Are you sure? because the island north of Angmar sure resembles Balars Island!

I'm not sure what u mean... Khazad-Dum and Belegost aren't the same and Ered Luin and Misty Mountains aren't the same either.

I think that the Isle of Balar also remained abose sea level after Beleriand sank but i'm not sure. Also, the Isle of Balar lays south of Angmar i think (i should check)

Compare the shape of the Blue Mountains (Ered Luin) on the eastern side of the maps of Beleriand with those found on the western side of the maps in the Lord of the Rings. You will then see the before-and-after of the geophysical results of the Valars' War which ended in the final captivity of Morgoth at the end of the First Age.

Also it was also Christopher Tolkien's hypothesis (in which I concur) that Tol Fuin, the larger island to the west of Himling, was the highest part of Taur-nu-Fuin (Dorthonion). This is written at the end of the Introduction to UT which I am just now reading for the first time; however, I believe I also made that same claim to Ungoliant last summer when we were comparing maps.

Also it appears Tol Morwen may be the uppermost remainder of Amon Ereb. All these islands show up on Karen Wynn Fonstad's revised edition of The Atlas of Middle-earth. I know I had another map of current M-E that showed these islands; however, I can't seem to locate which book it was in. Only Himling shows up on our Website Maps.

Due to an investigation of the form Himling I have arrived at being not so sure about these Islands myself.

Though I'm a Maedros fan, make no mistake

According to Treebeard's chant (at least) Dorthonion lay under the waves (suggesting no Tol Fuin); and Tolkien's Unfinished Index to The Lord of the Rings makes no mention of Himling or Tol Fuin: 'Beleriand -- The 'lost land of [the] Elder Days (of which Lindon was all that remained in the Third Age)' (Quote from Hammond And Scull's Reader's Companion). There is a post-Lord of the Rings mention of Tol Morwen in any case, so perhaps this index note could, in retrospect, be viewed as a general statement.

It appears Christopher Tolkien drew the general map published in the First Edition (he made it in 1953), but Himling does not appear on this map, for whatever reason. One can assume Tolkien validated the initial versions for publication, if indeed he found the maps difficult for various reasons. Anyway, jump to the revised editions in the 1960's (revised by Tolkien himself), but no revision made in this area it seems. Jump to an easy opportunity to finally publish Himling: a poster-map (a large enough format), about which Tolkien added details... 'She [Pauline Baynes] consulted with Tolkien, who sent her a marked photocopy of the general map, as well as additional names to include and advice on a few points of topography and nomenclature...' Hammond And Scull RC

But no addition here as well. I will add that even if the Island was still thought to exist, I'm not sure why it would be 'Himling' instead of Himring or *Tol Himring.

As far as I know (as of today! anyway) these details do not appear on any map published in Tolkien's day. The sources seem to me to be essentially drafts, and Christopher Tolkien doesn't really explain why they should be considered otherwise (though perhaps he could, he doesn't really go into much detail in Unfinished Tales). Considering that JRR Tolkien was a world class 'niggler' however, and revised a lot -- and considering the many years in which no Isle existed in 'his' editions, for myself I would still like to see firmer grounds to characterize the details as ultimately 'Tolkien approved'.

Perhaps (to theorize!) removing explicit mentions of Tol Fuin and Himl(r)ing (or simply not mentioning them again, as they had not been published anyway) could give Tol Morwen a more unique place in the legendarium? I note...



Thus (well maybe thus)...



Perhaps I'm reaching here, but I feel if Tol Morwen were truly more 'alone' (more than merely being lonely or alone in the place where it stood), the surviving Isle becoming more singular surrounds it with more 'mythic importance'.

Sorry to bring back such an old thread! but this little topic still has me wondering. Interestingly the appearance of the form Himling in editions of The Lord of the Rings has made at least one person ask 'why did the name change?' as if the name changed within the history from Himring the Hill to (later) Himling the Isle -- the name did change it appears, but externally rather, Tolkien tinkering with the form, and the evidence to date suggests the later form is Himring (as the earlier form for the hill was Himling).

An interesting detail created by the 'new' map published by Christopher Tolkien.

In the revised edition of the late Karen Wynn Fonstad's the Atlas of Middle-earth on page 37, her Introduction to the Second Age of Arda, she states:
She shows these Islands on her Map of the 'Second Age of Arda' on pg 38. She also wrote in the notes that she referenced the Houghton Mifflin editions of the above volumes. I haven't checked to see if she was correct, but she hasn't let me down to date.

As Grondmaster says the only Isle still around in the Second Age are Tol Fuin, Tol Morwen, Himling and Tolfalas far in the Great Gulf near Gondor as is demonstarted in 'the Atlas of Tolkien's Middle-earth'. These are the only remnants of Beleriand in the First Age save Lindon. The Blue mountains have never been part of Beleriand they were simply the Eastern Border.

Beleriand in the first Age:

HERE

You will notice that Beleriand comprises mainly of the lands West of the Ered Luin which do not exist in the Third and Second Ages.

You are right to a certain degree Galin. Tolkien's works take priority over other peoples works on middle earth just like Tolkien's later idears take priority over his former ones. However this quote:

Beleriand -- 'The 'lost land of [the] Elder Days (of which Lindon was all that remained in the Third Age)' JRRT, Unfinished Index for The Lord of the Rings

Does not prove a point. As you have stated yourself we know Tol Morwen survived in the Third Age and that is not stated in the quote above so should we assume Tol Morwen did not exist as well in the Third Age? Therefore it is clear that the quote provided is clearly not including the few unpopulated islands that were around at the Third Age. Here is a couple of quotes to show the isle's of Himling and Tol Fuin were indeed parts of Beleriand that were not drowned in the wave:

"The mistaken inclusion of Rhudaur alone has been corrected by the addition of Cardolan and Arthedain, and I have shown the little island of Himling off the far north-western coast, which appears on one of my father's sketch-maps and on my own first draft. Himling was the earlier form of Himring (the great hill on which Maedhros son of Fëanor had his fortress in The Silmarillion), and though the fact is nowhere referred to it is clear that Himring's top rose above the waters that covered drowned Beleriand. Some way to the west of it was a larger island named Tol Fuin, which must be the highest part of Taur-nu-Fuin." Unfinished Tales

"Of the size and number of these 'great isles' we are not told. On one of my father's sketchmaps made for The Lord of the Rings there is the island of Himling, i.e. the summit of the Hill of Himring, and also Tol Fuin, i.e. the highest part of Taur-na-Fuin (see Unfinished Tales pp. 13 - 14); and in The Silmarillion (p. 230) it is said that the stone of the Children of Hurin and the grave of Morwen above Cabed Naeramarth stands on Tol Morwen 'alone in the water beyond the new coasts that were made in the days of the wrath of the Valar'." Shaping of Middle-earth

"After the 'breaking of the North' in the Great Battle, the shape of the North-west of Middle-earth was changed. Nearly all Beleriand was drowned in the Sea. Taur na Fuin became an Island. The mountains of Eredwethion &c. became small isles (so also Himling)." Treason of Isengard

"On the other hand the statement that Eredlindon was now at no point further than 200 miles from the Sea agrees well with that map,(17) and we meet here an apparently unique reference to the isles of Tol Fuin and Himling, which are shown on it.(18)" Treason of Isengard

There are a few more but that is about the jist of it. Clearly Himling and Tol Fuin does exist as Isle's in the Third Age, as does Tol Morwen and Tolfalas in the south but are not really worth a mention.

You can be sure that if there was a later map approved by Tolkien concerning whether these islands really did exist or not then Karen wynn fonstadd would have used it.
Just becuase the islands are not mentioned in later texts does not mean they did not exist or that it is a contradiction to earlier texts.

It is clear what your point is Galin. What your basically saying is this:

Those islands are not inlcluded in later drafts only earlier ones so we shouldn't really classify them as solid evidence.

That is fair enough. I do not say for certain that these islands were what Tolkien wished to be in his later thoughts. However what i am saying is We KNOW Tolkien did ONCE wish for these islands to be, therefore just becuase he did not mention them in later texts does not mean that he had discarded with the idear of them. Why would he bother mentioning them more than he did? They were uninhabited ancient reminders of places in the First Age that did nothing in later ages. The fact that Tolkien bothers mentioning them at all is wonder enough, without him later contradicting there existance.

The Atlas of Tolkien's middle-earth I assume you don't have. If you do decide to purchase it you will see that Karen Wynn Fonstadd only maps and says things that are complete speculation with warning to the reader. Seeing as she clearly thought the evidence supporting the existance of the islands was sufficient enough to map them it would be better to assume they exist and be willing to change mind if later proven otherwise than vise versa.
This applies with many aspects of Tolkien's works. It is best to think thus:

If it did exist in early drafts, except it with the later ones unless proved otherwise.

If you only accept details which are published explicitedly by Tollkien in his latest drafts you will unfortunatley be excluding some fundermental idears and miss out on some interesting tales. The Dagor Dagorath for instance you cannot really believe in seeing as its fullest account is given in the Shaping of Middle-earth. Perhaps you don't believe in the Tale of Adenel which tells of Men's first encounter with Melkor and how they were enslaved seeing as thats in Morgoth's ring.
The full account of Galadriel and Celeborn cannot really be true becuase its in UT. The tale of the five Istari mustn't be true seeing as its in UT. Basically you think anything that is in the HOME series and UT should not be counted as solid evidence.

I can understand your view on what is to be adhered to and what should be discarded and this can be both good and bad. On the one part what you do say comes from Tolkien's later publications so is generally right. But on the Other hand you may be discarding alot of idears that Tolkien did wish to happen but perhaps did not get the chance to publish in a suitable form.

Basically there IS evidence, perhaps not concrete, but evidence nonetheless, to show that Tol Fuin and Himling were indeed islands of the Third Age. Until I have seen something that remotely repels that idear (of which Nothing has been posted as yet) I take it as proof.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned already, but where Túrin Turambar was laid to rest was not drowned by the Valars wraith and the rising sea either. Although I doubt you coud considered it an island.

All this bickering over a piece of rock...

Unless something definate can be provided one way or the other (I have searched through all the e-books I posses and that includes the HOME series, The sil, LOTR, The Hobbit and UT) and I cannot find anything that truly disproves the idear that these islands did not exist in Tolkien's later idears. Indeed all I can find on them is Tolkien's earlier drafts about them existing in the third Age - nothing concrete to disprove them later.

Of course not, he wouldn't want them to drown, come their resurrection.

New information, as I did some dating with respect to the early maps:

1953 Dec

Tolkien writes to R. Unwin. He hopes to provide A&U with proofs of Vol. I and a map: '... presumably marked page proofs and the general map of Middle-earth redrawn by Christopher Tolkien.' (H&S).

1954 February

Tolkien notes he will try to get Christopher to draw the Shire map during a weekend. Tolkien thinks the proof of Christopher's map looks very well, except he has some scale concerns and notes that Minas Tirith is too hard to read.

1954 April

Minas Tirith is corrected (made more legible). Tolkien also remarks in a letter with respect to the Shire map and the general map: 'I may say that my son's maps are beautifully clear, as far as reduction in reproduction allows; but they do not contain everything, alas!'

1954 May

Tolkien gets final proofs and approves maps.

1955 April

Tolkien and son Christopher work intensively on a map of Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor for The Return of the King.

Tolkien's comment of 1954 April might be taken to include 'alas' for Himling and Tol Fuin! On the other hand he was speaking quite generally here and it would be hard to know if these details specifically were in mind.

Tolkien advised that a scale should be added to the map, which was done, and it doesn't seem that difficult to have added Himling if desired, since the problems of reduction in reproduction would not seem to be, in this instance, problematic (in that too many names or features were clustered in one space).

Anyway, if new evidence 'for or against' Himling or Tol Fuin surfaces I would like to know... and I'm certainly not against the idea of Himling surviving if something new shows up to weight the scales (in the new book on The Hobbit there's a bit more on Dorwinion for example).

Glorifindel, the islands of 'Himling' and Tol Fuin do not appear on any maps published while Tolkien himself was alive. The 'Himling text' and the early map (in your link) drawn by JRRT appear to date about 1940, when Tolkien had yet to finish writing even The Fellowship of the Ring and his ideas about the survival of Beleriand appear to be fluid.

The new information I just added (new to this thread and relatively newly published by the team of Hammond & Scull) seem to show that Tolkien had time to 'correct' the omission of these islands (at least Himling), if desired, if indeed they were mistakenly omitted on the version of the general map ultimately approved for publication in 1954.

Unless, for example, Himling was on the map when Tolkien approved it, and it was mistakenly omitted after by the printers somehow, but Christopher Tolkien does not make this case in any event.

That's because your argument (so far) leans heavily on what is essentially unpublished or draft material as compared to the Tolkien approved, published maps.

Indeed I'm not convinced that Tolkien continued to hold to unpublished ideas put to paper at a time when he also wrote (for example) '... and Beleriand fell into the sea in that time, all save the land where Beren and Lúthien had dwelt for a while.' -- where 'in that time' here also refers to the cataclysm of the Downfall of Númenor, not the War of Wrath.

People can respond here as they like of course. Any new evidence or opinion on the matter is one thing (in another thread elsewhere William Cloud Hicklin brought up a good point on this issue that I had not previously given much thought too), however that is not exactly the same as simply copying and pasting quotes from other websites that basically only repeat some of the details already presented here.

By the way, if new information does come out 'proving' Tolkien still desired Himling I would not hesitate to be the first to post it, because I am not arguing that there's absolutely no way Himling 'still' existed, I am only arguing that based on current information I find the detail a bit dubious in light of the reasons stated.

It's perfectly possible that Tolkien also viewed the omission of Himling in 1954 as a mistake or something that could be added later (as Christopher Tolkien appears to view it, or he arguably would not have added it later). But it's also possible that JRRT had abandoned the detail in any case, or even abandoned the idea later, given that it had not appeared in print for whatever reason.

Tol Galen doesn't exist after The War of Wrath. I got a map of Ossirialand in the Third Age and it doesn't exist. Look at this map now.
~The Sunkenlands~
It doesn't exist on it because of the Tumults of the First Age.

Namarie!

If you have a clearly more superior argument at hand with quotes conclusive he will then try to bombard the matter with long explanations and dates of different things.

Take this quote for example:

"I have shown the little island of Himling off the far north-western coast, which appears on one of my father's sketch-maps and on my own first draft. Himling was the earlier form of Himring (the great hill on which Maedhros son of Fëanor had his fortress in The Silmarillion), and though the fact is nowhere referred to it is clear that Himring's top rose above the waters that covered drowned Beleriand. Some way to the west of it was a larger island named Tol Fuin, which must be the highest part of Taur-nu-Fuin."

Christipher Tolkien clearly says that although Tolkien didn't specifically mention it, it is CLEAR that Himling did rise above the waters. Fair do's he doesn't give much of an explanation but we have his clear statement saying that it did.

I have the Tolkien-approved maps, published while the author was alive, and a revised map also published with Tolkien's approval (a map he was involved with years later). No Himling.

You have draft text and an unpublished map, and Christopher Tolkien referencing these papers decades after the approved maps were published. That doesn't seem complicated to my mind.

And yes I bother to look at the larger picture too, which can get complicated (because it is); and yes dating matters -- not everything Tolkien put to paper in 1940 was incorporated into the legendarium of course.



And the later publication of The History of Middle-Earth reveals that Christopher's statement back in Unfinished Tales (your quote above) only really shows that it was 'clear' in the drafts of 1940 however, but moreover never published by JRR Tolkien. By the way, Tolkien himself did specifically mention Himling in 1940. Christopher Tolkien was wrong in his commentary in Unfinished Tales on that point.

In any case JRR Tolkien is the author of his world. Your last boils down to 'Christopher says so'... which, at least this part of the argument anyway, doesn't seem to be a 'clearly more superior argument' to me.

Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien (and all of us, being human) make mistakes. That's quite an obvious and general point however.



If there is indeed no way to know then this extends to Christopher Tolkien (and if he does know something in particular outside of the 1940 text and the unpublished map then he is surely free to explain the matter).



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here actually.

I'm not currently attempting to contact Christopher on this matter. If anyone wants to, the contact information for the Tolkien Estate can be found on the web. In the meantime I'm going with maps approved for publication by Tolkien himself.

I think you will find that 'Lindon is all that remains' is a VERY general outlook. Tiny uninhabited islands would doubtfully be included in this.

True, Tol Fuin is much bigger but is still unnhabited as far as I know. Do we here much talk about the Dark Lands or the Lands of Sun in the far East of Arda beyond the Eastern sea? The Dark Land is about the size of Aman and yet we here even less about it that the Lands of Sun. They are unihabited so why talk about them?