Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Reposting the Late Timeline for the new page.



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. 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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

He's not. 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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Timelines care nothing for narrative weight!

Maybe not, but Tolkien's '60/'70s are definitely calling out such a thing as..."unnatural".

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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'.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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 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.



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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Okay, timeline is stable again 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.



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.