The Lord of the Rings as [Greenlandian] Fantasy in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien [edited title]

[Hriston]

[Edit. The term Neolithic in this post has been replaced with terms relating to the geologic time scale to clarify its emphasis on time-period rather than measures of cultural development.]

This came up in another thread, and I've branched it off here to avoid further derailing that discussion.

From The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (1981), Letter #211 (p. 283 in my copy):

... I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap* in time between the Fall of Barad-dûr and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.​

...​

*I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years: that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.​

It's unclear what the Professor meant by "our Days". His use of the word now in his footnote would seem to suggest the present date of the writing of the letter in the year 1958, which would place the events of the LotR in about 4,000 BC, near the [middle of the Northgrippian Age (6,326 BC - 2,250 BC).] Personally, I prefer to think he meant "our current (Sixth) Age" which I'd identify with the Iron Age beginning c. 1,000 to 800 BC, which puts the events of the LotR at about 7,000 or 6,800 BC which corresponds well with Plato's date for the sinking of Atlantis (c. 9,600 BC) if we assume an identification between Atlantis and Númenor. Either way, the date is either well within [the Northgrippian Age or near the end of the earlier Greenlandian Age] for the purpose of setting a time period.

Thoughts?

 

[Reynard]

Tolkien potentially "tucking" the history of Middle Earth into.the prehistory of Earth does not in any way make it neolithic. Lord of the Rings is distinctly medieval, with a Celtics Arthurian vibe (except the Hobbits, who are Edwardian anachronisms). Numenor is clearly Classical. That there are thousands of years of history has more to do with language modeling than world building.

 

[briggart]

This came up in another thread, and I've branched it off here to avoid further derailing that discussion.

From The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien (1981), Letter #211 (p. 283 in my copy):

... I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap* in time between the Fall of Barad-dûr and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.​

...​

*I imagine the gap to be about 6000 years: that is we are now at the end of the Fifth Age, if the Ages were of about the same length as S.A. and T.A. But they have, I think, quickened; and I imagine we are actually at the end of the Sixth Age, or in the Seventh.​

It's unclear what the Professor meant by "our Days". His use of the word now in his footnote would seem to suggest the present date of the writing of the letter in the year 1958, which would place the events of the LotR in about 4,000 BC, near the end of the Neolithic or beginning of the Copper Age, depending on where you are. Personally, I prefer to think he meant "our current (Sixth) Age" which I'd identify with the Iron Age beginning c. 1,000 to 800 BC, which puts the events of the LotR at about 7,000 or 6,800 BC which corresponds well with Plato's date for the sinking of Atlantis (c. 9,600 BC) if we assume an identification between Atlantis and Númenor. Either way, the date is either well within or close at least enough to be considered "Neolithic" for the purpose of setting a time period.

Thoughts?

Broadly speaking, Tolkien imagined his stories as part of our world legendary past, but his view of when exactly they fit into this past changed over the years. In the version of the mythology represented in Lost/Unfinished Tales, there were much closer connections to Earth actual history, with direct references to Babylon, Troy and Rome, with the latter invasion of Britain (Tol Eressea) triggering the last great migration of the Elves westward.

These ideas were later abandoned, in favor of pushing the mythology farther back into Earth's past, but this did not significantly alter the cultural, societal, and technological levels represented in the stories, which are definitely well beyond what is attested for real world Neolithic.

 

[Hriston]

Tolkien potentially "tucking" the history of Middle Earth into.the prehistory of Earth does not in any way make it neolithic.

Well, the dating he gives in his letter, as I've pointed out, means the Third Age is imagined to transpire during the Neolithic. I think that counts for something! The Third Age also has some features I'd associate with the Neolithic, namely a sparse "points of light" pattern of isolated settlements and the existence of megalithic buildings and monuments such as the mounds of the Barrow-Downs, Isengard and Orthanc, the Bridge of Osgiliath, the Argonath, and the walls of Minas Tirith. In fact, the name Gondor means "stone-land" because of its many stone structures.

Lord of the Rings is distinctly medieval, with a Celtics Arthurian vibe (except the Hobbits, who are Edwardian anachronisms).

The Professor was a medievalist, so it isn't surprising there's a lot of medieval influence in his work. That's not in dispute! I think he might object to your characterizing his work as Celtic (a language of which, if I remember correctly, he said he disliked the sound). And it's also not surprising that hobbits have an Edwardian character, since those were the people he knew in his childhood. But I would say an author can have any number of influences, so none of this precludes his story being set in a Neolithic time-period.

Numenor is clearly Classical.

Not quite. From the same letter I quoted in the OP (#211, p. 281):

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms.​

Of course this doesn't mean they were Egyptians, but we might think of them as precursors to the Egyptians.

That there are thousands of years of history has more to do with language modeling than world building.

Yes, I know he wanted to give languages room to develop, but that's a factor that drove his world building. That and a desire to tell a good story, and as he said in his letter, the events of his story, he felt, required it to be set sufficiently far into the past for the suspension of disbelief, what he calls "literary credibility".

 

[Reynard]

Well, the dating he gives in his letter, as I've pointed out, means the Third Age is imagined to transpire during the Neolithic. I think that counts for something! The Third Age also has some features I'd associate with the Neolithic, namely a sparse "points of light" pattern of isolated settlements and the existence of megalithic buildings and monuments such as the mounds of the Barrow-Downs, Isengard and Orthanc, the Bridge of Osgiliath, the Argonath, and the walls of Minas Tirith. In fact, the name Gondor means "stone-land" because of its many stone structures.


The Professor was a medievalist, so it isn't surprising there's a lot of medieval influence in his work. That's not in dispute! I think he might object to your characterizing his work as Celtic (a language of which, if I remember correctly, he said he disliked the sound). And it's also not surprising that hobbits have an Edwardian character, since those were the people he knew in his childhood. But I would say an author can have any number of influences, so none of this precludes his story being set in a Neolithic time-period.


Not quite. From the same letter I quoted in the OP (#211, p. 281):

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms.​

Of course this doesn't mean they were Egyptians, but we might think of them as precursors to the Egyptians.


Yes, I know he wanted to give languages room to develop, but that's a factor that drove his world building. That and a desire to tell a good story, and as he said in his letter, the events of his story, he felt, required it to be set sufficiently far into the past for the suspension of disbelief, what he calls "literary credibility".

I think you are stretching. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the material culture of any of the peoples of Middle Earth approximated that of the neolithic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, the dating he gives in his letter, as I've pointed out, means the Third Age is imagined to transpire during the Neolithic. I think that counts for something! The Third Age also has some features I'd associate with the Neolithic, namely a sparse "points of light" pattern of isolated settlements and the existence of megalithic buildings and monuments such as the mounds of the Barrow-Downs, Isengard and Orthanc, the Bridge of Osgiliath, the Argonath, and the walls of Minas Tirith. In fact, the name Gondor means "stone-land" because of its many stone structures.

I mean, no.

Not even slightly.

The structures described in LotR are far beyond the high medieval and perhaps renaissance eras in terms of construction, let alone the neolithic/copper age/bronze age, and it really seems like people are using steel weapons and armour, riding horses (which didn't happen until like, the 1000s BC at earliest), with stirrups (like early AD, I forget when), building factories (!!!) and so on.

If anything, all of that stuff about barrows and so on, which are clearly a thing of the deep past in LotR, suggests LotR is a thousands of years after its own neolithic/bronze age, which would necessarily be a whole other separate archaeological thing.

Basically Tolkien knew a huge amount of legends and mythology, but was incredibly ignorant about archaeology to think that he could somehow "slip this in there". Even in the 1930s that was a profoundly silly idea.

The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms.

I don't think Tolkien would have agreed, and it's nonsensical.

Also, let's be real about Tolkien's letters for a minute - he expresses a lot of ideas, but not all of them are consistent with either the actual works as written, or his own later letters, and this particular flight of fancy is probably best ignored.

 

[briggart]

But I would say an author can have any number of influences, so none of this precludes his story being set in a Neolithic time-period.

I don't think anybody here is disputing that Tolkien, at least in the beginning, presented his stories as set in Earth's actual past, and in the passage you quoted he clearly considered the possibility of LotR taking place in the Neolithic time-period.

But the point is that, while real world Neolithic spans a somewhat defined range of years (at least in Eurasia and North Africa), that range of years is defined by the typical technological and cultural aspects of the various societies of the time, which does not match those of the people of Middle Earth as shown in the LotR. More so because its "exact" duration varies locally, depending on when and how the various societies adopted/discovered metalworking. The whole stone -> copper -> bronze -> iron age division is not universal, with some cultures transitioning directly from stone tools to iron forging, and others never leaving stone age technological levels until contemporary times.

One notable example would be the people of Baliem valley in central New Guinea, which were a Stone Age society of several tens of thousand of individuals who had limited contacts with the outside world until they were spotted during airplane exploration of New Guinea highlands in the 1930's. Given that New Guinea was part of the British Empire in the late 1800s, technically you could have a Victorian D&D campaign with characters living in small villages in the jungle, going around basically naked, no literacy, no metals and so on, but that would not be what people typically refer to with "Victorian setting".

You could make a case for LotR being set during the European/North Africa Neolithic, but it is not a Neolithic setting. If those events actually happened in our world, most likely the archeological consensus would be that that part of the world transitioned out of Neolithic several thousand of years earlier than most everywhere else.

I mean, the literal casus belli of the whole LotR saga is the forging of several sets of metal rings which by definition makes it not-Neolithic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It’s not Neolithic if people aren’t using stone tools, since that is what the name means!

“Imagined deep past” is better terminology. It has no relation to real prehistory. Especially since before the fall of Numenor Middle Earth was flat!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

was incredibly ignorant about archaeology to think that he could somehow "slip this in there

I would imagine he was familiar with the archaeology, since he would have rubbed shoulders with colleges working it the field. It’s probably more accurate to say he didn’t care, as he was writing myth, not history.

It was a bit of a cliche to put your fantasy world in some kind of forgotten past of the real world. REH and others were already doing that. It was his chum C S Lewis who invented setting fantasy on other planes of existence.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would imagine he was familiar with the archaeology, since he would have rubbed shoulders with colleges working it the field. It’s probably more accurate to say he didn’t care, as he was writing myth, not history.

I feel like he wouldn't have written what he did in that letter if he didn't care in that particular way, but who knows! Also, I dunno about Oxford specifically, but talking about universities and academics in general, there's vastly less rubbing shoulders in terms of subject knowledge than one might expect. It is not uncommon even for actual history professors to be wildly out of touch with stuff the archaeology department at the same university is doing, let along the English department (and I can't imagine Oxford's sub-college system helped with that).

It was a bit of a cliche to put your fantasy world in some kind of forgotten past of the real world. REH and others were already doing that.

Indeed it was, which is part of what surprises me that he went that route. But I guess it fits in with his idea of trying to write a specifically English myth cycle (he having rejected the Arthurian mythos as too Celtic/Welsh and too French, seemingly)

It’s not Neolithic if people aren’t using stone tools, since that is what the name means!

Right? That's pretty key. It's pretty important lol.