We know that Hobbits were 3 to 3.5 feet tall, Bandobras Took almost 4. But how big were hobbit children (relative to their age, of course)?
3
-
14They were about this tall.– XantecMay 7, 2013 at 17:30
-
1This is a good counterpart to this question about the Elves.– SolemnityMay 8, 2013 at 0:52
-
Did we see any in the movies? If so that should be a good guide, because they stuck pretty close to the books in virtually all aspects.– Paul D. WaiteFeb 16, 2015 at 13:48
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
For they are a little people, smaller than Dwarves: less stout and stocky, that is, even when they are not actually much shorter. Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure.
-The Fellowship of the Ring
Since Tolkien says here that Hobbits aren't particularly out of whack in terms of their proportions, unlike Dwarves, I think we can assume that they have human or near-human proportions, just shrunk down to about 3/5 of our size.
If they have human proportions, then you can assume their children would also be 3/5 the size of human children at their respective stage in development (keeping in mind the average lifespan of a Hobbit is longer than a human's.)
answered May 7, 2013 at 22:48
-
2Agreed, yes. Sam was able to take Elanor in his lap at the end of RotK, and Hobbit children are described as "small" in FotR chapter 1, both of which support this interpretation.– user8719May 7, 2013 at 22:52
Hobbits: 3' - 3'6" Humans: 6' - 7' Human babies: 1'7" - 1'9"..
Since hobbits are virtually identical in anatomy to humans (only smaller), I think it's safe to assume, hobbit babies would be roughly 10" (edit my typos, if you must, but don't change the values I provide!!!), a little more than half the value. Is there any canon reference to this?
-
4
-
My apologies. I honestly don't remember what I was changing there. Feb 16, 2015 at 13:46