Fourth Age Date Conversion

[Snowdog]

Makes sense to me. I was going from the memory of a slightly drunken and tired mind that did not consult either the Appendix or the Encyclopedia of Arda, so overliiked the two year "change" in the Third Age Reckoning. I would think that the year 3019 was longer, as it would have started per the reckoning of the preceding years. It was then "reset" as of March 25 and went to March 24 3020, so would have been technically, a year and three months long.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A reflection of a Primary World problem familiar to genealogists and historians when dealing with dates in the Julian Calendar (which also began on 25 March). The usual modern convention is to modify them as needed to, e.g., 22 Feb. 1688/9.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Legolas

The change to a March 25 new year (start of 3019) and the change to Fourth Age (late 3021) were established over two years apart. Years had already been starting on March 25 as of T.A. 3019, so T.A. 3021 and F.A. 1 would be exactly the same year from beginning to end.

I had completely overlooked the fact that the change in the new year occurred before the beginning of the Fourth Age.

Actually, it seems to me that this means there is still a contradiction. Leaving aside Shire Reckoning, we then have T.A. 3021 = F.A. 1, with no overlap between F.A. 1 and T.A. 3022. Each T.A. year x from 3021 onward corresponds exactly to the F.A. year (x - 3020). But then we have these facts:

- Eomer's death date is given as T.A. 3084 and F.A. 63. But T.A. 3084 should be F.A. 64.

- Gimli's departure is given as T.A. 3141 and F.A. 120. But T.A. 3141 should be F.A. 121.

The apparent discrepancies between S.R. and F.A. can still be explained away as in my first post, with events falling between Yule and March 25 or between March 25 and Yule as necessary. But if T.A. and F.A. years correspond exactly, then it fails for the two cases above.

[Legolas]

I wonder if that relates to my last point about the hobbits not observing the March 25 T.A. 3021 starting date for F.A. 1, instead using the start of their next new year.

The quote from Appendix D says they chose to acknowledge F.A. 1 as starting with S.R. 1422; do we also see that they continued to reckon years by midwinter even in their own conversions S.R. > T.A. before that? It seems so.

In the final pages of Appendix B where events for 3020 and 3021 are given, there is a footnote that says months and days are given in the Shire calendar, but also Frodo's recurring illness on March 13 is listed at the starts of 3020 and 3021, squarely co-labeled S.R. 1420 and 1421. By New Reckoning, those dates should've been in the final days of 3019 and 3020.

Are the T.A. years are recorded according to men, but the F.A. years given according to hobbit conversion instead (where S.R. 1422 = T.A. 3022 = F.A. 1)?