Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (and Seventh?) Ages

[James the Just]

We know from the "Lost Road" quote in my last post, that Tolkien was thinking about Numenor in relation to the Ice Age, and placing it immediately before it; I think it's very, very likely that "16,000 years" was calculated to align the Numenorean Catastrophe directly with the onset of the Younger Dryas.

Since islands have a tendency to sink somewhat during warm periods when the sea level is higher I wonder if he meant that the Edain reached Númenor just before the beginning of the next (and last) Ice Age. Perhaps they were escaping the advancing glaciers. The Dwarves seemed to want to move south at that time as well.

It would seem difficult to explain all the activity that occurred during the 590 years before the Second Age if the North was covered in ice. However, not much at all happened there during the first 1200 years of the Second Age before the Númenoreans began to make permanent havens.

Delving further into the past is it possible the Noldor arrived at Helcaraxë during the Older Dryas? Was Melkor was freed from his sentence when the Ålesund interstadial ended 28,000 years ago?

[Arvegil145]

This might be a good place to post this quote:

Of Eldarion son of Elessar it was foretold that he should rule a great realm, and that it should endure for a hundred generations of Men after him, that is until a new age brought in again new things; and from him should come the kings of many realms in long days after. But if this foretelling spoke truly, none now can say, for Gondor and Arnor are no more; and even the chronicles of the House of Elessar and all their deeds and glory are lost.

- The Peoples of Middle-earth, 'The Tale of Years of the Third Age', pp. 244-5

So, if we take a normal human 'generation' to mean something like, say, 25 years - that would equate to c. 2,500 years.

And if we take Eldarion's death to be c. FO 200, that means that the Fourth Age lasted for about 2,700 years - which checks out with Tolkien's hastening Ages.

[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.

EDIT: Given that it's Tolkien, it's also interesting to note that Bible chronology suffers from the same problem: dates for the Genesis creation have historically clustered around either 4000 BC or 5500 BC. Neither of these dates really fit anything other than the simple Letter 211 chronology - a literal 6000 years since Gollum tripped into a volcano. (This means that the Genesis flood is not connected with the fall of Numenor; it falls sometime in the 4th (Astronomy timeline) or 5th (NoME timeline) Age.)

hS

[Arvegil145]

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.

[Arvegil145]

As an aside, did Tolkien use the 'F.O.' abbreviation to refer to the dates of the Fourth Age, or 'FoA'?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by arvegil145

as an aside, did tolkien use the 'f.o.' abbreviation to refer to the dates of the fourth age, or 'foa'?

'FA', no periods

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

'FA', no periods

The amount of misconceptions floating around in Tolkien spaces is astounding...

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

'FA', no periods

But...what abbreviation did he use for the First Age, then (aside from YT and YS)?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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.

You're right, though I'm not sure Angband is relevant.

First off, NoME 1.VI A was revised into 1.VI B. Tolkien repeats the statement of how many years Men had existed before they entered Beleriand, but amends it from 64,534 years to 57,190 years. He still keeps the "not scientifically long enough" statement, too! So the Awakening of Men date should certainly be revised to match that.

But then he did reconsider. 1.XIII.2, for example, places the death of the Trees 96 VY after the Awakening of the Elves, explicitly 13,824 years. Men would obviously have to be younger than that!

But I think it's valid to record what he was thinking at the time. Ultimately there is no One True Answer to this question, so showing all the options is my preferred aproach.

~

Though of course, we can put them in chronological order.

• The Lost Road - pre 1937. Submitted to Allen and Unwin that year.
• Astronomy - 1937-1949. During writing of LotR.
• PoME TV - 1949-50. Dated by CT.
• Letter 211 - October 1958. Dated.
• NoME 1.VI - 1960. Tolkien dated text A to this year.

So "16,000 years" is the final comment Tolkien made on how long ago the Elder Days were, for whatever that's worth.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

You're right, though I'm not sure Angband is relevant.

First off, NoME 1.VI A was revised into 1.VI B. Tolkien repeats the statement of how many years Men had existed before they entered Beleriand, but amends it from 64,534 years to 57,190 years. He still keeps the "not scientifically long enough" statement, too! So the Awakening of Men date should certainly be revised to match that.

But then he did reconsider. 1.XIII.2, for example, places the death of the Trees 96 VY after the Awakening of the Elves, explicitly 13,824 years. Men would obviously have to be younger than that!

But I think it's valid to record what he was thinking at the time. Ultimately there is no One True Answer to this question, so showing all the options is my preferred aproach.

~

Though of course, we can put them in chronological order.

• The Lost Road - pre 1937. Submitted to Allen and Unwin that year.
• Astronomy - 1937-1949. During writing of LotR.
• PoME TV - 1949-50. Dated by CT.
• Letter 211 - October 1958. Dated.
• NoME 1.VI - 1960. Tolkien dated text A to this year.

So "16,000 years" is the final comment Tolkien made on how long ago the Elder Days were, for whatever that's worth.

hS

But aren't all these texts in NoME 1.VI and 1.XIII (2) earlier than the one in 1.XIII (1)?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

But aren't all these texts in NoME 1.VI and 1.XIII (2) earlier than the one in 1.XIII (1)?

Yes; 1.XIII.1 is the latest text in the 'ca. 1959' texts, we think. As I recall it's a chronology of the Quendi from their Awakening to the Great Debate, but doesn't link in to Men or the death of the Trees at all. What am I forgetting?

hS