Tolkien's final First Age timeline

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

"4 In later writing Elmo is the grandfather of Celeborn (not as here his father): cf. UT:233–4; also XI:350."
endnote 4 to the XVIII text

Thank you! But I have to disagree with Hostetter on "later". XVIII is solidly dated to 1965 (being written on calendar pages); HoME XI:350 talks about a family tree which CT dates to December 1959, and confirms that text as the source for UT as well. Therefore "Celeborn is Elmo's son if the period from sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband lasted 3100 years" is the later idea.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Ah, but remember the footnote 5, which states that he was born in Beleriand - however, the footnote also states that the timespan between the arrival of the Eldar in Aman and the overthrow of Morgoth was more than 3,100 years, and since this is both vague and unworkable for the timeline, I assume you decided to ignore the footnote altogether?

Regardless, Celeborn as a 'descendant' (as opposed to 'son') of Elmo is definitely later, judging by the footnote 5.

The trouble is that this footnote is conditional.

Originally Posted by XVIII

"According to Elvish calculations, [sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband] was 3,100 loar. If that is correct,* then Celeborn was of unknown age when he entered Beleriand, but certainly 24 and full-grown...

*It probably was not; it was very likely longer. In that case Celeborn must have been a descendent (not son) of Elmo and born in Beleriand.

IF the First Age is an undefined amount of time longer, THEN Celeborn was not the son of Elmo. But accepting that IF means rejecting... well, the whole idea of a timeline, because we then have no idea how long the latter half of the Age should be. AAm would give us about 4067 years for the same period, so I suppose we could adopt that; but that means rejecting the 888 date for the death of the Trees, which lines up perfectly with the 3100 years figure. That's a lot to discard on the strength of "very likely".

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Also, why do you have Olwe's birth year as 2327? In your timeline, Elwe is born in 2270, so that's 57 years before Olwe - however, Tolkien gives Elwe's birth year as 2126, and Olwe's as 2185, i.e. a difference of 59 years instead. Ditto about Indis and Ingwil (49 years in Tolkien's timeline, 47 in yours). What am I missing? EDIT: Of course, the gestation. However, I'd personally keep the birth years as they are, and adjust the marriage instead. However, I still don't understand Elwe/Olwe discrepancy, it's not like we have the marriage date for their parents.

Additionally, I don't see any obvious reason why you converted the difference in the ages of Ingwe and Ilwen into 9 years (originally 3 years)? I mean, I understand the rationale (growth-years), but I don't understand why it is applicable in this case.

Elwe:Olwe was just a maths error; corrected. Very nicely, 59 years from Olwe's corrected year puts Elmo in 2388 - exactly the earliest year he could be born! I've upgraded him to "probable".

I feel like the marriage date for Ingwe is treated as more of a decision, while Indis' birth is a calculation. Ingwil's birth is then set to a specific date, independent of others. Both of them, by the way, come very close to the 45 years I have between Findis and Fingolfin - meaning Indis had her first kids as quickly as her parents.

The Ingwe:Ilwen age gap: my read is that at the time, Tolkien was aiming at the idea that men married at 24, women at 21. The three years between them was calculated from that, so I expanded it to meet the later aging.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Another thing is, maybe you could add an approximate date for the birth of Ilion, Ingwe's father? If the birth of Ingwe's first child is any indication, Ilion should be born sometime around c. 2107.

Hmm. I was going to say no, but actually, XVII.3(7) says that the 23rd and 24th generations should have the same age at marriage & interval between children. The Indis:Ingwil and Elwe:Olwe intervals are too different to rely on that half, but we can probably adopt the "age at first child", at least as an approximate.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

EDIT 3: Thanks for the mention!

You do the work, you get the credit.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Another few small nitpicks:

Thanks for these! I've corrected most of them; I'm not doing the diacritics yet because I'll just mess them up again. I've also looked over the "Elvish history" dates after the arrival in Aman and fixed them; the main difference is that I've regarded the arrival of the Teleri and the making-fast of Eressea as separate events, rather than assuming the journey took 12 SY for Finwe but 92 SY for Olwe.

I've taken a glance at the Grey Annals, and straightaway I've run into a problem: Luthien's birth is fixed at 1/3 of the way through Melkor's chaining, which would put her a hundred years before the departure of Olwe. ^_^

It's worth noting at this point that the other possible date for the chaining of Melkor is 12 VY before his release (the number has to be divisible by three); that falls in 2834, 30 years after the end of the March, and gives him plenty of time to corrupt Men if we think that's more plausible. Under that scheme, Luthien would be born in 3410, which would work nicely, but I don't know how it affects the rest of the GA.

More work needed, basically.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Thank you! But I have to disagree with Hostetter on "later". XVIII is solidly dated to 1965 (being written on calendar pages); HoME XI:350 talks about a family tree which CT dates to December 1959, and confirms that text as the source for UT as well. Therefore "Celeborn is Elmo's son if the period from sailing to Aman to the fall of Angband lasted 3100 years" is the later idea.



The trouble is that this footnote is conditional.



IF the First Age is an undefined amount of time longer, THEN Celeborn was not the son of Elmo. But accepting that IF means rejecting... well, the whole idea of a timeline, because we then have no idea how long the latter half of the Age should be. AAm would give us about 4067 years for the same period, so I suppose we could adopt that; but that means rejecting the 888 date for the death of the Trees, which lines up perfectly with the 3100 years figure. That's a lot to discard on the strength of "very likely".

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

Even so, while the footnote 5 is conditional, I'm not sure we should straight up delete a whole character (well...name on a family tree really), especially since even in the '3,100 loar' timeline the 'Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn' idea fits better in regards to the stops at the March.

Another thing is, even though Celeborn is older than Galadriel in every scheme, we very rarely see Elves marrying outside of their generation (which is the reason, I think, why Tolkien pushed Ingwe a generation above Finwe) - also, moving Celeborn up a generation means that Celeborn and Galadriel are 1st cousins once removed: this is almost bordering the 'Idril-Maeglin'...eh...situation. While I know that in his later schemes Tolkien made Celeborn and Galadriel into 1st cousins, I'm not completely sure if Tolkien himself even realized it.


And finally, lest you take anything Tolkien said in this chapter too seriously, there's this quote:

But the relative ages of the Kings Ingwë, Finwë, and Elwë is not known.

Which basically invalidates the entirety of Tolkien's elaborate schemes and calculations in one sentence IMO. Obviously I don't think you should take it up, but if you don't take it up it means that you provided some leeway in regards to the interpretation of the text...Everything that Tolkien ever wrote is conditional in one sense or another IMO, and the entire premise of the timeline relies on best-guesses and interpretation based on an idea Tolkien almost certainly would've changed - but, when in Rome...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Elwe:Olwe was just a maths error; corrected. Very nicely, 59 years from Olwe's corrected year puts Elmo in 2388 - exactly the earliest year he could be born! I've upgraded him to "probable".

I feel like the marriage date for Ingwe is treated as more of a decision, while Indis' birth is a calculation. Ingwil's birth is then set to a specific date, independent of others. Both of them, by the way, come very close to the 45 years I have between Findis and Fingolfin - meaning Indis had her first kids as quickly as her parents.

The Ingwe:Ilwen age gap: my read is that at the time, Tolkien was aiming at the idea that men married at 24, women at 21. The three years between them was calculated from that, so I expanded it to meet the later aging.

In regards to the Ingwe/Ilwen gap, perhaps you're right, but I still lean towards the more conservative side of just keeping the gap as written, and keep speculation to a minimum. Not that it really matters that much, but since we're splitting hairs...

And as to the marriages vs births, well, I don't actually have any good argument other than that I consider births more significant than marriages - but that's just my personal preference.

And yeah, BTW, you referred to Idril as Ingwe's granddaughter in your 'birth of Ilion' entry - she should be Ingwe's great-great-granddaughter. Again, sorry for the pedantic stuff, but for some reason these things stick out to me like a sore thumb.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I've taken a glance at the Grey Annals, and straightaway I've run into a problem: Luthien's birth is fixed at 1/3 of the way through Melkor's chaining, which would put her a hundred years before the departure of Olwe. ^_^

It's worth noting at this point that the other possible date for the chaining of Melkor is 12 VY before his release (the number has to be divisible by three); that falls in 2834, 30 years after the end of the March, and gives him plenty of time to corrupt Men if we think that's more plausible. Under that scheme, Luthien would be born in 3410, which would work nicely, but I don't know how it affects the rest of the GA.

More work needed, basically.

If I were you, I would just anchor all the YT Beleriand dates to the YT 1133, which Tolkien did in regards to Feanor's conception and birth in the NoME.

Or even better, I would just put the AAm and GA YT side by side in a spreadsheet (including your calculated dates) and make that the basis.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

In regards to the Ingwe/Ilwen gap, perhaps you're right, but I still lean towards the more conservative side of just keeping the gap as written, and keep speculation to a minimum. Not that it really matters that much, but since we're splitting hairs...

Perhaps you're right. The discussion on marriage ages appears to be from an earlier text, and at age 108 Ingwe would be 24 and a quarter, so it doesn't work anyway. I'll switch it back.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And yeah, BTW, you referred to Idril as Ingwe's granddaughter

I was trying to refer to Indis as Ilion's granddaughter. Look, I learnt the names of the Finweans, I didn't know there were gonna be a bunch of I-names to pick up as well!

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

If I were you, I would just anchor all the YT Beleriand dates to the YT 1133, which Tolkien did in regards to Feanor's conception and birth in the NoME.

Or even better, I would just put the AAm and GA YT side by side in a spreadsheet (including your calculated dates) and make that the basis.

The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!



This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So would I, but I can't find any reference to it. I am a bit worried by the whole "Celeborn of Alqualonde" story; my gut feeling is that it's later and therefore I should be using it, but it's so weird that I don't want to. The most salvagable version of it would be "Celeborn grandson of Elmo of Alqualonde", but I'm not sure Tolkien ever considered that (and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Ohh boy...Tolkien in his last 4 or 5 years of life practically settled on Celeborn being a Teler of Aman. And if that wasn't enough, he changed Celebrimbor's origin from that of a grandson of Feanor (as in his 1966 2nd edition of LOTR) to a Telerin companion of Celeborn during the Exile, to Celebrimbor being a Sinda descendant of Daeron (in the PoME)---this is why the "Translations from the Elvish" project constrains things to Tolkien's published works as a cornerstone.

Otherwise, you'd just go mad - heck, in the '70s Tolkien at least on two occasions kind of forgot about the existence of Fingolfin...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The latter falls down because I've moved the Finwean dates and the Valinorean History dates relative to each other. The former falls down because we specifically have an explanation for what Luthien's birthday means. Sooo instead, spreadsheets!



This version moves the fall of Utumno to after the March, as VI.B strongly implies should be the case. We lose the corruption of Men by Sauron (or at least any specific date for it), but get to retain the devastation of Beleriand in the fall of Angband as a justification for why the Valar wanted the Elves well out of the way. Melkor has ample time to sneak around corrupting Men while the Valar are staring at his gates, in line with the later comments you mentioned earlier.

I've largely followed the GA spacing after that. One date I'm not sure of is 1330 for Orcs entering Beleriand: NoME 1.XXII makes this 1320, but I think GA postdates that. It's hard to tell, but the notes to GA mention a 1320 date on the (earlier) AAm proper.

I think this works; as with all of these, the "time of peace" ends up being compressed, but the relative dating hangs together.

Given that the GA date to the early '50s, and the 1.XXII dates from c. 1958, I'd bet that the latter is more relevant.


And in regards to the imprisonment of Melkor - I think you're focusing on the wrong thing: you can simply, like I said before, anchor the early dates to the NoME (YT 1133 as the arrival of Elves to Aman, in accordance with YT 1132 in the GA when they left Beleriand).




EDIT: I think you can constrain the births of Cirdan and Eol. In regards to Cirdan, there's this:

Before ever they came to Beleriand the Teleri had developed a craft of boat-making; first as rafts, and soon as light boats with paddles made in imitation of the water-birds upon the lakes near their first homes, and later on the Great Journey in crossing rivers, or especially during their long tarrying on the shores of the Sea of Rhûn, where their ships became larger and stronger. But in all this work Círdan had ever been the foremost and most inventive and skilful.

- PoME, 'Last writings', note 29, pp. 391-2


And in regards to Eol, there's this:

Eöl should not be one of Thingol's kin, but one of the Teleri who refused to cross the Hithaeglir. But [later] he and a few others of like mood, averse to concourse of people, ... [had] crossed the [Mts] long ago and come to Beleriand.

- WotJ, 'Maeglin', note to §9, pp. 321-2

However, immediately following that note is this:

...but the relationship to Thingol would have point...

I explained my reasoning why these two pieces don't actually contradict each other in a thread I made a year ago or so.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

(and what do we do about Nimloth???).

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):

Originally Posted by Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn

: A different story, adumbrated but never told, of Galadriel's conduct at the time of the rebellion of the Noldor appears in a very late and partially illegible note: the last writing of my father's on the subject of Galadriel and Celeborn, and probably the last on Middle-earth and Valinorset down in the last month of his life. ... There [in Alqualondë] she met Celeborn, who is here again a Telerin prince, the grandson of Olwë of Alqualondë and thus her close kinsman.

--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Well, from People of Middle-earth (I don't have exact chapter--I'm typing one-handed, with a baby in one arm...): "[Celebrimbor] was a Teler, one of the three Teleri who accompanied Celeborn into exile. ...

If the idea of "three Teleri who joined Celeborn" could hold, no reason Nimloth's dad--or even Nimloth--couldn't be one of the three. But, if you really hold to "latest text is primary," then "Celeborn descendant of any kind of Elmo's" is probably out. As CT says (page 299 in my paperback copy of UT--I have my arm back):

--emphasis added

This post took long enough that I have proposed a solution and then obliterated the possibility of the problem...

Elmo, Galadhon, Galathil, and Nimloth can remain without worrying about their connection to Celeborn, I'd say, because The Last Word on the Subject very clearly removes Celeborn from Elmo's lineage, full stop.

Why a first-cousin marriage between Galadriel and Celeborn is fine and between Maeglin and Idril would have been verboten... might just be a Noldor thing (and Maeglin's enough of Eöl's son to have resented a Noldorin rule).

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Again, you'd go mad trying to fit this 'triangular' mess into a 'cube'...

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

This all hinges on the fact that Tolkien in his published works had a completely different idea. That is why I suggested to Huinesoron to adopt whatever doesn't contradict LOTR and RGEO.

Wholly agree!

Christopher Tolkien even states that had his father remembered what he'd added to the second edition about Celebrimbor, he'd have "undoubtedly" felt bound to the already published text.

I think there's no doubt Tolkien desired certain "purposed contradictions" in his legendarium, but I don't see any indication that he remembered what he'd already published about both Galadriel and Celeborn and still wanted to alter the canon. And it might seem an odd thing to forget about Galadriel's RGEO tale for example, but on the other hand, this might have been more a matter of not remembering -- at the moment of writing a given text or letter -- what he'd actually published as opposed to written.

In late texts there are various examples of Tolkien seemingly forgetting stuff, including: Beards, Glorfindel II, the Problem of Ros (where he indeed ultimately rejects an idea due to an already published detail). The following seems to be the mindset of an older Tolkien at least, noting Christopher Tolkien's statement in note 8 to Of Dwarves and Men

"I mention all this as an illustration of his intense concern to avoid discrepancy and inconsistency, even though in this case his anxiety was unfounded. For an earlier account of the Runes see VII. 452-5] CJRT, commentary, POME

Of course one could characterize this as Christopher Tolkien's opinion, given that his father did change certain details for the Second Edition at least, but in any case, I hold JRRT to what he published, especially given his often-changing mind, and where arguable contradiction is found, I put author-published description above even late ideas.

Put it this way: as altering already published work affects the art of world-building, I think Tolkien at least needs to be aware when he's contradicting something in print -- meaning, he needs to be aware for the alteration/new idea to be truly considered, and then, added, or not, "in story" for his Readership.

My opinion anyway.

[Arvegil145]

@Huinesoron - I think there might be a problem with using the '72 years until adulthood' figure.

The dates of characters' births and marriages in XIII.1 (which we're using as the template for the timeline) are predicated upon the carefully calculated dates in 'Scheme 7' of XVII.

However, 'Scheme 7', up to generation 13 assumes that the differences between the births of parents and children are less than 72 years (from 25 years in the first three generations and getting progressively longer until reaching 73 years in generation 13).

Another problem is the gestation period, which is only 1 year in 'Scheme 7'. Which means that our timeline's Elves have to be 75 years old at minimum before having children: and if we apply this at a constant rate before reaching gen. 13, we get a problem.



Related to the above - I would still change 864/144 to 863/144, and move back the following Valian years by a year, in order to preserve Tolkien's SY. The main reason is the elaborate calculations I mentioned above, who knows how messing with SY dates for the dates of birth of characters would impact those calculations.

Again, I stress that XIII.1 was predicated upon them. (For example, Tolkien's timeline has Ingwe born in 2072, Finwe in 2120 and Elwe in 2126 - pulled straight from 'Scheme 7'.)

It would also shave off 144 years, making the timeline last for c. 5930 years, a bit closer to the SA and TA duration, if not by much. Which might mean that you'd have to jettison a whole VY during the March, something I find preferable.

[Tar Elenion]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I'm aware that the table dates from the end of 1959, but I could've sworn that there's another place which dates the Elmo-Galadhon-Celeborn family tree to the late '60s, but my brain isn't cooperating...

I keep thinking that too, but now I am wondering if it might be this:
"On the second of these late additions to the typescript, the birth of Eldún and Elrún in the year 500, see pp. 257 and 300, note 16."

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Given that the GA date to the early '50s, and the 1.XXII dates from c. 1958, I'd bet that the latter is more relevant.

I think GA2 postdates XXII, specifically:

Originally Posted by CT's comment to GA paragraphs 25-29

In GA1 the whole passage given here in the annals 1300-50 and 1330 is placed under 1320... In a note to the year 1320 on the typescript of AAm my father added: 'The Orcs first appear in Beleriand'l in GA2 the event is dated ten Valian years later, in 1330.

So 1330 is the later date.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And in regards to the imprisonment of Melkor - I think you're focusing on the wrong thing: you can simply, like I said before, anchor the early dates to the NoME (YT 1133 as the arrival of Elves to Aman, in accordance with YT 1132 in the GA when they left Beleriand).

We can do this very easily, anchoring off the Late Timeline's date for Olwe's departure, and it doesn't really work:

• GA 1150 - LT 3237 - Olwe departs.
• GA 1152 - LT 3256 - Elwe awakes.
• GA 1200 - LT 3716 - Luthien born.
• GA 1250 - LT 4195 - Dwarves arrive
• GA 1300 - LT 4674 - Menegroth built.
• GA 1330 - LT 4961 - Orcs enter Beleriand.
• GA 1350 - LT 5153 - Coming of Denethor.
• [GA 1495] - LT 5473 - Death of the Trees.

The GA entry for 1350 says "Of the long years of peace that followed after the coming of Denethor there is little tale". In this timeline, those "long years" are less than 2.5 Valian Years, when GA would have them be almost 10 VY! The "long years of peace" end up starting after Feanor already made the Silmarils. My proposal at least gives them 4VY, which is something. So I think anchoring Beleriand to the AAm claim that the Dwarves entered Beleriand in the same year that Feanor made the Tengwar is more reasonable.

Luthien is actually completely separate to that question, but as Turin said to Orodreth, we really do have to think about Morgoth:

Originally Posted by Grey Annals 2

It is not known to any among Elves or Men when Luthien, only child of Elwe and Melian, came into the World, fairest of all the Children of Iluvatar that were or shall be. But it is held that it was at the end of the first [of three] age of the Chaining of Melkor...

And a 12VY Chaining fits! It fits with Luthien's place in the timeline, it fits with the assertion that the March occured before the fall of Utumno:

Originally Posted by VI.B

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.

And it fits with the quote you found regarding the Fall of Men:

Originally Posted by Of Dwarves and Men

The Atani and their kin were the descendants of peoples who in the Dark Ages had resisted Morgoth or had renounced him, and had wandered ever westward from their homes far away in the East seeking the Great Sea...

Set against that is one assertion, also from VI.B:

Originally Posted by VI.B

With regard to Men... the arising and fall took place during the "Captivity of Melkor", and was achieved not by Melkor in person, but by Sauron. It occured about 100 VY after the "Awakening of the Quendi"... if Men arose in VY 1100... the "Finding" should evidently be about VY 1090...

Which, if we take the actual figure of 10VY between the Finding and the "arising and fall", means the latter would sit in 3600, just about a thousand years before the (approximate) separation of the Hadorians and Beorians.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

EDIT: I think you can constrain the births of Cirdan and Eol.

I think Cirdan is confirmed somewhere to have been born by Cuivienen. We could probably put a note about Eol on the relevant entry (looks like it's 2931); it's not like we know how he's related to Elwe anyway, so missing that out won't be too hard.

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

I keep thinking that too, but now I am wondering if it might be this:
"On the second of these late additions to the typescript, the birth of Eldún and Elrún in the year 500, see pp. 257 and 300, note 16."

300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

hS

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I think GA2 postdates XXII, specifically:



So 1330 is the later date.

I consulted Hammond and Scull's 'Chronology', and all the references to the GA are within c. 1951-2 range.

But perhaps you're right, though Tolkien might've reverted back to the GA1 in the NoME excerpt of the AAm.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

We can do this very easily, anchoring off the Late Timeline's date for Olwe's departure, and it doesn't really work:

• GA 1150 - LT 3237 - Olwe departs.
• GA 1152 - LT 3256 - Elwe awakes.
• GA 1200 - LT 3716 - Luthien born.
• GA 1250 - LT 4195 - Dwarves arrive
• GA 1300 - LT 4674 - Menegroth built.
• GA 1330 - LT 4961 - Orcs enter Beleriand.
• GA 1350 - LT 5153 - Coming of Denethor.
• [GA 1495] - LT 5473 - Death of the Trees.

The GA entry for 1350 says "Of the long years of peace that followed after the coming of Denethor there is little tale". In this timeline, those "long years" are less than 2.5 Valian Years, when GA would have them be almost 10 VY! The "long years of peace" end up starting after Feanor already made the Silmarils. My proposal at least gives them 4VY, which is something. So I think anchoring Beleriand to the AAm claim that the Dwarves entered Beleriand in the same year that Feanor made the Tengwar is more reasonable.

Luthien is actually completely separate to that question, but as Turin said to Orodreth, we really do have to think about Morgoth:



And a 12VY Chaining fits! It fits with Luthien's place in the timeline, it fits with the assertion that the March occured before the fall of Utumno:



And it fits with the quote you found regarding the Fall of Men:



Set against that is one assertion, also from VI.B:



Which, if we take the actual figure of 10VY between the Finding and the "arising and fall", means the latter would sit in 3600, just about a thousand years before the (approximate) separation of the Hadorians and Beorians.

I'm not sure if the 'long years of peace after the coming of Denethor' should be taken as gospel...

But my biggest problem is that the '3 ages of Melkor's imprisonment' in the revised timeline is essentially made up - if anything I'd keep the 300 VY=c. 2,875 SY figure. But that would mean that Melkor is only released in c. FA 5276!

One thing that always bothered me is that Melkor doesn't start making a mess of things immediately after being released - yes, Tulkas is watching him, but I'd imagine he could find his way around.

In the end, I suppose what matters is what you take as the cornerstone:

1) Melkor's 3 ages of imprisonment, and how faithfully do you wish to stick to the original c. 2,875 SY figure

2) the departure of the Vanyar and Noldor to Aman in YT 1132

3) or something else altogether


Perhaps you could even do what you did with the AAm - anchor the earlier YT GA dates around the departure of the Vanyar and the Noldor (YT 1132), and anchor the later figures around, say, the death of the Trees (YT 1495/VY 888)? Of course, what counts as 'later figures'?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I think Cirdan is confirmed somewhere to have been born by Cuivienen. We could probably put a note about Eol on the relevant entry (looks like it's 2931); it's not like we know how he's related to Elwe anyway, so missing that out won't be too hard.



300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

About Cirdan - yeah, I'll have to go dig up a reference, but I'm pretty sure you're right.

And yes, Eol can easily still be Thingol's kin even if he decided to stop at the Hithaeglir (I mean, there are 23 generations between Thingol and Enel/Enelye!). Which would also explain why he gave him Nan Elmoth (an entire forest), even if Eol had to work for it - but perhaps that's what Tolkien had in mind when he said that kinship with Thingol 'would have point'.

[Tar Elenion]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

300 note 16 points back to the same genealogical tables. 257 places Elrun and Eldun in the Wanderings of Hurin. I'm starting to think Nimloth herself literally only appears once, let alone her relationship to any other Sindar!

hS

I'm referring to the "late addition" to the typescript part.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

I'm referring to the "late addition" to the typescript part.

Huh...

I imagine that, as seen many times before, Tolkien doodled on the page of the December 1959 'Genealogy' - I wonder what the first of these 'late additions' were?



@Huinesoron - I wonder what you make of the whole 'Celeborn as a Teler' and 'Celebrimbor, descendant of Daeron' situation?