Fourth Age Date Conversion - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aiwendil · 12-19-2012, 08:39 PM

I recently had to convert some dates from years of the Fourth Age into Shire Reckoning, and I came across this Encyclopedia of Arda entry. This entry notes that there appear to be some contradictions in the way Fourth Age years and Third Age/Shire Reckoning years are said to correspond. After re-reading appendix D, however, it seems to me that there is no contradiction at all. So now I'm wondering whether it's I that am missing something or they. (My apologies for such an abstruse, quibbling sort of topic.)

So, the last year of the Third Age was T.A. 3021 (or in Shire-reckoning 1421); that much is clear. In several places in the appendices, year equivalences are given that suggest that year 1 of the Fourth Age was the year following T.A. 3021, so F.A. 1 = T.A. 3022. This would mean that to obtain a F.A. date, one subtracts 3021 from the T.A. date (or 1421 from Shire-reckoning). So Eomer's death is given as T.A. 3084 and F.A. 63; Gimli's departure is given as T.A. 3141 and F.A. 120; and it is explicitly stated that Fourth Age 1 was called 1422 in the Shire.

However, in other places, it appears that T.A. 3021 was F.A. 1. So the offset between T.A. and F.A. is 3020, not 3021. Supporting this are: the statement that Findegil's copy of the Red Book is dated 'S.R. 1592 (F.A. 172)'; the fact that Pippin's retirement to Gondor is stated in one place to have been in F.A. 64 and in another S.R. 1484; and the statement that 'for purposes of record in the Kingdom Fourth Age 1 was the year that began according to the New Reckoning on March 25, 3021, old style'.

That's the apparent contradiction that Encyclopedia of Arda seems unable to resolve. But it seems to me that it overlooks one crucial fact. Appendix D makes it clear that in all systems used in the Third Age, the year began in mid-winter, whereas in the Fourth Age the year began on March 25, to commemorate the destruction of the Ring. In view of this, surely it is clear that F.A. 1 corresponds neither to T.A. 3021 nor to T.A. 3022, but rather to the period that in the T.A. reckoning would be March 25, 3021 to March 24, 3022. So if an event occurred in, say, T.A. x, it would be in F.A. (x - 3021) if it happened before March 25 or F.A. (x - 3020) if it happened after March 25. Conversely, an event in F.A. y would be in T.A. (y + 3020) if it happened before January 1 and T.A. (y + 3021) if it happened after January 1.

Thus, if Eomer died in, say, February of T.A. 3084 (S.R. 1484), that would have been F.A. 63. And if Pippin retired the following June, it still would have been T.A. 3084 (S.R. 1484), but it now would have been F.A. 64. No contradiction at all.

Does this make sense, or is there something I'm missing?

12-19-2012, 08:39 PM	#1
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Fourth Age Date Conversion I recently had to convert some dates from years of the Fourth Age into Shire Reckoning, and I came across this Encyclopedia of Arda entry. This entry notes that there appear to be some contradictions in the way Fourth Age years and Third Age/Shire Reckoning years are said to correspond. After re-reading appendix D, however, it seems to me that there is no contradiction at all. So now I'm wondering whether it's I that am missing something or they. (My apologies for such an abstruse, quibbling sort of topic.) So, the last year of the Third Age was T.A. 3021 (or in Shire-reckoning 1421); that much is clear. In several places in the appendices, year equivalences are given that suggest that year 1 of the Fourth Age was the year following T.A. 3021, so F.A. 1 = T.A. 3022. This would mean that to obtain a F.A. date, one subtracts 3021 from the T.A. date (or 1421 from Shire-reckoning). So Eomer's death is given as T.A. 3084 and F.A. 63; Gimli's departure is given as T.A. 3141 and F.A. 120; and it is explicitly stated that Fourth Age 1 was called 1422 in the Shire. However, in other places, it appears that T.A. 3021 was F.A. 1. So the offset between T.A. and F.A. is 3020, not 3021. Supporting this are: the statement that Findegil's copy of the Red Book is dated 'S.R. 1592 (F.A. 172)'; the fact that Pippin's retirement to Gondor is stated in one place to have been in F.A. 64 and in another S.R. 1484; and the statement that 'for purposes of record in the Kingdom Fourth Age 1 was the year that began according to the New Reckoning on March 25, 3021, old style'. That's the apparent contradiction that Encyclopedia of Arda seems unable to resolve. But it seems to me that it overlooks one crucial fact. Appendix D makes it clear that in all systems used in the Third Age, the year began in mid-winter, whereas in the Fourth Age the year began on March 25, to commemorate the destruction of the Ring. In view of this, surely it is clear that F.A. 1 corresponds neither to T.A. 3021 nor to T.A. 3022, but rather to the period that in the T.A. reckoning would be March 25, 3021 to March 24, 3022. So if an event occurred in, say, T.A. x, it would be in F.A. (x - 3021) if it happened before March 25 or F.A. (x - 3020) if it happened after March 25. Conversely, an event in F.A. y would be in T.A. (y + 3020) if it happened before January 1 and T.A. (y + 3021) if it happened after January 1. Thus, if Eomer died in, say, February of T.A. 3084 (S.R. 1484), that would have been F.A. 63. And if Pippin retired the following June, it still would have been T.A. 3084 (S.R. 1484), but it now would have been F.A. 64. No contradiction at all. Does this make sense, or is there something I'm missing?