Do the books ever say oliphaunts aren’t elephants?

Question

In a comment here, Valorum states "Zero elephants. Several Oliphaunts". Which made me wonder: is there anything in Tolkien's writings to support the notion that Oliphaunts are not elephants?

The description we have is as follows:

Grey as a mouse,
Big as a house,
Nose like a snake,
I make the earth shake,
As I tramp through the grass;
Trees crack as I pass.
With horns in my mouth
I walk in the South,
Flapping big ears.
Beyond count of years
I stump round and round,
Never lie on the ground,
Not even to die.
Oliphaunt am I,
Biggest of all,
Huge, old, and tall.
If ever you’d met me
You wouldn’t forget me.
If you never do,
You won’t think I’m true;
But old Oliphaunt am I,
And I never lie.
_{Lord of the Rings, Book IV, chapter 3 - The Black Gate is Closed}

To me, that says "elephant".

There is also a description of the opliphaunts carrying "towers" on their back. That is reminiscent of depictions of Hannibal's war elephants, for example:

_{(War elephants depicted in Hannibal Barca crossing the Rhône (1878), by Henri Motte. Source: Wikipedia. Image in the public domain)}

Is there anything to contradict the supposition that "Oliphaunts" is what the hobbits call elephants, plain and simple?

(Note I am emphatically not asking about the movie. Peter Jackson decided to make a bunch of changes because that fitted his artistic vision, that's his prerogative.)

It's a different world. Why expect the animals to be the same? No hobbits on our Terra. or elves, or dwarves, ... — Carl Witthoft, Jul 29 '19 at 15:25
@CarlWitthoft Actually, it's supposed to be the same world (LOTR takes place in our past). Hobbits are supposedly still around here and there, but the remaining ones keep themselves hidden. — JAB, Jul 29 '19 at 16:29
Hi, you should accept @elemtilas's answer because it contains an explicit citation from an actual Tolkien book, saying that Mûmakil are indeed elephants. — Spencer, Jul 29 '19 at 18:33
@Spencer or Valorum's, containing a quote about Oliphaunts being bigger than modern elephants. The answer is, I believe, in between those two: Tolkien saw the Oliphaunts as "elephants, but more awesome - possessing a kind of 'wow factor', like they way we'd imagine elephants when we were kids", or the way medieval Europeans would have imagined elephants having never seen them. — Galastel supports GoFundMonica, Jul 29 '19 at 19:36
@JAB I'm not convinced of that at all. Tolkien may have back-storied that at some later date, for reasons of his own. — Carl Witthoft, Jul 29 '19 at 19:42
@CarlWitthoft It's meant as a mythical history, at least from an out-of-universe perspective, though he did admit that interpretation wasn't exactly planned from the start. https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/22034/is-tolkiens-middle-earth-in-our-universe — JAB, Jul 29 '19 at 20:48
@Oliphaunt I just scrolled all the way to the bottom to see if there was an answer from you, just to upvote that. — Cullub, Jul 29 '19 at 20:59
@Galastel Except that Valorum is using that quote to argue they aren't really elephants. Look at their first comment under Misha R's answer. — Spencer, Jul 29 '19 at 21:49
@Cullub Ok, might as well say it. A true oliphaunt would say "bwoooorl!!" instead of "ahum." I suspect treachery. — Misha R, Aug 01 '19 at 19:03

score 112 · Answer 1 · edited May 09 '23 at 20:57

112

The term "oliphaunt" is not native to Tolkien. It is, in fact, the Middle English version (variations are Old French olifant and olyphaunt) used to describe the animal as well as ivory, and is a direct etymological ancestor of today's "elephant." Tolkien was, ahem, something of an English language nerd, so using archaic terms appealed to him quite a bit.

In other words, whether or not Tolkien enhanced or altered the Middle-earth's Oliphaunt somehow, he most certainly had actual elephants in mind.

edited May 09 '23 at 20:57

DavidW

128,443
29
545
685

answered Jul 28 '19 at 21:36

Misha R

13,290
7
57
93

3

Except that it's explicitly stated that these aren't normal (actual) elephants. – Valorum Jul 28 '19 at 21:39
42

@Valorum There is a difference between an animal that isn't a normal elephant and an animal that isn't and elephant. An orange elephant would not be normal, yet very much an elephant. – Misha R Jul 28 '19 at 21:42
8

Our elephants are "but memories" of the size of an Oliphaunt. That's not an exact measure by any means, but I'm guessing Tolkien meant at least double in size, otherwise they'd just be bigger-than-normal elephants. – Valorum Jul 28 '19 at 21:44
49

@Valorum Sure, in the same way as Numenoreans are greater than today's men - but are very much men. I think some leeway is acceptable in the fantasy / mythology genre. Shadowfax is greater than most horses, yet still a horse. Laurelin and Telperion are not normal trees, yet they are trees. – Misha R Jul 28 '19 at 21:45
21

"an English language nerd" - that is pretty much a description of his day job (Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and then Merton Professor of English Language and Literature). – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jul 29 '19 at 09:41
4

An oliphaunt is no more an elephant than a crebain is a crow or a warg is a wolf. They are more elephanty than an elephant. – Xerxes Jul 29 '19 at 14:29
13

@Xerxes If something is more elephanty than an elephant, it's an elephant. – Misha R Jul 29 '19 at 15:33
1

@MishaR you're reading "something is elephantier than an elephant" (fishier than a fish - eh... coelacanth?) while I think they meant "more of an elephantey-type, rather than an elephant" (more fishey than fish - dolphin). – ANeves Jul 29 '19 at 17:29
3

@ANeves Er... Not sure what to make of that. I'm reading exactly what's written. Plus a dolphin is not fishier than a fish. Plus I see no compelling evidence that we're talking about a similar relationship to that between a dolphin and a fish - it seems more like that between great white and megalodon sharks. Plus the description fits elephants spot-on. Plus the term "oliphaunt" means "elephant." I don't see a great need to engage in elaborate interpretation here. – Misha R Jul 29 '19 at 17:40
9

I'm pretty sure half the people here are dead serious, and the other half are messing with everyone else – Cullub Jul 29 '19 at 21:02
3

@MishaR: Xerxes' "more elephanty than an elephant" can be read two ways: 1) More ideally like an elephant than an elephant (your reading, "elaphantier"), or 2) being more "something like an elephant" as opposed to being an actual elephant. For example, crocodiles are a bit alligatory, but they aren't alligatorier than an actual alligator. I love ambiguity in English :D – naught101 Jul 30 '19 at 04:57
3

@naught101 Whoa there. Don't be blaming English for that, poor wording exists in every language. A better way to say it would have been "elephanty rather than elephant," not "more elephanty than an elephant." That said, Tolkien doesn't call them "oliphaunty." He calls them "oliphaunts." A word that... ugh... means elephants. I didn't call em that, he did. So if the question is whether readers think they're elephants, I dunno, that's subjective. But if it's whether Tolkien thought they were elephants, yes. It's what he called them. – Misha R Jul 30 '19 at 13:32
4

I thought my wording was cute but clear. What I mean to say is: Middle Earth is a world where everything is more so than our world. The stars are brighter, the heroes are heroic, the evils are demonic. Wolves are huge and fierce and ridden by goblins. Crows are clever and can spy with evil intent. Whether an oliphaunt is an elephant misses the point that they are meant to be like an elephant, but even more so: bigger, stronger, more imposing. A modern video game might call them dire/epic/legendary elephants, but Tolkien conveys this by using a different word, oliphaunt. – Xerxes Jul 30 '19 at 15:21
4

@Xerxes I think that saying that he uses a different word ignores the fact that the word exists in our own world, and specifically refers to elephants. I am fine with the idea that Middle Earth Oliphaunts are essentially great elephants of old, in the same way as Numenoreans are great Men of old. That is well conveyed by Tolkien using an archaic term. But they are elephants, which is equally well conveyed by the fact that the archaic term he chose refers to that specific animal in our own world. – Misha R Jul 30 '19 at 15:55

Valorum · Answer 2 · 2019-07-28T21:46:04.747

79

Tolkien explicitly states (in Chapter 4 - OF HERBS AND STEWED RABBIT) they're much bigger than our latter-day elephants.

Sam saw a vast shape crash out of the trees and come careering down the slope. Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to him, a grey-clad moving hill. Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit’s eyes, but the Mûmak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty.

edited Jul 28 '19 at 21:46

answered Jul 28 '19 at 19:46

Valorum

689,072
162
4,636
4,873

38

So, maybe it's just a giant elephant? Ungoliant was much further from a spider than the Oliphaunt is from real elephants, but she still gets called a spider. – Adamant Jul 28 '19 at 20:01
1

@Adamant - You could probably work out the size from the implication that its skin is impervious to arrows.... – Valorum Jul 28 '19 at 20:15
2

@Valorum I don't believe elephant skin can be piereced with arrows. They can take a .22cal without issue. – John Dvorak Jul 28 '19 at 20:51
1

As for the quote, Sam may have been exaggerating slightly. Also of note is that hobbit houses aren't all that big compared to elephants actually (and Mumak was a giant among olphaunts (so let's say x2? Seems consistent with oliphaunts = elephants). – John Dvorak Jul 28 '19 at 20:52
24

"Big as a house, much bigger than a house, ~it looked to him~" Remember, hobbits are small... – Jon Kiparsky Jul 28 '19 at 20:54
28

@JohnDvorak - The commentary at the end of the paragraph is Tolkien's, not Sam's – Valorum Jul 28 '19 at 20:56
10

@Valorum but the narrative was written by Frodo, in universe. – Darren Jul 28 '19 at 21:22
16

@Darren - In-universe, the novel is Tolkien's translation (with additional commentary) of a set of books written by Bilbo and Frodo with help from Sam. – Valorum Jul 28 '19 at 21:40
3

@elemtilas's answer is correct and contains the key quotation directly from Tolkien, in which he states unequivocally that it is a "great elephant." – galdre Jul 29 '19 at 04:40
...a set of books that passed through several other versions before Tolkien got to them, eg via Ælfwine, who spoke with Pengolodh so could get perhaps more direct information on Oliphaunts v Elephants. – David Roberts Jul 29 '19 at 06:17
2

@Darren Frodo wouldn't be referring to any part of his own lifetime as "latter days", and he certainly wasn't narrating the future. – chepner Jul 29 '19 at 13:39
1

There are other bits scattered throughout the novel that couldn't be explained as commentary by Frodo (the inner monologue of the fox early in FoR being the prime example.) – chepner Jul 29 '19 at 13:40
2

Another point: Sam sees mûmak, but thinks "oliphaunt". It's quite possible that "elephant == oliphaunt", but "oliphaunt/elephant != mûmak". – chepner Aug 11 '19 at 14:35

score 71 · Answer 3 · edited May 09 '23 at 20:54

71

Elephants have historically come in a wide range of types and sizes, from the pygmy European elephants of Sardinia and Cyprus, all the way up to the gargantuan Asian straight tusked. There are other elephant-like animals that, had they not gone extinct, would probably also be called "elephants" (e.g. mammoths).

The Asian straight tusked, perhaps around 15 foot tall at the shoulder, would make for a suitable primary world model for the mumak. And for all that, it's still an oliphaunt.

Not big enough for Peter Jackson, but certainly more than large enough for any Hobbit, who probably would just about come up to the creature's ankle! As has been quoted, Tolkien says "his kin that live still in latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty." However, he is not saying that mumakil are not elephants. He is clearly relating elephants to mumakil and noting that later beasts are smaller in size.

He undoubtedly chose the spelling "oliphaunt" very carefully, as he chose every other deliberate archaism he used. I'd argue that his meaning was clear: mumakil are indeed elephants, but a larger kindred than those that live today. On this point, Christopher Tolkien relates that his father made a note re the Mannish languages other than Adûnaic:

"Of the speech of Men of the East and allies of Sauron all that appears is múmak, a name of the great elephant of the Harad."

(The Peoples of Middle-Earth, p79)

edited May 09 '23 at 20:54

DavidW

128,443
29
545
685

answered Jul 29 '19 at 02:54

elemtilas

7,385
3
26
35

20

It's also quite possible that the Easterners (perhaps with the help of Sauron's genetic engineering labs) had bred the mumak for size, in the same way that we have bred draft horses (and indeed, almost all domestic horses, to some degree) to be considerably larger than their wild progenators. – jamesqf Jul 29 '19 at 04:34
It is certain that no known species of extinct probosciean has "elephant" as part of its scientific name. The word "elephant" in common usage certainly refers to members of the three modern species with the scientific names of Elephas maximus, Loxondonta africana, and Lodondonta cyclotis. It is not certain whether it refers to members of dozens of extinct species of proboscideans. Since the Mumak is larger than the present species, it is uncertain whether Mumakil are included among elephants in common usage. – M. A. Golding Jul 29 '19 at 17:16
10

@M.A.Golding -- Scientific nomenclature is a whole nother kettle of fish. What's obvious is that Tolkien himself says the múmak is in fact an elephant. – elemtilas Jul 29 '19 at 18:17
@M. A. Golding: But you may have noticed that two of the three existing species don't have elephant (or elephas, if you want to be technical) in their scientific names. Loxodonta translates as "slanted tooth": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Loxodonta – jamesqf Jul 30 '19 at 04:05
@jamesqf --- And if the folks at NurnGenyx took an already rather larger species, they might could engineer a múmak that would indeed make Peter Jackson drool with envy! – elemtilas Jul 30 '19 at 06:08
8

The Tolkien quote seems almost an afterthought; I think it would be better to emphasize it, perhaps even by citing it at the beginning of the answer. – Kyle Strand Jul 30 '19 at 19:35
1

@elemtilas : If only the mumak had stepped on him before he committed his acts of desecration... – jamesqf Jul 31 '19 at 04:54
4

I would agree with @KyleStrand - emphasizing the Tolkien quote (where he explicitly calls the Mumak a "great elephant") would make sense. The rest of the answer is great, but it's easy to miss the quote which IMO is the "real" answer. – MPF Jul 31 '19 at 06:35
The word múmak suggests inspiration from mammoth, though the earlier forms of that word lack a k: Russian mamont, Proto-Mansi *mē̮ŋ-ońt. – Invisible Trihedron Jan 15 '20 at 17:30

score 5 · Answer 4 · edited May 09 '23 at 20:57

5

I would answer no, a Mûmak is not an elephant. Instead, a Mûmak should be considered a member of the order Probosicdea, an order that includes elephants and many species of extinct animals similar to elpephants.

The order of Proboscidea has many families and groups.

Note that modern elephants belong to the genus Elephas and genus Loxodonta, and they are very closely related, both part of the Elephantinae, while many other types of Proboscideans, including some that became extinct within the last 13,000 years, were more distantly related.

It is certain that no known species of living or extinct proboscideans has "elephant" as part of its scientific name. The word "elephant" in common usage certainly refers to members of the three modern species with the scientific names of Elephas maximus, Loxondonta africana, and Lodondonta cyclotis. It is not certain whether it refers to members of dozens of extinct species of proboscideans. Since the Mûmak is larger than any present species of proboscideans, it is uncertain whether Mûmakil are included among elephants in common usage.

Describing Mûmakil as proboscideans would definitely be accurate, since they are obviously members of the order Proboscidea, but are not so obviously included in the usual meaning of the word "elephant".

edited May 09 '23 at 20:57

DavidW

128,443
29
545
685

answered Jul 29 '19 at 17:29

M. A. Golding

41,668
2
75
163

17

I think applying cladistics to a creature from the Tolkien legendarium is misplaced. The works describe a mythical precursor world to Earth in which the usual sciences did not apply. – called2voyage Jul 29 '19 at 17:44
1

@called2voyage I agree, though I think it adds something to a wholistic understanding of the question to consider that angle. – mtraceur Jul 29 '19 at 20:10
@called2voyage -- Because the OP is asked from a modern perspective this answer is wholly correct (or at least equally valid). -- In-universe, from a Hobbit's perspective, these would just be Oliphaunts from Harad, a.k.a Múmakil. Most "common folk" are lumpers not splitters; as fits their need. -- Or it might help to know that hippopotamuses of Egypt were simply "water horses" to the Greeks. – user23715 Jul 30 '19 at 20:18
1

@user23715 I would argue that "lumping" would tend to say that it is an elephant, which this answer argues is not so obvious. That's beside my point though which is that cladistics doesn't apply. Either we erroneously apply the modern perspective, which would also mean the "Men" in Lord of the Rings are not really men, or we use the Tolkien mythical perspective which is that mumakil are elephants and any differences from modern elephants could be due to the fact that there have been changes in the world as it became less magical. – called2voyage Jul 30 '19 at 20:22
2

@called2voyage -- The Christopher Tolkien quote at the end of elemtilas' answer rather makes the point; "Of the speech of Men of the East and allies of Sauron all that appears is múmak, a name of the great elephant of the Harad." -- However, that may not be the question the OP is asking. It seems clear to me, from the phrasing and in fact of needing to ask the question at all, that the OP is taking a "modernist" perspective in framing the query. -- Hence this answer by M.A. Golding is entirely adequate. – user23715 Jul 30 '19 at 20:29
1

@user23715 I don't see how you get that from the OP at all, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. – called2voyage Jul 30 '19 at 20:35
@called2voyage -- The books are written in-universe. The leading question from the OP - namely, "Do the books ever say oliphaunts aren’t elephants?" is therefore a non sequitur. -- Valorum's statement, that set off the question for the OP, is making good pedantic fun at this very notion. -- The 2nd question by the OP, "Is there anything to contradict the supposition that "Oliphaunts" is what the hobbits call elephants, plain and simple?", is answered by Golding. But said 2nd question cannot be asked except from a modernist perspective. – user23715 Jul 30 '19 at 20:42
3

I see this sometimes in Tolkien discussions - arguing from genetics. His approach to the development of animals and people, however, is based on mythology, not biology. This plays into the common trait of various cultures' mythologies, in which ancient creatures and people were greater, but not different in kind ("kind," rather than "species," being a biblical / mythological concept). Looking at his world through genetics opens up a great deal of inconsistency; plus, biology was far from Tolkien's field. Through the lens of mythology, however, his world is far more consistent. – Misha R Jul 31 '19 at 16:22

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Mar 05 '22 at 23:57

To directly answer the titular question, in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien does not say that Oliphaunts aren't Elephants.

Speculatively, any distinction we might draw between the two would have to be a fine one.

No, in The Lord of the Rings Tolkien does not say that.

Do the books ever say oliphaunts aren’t elephants?

5 Answers5

Linked