From Tolkien Gateway

Experimental Timeline: Timeline-temp

Just discovered this when searching for Goldilocks Gardner...
One simple yet life-altering question: should this timeline have any other links in it? *dreads* --Bokkie 18:52, 9 Sep 2005 (EDT)

FA Errors[edit]

There are two of the year 471! [Just copy 'n pasted from Halion's Excel file "Tale of Years" I guess ;)]

Isn't Saelind (born 344) the same person as Andreth (born 361)? [Couldn't find the both of them in the Indices of the Silm or UT. btw.]


I had an idea that I wanted to make sure it was fine before I did it. Many of the dates are disputed. Perhaps an asterisk could be added to those ones? --Narfil Palùrfalas 21:50, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

Great idea! Maybe later we can delve in deeper as to the range and other possibilities for the date but I think an asterisk would be a great addition to let people know its not an exact fact. --Hyarion 22:07, 9 June 2006 (EDT)

A More Accurate Timeline?[edit]

I found this timeline for the Elder Days that looks much more accurate. Would anyone object to replacing the info here for the other Elder Days timeline? --Ebakunin 00:50, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Fine by me, although maybe we could make a quick run through to make sure they didn't leave anything out that we already have, otherwise it looks great. I'm not sure copying it entirely would be the most legal thing either, maybe we can rewrite it in our own words. --Hyarion 09:26, 10 July 2006 (EDT)

Fourth Age years?[edit]

Perhaps I'm just bad in numbers, but it seems to me that to many of the years of the F.A. are not correct.

According to the Tale of Years (p. 1098 in my 2004 edition) king Elessar died in S.R. 1541 which was the year 120 of the Fourth Age (Gondor) - see footnote 1. Thus one should retract 1421 from the S.R. years to get the F.A. years. Am I right? This would cause changes to all the years that are changed from the S.R. to the F.A. years (1 > T.A. 3021, 3 > 2, 5 > 4 and so on).

Some other comments:

1 Éomer and Lothiriel wed, Elanor Gardner born ---> T.A. 3021; by the way: Elanor Gardner or Elanor Gamgee or Elanor the Fair? I just thought that only Frodo had the surname Gardner

24 Death of Imrahil. Elphir becomes Prince of Dol Amroth. Firiel Gardner born ---Who is this Firiel? As far as I know, Tolman was the youngest of the children of Sam and Rosie. And I suppose that the name should be Fíriel, not Firiel, if anything.

62 Death of Rose Gardner. Círdan and Samwise pass over sea ---Rose Gamgee, I suppose. Or did Samwise really change his name to Gardner??

--Tik 17:04, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

I didn't notice this question. I'll answer it now. Frodo did not change his name to Gardner; he kept Baggins. Sam did. But I'm not sure who Firiel is. --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:50, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
Sorry for being unclear again. I didn't mean F. Baggins but Frodo Gardner, the son of master Samwise. --Tik 03:15, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
So you thought that just Frodo Gardner had that name? Based on the family tree in the back of the book, I suppose. But no, Samwise changed his name from Gamgee to Gardner. I'll find a quote for you, if you wish.
I found it. On the introduction page of Appendix C (and I'm sure elsewhere also), it says "In addition to some genealogical information is provided concerning Samwise the founder of the family of Gardner, later famous and influential". And notice, in the family tree, how it puts "Gardner" in parentheses below Samwise's name. I saw it somewhere else too, if I could only remember. . . --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:44, 28 July 2006 (EDT)
On ‘Firiel Gardner’, that is an error for ‘Fíriel Fairbairn’, she was a daughter not of Sam and Rose, but of Elanor Gardner and Fastred of Greenholm, so presumably she had surname given in the ‘Longfather tree of Master Samwise’ in Appendix C for the descendants of this couple. She is only mentionend in the introduction to The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and there is no source for her year of birth. — Mithrennaith 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Morgoth or Melkor? Years of the Lamps?[edit]

Perhaps I'm just hypercritical or smth, but I think there is a kind of anachronism if Melkor is called Morgoth already in the Years of the Lamps.

--Tik 17:25, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure about your second question, but as to the first one, no, Melkor was not named Morgoth until he destroyed the Two Trees. See the quote below:
" [Fëanor has just been told of Formenos by messengers, how his father was killed and the Silmarils taken] . . . Then Fëanor rose, and lifting up his hand before Manwë he cursed Melkor, naming him Morgoth, the Black Foe of the World; and by that name only was he known to the Eldar ever after. . ."
The Silmarillion, "Of the Flight of the Noldor"
Do you mind rephrasing your second question a little? --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:46, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
No, of course: I suppose that Tolkien himself did not use the term "Years of the Lamps" in the meaning "The Age that began with the arrival of the Valar to Arda and ended with the flowering of the Trees". The Years of the Lamps began only about 1500 Valian Years after the beginning of this Age and ended 50 Valian Years before the end of the Age). In the Annals of Aman (HoME X, 51) Tolkien only talks about "the Days before days" when referring to the Age before the Years of the Trees. So, how should one name this era, or Age? I'm not quite happy with calling it the Years of the Lamps. Of course I should have a better suggestion instead, but unfortunately I do not have one.

--Tik 03:11, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Well, I shall have to look deeper into that, but I do know in the Silmarillion in the chapter "Of the Beginning of Days", it says that time was not counted until the flowering of the trees. I hope that helps. . . a little. --Narfil Palùrfalas 07:44, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Late YOTT[edit]

This whole section is messed up:

1492 Morgoth slays Finwë and steals the Silmarils
1495 Morgoth destroys the Two Trees. First Kinslaying at Alqualondë
1496 Doom of Mandos
1497 Fëanor and sons enters Beleriand. Death of Denethor. Burning of the ships at Losgar, death of Amras
1498 Dagor-nuin-Giliath ("Battle Under the Stars"), death of Fëanor, Maedhros captured
1499 Maedhros imprisoned upon Thangorodrim
1500 Creation of Moon and Sun. Host of Noldor enter Beleriand under Fingolfin. Battle of the Lammoth, death of Argon

Firstly, the time Morgoth slew Finwë and stole the Silmarils is the same day that he destroyed the two trees. Also, it is saying that it took five years for the Noldor to get from Aman to Middle-earth. The book gives no reference for that, and I would say that the most would be two years. For instance, it says that it took three years to cross the Helcaraxë, and it was a whole year after the burning of the ships at Losgar before Morgoth attacked them. Now, based on the assumption that the world was round like a plate at that time, the Helcaraxë might be two months in the crossing, perhaps a little more, but definately not three years. Also, Morgoth attacked the Noldor of Fëanor before they could establish themselves. There are numerous other arguments against the above dates, but the point is that they are all messed up. I'm not sure what we want to do with this, but I know we don't want to keep the dates the EoA gives. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:48, 6 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree, there are a lot of inconsistencies. Our best bet is most likely taking a few of the more accurate timelines on the internet and making sure they all show the same date for the event, if any timeline differs then we can research it more. Insert non-formatted text here
Looking at the number of times it has been accessed (3,000+ times), I think we should probably add a note at the top stating its current innaccuracy and its need for revision. --Narfil Palùrfalas 13:05, 18 February 2007 (EST)
I was wrong about the Helcaraxë. . . believe it or not, Tolkien states that the crossing took an amazing three years in the Grey Annals (it looks suspiciously like he was trying to compute an even 1500, but never mind). Nevertheless I was right about its innaccuracies otherwise. Based on this writing (written in the 50s, found in The War of the Jewels) and the Annals of Aman (found in Morgoth's Ring), I suggest that we go through this timeline and fix/confirm everything, as well as source it. I am working on a Círdan rewrite at the moment, but when I am done, this shall go under top priority. --Narfil Palùrfalas 14:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)


Okay, now that we (or just myself?) are rather decided on "Fourth Age X" I'm leaning towards the idea of adding redirects from the abbreviated, "F.A. X" since this version will be used frequently in the articles. That'll force us to create quite a few redirects but I'm up for the challenge. What do you guys think? I would also like to create some sort of template/layout for the year articles so they don't just have a few bulleted items in them. Any suggestions? --Hyarion 14:47, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd be up to it. Do you think that it would be better to use periods or not? Also there's the problem that First and Fourth begin with F. I'd used FA for "First Age" and FoA for "Fourth Age". What do you think? --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:38, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Just personal opinion (I will help out with whatever is decided): I don't think the periods are absolutely necessary to denote that the capital letters are initials. It looks "cleaner" without them, IMO. I like FA and there an article already to explain the various acronyms found throughout the site? As for making lots of redirects, I will be having major oral surgery soon and that is something I can see myself helping out with quite a bit while I recuperate. By layout for the years do you mean something like Wikipedia's 1977, for example? --fleela 16:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
My initial opinion of the periods is to have them as they are present in the Appendices, is there anywhere in which J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien did not use the periods? I'm unable to find any abbreviation of Fourth Age in Tolkien's works aside from "F.A." which definitely won't do. FoA or Fo.A would be my vote as well for Fourth Age. I'm still unsure with what to do with the Years of the Lamps/Trees. The main aspect of Wikipedia's year article I wouldn't mind borrowing would be the year navigation in the top right, we should at least allow the visitor to click forward or backward a few years. --Hyarion 17:05, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
The only -without period- abbreviations I can think of off the top of my head are in Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. Also, he uses FO as the short form for Fourth Age, but, to me, that doesn't seem very intuitive for a casual reader. And now that I look at it some more, Fo.A (with period) looks more self-explanatory than FoA, where the "o" usually stands for "of" in that type of acronym. --fleela 18:12, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
I personally prefer the form without the periods. It's easier, in my opinion, and looks better. But Tolkien does use periods in the Appendices, and also I agree that "Fo.A" looks better than "FoA". But "Fo.A" would be a little inconsistent if we did not have periods; with periods it would be "Fo.A.". Overall I'm fine with whatever standard we set; this is just my preference. --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:50, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay then, I'm pretty confident periods and Fo.A is our best bet. Before we make the redirects however we should create the articles. And before we create the articles I would like to go through and double check all the years to make sure they are correct. So from now on if you verify a year is correct go ahead and create the article (preferably listing the reference) and link the Timeline to it. Then we'll know what has been verified. --Hyarion 18:56, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

More date issuses[edit]

For the dates that are preceded by a month and day, should the Age abbreviation come before or after the year? Compare the dates in the infoboxes of Battle of the Morannon and Battle of the Hornburg. --fleela 09:13, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Timeline confusions[edit]

I have noticed there seems to be some contradictions in this timeline page and some of the character pages. For example: Here it says Fingolfin became High King of the Noldor in First Age 5, but at his page it says at the bottom he became king in First Age 1, and here it says that Beren Erchamion was born in First Age 432 but at his page it says he was born in First Age 443. Which date is it? Have these things not been decided here yet or is it simply an error?

Personally, I think that in the case of Fingolfin the date given here is more likely because Fingolfin's host began arriving in Middle-earth, in Mithlum when the sun rose at about the same time men awoke. At this time, the matter of the succession's rights had not been resolved yet and the Noldor began arguing over who would be the ultimate leader. It was only after Fingon rescued Maedhros from his tortures on Thangorodrim that the matter was resolved and the overlordship was passed peacefully to the House of Fingolfin. A date of First Age 5 would seem more appropriatel.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Probably a combination of the two. There's still a lot of contradictions on the wiki that need to be cleaned out. The whole Timeline article needs a good going over, cleanup and sourcing. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Age Dates[edit]

I mentioned this one before (although I can't remember where), and it's still bothering me. So, at the risk of screwing up all Fourth Age dates, I'd like to clarify something.

"1422: With the beginning of this year the Fourth Age began in the count of years in the Shire; but the numbers of the years in Shire Reckoning were continued."
"1541: In this year (Fourth Age (Gondor) 120) on March 1st came at last the Passing of King Elessar."
Furthermore, Appendix A says Gimli went over the Sea in T.A. 3141 or Fo.A. 120.

This information shows us clearly that Fo.A. 1 = T.A. 3022 = S.R. 1422 (as Fo.A. 120 = T.A. 3141/S.R. 1541 this means Fo.A. 101 = T.A. 3122/S.R. 1522 and therefore Fo.A. 1= T.A. 3022/S.R. 1422). However, according to the Timeline, many of the dates a year out in that they say T.A. 3021 is Fo.A. 1 and not T.A. 3022. By my understanding, many entries in the Timeline, many Fourth Age articles, and countless other event and character articles (particularly Hobbity ones) are one year out.

Sorry if this is confusing, but I need to check, do other people reach the same conclusion as me on this and that a good number of articles with Fourth Age dates need changing? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect people do, but they would be wrong. As a calendar essentially is simply an enumeration of days, or years, using specific enumeration terms according to specific rules, it would seem that calculating with it shouldn’t be difficult. In practice, as soon as several different calendars are involved, most people appear to be unable to do it.
The problem is that we have here at least three different calendars (Stewards’ Reckoning with years of the Third Age, Shire Calendar and New Reckoning with years of the Fourth Age) and the years in those calendars are not coterminous, i.e. they do not start and end on the same days.
Mith’s first quote (from Appendix B, actually) states “With the beginning of this year the Fourth Age began in the count of years in the Shire”, his second “In this year (Fourth Age (Gondor) 120)”. The words I’ve emphasised directly relate to the fact that the calendaric Fourth Age did not begin at exactly the same day in different calendars. In the same source, only a few lines before the first quote, it says:

S.R. 1421 The Last of the Third Age
March ..... 25 ..... On this day the Fourth Age began in the reckoning of Gondor.
September ..... 29 ..... Frodo and Bilbo depart over Sea with the Three Keepers. The end of the Third Age.

(Emphasis mine again.) That implies that in the reckoning of Gondor (using the New Reckoning and counting years of the Fourth age), the Fourth Age began slightly over nine months earlier than in the Shire Reckoning! Both for calendaric purposes only, as the same source clearly states that the Third Age ended with the passing of the Ringbearers on September 29, S.R. 1421, implying that the Fourth Age truly began on the next day, September 30, S.R. 1421.
Likewise, Appendix D states:

The Fourth Age was held to have begun with the departure of Master Elrond, which took place in September 3021; but for purposes of record in the Kingdom Fourth Age 1 was the year that began according to the New Reckoning In March 25, 3021, old style.
This reckoning was in the course of the reign of King Elessar adopted in all his lands except the Shire, where the old calendar was retained and Shire Reckoning was continued. Fourth Age 1 was thus called 1422; and in so far as the Hobbits took any account of the change of Age, they maintained that it began with 2 Yule 1422, and not in the previous March.

So, while in the Shire, Fo.A. 1 corresponded to S.R. 1422, the year Fo.A. 1 as it was counted in Gondor in the New Reckoning corresponded (roughly) to the last nine months of S.R. 1421 and the first three of S.R. 1422. And thus, in the Shire, Fo.A. N corresponds to S.R. N+1421, but Fo.A. N in Gondor corresponds to the last nine months of S.R. N+1420 and the first three of S.R. N+1421. That may explain most of the cases where events in Fo.A. N are dated to S.R. N+1420 (or T.A. N+3020), instead of S.R. N+1421 (or T.A. N+3021); or conversely, events in S.R. M+1421 (or T.A. M+3021) are dated to Fo.A. M+1, instead of Fo.A. M.
An example is that of the year Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck went to Gondor. In Appendix B is stated:

1484 In the spring of the year a message came from Rohan to Buckland that King Éomer wished to see Master Holdwine once again. Meriadoc was then old (102) but still hale. He took counsel with his friend the Thain, and soon after they handed over their goods and offices to their sons and rode away over the Sarn Ford, and they were not seen again in the Shire. It was heard after that Master Meriadoc came to Edoras and was with King Éomer before he died in that autumn. Then he and Thain Peregrin went to Gondor and passed what short years were left to them in that realm, until they died and were laid in Rath Dínen among the great of Gondor.

According to the reckoning of the Shire, this thus happened in Fo.A. 63. The dates given for Éomer in Appendix A part II conform to this Shire usage:

2991–F.A. 63 (3084) Éomer Éadig

However, the ‘Note on the Shire Records’ says:

..... the Thain’s Book in Minas Tirith. That book was a copy, made at the request of King Elessar, of the Red Book of the Periannath, and was brought to him by the Thain Peregrin when he retired to Gondor in IV 64.

This is quite correct according to the usage of Gondor, where Fo.A. 64 began in March of S.R. 1484, and so was current when in the autumn of S.R. 1484 King Éomer died, and subsequently Meriadoc and Peregrin went to Gondor. This example has become rather well known because J.E.A. Tyler, apparently one of the many people unable to manipulate calendars with different alignment of years, appended a note to the article on the Thain’s Book in his Tolkien Companion and New Tolkien Companion concluding that the date in the ‘Note on the Shire Records’ is a typographical error (In the Complete Tolkien Companion the note has been dropped).
So the two different alignments of the Fourth Age with the Third Age do not necessarily indicate the presence of errors, rather they go back to the different epochs for the Fourth Age, as used in the calendars of Gondor and the Shire. Thus they can exist at the same time. But it may be advisable to indicate, everywhere where Fourth Age dates are given, which epoch is being used. — Mithrennaith 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New Timeline?[edit]

I've edited the timelines and have noticed that, especially for Timeline/Second Age and Timeline/Third Age, the events seem to be clogged up with births and deaths. I recommend another timeline to be created with only those dates, while other events, such as military conflicts, emigrations/immigrations, construction projects, voyages, and other events. Does anyone else agree? --DoctorWellington 00:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No. So, the timeline is on my permanent to-do list. If you look at the First Age, it is substantially cleaned up in comparison and this process just needs to happen for the other ages. Births and deaths are the most common events. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 07:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood. --DoctorWellington 22:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)