# Origin of the hobbits



## Red Istar (Oct 15, 2003)

How did the race of hobbits come about? I don't recall it being mentioned in the Silmarillion.


----------



## YayGollum (Oct 15, 2003)

Here's what I said for a while ---> elves became orcses, goblins are smaller orcses, hobgoblins are smaller goblins, and hobbitses are messed up hobgoblins that became good. People don't seem to like that idea, but I love that it explains why Gollum called the hobbitses nasssty.

Here's my new and more educated opinion ---> That The Hobbit book says that there were Beornings of many sizes, right? The Beornings and Gollum's type of hobbit both lived in the Vale of Anduin, right? There ya go. They're just a race of the smallest type of Beorning, but they forgot how to do turn into bears. Their feet stayed crazy looking, though. Also, the One Ring mutated Gollum. The One Ring works with the abilities people already have, right? So it just worked with the old abilities hobbitses used to have as Beornings and let him shift shape a little to fit his new surroundings. Doesn't that make all kinds of sense?


----------



## Red Istar (Oct 15, 2003)

that's an... interesting theory.


----------



## Feanorian (Oct 15, 2003)

Hobbits are closely related to men. They come from a three branch family called the Stoors. The hobbits of the Shire are one family. Gollum and his river hobbit type people are another, and there is one more which may be extinct, i am not sure and I am too lazy to check.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Oct 15, 2003)

Interesting, yes... Never heard _that_ before. One problem, though... The only Beorning that could shape-shift was Beorn himself. I remember (though not where) it being said that Beorn was a unique case, and that none of the other Beornings could shape-shift. That's why he's referred to as the Shapeshifter, because he's the only one (of his kind). At least, that is what I have come to know... It may not be true, though I think it is.


----------



## Red Istar (Oct 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Feanorian _
> *Hobbits are closely related to men. They come from a three branch family called the Stoors. The hobbits of the Shire are one family. Gollum and his river hobbit type people are another, and there is one more which may be extinct, i am not sure and I am too lazy to check. *



I know all _that_... but how did they suddenly shrink, grow pointy ears, and get enlarged, hairy feet?

*wonders if the original Hobbit broke one of Saruman's windows playing ball*


----------



## baragund (Sep 8, 2004)

I'd like to refresh this thread because I don't think it got the attention it deserved. I believe this thread got lost in the shuffle and now than things have settled down around here, I hope we can get some of the top-flight Tolkienologists weighing in on this.

Where _do_ hobbits fall in the grand scheme of things? Are they a third set of the Children of Iluvatar, along with Elves and Men? Are they some kind of derivation of another race (think of Middle-earthian evolution  )? Did one of the Vala go off on their own to create them, like Aule created the Dwarves?

We all know that Hobbits appeared on the scene in the Vales of Anduin in the early Third Age. But I haven't come across anything that speaks to their initial creation.


----------



## Red Istar (Sep 8, 2004)

baragund said:


> I'd like to refresh this thread because I don't think it got the attention it deserved.



Funny; so do I.


----------



## baragund (Sep 14, 2004)

Oh come on!!! Did Red Istar and I stump the collective expertise of our forum??  

Do we need to go over to the Entmoot site to answer this question?


----------



## Red Istar (Sep 14, 2004)

I think the problem is that I'm a rather intimidating person, doncha know.


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 15, 2004)

I have written this in a couple of places already on TTF, but here goes again:

There is a slight possibility that the Hobbits were indeed a race sent by Ilúvatar with the sole purpose of aiding the other Peoples in the struggle against Sauron.
They emerge out of nowhere at about the same time as the Istari, and fade away after Sauron is defeated. And during the struggle against Sauron we see that they not so easily fall under the power of the One Ring as Men does. 

Perhaps Ilúvatar created the Hobbits and sent them to Middle-earth because he knew that Elves and Men were well known to Sauron? Sauron knew he could defeat those by his massed forces alone. But along came a folk that he didn't know anything about, small of stature and easy to dismiss as too small to be able to resist his brute force. But Sauron knew nothing about their will-power.

One other thing to support this (far-fetched?) theory: How come Gandalf was so concerned with Hobbits? Maybe he knew a bit more than the other Istari?


----------



## Red Istar (Sep 15, 2004)

That's an interesting idea, but wouldn't you think that if the Hobbits had been created expressly for the purpose of defeating Sauron it would have been mentioned somewhere, even if only in the Sim or in the appendixes?

And as for them being as susceptible to the influence of the Ring as quickly as men, Smeagol and Deagol seemed to have been... taken with the ring pretty quickly.  It also seemed to grab hold of Bilbo and Frodo (and even Sam) right away, too.


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 16, 2004)

First of all: I haven't stumbled in on a lot of people that have supported my theory...  
But I do think it makes sense, at least sort of. I mean, even if hobbits aren't directly mentioned among the peoples in Silmarillion, then this is not so strange. The Silmarillion is first and foremost about the First Age of the Sun. Hobbits did not occure until the Third Age.
And it is stated in the Silmarillion:


> And many other things Ilúvatar spoke to the Ainur at that time, and because of their memory of his words, and the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur knew much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them. Yet some things there are that they cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together, for to none but himself has Ilúvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling,  for they do not proceed from the past.


I can not fully agree with you when it comes to how easily hobbits are ensnared by the Ring. Were Smeagol and Deagol really hobbits? I do not think so. At least I don't remember that it is expressely written somewhere. And did really Bilbo and Frodo fall under the will of the Ring as easily as a Man would? The only Man I know of that 'owned' the Ring, is Isildur. And he gave in really quick IMO.
Bilbo had it for many years, and was never really ensnared by it, but I guess it is fair to say that Bilbo is probably not a fair example.
Frodo managed to struggle against the will of the Ring all the way until he came too close to where it was made.
This is why I say that Men were more easily ensnared than hobbits.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 16, 2004)

Red Istar said:


> How did the race of hobbits come about? I don't recall it being mentioned in the Silmarillion.



It wasn't. Tolkien says this about their origins:

"It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had, in fact, lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them." (From FOTR, the Prologue)

So it looks like Hobbits were somehow offshoots of Men. It appears to me that Tolkien did not _intend_ to write about their origins any more than he did, since he plainly says, _The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten,_ wanting to deliberately remain archly mysterious, and to close the issue at that point.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 16, 2004)

Red Istar said:


> I know all _that_... but how did [hobbits] suddenly shrink, grow pointy ears, and get enlarged, hairy feet?...



They did it _very slowly_ through evolution, just as the original _homo sapiens,_ in fanning out from Africa to the various continents over millenia, settling down in various areas, and physically adapting over eons to local conditions of weather and geography evolved the various racial variations of Man, so evolved the Hobbits. 

Barley


----------



## baragund (Sep 16, 2004)

Thanks Arvedui and Barliman!  Forgive my laziness but could you point me in the direction where this has been discussed before? I'm interested in seeing what other thoughts have been posted on this subject.

I really like Arvedui's proposal that Hobbits were placed in M-E by Iluvatar in a similar manner as the wizards. It sounds plausible, it gives Hobbits a purpose in the great scheme of things and it fits nicely with their sudden and late appearance on the scene coupled with their gradual disappearance in the later ages. Are there any writings by JRRT or CT that would support this?

Barley, I hear what you're saying about Hobbits being offshoots of Men. You have JRRT's description that they are more closely related to Men than the other races of M-E to support that position. I just have a _bit_ of a hard time swallowing the evolution idea. Even if, say, Hobbits awoke at the same time as Men or they were a group of Men who were then separated from the main group, that means "only" six thousand years or so passed from the time of their awakening to the time they first appeared in the Tale of Years (I think that's about what the duration adds up to be). That's a _lot_ of evolving to do in such a short time. Don't forget it took Homo Sapiens 5 or 6 _million_ years to evolve from our common ancestors with the other primates.

For me, it sits better thinking that Iluvatar tweaked the recipe of his Second Children a little bit, and created the Hobbits to assist in a subtle way in the struggle against Sauron.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 16, 2004)

baragund said:


> Thanks Arvedui and Barliman! ...Barley, I hear what you're saying about Hobbits being offshoots of Men. You have JRRT's description that they are more closely related to Men than the other races of M-E to support that position. I just have a _bit_ of a hard time swallowing the evolution idea. Even if, say, Hobbits awoke at the same time as Men or they were a group of Men who were then separated from the main group, that means "only" six thousand years or so passed from the time of their awakening to the time they first appeared in the Tale of Years (I think that's about what the duration adds up to be). That's a _lot_ of evolving to do in such a short time. Don't forget it took Homo Sapiens 5 or 6 _million_ years to evolve from our common ancestors with the other primates.



Ah, Baragund, you're getting old and stiff in the joints; your left leg must have gone completely numb, because that's the one I was pulling!

I decided to have a bit of fun with Red Istar's question, so I responded with a faux scientific answer. On the other hand, it sounds (does it not) plausible enough so that those who are looking for a serious answer will accept it as such. 

It is _amazing,_ the amount of sheer over-the-top _nonsense and flimflam_ that people will believe (that's why con artists both sacred and profane thrive like weeds), if it is presented in a serious, believable style. *But you saw through it just in time!* (Actually the answer to your question is both simple and obvious: Middle-earthlings evolve at a _much_ faster rate than in our world.) :::ducking and running:::

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 17, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> It wasn't. Tolkien says this about their origins:
> 
> "It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. Of old they spoke the languages of Men, after their own fashion, and liked and disliked much the same things as Men did. But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered. The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only the Elves still preserve any records of that vanished time, and their traditions are concerned almost entirely with their own history, in which Men appear seldom and Hobbits are not mentioned at all. Yet it is clear that Hobbits had, in fact, lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them." (From FOTR, the Prologue)
> 
> ...


I like my own theory a lot better.  

*baragund:* The thread i was referring to is Did Hobbits have a mission? 
I think I explained my theory a lot better then...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 17, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> I like my own theory a lot better.  ...



Ah, Theory...the indispensable bugbear of Truth...

Barley


----------



## baragund (Sep 17, 2004)

*Slaps forehead and does a Homer Simpson "D'oh!!*  

Mr. B, you got me!

As for which theory is 'correct', the seeming lack of guidance on the matter by JRRT allows one to accept the theory that _feels_ right. 

I thouroughly enjoyed reading the thread "Did Hobbits Have a Mission". Although it focused on the purpose of their existence rather than their origins, it gives a lot of food for thought that, for me, supports Arvedui's notion that Hobbits were created a the specific purpose. We know JRRT created the Hobbits sort of as an afterthought for his children's book but did ever try to better reconcile them in his overall mythology in his later writings?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 17, 2004)

baragund said:


> *Slaps forehead and does a Homer Simpson "D'oh!!*
> 
> Mr. B, you got me!



Not to worry!



> As for which theory is 'correct', the seeming lack of guidance on the matter by JRRT allows one to accept the theory that _feels_ right.



Sometimes it does well to remember that we're talking about a story, about _fantasy_ here, and not Holy Writ! Pick whatever theory warms the cockles of your Tolkien-saturated heart!



> I thouroughly enjoyed reading the thread "Did Hobbits Have a Mission".



Hmmmm! Sounds intriguing, I'll have to go find it and read it!



> Although it focused on the purpose of their existence rather than their origins, it gives a lot of food for thought that, for me, supports Arvedui's notion that Hobbits were created for a specific purpose. We know JRRT created the Hobbits sort of as an afterthought for his children's book but did he ever try to better reconcile them in his overall mythology in his later writings?



I should know the answer to that, and I don't. The only thing that comes to mind (and I can't think of where to go to corroborate it) is that he made some minor changes to The Hobbit (and maybe to LOTR as well) in order that they would fit each other better.

Barley


----------



## baragund (Sep 18, 2004)

What do you mean this isn't holy writ? I _thought_ we were having a absolutely serious discussion about one of the races of this world.






















I'm kidding.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 18, 2004)

baragund said:


> What do you mean this isn't holy writ? I _thought_ we were having a absolutely serious discussion about one of the races of this world.
> 
> I'm kidding.



And here I thought you were serious...after all, you're a mod, no?

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 20, 2004)

baragund said:


> We know JRRT created the Hobbits sort of as an afterthought for his children's book but did ever try to better reconcile them in his overall mythology in his later writings?


We know that Tolkien was asked to produce a sequel to _The Hobbit._ This eventually came into being as _The Lord of the Rings._ I think that Humphrey Carpenter describes very well in the Biography how the book that was meant to be a sequel to _The Hobbit_, instead ended up as a sequel to _The Silmarillion_.
So I think that Tolkien indeed tried very hard to make all the three books (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion) consistant.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Oct 14, 2004)

Hey! I havn't been on this forum in quite a while. Very few will remember me. Perhaps YayGollum. I'm in college now and I hope I'll be able to find the time to come on the forum more often.

Anyways, back to the topic.

Don't forget that the Hobbit was a story for Tolkien's children. LOTR was not. It was a book that tried to satisfy Tolkien's desires and his readers. The readers wanted Hobbits, so Tolkien gave them Hobbits. He may have never really intended for Hobbits to really be of any importance at all in his mythos. When the Hobbit became popular, people fell in love with hobbits. What could Tolkien do? I think I remember hearing somewhere that Tolkien didn't really want the Hobbit published. Does anyone know if that's true?

And, the theory that Illuvatar sent the Hobbits is very interesting, but wouldn't the hobbits know their purpose, or at least have a general idea or feeling, like the Istari? Why would Illuvatar make them so quiet and secretive, not caring what the 'big folk' were doing? Maybe it was Gandalf's job to stir 'em up.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 14, 2004)

baragund said:


> ...Barley, I hear what you're saying about Hobbits being offshoots of Men. You have JRRT's description that they are more closely related to Men than the other races of M-E to support that position. I just have a _bit_ of a hard time swallowing the evolution idea.



Evidently you didn't notice the  by my name. And did you not feel your leg being pulled? I was doing it ever-so-gently... 

Barley


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Oct 14, 2004)

I don't have my books available, so what follows is taken from memory. None of the published texts explain the origins of Hobbits. In some of his letters, Tolkien stipulates that Hobbits are a branch of the human race -- that is, he says they are Men.

In the essay "Of Dwarves and Men", published in _The Peoples of Middle-earth_, Tolkien summarizes the experiences of the Hobbits in the Vales of Anduin. He doesn't say when they settled there, although other texts (such as "The Disaster of the Gladden Fields" and one of the appendix essays in "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn", both published in _Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth_) indicate that Hobbits were not noticed in the region in the late Second Age and early Third Age.

Now, either the Hobbits migrated to the region early in the Third Age, or else they were so few and so secretive that they avoided Men, Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs for thousands of years (which I find unlikely, since "Of Dwarves and Men" says that a large Mannish culture in that area was destroyed by Sauron during the War of the Elves and Sauron).

We can infer that, if the Hobbits migrated to the Vales of Anduin in the Third Age, they probably did so between the death of Isildur (TA 2) and the last rising of Sauron (TA 1000). They probably arrived after the Ents went on their quest for the Ent-wives, and though we don't know when that quest was, it probably fell in the same period.

I think it must have occurred prior to the first attack of the Easterlings on Gondor (around the year TA 492 -- I don't have my books with me to check the exact date).

At some point, Tolkien says, these early Vale of Anduin Hobbits formed a close relationship with some of the Men (Northmen, of Edainic descent) much like the Bree Hobbits enjoyed with the Men of Bree. The Hobbits provided food for the Men and the Men provided some measure of defense.

But the Hobbits began to leave the Vales of Anduin when Men of a foreign sort (Easterlings) began increasing their numbers in the Vales of Anduin. Since Sauron gained control over the Easterlings, it follows that as the power of Dol Guldur grew, the Easterlings living in southern Mirkwood and the nearby lands of the Vales of Anduin would have increased in number.

The Hobbits were divided into three groups, of which only one were called the Stoors (these were the largest and most southerly group). The Harfoots, the most numerous Hobbits, fled west first around 1050. Their departure from the Vales of Anduin must have had a catastrophic effect upon the economics of the region. The Northmen who had depended upon them previously must either have perished or else had to become completely self-sufficient. Deprived of the support of the Harfoots, those Northmen must have been weakened.

That would explain why, 100 years later, the Fallohides and Stoors crossed the Misty Mountains. The Vales of Anduin must have been looking pretty grim by that point.

Some of the Stoors returned over the Misty Mountains about 150 years later, after the realm of Angmar arose. Those Stoors settled in or near the Gladden Fields and they became the ancestors of Gollum's people.

The remaining Stoors migrated down toward Dunland and settled near the city of Tharbad. They remained there for 300 years. After the Shire was established in 1600, some of the Stoors of Dunland migrated north to settled along the Baranduin river in the Marish. The remaining Stoors of Dunland perished in the Great Plague of 1636.

The Harfoots and Fallohides actually settled in Rhudaur (along with the Stoors) at first. The Hobbits don't seem to have migrated farther west until the rise of Angmar. Then, around 1300 (again, I don't have my book with me to check), many Hobbits (presumably Harfoots and Fallohides) migrated to Bree.

The Bree Hobbits were the first group to settle in the Shire, followed by the Stoors from Dunland. If any other Hobbit communities still existed in Eriador by 1600, they seem to have perished in the Great Plague, so that only Bree and the Shire were left.


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 15, 2004)

If that is taken by memory, I am very impressed mr Martinez.
Splendid listing, BTW.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Oct 15, 2004)

Yeah. Thats some good memory! And answers perfectly where the hobbits came from. Unfortuantly, it doesn't tell us why they were there and when exactly they came about. We definitly know that hobbits are related to Men, but how? Maybe the answer doesn't exist. Could the hobbits be another of Tolkien's purposeful enigmas, like Bombadil?


----------



## baragund (Oct 15, 2004)

Well, from Michael M.'s account, Hobbits were Men, among the younger children of Iluvatar. So I suppose they awoke at the same time and place as the forefathers of the Edain, Easterlings Southrons and other Mannish races. It makes me think of Hobbits being the 'runts of the litter'  . Actually, they wouldn't be much different from the Druedain.

So Hobbits awoke at the same time as the other Men and they simply lived in places out of sight of the people recording the history of Middle-earth until they migrated to the vales of Anduin.

Would that be a fair way to sum things up?


----------



## Richard (Oct 15, 2004)

I believe that hobbits were around during the first age but neither Morgoth and the elves took much notice of them, if at all.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Oct 17, 2004)

baragund said:


> Well, from Michael M.'s account, Hobbits were Men, among the younger children of Iluvatar. So I suppose they awoke at the same time and place as the forefathers of the Edain, Easterlings Southrons and other Mannish races. It makes me think of Hobbits being the 'runts of the litter'  . Actually, they wouldn't be much different from the Druedain.
> 
> So Hobbits awoke at the same time as the other Men and they simply lived in places out of sight of the people recording the history of Middle-earth until they migrated to the vales of Anduin.
> 
> Would that be a fair way to sum things up?


I have pretty much held that point of view. Since Gandalf tells Frodo in "The Shadow of the Past" that Sauron had not been aware of Hobbits until he learned of them from Gollum, it seems unlikely that Hobbits would have come from one of Melkor's breeding programs (someone once suggested as much). Sauron should have known something about them, since he seems to have been involved with Melkor's breeding programs.

Of course, the Hobbits could have started out as normal-sized Men who gradually developed a diminutive stature for reasons Tolkien didn't conceive of. The ultimate origin of Hobbits is just another of those unanswerable questions because there is no clear way to discern a single answer.


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 18, 2004)

I think that it is wrong to count them as Men. Hobbits are hobbits. If they are Men, why are they of so different stature, and why do they shun normal Men?

Yes, Tolkien himself said on at least one occation that the hobbits were of the same origin as Men, but he also said:


> In the middle of this Age the Hobbits appear. Their origin is unknown (even to themselves) for they escaped the notice of the great,


 and their origin is not satisfactory settled. After all, hobbits entered Tolkien's mythology by accident through the Quest of Erebor, and I think that


> The History of Middle-earth


 show that they were not planned to be a part of that mythology originally.
Therefore, and by all the reasons I have pointed at earlier, the hobbits may very well have entered the history of Middle-earth as an instrument for Illúvatar.
And although MichaelMartinez' listing of various details are impressive, they do not contain any decisive proof that Hobbits were just ordinary (but rather short) Men.


----------



## baragund (Oct 18, 2004)

Michael M.'s account of the origin of Hobbits is probably as definitive and as defensible in terms of Tolkien's writings as one will find. Nevertheless, the notion that Hobbits and Men are the same race just doesn't _feel_ right to me. 

There are just too many differences to be explained by some kind of splinter group evolving differently over the course of the First and Second Ages. Stature and the thing with the feet are the obvious differences that indicate these are different races. But I would include Hobbits' seemingly unique ability to resist the lure of the Ring as the most significant difference. If Hobbits were merely Little Men (hey, that would make a great title for a book!  ), then Hobbits would have the similarly susceptible to the Rings corrupting influence, no?

Sauron detected an "indomitable spirit" even in Gollum when that little creep was captured and hauled to Barad-dur. Even though there seems to be nothing in the writings to back this up, it just seems to me that Hobbits were different enough from Men to be their own race.

I guess it is just one of those things we can't know for sure, like the nature of Tom Bombadil.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Oct 18, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> I think that it is wrong to count them as Men. Hobbits are hobbits. If they are Men, why are they of so different stature, and why do they shun normal Men?


That was for Tolkien to decide. We cannot unmake the decision for him.



> ...and their origin is not satisfactory settled. After all, hobbits entered Tolkien's mythology by accident through the Quest of Erebor, and I think that show that they were not planned to be a part of that mythology originally.


They weren't planned for in the earlier mythologies, no, but the Middle-earth mythology was written around them.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 18, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> I think that it is wrong to count them as Men. Hobbits are hobbits. If they are Men, why are they of so different stature, and why do they shun normal Men?



But the exact same thing can be said of the Drúedain. The difference in height between them and 'ordinary' Men was not as drastic as that between Men and Hobbits, but it was still great. And they had 'strange' customs, characteristics, powers, etc.

So I'd fling the Hobbits into the same basket as Men, though I'd say they were a much transmuted branch.


----------



## Arvedui (Oct 19, 2004)

I can't say for sure if Tolkien stated explicitly that Hobbits were Men, or if he wrote that they were _probably_ of the same origin as Men. Not that it really matters.
My point has always been that the presence of Hobbits in the Third Age, and their accomplishment, is too much of a coincidence to have happened merely by chance. And I have also pointed to a few things that have led me to believe that Hobbits and Men were not of the same origin. If they were indeed Men, how did they mutate into such numbers?
At one point in evolution, something must have happened to a lot of offspring of Men at the same time. A lot. How else could they have reproduced into such numbers? 
This must have evolved over a great period of time, and how is it possible for this to happen virtually unnoticed?


----------



## Forgotten Path (Oct 20, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> I think that it is wrong to count them as Men. Hobbits are hobbits. If they are Men, why are they of so different stature, and why do they shun normal Men?
> 
> Yes, Tolkien himself said on at least one occation that the hobbits were of the same origin as Men, but he also said:
> and their origin is not satisfactory settled. After all, hobbits entered Tolkien's mythology by accident through the Quest of Erebor, and I think that show that they were not planned to be a part of that mythology originally.



This is the point I was trying to get across earlier. I think Arvedui done a better job of getting it across. Tolkien didn't plan for Hobbits to be there originally, so its no wonder that the origin of the Hobbits is unknown. There is no actual origin, just speculations and decisions never made by Tolkien. Howevever, I think that the Hobbits being instruments of Illuvatar would have been Tolkien's final choice on thier origin. 
Remember: "Bilbo was meant to have the Ring. Therefore you to were meant to have it." - Gandalf to Frodo (and Gandalf was probrably the being closest to Illuvatar in ME at that time.)


----------



## baragund (Oct 20, 2004)

You know, this discussion makes me think of Tolkien's evolution of the origin of _Orcs_. For the longest time, he considered them to be Elves that were corrupted by Melkor. Only very late in his life did he start getting away from that thought and move toward some kind of bestial origin because of some questions he could not square in his mind (like where Orc's "souls" went when they died and why they could "breed like flies" while the number of Elves were more or less fixed).

I'd like to think that if Tolkien lived longer he would have tackled Hobbit's origins more definitively. His mythology was evolving and being continually refined right up to the end of his life so I don't think it's too much of a sin to engage in speculation with the sparse gleanings in his writings on this subject.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Oct 21, 2004)

baragund said:


> I'd like to think that if Tolkien lived longer he would have tackled Hobbit's origins more definitively. His mythology was evolving and being continually refined right up to the end of his life so I don't think it's *too much of a sin to engage in speculation * with the sparse gleanings in his writings on this subject.



I never said it was a sin to speculate about these things. I think Tolkien would rather like the idea of his fans embracing the subject and filling in the holes and bringing it nearer to completion, so long as he could not do it himself.(Or even if he could do it, he would love to discuss it and hear our opinions.)


----------



## Astaldo (Oct 22, 2004)

Forggoten Path said:


> (Or even if he could do it, he would love to discuss it and hear our opinions.)


That's right remember that when he was finishing in writing something he was always reading to his friends to learn their impression.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Dec 2, 2004)

Well, bother Astaldo, looks like this thread went stale on us.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 3, 2004)

Forggoten Path said:


> This is the point I was trying to get across earlier. I think Arvedui done a better job of getting it across. Tolkien didn't plan for Hobbits to be there originally, so its no wonder that the origin of the Hobbits is unknown. There is no actual origin, just speculations and decisions never made by Tolkien. Howevever, I think that the Hobbits being instruments of Illuvatar would have been Tolkien's final choice on thier origin.


The problem with this point of view is that there is more than one mythology. Hobbits originated in their own mythology. Their origin there is assumed to be lost in antiquity.

When Tolkien forged the new, combined mythology (the mythology of Middle-earth), he asserted that Hobbits were indeed human (he wasn't vague on the matter -- he brought it up in the Prologue and in a couple of letters). How they diverged from the main human tree is lost in antiquity -- forgotten, as it should be, as that way Hobbits retain an element of apparent uniqueness without losing their humanity.


----------



## Urambo Tauro (Dec 3, 2004)

It is difficult to explain the "evolution" of men into hobbits, although if that is what Tolkien said, I'll go along with it. (Otherwise, what can I say anyway?) For one thing, I don't see a reason for their ears to "evolve" into pointed ones. Also, Since the race of Man has continued to exist alongside that of Hobbits, it must be a matter of deviation rather than evolution. How did the deviation occur?
The comparison of the lure of the Ring may not bear much weight, since only a few men ecountered it. Also, only a few hobbits encountered it. Is it possible to accurately predict the reaction of a race based on the reaction of a handful of men and a few hobbits? (Think Faramir.)
There also exists the question of the destination of hobbits upon death. Do they then attend the Halls of Mandos?


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Dec 7, 2004)

Evolution isn't exactly a cornerstone of Tolkien's fiction. The Hobbits are simply stipulated to be part of the world (and, in fact, the Prologue to _The Lord of the Rings_ suggests they continue to survive today, even though no one has mentioned any present-day Hobbit communities in the popular media).

Tolkien was never able to fully explain the origins of Men (and their various sub-groups such as the Druedain and Hobbits) in Middle-earth. Mythologically, those origins are so far removed from the historical records that they are simply assumed to have happened in some unexplainable way.


----------



## treebeardgarden (Dec 25, 2004)

I don't know if this helps, I found a very interesting book by David Day, called A Guide to Tolkien. Don't know where his information comes from. He states about Hobbits:-

When the bright fire of Arien the Suncame into the world there arose the race of Men, it is claimed that in that same Age there also arose in the east the Halfling people who were called Hobbits. These were a burrowing hole-dwelling people said to be related to men, yet they were smaller than Dwarves, and the span of there lives was about 100 years.
Nothing is known of the Hobbit race before 1050 of the Third Age, when it is said they lived with the Northmen in the northern Vales of the Anduin between the Misty Mountains and the Greenwood.
Hope no one has mentioned this before and it is of some help in this duscusion.


----------



## baragund (Dec 27, 2004)

Does Mr. Day mention how he deduced Hobbits came into the world at the same time as Men? That's the nut of the matter. I'm not aware of anything from Tolkien that addresses how and when Hobbits were created.


----------



## treebeardgarden (Dec 27, 2004)

Im sorry Baragund but he does not. Im not even sure now how much of this info is accurate. Reading last night the same book, Mr Day states that Gollum is a Hobbit. I can't remember any such thing being mentioned anywhere else. I have heard he was Hobbit like, or related to Hobbits but never as a Hobbit. I would appreciate any info to the contrary. 

So even if the book I mentioned is interesting it should be read in conjunction with research from the originals.


----------



## BelDain (Dec 27, 2004)

they probably just "happened" like the dwarves did but it isn't recorded.


----------



## baragund (Dec 27, 2004)

Um actually, BelDain, the origins of Dwarves is pretty well documented in Tolkien's writings. Aule created them on his own prior to the awakening of the Firstborn. The account of this is given in Chapt. 2 of the published Silmarillion, "Of Aule and Yavanna".

Unfortunately, it seems Tolkien never specifically addressed the origin of Hobbits. It's one of those tantalizing items for conjecture, like the nature of Tom Bombadil.

Treebeardgarden, your remarks about Gollum are interesting. I thought he _was_ a Hobbit. His description as Smeagol, his location in the Vales of Anduin, dwelling along the river banks was consistent enough with the accounts of the early Stoors (I think) to make it pretty easy to conclude his origins as a Hobbit.


----------



## BelDain (Dec 30, 2004)

The "it" that wasn't recorded I was referring to was the origin of the Hobbits. I was surmising that it was maybe similar to the Dwarves (a pet project of one or some of the Valar) only, unlike the origin of the Dwarves, it simply isn't recorded.
I suppose I could have done more with certain punctuation in my first post to make what I was saying clearer.


----------



## Naugrimmellon (Jan 9, 2005)

Ok, I’m a new poster, but I have read all of the posts in this thread and believe I have come up with a viable theory of my own.

Let us examine the defining physical characteristics of hobbits:

Mortal
Short
pointy eared

plus their mentality

insular
suspicious of others
not caring about the fate of those beyond their borders

Ok. I will assume for the moment that Hobbits and men DO indeed share a common origin. And I believe I can account for the short evolutionary period. 

There are many times within the stories of Arda when one encounters people of different races marrying and indeed having children. (Most renowned is probably Arwen and Aragorn, but there are others. 

It seems to me that Hobbits share characteristics with all of the races of middle earth, and though a simple evolutionary divergence may at first seem plausible, no amount of evolving (in my opinion) is going to give a Man pointy ears! The hobbits are relatively short-lived, are relatively frail, but can be courageous at need (like men). They are short, hardy and care little about the fates of other races (like dwarves). They have pointed ears and speak a version of elvish (like elves). It is my view, with all this in mind, that Hobbits stem from intermarriage between Men and the other two races of middle earth over the course of 6000 years. 

To expand on my theory, I point to the prologue of The Fellowship in the section entitled "Concerning Hobbits". In this section, Tolkien states that (as has been mentioned earlier) there were three 'breeds' of hobbits.
The Harfoots were small and beardless but had much to do with the dwarves. It seems to me that they were therefore begotten from relations first between Men and the Noldor, and then maybe between Dwarves. 
The Stoors were broad and stout and had the hairiest feet, etc. But they preferred plains and riversides. Possibly, therefore, having their origins in the relations of men and dwarves but later having something to do with the Teleri, who have always loved the water. 
Fallohides were tall(er) and fair and loved trees and woodlands. And I would speculate that they can trace their lineage to Men and the Avari.

I look forward to any comments or suggestions, and am perfectly willing to accept that this might be completely and utterly wrong, but it seems to make sense...


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 10, 2005)

The great thing about this topic is that no-one can be "completely and utterly wrong!"
In fact, I think that your points does make some sense, Naugrimmellon.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Jan 10, 2005)

Naugrimmellon, I disagree with yiou on a couple of points:

1)"...and speak a version of elvish" -the Hobbits spoke the common speach, which, while undoubtadly was related to elvish, was also spoken by thousands of other individuals throughout all the cultures. Also, the remaining "tid-bits" that were left of the Hobbits archaic language were related to the language of the Rhohirim.

2)"...an intermarriage between Men and the other two races..." -inter-race marriages in ME were rare and seemed to be between Men and Elves only. (or orcs and Men, depending on how you believe Saruman bred the Uruk-hai!  ) It is hard to believe that a man would marry a dwarf-woman, considering they looked pretty much just like the dwarf-men. Also, I think that a dwarf/elf mariage would be very, very unlikely.

I think that this theory is very interesting, but highly unlikely. I think that most of the stuff I said above can be found in the appendixes of The L.R.


----------



## Naugrimmellon (Jan 10, 2005)

Forggoten Path said:


> It is hard to believe that a man would marry a dwarf-woman, considering they looked pretty much just like the dwarf-men.


 
Ah but there may well have been dwarf Men who fell in love with human women. And who is to say that women might not be attracted to short strong men? 

No but I must say, though Im sure intermarriages may have been rare, over the course of 6000 years it is hard to believe that two coexisting races woul have managed wholly not to interbreed. 

I also would not have included the elves in this, remenbering the words of Gwindor, who said that "It is not fitting that that the Elder Children of Iluvatar should wed with the Younger [...] Neither will fate suffer it, unless it be once or twice only[...]" 

My only reason for stating that elves were involved is that I can in no other way reconcile the pointy ears. 

Although I agree that relations between the different races were not common, and that there are sections of the theory that need work, I can see no other possible origin for hobbits that would both allow them to be related to men (as has been stated by Tolkien himself) and to be as short as they are and have pointed ears. I can say this though. The latter half of the quote above continues thus: "Neither will fate suffer it, unless it be once or twice only, for some high cause of doom that we do not percieve." Perhaps those who say that Hobbits were created at the will of Iluvatar were right in the sense that Doom permitted the beginning of their race through the love of Erus other children.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 11, 2005)

Naugrimmellon said:


> Perhaps those who say that Hobbits were created at the will of Iluvatar were right in the sense that Doom permitted the beginning of their race through the love of Erus other children.


Not only hobbits, but all living beings were created through the will of Ilúvatar. Nothing could exsist in it's own right, with it's own spirit/soul without Ilúvatar allowing them to have one. Therefore, Mogoth could not have breed a new race, as he did not have the power to do so. Therefore, orcs, balrogs, dragons etc all came from other races that were 'twisted' into their 'new' being.
This will leave us with the conclution that hobbits were either specially created by Ilúvatar (perhaps even for one single purpose  ), or they were crossbreads, or they were the result of some genetic twist within one race (probably men).


----------



## Naugrimmellon (Jan 11, 2005)

Exactly my point. I, of course, believe the cross breed theory, but what I was trying to get at was that although under normal circumstances the crossings invloved would be inlikely, perhapls they came about because Iluvatar willed it.


----------

