Alrighty Then. Eldorion made a categoric statement on the Dwarf thread regarding the origins of Hobbits that there is very little canon reference for.

So the question needs to be asked: From whence came The Hobbits?

Eldorion made this claim:
[quote:szod7p5x]Tolkien made it clear in the Prologue to LotR that hobbits were a variant branch of the race of men. Therefore I think it can be assumed that they were created at the same time as men.[/quote:szod7p5x]

It's not clear from his statement "Prologue to LotR" whether Eldo means The Hobbit or the actual published prologue of Fellowship of the Ring. Perhaps Hobbits and Man are in a sense related. But no more-so than the Elves whom Tolkien considered a "sibling" race to Man.

[quote:szod7p5x]"Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring..."
JRRT - Letters #153, September 1954

"The existence of Elves: that is of a race of beings closely akin to Men, so closely indeed that they must be regarded as physically (or biologically) simply branches of the same race."
JRRT - Morgoth's Ring, Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth Commentary circa 1959[/quote:szod7p5x]

So one could see Hobbits as yet another "branch" of the race of Elves and Man. In any case, I think if there are to be "variants", a case can also be made for the Hobbits being a variant of Elves.

Tolkien himself says this:
[quote:szod7p5x]"I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. ... I picture a fairly human figure ... fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; [u:szod7p5x]ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'[/u:szod7p5x]; hair short and curling (brown)."
JRRT - Letters #27, writing to Houghton Mifflin circa March-April 1938[/quote:szod7p5x]

And in the texts Tolkien says this:
[quote:szod7p5x]"It is plain indeed that in spite of later estrangement Hobbits are relatives of ours: far nearer to us than Elves, or even than Dwarves. [...] But what exactly our relationship is can no longer be discovered." The Fellowship of the Ring--prologue

’If you can’t distinguish between a Man and a Hobbit, your judgement is poorer than I imagined. They’re as different as peas and apples.’ The Fellowship of the Ring--Many Meetings
[/quote:szod7p5x]

Or perhaps, they are a separate creation altogether, much like the Dwarves. Maybe, Yavanna (as the "Giver of Fruits" not only requested the creation of the Ents, but the creation of a race of beings who shared her love of "all things green and growing". Somehow I doubt this, but it's worth considering

In the end though, my considered opinion is that Hobbits are indeed one of three branches linking Man, Elf, and Hobbit. Despite the prologue's proclamation that Hobbits are "nearer to us than Elves", some of the other statements seem to counter that a bit. Tolkien was clearly not settled on the subject, but of a relationship between all three "races" we can be assured.

The main question remaining then: When were Hobbits Awakened?

[b:szod7p5x]GB[/b:szod7p5x]

For the most part, I agree Eldorion. Likely Hobbits were awakened alongside humans.

But I don't think it really is all that clear that Hobbits are any more closely related to Men than Elves. I think on some level Tolkien saw them as "in-between". And if Elves and Men could interbreed, then there can be no doubt that Hobbits and Men could (or that Hobbits and Elves could also). Indeed I made this very case regarding the continuation of the Hobbit gene-pool into our Modern Age some time ago.

[b:1y5uo13x]GB[/b:1y5uo13x]

You make some valid points Eldorion. But it is worth emphasizing that Bree was considered exceptional. And also that the Mirkwood Elves apparently got on famously with the Men of Laketown. And in The Hobbit itself, Tolkien makes the Hobbits much more distinct from Man. He later retconned this to fit his larger world.

So even though Tolkien himself says "nearer" in the prologue, I don't think he was entirely certain.

In any case, it's a bit like arguing whether Obama is more white or more black. If we are going to take a modern scientific approach to this, then we have to concede that individual genetic variations are greater then ethnic genetic differences. In other words, Race does not exist as a meaningful term. Environment seems to shape regional adaptations of humankind.

[b:21zuotzp]GB[/b:21zuotzp]

GB: As I said above, I think Bree was exceptional because of the geography and population. Hobbits weren't terribly numerous, and they were concentrated in Eriador (in fact we know of none outside of Eriador at the time of LotR). Humans in Eriador are limited to Bree-men, Rangers, and some ruffians. Were hobbits more widespread we might have seen a lot more co-habiting.

The Elves and the Men of Lake-town certainly got along, but they didn't live together. I think that is the crucial difference.

I'm not really clear on why you think that Tolkien was uncertain if Hobbits were closer "relatives" of humans than Elves were. He said in the Prologue that it was plain.

Agreed, Eldo. There's the rub. Tolkien tried being semi-consistent with genetic science of his day, but was more concerned with providing a Mythic past for Britain. It's more likely that Hobbits had their own awakening rather than evolving, given Tolkien's set-up.

So It's not that I see the Hobbits as more Elf or more Man. Genetically speaking Tolkien clearly intended some sort of equivalence. In many Cultural habits though, I do concede that they were more Man than Elf.

[b:3g7uzpgc]GB[/b:3g7uzpgc]

In our own world there is a debate between Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Designism) and Evolution.

One makes our universe God-made and the other makes it the result of trial and error (or something similar, let's not split hairs here), but in Middle-earth there [i:38s4m6ku]IS[/i:38s4m6ku] a God who created everything.

So does [i:38s4m6ku]evolution [/i:38s4m6ku] actually exist in Middle-earth?

Or is [i:38s4m6ku]Myth [/i:38s4m6ku], even within the confines of Tolkien's great conceit, still [i:38s4m6ku]Myth[/i:38s4m6ku] and not Divine History i.e. [i:38s4m6ku]'True'[/i:38s4m6ku] History?

If we can answer these questions, perhaps we can at least decide between God and Darwin on the Origin of Hobbits?

Ah! So we're back to square one. Were Hobbits part of that earlier creation of Elves and Men and Dwarves, or did they just evolve over a very short period of time? If Tolkien didn't know, we may have to speculate a bit. (Descendants of rabbits - that was one troll's theory, I think).

I lean toward Unguided Evolution myself.

The Hobbits were thought to have originally come under notice when they lived somewhere on the banks of the Anduin, didn't they? But in what way were they linked with men? It's a puzzle.

(I'd ask Wise Odo - but I'm a bit reluctant to do so - he can be rather forthright by all accounts, and he's surely no respecter of persons. Before taking that perilous route, perhaps I should give you guys another go to come up with a[i:w79yrooo] definitive[/i:w79yrooo] answer. So, GB, dig deep into your texts. Or you, Mr Loremaster - show us your stuff! Or perhaps I should get really serious and ask the Scot? (Please don't make me face Wiso Odo - his Wisdom is just too Wise for most of us!)

Come on guys, have a fair dinkum go!

Looks like I'll have to give other folk a chance but if that fails I'll see if I can do some channeling ([i:1ll3dkha]scientific[/i:1ll3dkha] channeling, that is) on a certain other thread.

[i:1ll3dkha]"...firmly in the Evolution Camp." [/i:1ll3dkha]I thought being an Agnostic would put your firmly in [i:1ll3dkha]No[/i:1ll3dkha] Camp!

Damn meant to mention this in above post- on the point of myth v real world. Should we take the myths of the FA especially as literal? Did for example Earendil really sail into the sky and was his Silmaril really made a star or is this a myth of the TA? Should the Creation story of Middle-earth be treated on the same factual basis as say the description of Bilbo's birthday party? After all there are those alive now who still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and we have science to offer a counter arguement, Middle-earth does not so there the Creation myths are excepted as fact, but that doesn't necessarily make them literally true. Seems to me what Tolkien created was not a singular myth but a myth containing, within it its own subset, lots myths- but that doesn't mean evolution, Darwin etc wasn't the truth just that in the TA nobody- not even smart Numeroreons- had thought of it. After all if Tolkien was clear on one thing it was that the world of ME is our own world at an earlier epoch.

Discovered this thread late. I think everything that can be definitely said on Tolkien's views on the origin of hobbits has already been covered, but as threads often do it's wandered into the parallel topic of Creationism versus evolution in Tolkien's universe.

It's abundantly clear that Tolkien was a creationist. But he was also finely attuned to the natural world and from many examples of breeding, etc he had to accept the base tenets of evolution. As others have suggested he likely saw guided evolution as the predominant force for biological change.

Anyone who truly observes nature and thinks enough about it must accept unguided evolution - I think the trick is to allow oneself to slip into murkiness before following the argument to its natural conclusion, and in the midst of the murkiness the religious framework can take up the slack. This allows you to have practical evolution for day by day observations and breeding, yet keep the religious viewpoint for moral and cosmological reasoning.

My guess is that Tolkien would see hobbits as a 'created' race, while the Stoors, Fallohides, and dang it, what was the last one...would be evolutionary branches of the created race. Being mortal they would have the same cosmological significance as man.

Too much thinking disallows me from thinking of our own world as created, but I do enjoy having a fictional world upon which a meaningful creation story can be pursued without intellectual guilt.

Uh....Tolkien created them!

In terms of his cosmology though, that's a humdinger of a question, Odo. Judging from LoTR they clearly had an important role to play in the way history unfolds. I guess they wouldn't be mentioned in Elven histories because they didn't do much of significance during the first age. The Druidain weren't mentioned either, but they seem to be almost as different from other men as hobbits are. I'd go along with the other feelings on this thread that they are sort of a division of men, despite the semi elven ears. (parallel evolution? What function do pointed ears serve anyway?)

[b:1v5kbnsa]pettytyrant[/b:1v5kbnsa]

Stoors were Hobbits. There were three varieties of Hobbits: Stoors, Harfoots, and Fallohides. All found their way into Eriador, and some of each eventually made their way to the Shire. Fallohides were less numerous than Stoors and Harfoots though, and somewhat merged with them. By the late Third Age though, the differences between each variety were less important, probably as a result of interbreeding.

[quote:1v5kbnsa]And if, as some have suggested Tolkien does not allow enough time for evolution, how does that distinction within Hobbits (Stoors) happen? If memory serves me right there are physical differences as well as cultural ones between the different types[/quote:1v5kbnsa]

It's fully possible that all three varieties of Hobbits were present from the creation of the race. I can't say for sure though.

[quote:1v5kbnsa]On another point about Hobbits I'm sure somewhere it is mentioned that there are more hobbits wandering about the place than even Hobbits generally know- although it is implied most of these hobbits are little more than tramps and seem to be a sort of more primitive hobbit (ready to dig a hole in any bank they find and stay for short period of time- sort of gypsy hobbit!).[/quote:1v5kbnsa]

I actually re-read that part of the book recently; it was something I had forgotten. I'm unsure if these Hobbits, part of neither the Shire nor Bree, had any settlements of their own or if they were all tramps of a sort. A fascinating question and look at the depth of Eriador, and Middle-earth in general.

[quote:1v5kbnsa]on the point of myth v real world. Should we take the myths of the FA especially as literal? Did for example Earendil really sail into the sky and was his Silmaril really made a star or is this a myth of the TA? Should the Creation story of Middle-earth be treated on the same factual basis as say the description of Bilbo's birthday party?[/quote:1v5kbnsa]

Tolkien struggled with this question himself. He wrote a series of notes and short essays (published as Myths Transformed in the tenth volume of [i:1v5kbnsa]The History of Middle-earth[/i:1v5kbnsa]: [i:1v5kbnsa]Morgoth's Ring[/i:1v5kbnsa]. He considered treating the Silmarillion myths as mannish legends, passed down to the Third Age by Numenor, but based on hearsay and traditional legends more than historical "fact". In this conception the Sun and the Moon were more in line with our modern understanding of them, the timeline was extended to allow more time for human civilizations to develop, and a number of other changes were considered. In the end, Tolkien realized that this would require a full re-writing of his First Age tales, and he never followed through on it.

I tend to accept the more mythological Silmarillion (particularly as represented in the published version) as "canonical", though this does raise important questions as to realism in Middle-earth. Questions like this aren't particularly relevant to, say, LOTR; but they are definitely important for the Silmarillion. I don't have any definite answers, I'm afraid. One possible solution would be to suspend the imposition of realism (especially scientific ideas) when dealing with the Creation myths, but I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that.

I hadn't really thought about this before. I should sometime....

As far as the story goes, I assume Intelligent Design as [i:eqqesltw]proven [/i:eqqesltw]. From there evolution might exist (Tolkien was not clear about as we are all aware) but it would seem strange that Hobbits evolved so quickly even under the [i:eqqesltw]rules [/i:eqqesltw](?) of the Designer Team. Also, there is no recorded reference to inter-breeding between Humans and Hobbits. I can't help thinking this was because it was[i:eqqesltw] never [/i:eqqesltw]considered possible and that neither Humans nor Hobbits ever thought of themselves as the same species. Perhaps this was because they weren't!

As a general thought, I feel sad that Tolkien felt the need to bring The Hobbit and LotR forward, so to speak. LotRizing The Hobbit. Making LotR seem more Real by paying closer attention to the actual Real world, where evolution rules - not mythology-made-real. (I'm with Halfwise here btw. I like to let my Imagination run free in Middle-earth. I pretend it exists - but only while I'm there. In the Real World I believe the physicists; but not those that are intellectual cowards. The [i:eqqesltw]let's-pretend-God's-real-because-we-know-death-is-at-our-door- [/i:eqqesltw](the long sleep, not the short one before the Rapture) [i:eqqesltw]-and-we're-frightened[/i:eqqesltw] type. The [i:eqqesltw]okay-ever-lasting-life-can't-be-proven-scientifically-but-let's-lie-to-ourselves-that-we-can-prove-it-sort-of[/i:eqqesltw] type. [i:eqqesltw]"Hey! Our Faith answers any argument against us even if actual science refutes us" [/i:eqqesltw] I know the kind of physcists you're talking about, Halfwise! I feel sad for them. No one wants to die).

Hail, I argue from entirely [i:eqqesltw]within[/i:eqqesltw] the conceit (I, like you, realize Tolkien created Hobbits ).

GB, it appears you were writing while I was writing (and editing!)

I still think Hobbits were different to Men. You might already have noticed what good memories the folk of Middle-earth have. If neither Hobbits (nor Men) remember their [i:18rz56tg]physical [/i:18rz56tg]relationship to Man, I'm tipping there never was one.

I'm beginning to think Eldorion's theory is right! [i:3tfql2rc]Hobbits [/i:3tfql2rc]from [i:3tfql2rc]dinosaurs[/i:3tfql2rc]. Who would have thought it? But makes a lot of sense. Radical idea, I know, but weren't Galileo's theories radical at the time? (The naysayers will no doubt call him [i:3tfql2rc]'simpleton'[/i:3tfql2rc], no doubt, but I call him a [i:3tfql2rc]'genius'[/i:3tfql2rc]!)

Eldorion's a revelation (scienticically speaking) lately, what with his Eldorionics, and now his theory on the Evolution of Hobbits! He's leaving us in his dust, GB. The New generation is always wiser than the Old. Oh aint that the truth!

Is that why they didn't make Vatican III?

But he's come up with an exciting new theory, what! None of us has yet had the courage to come up with even a [i:1g1n1ndk]modest[/i:1g1n1ndk] theory! Bully for you, Eldorion!

[quote="pettytyrant101":3npb7zmx]Thanks for the in-depth reply Eldorion. I used Stoors deliberately rather than hobbit- as I'm sure you are aware- because I have noted Tolkien seems to do this when he refers to early hobbits- I beleive Smeagols family were ancestors of Stoors and only the Stoors get a mention in appendix A- this has led me to speculate if originally all hobbits were Stoors and the other two branches came later.[/quote:3npb7zmx]

The history of hobbits begins in the Vales of Anduin east of the Misty Mountains. All three varieties of Hobbits once lived there before migrating westward. The Prologue to TLotR discusses this (and much else about Hobbits) at greater length; it's really a fascinating read.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":xjpspyjo]Great catch on the material regarding the Stoors Petty Tyrant. And I love your follow up on that Eldo. I didn't know about the "Gypsy Hobbits" myself. Though I had long assumed that more Hobbits existed than the Shire folk knew, due to Smeagol and Deagol's existence. If I am not incorrect, weren't they essentially "River Hobbits" (aka Hillbilly Hobbits )?[/quote:xjpspyjo]

Well, the Stoors of the Vales of Anduin were long gone (where to, I cannot say) by the time of TLotR. For the record though, here's the quote in which we learn about other Hobbits. I was thinking about starting a thread on this since I (re)discovered the quote about a week ago anyway.

[quote="At the Sign of the Prancing Pony":xjpspyjo]The Shire-hobbits referred to those of Bree, and to any others that lived beyond the borders, as Outsiders, and took very little interest in them, considering them dull and uncouth. There were probably many more Outsiders scattered about in the West of the World in those days than the people of the Shire imagined. Some, doubtless, were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them. But in the Bree-land, at any rate, the hobbits were decent and prosperous, and no more rustic than most of their distant relatives Inside.[/quote:xjpspyjo]

Reading that quote was like getting splashed with a bucketful of ice-cold water, and it has made me start reconsidering a number of my assumptions about Hobbits. For one, I had thought (at least partially encouraged by Karen Wynn Fonstad's [i:xjpspyjo]The Atlas of Middle-earth[/i:xjpspyjo]) that the only hobbit settlements were in the Shire and in Bree-land. The above quote strongly suggests, however, that there were a number of wandering hobbits throughout Eriador (and perhaps other parts of Northwest Middle-earth). I wonder if they had any relations to "ruffians" or migrating "southerners" (probably Dunlendings) that we meet at the Prancing Pony.

More intriguingly though is the possibility that there were other non-"rustic" hobbits out there. I think the quote leaves open the possibility that there were other "decent and prosperous" hobbits living in settlements that were part of neither the Shire nor Bree-land. The aforementioned chapter states that the Bree-hobbits claimed to be the oldest settlement of hobbits in the world, and that may well have been the case, but I still wonder where and how the others might have lived.

Oh, the mysteries of the tragically unfinished Middle-earth, and the unending joy of discovering and puzzling over them.

Just seeking a clarification Eldorion- when you say "The history of hobbits begins in the Vales of Anduin" I assume you meant "hobbit history begins in the vales". The exact quote you're relying on from the prologue is;
"Their earliest tales seem to glimpse a time when they dwelt in the upper vales of Anduin, between the eaves of Greenwood the Great and the Misty Mountains."
Obviously this does not imply that's where hobbit existence began but merely as far back as their oldest tales go. On the subject of the hobbit branches the prologue has this to say;
"Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds."
This of course doesn't give much away as to how long before this occurred, or any idea has to whether all three branches emerged at once or if one branch appears then eventually another etc or what sort of hobbity thing the three branches started out as.
As to hobbits outside the Shire- maybe there are some still hiding out between Tharbad and Dunland where the Stoors once had settlements. Perhaps the reason the Stoors tend to turn up more by name in older histories- despite being less numerous than Harfoots say- was due solely to their adventurous natures and meant they turned up in more distant lands.

Halfwise, let's examine the Tolkien quote about the Nazgul steed a little more closely:

[quote:3glcjfp8]letter 211:
[b:3glcjfp8]Yes and no.[/b:3glcjfp8] I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a 'pterodactyl', and often is drawn [...]. [b:3glcjfp8]But obviously it is pterodactylic[/b:3glcjfp8] and owes much to the new mythology [of the Prehistoric], [b:3glcjfp8]and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras[/b:3glcjfp8].[/quote:3glcjfp8]

The quote IS incomplete, though it doesn't appear to be altered (I haven't searched for a more complete quote as yet). But it still provides us with a lot more information than a cursory glance reveals. Tolkien doesn't dismiss Pterodactyls out of hand ("Yes and no". He does suggest it is much like a Pterodactyl, and that it owes its image to that provided by the illustrations of the day based on their fossilized skeletons (which he attempts to put on the same level as religion by referring to it as the "new mythology". And then he goes even further to suggest that it could be (no doubt in an "applicable" way ) a "last survivor" of a more ancient era (specifically "geological".

This tells us a lot indeed about Tolkien's views regarding the validity of Evolution. Paleontology clearly convinced Tolkien to concede that pre-human eras did exist. But at the same time (given his complex view of Myth and the Imagination), he wasn't willing to concede to the Reductionist Mind-set a superiority he felt it didn't deserve (and neither do I, by the way, despite, or perhaps because of, my Agnosticism). Hence he puts it on the same level as his religion, by calling it "the new mythology". No doubt, he believed that it was a "True Myth", much like he believed the story of Christ to be a "True Myth".

In other words, he was willing to believe in Evolution, but not completely in Natural Selection as the Agent of Evolution. For Tolkien, the True Agent of Evolution would be God (perhaps occasionally using Natural Selection as a tool of His Will).

[b:3glcjfp8]GB[/b:3glcjfp8]

I confess I had a poor view of Creationists, but when they became Intelligent Designers, I realized how wonderful it was. A more rational sounding name makes all the difference! Peculiarly, the whole thing reminds me of Orwell's [i:ewgw6usn]"Ninereen Eighty Four"[/i:ewgw6usn] for some reason...

Tolkien as [i:ewgw6usn]Creationist[/i:ewgw6usn]... nah, just don't like the sound of that...

Thank God for that.. hey, [b:3jqtdzci]NO[/b:3jqtdzci]! Thank Humanism for that!

Going on what I can recall about the three hobbit varieties from memory I would hazard a guess that those that became Stoors were hobbits that remained living by rivers and waters, possibly the dangers this might represent increased their daring, the Harfoots I would reckon were most likely the first hobbit farmers, presumably successful ones which might explain their numbers and love of the earth, and the Fallohides I would reckon were more woodland hobbits, fewer in number given the lack of room in woods and forests for settlements. Just speculation on my part however.