Talk:Hobbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Trademark

Can anyone confirm the stuff from the last edit? Ausir 19:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that's the rant about trademarks - no. Much of it is nonsense. In particular, Tolkien thought he coined the word 'Hobbit', but wasn't sure. He spent much of his life trying to find a source for it but failed to track it down. This is evidenced by 'letters'. Morwen - Talk 08:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit origins

Hobbits are obscure creatures from Western European folklore. The only known reference comes from the “Denham Tracts (Volume 2)” in 1895 by Michael Denham, re-edited by James Hardy.This term appeared in a long list of creatures, from the mythology and folklore of the Celtic and Scandinavian areas of Europe. Although no description is given, it can be inferred by the meaning of the Old English word "hob" (or the Old English prefix "hob-") that these were small creatures, probably related to elves.

Tolkien was not the original creator of hobbits. This is an historical fact. At least one reference to a "hobbit" exists in folklore before Tolkien ever began to imagine his created world. It is not a "rant", it is simply an historical, irrefutable truth. Just because Tolkien himself failed to track it down before his death in the 1970's (three decades ago) doesn't invalidate the fact that at least one earlier mention of this creature exists. Any Tolkien-worshippers who would rather ignore this fact are free to do so, but to omit the fact from an encyclopedic resource simply because of some romanticized notion of Tolkien's infallible originality is not only abhorrently ignorant, but shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

It's a cliche, I know, but honesty really is the best policy. --user:209.206.169.229

Claiming Tolkien's Hobbits have anything to do with the "spirits" called Hobbits by Denham is extremely ignorant. There is absolutely no relation between Denham's "Hobbits" and Tolkien's halfings. 'Hobbits' appear in Denham's Volume 2 (1895). They come 154th in a list of 197 kinds of "supernatural creatures" which includes several repetitions, and no futher mention is made of hobbits. The index says of them, as of almost all the items in the list, only 'A class of spirits'. Tolkien's hobbits, of course, are anything but 'spirits'. Hobbits do not appear in any European folklore. It is possible JRRT had once read the work and remembered the name, but in view of other evidence this is unlikely. Denham's Hobbits were certainly not described as 'small Elves'. Check your sources please! Anárion 09:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Denham's Hobbits (which are unlikely his own invention) are not described as "small Elves", but, as stated, small stature is implicit in the name itself. As far as "a class of spirits" is concerned -- what do you think elves, dwarves, faeries, and even orcs originally were? I'm not doubting that Tolkien's hobbits bear little if any resemblance (other than small stature) to the creature listed in Denham's book, nor do Tolkien's orcs resemble, in any way, earlier references to the same creatures.
Tolkein's hobbits may have been a great departure from the original, and Tolkien himself may not have even been aware of the existence of the original, but the fact remains that Tolkein's hobbits were most decidedly not the original.
I at least have a shred of evidence backing up my position, from several decades before the publication of "The Hobbit". You have nothing other than Tolkien's own words in some published "letters". And judging by the Tolkien Estate's treatment of TSR's homage to Tolkien's works, I am left to assume that a party with obvious interest in financial gain over such matters can hardly be considered an objective source. After all, if at some point before his death, JRRT had conceded that he was not the inventor of hobbits, this would not necessarily have appeared in a public compilation of his letters -- for if it did, Christopher Tolkien might stand to lose a bit of those movie, cartoon, and merchandising royalties. --user:209.206.169.229
Small stature is not implied by Hobbit per sè: it may as likely be a coinage from 'rabbit'. In any case as there is no proof Tolkien's Hobbits were inspired by Denham's (and this is in fact very unlikely) or are related to the Denham Hobbit at all in any way more than the name (which, if derived from 'hob'=small can be proven as being hardly original), the Tolkien Hobbit can not be described as 'a great departure from the original' as there is no original. Denham's Hobbit does not appear anywhere else, and like most other 'spirits' from his list Denham is the only source of the names. Anárion 10:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is wrong for us to say that the trademark should be regarded invalid. If you want to argue your case in a courtroom please find one. If you want to stick a small note at the bottom saying 'the name 'hobbit' appeared in a "list of spirists" by Michael Denham, but there no evidence to suggest Tolkien was aware of this" that would be fine. 80.229.39.194 09:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. The "should" remark was out of place. As for the small note, I doubt this Morwen character would even allow that much. --user:209.206.169.229


Note On Hobbits In Folklore:

I have personally never seen the term "Hobbit" used in any Celtic legend - and I have collected a great many of them. This does not mean I doubt it was used - if people say they have found such stories, I'll accept that at face value. Hobbits don't seem to have many Celtic traits or those traits they placed on mythological beings. (Eowyn, on the other hand, is Boudicca to the hilt. Literally to the hilt. Which is interesting, as the Rohirrim are based on Anglosaxon traditions, not Celtic ones.)

What I -have- found is a repeated reference in North Wales to a race of small people who were barefoot, lived near bridges and who stole babies and children. Most of this is the usual changeling mythology, but what caught my eye was a reference in the legend to smoke coming out of their mouths. Very likely the legend is a merging of the changeling stories with the weirdness in Elizabethan times of tobacco smoking. This goes nicely with Tolkein's mythology soup theory.

I have NO basis for believing Tolkein was aware of this myth - it seems extremely obscure - and this is most likely a simple but fascinating coincidence. However, I have encountered many such "coincidences" in his stories and therefore believe his sources were more extensive than often described. Without something definite, though, it's supposition and speculation rather than verifiable and source-able.

And how pray tell is Eowyn Boudicca? She is a warrior and a women but that is it (she is referred to as a Shield maiden...which is in it's self Germanic, fitting with her Anglo-Saxon nature). And why would Hobbit even be Celtic, the Hob (creature and element) is English and likely derived from a Germanic tradition if anything.

I do not doubt there were Hobbits in folklore (albeit probably far removed from Tolkien) however I am not sure that he borrowed the name consciously (I find it unlikely). It should probably be mentioned in this article as it is an interesting coincidence. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reality Takes a turn

Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News October 27, 2004

Scientists have found skeletons of a hobbit-like species of human that grew no larger than a three-year-old modern child (See pictures). The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits, lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia 18,000 years ago.

Australian and Indonesian researchers discovered bones of the miniature humans in a cave on Flores, an island east of Bali and midway between Asia and Australia.

Scientists have determined that the first skeleton they found belongs to a species of human completely new to science. Named Homo floresiensis, after the island on which it was found, the tiny human has also been dubbed by dig workers as the "hobbit," after the tiny creatures from the Lord of the Rings books.

The original skeleton, a female, stood at just 1 meter (3.3 feet) tall, weighed about 25 kilograms (55 pounds), and was around 30 years old at the time of her death 18,000 years ago.

The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools and the bones of dwarf elephants, giant rodents, and Komodo dragons, lizards that can grow to 10 feet (3 meters) and that still live today.

Homo floresienses has been described as one of the most spectacular discoveries in paleoanthropology in half a century—and the most extreme human ever discovered.

The species inhabited Flores as recently as 13,000 years ago, which means it would have lived at the same time as modern humans, scientists say.

"To find that as recently as perhaps 13,000 years ago, there was another upright, bipedal—although small-brained—creature walking the planet at the same time as modern humans is as exciting as it was unexpected," said Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia.

Brown is a co-author of the study describing the findings, which appears in the October 28 issue of the science journal Nature. The National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration has sponsored research related to the discovery. The find will be covered in greater detail in a documentary airing early next year on the National Geographic Channel.

"It is totally unexpected," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins program at the Natural History Museum in London. "To have early humans on the remote island of Flores is surprising enough. That some are only about a meter tall with a chimp-size brain is even more remarkable. That they were still there less than 20,000 years ago, and [that] modern humans must have met them, is astonishing."

The researchers estimate that the tiny people lived on Flores from about 95,000 years ago until at least 13,000 years ago. The scientists base their theory on charred bones and stone tools found on the island. The blades, perforators, points, and other cutting and chopping utensils were apparently used to hunt big game.

In an accompanying Nature commentary, Marta Mirazón Lahr and Robert Foley, both with the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge, England, describe Homo floresiensis as changing our understanding of late human evolutionary geography, biology, and culture.

The discovery shows that the genus Homo is more varied and more flexible in its ability to adapt than previously thought. (The genus Homo also includes modern humans, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and Neandertals—all of which are marked by relatively large braincases, erect posture, opposable thumbs, and the ability to make tools.)

"Homo floresiensis is an addition to the short list of other human species that lived at the same time as modern humans. I think people will be surprised to learn that not so long ago, we were not alone," said Brown.

Lost World of Tiny People

Despite its smaller body size, smaller brain, and mixture of primitive and advanced anatomical features, the new species falls firmly within the genus Homo. The researchers speculate that the hobbit and her peers evolved from a normal-size, island-hopping Homo erectus population that reached Flores around 840,000 years ago.

"Physically, they were about the size of a three-year old Homo sapiens [modern human] child, but with a braincase only one-third as large," said Richard Roberts, a geochronologist at the University of Wollongong, Australia, and one on the co-authors of the research paper. "They had slightly longer arms than us. More conspicuously, they had hard, thicker eyebrow ridges than us, a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin."

"While they don't look like modern humans, some of their behaviors were surprisingly human," said Brown, the study co-author.

The Flores people used fire in hearths for cooking and hunted stegodon, a primitive dwarf elephant found on the island. Although small, the stegodon still weighed about 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds), and would pose a significant challenge to a hunter the size of a three-year-old modern human child. Hunting must have required joint communication and planning, the researchers say.

Almost all of the stegodon bones associated with the human artifacts are of juveniles, suggesting the tiny humans selectively hunted the smallest stegodons. The Flores humans' diets also included fish, frogs, snakes, tortoises, birds, and rodents.

"The hobbit was nobody's fool," Roberts said. "They survived alongside us [Homo sapiens] for at least 30,000 years, and we're not known for being very amiable eco-companions. And the hobbits were managing some extraordinary things—manufacturing sophisticated stone tools, hunting pygmy elephants, and crossing at least two water barriers to reach Flores from mainland Asia—with a brain only one-third the size of ours.

"Given that Homo floresiensis is the smallest human species ever discovered, they out-punch every known human intellectually, pound for pound."

Both the tiny humans and the dwarfed elephants appear to have become extinct at about the same time as the result of a major volcanic eruption.

Mingling of the Human Tribes

There is no evidence of modern humans reaching Flores before 11,000 years ago, so it is unknown whether the hobbit intermingled with modern humans. The researchers found hobbit and pygmy stegodon remains only below a 12,000-year-old volcanic ash layer. Modern human remains were found only above the layer.

Still, rumors, myths, and legends of tiny creatures have swirled around the isolated island for centuries. It's certainly possible that they interacted with modern humans, according to the researchers.

"Looked at from a regional perspective, we definitely have modern humans in Australia from at least 40,000 years ago, and in Borneo from at least 43,000 years ago," Roberts said. "So there was temporal overlap between the hobbits and ourselves from at least 40,000 years ago until at least 18,000 years ago—more than 20,000 years minimum. What was the nature of their interaction? We have absolutely no idea. We need more sites and more hard evidence, and that's the next phase of our investigation."

Island Dwarfing

Researchers are also anxious to investigate how and why the hobbits came to be so small. When scientists discovered the hobbit remains, they thought it was the skeleton of a child. There was no record of human adults that were that small. Modern pygmies are considerably taller at about 1.4 to 1.5 meters (4.6 to nearly 5 feet) tall.

"H. floresiensis presents an intriguing problem in evolutionary biology," Brown said.

The most likely explanation is that, over thousands of years, the species became smaller because environmental conditions favored smaller body size. Dwarfing of mammals on islands is a well-known process and seen worldwide. Islands frequently provide a limited food supply, few predators, and few species competing for the same environmental niche. Survival would depend on minimizing daily energy requirements.

But there is no absolute proof that this is what in fact happened with this small human.

"While there are stone tools dated as far back as 840,000 years ago, no fossils of large-bodied ancestors have ever been found" on Flores, Brown said. "There is some possibility [Homo floresiensis] arrived on the island small-bodied."

"I could not have predicted such a discovery in a million years," said Stringer, of London's Natural History Museum. "This find shows us how much we still have to learn about human evolution, particularly in Southeast Asia."

[edit] "Hobbit" not "hobbit"

Looking through an assortment of articles, I have found a great deal of confusion regaring the proper capitalization of the word Hobbit.

In thie Prologue to Fellowship, Tolkien always uses Hobbit (the same as Dwarves, Elves, Men). I recommend that we do likewise, at least when we are referring to Tolkien's Hobbits.

Yes, I know I'm setting myself up for a lot of editing to make this standard. I'll give folks a chance to disagree before I start the mass edit... --Aranel 18:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't he also always capitalize Men and Elves? Ausir 18:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point (maybe it wasn't clear). Actually, it would occasionally be proper to say men, as in "the men of Rohan went to war and the women stayed behind". "Men" is a stand-in for a Westron word that means "human beings". One could technically refer to male Elves as men. Quenya has Atan "Man, human being" and nér "man, adult male". But Men is a special case here, since English does not make the distinction (seeing as we have only one sentient species). Tolkien today would probably write Human for Atan. --Aranel 20:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe Hobbit is capitalized as a proper noun. If you are using it as a pronoun, it isn't. Such as "The hobbit watched as his tea boiled," or, "They are called Hobbits." Signed- an anonymous Hobbit.

I agree, i would capitalise "Hobbit" when using it in the context of the name of the race, but use hobbit (uncapitalized) when talking about it as a subject/object in a scentence. Some however choose to use the original Westrôn capitalisation pattern, (first syllable stressed = proper noun), in that case all determinate-singular uses of hobit are proper nouns. this I would not correct. (correct any spelling mistakes please!)

"Hobbit" would make good analogous sense to other terms. Consider it like Canadian or American. I know we don't capitalize human, but that's because we're the only sapient beings we know of. So the analogy is closer to country than to race. Just off the top of my head though. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've studied this quite a bit. In The Hobbit it is mostly not capitalized. In The Lord of the Rings, it is sometimes and not others, as are "elf" and "man." In The Silmarillion the names of "peoples" are always capitalized; this last seems to be what true Tolkien geeks go by. Steve Dufour 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

An example quoted in this very Wikipedia article itself:

I picture a fairly human figure, not a kind of fairy rabbit as some of my British reviewers seem to fancy: fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur. Clothing: green velvet breeches; red or yellow waistcoat; brown or green jacket; gold (or brass) buttons; a dark green hood and cloak (belonging to a dwarf).
(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #27)

Here, dwarf is not capitalised.
—6birc, 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ears?

Did Tolkien himself ever mention that Hobbits have pointed ears? If so, where? I myself couldn’t find any references. TowerDragon 01:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC there's one suggestion in the Letters: it's a description of hobbits, in which he says, "ears slightly pointed and 'elf-like'." I'll find the reference tomorrow. I also think that this reference is the closest we have to a confirmation that Tolkien's elves had pointed ears, a topic of some debate among Tolkien scholars! —Josiah Rowe 07:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
That would be letter #27. As for Elf ears, another reference that they were pointed is that in Sindarin "ear" (lhaw) comes from the same base as "leaf" (lhas): LAS. It is likely that the dual meaning of LAS as "leaf-shaped" and "ear" is meaningful, and that Elf ears were more pointed than human. (Etymologies). Jordi·✆ 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Thank you for finding that for me. And I didn't mean to suggest that I thought that Tolkien's elves didn't have pointed ears, only to "point out" that it's a subject on which not all Tolkien fans and scholars agree. (Apologies for the dreadful pun.) —Josiah Rowe 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the reference. I think this should be integrated into the main article somehow. — TowerDragon 09:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feet

We need a picture of their trademark feet--130.64.153.83 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit's disapearance?

I haven't read many of Tolkiens notes, but if I recall correctly it states in "The Hobbit" that hobbits are hard to find these days because they are smaller and good at hiding from big people like us who go trampling about like a herd of elephants that hobbits can hear from a mile away, and that in "Unfinished Tales" it says that the hobbits dwindled in size, forgeting their arts and hiding away from men in holes? I see no reference that says they leave middle earth, so we can presume they are still there today, unless there is some other source, so can we remove the line saying that they disappeared after the fourth age? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.79.83 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-10 17:34:06 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit Origin

The idea of a little hole dwelling creature was introduced to Tolkien by one of his students in a story he had written.

Where is the citation for this? I've not heard this allegation before. Thu 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a better picture

Something from the movies. Can't we get something? Something of Elijah Wood wearing his whole costume. All the article has now is his face. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is bad enough, given that Elijah Wood had precious little in common with the description of Frodo in the books. --OliverH 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
He also has a cleft chin, but that's about it. Uthanc 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article on book vs. movie hobbits? There should be. :-) Steve Dufour 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meals

Reference 5 mentions Jackson's meal names: breakfast, second breakfast, elevenses, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner, and supper. I count seven. Aren't there only six?

[edit] Could someone clarify this sentence?

In the Etymology section occurs the following sentence:

According to Tolkien, the word hobbit was the first element of correcting reports when he started scribbling on a piece of paper and wrote, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", and the multitude of stories sprang from that.

My best interpretation of this is that Tolkien was in the middle of correcting some reports when he thought up the first line and the rest of the story just came from that. If this is right, the English needs to be fixed. Tocharianne 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me as if a few words got lost at some point. I've fixed it to reflect my understanding of the Hobbit's origins. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] =Citations

The history section needs a lot more references i think anyone else agree/ will be able to put some in? le Dan 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit: Public domain now?

I'm sure hobbits are now public domain. Can someone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.86.156 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Category:Middle-earth races

Explain to me why this article shouldn't be listed in this category? The 'read the page, lol' excuse isn't good enough. There needs to be clearly defined reason or this will never end. -- Jelly Soup 07:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"In-universe" Hobbits think of themselves as separate from humans, but Tolkien elsewhere wrote that they were humans. So the article is at least as precise as Tolkien was... Uthanc 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
For the purposes of an encyclopedia that isn't trivia based, Hobbits belong in this category. -- Jelly Soup 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I notice that Human isn't included in the category, so I guess I have to agree. -- Jelly Soup 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] life spans and dog breeds?

I have to question the following parenthetical remark in the text of the article: (it is unknown why Tolkien gave hobbits this average lifespan, although it happens to correspond with the size factor in the lifespans of different dog breeds).

The corrolation may be true - and, as a factoid, it is interesting ... but it strikes me as being essentially speculation by an editor and thus Original Research. I could see including it if Tolkien had mentioned the corrolation... I could even see including it if some noted LOTR expert had published something on the corrolation. But as it stands (ie little more than an editorial comment), I don't think it belongs. Either cut it, or cite it. Blueboar 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thinking some more... I am going to be BOLD and just delete it as OR. I am willing to discuss, of course. Blueboar 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"A little known fact is that Tolkien first used the term 'hobbit' in a creative writing class he took in 1914 under Dr. Zachary Frey at Oxford." - vandalism. Contradicts info elsewhere and unsupported by Google . Thanks for removing it. Uthanc 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It struck me as vandalism when I saw it... I seriously doubt that they even had a "creative writing" class at Oxford in 1914... its not the sort of thing that would have been in the curriculum at the time. Blueboar 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six or seven meals?

I don't have my copy of LOTR with me right now, but I seem to remember it being 6 meals a day not 7. Could someone check on this? Thanks. (p.s. it is also mentioned in Second breakfast. Steve Dufour 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Angle" = Angeln

"The Hobbits took different routes in their journey westward ... they began to settle together in Bree-land, Dunland, and the Angle formed by the rivers Mitheithel and Bruinen" --
I don't have a print source handy, but as I recall, Tolkien meant this as a nod to Angeln, the source of the Angles (as in "Anglo-Saxon") and the linguistic source of both "English language" and "English people". -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)