The Nature of the “Timeline Document”

Years ago Shigeruo Miyamoto had made a reference to an enormous document that shows how the Zelda games relate to one another. Just recently Eiji Aonuma made a similar statement about how there is a confidential master timeline buried somewhere in the walls of Nintendo. The folks over at Zelda Informer have recently put out a new article discussing this mysterious master timeline. Is it just a listing of games, a detailed outlook touching on every single connection between the games, or does it not even exist at all? Here is a short tidbit from their recent article.

Being a history minor during my days at college, I learned of a method known as multiple attestation in order to prove what actually happened. The basic philosophy of this is that, if two independent people make a very similar statement, then it is more likely to be true. Basically, when Miyamoto initially made a quote referring to the timeline document that he claimed to have, I took it with a bit of skepticism. This is Miyamoto we are talking about and between things being lost in translation and him just making up things on the spot, there have been some curious quotes coming out of his mouth over the years. However, when Aonuma also referenced the timeline document, I feel that it gave more validity to Miyamoto’s initial quote and I have a strong belief that such a timeline document does in fact exist. However, the topic of discussion really should be… what is on this document, not whether it actually exists.

First off, for all the skeptics out there, there is a Zelda Timeline. It is definite, but the real question is which games were intended to fit together in such a timeline. Going in order of release, we know the first two entries, The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II: The Adventure of Link fit right next to each other in chronological order. We then know A Link to the Past to be a distant prequel to both games, again, being on the same linear timeline. Link’s Awakening can be tossed aside for a moment, as I’ll touch on that one a bit later. When we reached the Nintendo 64 era, we got Ocarina of Time which was clearly a prequel to A Link to the Past, and then Majora’s Mask, a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time. Thus, by the time we had six major Zelda titles released, outside of Link’s Awakening, we had a fairly definitive timeline.

Skipping over the Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, and later on the Minish Cap, we end up with the next two major console Zelda titles, The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess. Two games that clearly reference the events of Ocarina of Time, and alongside various quotes from the developers, confirm a ‘Spit-Timeline’ in which both games take place 100’s of years after the two endings of Ocarina of Time. We then got Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks, which obviously are in the same lineage as The Wind Waker.

Thus when looking at the timeline as a whole, we can see how a vast majority of these games directly tie into each other in the Zelda split-timeline. Thus, perhaps this is what Miyamoto and Aonuma are speaking about when referencing the Timeline Document. Basically all the obvious connections that we know of. With a game like Link’s Awakening, it is really irrelevant where it fits in the timeline as it truly is a stand alone type quest. Similarly, the Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, both developed by Capcom, can fit in so many different places. The only requirement is that they take place after a game where Ganon was defeated. However, these were Capcom games and Miyamoto and Aonuma were not directly involved with them. Thus, it is my belief that it is not important whether or not these two games are even listed on such a master timeline. Clearly they have connections to characters from Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask, enemies from Link’s Awakening, and bosses from the original Legend of Zelda, but they weren’t developed by Nintendo and thus, I don’t know if Miyamoto and Aonuma would put them on their Zelda Timeline.

The Minish Cap is in the same boat as the Oracle of games since again, it was made by Capcom. There were obvious connections to previous games with characters and such, but nothing indisputably obvious towards its timeline placement. Granted it does connect heavily with Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures and this is where things get confusing. Four Swords was made by Capcom while Four Swords Adventures was made by Nintendo, yet both games have connections with the Minish Cap and seem to have some connections with A Link to the Past as well. So does this mean that there is less relevance whether or not Capcom or Nintendo developed the games?

The whole timeline debate really can get confusing, but clearing out the cloudy parts of the timeline, we still have a definitive setup that links over half the games in the major series. This is what I think is on the Timeline Document for sure and I wouldn’t be surprised if anything after that was quite empty. Bottom line, there is no question whether or not there is a timeline and the inclusion of this supposed master timeline seems quite unimportant for our discussion. We don’t know what is on the timeline document and we’ll likely never be able to view it ourselves, thus, the issues such as the Oracle Games, the Four Swords Saga, and some of the other spin-offs such as the Tingle games, Ancient Stone Tablets, and others are what we as Zelda fans will forever debate over… master timeline or not. If Miyamoto or Aonuma have these games listed on their master timeline, then I think they can be tossed right into the forum communities around the net as their own theories, as without any new information or new games, there is nothing definitive about them.

Be sure to check out Zelda Informer’s full article on the Timeline Document