Where did Hobbits come from?

[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..............