Where did Hobbits come from?

[Finduilas]

Iluvatar made Elves and Men, Aule made Dwarves, and I beleive that either Yavanna or Manwe made Ents, but does Tolkien ever say who made Hobbits?

I've only read the Silmarillion, ME history wise, and I don't believe it mentions hobbits till it says that Frodo and Sam destroyed the Ring. Does anyone know who made Hobbits, or did Tolkien leave them out?

--Fin--

[Morwen]

Tolkien suggests that they are related to Humans though he says the origin of Hobbits is unknown. If they are a type of human, I guess that they are also Children of Iluvatar.

It is plain 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 bac in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten.

LotR, Prologue

[Finduilas]

I see. I never got through the prologue. Never thought of it.

Thanks

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Both Gildor and an Elf of Rivendell imply that from their point of view they can't even tell Men and Hobbits apart. Gandalf's discussions class Big & Little Folk together as undifferentiated Mortals.

I'm pretty sure that Hobbits belong to the Younger Children, the Firimar: just a dwarfed sport of Men, like the African Pygmies.

[The Might]

Also, they are opposite to the Giants in the Misty Mountains. Just as they are a larger version of Men, the Hobbits are a smaller one.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by The Might

Also, they are opposite to the Giants in the Misty Mountains. Just as they are a larger version of Men, the Hobbits are a smaller one.

Now that's a clever contrast.

[Finduilas]

So you think that Giants and Hobbits were created at the same time as men, and just classified as men? If so, what were they doing during the whole silmarillion debate?

--Fin--

[littlemanpoet]

There is no indication whatsoever when Giants came about. Hobbits are considered to have originated, if one can call it that, some time during the Third Age. Tolkien doesn't actually say that Giants are human. We tend to think that, but there's no indication that Giants are any more human than they are anything else.

Hobbits, however, are a different story. Their origin is shrouded in the mists of time, as Tolkien would say (and probably did), and they are believed to have had their start in the vales of the Anduin between the Misty mountains and Rhovanion (Mirkwood).

Hobbits seem to be most closely related to the Eorlings, for their speech is actually somewhat similar. (Holbytla) Both peoples came from the same region.

[Finduilas]

So did they evolve?

Just joking of course. So I gather that Tolkien never specifically(sp) said?

[littlemanpoet]

I suppose one could say there was "natural selection" after a manner of speaking, not unlike the phenomena evident in our own world, that lighter skinned people that tend towards light hair and blue eyes seem to be naturally selected to best survive in northerly climes, whereas dark skinned people with black hair and brown eyes seem to be naturally selected to best survive in tropical regions. So maybe hobbits were just a natural strain of humankind that flourished in rivervalleys with rich soil for gardening and hillocks readily available to dig a smial in.

[Bêthberry]

I think hobbits were left by the Great Eagles amongst the cabbage and turnip and beet patches. That's why there are Stoors, Harfoots, and Fallohides.

Giants, by the by, existed in the Bible. Can't recall which book they are mentioned in, but one of the Old Testament/Hebrew ones.

[Finduilas]

Giants, by the by, existed in the Bible. Can't recall which book they are mentioned in, but one of the Old Testament/Hebrew ones.

They were first mentioned in Genesis chapter 6.

I suppose one could say there was "natural selection" after a manner of speaking, not unlike the phenomena evident in our own world, that lighter skinned people that tend towards light hair and blue eyes seem to be naturally selected to best survive in northerly climes, whereas dark skinned people with black hair and brown eyes seem to be naturally selected to best survive in tropical regions. So maybe hobbits were just a natural strain of humankind that flourished in rivervalleys with rich soil for gardening and hillocks readily available to dig a smial in.

Per'aps.

[Morwen]

Hobbits are considered to have originated, if one can call it that, some time during the Third Age. Tolkien doesn't actually say that Giants are human. We tend to think that, but there's no indication that Giants are any more human than they are anything else.

Hobbits, however, are a different story. Their origin is shrouded in the mists of time, as Tolkien would say (and probably did), and they are believed to have had their start in the vales of the Anduin between the Misty mountains and Rhovanion (Mirkwood).

Off topic question - what does Tolkien actually say about Giants? They are mentioned once in "The Hobbit" but does he mention them elsewhere?

Hobbit origin
Though Hobbits first appear in records during the Third Age (TA 1050, Appendix B, LotR) Tolkien notes that they "had, in fact, lived quietly in Middle-earth for many long years before other folk became even aware of them" (LotR, Prologue). They didn't necessarily originate during the Third Age.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morwen

Off topic question - what does Tolkien actually say about Giants? They are mentioned once in "The Hobbit" but does he mention them elsewhere?

Off-topic answer: try here, here or here (in the first one I recommend skipping the first few posts and scrolling down to about half the thread, there starts the main debate of whether there are Giants mentioned anywhere in general).

[sarathy]

Hobbits are similar to man except that they are shorter in strature and have funny ears.

They can even be called as humanoids.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Sometimes Tolkien tells us as much by what he didn't say as by what he actually said. I think this is one of those instances. It's extremely important for Middle-earth that hobbits be an inobtrusive people that have never caught the attention of the mighty, particularly Morgoth or Sauron. If that had been the case....if their history had been documented in some kind of human or elven annals, Sauron would have had a head start in tracking down the Ring.

It is this historical obscurity that protects Bilbo and Frodo for many years. Only when Gollum spills the beans is there a rent in the veil, and Frodo must flee. Even then, Sauron has no idea how resilient Hobbits are. He underestimates them because they look so well contented and cheerful on the outside, even soft, at least when compared with men and elves. This too is a kind of protection for the Ringbearers, since Sauron wakes to his peril only very slowly.

To me, the most interesting question is not the "what" of hobbit origins but the "why". Why didn't they attract any attention for much of Arda's history? Tolkien simply left us no information beyond their presence near Mirkwood in the mid-third age. But, as has been noted by Morwen, there's indication they'd been around even longer without anyone noticing.

I can't believe hobbits sprang up out of nowhere in the middle of the Third Age. That sort of magical origin doesn't go along with anything else in the Legendarium. Could they have gradually evolved from humanoid stock, becoming smaller and smaller and developing their own culture? That's possible by the standards of our world, but there would have to be a gradual change or shift over a very long time. Yet when we first see them near Mirkwood, they already have their own distinct culture and unique physical attributes. There had to have been a lot going on before the middle of the Third Age. The hobbits would have had to shrink in size, become largely beardless with hair on their feet, and, even more significantly, develop three subgroups within the race (Stoor, Harfoot, Fallohide) that each had their unique societal characteristics and close ties with one particular race....men, elves or dwarves, depending on the subgroup. That sort of differentiation doesn't happen overnight.

If we can accept that hobbits were around long before the mid-third Age, we have to sk why they weren't noticed. Tolkien gives one brief answer: it's merely a matter of historical recordkeeping, or lack of it:

The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only Elves still preserved 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-earthfor many long years before other folkbecame even aware of them. And the world being full of strange creatures beyond count, these little people seemed of very little importance.

There is real truth in the statement in italics, but I find hard to buy this as the whole story. Tolkien loves to give explanation like this, minimizing the significance of something by use of passive verbs, offhand comment, or even silence, when the real answer is one that is more significant, perhaps so significant that it can't be spelled out in concrete words. Were "Men"really so "rare" in the Legendarium? The Silm and HoMe discuss different houses of men and dwarves, including a race of dwarves that included just three remaining representatives (petty dwarves). There are clear allusions to men having experienced some darkness in their past. Why nothing about hobbits and how they fit into this? Isn't it at least possible that their presence was hidden from the eye of the world by something that was spelled out in the original music.....that there was a veil of protection over their culture because they had to be hidden for later purposes.

Tolkien may not have had this idea in the beginning when he told hobbit tales to his children, but hints of it are there in UT.....the idea that Gandalf purposely chooses Bilbo at the behest of someone/something because the race of hobbits had certain unique attrbutes. Only hobbits will be able to get to Mount Doom without falling under the spell of the Ring. There's no detailed proof, but if you read UT you get the distinct feeling that the choice of a hobbit wasn't just a whim on Gandalf's part. Someone else was involved in that choice. How far back that choice went, whether it could even have gone back to the dawn of Arda, simply isn't addressed. But all people have a history, whether or not they or anyone else remembers.

[Bêthberry]

Child, your thoughtfulness has put to shame my rather flippant suggestion of the Great Eagles bringing the Stoor, Fallohide and Harfoot babies to the cabbage, turnip and beet patches. I had rather enjoyed that idea as it was in keeping with old folk tales. And I was so careful to avoid cauliflower, as les petits choux would have been too French for The Professor.

Your idea of a chosen tribe deliberately veiled is very suggestive and powerful. It, too, has tantalizing similarities to other mythologies (I use that word to avoid the "R" word with Tolkien).

However, there is one association which immediately springs to mind. If the hobbits do represent the wholesomeness of the sturdy English country stock, how does this idea fit in with that dodgy old idea of Pax Britannica and all the colonial apparatus that comes with the British Empire? Of course, I realise that this brings into juxtaposition two ideas that are not necessarily carved in stone, but it does make one wonder: Would Tolkien have wanted to inspire the idea that the English were the (new/next) chosen race?

This isn't so far fetched as it might seem at first glance, as the conceit is prevalent throughout English history. Time limits me giving sources, etc, but Child's post was so suggestive that I couldn't not post!

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

First came the River Folk and from them came the more conventional Hobbit. I imagine that they were originally much like the Stoors but moved to land where they developed different characteristics and - of course - the hatred of boating.

[Lord Halsar]

I have a theory on the matter.
Perhaps hobbits came from the far east aswell. perhaps they were a shorter variety of men that decided to stay at the Mouths of Anduin until the Third Age when the Breelanders gave them the Shire.
Just a theory, nothing much.

[The Might]

It wasn't the Breelanders that gave them the Shire, it was Argeleb II, tenth King of Arthedain, that allowed two Hobbits from Bree, Marcho and Blanco to settle in the Shire, on the condition that they [font=Verdana][size=-1]acknowledge his rule, speed his messengers, and repair the roads and bridges. They then lead a large group of Hobbits westward and claimed the area that later became The Shire.
I like Child's idea, makes sense that Hobbits somehow adapted and became smaller. It could be that it's because of their ability to hide so well, which is again mentioned in the foreword to LotR, Of Hobbits, that they managed to stay away from the darkness. It is clear that are much closer to nature as normal Men, maybe because of the need to hide and seek protection in their natural environment.
It makes sense that they slowly made their way west as Sauron fled east to rebuild his physical form after losing the Ring. This they did again, in T.A. 1050 when some of the Hobbits crossed the Misty Mountains after Sauron came to Dol Guldur and a shadow fell upon Mirkwood.
[/size][/font]

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, there is one association which immediately springs to mind. If the hobbits do represent the wholesomeness of the sturdy English country stock, how does this idea fit in with that dodgy old idea of Pax Britannica and all the colonial apparatus that comes with the British Empire? Of course, I realise that this brings into juxtaposition two ideas that are not necessarily carved in stone, but it does make one wonder: Would Tolkien have wanted to inspire the idea that the English were the (new/next) chosen race?

A very intriguing line of thought, Beth. We know that Tolkien was intensely patriotic as an Englishman, but had no use at all for the Empire. Even as a teenager he supported Irish Home Rule and concluded that the Boer War was wrong. He also dcried the prospect of a World Language, even his beloved English. He was, in the most positive sense, a multiculturalist.

I think if the old Professor were presented with your notion, he would have adjusted it some. To him the Hobbits were important because they were humble, the meek not inheriting the earth but saving it. Conceivably he might accept the association of humility + caritas with (true) Christianity, which has often been called the "new Israel." But I doubt he would have regarded the Hobbits as parallelling the Jews in any historical way.

[Morwen]

If we can accept that hobbits were around long before the mid-third Age, we have to sk why they weren't noticed. Tolkien gives one brief answer: it's merely a matter of historical recordkeeping, or lack of it:

Quote:
The beginning of Hobbits lies far back in the Elder Days that are now lost and forgotten. Only Elves still preserved 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-earthfor many long years before other folkbecame even aware of them. And the world being full of strange creatures beyond count, these little people seemed of very little importance.

One reason that hobbits may not have much of a presence in the recorded history of Elves or the oral history of other peoples is that, for others, they apparently never did anything worth mentioning. Theoden says as much to Merry when they first meet.

Merry bowed....."I have wandered in many lands, since I left my home, and never till now have I found people that knew any story concerning hobbits.

"My people came out of the North long ago," said Theoden. "But I will not deceive you: we know no tales about hobbits. All that is said among us is that far away, over many hills and rivers, live the halfling folk that dwell in holes in sand-dunes. But there are no legends of their deeds, for it is said that they do little, and avoid the sight of men, being able to vanish in a twinkling...."

TT, The Road to Isengard

Haldir of the Galadhrim has also heard of hobbits. However, his people have not heard of them "for many a long year, and did not know that any yet dwelt in Middle Earth" (FotR, Lothlorien)

So hobbits, for others in Middle Earth who might once have known about them, have dropped out of existence and even while they were still to be observed they were not doing anything worth remembering or writing about.

But what I would like to know is why hobbits don't appear to have any information/legends/tales about their own origins. Merry at one point, in response to a remark from Treebeard, observes that they never seem to be mentioned in any of the old tales. This would have been a good place for him to say what old tales Hobbits have about themselves and their origins, but he doesn't do so.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morwen

But what I would like to know is why hobbits don't appear to have any information/legends/tales about their own origins. Merry at one point, in response to a remark from Treebeard, observes that they never seem to be mentioned in any of the old tales. This would have been a good place for him to say what old tales Hobbits have about themselves and their origins, but he doesn't do so.

Which almost forces one to ask, what would be the Hobbits' status if we take in account the Athrabeth... the Hobbits, as it was agreed on, and mentioned even in the Appendicies and foreword to LotR, are basically Men...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bb, thanks for the kind words!

I agree with you William Cloud Hickli. Tolkien was so opposed to the idea of Empire that I don't think this was part of the equation.

My gut feeling is that hobbits were chosen, but "chosen" in a more limited sense. Their particular combination of strengths and weaknesses made them perfect for a mission that required secrecy, endurance, pluck,and a natural aversion to projects requiring great ambitions. Even beyond the choice of the hobbits as a people, there was also the element of choice that came into play when the particular individuals were chosen for the job. Most stay-at-home hobbits were too complacent and lacking in imagination to go on a quest of the type that Bilbo and Frodo did. These two were chosen because of two apparently contradictory reasons. On the one hand, their lives embodied many of the strengths and weaknesses of the hobbits as a whole; on the other hand, both were non-conformists who rejected many aspects of hobbit life. Both elements had to be there.

It wasn't so much the designation of a chosen people but finding the perfect individuals to take up a particular job. Still, my gut feeling is that for a very long time it was clear that a hobbit would have to be the one to do something like this. Gandalf was the critical factor here. He had to look over the community and study it to find which individual(s) would be the best. If he had made the wrong choice, there would have been disaster. We've always assumed that Gandalf made the choice on his own to spend time with Hobbits and study them. Yes, that is possible. He certainly liked them. But it's also possible that he knew from the time of his arrival in middle-earth that part of his job was to get a closer look at the hobbit community so that he would be prepared to make a choice when and if the time came.

[Feanorsdoom]

I share Child's view with respect to the canon. JRRT purposefully left many origins obscure because the histories were written by Elves and Men (and Hobbits) who were never shown all the facts, and often held irrational prejudices. If one were to trace a 'true' mythological history of the Hobbits, I think it would be more true to the flavor of the Legendarium to place them apart from Men, Elves, Dwarves, and all others in origin, because of their eventual role in the ending of the Third Age. The central story of the Fellowship in the LotR is one not only of companions in a quest, but of all the races coming together (in miniature) to fight the common Enemy. We have a Dwarf, an Elf, a Maiar, and Men. Surely, the prominent position of the Halflings among them deserves a more dignified origin than 'short humans'. JRRT didn't write of their origins explicitly, but then he didn't write explicitly of Man's emergence, either.

If I were asked what the origin of the Hobbits should be, I would put it something like this: After the downfall of Numenor, one amongst the Valar, presumably Yavanna (or perhaps Vana, the "queen of flowers"), is so distraught at the destruction of Middle-earth by Men and Elves that she asks Manwe permission to create a race whose sole purpose would be to care for the living things of their world. Manwe, knowing the consequences of the misjudgement of Aule in creating the Dwarves, councils against it, but Eru changes his heart. She is allowed to bring them to life, but with the understanding that they would be the weakest race, afraid of interactions with others and utterly helpless in the face of battle, yet that this would be coupled with an inner strength against corruption of evil. Possibly, she might be given the cryptic promise that their fate would be to stand alone against that evil when all others prove unable to resist it.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

If one were to trace a 'true' mythological history of the Hobbits, I think it would be more true to the flavor of the Legendarium to place them apart from Men, Elves, Dwarves, and all others in origin, because of their eventual role in the ending of the Third Age. .....Surely, the prominent position of the Halflings among them deserves a more dignified origin than 'short humans'. JRRT didn't write of their origins explicitly, but then he didn't write explicitly of Man's emergence, either.

Tolkien himself makes the link between Men and Hobbits and the idea of hobbits being a type of Man seems similar to the idea that there can be dwarves and petty dwarves, i.e., main race and a subset/offshoot of that main race.

Originally posted by Feanorsdoom

If I were asked what the origin of the Hobbits should be, I would put it something like this: After the downfall of Numenor, one amongst the Valar, presumably Yavanna (or perhaps Vana, the "queen of flowers"), is so distraught at the destruction of Middle-earth by Men and Elves that she asks Manwe permission to create a race whose sole purpose would be to care for the living things of their world. Manwe, knowing the consequences of the misjudgement of Aule in creating the Dwarves, councils against it, but Eru changes his heart. She is allowed to bring them to life, but with the understanding that they would be the weakest race, afraid of interactions with others and utterly helpless in the face of battle, yet that this would be coupled with an inner strength against corruption of evil. Possibly, she might be given the cryptic promise that their fate would be to stand alone against that evil when all others prove unable to resist it.

Neither Yavanna nor any other Valar can bring a race to life. When Aule takes it upon himself to create the Dwarves, Eru is very clear it isn't just that Aule lacks authorisation but that he, Aule, lacks the ability to create a race that is independent of his will.

"Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle." Silmarillion, Of Aule and Yavanna

Also,apart from Aule and excluding Melkor, do any of the Valar possess the capacity to physically construct new beings? All the Valar may have desired to see the Children but I think that it is only Aule, coming from the part of Eru's mind concerned with the creating of things, who could attempt to create physical forms and even so his creation was imperfect.

Whatever the precise origins of hobbits I think that they would have to be Eru's creations.

[Feanorsdoom]

Very good points, Morwen. Your Silm quote does show, however, that the Hobbits can be created as the Dwarves were; half-alive, as it were, although the character of them in LotR surely belies any notion of them having no freedom of will. What you say about Aule going against Eru's will is true, but Eru (and Manwe and the rest of the Valar besides) is notorious for getting angry but not really undoing the bad things his underlings do. The Hobbits, on the other hand, would not have been made 'behind Eru's back' like the Dwarves, but would have been allowed as a partial answer to the unending destruction of M-e by Elves and Men. Otherwise, to have them be whole Children of Iluvatar in their own right, would of necessity force an inconsistancy in the Ainulindale itself, where they are not mentioned at all.

[Morwen]

Very good points, Morwen. Your Silm quote does show, however, that the Hobbits can be created as the Dwarves were; half-alive, as it were, although the character of them in LotR surely belies any notion of them having no freedom of will. What you say about Aule going against Eru's will is true, but Eru (and Manwe and the rest of the Valar besides) is notorious for getting angry but not really undoing the bad things his underlings do. The Hobbits, on the other hand, would not have been made 'behind Eru's back' like the Dwarves, but would have been allowed as a partial answer to the unending destruction of M-e by Elves and Men. Otherwise, to have them be whole Children of Iluvatar in their own right, would of necessity force an inconsistancy in the Ainulindale itself, where they are not mentioned at all.

If hobbits are a type of human/man, then the fact that hobbits are not expressly mentioned in the Ainulindale is not a problem. They fall within the category of Man and are therefore accounted for.

If the hobbits are an independent creation, I don't think this is necessarily inconsistent with the Ainulindale, which, though important, is not the be all and end all with respect to Arda and its fate. The Ainulindale is the direct product of the Ainur and "because of the knowledge that each has of the music that he himself made, the Ainur know much of what was, and is, and is to come, and few things are unseen by them" (Silmarillion, The Ainulindale)

However,

Yet some things there are that they (the Valar) cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have not foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past. (my emphasis) Simarillion The Ainulindale

Now if ever a passage allowed for hobbits I think it is this one. Their creation would then fall into the category of things that Eru knew about but did not reveal to the Valar rather than an idea that proceeds from the Valar themselves and receives the blessing of Eru.

[Finduilas]

So, from what I can tell, most of you think that Hobbits were made at the same time as Men, classified as Men, and since they did nothing they were ignored till Bilbo came along.

[Feanorsdoom]

Ah, but Morwen, I still don't think you quite see how having Hobbits arise as a new race equally considered Children of Iluvatar would be too important not to be mentioned in the Ainulindale. And having them be nothing more than oddly-shaped Men would make one wonder what the cosmic significance is of having them in the Fellowship. I fully believe Tolkien never meant their origin to be more than either of these scenarios, but a further meddling by one of the Valar in order to help look after and protect Arda itself would fit so much better to the feeling of the story. The way you project it, the Hobbits have no special significance; they just happen to exist. If they are a result of a request to redress the wounds to the land inflicted by thousands of years of war, then they are fulfilling divine destinies.

[Morwen]

But I think the quote I earlier provided suggests that there are significant things that Eru means to occur that are NOT mentioned in the Ainulindale, those conceived by Eru alone and only revealed at at a time of his choosing. In fact one might argue that Eru may wish to keep some of his more significant plans to himself as a way of safeguarding them. Rather than being so important that they must be mentioned, their importance requires that they should not be mentioned.

As for the significance of the hobbits, how exactly is their significance lessened by being part of Eru's specific design? I would think that hobbits as created and designed by Eru and Eru alone actually have greater significance than hobbits as a mere afterthought, the result of a latter day request by the Valar.

[Feanorsdoom]

It's exactly this dichotomy that a request by the Valar would diffuse. And such a request would not be just an "afterthought". Beren and Luthien, anyone? On the contrary, having Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age is just an afterthought. If they are important enough to have such an impact on the Third Age built in to their very origin, then they would merit mention at least as much scrutiny as Men, who in the end are mostly cannon fodder for Elves and Big Bad Guys. Beyond Beren and Isuldur, who among them really became the vehicles for fate?

But this is all idle, wishful imaginings. Of course Hobbits are only pigmy Men. Tolkien never said any different; quite the contrary. But is it so wrong to think that it could have been done better?

[Morwen]

It's exactly this dichotomy that a request by the Valar would diffuse. And such a request would not be just an "afterthought". Beren and Luthien, anyone?

(a) If the Valar are asking Eru to create a new race in response to certain events that they see unfolding in Middle Earth then such a request and the race it produces are afterthoughts.

On the contrary, having Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age is just an afterthought.

(b) I have never said that Hobbits just 'pop up' in the middle of the Third Age. In post #13 I in fact note that though hobbits first appear in records in the Third Age that does not mean that they originated at that point.

What I have argued is (a) that Eru creates Hobbits and (b) I don't believe, for the reasons I have stated, that the Valar had anything to do with such creation.

If they are important enough to have such an impact on the Third Age built in to their very origin, then they would merit mention at least as much scrutiny as Men, who in the end are mostly cannon fodder for Elves and Big Bad Guys.

Strictly speaking, hobbits as a race do not have an impact on the Third Age. There are 5 hobbit individuals (well, six if you count Gollum) who do in fact play an important part in the events of that Age.



As for wishing that it was "done better", by which I take you to mean the story of origin of hobbits, perhaps Tolkien simply thought that it was the contribution made by his main hobbit characters that deserved attention and not the minute details of their ancestry.

[Lalwendë]

Evolution made 'em.

Really. There's linguistic evidence in the texts that at some point they shared land with the ancestors of the Rohirrim - this could indeed have been a common ancestor from which descended both the contemporary Hobbits and Rohirrim. I've got something aeons old posted somewhere on here about that when I uncovered it, but I shall have to find it when I get a chance.

It's likely that this was Tolkien's desired intention as his work was as much constructed as a place in which to explore his created languages and their evolution as it was about many other things. To demonstrate common ancestry via linguistic roots is extremely apt for Tolkien. Note he also adds in the existence of faded legends of Hobbits amongst the Rohirrim, which adds extra texture to this sense of history.

How about the other evidence that the Ents did not know of Hobbits, Ents who were taught by the Elves? Here are two long lived races who know nothing of Hobbits so it is clear they originated elsewhere and at a later stage.

And who wants to have Tolkien write a Noddy Guide as to where Hobbits came from? It's far more fun to find out for yourself on a chance discovery like a real life etymologist or archaeologist striking gold in the stacks at the British Library or somesuch Plus it only adds to their folky mystique, like the boggarts, the hobgoblins and the brownies that live in our houses...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Really. There's linguistic evidence in the texts that at some point they shared land with the ancestors of the Rohirrim - this could indeed have been a common ancestor from which descended both the contemporary Hobbits and Rohirrim.

Ahh, but Tolkien explicitly tells us that Hobbits, if they ever had a language of their own, had long forgotten it, picking up instead the languages of the Big Folk near whom they dwelt. It makes perfect sense that the Hobbits living in the vicinity of Greenwood/Mirkwood would have spoken or been influenced by the tongue of the Men of Rhovanion, ancestors of the Rohirrim.

[Lalwendë]

Here's what I found many moons ago in Appendix F:

Of these things in the time of Frodo there were still some traces left in local words and names, many of which closely resembled those found in Dale or in Rohan. Most notable were the names of days, months, and seasons; several other words of the same sort (such as mathom and smial) were also still in common use, while more were preserved in the place-names of Bree and the Shire. The personal names of the Hobbits were also peculiar and many had come down from ancient days.

There is no record of any language peculiar to Hobbits. In ancient days they seem always to have used the languages of Men near whom, or among whom, they lived. Thus they quickly adopted the Common Speech after they entered Eriador, and by the time of their settlement at Bree some had already begun to forget their former tongue. This was evidently a Mannish language of the upper Anduin, akin to that of the Rohirrim; though the southern Stoors appear to have adopted a language related to Dunlendish before they came north to the Shire.

Hobbit was the name usually applied by the Shire-folk to all their kind. Men called them Halflings and the Elves Periannath. The origin of the word hobbit was by most forgotten. It seems, however, to have been at first a name given to the Harfoots by the Fallohides and Stoors, and to be a worn-down form of a word preserved more fully in Rohan: holbytla 'hole-builder'.

We also have the similarities in word roots such as Hama and Hamfast. The store of old Rohirric legends about the Hobbits. And the similarities in funerary practices found on the Barrow-Downs and in contemporary Rohan.

Note that Tolkien said there was no record of any specific Hobbitish language. This will likely have been a non-literary culture so no written records remain - like Celtic languages such as the Cymric spoken in Rheged, traces remain in familiar, everyday words such as those used to name rivers and villages - and the Hobbits brought this language with them when they travelled West.

The origins given for the word Hobbit are also revealing as they do not come from anything relating to their size, they come from where they choose to live. At some point, this branch of Men began living in holes - did this lead to their growing smaller over time? Note that it was the hole-building which was distinctive, and not their height. Couple this with the Elves not identifying them as somehow a distinctive people until after they begin to take on a particular appearance, it all points to a common ancestry somewhere along the line.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

the similarities in funerary practices found on the Barrow-Downs and in contemporary Rohan.

Um, I don't believe the Barrows were built by or for Hobbits..............

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Um, I don't believe the Barrows were built by or for Hobbits..............

Yes I think you'll find even David Day is aware of that fact (or is he? hmmmm I must find out...). Yet aren't they uncannily close to the homeland of the Hobbits? Right in between The Shire and Bree in fact, where Hobbits also live. And look again at the first quote I pulled out:

Of these things in the time of Frodo there were still some traces left in local words and names, many of which closely resembled those found in Dale or in Rohan. Most notable were the names of days, months, and seasons; several other words of the same sort (such as mathom and smial) were also still in common use, while more were preserved in the place-names of Bree and the Shire. The personal names of the Hobbits were also peculiar and many had come down from ancient days.

Bree, The Shire, Dale, Rohan - all mentioned as linguistically linked and then you find that funerary practices of Men from these parts have links. Uncanny and most interesting

[Feanorsdoom]

Considering Melkor's possible 'tweaking' of Elves to make orcs and Saruman's further magical Uruk Hai, it seems that a gradual Lamarckian shortening of the Hobbits by hole-building is probably the best bet. As mentioned, there are several races, like the Ents and Ungoliant's spiders, that are only give 'perhaps' explanations. I guess coming up with artificial ideas is as good as looking for the first pipeweed plant. In a world that JRRT himself never quite finished changing, maybe it's a question best left to the Tolkien family (hint, hint, Adam!).