Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (and Seventh?) 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)?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

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

And VY, don't forget that. That's all he ever used if he was putting forth a number. There can't be a continuous count of years for the Elder Days, after all.

[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

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

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

Well...if 1.XIII (1) is the latest text of the bunch, and if that text has the Awakening of the Quendi in VY 850 - then, given the fact that Men awoke after the Elves, the Awakening of Men has to happen after VY 850 in that conception, doesn't it?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Well...if 1.XIII (1) is the latest text of the bunch, and if that text has the Awakening of the Quendi in VY 850 - then, given the fact that Men awoke after the Elves, the Awakening of Men has to happen after VY 850 in that conception, doesn't it?

I do see your point. All indications are that Tolkien was thinking of the Quendi awakening ca. 13,000 years before the death of the Trees, even if that specific source doesn't confirm the latter date. So Men would need to wake somewhere between VY 850 and 866. 1.VI.A has the Quendi wake in VY 1000, the Finding in 1090, and Men wake in 1100, which is before Melkor is defeated. In 1.XIII.1, the Quendi wake in VY 850 and are found in 865; applying the same ratio means Men would wake about 2/3 of the way through VY 866. 1.XIII.3 has the Great Debate about a VY before the war with Melkor, meaning late VY 866 is a plausible awakening date for Men - just enough time for Melkor to find them and set his plans in motion before he's taken.

End result: Men awaken ca. 10,000 years before the Trees are killed.

But, I'm not going to change the table, because that's a fairly long string of logic. The table records Tolkien's thoughts (or potential thoughts, in the Astronomy version) at various times; it doesn't attempt to make a "final timeline".

That comes next.

hS