• -->

  • Latest Comments

    • Guinevere: I love you. :heart:
    • Carol Orvis: Hi Allen! I used to watch Sesame St. with both Shelby and Guin when they were young. They would sit in...
    • Allen: testing comments! :BOMB:
    • Big Al: Sesame ruled. I remember those clips. Talk about retro. :D
    • Brian: yeah, weird, trippy, and great! I remember seeing all of those, so great. always liked the guy who turned into...

  • Upcoming Events

    • Popular on DIGG

    • Latest del.icio.us

    • Weather

    • Meta

    « Oscar Trickery
    Classic Lit 101 »

    Hobbits are not real.

    hobbit

    n : an imaginary being similar to a person but smaller and with hairy feet; invented by J.R.R. Tolkien

    It bothers me that scientific publications online refer to the new human species (Homo floresiensis) as the “hobbit”. I don’t think they should use “hobbit”, nickname or not, as the informal name for this species. Maybe I shouldn’t let it bother me but, for some reason, it does.
    There are other species that have average heights from 3-4.5ft but scientists do not call them hobbits. Some of the Australopithecines for example have short average heights. I’ve never heard them refered to as hobbits.
    One of the articles that refers to the new species as “hobbits”.

    Perhaps the media thinks it’s cute. Maybe the scientists think it’s cute. I think it degrades important discovery. And, for all we know, this could be another Piltdown Man. People fell for it before and it took 40 years to figure that it was a hoax. I mean, honestly, a 3ft human who hunted pygmy elephants with spears? I guess it’s possible, but they certainly weren’t 3ft hobbits livings in holes, writing books about great adventures. So really imaginary hobbits probably have nothing in common with real life Homo floresiensis other than maybe a reference to height. And I think that if it weren’t for the hobbit nickname, this would be one story that would have barely got out of scientific journals and wouldn’t have made it to the discovery channel for some time.

    Edit: I searched for articles that do not refer to the new species as the “hobbit” but found only one:
    Homo Floresiensis and Human Equality: Enduring Lessons from Stephen Jay Gould

    Posted by allen on Friday, March 4th, 2005 at 11:45 am.

    2 Responses to “Hobbits are not real.”

    I am sure that most of the “hobbit” usage can be attributed to the media reporting on this rather than an apparent lack of credibility amongst the scientific community.

    The scientific community and those that report on such findings have always used ‘pet names’ or familiar descriptors when reporting such discoveries. This is done to provide an easier means of discussing the topic; try reading that article out loud and every time that “hobbit” (except for the nickname line) is used say Homo floresiensis. It just doesn’t flow. Also, Hobbit is only used in that article three times, not including the attention grabbing headline and the officially declaring that the term hobbit is strictly a nickname.

    Giving these common descriptors also serves to bring the topics out of academia and into the, generally less educated, public.

    The fact that this new species was discovered after the Lord of the Rings movies were released just provides it with greater exposure. I am sure if this discovery was made prior to the movies being released, the media would have called them dwarves or some other fictional name.

    I am certain that no one is trying to imply that these people lived in holes or wrote great tales.

    Also, given the amount of research Tolkien did when creating the books, he most likely based his hobbits on the australopithecines or some other species of prehistoric human.

    Left by ArchAngel on March 4th, 2005

    ArchAngel’s last paragraph sort of underlines Allen’s concerns I think. That people will apply this new discovery and convolute it so that they credit Tolkein with the discovery, or to make their fantasies seem more real. But they’re not.

    However, I am not against this naming as Allen is. In some ways, this might draw public attention to a discovery from people who usually don’t follow science stories. It might educate more people than it normally would, and I understand Allen thinking that it might mislead more than it normally would also.

    This type of naming, as ArchAngel points out has been in use a long time. What would bother me is if they had made the discovery and didn’t do any research, but instead made up fantastic tales like, “Hey! Tolkein’s Hobbits were based on real beings!” This is what happened with the legend of dragons. People found dinosaur bones and didn’t have any education to try and discern what they were, so they just made shit up. That’s just lazy. It’s a fine model for stories, but not for understanding real beings.

    Yes, The Hobbit is an entertaining story (at least what I remember of it as a kid), but it’s the very definition of fantasy. Hobbits are, as Allen says, not real.

    Left by Guinevere on March 4th, 2005