Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[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