Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Does your project treat works published during Tolkien's lifetime as taking precedence over those that are later but unpublished?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

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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:

1. They "'awoke' far back in the First Age (it is supposed, soon after the awakening of Men)" - PoME p.383, ca. 1972-3
2. 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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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

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

Oh, neat! I didn't realise I was Reddit-famous. 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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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[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."

Which... might well mean that the March was completed before Utumno was attacked. Except this is the 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. ^_^

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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[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."

Which... might well mean that the March was completed before Utumno was attacked. Except this is the 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...


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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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 [back to Middle-earth] 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 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.

• 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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Okay! I've gone back and redone all of the calculations, and reassembled the Timeline for the third time.

• 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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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?



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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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?



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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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:



(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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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".

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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:



(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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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), 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. I'm convinced; the AAm ages can stay, we'll just assume some unattested Valinoran practices.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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), 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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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 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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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. 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.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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:

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

All dates in the Final Timeline rev 3 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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

This is what I just did. 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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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

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]

Originally Posted by Galin

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'?

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]

Originally Posted by Galin

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.)

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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':



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]

Originally Posted by 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':



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.

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:

Originally Posted by XVIII, per Arvegil

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

"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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by XVIII

"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".

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

EDIT 3: Thanks for the mention!

You do the work, you get the credit.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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???).

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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!



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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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!



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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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:

Originally Posted by CT's comment to GA paragraphs 25-29

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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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:

Originally Posted by Grey Annals 2

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:

Originally Posted by VI.B

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:

Originally Posted by Of Dwarves and 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:

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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'?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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]

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

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]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

(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):

Originally Posted by Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn

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

--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]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.