Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

1) it says in the table that Feanor was only 2 (regular) years old when Miriel died, but can't be the case according to 'Shibboleth' (or even the AAm)

2) why is the time difference between the begetting of Finrod and Finarfin & Earwen's marriage 105 years, while the time difference between the begetting of Fingolfin and Finwe & Indis' marriage is less than 30 years - besides, Findis is said to have been Fingolfin's older sister, which makes this matter even worse! I think this needs some consultation from the text on 'Finwe and Miriel' in MR

The answer to both of these is that this timescale was calculated by taking the AAm dates and adjusting only for the revised growth rates (ie, keeping everyone's ages the same at the various life events that affect them). In AAm, Miriel died 1 VY after Feanor's birth, which makes him less than 1 "growth-years" at the time.

It would be quite ridiculous to try and apply both the altered growth-rates and the Shibboleth to the timeline, and so of course I've done exactly that:



(The Shibboleth states that Miriel hung on until Feanor reached full growth - 72 years at this point. Finwe & Miriel 4, which postdates January 1959, gives the 12/12/3-year gaps from her death to Finwe's remarriage. XVIII provides that an Elf-woman needed to rest for at least 2 growth-years = 6 SY between children, more if she gave more of her vigour to the child. The rest is explained inline.)

It's silly. Turgon took 8 Life-Years, but Fingolfin only took the standard 2? The dude who faced down Morgoth single-handed? But any extension of the rest-period after Fingolfin's birth means extending the rest-period after Fingon's, to keep Turgon and Finrod in the same year - or changing Fingolfin's age when Fingon was born - or making Irime and Finarfin twins, which isn't actually contradicted by the text - or something. In any event, once you start down this path it leads to madness.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

3) I still think maybe the best course is to simply keep the relative spacing between the dates in AAm (unless otherwise stated)

It's certainly the sanest course, but it means explicitly ignoring the later developments on Elvish lifecycles.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

4) (unrelated to the above) - I've been re-reading PoME, and have my doubts about the whole 'Sauron corrupting Men' business...Anyway, in both Of Dwarves and Men and in a note to the Problem of Ros, it is Melkor who is consistently mentioned as the instigator of the original Fall of Men - for example:

All these things considered, I think we should push back the Awaking of Men even earlier - maybe we should adopt the (of course) modified and adjusted date of VY 1075 from VI.(Text A)?

The Awakening is already in the Timeline in 1778, which is the 1075 date as amended. It looks like 'Dwarves and Men' in particular is directly drawing from the Athrabeth here, which also explicitly connects the Master to Morgoth. It looks like "Sauron corrupting Men" is a discarded idea, and the best date we have is that 1075 (though at the time, while Melkor found Men, it was still Sauron corrupting them during the Captivity; never mind, never mind...)

EDIT: Actually, yes mind. ^_^ If "Of Dwarves and Men" is drawing from the Athrabeth / the Tale of Adanel, then there are two separate visits of "the Master" to early Men. He finds them very early, gives them gifts and proclaims himself Lord of the Dark. He then goes away for "a long time", and returns on a day when "the Sun's light began to fail, until it was blotted out and a great shadow fell on the world" and has them build a Temple.

I think that second visit is supposed to be Sauron, playing exactly the same trick he did in Numenor. The story holds that they are the same person - but it's a tale carried down the ages, and retold by someone who doesn't exactly believe it. This fits perfectly well with the later statements, since the original corruption is indeed by Melkor.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

P.S. Maybe you could also add this in your timeline:

The Elvish loremasters were of opinion that both languages [Hadorian and Beorian] were descended from one that had diverged (owing to some division of the people who had spoken it) in the course of, maybe, a thousand years of the slower change in the First Age. Though the time might well have been less, and change quickened by a mingling of peoples; for the language of Hador was apparently less changed and more uniform in style, whereas the language of Beor contained many elements that were alien in character. This contrast in speech was probably connected with the observable physical differences between the two peoples.

This I like. It has a precise date - 1000 years before the Hadorians entered Beleriand. I'm not sure we can precisely date the sojourn by the Sea of Rhun, so I have to leave that out for now.

On which point: Beor could have led the "Lesser Folk" all the way from Rhun to Beleriand, but the quote doesn't require it. "The Noldor departed Middle-earth, and eventually returned under their leader Feanor".

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

P.S. Do you have any plans of forming an ultimate timeline?

Outside the period from the Awakening to the Exiles reaching Beleriand, I feel like the timeline is pretty well known. All I'd be doing is copying the tables from Tolkien Gateway; it doesn't seem necessary.

hS