Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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??

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

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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. I'll add yet another note on how speculative Celeborn is.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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??).

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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. 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]

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