Where did Hobbits come from?

[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.

[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.