Big hairy feet proves Hobbits are real

[skip spence]

Fans of the 'Lord of the Rings' would know that hobbits are renowned for their big hairy feet. And it's those distinctive feet that have convinced scientists the skeleton of a tiny woman discovered in Indonesia a few years ago does represent a new species of human

Hobbits a new type of human (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2563065.htm)

Their tiny brain makes a future discovery of the real Red Book of Westmarch rather unlikely though...

[radagastly]

Just a quick link to a previous thread on this discovery:

We Have Hobbit Ancestors (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11299&highlight=hobbits+real)

And one in Mirth:

Existence of Hobbits Discovered. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11296&highlight=Hobbit+ancestors)

A settlement of similarly diminutive people has subsequently been discovered in the Ural Mountains, (I think it was in the Urals, I can't find the article now.) that was contemporaneous with these individuals on the island of Flores.

It's good to see people are still discussing this.

[alatar]

Science once again confirms the 'truth' as revealed by Tolkien...:D;)

[skip spence]

In light of those threads I should perhaps point out that the news here is the discovery of the big feet and its implications. Ever since the 'Hobbits' were found in Indonesia, Scientists have argued whether they are just regular Pygmies (Homo Sapien) with rare diseases accounting for their diminutive stature and small skulls, or whether they represent a whole new subspecies of Man, dubbed Homo floresiensis. Those in favour of the latter theory will feel that the Hobbits' huge feet proves once and for all that they are indeed a separate branch of the Human race that up until quite recently lived side by side with modern Homo Sapiens.

[Galin]

I don't think Hobbits in general have unusually big feet.

I don't remember Tolkien ever saying so anyway, and he depicted Hobbit feet in his art. The Harfoots were said to be browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless -- their hands and feet were 'neat and nimble'. The Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger.

Not large, but larger by comparison (feet and hands) -- but the Stoors were broader and of heavier build in any case.

[skip spence]

I don't think Hobbits in general have unusually big feet.

I don't remember Tolkien ever saying so anyway, and he depicted Hobbit feet in his art. The Harfoots were said to be browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless -- their hands and feet were 'neat and nimble'. The Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger.

Not large, but larger by comparison (feet and hands) -- but the Stoors were broader and of heavier build in any case.

I suppose you're right, Galin.

Can't remember if I already before the movies had the notion that Hobbits in general had big feet, and not just old Odo Proudfoot, or if it's another thing to blame Peter Jackson for. I feel slightly embarrassed now.