Quote:
Originally Posted by Huinesoron
I decided to pull all the competing timelines into a table:
And by "all" I mean "both.  Letter 211 aligns with the astronomy argument given by James the Just; perfectly so if you accept their point that "about 6000 years ago" should be read as "the length of the 2nd and 3rd Ages combined" (ie, about 6500 years). Meanwhile, the NoME timeline aligns with the date of the last thing that can reasonably be called an Ice Age (the Younger Dryas). I've tweaked the 4th-6th ages to be "gradually quickening" (the original NoME timeline had 3 2433-year ages), which makes it align pretty closely with the PoME "100 generations".
In terms of real history, the Astronomy Timeline has the 4th Age end with the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, and the 5th with the birth of Christ. The NoME Timeline shifts those markers to the ends of the 5th and 6th Ages. All other Ages are solidly prehistoric.
It's pretty funny that we've ended up with a Long and Short timeline, one supported by astronomical evidence, the other by geological (the Ice Age). Actual archaeology of the ancient Near East has exactly the same problem, with the Sack of Babylon wandering by over 200 years depending on how you count it. Makes it feel more real, somehow.
hS |
I'd only change the 'Awakening of Men' part in your table - since I think that Tolkien ultimately decided against such an enormous 'First Age', given that in the same NoME text in which this figure appears, the problem of the founding of Angband is still present, while in the other texts from the same period (such as the 'VY 850' Awakening of the Elves), Angband is already established as an ancient western fortress of Morgoth.
If I remember correctly, that is.