too young to be betrothed, so I prefer FA 16. (Tolkien had FA 290 OR YT 1483, both based on calculations of her age.)

hS

[Arvegil145]

BTW, how exactly do you calculate these dates?

And, say, I took the FA dates in AAm, beginning in 1050 and ending in the death of the Trees in 1495.

And I took the FA dates in NoME, beginning in 850 and ending in the death of the Trees in 888.


Is there any way to get a conversion scale between the two frameworks?

[Arvegil145]

So! Excitingly, "adopt the AAm spacing of the dates" starts out really strong. Shibboleth tells us Miriel lived until Feanor was "full-grown"; the Statute tells us Finwe waited 12+12+3 years before remarrying; the latest life-cycles give (in Middle-earth) 3 years gestation, 72 years to full growth. So we will always need at least 72+12+12+3+3 = 102 SY between Feanor and Fingolfin's births.

The Final Timeline (rev 3) (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub), which maintains the AAm SY gaps between the Finwean births, says Feanor and Fingolfin are born 105 SY apart. Allowing 3 years for Finwe and Indis to actually conceive, that's spot on! Feanor grew up at a 3:1 speed, which presumably means a 144:1 speed once he hit 24.

Unfortunately that means Findis doesn't exist, unless she and Fingolfin were twins. Which... isn't impossible. Let's go with that.

Finarfin is born 383 SY after Fingolfin, making Fingolfin 26.14 at his begetting. That seems a long gap between children - but of course there's Irime to consider. If we assume an even split, Findis/Fingolfin and Irime would all be full-grown plus about 115 SY at the next birth; in other words, Finwe and Indis started planning the next child when the previous was an adult. (That's slighly longer than Finwe waited after Feanor, which probably only annoyed Feanor more: "you only gave me 30 SY! Why do they get a hundred?!")

There are 680 years between Fingolfin and Fingon's births; that makes Fingolfin 28.14 when he has his first child. That's a bit old, but not unreasonable, and he may have married late. Turgon is born when Fingon is 26.14; that's the first date which seems intractably late, but since the most usual pattern was to have only one child, Turgon may have been a late decision.

Finarfin was also 28.14 at Finrod's birth, and we know he married at 26.83. We're seeing a pattern here of "wait a VY after the last thing happened", whether it's your wedding or your previous child reaching adulthood; yet another reason for Feanor to be annoyed by his father's haste!

(EDIT: It's tempting to say that the generation of Fingon, Turgon, and Finrod are typically born when their older sibling is 26. Trouble is, despite only being 1 extra life-year, it means doubling the space between children. That would push all of Aegnor, Galadriel, and Argon past the Silmarils, and mean Galadriel was actually born 200 years after the Exile. Obviously we're not doing that!)

So... as far as it goes, the AAm timeline actually works. We would expect the full birth pattern of the House of Finwe (per the Shibboleth lists) to look like this:


3321 - birth of Feanor
3420 - marriage of Finwe and Indis
3426 - birth of Findis & Fingolfin
3617 - birth of Irime
3809 - birth of Finarfin
4001 - birth of Maedhros
4096 - birth of Fingon
4192 - birth of Maglor
4383 - birth of Celegorm
4480 - birth of Turgon & Finrod
4574 - birth of Caranthir
4671 - birth of Angrod & Aredhel
4765 - birth of Curufin
4862 - birth of Aegnor & Argon
4956 - birth of Amrod & Amras
5041 - creation of the Silmarils
5053 - birth of Galadriel


First of all, before I make any other comment - I think you really should stress when a date is approximate or within a given range. And when dealing with such dates, I think maybe you ought to round them up/down to the nearest "pretty" number (ala 860, 865, 870, etc.; as well as the SY dates too).


With that out of the way:

I was thinking that, maybe, instead of keeping the relative differences between dates in AAm in regards to births, marriages, etc., we should keep their rough yet absolute difference according to the old AAm conception of VY:SY = 1:9.582 - what I mean is this (these are of course just examples):

1) Let's take Feanor's birth as our cornerstone: FA 3321 according to the scheme (YT 1169 in the AAm)

2) Now take the birth of Fingolfin from AAm - YT 1190 (AAm) - which is 21 VY after Feanor's, so c. 201 solar years difference

3) Then take Finarfin's birth for example - YT 1230 (AAm) - which is 40 VY after Fingolfin's, so c. 383 solar years difference from that of Fingolfin's

...etc.


Now, if we take Feanor's birth as FA 3321, that means:

- the lower bound for marriage of Finwe and Indis is in c. 3423 (though - are you sure about the 12 + 12 + 3 years of waiting for Finwe?)
- Findis is born between c. 3423 and 3522
- Fingolfin is born in c. FA 3522
- Irime is born between c. 3522 and c. 3905
- Finarfin is born in c. FA 3905
- Fingon (YT 1260) is born in c. FA 4193
- marriage of Finarfin and Earwen is in c. FA 4384
- Turgon and Finrod (YT 1300) are born in c. FA 4576
- Aredhel and Galadriel (YT 1362) are born in c. FA 5170
- Argon is born sometime after c. FA 5170 (say, c. 5300 or something)



I'm not overly concerned about the large gaps between births of parents and that of children since this is Aman and everyone is indulging in pursuits other than child making all the time.


Anyway, I'm not that enthusiastic about my own proposal though since YT 1495 would end up as FA 6444! Well after the First Age ended according to the scheme.

EDIT: I forgot, why no Luthien? Or any events from YT Beleriand?





P.S. I'm not sure about the 'Men corrupted by Sauron' part however, since this is never mentioned again outside of NoME and seems to contradict the stuff in PoME.

Also, about that quote from the Athrabeth ("at the beginning of the history of our people, before any had yet died") - if we take it at face value, an important thing to note is that Men's original lifespan was c. 200-300, the same as that of the Numenoreans, at least according to a late (c. 1968) text:

The life of the Númenóreans before their fall (the 2nd fall of Man?) was thus not so much a special gift as a restoration of what should have been the common inheritance of Men, [to live] for 200–300 years.

- NoME, 'Notes on Ore', p. 223

[Huinesoron]

BTW, how exactly do you calculate these dates?

Depends on the dates. :) I think I know what you're asking, see below in comments on your birthdate-list.


And, say, I took the FA dates in AAm, beginning in 1050 and ending in the death of the Trees in 1495.

And I took the FA dates in NoME, beginning in 850 and ending in the death of the Trees in 888.

Is there any way to get a conversion scale between the two frameworks?

To directly convert between the two, just use the ratio (1495-1050):(888-850), or 445:38. That is, 1 AAm VY = 38/445 NoME VY, or 1 NoME VY = 445/38 (=11.71) AAm VY.

First of all, before I make any other comment - I think you really should stress when a date is approximate or within a given range. And when dealing with such dates, I think maybe you ought to round them up/down to the nearest "pretty" number (ala 860, 865, 870, etc.; as well as the SY dates too).

All dates in the Final Timeline rev 3 (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub) are either precise or marked "Ca." I understand the urge to make the dates "prettier", but the purpose of the Final Timeline is to say what Tolkien did, and he hadn't done that. Absolutely he would have - but he didn't.


I was thinking that, maybe, instead of keeping the relative differences between dates in AAm in regards to births, marriages, etc., we should keep their rough yet absolute difference according to the old AAm conception of VY:SY = 1:9.582 - what I mean is this (these are of course just examples):


This is what I just did. :D The key difference is that I took from NoME, and from the notes to AAm, the late change of Feanor's birth year to 1179. That pulls everything else earlier, as I showed in my list. (By the way, I added Idril and Finduilas to the end of the post, not sure if you saw that; I ended up posting it after you'd replied.)


are you sure about the 12 + 12 + 3 years of waiting for Finwe?

This is taken directly from the final version of the Statute of Finwe and Miriel. Finwe spent 12 years appealing to Miriel before going to Manwe; Mandos required 12 years before he would approve the dissolution; and Finwe married Indis 3 years later (a year after meeting her). Unless there's a later source, I'm confident.


I'm not overly concerned about the large gaps between births of parents and that of children since this is Aman and everyone is indulging in pursuits other than child making all the time.


Anyway, I'm not that enthusiastic about my own proposal though since YT 1495 would end up as FA 6444! Well after the First Age ended according to the scheme.

The problem here is that by NoME, Tolkien had shortened the years in Aman. Any application of AAm dates to NoME timelines has to account for that; I did so on the Timeline by cutting out a chunk of time between the Finwean births and the making of the Silmarils.

Given the uncertainty around the births, I think I will avoid adding them to the Timeline proper at all; I will stick an appendix on the end with our "best calculation", which looks to be this one.


EDIT: I forgot, why no Luthien? Or any events from YT Beleriand?


They're in the Grey Annals, right? The difficulty is how to anchor them - is Luthien's birth "this long after the Teleri sail" or "this long before Morgoth returns"? With Feanor I have a specific date mentioned in NoME to pin things on; I don't think that exists for Luthien, or the Beleriand stuff.


P.S. I'm not sure about the 'Men corrupted by Sauron' part however, since this is never mentioned again outside of NoME and seems to contradict the stuff in PoME.

I stand by my position that the contradiction is an illusion. The second visit of the "Lord of the Dark" to Men in the Athrabeth is so Sauron, playing exactly the game he did six thousand years later in Numenor.


Also, about that quote from the Athrabeth ("at the beginning of the history of our people, before any had yet died") - if we take it at face value, an important thing to note is that Men's original lifespan was c. 200-300, the same as that of the Numenoreans, at least according to a late (c. 1968) text:


Good catch. That's why it's an approximate date, but I think I'll go ahead and push it down to the end of the VY anyway.

hS

[Arvegil145]

EDIT: Depends on the dates. :) I think I know what you're asking, see below in comments on your birthdate-list.



To directly convert between the two, just use the ratio (1495-1050):(888-850), or 445:38. That is, 1 AAm VY = 38/445 NoME VY, or 1 NoME VY = 445/38 (=11.71) AAm VY.

No, I meant - take for example the Awaking of Men (VY 1075 I assume): how did you arrive at 862/50 (FA 1778) figure? As in, can you walk me through the process?


All dates in the Final Timeline rev 3 (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vQkCut0itZ4nfg5PnEcwY7cYLWPPVtf_oIqm9a2t8CR6ksjNe 8Tgkmbygu89Mgjtj3tfqkVqER6rkHs/pub) are either precise or marked "Ca." I understand the urge to make the dates "prettier", but the purpose of the Final Timeline is to say what Tolkien did, and he hadn't done that. Absolutely he would have - but he didn't.

I meant 'ca.' in regards to separation of the Folk of Hador and Beor and the like.

EDIT: Maybe you should expand the explanation in your scheme as to why Men awoke in 862/50 (based on the VY 1075 date), and why the 'awakening' and 'arising' of Men are not one and the same.


This is what I just did. :D The key difference is that I took from NoME, and from the notes to AAm, the late change of Feanor's birth year to 1179. That pulls everything else earlier, as I showed in my list. (By the way, I added Idril and Finduilas to the end of the post, not sure if you saw that; I ended up posting it after you'd replied.)

In regards to Feanor's birth year, did you mean this:

The entry in AAm for the Valian Year 1179 (p. 92) gave the birth of Feanor in Tirion and his mother's name Byrde Miriel. Afterwards my father changed this date to 1169...

- MR, p. 205

Because CT says that Tolkien changed 1179 to 1169, not the other way around.

Unless of course there's something else that I'm missing.


EDIT: Yeah, sorry, I missed your edit - and I've also had a lot on my plate recently, so I didn't read your post carefully in the first place.

I'm pretty amazed that our timeline is matching up this well in regards to Idril.

And, at the risk of reopening this can of worms, I still think that our best course is to discard the 'very young Galadriel' idea - I think that the Shibboleth trumps the other, earlier texts - and yes, you can speculate if Tolkien would've moved the making of the Silmarils much later, but that's all there is to it. So, I don't think it would be too much of a compromise to put her year of birth around c. 5000 - that's not that off from your calculation, and yet still makes her older than the Silmarils. (I would also move Aredhel's birth to the same year as Galadriel's, as in AAm - that would just require moving Argon after c. FA 5000.)

I wonder what would be Celebrimbor and Orodreth's years of birth? I would imagine something close to that of Idril's. It's weird though how few births there are in the 3rd generation after Finwe (i.e. his great-grandkids), and how long the gulf between parents' and children's birth years is.

Also, BTW, Curufin should be the 4th son, not Caranthir - all the later texts have them in this order.


They're in the Grey Annals, right? The difficulty is how to anchor them - is Luthien's birth "this long after the Teleri sail" or "this long before Morgoth returns"? With Feanor I have a specific date mentioned in NoME to pin things on; I don't think that exists for Luthien, or the Beleriand stuff.

There's a whole chunk of YT entries in the Grey Annals, including the birth year of Luthien (YT 1200, WotJ p. 9 - but also see MR, p. 106, note to §81), building of Menegroth (YT 1300, WotJ pp. 10-11), the coming of Denethor (YT 1350, WotJ pp. 13-14), etc.

EDIT: Or are you referring to the '27 years after the arrival of the Noldor' figure in the NoME as the anchor? Because the Grey Annals also has 'YT 1132' (WotJ, p. 7) as the year in which the Vanyar and Noldor left, which follows perfectly the 'YT 1133' figure of their arrival in Aman in AAm that Tolkien was referencing in the NoME.

[Galin]

Okay my head is spinning.

And marveling at all the cross-referencing work being done here :eek:

Advice alert: I'm someone who (at least so far) pays little heed to the 1959-ish texts, and even the 1965 text. I've adopted the late Elvish Life-cycles idea, and so, given its wonderful brevity/vagueness regarding who was born when, should I go back to The Annals of Aman and just plug in 144?

I realize that's arguably problematic when we get to the Rebellion, but if I recall correctly, don't we see Tolkien doing that with respect to crossing the Grinding Ice or sailing back to Middle-Earth -- in other words, don't we see Tolkien seemingly not minding the notable amount of actual time that passed here, given (simply) the larger ratio.

Or am I forgetting something obvious? Or something else.

[Arvegil145]

Advice alert: I'm someone who (at least so far) pays little heed to the 1959-ish texts, and even the 1965 text. I've adopted the late Elvish Life-cycles idea, and so, given its wonderful brevity/vagueness regarding who was born when, should I go back to The Annals of Aman and just plug in 144?

I realize that's arguably problematic when we get to the Rebellion, but if I recall correctly, don't we see Tolkien doing that with respect to crossing the Grinding Ice or sailing back to Middle-Earth -- in other words, don't we see Tolkien seemingly not minding the notable amount of actual time that passed here, given (simply) the larger ratio.

Or am I forgetting something obvious? Or something else.

Funny thing is, that's exactly what Tolkien did at first - that is, just use the existing AAm dates for the First Age but plug in the 144 figure instead of the 9.582: however, that gave an absurdly long First Age (c. 65,000 years give or take). In fact, even longer than that, since at one point he moved the Awakening of the Elves to YT 1000 (so now it was c. 72,000 years instead).

So instead, he decided to more or less keep the length of the First Age as it was before (c. 4-6,000 years, depending on text), and instead seems to have settled on there simply being less Valian years on the whole. (I'm not sure I like the use of the term 'settled' here - it would be more accurate to say that this was the direction he was going in.)

For example, the timespan between the Awaking of the Elves and the death of the Two Trees in AAm lasts from YT 1050 to YT 1495.

However, in one of his later conceptions, the timespan is from VY 850 (Awakening of the Elves) to VY 888 (death of the Trees) - this is what Huinesoron is using in his reconstruction.



And as to the flight of the Noldor - your guess is as good as mine...Evidently, 720 (solar) years was too much, but c. 50 (solar) years was too little??? But 144 is 'just right':confused:?

As I mentioned in one of my previous comments, he also made Feanor take 72 (solar) years to reach Beleriand...by sea...The professor is an enduring mystery.

[Huinesoron]

given its wonderful brevity/vagueness regarding who was born when, should I go back to The Annals of Aman and just plug in 144?

As Arvegil says, this was exactly what Tolkien wanted desperately to do. There's whole chapters of NoME where he's struggling to justify to himself the extreme lengths between events that 1 VY = 144 SY would bring. This is where we get "gestation = 900 months = !75!solar!years" from - he just really wanted it to work!

In the end, and the basis for this "Final Timeline", he scrapped the whole system; the latest system of dates Tolkien actually provides are based on VY 850 for the Awakening, and VY 888 for the death of the Trees. Converting between them is largely what I'm overwhelming this thread with.

No, I meant - take for example the Awaking of Men (VY 1075 I assume): how did you arrive at 862/50 (FA 1778) figure? As in, can you walk me through the process?

Sure! Using the last three paragraphs VI.A, the Quendi awoke in VY 1000, Men awoke in VY 1075, and Orome found the Quendi in VY 1085. At the time, 1 VY = 144 SY, meaning the gap between the two awakenings is 10800 SY.

That's far too long for the later timeline where the Quendi awake in VY 850 - it would put the Awakening of Men somewhere in the early Third Age. So I have instead used the ratio between the three dates.

In VI.A, there are 85 VY between the Quendi awakening and being found. In XIII.1, there are 14. That means 1 XIII.1 VY = (14/85) = 0.165 VI.A VY. We can multiply the 75 VY between the two Awakenings by that number, to get a XIII.1 gap of 12.353 VY; and 850 + 12 + (0.353 x 144) = 862/50, the date on the Final Timeline. (You can get the same result by converting everything into SY, which has the advantage of not needing to multiply fractions of 144.)


EDIT: Maybe you should expand the explanation in your scheme as to why Men awoke in 862/50 (based on the VY 1075 date), and why the 'awakening' and 'arising' of Men are not one and the same.

I agree I should probably clean up some of the explanations; I'll try to do that once we stop fixing them! :D


Because CT says that Tolkien changed 1179 to 1169, not the other way around.


Urgh, that is a complicated note, but I think you've read it right. There's also additional dates in this and note 4: 1170 for Miriel's death, 1172 for the Statute, and 1185 for Finwe's wedding to Indis.

This all makes the sequence of composition very important. The ball-point pen amendments to AAm are earlier than NoME VII, which quotes the 1169; but 1170/1172/1185 doesn't line up with the latest Finwe & Miriel (which has the 12/12/3 gaps I mentioned; see MR pp 258-261). I think from MR p205 that the AAm changes are contemporary with Finwe & Miriel 1, so 12/12/3 is the dating I will be using.


And, at the risk of reopening this can of worms, I still think that our best course is to discard the 'very young Galadriel' idea

Galadriel! Galadriel! Clear as mud is all your tale!

Okay: to be 20 at the Exile, Galadriel would be born 13 SY before the AAm date for Feanor breaking the peace. Is 13 years long enough for her to grow tresses, and be verbal enough to refuse Feanor, and old enough for her refusal to offend him, and for him to make the Silmarils, and for Melkor to stir up enough trouble to cause Feanor to make and draw a sword?

It seems unlikely. Instead, let's do the same "mortal equivalent" trick as with Idril, making Galadriel 26.7 life-years at the Exile; that works out to 456 SY, putting her birth in 5018. AAm has the Silmarils only taking 10 years to forge, so Galadriel would have been 23 SY = 7.7 life-years = 5.7 mortal-years when Feanor started the work. As Shibboleth says: "from her earliest years she had a marvellous gift of insight into the minds of others".

... I need to rework the calculations, don't I? There's several points which give me freedom to move things: like VII fixing Feanor's begetting rather than his birth, which would let me move the whole AAm timeline back a bit; or the FM4 date of Finwe's second marriage being earlier than in the AAm notes, which again could let me close the Feanor:Fingolfin gap. I'll take a look at it and see what works best.

I'll need to look at the Grey Annals separately; I haven't even given them thought until now. :)

hS

[Huinesoron]

Okay! Birth and marriages of the House of Finwe in Aman. Dates in bold have direct textual support; dates in italics are extrapolations from known dates and deduced 'standard intervals':

https://i.imgur.com/5VedWk4.png

The 1169/1179 issue for Feanor has gone away entirely in this timeline. NoME VII cites both his birth and begetting dates, and then says "this is 270 SY after Finwe landed in Aman"; the 270 SY is his begetting, so I have used that date + 3sy as the start point for the timeline.

I've also not used the given date for Fingolfin's birth; rather, because FM4 gives a later account of the date of Finwe and Indis' marriage, I have taken the relative date of 5 VY (=48 SY) after the marriage; for the rest of the timeline, I have treated that date as equivalent to AAm 1190 and calculated from there.

This is the only way of "using the Annals of Aman dating" which gives a reasonable pre-Silmaril date for Galadriel and Aredhel (or Ireth; I think the Shibboleth gives the last name for her?). In fact, it's so reasonable that I was happy to switch it out for the date I calculated in my last post - they're only 12 SY apart!

With the addition of Findis, Fingolfin is born very quickly after his older sibling, which feels like it lends weight to Feanor's feeling that his father was looking to replace him. Perhaps that's why Fingolfin's own children are so widely spaced - he didn't want them feeling the same way.

There's a lot of assumptions in this timeline. I (currently) think it's the best option, but it's also far less firm than the rest of the Final Timeline. My current plan is to remove all Valinorean birth dates entirely to an appendix, so that they're clearly a "best guess" rather than a solid theory.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Okay! Birth and marriages of the House of Finwe in Aman. Dates in bold have direct textual support; dates in italics are extrapolations from known dates and deduced 'standard intervals':

https://i.imgur.com/5VedWk4.png

The 1169/1179 issue for Feanor has gone away entirely in this timeline. NoME VII cites both his birth and begetting dates, and then says "this is 270 SY after Finwe landed in Aman"; the 270 SY is his begetting, so I have used that date + 3sy as the start point for the timeline.

I've also not used the given date for Fingolfin's birth; rather, because FM4 gives a later account of the date of Finwe and Indis' marriage, I have taken the relative date of 5 VY (=48 SY) after the marriage; for the rest of the timeline, I have treated that date as equivalent to AAm 1190 and calculated from there.

This is the only way of "using the Annals of Aman dating" which gives a reasonable pre-Silmaril date for Galadriel and Aredhel (or Ireth; I think the Shibboleth gives the last name for her?). In fact, it's so reasonable that I was happy to switch it out for the date I calculated in my last post - they're only 12 SY apart!

With the addition of Findis, Fingolfin is born very quickly after his older sibling, which feels like it lends weight to Feanor's feeling that his father was looking to replace him. Perhaps that's why Fingolfin's own children are so widely spaced - he didn't want them feeling the same way.

There's a lot of assumptions in this timeline. I (currently) think it's the best option, but it's also far less firm than the rest of the Final Timeline. My current plan is to remove all Valinorean birth dates entirely to an appendix, so that they're clearly a "best guess" rather than a solid theory.

hS

You've outdone yourself - somehow you made all this mess make sense, and without too much speculation!

I don't think there's anything better that you could've done with what we have.

Appendix is alright, but I think a better solution might be to color-code the dates, like in Space_Lemmon's reddit timeline.


Just a few minor nitpicks: it should be Amros and Amrod/Amarthan, since Tolkien switched the birth order of the twins; also, Aredhel is the latest name, since it appears in the final 'Maeglin' text from the '70s; and Orodreth seems to have replaced Arothir - judging by this c. 1972/3 quote by Tolkien:

It may anyway be observed that though Quenya names were not used, those used were probably all the names of renowned heroes in the royal lines of old as recorded in legend. Some may come from tales now lost; but Húrin, Túrin, Hador, Barahir, Dior, Denethor, Orodreth, Ecthelion, Egalmoth, Beren are from legends recorded.

Implying that Orodreth was yet again the character's name. While we're on the subject of Orodreth - perhaps it's best to leave Finduilas' birth year as Tolkien wrote it (FA 272), regardless of the (outdated) calculations he used, especially since if we used FA 16, Orodreth would only be c. 190 years old when Finduilas is born - and another thing to note is that, since the Noldor in Beleriand generally tended not to have children, I think the refuges such as Nargothrond, Gondolin and Doriath might have been an exception, since they were hidden and life there went almost as usual as in Aman (until their destruction, of course).

So I think it would be best to leave Finduilas' birth year after the founding of Nargothrond - not that it matters, since you're not including the last 6 centuries, but anyway.



Also, have you checked the Grey Annals yet? Because I forgot to mention that the chapter 1.XXII of the NoME also has YT 1300 and 1350 as the dates for the building of Menegroth and the coming of Denethor, respectively. And more.

And finally, what do you think about this quote from 1.XVIII, concerning Celeborn:

According to Elvish calculations, the period between the arrival of the Eldar in Aman and the end of the First Age in the Overthrow of Morgoth, was 3,100 löar. If that is correct,[fn5]* then Celeborn was of unknown age when he entered Beleriand, but certainly 24 and full-grown, added in 3,100 löar nearly 21 life-years and was 45[fn6]* at the end of the First Age. He married Galadriel shortly after when she was 28 (21 [mortal equivalent]). In TA 3021, when bereft of Galadriel he was 68 + 21 = 89 (66+ [mortal equivalent]) and advanced in “maturity".

However, the above passage has two footnotes attached to it:

Footnote 5: It probably was not; it was very likely longer. In that case Celeborn must have been a descendant (not son) of Elmo and born in Beleriand.

Footnote 6: At least (thus = 33–34 [life-years]).

The second footnote, if I'm interpreting it right, means that Tolkien meant to replace Celeborn's age from 45 to 33/34 at Bel. 600?

[Huinesoron]

Given that I'm now on version 4 of the timeline, I've decided "Final Timeline" is clearly incorrect. Version 4 is therefore the Late Timeline (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub).

It includes all of the Finwean stuff from above, and both "Awakenings of Men", shaded in blue to show that they're less solid than the rest. I've had to recalculate Idril, because apparently my numbers were all over the place when I initially posted about her. I've also gone ahead and just put the citations into the table itself, so that the explanations can be specific rather than general.

I have not yet looked at the Grey Annals, or poked Finduilas again; and there's several citations that aren't complete, where I've been taking from quotes in this thread. I'll get on those when I have the books and the time available.

On Celeborn:

According to Elvish calculations, the period between the arrival of the Eldar in Aman and the end of the First Age in the Overthrow of Morgoth, was 3,100 löar. If that is correct,[fn5]* then Celeborn was of unknown age when he entered Beleriand, but certainly 24 and full-grown, added in 3,100 löar nearly 21 life-years and was 45[fn6]* at the end of the First Age. He married Galadriel shortly after when she was 28 (21 [mortal equivalent]). In TA 3021, when bereft of Galadriel he was 68 + 21 = 89 (66+ [mortal equivalent]) and advanced in “maturity".

Footnote 5: It probably was not; it was very likely longer. In that case Celeborn must have been a descendant (not son) of Elmo and born in Beleriand.

Footnote 6: At least (thus = 33–34 [life-years]).

I think "[life-years]" in fn6 is wrong; this should be [mortal equivalent] like in the Galadriel text immediately after. Mortal equivalent ages are life-year ages * 3/4, and 45 * 0.75 = 33.75, hence "33-34". So this is just a translation.

When did Celeborn enter Beleriand? Tolkien calculates from the date the Noldor reached Aman (2961), but the main host were all in Beleriand by 2808. If Celeborn only arrived in 2961, then at age 24 he would have been born after most of the tribes were already several decades settled. 2808 is more likely.

24 growth-years is 72 sun-years, meaning Celeborn's approximate (or latest) birthdate is 2736. That date falls towards the end of a childbearing period for the Eldar - the last before they reached Beleriand, when they were settled around Isengard.

Which means Celeborn was born in Fangorn Forest. :D

Do we know whether the Elmo - Galadhon - Celeborn genealogy is later than the Elmo - Celeborn one discussed here? Elmo was no more than 348 in our Celeborn birth year, but Ingwe was only 109 when Indis was born, so that's easily room for Galadhon in the middle. If Elmo was born by Rhun around 2388, then Galadhon was probably born in Atyamar (Anduin vale) 2579-2590. He could have been born after the Teleri straggled into the Isen settlement, but that pushes him quite close to the 109-year gap with Celeborn.

Plus, I quite like the idea that the Celeborn line were born in the three stops along the March. It's elegant.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

Do we know whether the Elmo - Galadhon - Celeborn genealogy is later than the Elmo - Celeborn one discussed here?

"4 In later writing Elmo is the grandfather of Celeborn (not as here his father): cf. UT:233–4; also XI:350."
endnote 4 to the XVIII text

[Arvegil145]

On Celeborn:



I think "[life-years]" in fn6 is wrong; this should be [mortal equivalent] like in the Galadriel text immediately after. Mortal equivalent ages are life-year ages * 3/4, and 45 * 0.75 = 33.75, hence "33-34". So this is just a translation.

When did Celeborn enter Beleriand? Tolkien calculates from the date the Noldor reached Aman (2961), but the main host were all in Beleriand by 2808. If Celeborn only arrived in 2961, then at age 24 he would have been born after most of the tribes were already several decades settled. 2808 is more likely.

24 growth-years is 72 sun-years, meaning Celeborn's approximate (or latest) birthdate is 2736. That date falls towards the end of a childbearing period for the Eldar - the last before they reached Beleriand, when they were settled around Isengard.

Which means Celeborn was born in Fangorn Forest. :D

Do we know whether the Elmo - Galadhon - Celeborn genealogy is later than the Elmo - Celeborn one discussed here? Elmo was no more than 348 in our Celeborn birth year, but Ingwe was only 109 when Indis was born, so that's easily room for Galadhon in the middle. If Elmo was born by Rhun around 2388, then Galadhon was probably born in Atyamar (Anduin vale) 2579-2590. He could have been born after the Teleri straggled into the Isen settlement, but that pushes him quite close to the 109-year gap with Celeborn.

Plus, I quite like the idea that the Celeborn line were born in the three stops along the March. It's elegant.

hS

Ah, but remember the footnote 5, which states that he was born in Beleriand - however, the footnote also states that the timespan between the arrival of the Eldar in Aman and the overthrow of Morgoth was more than 3,100 years, and since this is both vague and unworkable for the timeline, I assume you decided to ignore the footnote altogether?

Regardless, Celeborn as a 'descendant' (as opposed to 'son') of Elmo is definitely later, judging by the footnote 5.



By the way, if we assume a roughly even spacing between the births of the 25th generation, Elmo should've been born some time around c. 2390. And if Celeborn was born in Beleriand (say, the earliest possible date 2805) - that means that Galadhon his father was born sometime in between, presumably in one of the stops on the March (perhaps 2595, near Isengard)? Does make me wonder though why Elmo was the only one of the three brothers to marry and have kids during the March? (Did Olwe have kids in Middle-earth? Were Earwen and her brothers born in Beleriand? I doubt so, but who knows. Nevermind.)


Also, why do you have Olwe's birth year as 2327? In your timeline, Elwe is born in 2270, so that's 57 years before Olwe - however, Tolkien gives Elwe's birth year as 2126, and Olwe's as 2185, i.e. a difference of 59 years instead. Ditto about Indis and Ingwil (49 years in Tolkien's timeline, 47 in yours). What am I missing? EDIT: Of course, the gestation. However, I'd personally keep the birth years as they are, and adjust the marriage instead. However, I still don't understand Elwe/Olwe discrepancy, it's not like we have the marriage date for their parents.

Additionally, I don't see any obvious reason why you converted the difference in the ages of Ingwe and Ilwen into 9 years (originally 3 years)? I mean, I understand the rationale (growth-years), but I don't understand why it is applicable in this case.

Another thing is, maybe you could add an approximate date for the birth of Ilion, Ingwe's father? If the birth of Ingwe's first child is any indication, Ilion should be born sometime around c. 2107.


EDIT: I also think it might be best to explain that Tolkien messed up his calculation in the XIII.1 timeline (i.e. 2072 vs 2216 as the birth year of Ingwe, for example).

EDIT 2: Nevermind about the above edit, I made it before reading your revised timeline...

EDIT 3: Thanks for the mention! :)

[Arvegil145]

Given that I'm now on version 4 of the timeline, I've decided "Final Timeline" is clearly incorrect. Version 4 is therefore the Late Timeline (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub).

Another few small nitpicks:

1) where are the diacritics on the names?

2) 'Amras and Amrod' should be 'Amros and Amrod (Amarthan)' - it wasn't a typo

3) Feanor's birth year (3234) is placed after the '3237' entry in your timeline

4) Feanor creating the Tengwar has no date in the timeline

5) Mahtan was replaced by Sarmo according to the note 61 to the 'Shibboleth' (pp. 365-6 of the PoME) - though he was most widely known as Urundil

6) Timeline has 'Argon is Fingolfin's fifth child', when it should be his 'fourth child'


Sorry if I'm being annoying and splitting hairs :( - I have a sense this timeline is going to have many more versions...

[Huinesoron]

"4 In later writing Elmo is the grandfather of Celeborn (not as here his father): cf. UT:233–4; also XI:350."
endnote 4 to the XVIII text

Thank you! But I have to disagree with Hostetter on "later". XVIII is solidly dated to 1965 (being written on calendar pages); HoME XI:350 talks about a family tree which CT dates to December 1959, and confirms that text as the source for UT as well. Therefore "Celeborn is Elmo's son if the period from sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband lasted 3100 years" is the later idea.

Ah, but remember the footnote 5, which states that he was born in Beleriand - however, the footnote also states that the timespan between the arrival of the Eldar in Aman and the overthrow of Morgoth was more than 3,100 years, and since this is both vague and unworkable for the timeline, I assume you decided to ignore the footnote altogether?

Regardless, Celeborn as a 'descendant' (as opposed to 'son') of Elmo is definitely later, judging by the footnote 5.

The trouble is that this footnote is conditional.

"According to Elvish calculations, [sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband] was 3,100 loar. If that is correct,* then Celeborn was of unknown age when he entered Beleriand, but certainly 24 and full-grown...

*It probably was not; it was very likely longer. In that case Celeborn must have been a descendent (not son) of Elmo and born in Beleriand.

IF the First Age is an undefined amount of time longer, THEN Celeborn was not the son of Elmo. But accepting that IF means rejecting... well, the whole idea of a timeline, because we then have no idea how long the latter half of the Age should be. AAm would give us about 4067 years for the same period, so I suppose we could adopt that; but that means rejecting the 888 date for the death of the Trees, which lines up perfectly with the 3100 years figure. That's a lot to discard on the strength of "very likely".


Also, why do you have Olwe's birth year as 2327? In your timeline, Elwe is born in 2270, so that's 57 years before Olwe - however, Tolkien gives Elwe's birth year as 2126, and Olwe's as 2185, i.e. a difference of 59 years instead. Ditto about Indis and Ingwil (49 years in Tolkien's timeline, 47 in yours). What am I missing? EDIT: Of course, the gestation. However, I'd personally keep the birth years as they are, and adjust the marriage instead. However, I still don't understand Elwe/Olwe discrepancy, it's not like we have the marriage date for their parents.

Additionally, I don't see any obvious reason why you converted the difference in the ages of Ingwe and Ilwen into 9 years (originally 3 years)? I mean, I understand the rationale (growth-years), but I don't understand why it is applicable in this case.

Elwe:Olwe was just a maths error; corrected. Very nicely, 59 years from Olwe's corrected year puts Elmo in 2388 - exactly the earliest year he could be born! I've upgraded him to "probable".

I feel like the marriage date for Ingwe is treated as more of a decision, while Indis' birth is a calculation. Ingwil's birth is then set to a specific date, independent of others. Both of them, by the way, come very close to the 45 years I have between Findis and Fingolfin - meaning Indis had her first kids as quickly as her parents.

The Ingwe:Ilwen age gap: my read is that at the time, Tolkien was aiming at the idea that men married at 24, women at 21. The three years between them was calculated from that, so I expanded it to meet the later aging.


Another thing is, maybe you could add an approximate date for the birth of Ilion, Ingwe's father? If the birth of Ingwe's first child is any indication, Ilion should be born sometime around c. 2107.

Hmm. I was going to say no, but actually, XVII.3(7) says that the 23rd and 24th generations should have the same age at marriage & interval between children. The Indis:Ingwil and Elwe:Olwe intervals are too different to rely on that half, but we can probably adopt the "age at first child", at least as an approximate.


EDIT 3: Thanks for the mention! :)

You do the work, you get the credit. :)

Another few small nitpicks:


Thanks for these! I've corrected most of them; I'm not doing the diacritics yet because I'll just mess them up again. I've also looked over the "Elvish history" dates after the arrival in Aman and fixed them; the main difference is that I've regarded the arrival of the Teleri and the making-fast of Eressea as separate events, rather than assuming the journey took 12 SY for Finwe but 92 SY for Olwe.

I've taken a glance at the Grey Annals, and straightaway I've run into a problem: Luthien's birth is fixed at 1/3 of the way through Melkor's chaining, which would put her a hundred years before the departure of Olwe. ^_^

It's worth noting at this point that the other possible date for the chaining of Melkor is 12 VY before his release (the number has to be divisible by three); that falls in 2834, 30 years after the end of the March, and gives him plenty of time to corrupt Men if we think that's more plausible. Under that scheme, Luthien would be born in 3410, which would work nicely, but I don't know how it affects the rest of the GA.

More work needed, basically. :)

hS

[Arvegil145]

Thank you! But I have to disagree with Hostetter on "later". XVIII is solidly dated to 1965 (being written on calendar pages); HoME XI:350 talks about a family tree which CT dates to December 1959, and confirms that text as the source for UT as well. Therefore "Celeborn is Elmo's son if the period from sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband lasted 3100 years" is the later idea.



The trouble is that this footnote is conditional.



IF the First Age is an undefined amount of time longer, THEN Celeborn was not the son of Elmo. But accepting that IF means rejecting... well, the whole idea of a timeline, because we then have no idea how long the latter half of the Age should be. AAm would give us about 4067 years for the same period, so I suppose we could adopt that; but that means rejecting the 888 date for the death of the Trees, which lines up perfectly with the 3100 years figure. That's a lot to discard on the strength of "very likely".

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

Even so, while the footnote 5 is conditional, I'm not sure we should straight up delete a whole character (well...name on a family tree really), especially since even in the '3,100 loar' timeline the 'Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn' idea fits better in regards to the stops at the March.

Another thing is, even though Celeborn is older than Galadriel in every scheme, we very rarely see Elves marrying outside of their generation (which is the reason, I think, why Tolkien pushed Ingwe a generation above Finwe) - also, moving Celeborn up a generation means that Celeborn and Galadriel are 1st cousins once removed: this is almost bordering the 'Idril-Maeglin'...eh...situation. While I know that in his later schemes Tolkien made Celeborn and Galadriel into 1st cousins, I'm not completely sure if Tolkien himself even realized it.


And finally, lest you take anything Tolkien said in this chapter too seriously, there's this quote:

But the relative ages of the Kings Ingwë, Finwë, and Elwë is not known.

Which basically invalidates the entirety of Tolkien's elaborate schemes and calculations in one sentence IMO. Obviously I don't think you should take it up, but if you don't take it up it means that you provided some leeway in regards to the interpretation of the text...Everything that Tolkien ever wrote is conditional in one sense or another IMO, and the entire premise of the timeline relies on best-guesses and interpretation based on an idea Tolkien almost certainly would've changed - but, when in Rome...


Elwe:Olwe was just a maths error; corrected. Very nicely, 59 years from Olwe's corrected year puts Elmo in 2388 - exactly the earliest year he could be born! I've upgraded him to "probable".

I feel like the marriage date for Ingwe is treated as more of a decision, while Indis' birth is a calculation. Ingwil's birth is then set to a specific date, independent of others. Both of them, by the way, come very close to the 45 years I have between Findis and Fingolfin - meaning Indis had her first kids as quickly as her parents.

The Ingwe:Ilwen age gap: my read is that at the time, Tolkien was aiming at the idea that men married at 24, women at 21. The three years between them was calculated from that, so I expanded it to meet the later aging.

In regards to the Ingwe/Ilwen gap, perhaps you're right, but I still lean towards the more conservative side of just keeping the gap as written, and keep speculation to a minimum. Not that it really matters that much, but since we're splitting hairs...

And as to the marriages vs births, well, I don't actually have any good argument other than that I consider births more significant than marriages - but that's just my personal preference.

And yeah, BTW, you referred to Idril as Ingwe's granddaughter in your 'birth of Ilion' entry - she should be Ingwe's great-great-granddaughter. Again, sorry for the pedantic stuff, but for some reason these things stick out to me like a sore thumb.



I've taken a glance at the Grey Annals, and straightaway I've run into a problem: Luthien's birth is fixed at 1/3 of the way through Melkor's chaining, which would put her a hundred years before the departure of Olwe. ^_^

It's worth noting at this point that the other possible date for the chaining of Melkor is 12 VY before his release (the number has to be divisible by three); that falls in 2834, 30 years after the end of the March, and gives him plenty of time to corrupt Men if we think that's more plausible. Under that scheme, Luthien would be born in 3410, which would work nicely, but I don't know how it affects the rest of the GA.

More work needed, basically. :)

If I were you, I would just anchor all the YT Beleriand dates to the YT 1133, which Tolkien did in regards to Feanor's conception and birth in the NoME.

Or even better, I would just put the AAm and GA YT side by side in a spreadsheet (including your calculated dates) and make that the basis.

[Huinesoron]

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. :) I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).


In regards to the Ingwe/Ilwen gap, perhaps you're right, but I still lean towards the more conservative side of just keeping the gap as written, and keep speculation to a minimum. Not that it really matters that much, but since we're splitting hairs...

Perhaps you're right. The discussion on marriage ages appears to be from an earlier text, and at age 108 Ingwe would be 24 and a quarter, so it doesn't work anyway. I'll switch it back.


And yeah, BTW, you referred to Idril as Ingwe's granddaughter

I was trying to refer to Indis as Ilion's granddaughter. Look, I learnt the names of the Finweans, I didn't know there were gonna be a bunch of I-names to pick up as well!


If I were you, I would just anchor all the YT Beleriand dates to the YT 1133, which Tolkien did in regards to Feanor's conception and birth in the NoME.

Or even better, I would just put the AAm and GA YT side by side in a spreadsheet (including your calculated dates) and make that the basis.

The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!

https://i.imgur.com/NeKag2S.png

This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

hS

[Arvegil145]

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. :) I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Ohh boy...Tolkien in his last 4 or 5 years of life practically settled on Celeborn being a Teler of Aman. And if that wasn't enough, he changed Celebrimbor's origin from that of a grandson of Feanor (as in his 1966 2nd edition of LOTR) to a Telerin companion of Celeborn during the Exile, to Celebrimbor being a Sinda descendant of Daeron (in the PoME)---this is why the "Translations from the Elvish" project constrains things to Tolkien's published works as a cornerstone.

Otherwise, you'd just go mad - heck, in the '70s Tolkien at least on two occasions kind of forgot about the existence of Fingolfin...



The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!

https://i.imgur.com/NeKag2S.png

This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

Given that the GA date to the early '50s, and the 1.XXII dates from c. 1958, I'd bet that the latter is more relevant.


And in regards to the imprisonment of Melkor - I think you're focusing on the wrong thing: you can simply, like I said before, anchor the early dates to the NoME (YT 1133 as the arrival of Elves to Aman, in accordance with YT 1132 in the GA when they left Beleriand).




EDIT: I think you can constrain the births of Cirdan and Eol. In regards to Cirdan, there's this:

Before ever they came to Beleriand the Teleri had developed a craft of boat-making; first as rafts, and soon as light boats with paddles made in imitation of the water-birds upon the lakes near their first homes, and later on the Great Journey in crossing rivers, or especially during their long tarrying on the shores of the Sea of Rhûn, where their ships became larger and stronger. But in all this work Círdan had ever been the foremost and most inventive and skilful.

- PoME, 'Last writings', note 29, pp. 391-2


And in regards to Eol, there's this:

Eöl should not be one of Thingol's kin, but one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Hithaeglir. But [later] he and a few others of like mood, averse to concourse of people, ... [had] crossed the [Mts] long ago and come to Beleriand.

- WotJ, 'Maeglin', note to §9, pp. 321-2

However, immediately following that note is this:

...but the relationship to Thingol would have point...


I explained my reasoning why these two pieces don't actually contradict each other in a thread I made a year ago or so.

[Tar Elenion]

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

I keep thinking that too, but now I am wondering if it might be this:
"On the second of these late additions to the typescript, the birth of Eldún and Elrún in the year 500, see pp. 257 and 300, note 16."

[Huinesoron]

Given that the GA date to the early '50s, and the 1.XXII dates from c. 1958, I'd bet that the latter is more relevant.


I think GA2 postdates XXII, specifically:

In GA1 the whole passage given here in the annals 1300-50 and 1330 is placed under 1320... In a note to the year 1320 on the typescript of AAm my father added: 'The Orcs first appear in Beleriand'l in GA2 the event is dated ten Valian years later, in 1330.

So 1330 is the later date.


And in regards to the imprisonment of Melkor - I think you're focusing on the wrong thing: you can simply, like I said before, anchor the early dates to the NoME (YT 1133 as the arrival of Elves to Aman, in accordance with YT 1132 in the GA when they left Beleriand).

We can do this very easily, anchoring off the Late Timeline's date for Olwe's departure, and it doesn't really work:


GA 1150 - LT 3237 - Olwe departs.
GA 1152 - LT 3256 - Elwe awakes.
GA 1200 - LT 3716 - Luthien born.
GA 1250 - LT 4195 - Dwarves arrive
GA 1300 - LT 4674 - Menegroth built.
GA 1330 - LT 4961 - Orcs enter Beleriand.
GA 1350 - LT 5153 - Coming of Denethor.
[GA 1495] - LT 5473 - Death of the Trees.


The GA entry for 1350 says "Of the long years of peace that followed after the coming of Denethor there is little tale". In this timeline, those "long years" are less than 2.5 Valian Years, when GA would have them be almost 10 VY! The "long years of peace" end up starting after Feanor already made the Silmarils. My proposal at least gives them 4VY, which is something. So I think anchoring Beleriand to the AAm claim that the Dwarves entered Beleriand in the same year that Feanor made the Tengwar is more reasonable.

Luthien is actually completely separate to that question, but as Turin said to Orodreth, we really do have to think about Morgoth:

It is not known to any among Elves or Men when Luthien, only child of Elwe and Melian, came into the World, fairest of all the Children of Iluvatar that were or shall be. But it is held that it was at the end of the first [of three] age of the Chaining of Melkor...

And a 12VY Chaining fits! It fits with Luthien's place in the timeline, it fits with the assertion that the March occured before the fall of Utumno:

It seems clear that the rescue of the Quendi must be secret (as far as possible) and before the assault upon Utumno - otherwise this very peril ["involv[ing] the Children in misery or destruction"] would have occurred. The Great March must occur behind a screen of investment, and before any violent assault had begun.

And it fits with the quote you found regarding the Fall of Men:

The Atani and their kin were the descendants of peoples who in the Dark Ages had resisted Morgoth or had renounced him, and had wandered ever westward from their homes far away in the East seeking the Great Sea...

Set against that is one assertion, also from VI.B:

With regard to Men... the arising and fall took place during the "Captivity of Melkor", and was achieved not by Melkor in person, but by Sauron. It occured about 100 VY after the "Awakening of the Quendi"... if Men arose in VY 1100... the "Finding" should evidently be about VY 1090...

Which, if we take the actual figure of 10VY between the Finding and the "arising and fall", means the latter would sit in 3600, just about a thousand years before the (approximate) separation of the Hadorians and Beorians.


EDIT: I think you can constrain the births of Cirdan and Eol.

I think Cirdan is confirmed somewhere to have been born by Cuivienen. We could probably put a note about Eol on the relevant entry (looks like it's 2931); it's not like we know how he's related to Elwe anyway, so missing that out won't be too hard.

I keep thinking that too, but now I am wondering if it might be this:
"On the second of these late additions to the typescript, the birth of Eldún and Elrún in the year 500, see pp. 257 and 300, note 16."

300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

hS

[Arvegil145]

I think GA2 postdates XXII, specifically:



So 1330 is the later date.

I consulted Hammond and Scull's 'Chronology', and all the references to the GA are within c. 1951-2 range.

But perhaps you're right, though Tolkien might've reverted back to the GA1 in the NoME excerpt of the AAm.



We can do this very easily, anchoring off the Late Timeline's date for Olwe's departure, and it doesn't really work:


GA 1150 - LT 3237 - Olwe departs.
GA 1152 - LT 3256 - Elwe awakes.
GA 1200 - LT 3716 - Luthien born.
GA 1250 - LT 4195 - Dwarves arrive
GA 1300 - LT 4674 - Menegroth built.
GA 1330 - LT 4961 - Orcs enter Beleriand.
GA 1350 - LT 5153 - Coming of Denethor.
[GA 1495] - LT 5473 - Death of the Trees.


The GA entry for 1350 says "Of the long years of peace that followed after the coming of Denethor there is little tale". In this timeline, those "long years" are less than 2.5 Valian Years, when GA would have them be almost 10 VY! The "long years of peace" end up starting after Feanor already made the Silmarils. My proposal at least gives them 4VY, which is something. So I think anchoring Beleriand to the AAm claim that the Dwarves entered Beleriand in the same year that Feanor made the Tengwar is more reasonable.

Luthien is actually completely separate to that question, but as Turin said to Orodreth, we really do have to think about Morgoth:



And a 12VY Chaining fits! It fits with Luthien's place in the timeline, it fits with the assertion that the March occured before the fall of Utumno:



And it fits with the quote you found regarding the Fall of Men:



Set against that is one assertion, also from VI.B:



Which, if we take the actual figure of 10VY between the Finding and the "arising and fall", means the latter would sit in 3600, just about a thousand years before the (approximate) separation of the Hadorians and Beorians.

I'm not sure if the 'long years of peace after the coming of Denethor' should be taken as gospel...

But my biggest problem is that the '3 ages of Melkor's imprisonment' in the revised timeline is essentially made up - if anything I'd keep the 300 VY=c. 2,875 SY figure. But that would mean that Melkor is only released in c. FA 5276!

One thing that always bothered me is that Melkor doesn't start making a mess of things immediately after being released - yes, Tulkas is watching him, but I'd imagine he could find his way around.

In the end, I suppose what matters is what you take as the cornerstone:

1) Melkor's 3 ages of imprisonment, and how faithfully do you wish to stick to the original c. 2,875 SY figure

2) the departure of the Vanyar and Noldor to Aman in YT 1132

3) or something else altogether


Perhaps you could even do what you did with the AAm - anchor the earlier YT GA dates around the departure of the Vanyar and the Noldor (YT 1132), and anchor the later figures around, say, the death of the Trees (YT 1495/VY 888)? Of course, what counts as 'later figures'?




I think Cirdan is confirmed somewhere to have been born by Cuivienen. We could probably put a note about Eol on the relevant entry (looks like it's 2931); it's not like we know how he's related to Elwe anyway, so missing that out won't be too hard.



300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

About Cirdan - yeah, I'll have to go dig up a reference, but I'm pretty sure you're right.

And yes, Eol can easily still be Thingol's kin even if he decided to stop at the Hithaeglir (I mean, there are 23 generations between Thingol and Enel/Enelye!). Which would also explain why he gave him Nan Elmoth (an entire forest), even if Eol had to work for it - but perhaps that's what Tolkien had in mind when he said that kinship with Thingol 'would have point'.

[Tar Elenion]

300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

hS
I'm referring to the "late addition" to the typescript part.

[Arvegil145]

I'm referring to the "late addition" to the typescript part.

Huh...

I imagine that, as seen many times before, Tolkien doodled on the page of the December 1959 'Genealogy' - I wonder what the first of these 'late additions' were?



@Huinesoron - I wonder what you make of the whole 'Celeborn as a Teler' and 'Celebrimbor, descendant of Daeron' situation?

[Formendacil]

(and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):

: A different story, adumbrated but never told, of Galadriel's conduct at the time of the rebellion of the Noldor appears in a very late and partially illegible note: the last writing of my father's on the subject of Galadriel and Celeborn, and probably the last on Middle-earth and Valinorset down in the last month of his life. ... There she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

[i]--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

[Arvegil145]

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):



--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Again, you'd go mad trying to fit this 'triangular' mess into a 'cube'...

[Galin]

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Wholly agree!

Christopher Tolkien even states that had his father remembered what he'd added to the second edition about Celebrimbor, he'd have "undoubtedly" felt bound to the already published text.

I think there's no doubt Tolkien desired certain "purposed contradictions" in his legendarium, but I don't see any indication that he remembered what he'd already published about both Galadriel and Celeborn and still wanted to alter the canon. And it might seem an odd thing to forget about Galadriel's RGEO tale for example, but on the other hand, this might have been more a matter of not remembering -- at the moment of writing a given text or letter -- what he'd actually published as opposed to written.

In late texts there are various examples of Tolkien seemingly forgetting stuff, including: Beards, Glorfindel II, the Problem of Ros (where he indeed ultimately rejects an idea due to an already published detail). The following seems to be the mindset of an older Tolkien at least, noting Christopher Tolkien's statement in note 8 to Of Dwarves and Men

"I mention all this as an illustration of his intense concern to avoid discrepancy and inconsistency, even though in this case his anxiety was unfounded. For an earlier account of the Runes see VII. 452-5] CJRT, commentary, POME

Of course one could characterize this as Christopher Tolkien's opinion, given that his father did change certain details for the Second Edition at least, but in any case, I hold JRRT to what he published, especially given his often-changing mind, and where arguable contradiction is found, I put author-published description above even late ideas.

Put it this way: as altering already published work affects the art of world-building, I think Tolkien at least needs to be aware when he's contradicting something in print -- meaning, he needs to be aware for the alteration/new idea to be truly considered, and then, added, or not, "in story" for his Readership.

My opinion anyway.

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron - I think there might be a problem with using the '72 years until adulthood' figure.

The dates of characters' births and marriages in XIII.1 (which we're using as the template for the timeline) are predicated upon the carefully calculated dates in 'Scheme 7' of XVII.

However, 'Scheme 7', up to generation 13 assumes that the differences between the births of parents and children are less than 72 years (from 25 years in the first three generations and getting progressively longer until reaching 73 years in generation 13).

Another problem is the gestation period, which is only 1 year in 'Scheme 7'. Which means that our timeline's Elves have to be 75 years old at minimum before having children: and if we apply this at a constant rate before reaching gen. 13, we get a problem.



Related to the above - I would still change 864/144 to 863/144, and move back the following Valian years by a year, in order to preserve Tolkien's SY. The main reason is the elaborate calculations I mentioned above, who knows how messing with SY dates for the dates of birth of characters would impact those calculations.

Again, I stress that XIII.1 was predicated upon them. (For example, Tolkien's timeline has Ingwe born in 2072, Finwe in 2120 and Elwe in 2126 - pulled straight from 'Scheme 7'.)

It would also shave off 144 years, making the timeline last for c. 5930 years, a bit closer to the SA and TA duration, if not by much. Which might mean that you'd have to jettison a whole VY during the March, something I find preferable.

[Huinesoron]

Taking these in reverse order:

864 or 863 - I take the point that XVII.3(7) uses 2016, not 864/144, as the date of the Finding. That means Tolkien's error in XIII.1 was the reverse of what I thought it was, and I need to adjust the dates as Arvegil suggested. (Note: XVII.3(7) also dates the March to 2232, which is later and more precise than the dating in XIII.3.) I suspect this throws off the 3100 years from the arrival in Aman to the end of the Age; I'll have to run the calculations.

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.

The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I'll have to work the numbers on most of these points, but other than Beleriand I think this is a solid plan.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Aging - XVIII is later than XVII.3(7), so I have to use 72 years as adulthood for named Elves. All this means is that in the beginning, the Quendi aged faster - which is suggested in multiple generational schemes. I have no problem with that, and it's part of why I didn't list every generation-start date in the first place.

The problem is when a later source contradicts a key earlier one (on which the whole reconstructed timeline is based on, moreoever) in such a way as to make the timeline practically unusable - and I do think it contradicts 'Scheme 7': it's not just that the Elves are grown up by age 24 in the first three generations, it's that the pattern of parent/child age difference doesn't stop at 72. It goes 25 > 37 > 49 > 61 > 73 > 85 > 97 > 109 > 121 > 133 by generation 27.

Also, take a look at this quote (pp. 141-2):

When do Ingwe, Finwe, and Elwe come in? If born before the Finding in FA 2016, they should be then adult, and at least 24: sc. born no later than 1992.

What Tolkien is saying here is effectively that his entire 'Scheme 7' was based on Elves reaching adulthood at 24 loar, even in FA 2016, by generation 20+!

Which implies that there's something else other than Elves reaching adulthood which is pushing the parent/child age gap upwards.



EDIT: Totally irrelevant rant incoming - why do you think Tolkien felt that he should change the '5 generations from OG Elves, c. FA 1080 March' to '24/25 generations from OG Elves, FA 2232 March'?

'Schemes 1 and 2' have:

1) c. 864 years from Awakening to Finding, plenty of time for Melkor to find and terrorize the Elves

2) the total number of Elves at Cuivienen at the onset of the March, c. 26-55,000, a very decent number indeed

3) the infinitely more reasonable (and prettier) 5 generations from OG Elves to Ambassadors (seriously, the later figure of 24/25th generation for the Ambassadors is as comical and ugly as the 72 years for Feanor crossing the ocean)

Why can't he just leave well enough alone?? :mad:

I'm not suggesting of course that you take up the earlier schemes, but I had to vent somewhere. :D



Celeborn - the simplest solution here is to leave Celeborn's birth-date in place, but to remove his father's name and reference the later source as to why. There's nothing in the late sources saying he was born in Aman, right? He could still be born on the March; we already saw that there was time for him to be a grandson of Elmo, and Olwe is older. (The rest of Elmo's descendents have no birth-years, so are out of scope anyway.)

Probably best to leave Celeborn's parentage vague (maybe a footnote explaining the possible versions).

However, I think Tolkien's latest word (CT dates it to about a month before Tolkien died) on the subject was that he was a grandson of Olwe (via one of Olwe's sons I assume):

There she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

- UT, 'History of Galadriel and Celeborn'

Problem here is of course that it makes Galadriel and Celeborn first cousins.





Celebrimbor - At the risk of being facetious, there's no reason he couldn't be a Teler of Alqualonde and Curufin's son. His birth is long before Feanor's exile, so he could have stayed with a Telerin mother; and PoME notes that Curufin's wife was of wholly different temperament to him. To go full synthesis on the tales, he could have sailed with Celeborn and Galadriel, reconciled with his father and uncles, lived in Nargothrond with them, rejected them, travelled to the Nirnaeth with Gwindor, and wound up retreating to Gondolin with Turgon. –but all that matters is that there's no source contradicting the claim that he was the son of Curufin.

Again, depending on how you date the 'Shibboleth' (even though CT says c. 1968, some of it could very well be later), probably no.

The latest we hear of Celebrimbor's descent is from 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969):

This was, no doubt, due to the influence of Celebrimbor, a Sinda who claimed descent from Daeron.

- PoME, p. 297

I don't think the gymnastics required to square this with his other accounts is worth it, even if possible.

Concerning Celebrimbor (and Celeborn above) I think we should stick to what CT said:

When my father wrote this [Celebrimbor being a Teler of Aman] he ignored the addition to Appendix B in the Second Edition, stating that Celebrimbor 'was descended from Feanor'; no doubt he had forgotten that that theory had appeared in print, for had he remembered it he would undoubtedly have felt bound by it.

That was probably not always the case, but when in doubt, I think we should take the above quote to heart.


Beleriand - There is no natural divide in the GA timeline (unlike AAm, which splits very nicely into early history / late history blocks): it's all supposed to be early. So other than Elwe's awakening (and Luthien), it all has to be anchored on a single date. There is no obvious right answer; I'll need to work up a table of all the options, once I've got the rest of the numbers adjusted.

Luthien - Given that Luthien's birthdate is fixed solely on the basis of "one third of Melkor's imprisonment", that will need to be maintained. There is no other basis for including her at all.


As I mentiond before, AAm has an interesting note attached to it (note to §81, p. 106):

After the entry for 1190 a new entry was added for the year 1200: 'Luthien born' (with a query).

So if we're following the AAm post Feanor's birth, we should keep this addition. And I think this note might postdate the same entry in the GA.


The Fall of Utumno - Did Utumno fall at the beginning or end of the Great March? The only case for "beginning" is the VI.B claim that the Arising and Fall of Men happened during the Captivity, and that only indicates "beginning" if you take the relative dates of the Awakening/Finding/Fall, rather than the absolute date of 10 VY after the Finding. With several later sources stating or implying that the Fall of Men was solely at Melkor's hands, we can ignore that tenuous argument entirely, and go with the plain text that says Utumno fell after the March was over.

I tend to agree with Melkor being the only one to corrupt Men - however, how is Melkor supposed to come back to Men (the 'second visit') after he is captured (i.e. after the fall of Utumno)?

[Huinesoron]

Reposting the Late Timeline for the new page. (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub)


What Tolkien is saying here is effectively that his entire 'Scheme 7' was based on Elves reaching adulthood at 24 loar, even in FA 2016, by generation 20+!


To cut the Gordian knot here: the only reference to 72 year adulthood prior to Aman is the birth of Celeborn. The first person referenced in XVIII as having that growth rate is Galadriel, who was born in Aman. Therefore, the aging rate of the Quendi before they reached Aman is not relevant to this timeline. :D I'll add yet another note on how speculative Celeborn is.


3) the infinitely more reasonable (and prettier) 5 generations from OG Elves to Ambassadors (seriously, the later figure of 24/25th generation for the Ambassadors is as comical and ugly as the 72 years for Feanor crossing the ocean)


Absolutely definitely and emphatically agreed. But Tolkien gonna Tolk.


Problem here is of course that it makes Galadriel and Celeborn first cousins.


Not a problem for the Timeline, thankfully! If Tolkien had written in 1973 that Feanor married himself and was his own father I'd cheerfully put it in (wait, he didn't, right??).

The latest we hear of Celebrimbor's descent is from 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969):


This was, no doubt, due to the influence of Celebrimbor, a Sinda who claimed descent from Daeron.
- PoME, p. 297

I don't think the gymnastics required to square this with his other accounts is worth it, even if possible.

Look, it's perfectly simple. After leaving Curufin to sail with Celeborn, returning to Curufin, leaving him again, popping into Gondolin for 30 years, and evacuating to the Havens, Celebrimbor was actually guarding Elrond and Elros at the Third Kinslaying. He was knocked out and lost his memory, becoming as a child, so Maglor adopted him as well, giving him the name "Celebrimbros". He went with Elrond and Elros to the War of Wrath, got knocked out and lost his memory again, was re-adopted by Maglor after he chucked the Silmaril in the Sea, and then the two of them ran into Daeron (also a wandering crazed minstrel) and Daeron adopted him too. It's all explained in NoME 2: Tolkien's Newspaper Doodles, coming soon to a bookstore near you.

... yeah all right we'll leave him as Curufin's.


As I mentiond before, AAm has an interesting note attached to it (note to §81, p. 106):

After the entry for 1190 a new entry was added for the year 1200: 'Luthien born' (with a query).

So if we're following the AAm post Feanor's birth, we should keep this addition. And I think this note might postdate the same entry in the GA.

That's just a reference to the 1200 entry in the Grey Annals, though, which specifically says "nobody knows when Luthien was born, but legend says it was after 1 Age of Melkor's imprisonment". That's my point - the 1200 date is entirely conditional on the Chaining of Melkor.

I tend to agree with Melkor being the only one to corrupt Men - however, how is Melkor supposed to come back to Men (the 'second visit') after he is captured (i.e. after the fall of Utumno)?

He's not. :D Ignore the "Arising and Fall" source entirely, it's implicitly rejected by later sources. Men awoke around *1075, and were visited by Melkor within the lifespan of the first generation. Sometime between then and the Fall of Utumno a thousand years later, possibly (though not definitely) sneaking out of the theoretically-besieged Utumno, he returned and completed their corruption. Somewhere in the 3000 years that followed, a small number of them repented and fled, and wound up in Beleriand just in time to meet him again. I think Athrabeth says that he stopped showing up in person, which being chained in Mandos would do to a chap.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Reposting the Late Timeline for the new page. (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub)



To cut the Gordian knot here: the only reference to 72 year adulthood prior to Aman is the birth of Celeborn. The first person referenced in XVIII as having that growth rate is Galadriel, who was born in Aman. Therefore, the aging rate of the Quendi before they reached Aman is not relevant to this timeline. :D I'll add yet another note on how speculative Celeborn is.

I think we're talking past each other - the rate of 'ageing' and the time at which Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely inseparable from the 'Scheme 7' (the basis for XIII.1).

I mean, try constructing the 20-30 generations of Elves via '72 years as adulthood + 3 years of gestation', and see where you end up. (The timeline is either too long or it's too short, depending on how you apply the '72 years').

And regardless, you will inevitably end up with your own timeline, not that of Tolkien.

In other words - you can either preserve the timeline or you can preserve the '72 years to adulthood' figure - but combining it is going to end up with a Frankenstein's monster of a timeline.



Not a problem for the Timeline, thankfully! If Tolkien had written in 1973 that Feanor married himself and was his own father I'd cheerfully put it in (wait, he didn't, right??).

The problem is that, if it's adopted, the whole 'Idril v Maeglin' storyline loses much of its weight.



That's just a reference to the 1200 entry in the Grey Annals, though, which specifically says "nobody knows when Luthien was born, but legend says it was after 1 Age of Melkor's imprisonment". That's my point - the 1200 date is entirely conditional on the Chaining of Melkor.

Is it though? Again, depending on when this note dates from, I could easily imagine Tolkien divorcing himself from the 'ages of the chaining of Melkor' idea.

Regardless, it's an explicit addition to the AAm, so I think it should be regarded as such, and adopted into your revised AAm timeline.

In fact, from there, you can anchor the early dates of GA in YT 1133/1200, and the later dates in c. 5473/4 (rough date of the First Battle of Beleriand). The mess in the middle I leave to your capable hands. :D

And yes, I'm aware of all the problems with this method - it's just that I don't think they are as problematic as they appear to be.



He's not. :D Ignore the "Arising and Fall" source entirely, it's implicitly rejected by later sources. Men awoke around *1075, and were visited by Melkor within the lifespan of the first generation. Sometime between then and the Fall of Utumno a thousand years later, possibly (though not definitely) sneaking out of the theoretically-besieged Utumno, he returned and completed their corruption. Somewhere in the 3000 years that followed, a small number of them repented and fled, and wound up in Beleriand just in time to meet him again. I think Athrabeth says that he stopped showing up in person, which being chained in Mandos would do to a chap.

This seems as good as it'll ever be - I agree.

[Huinesoron]

I think we're talking past each other - the rate of 'ageing' and the time at which Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely inseparable from the 'Scheme 7' (the basis for XIII.1).

I agree we're talking past each other. The rate of aging & the time Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely irrelevant to the "Late Timeline". It's not mentioned! "72 years" comes up precisely once before the birth of Feanor: with Celeborn. "3 year gestation" has additionally been used once, with Indis. That's it. There is no problem to answer here, unless the problem is "sources which differ can never be combined", in which case the whole concept of this timeline has to be discarded.


I mean, try constructing the 20-30 generations of Elves via '72 years as adulthood + 3 years of gestation', and see where you end up.

(I did in fact try this at one point, it was a niiiightmare.)


The problem is that, if it's adopted, the whole 'Idril v Maeglin' storyline loses much of its weight.

Timelines care nothing for narrative weight!


Is it though? Again, depending on when this note dates from, I could easily imagine Tolkien divorcing himself from the 'ages of the chaining of Melkor' idea.

Regardless, it's an explicit addition to the AAm, so I think it should be regarded as such, and adopted into your revised AAm timeline.

I'm confused. It seems clear to me that at some point, Tolkien noted [some of the] dates from the Grey Annals onto the Annals of Aman. That doesn't make them a new, more recent source for those dates - it just means he made some notes. The source for 1200 Luthien remains the Grey Annals, which state it's an estimate based on the Captivity of Melkor.

~

Adopting the 2016 Finding has immediately messed up the Finwean dates something awful. Since the 5018 date for Galadriel and Aredhel is counting backwards from 888/1, it remains fixed, while Finrod's birth jumps back 153 SY. That messes up the "standard gap between children" - Finwe's remains 192 SY, Finarfin's is now 245 SY, and Fingolfin's children are spaced 383 and 736 SY.

I think the best approach is to recalculate based on an approach I rejected before: using Feanor's AAm birth year (360 SY after Finwe reached Aman), and keeping Fingolfin's birthdate in AAm 1190 despite moving his parents' marriage back about 50 SY. That version of the timeline puts Finrod's birth in 4423, 595 SY before Galadriel - which means an even gap between the four children of Finarfin is 198 SY, and means I can keep the calculations pretty much as they are.

As a bonus, this method on the new timeline means that "AAm 1362" falls in 5017 - only one year out from our "Galadriel at 20" date for Aredhel and Galadriel. I'm more than happy to take that as evidence!

hS

[Arvegil145]

I agree we're talking past each other. The rate of aging & the time Elves have their first children prior to the March is absolutely, completely irrelevant to the "Late Timeline". It's not mentioned! "72 years" comes up precisely once before the birth of Feanor: with Celeborn. "3 year gestation" has additionally been used once, with Indis. That's it. There is no problem to answer here, unless the problem is "sources which differ can never be combined", in which case the whole concept of this timeline has to be discarded.



(I did in fact try this at one point, it was a niiiightmare.)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear (it's my fault) - I understand that this issue only emerges occasionally - however, what I'm trying to say is that, unless the 24-year adulthood figure is adopted, the entire 'Scheme 7' collapses, and therefore XIII.1 is useless.

You might as well throw away the entirety of XIII.1 (the basis of the timeline), since it is predicated upon a completely different idea of Elvish ageing.

Even if it doesn't seem obvious immediately, I guarantee that the XIII.1 would get completely wrecked if the later figure were applied.

You can relatively easily get away with certain things, however, this ('Scheme 7') is too specific to do so.



Timelines care nothing for narrative weight!

Maybe not, but Tolkien's '60/'70s are definitely calling out such a thing as..."unnatural".





I'm confused. It seems clear to me that at some point, Tolkien noted [some of the] dates from the Grey Annals onto the Annals of Aman. That doesn't make them a new, more recent source for those dates - it just means he made some notes. The source for 1200 Luthien remains the Grey Annals, which state it's an estimate based on the Captivity of Melkor.

I'm confused that you're confused! Yes, obviously, Tolkien might've grafted some GA dates onto AAm - however, they are there, in the AAm context!

I don't even know if Tolkien would've kept the whole 1/3 captivity of Melkor when he added this note to the AAm.

Maybe, maybe not - but at least now you have a concrete figure in an 'AAm framework'.



Adopting the 2016 Finding has immediately messed up the Finwean dates something awful. Since the 5018 date for Galadriel and Aredhel is counting backwards from 888/1, it remains fixed, while Finrod's birth jumps back 153 SY. That messes up the "standard gap between children" - Finwe's remains 192 SY, Finarfin's is now 245 SY, and Fingolfin's children are spaced 383 and 736 SY.

I think the best approach is to recalculate based on an approach I rejected before: using Feanor's AAm birth year (360 SY after Finwe reached Aman), and keeping Fingolfin's birthdate in AAm 1190 despite moving his parents' marriage back about 50 SY. That version of the timeline puts Finrod's birth in 4423, 595 SY before Galadriel - which means an even gap between the four children of Finarfin is 198 SY, and means I can keep the calculations pretty much as they are.

As a bonus, this method on the new timeline means that "AAm 1362" falls in 5017 - only one year out from our "Galadriel at 20" date for Aredhel and Galadriel. I'm more than happy to take that as evidence!

Again, whatever makes the mess slightly less of a mess.

[Huinesoron]

Okay, timeline is stable again (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) with the revised Finweans.

On aging: the only pre-Valinor reference to the 72 years is Celeborn, who is already a dubious date on so many levels; not least that we've had to discard the 3100 years already, so he should be born in Beleriand (or Aman) now regardless.

Various texts mention the idea that the aging rate of the elves changed over their history. For example XVI says "All the elaborate calculations [about aging] are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awaking and Finding, March, etc) quite unworkable." Tolkien seems to have used and rejected this idea at various times, but since we need to reconcile XIII.1 and XVIII, it is the best tool around. The Eldar simply grew up slower after they reached Aman.

(I think the only direct use of 72 years that affects the timeline is Miriel's death; everything else is around "mortal-equivalent" ages or just comparatives within the AAm.)

So yeah, I'm happy with it as it is.

Beleriand/the Grey Annals remains a mess.

https://i.imgur.com/ltS3Ly7.png

Blue highlighting is events pushed after Melkor's unchaining; orange is events pushed back before Elwe's awakening.

Working from left to right:


Event - what it says on the tin
GA - dates in the GA
GA Full - what the dates would be if we adopted the full length of GA/AAm. We can't do this (because "the Trees died in 888" is a later source); it's here for reference.
LT - Late Timeline dates, with the last few dates adjusted to use 888/144 rather than 888/1 for the death of the Trees. Tolkien's calculation actually used 889/1, so this would be legitimate. The argument against it was "3100 years", but we're already at 3265 and counting.
Elwe - GA events anchored on Elwe's awakening.
Unchaining / Trees slain / First Battle - GA events anchored on these three events. All very similar.
Luthien (1 Age) - GA events anchored on "Luthien was born 1/3 of the way through the Captivity".
Trees / Unchaining / First Battle - the result of scaling the GA down to match the LT time between Elwe's awakening and the relevant event.
Nearest AAm (and reference columns) - each event is anchored on SY from the nearest AAm event to it


In GA, Denethor arrives 479 SY before the unchaining of Melkor; none of these options even come close, even the ones that push Luthien's birth back to the March.

I think the best single timeline is actually the Luthien one: it's non-compressed (unlike the Relative ones), and is the only one that gets at least the Orcs into Beleriand before Melkor is unchained. I don't see any way we can hybridise the Elwe timeline with any of the late-anchored ones: whatever you do, events are going to swap positions. Any of the compressed timelines would of course work, but I've avoided compressing related events in Aman; taking any of these would mean Menegroth only takes 300 SY to build rather than 500, for example, and I feel like Tolkien would have kept the 500.

But I'm open to being convinced. What looks least-wrong?

hS

[Arvegil145]

Okay, timeline is stable again (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) with the revised Finweans.

On aging: the only pre-Valinor reference to the 72 years is Celeborn, who is already a dubious date on so many levels; not least that we've had to discard the 3100 years already, so he should be born in Beleriand (or Aman) now regardless.

Various texts mention the idea that the aging rate of the elves changed over their history. For example XVI says "All the elaborate calculations [about aging] are both cumbrous, and in early narrative (Awaking and Finding, March, etc) quite unworkable." Tolkien seems to have used and rejected this idea at various times, but since we need to reconcile XIII.1 and XVIII, it is the best tool around. The Eldar simply grew up slower after they reached Aman.

(I think the only direct use of 72 years that affects the timeline is Miriel's death; everything else is around "mortal-equivalent" ages or just comparatives within the AAm.)

So yeah, I'm happy with it as it is.

Beleriand/the Grey Annals remains a mess.

https://i.imgur.com/ltS3Ly7.png

Blue highlighting is events pushed after Melkor's unchaining; orange is events pushed back before Elwe's awakening.

Working from left to right:


Event - what it says on the tin
GA - dates in the GA
GA Full - what the dates would be if we adopted the full length of GA/AAm. We can't do this (because "the Trees died in 888" is a later source); it's here for reference.
LT - Late Timeline dates, with the last few dates adjusted to use 888/144 rather than 888/1 for the death of the Trees. Tolkien's calculation actually used 889/1, so this would be legitimate. The argument against it was "3100 years", but we're already at 3265 and counting.
Elwe - GA events anchored on Elwe's awakening.
Unchaining / Trees slain / First Battle - GA events anchored on these three events. All very similar.
Luthien (1 Age) - GA events anchored on "Luthien was born 1/3 of the way through the Captivity".
Trees / Unchaining / First Battle - the result of scaling the GA down to match the LT time between Elwe's awakening and the relevant event.
Nearest AAm (and reference columns) - each event is anchored on SY from the nearest AAm event to it


In GA, Denethor arrives 479 SY before the unchaining of Melkor; none of these options even come close, even the ones that push Luthien's birth back to the March.

I think the best single timeline is actually the Luthien one: it's non-compressed (unlike the Relative ones), and is the only one that gets at least the Orcs into Beleriand before Melkor is unchained. I don't see any way we can hybridise the Elwe timeline with any of the late-anchored ones: whatever you do, events are going to swap positions. Any of the compressed timelines would of course work, but I've avoided compressing related events in Aman; taking any of these would mean Menegroth only takes 300 SY to build rather than 500, for example, and I feel like Tolkien would have kept the 500.

But I'm open to being convinced. What looks least-wrong?

hS

I think the death of the Trees should be VY 887/144, if we follow the timeline faithfully (i.e. 24 VY exact after the Finding - that is VY 863/144, if you adopt the change).


And in regards to the GA - 300 SY vs 500 SY building Menegroth is completely trivial from the perspective of Elves, isn't it?

The dates approaching the death of the Trees won't be pretty - but you dealt with that in the AAm, haven't you? And as the second anchor point you can take the 'First Battle of Beleriand' which occurred around the time that Feanor was getting to Middle-earth: and since that only took 1 solar year in your timeline (incl. Fingolfin and co. over Helcaraxe) - how does the timeline work in this context?

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron - I was wondering if we could deduce when the Ents were awakened? Or even if Tolkien gives a specific time range.

[Arvegil145]

Can you give us an update, @Huinesoron :)?


Anyway, I've been musing over the 'Cirdan' text in the PoME - and, depending on how you interpret the following quote, it might suggest that at least some of Olwe's children were born in Middle-earth:

Thus he [Círdan] forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', p. 386

Now, given the fact that this was written in the last year or so of Tolkien's life (1972/3), the family tree of Elwe and Olwe might've changed somewhat.

For example, we see in the NoME (3.XVI.Text 1, pp. 348-9), that in mid-60's (?) Tolkien at least considered Earwen to be a sister of Elwe and Olwe (and Nelwe), but that whole passage was struck through.

Nonetheless, there are only few interpretations of the above passage that I can think of:

1) Elmo still existed as a character at this point - and he had more children (or grandchildren) than just Galadhon, or Celeborn as in the revised timeline, and some of them went to Aman: and it is these that are referred to as '...and his own nearest kin'

2) Earwen was reintroduced as a sister of Elwe and Olwe in Tolkien's final years, and she goes to Aman with Olwe - and she and her children (Finrod, Galadriel, etc.) are referred to as '...and his own nearest kin': possible, but given that Tolkien struck out the passage that refers to her as a sister of Elwe and Olwe years before + Tolkien going out of his way to make Indis the same generation as Finwe (otherwise, Earwen would be generation above Finarfin), I find it unlikely

3) Cirdan had siblings/nephews/nieces who went to Aman - maybe the most likely interpretation, however the way the passage is worded ('...find Olwe and his own nearest kin...'), I think it might allude to

4) Olwe already had children (either just the sons, or sons + Earwen - my money is on just the sons, since I have a feeling that Tolkien wanted Earwen to be of an age with Finarfin)


Unfortunately, there's nothing concrete here, and I don't think you can draw a strong conclusion one way or another. However, I'd like to point out that Ingwe conceived children in Aman too.



Oh yeah! Why I made this post in the first place - here's the relevant passage as to Cirdan's existence at Cuivienen:

Before ever they came to Beleriand the Teleri had developed a craft of boat-making; first as rafts, and soon as light boats with paddles made in imitation of the water-birds upon the lakes near their first homes, and later on the Great Journey in crossing rivers, or especially during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun', where their ships became larger and stronger. But in all this work Círdan had ever been the foremost and most inventive and skilful.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', note 29, pp. 391-2


First off, I think you have to revise the timeline again, due to "during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun'"...

Second, while this quote alone doesn't necessarily say that Cirdan was alive during the Elves' existence at Cuivienen, the "in all this work" part makes me think that Cirdan was alive at least when the Elves reached the Sea of Rhun.

Moreover, and I think this is the strongest evidence for him being born at Cuivienen, there's this:

Pengolodh alone mentions a tradition among the Sindar of Doriath that it was in archaic form Nōwē, the original meaning of which was uncertain, as was that of Olwë.

- PoME, 'Last Writings', note 30, p. 392


Nōwē here refers to Cirdan's original name - and the only characters we find (other than Elenwe and Voronwe) which have the suffix -wë are Ingwë, Finwë, Elwë, Olwë, Nelwë (replacement for Elmo?) and Lenwë (+ Morwë and Nurwë, the abandoned OG leaders of the Avari).

This, plus the above quote about boat-making, indicates to me Cirdan was most certainly born at Cuivienen.

[Arvegil145]

Before I make my point about Ents, it occurred to me that maybe you could add certain dates before the First Age (i.e. before VY 850/1) -

1) the creation of the Two Trees (VY 1/1)

2) the creation of the Dwarves by Aule, and other still applicable events (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Year_of_the_Trees_1000 )



As to the Ents - Elves were clearly in contact with the Ents at some point; when exactly? Who knows. But it seems that they inspired Ents towards language.

There's this quote from Letter 131:

Even some whole inventions like the remarkable Ents, oldest of living rational creatures, Shepherds of the Trees, are omitted.

However, given the numerous developments in the legendarium since that letter (c. 1951), I can hardly take that letter as the 'latest'.

Especially given these three quotes in conjunction:

1) The fëar of the Elves and Men (and Dwarves via Aulë, Ents via Yavanna) were intrusions into Eä from outside. As the Valar were sent into Eä.

- NoME, 'Primal Impulse', Text A, p. 290; indicating that Ents are some kind of equivalent to the Dwarves

+

2) Durin I, eldest of the Fathers, 'awoke' far back in the First Age (it is supposed, soon after the awakening of Men)...

- PoME, 'Last Writings', p. 383

+

3) Learn now the lore of Living Creatures! First name the four, the free peoples: Eldest of all, the elf-children; Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses; Ent the earthborn, old as mountains; Man the mortal, master of horses

- LOTR one-volume edition, 'Book Three', 'Treebeard', p. 464



How do you make sense of this mess?

[Huinesoron]

Can you give us an update, @Huinesoron?

The Master wants updateses, yes he does. Nice Master, very kind to poor Huinessssoron.

I think the death of the Trees should be VY 887/144, if we follow the timeline faithfully (i.e. 24 VY exact after the Finding - that is VY 863/144, if you adopt the change).

Agreed, after checking the source. Which is only 1 SY off where I already had it.

And as the second anchor point you can take the 'First Battle of Beleriand' which occurred around the time that Feanor was getting to Middle-earth: and since that only took 1 solar year in your timeline (incl. Fingolfin and co. over Helcaraxe) - how does the timeline work in this context?

The timeline anchored from the First Battle is shown in the image (twice, once direct, once relative); it's basically identical to anchoring on the Trees. The First Battle would have to take place in 887/144 or 888/1; presumably Sauron had everything ready to go when Melkor started screaming about spiders.

In any event: I have decided to anchor on the birth of Luthien/3 Ages concept. I don't want to use a compressed GA, as I specifically didn't compress the "blocks" in AAm. Anchoring on either end gives problems. And Luthien's birth is the only date which has an internal logic to it (the rest are basically just 50 years apart each time). Obviously Tolkien would have just rewritten the entire thing - but if for some reason he hadn't, I think this is the most likely solution for him to have used.

The Late Timeline is updated to match this conclusion; (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) I've also removed Celeborn to his own little section at the bottom saying that he's not in there. :)

Thus he [Círdan] forfeited the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to see the Blessed Realm and find again there Olwë and his own nearest kin.

I think "his own" is deliberately there to avoid implying Olwe's family - "Olwe and his nearest kin" would mean that, so "his own" looks like an attempt to be explicit that it is Cirdan's kin. The fact that the sentence puts Olwe first might imply that Olwe is close kin to Cirdan; presumably he'd be an uncle, since as you rightly say, Cirdan Nowe was born at Cuivienen.


However, I'd like to point out that Ingwe conceived children in Aman too.

Source? I'm not doubting it, I just don't remember seeing it. :D It would make sense - Ingwe seems to have been the most impatient to reach Aman, so he and Ilwen would avoid having more children on the March, and their second was born just before it.


First off, I think you have to revise the timeline again, due to "during their long tarrying on the shores of the 'Sea of Rhun'"...

That's in there; they linger by Rhun from 2232 to 2362.

Before I make my point about Ents, it occurred to me that maybe you could add certain dates before the First Age (i.e. before VY 850/1) -

1) the creation of the Two Trees (VY 1/1)

2) the creation of the Dwarves by Aule, and other still applicable events (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Year_of_the_Trees_1000 )


The Trees, yes; that's a nice fixed date. The Dwarves I can't do, for the same reason I've avoided the Council of the Valar; I have no evidence either way on whether Tolkien would keep the actual SY between those events and the Awakening, or the relative dating between the Trees and the Awakening. (Same goes for all the Almaren stuff, which has ends up looking much quicker against the 850 VY between the Trees and the Quendi - there's just no useful data.)


How do you make sense of this mess?

Well, obviously Fangorn is Tom Bombadil, as they are both Eldest... :D

No, all right. If we want to accept both "Ents are the first rational creatures" and "Elves are eldest", then I think we have to say that the Ents consider themselves to have only become rational when they acquired language. Fangorn hints at this, when he says Some of us are still true Ents, and lively enough in our fashion, but many are growing sleepy, going tree-ish, as you might say. Tree-ish Ents are no longer "true Ents" - just as pre-speech Ents weren't.

So the Ents were the first to be incarnated, and Ere iron was found or tree was hewn... it walked the forests long ago. But until Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak..., they weren't (in their own view) truly Ents.

As for when... the published Silm has Yavanna coming up with the idea for Ents right after Aule creates the Dwarves, but Manwe says they will only come to be after the Children awaken. If we want the Ents to walk before the Quendi awake, then they must have been created at that time. When that would be, I'm not going to try and guess.

hS

[Arvegil145]

The Master wants updateses, yes he does. Nice Master, very kind to poor Huinessssoron.

Sorry about that! :D It did sound like that to me on second viewing, but anyway...



In any event: I have decided to anchor on the birth of Luthien/3 Ages concept. I don't want to use a compressed GA, as I specifically didn't compress the "blocks" in AAm. Anchoring on either end gives problems. And Luthien's birth is the only date which has an internal logic to it (the rest are basically just 50 years apart each time). Obviously Tolkien would have just rewritten the entire thing - but if for some reason he hadn't, I think this is the most likely solution for him to have used.

I still have reservations about the whole '3 ages of the imprisonment of Melkor' - perhaps you could convert the 2874.6 figure (in the AAm) into something similar but more duodecimal - let's say 2,880 SY years (20 x 144).

Or otherwise - you could simply keep the whole 144 x 15 (i.e. 2,160 years) idea...I don't know.


Also! I thought that you would shave off 144 SY from the timeline - so that the timeline would end in c. 5,930 or so.




The Late Timeline is updated to match this conclusion; (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) I've also removed Celeborn to his own little section at the bottom saying that he's not in there. :)



I think "his own" is deliberately there to avoid implying Olwe's family - "Olwe and his nearest kin" would mean that, so "his own" looks like an attempt to be explicit that it is Cirdan's kin. The fact that the sentence puts Olwe first might imply that Olwe is close kin to Cirdan; presumably he'd be an uncle, since as you rightly say, Cirdan Nowe was born at Cuivienen.

If you're going to remove Celeborn because he's problematic, you really ought to remove Galadriel, Celebrimbor, Gil-galad (though he doesn't feature in the timeline), etc.

My point is that Celeborn's ambiguous origins are no different than Galadriel's - in other words, please just refrain to using what Tolkien's own published texts involve, regardless of utter insanity that followed and progressively intensified as Tolkien was heading towards his '80s.



Source? I'm not doubting it, I just don't remember seeing it. :D It would make sense - Ingwe seems to have been the most impatient to reach Aman, so he and Ilwen would avoid having more children on the March, and their second was born just before it.

Sorry, I was busy with other stuff - here it is:

Alone among the Eldar I have no wife, and must hope for no sons save one, and for no daughter. Whereas Ingwe and Olwe beget many children in the bliss of Aman. Must I remain ever so?

- MR, 'Later Quenta', §10, p. 258





That's in there; they linger by Rhun from 2232 to 2362.

Sorry, I'm a dumbass.




The Trees, yes; that's a nice fixed date. The Dwarves I can't do, for the same reason I've avoided the Council of the Valar; I have no evidence either way on whether Tolkien would keep the actual SY between those events and the Awakening, or the relative dating between the Trees and the Awakening. (Same goes for all the Almaren stuff, which has ends up looking much quicker against the 850 VY between the Trees and the Quendi - there's just no useful data.)

There's no 'Almaren stuff' in the revised timeline, since the whole 'Two Lamps' and the consequences of their destruction aren't a part of it.



No, all right. If we want to accept both "Ents are the first rational creatures" and "Elves are eldest", then I think we have to say that the Ents consider themselves to have only become rational when they acquired language. Fangorn hints at this, when he says Some of us are still true Ents, and lively enough in our fashion, but many are growing sleepy, going tree-ish, as you might say. Tree-ish Ents are no longer "true Ents" - just as pre-speech Ents weren't.

So the Ents were the first to be incarnated, and Ere iron was found or tree was hewn... it walked the forests long ago. But until Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak..., they weren't (in their own view) truly Ents.

As for when... the published Silm has Yavanna coming up with the idea for Ents right after Aule creates the Dwarves, but Manwe says they will only come to be after the Children awaken. If we want the Ents to wake before the Quendi awake, then they must have been created at that time. When that would be, I'm not going to try and guess.


According to the latest version of the legendarium, Men awoke after the Dwarves - the whole "awaking after the Children of Iluvatar" makes zero sense unless the Ents awoke after Men.



EDIT: sorry, I left an [/I] instead of [/QUOTE]

[Arvegil145]

BTW, @Huinesoron, what do you think about the idea of creating a post (recorded)-Fourth Age timeline?

There is, to my surprise, actually some meat to the basic skeleton that Tolkien mentioned in his '1960 of the 7th Age' comment - it most certainly wouldn't be a simple repetition of the dates of the SA and TA.

Though I suppose that 'meat' might be significantly cut down if one were to exclude the 'Notion Club Papers'...

[Huinesoron]

I still have reservations about the whole '3 ages of the imprisonment of Melkor' - perhaps you could convert the 2874.6 figure (in the AAm) into something similar but more duodecimal - let's say 2,880 SY years (20 x 144).

Or otherwise - you could simply keep the whole 144 x 15 (i.e. 2,160 years) idea...I don't know.

Yes, you could do any of those things. "Three Ages" is the only one for which there are multiple sources tied to it (the AAm entry for his release, and the GA entry for Luthien's birth), so I have used it as the version with the "most evidence". It also gives the best Beleriand dates ("best dates" being the same logic I used for the Finwean calculations). Out of curiousity, here's where the three versions fall in the timeline, with the Unchaining fixed to the death of the Trees:


1153 - "Heresy" among the Quendi.
1681 - Chaining of Melkor ('duodecimal AAm' = 2880 SY)
1686 - Chaining of Melkor ('AAm' = 2875 SY)
1778 - Awakening of Men.
2016 - Finding of the Quendi.
2232 - Great March begins.
2373 - Vanyar and Noldor pass Greenwood after Orome drives out Sauron's evils, and settle east of Anduin in Atyamar.
2401 - Chaining of Melkor ('3 Ages' = 15 VY = 2160 SY)
2426 - Teleri begin to arrive in Atyamar, having come around the southern end of Greenwood.
2652 - The March is over.
2808 - Noldor and Vanyar arrive in Aman.
2833 - Chaining of Melkor ('3 Ages' = 12 VY = 1728 SY)
3084 - Teleri under Olwe depart Beleriand.
4561 - Release of Melkor


Using the AAm date definitely doesn't work, falling before even the Finding. The choice between 15 VY or 12 VY can be based on two things:

1. Per VI.B. "the rescue of the Quendi must be … before the assault upon Utumno". How far away do the Quendi need to be before the Valar will risk assaulting Melkor? Is "beyond the Greenwood" far enough? Equally, would they really wait more than 1 VY after the Quendi reached Beleriand to start the attack?

2. Tinuviel, Tinuviel. 12 VY puts her birth in 3409, as on the Timeline; 15 VY pushes it back to 2880, which is 223 SY before Elwe awakens.

I think the combination of the direct statement from VI.B, and the calculations from Luthien, make 2833 the best date for the Chaining. If you wind up creating your own timeline, you can weight the evidence differently; all it affects is the Fall of Utumno and the Beleriand dates.

Bonus calculation: per AAm, the war with Utumno lasted 11 "VY" (at 9.58 SY): a running battle 1090-92, the siege from 1092-1099, and the Chaining in 1100. If that timeline is maintained, then the war begins 105 SY before the Chaining. If the Chaining is 2401 (15 VY), then the war starts in 2296 while the Quendi are in Rhun; if the Chaining is in 2833, the war starts in 2728, one SY off from half a VY after "All the Eldar of the main host are in Beleriand".


Also! I thought that you would shave off 144 SY from the timeline - so that the timeline would end in c. 5,930 or so.

XVII.2 gives the years between the Finding and the death of the Trees. I adjusted to match that.


If you're going to remove Celeborn because he's problematic, you really ought to remove Galadriel, Celebrimbor, Gil-galad (though he doesn't feature in the timeline), etc.

The issues with Celeborn and Galadriel are completely different. Celeborn - whoever he's related to - is dated once, with a big "at least" and a huge "if this calculation is correct (it probably isn't)". Since we've thrown out the 3100 SY, there's no basis left to his birthdate. Galadriel, meanwhile, has too many sources; I list three on the Timeline and I think we've discussed others.

Celebrimbor the Sinda is hilarious, because it doesn't fit with anything else - Daeron has no wife and an infatuation with Luthien, so this Celebrimbor would have to be born in the Second Age, so can't be a descendent of Feanor or a resident of Gondolin. You already convinced me to drop that one.


There's no 'Almaren stuff' in the revised timeline, since the whole 'Two Lamps' and the consequences of their destruction aren't a part of it.


They're not mentioned in any post-AAm/GA source, no. Neither are the birthdates of the descendents of Finwe, the building of Menegroth, or frankly most of the stuff we're putting in here. Given that the Valar were building domes to grow trees in because the Sun just wasn't shiny enough for them, I'd need a solid source saying there weren't Lamps before I'd say they never existed.


According to the latest version of the legendarium, Men awoke after the Dwarves - the whole "awaking after the Children of Iluvatar" makes zero sense unless the Ents awoke after Men.

You see why I'm leaving the Ents out. :) The sources disagree too strongly.

BTW, @Huinesoron, what do you think about the idea of creating a post (recorded)-Fourth Age timeline?

There is, to my surprise, actually some meat to the basic skeleton that Tolkien mentioned in his '1960 of the 7th Age' comment - it most certainly wouldn't be a simple repetition of the dates of the SA and TA.

Though I suppose that 'meat' might be significantly cut down if one were to exclude the 'Notion Club Papers'...

Honestly, I agree that a Grand Unified Timeline of all the Ages of Arda, from the arrival of the Valar to the release of Rings of Power Season 2, would be both amazing and hilarious. But having seen how complicated it is just for this piece of the First Age, I'm not sure I could handle it!

For one thing, the latest source on "how long ago was this" is NoME 1.VI (the "1960 of the 7th Age" text), which adds 3000 years (https://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=733725&postcount=16) to the usual "6000 years" version, contradicts the astronomy in LotR (https://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=737768&postcount=21), and aligns best with stuff from the Lost Road era. And let's not even ask how long the Valar were in Arda before the creation of the Trees!

(3500 AAm VY, but that's about a fifth of the time between the creation of the Trees and the Awakening of the Quendi. You'd probably want to either treat the pre-Trees stuff as 144SY years, making it 504 000 SY, or keep the ratio of 3500:1000 for Beginning-Trees:Trees-Awakening, which makes it about 428 000 SY.)

hS

[Huinesoron]

Honestly, I agree that a Grand Unified Timeline of all the Ages of Arda, from the arrival of the Valar to the release of Rings of Power Season 2, would be both amazing and hilarious. But having seen how complicated it is just for this piece of the First Age, I'm not sure I could handle it!


Lies, lies, lies. Of course I went ahead and did it.

The Unified Tolkien Timeline (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uN9F0FmBjkQCm7ezxqr0lBkLTTHjmF_oRRopWitt6ds/pubhtml) runs from the entry of the Valar into Arda, through to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers. It's not complete - I've skipped the bulk of the Grey Annals and Tale of Years (2nd-4th ages), and the Lost Road material from the 7th Age is missing - but it gets the outlines in place.

I've used the current Late Timeline in its entirety, and drawn on the Ages discussion (https://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19474). As we're using latest sources, the question of how long ago this all was is simple: Bel. 310 is 16 000 years before 1960 CE. I've used the 2700-year Fourth Age from the Ages thread, and put the end of the Fifth Age at the end of the 4.2-kiloyear event; the dates pretty much line up, though it looks like our own Age must be coming to an end...

hS

[Arvegil145]

The issues with Celeborn and Galadriel are completely different. Celeborn - whoever he's related to - is dated once, with a big "at least" and a huge "if this calculation is correct (it probably isn't)". Since we've thrown out the 3100 SY, there's no basis left to his birthdate. Galadriel, meanwhile, has too many sources; I list three on the Timeline and I think we've discussed others.

Celebrimbor the Sinda is hilarious, because it doesn't fit with anything else - Daeron has no wife and an infatuation with Luthien, so this Celebrimbor would have to be born in the Second Age, so can't be a descendent of Feanor or a resident of Gondolin. You already convinced me to drop that one.

Did we threw away the 3,100 years idea?

As to Celebrimbor, descendant of Daeron, I have no comments other than one - maybe you shouldn't treat that which Tolkien wrote last as scripture. (Not saying you do - but anyway...)





They're not mentioned in any post-AAm/GA source, no. Neither are the birthdates of the descendents of Finwe, the building of Menegroth, or frankly most of the stuff we're putting in here. Given that the Valar were building domes to grow trees in because the Sun just wasn't shiny enough for them, I'd need a solid source saying there weren't Lamps before I'd say they never existed.

Other than being very conspicuously absent from c. late '50s to Tolkien's death in 1973?

All else is fanfiction in the worst way possible.




For one thing, the latest source on "how long ago was this" is NoME 1.VI (the "1960 of the 7th Age" text), which adds 3000 years (https://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=733725&postcount=16) to the usual "6000 years" version, contradicts the astronomy in LotR (https://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=737768&postcount=21), and aligns best with stuff from the Lost Road era. And let's not even ask how long the Valar were in Arda before the creation of the Trees!

If I'm being honest, I don't give a toss about 'strange astronomy!' - is this really going to be the crux of all this stuff? Unless you're an astronomer, I can't see why anyone would give a single damn about the intricacies of this stuff.

[Huinesoron]

Did we threw away the 3,100 years idea?


There are 3264 years from the arrival to the end of the Age. That's far enough off that I can't honestly say it matches the 3100 XVIII statement, especially since that quote says it was probably wrong.



Other than being very conspicuously absent from c. late '50s to Tolkien's death in 1973?


I feel like there were lots of things not written about by Tolkien post-AAm/GA; that doesn't mean they were discarded. The Lamps were always something of an afterthought to the Trees; it's entirely possible Tolkien was simply waiting until he had the "round-world Trees" story straightened out before bothering to think about the Lamps.


If I'm being honest, I don't give a toss about 'strange astronomy!' - is this really going to be the crux of all this stuff? Unless you're an astronomer, I can't see why anyone would give a single damn about the intricacies of this stuff.

I mean, Tolkien devoted whole calendars to the phases of the moon, it's entirely possible the seasonal rising of Orion and how it changes over millennia was also on his mind. However, in my view the later explicit 16 000 years quote trumps any possible unrecorded workings on that score.

Not sure if you missed it, but I did put together a bare-bones Unified Timeline (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uN9F0FmBjkQCm7ezxqr0lBkLTTHjmF_oRRopWitt6ds/pubhtml), from the entry of the Valar into Arda to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers.

hS

[Arvegil145]

First of, I have to apologize for my tone in the above post - I haven't slept for two days and for some reason decided to post here. Not that any of that is an excuse.


I feel like there were lots of things not written about by Tolkien post-AAm/GA; that doesn't mean they were discarded. The Lamps were always something of an afterthought to the Trees; it's entirely possible Tolkien was simply waiting until he had the "round-world Trees" story straightened out before bothering to think about the Lamps.

My biggest problem with the Lamps post-'Round World legendarium' (other than their complete absence) is their necessity.

There was a clear purpose behind them in the 'Flat World legendarium' - they were the original light source on Arda back then: however, since the Sun existed from the beginning in Tolkien's later framework, there is obviously no need for a light source other than the Sun, except in the sense of said light containing the 'light of Iluvatar' that originally was contained within the Sun.

That is where the Two Trees come into focus - their role in the RW legendarium isn't that of a light source per se, but as a last vestige of that 'holy' light, which later on is in turn only preserved in the silmarils.

Problem is, the Trees were never intended to be the original source of light illuminating the whole world, even in the earliest legendarium - the Lamps filled that purpose in the pre-RW legendarium. But then, Tolkien changed his mind and made the Sun into the original source of light instead (assuming the same role that the Lamps had previously), with the Trees being created much later to preserve the 'holy' light which the Sun originally had.

In other words, from a story-telling perspective, the Sun replaced the Lamps in its primary role as the original main source of light on Arda (or Ambar in the RW version).

Or to put it this way:

1) 'Flat World legendarium': Lamps > Trees > Sun and Moon/Silmarils

2) 'Round World legendarium' (concerning the carriers of the 'holy' light): Sun > Trees > Silmarils



I mean, Tolkien devoted whole calendars to the phases of the moon, it's entirely possible the seasonal rising of Orion and how it changes over millennia was also on his mind. However, in my view the later explicit 16 000 years quote trumps any possible unrecorded workings on that score.

Not sure if you missed it, but I did put together a bare-bones Unified Timeline (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uN9F0FmBjkQCm7ezxqr0lBkLTTHjmF_oRRopWitt6ds/pubhtml), from the entry of the Valar into Arda to the discovery of the Notion Club Papers.

Yeah, I was being embarrassingly flippant about the whole situation regarding 'astronomy'.


In regards to your timeline, I missed it - I'll check it out.

[Huinesoron]

First of, I have to apologize for my tone in the above post - I haven't slept for two days and for some reason decided to post here. Not that any of that is an excuse.

It's not a problem. You came across as abrupt but not angry. Hopefully you've managed to sleep now?


My biggest problem with the Lamps post-'Round World legendarium' (other than their complete absence) is their necessity.

There was a clear purpose behind them in the 'Flat World legendarium' - they were the original light source on Arda back then: however, since the Sun existed from the beginning in Tolkien's later framework, there is obviously no need for a light source other than the Sun, except in the sense of said light containing the 'light of Iluvatar' that originally was contained within the Sun.


Interesting... I went back and looked at the BoLT version, and the course of the "light of Iluvatar" is even more complex: it starts with light as a sort of floating liquid that is gathered into the Lamps and then regathered into the cauldrons Kulullin and Silindrin, before the Trees ever sprout.

Your mention of the Sun no longer having its "holy" light in the Round World conception makes me think of the BoLT "rekindling of the Magic Sun", in which the Sun was originally strongly magical but was defiled by Melko (who may or may not have killed its pilot). Obviously the idea that the Eldar could restore the power of the Sun by sailing Eressea over to Europe and fighting Germans didn't come back, but it seems like Tolkien returned to at least some of this. Do you know what he decided had reduced the "holiness" of the Sun in the Round World model?

hS

[Arvegil145]

It's not a problem. You came across as abrupt but not angry. Hopefully you've managed to sleep now?

I wasn't angry as such, but I definitely was a prick, so an apology is the least I could do.



Interesting... I went back and looked at the BoLT version, and the course of the "light of Iluvatar" is even more complex: it starts with light as a sort of floating liquid that is gathered into the Lamps and then regathered into the cauldrons Kulullin and Silindrin, before the Trees ever sprout.

Your mention of the Sun no longer having its "holy" light in the Round World conception makes me think of the BoLT "rekindling of the Magic Sun", in which the Sun was originally strongly magical but was defiled by Melko (who may or may not have killed its pilot). Obviously the idea that the Eldar could restore the power of the Sun by sailing Eressea over to Europe and fighting Germans didn't come back, but it seems like Tolkien returned to at least some of this. Do you know what he decided had reduced the "holiness" of the Sun in the Round World model?

I mean, assuming that Tolkien kept in his head through the years what he wrote in the 'Myths Transformed', the (original) Sun was effectively...assaulted...out of existence by Melkor:

But Melkor, as hath been told, lusted after all light, desiring it jealously for his own. Moreover he soon perceived that in Âs there was a light that had been concealed from him, and which had a power of which he had not thought. Therefore, afire at once with desire and anger, he went to Asa, and he spoke to Árië, saying: 'I have chosen thee, and thou shalt be my spouse, even as Varda is to Manwë, and together we shall wield all splendour and mastery. Then the kingship of Arda shall be mine in deed as in right, and thou shalt be the partner of my glory.' But Árië rejected Melkor and rebuked him, saying: 'Speak not of right, which thou hast long forgotten. Neither for thee nor by thee alone was Eä made; and thou shalt not be King of Arda. Beware therefore; for there is in the heart of Âs a light in which thou hast no part, and a fire which will not serve thee. Put not out thy hand to it. For though thy potency may destroy it, it will burn thee and thy brightness will be made dark.'

Melkor did not heed her warning, but cried in his wrath: 'The gift which is withheld I take!' and he ravished Árië, desiring both to abase her and to take into himself her powers. Then the spirit of Árië went up like a flame of anguish and wrath, and departed for ever from Arda; and the Sun was bereft of the Light of Varda, and was stained by the assault of Melkor. And being for a long while without rule it flamed with excessive heat or grew too cool, so that grievous hurt was done to Arda and the fashioning of the world was marred and delayed, until with long toil the Valar made a new order. But even as Árië foretold, Melkor was burned and his brightness darkened, and he gave no more light, but light pained him exceedingly and he hated it.

- MR, 'Myths Transformed', Text II, pp. 380-1

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron

Do you have any new insights on the subject, or otherwise any changes you'd make to your timeline?

Just looking for an update (if there's any).

[Huinesoron]

@Huinesoron

Do you have any new insights on the subject, or otherwise any changes you'd make to your timeline?

Just looking for an update (if there's any).

I don't think so; nothing new has come up, and the Late Timeline (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) doesn't include the Lamps (which were the last query we had). The Unified Timeline (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1uN9F0FmBjkQCm7ezxqr0lBkLTTHjmF_oRRopWitt6ds/pubhtml) does, but that whole document is a dubious string of assumptions anyway. :D

As far as I know, the only new information since we last looked at this is the Poems book, and the only thing I've heard is in there and relevant is the English version of the Complaint of Mim. I haven't seen that, though, and don't know if it has a date associated with it; or if the whole narrative is even included in the book.

hS

[James the Just]

Happy New Year!

From Tolkien Gateway:


Unlike other reckonings of time created by J.R.R. Tolkien to set his legendarium, the Valian Years did not have a complete and definitive form. In the 1930s and 1940s, Tolkien handled a length of the Valian year fluctuated slightly around a round number of 10 solar years. In the notes to The Annals of Aman, Tolkien stated a single Valian year lasts 1,000 Valian days, defined as the duration of a complete flowering of the Two Trees of Valinor. Each of these Valian days is divided into 12 Valian hours, with each Valian hour having a duration equivalent to 7 solar hours. Thus, a single Valian year would last 84,000 solar hours. As a single solar year is approximately 8,766 hours, it was easy to calculate the equivalence of 9.582 solar years for each Valian year.



This is a little bit incorrect. According to Tolkien himself a year is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds. This would be 8,765.812778 hours, for a Valian Year of 9.58268242 years.

But why did Tolkien choose a Valian Year of 84,000 hours to begin with? It seems rather odd. Perhaps there is an explanation.

The length of time from the new tally of years beginning with the Years of the Trees to the Years of the Sun is 1,500 Valian Years, or 14,374 mortal ones. This comes out to 99.82 Valian Years of the longer sort (144 years). What if he had an age of 100 Valian Years in mind? It seems too close to be coincidental. If that's the case then the short Valian Year would be exactly 9.6 years, not 9.582.

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron

I think I found a late (c. 1968 or later) quote from an Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals-related text that might be of consequence regarding the timing of the Dwarven awakening:

The Ered Luin were the remains of the mountain range that formed the eastern boundary of Beleriand (usually called by the Eldar Ered Lindon), difficult to cross. But the Dwarves had built some great Mansions in those mountains (commanding the only passes), which had certainly been founded long, even in Elvish time, before the coming of the exiled Noldor, probably before the Eldar of the Great Journey ever reached Beleriand.

- Vinyar Tengwar 48, 'Variation D/L in Common Eldarin. (Note 1)', §3, p. 24 (bold font is my addition)

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron: another late (written on paper dated to 1968, text itself probably even later) text from the NoME that might just be the latest conception about the duration of the First Age that Tolkien wrote:

The legends speak of a sojourn of many years and long debates before the Vanyar and Noldor after long exploration began the crossing “by the pass under the Red Mountain”. They were followed by some two-thirds of the Teleri. A third, mainly belonging to the folk of Olwë, had become during the delay well contented, and remained behind. There was no contact between these Silvan Elves and the Grey Elves, the Sindar, who in the event also remained in Middle-earth and never crossed the Great Sea, until the Second Age and the ruin of Beleriand. In Mannish terms that was a time as long maybe as all the years that now lie between us and the War of the Ring.

- The Nature of Middle-earth, 'Silvan Elves & Silvan Elvish', Text 1, pp. 357-8


So, even if you assume the earlier, conservative 1958 figure of c. 6,000 years (from the Letters) - that still leaves 6,000 years between the sundering of the Nandor and the end of the War of Wrath.

If you assume the later, 1960 figure from the NoME - that's c. 9,250 years.

In any case, this expands the timeline massively.

[Huinesoron]

So, even if you assume the earlier, conservative 1958 figure of c. 6,000 years (from the Letters) - that still leaves 6,000 years between the sundering of the Nandor and the end of the War of Wrath.

If you assume the later, 1960 figure from the NoME - that's c. 9,250 years.

In any case, this expands the timeline massively.

Oh dear. XD

Linking the Ages discussion (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19474) and my Late Timeline (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRKyl4K-vLPhenMK8CWIP32so3XtFCHlsWKN3fNfKgdcvT4bwnDa2tt0Yz FPyot-pHoIhbxiG5ZVUE2/pub) to keep it together... there are a few Timeline texts which might come after this, but nothing which affects the bulk of the dating. EDIT: and the Arvegil timeline (https://ethercalc.net/gca59xpk4mxi.html)

Do we have any version of any timeline which puts 6000 years between the sundering of the Teleri and the end of the First Age? The Late Timeline makes it about 3500 years, so we'd need to double the length somewhere.

Alternately - this seriously post-dates the last comment on how long ago the Elder Days were (by almost a decade). Could it mean that the War of the Ring ended ca 1500 BC? That would make the Fourth Age begin roughly with the founding of Mycenaean Greece and the New Kingdom of Egypt. That... kind of works, actually?

EDIT: I am working on a comparison table (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ1ZZlUcmAY3l-9bIHJMHg_7CsVli3a9lJMeI3FxLhueyn9LvFKhJ-8-WXEEJoPHxHFva4tJQkQSPrZ/pubhtml) of the different timelines (Tolkien's or ours). I need to Have My Books to get the rest of the dates in, but you can see the shape of it.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Do we have any version of any timeline which puts 6000 years between the sundering of the Teleri and the end of the First Age? The Late Timeline makes it about 3500 years, so we'd need to double the length somewhere.

Alternately - this seriously post-dates the last comment on how long ago the Elder Days were (by almost a decade). Could it mean that the War of the Ring ended ca 1500 BC? That would make the Fourth Age begin roughly with the founding of Mycenaean Greece and the New Kingdom of Egypt. That... kind of works, actually?

Well, I think the earlier timelines (ones dealing with the Great Journey) have absurdly long figures, but not in this specific range of c. 6,000 years IIRC.


As to the extended duration - remember that footnote in the 'Elvish Ages & Numenorean' about the timespan between Elves coming to Aman and the end of the War of Wrath being 'very like longer [than 3,100 years]': the one dealing with Celeborn's age and his descent from Elmo?

Depending on how you stretch the definition of 'longer than 3,100 years' - this can work. Especially since I think the quote in my OP might refer to the bulk of that extra time being spent in the events in Aman/Beleriand, and not on, say, the part of the Journey from Hithaeglir to the coast of Beleriand.


And as for your suggestion about the timespan between us and the War of the Ring being much shorter - it's possible, but unlikely I think (if anything, leave Tolkien to his own devices and he would most probably make it even longer than 9,250 years, judging by the ever more 'realistic' direction he was taking the legendarium over the decades following the LOTR).

The most important thing though is that while we can speculate on new figures, truth is there really are only 2 canonical figures he ever gave - and we should follow the latest (the 1960 one, that is, unless some new information surfaces later).



All in all, I would follow the 1960 figure + the footnote to the 'Elvish Ages & Numenorean' and extended the Elves' stay in Aman.



P.S. Did you see my above post about the Awaking of the Dwarves, the one immediately before the 'extended timeline'?

Also, I've since got around to the 'Telerin Celeborn' idea - it's been really consistent in the last 5 or 6 years of Tolkien's life, and it would neatly give us the opportunity to include Gilitiro from the new PE23 as a possible son of Olwe.

Additionally, I've also been fairly convinced that the 'Celebrimbor in Nargothrond' footnote from the PoME might be much later than I previously thought, and in fact Tolkien's latest word on the subject.


Finally, I pretty much abandoned my own shorter timeline - really the only thing it has going for it is that it lines up more elegantly with the duration of the following Ages (as well as having only 6 generations at Cuivienen) - but other than that, it clearly falls short of Tolkien's later intentions.

[Huinesoron]

As Arvegil says, the good news for the Late Timeline is that it's explicitly using Tolkien's latest (written) thoughts. So until a new text appears, this Timeline has place 9258 years between the crossing of the Misty Mountains and the end of the First Age.

Version 5 of the timeline is now ongoing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS2EzQKaWqWWUhx-U-5vu3BkeE8LamHrlJLhywJPY4fV5T4n53xRddt1Zm2MADa6yXoq wsFcoSiV2Bq/pub); I've highlighted all the dates which will need changing. The fundamental problem is that the only source for most of the Aman years is the Annals, which are so much older than the rest of the sources that it's not even funny.

I think the timeline down to the Noldor reaching Aman is solid (it's basically all from one source). That means there are a firm 8495 SY between the Noldor landing in Valinor and Fingolfin landing in Middle-earth. That time has to be broken up to reflect:


The 367 VY (= 3670 or 3516 or 52 848 SY) of the Annals of Aman.
The same timespan in the Grey Annals, which references the three ages of Melkor's chaining.
The various comments on the lineage of Finwe in the Shibboleth and Finwe and Miriel.
The fact that, somehow and for some reason, the Noldor only had two generations of children in that time.


At least it's exactly 59 Valian Years... that makes it look like a little thought went into it. I'm going to have to go back and look at the text on Elvish aging, see if I can pull out any useful hints about them aging slower in Aman.

EDIT: I've also edited the stuff on the Dwarves in, though I don't think it's added any new dates.

hS

[Huinesoron]

Tolkien's last comment touching on the aging of the Eldar in Aman is from NoME 1.XVIII (1965): "Elvish ages must be counted in two different stages: growth-years (GY) and life-years (LY). The GYs were relatively swift and in Middle-earth = 3 loar. The LYs were very slow and in Middle-earth = 144 loar." The obvious implication here is that outside Middle-earth, ie in Aman, the GY and LY were different.

But how different? The last comment I can find on the point is way back in NoME 1.XII, before almost all of the genealogies, which baldly states: "It appears that in Aman the Quendi were little affected in their modes of growth (olmie) and life (coivie)," despite most other life in Aman aging as if 1VY = 1 sun-year, rather than 144. That contradicts the implication of XVIII, and moreover is not very helpful for the massive timescale I've been landed with!

But... the last comment before that appears in the notes to the same text, where a "prior" (per CFH) version of that passage said something slightly different: that the coivie remained unchanged in Aman, because it was already running at the Aman rate, but the olmie was slowed down.

I think that passage probably marks the best compromise between the various issues here. If the growth-years of the Eldar are 144 SY rather than 3 SY for the Aman era, then per XVIII it would take 3456 SY for an Aman elf to reach full growth. If they married and had their first children at full-growth, the third Aman generation just about exactly half-grown when the Trees died. That's Celebrimbor at least, and some combination of Orodreth, Finduilas, and Gil-Galad; that actually works pretty well? We know Galadriel was "not yet full grown", and this 3456-SY childhood might finally make sense of that.

hS

[Arvegil145]

I think a far simpler and a far better answer is that the lives of the Eldar in Aman compared to Middle-earth were something like the lives of the Edain in Numenor vs those in Middle-earth: i.e. they were blessed with peace, prosperity and eternity - and as such they tended to focus every which way, from artifice/science to art to making more Eldar.

This is why I think there really isn't any rhyme or reason behind Aman births. After all, there's always another tomorrow untainted by Melkor in their eyes...


EDIT: Oh - how did you arrive at 9,258 years? Tolkien was writing my OP text in c. 1970. In our version the Bel. years last for 600 years - as they do in the 1960 comment about the 7th Age: it should probably be 9,260 years.

[Huinesoron]

I think a far simpler and a far better answer is that the lives of the Eldar in Aman compared to Middle-earth were something like the lives of the Edain in Numenor vs those in Middle-earth: i.e. they were blessed with peace, prosperity and eternity - and as such they tended to focus every which way, from artifice/science to art to making more Eldar.

This is why I think there really isn't any rhyme or reason behind Aman births. After all, there's always another tomorrow untainted by Melkor in their eyes...

Unfortunately that goes against Tolkien's thinking; in XVII.3(1) (his last comment on the matter) he specifically says that the Eldar married sooner in Aman. I think we have so little data on the births in Aman that it's possible to make almost any construction fit; I'm going to keep poking the numbers to see if it hangs together.


EDIT: Oh - how did you arrive at 9,258 years? Tolkien was writing my OP text in c. 1970. In our version the Bel. years last for 600 years - as they do in the 1960 comment about the 7th Age: it should probably be 9,260 years.

Because I have him writing it in 1968. :D Given that the whole timeline is permanently riddled with off-by-one errors, I'm not overly concerned with two years.

hS

EDIT: it does not hang together. The issue is that Shibboleth explicitly states that Miriel lived until Feanor was full-grown. Quite aside from the absurdity of her moping around for over 3000 years and still somehow being a tragedy, this makes Fingolfin & Finarfin effectively the second generation in Aman. Their children come out as still, well, children at the Exile, which obviously doesn't work.

So... we're back where we started. There's a bunch of dates in AAm, and no obvious way to adapt them to the new timeline, which is 2.5 times longer. ~hS

[Huinesoron]

Okay, by going through NoME line by line I think I can piece the Finweans back together.

Relevant sources, from newest to oldest:

Silvan Elves & Elvish: 8496 SY in Aman.
Shibboleth: Miriel lived until Feanor was grown; Galadriel is older than the Silmarils.
NoME 1.XVIII: Elves grow at 3SY per "year" until 24, then 144SY per "year" after. Mortal equivalent age is age in "years"*0.75. Mortal age 36 (=48 "years") was a typical age of first child in "troubled times".
NoME 1.XVII.3(7): Elves had children at regular intervals.
NoME 1.XVII.3(6): In Valinor, elves married later and had children at wider intervals than before the March.
NoME 1.XVII.3(1): After the March the age of marriage increased towards 48 "years". Usual age in Valinor was 36.

The key point here is that the 48 years in XVII.3(1) is the same figure as in XVIII. Therefore, the 36 in XVII.3(1) can be carried through as well - it translates to an age at marriage of 1800 SY.

From that point, I played with interval lengths. AAm has Turgon and Finrod born in the same year, which felt like something Tolkien would have kept; the coincidence of Aredhel and Galadriel's births, however, is broken by the stuff about Galadriel's youth in XVIII. To get Finrod and Turgon born in the same year, I had to say Finwe's children were born twice as fast as their own kids; that actually fits with AAm, once you add the girls in. I settled on an interval of 3.5VY for Finwe's children, and 7VY for the next generation, because it put Galadriel in the right place (she comes out as 20.5 "mortal equivalent" at the Exile, which is nice.)

https://huinesoron.neocities.org/Fandom/Finwean%20births%20-%202025-05-16.png

Where it does still break down is the generation after: Idril is older than Galadriel, and Orodreth and Celebrimbor wind up born after the Exile, which, no. But it comes pretty close to a workable scheme!

(I've kept the AAm spacing of events at the start and end of the Aman years: the Silmarils are still only around for about 400 SY before the Trees die. I feel like Tolkien would have deliberately kept the "rapidly-developing catastrophe" vibe the lengthened timeline gives.)

hS

[Arvegil145]

I just want to add another thing about the Dwarves:

Probably that mountain afterwards known as Caraðras; though unless its awe-inspiring peak was magnified in legend, it was then loftier than in later ages. “Under” plainly means “under the shadow of”; for there were as yet no Dwarves in those mountains, and the mines of Moria had not been begun. Neither, fortunately for the Eldar, had the Orks of Morgoth yet reached those regions.

- NoME, 'Silvan Elves & Silvan Elvish', Text 1, footnote 3, p. 357


Not sure if this quote implies that the Dwarves did not awake yet (IMO the most natural reading) or that Durin was still gathering his folk (but 800 years, in the current timeline, is a long time to be doing that).



P.S. Also, Curufin is the 4th son in Tolkien's latest conception.



EDIT: Nevermind, I see you included the comment on the 'no Dwarves under Caradhras' in the timeline - but my question still stands: how did you reconcile it with the very early Awakening of the Dwarves?

[Arvegil145]

Anything new?