Reversal
 

Speaking of which, the Arkenstone seemed to have a hold on Thorin's mind somewhat like that of the 7 rings. Maybe it was crafted with the aid of Sauron's rings?

"Prreecciiiouuss..." - Thorin Oakenshield

DIdn't the Dwarves find the Arkenstone in the Lonely Mountain as an uncut gem? Haven't got my Hobbit with me, but I'll bet my life, it's a natural stone...

The Arkenstone was not a silmaril, I'm pretty sure because the silmarils as stated earlier were very precious and it was said that they were in their proper places until the world was ending, so the Arkenstone=Silmaril, no. Besides mortals weren't supposed to touch them. Also I don't think that they have very much in common with each other other than they are both beautiful jewels that bring out ones greediness. Also the Arkenstone I believe had many more sides than a Silmaril had and looked a bit different otherwise too. They both had internal lights, but I would definitely think that the SIlmaril's would be more wholesome, if you know what I mean, because the light comes from the two trees themselves... Did the Arkenstone's light have a warm glow like a living object, or was it a kind of white light?

Come off it, team.
 

I have read most of the posts relating to this idea of the Arkenstone being a Silmaril. I am surprised at how many of you people seem to entertain this clearly false idea. I feel I need to step in to bring some sense to the table.

I genuinely am shocked at how Tolkien's language is misunderstood in this particular debate. I understand that in the Balrog wings debate / Elf ear-shape debate etc. his ambiguous language serves to fuel debate and provides ammunition for both sides, but on this Arkenstone matter you are fooling yourselves. You are looking for evidence that is not there, and re-wording or re-interpreting Tolkien's language in order to make it fit. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? At a certain point you must step back and realise that the argument in favour of the proposition is extraordinarily cumbersome and full of holes.

Don't get me wrong, full respect to Gwaihir for that interesting article about volcanoes etc. I'm not having a go at him; I fear the talons immensely.

The idea that a Silmaril could be tossed aside (as it is when Thorin dies) is ridiculous and anyone with an understanding of the Silmarillion should realise this. The entire story is based upon the covetous nature the gems instill in beings and the years of terrible deeds that result.

It is possible that another gem existed in Arda. Wow! Think about that. In fact the Hobbit quite clearly explains that this stone was discovered in uncut form and worked by the dwarves.

Not everything in Tolkien has to be tied in and interlinked.

(Though I did read an interesting theory recently - tongue-in-cheek of course - that Bombadil and the Witch-king are the same person)

Bombadil and the WiKi as alter-egos? Let's do pros and cons, shall we?

Pros

1. They are never seen together (hmmm...very suspicious).

2. Although Bombadil's clothing is colorfully garish, it could well be hidden beneath the WiKi's black cloak (the yellow boots present a problem though).

3. Goldberry and Eowyn both had blonde hair (one considered him a lady-killer, the other was his killer-lady).

4. Both had power over evil spirits (in fact, both had an intimate knowledge of the Barrow Downs).

5. Forn and WiKi both have four letters, while WitchKing and Orald each have two syllables! It is almost cabalistic in a numerological sense.

6. Both the WitchKing and Bombadil may have been borrowed in part by Tolkien from ancient texts (Bombadil has affinities to Väinämöinen from the Kalevala, and the WitchKing to the witch-king Þráinn, a draugr from the Icelandic saga Hrómundar saga Gripssonar).

7. Both lived an extraordinarily long time (although no mention is made of either prior to the forging of the Rings).

8. Bombadil was rather animated and joking, while WiKi was wooden and devoid of humor (perhaps overcompensating, huh?).

9. Tom could see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring, as did the WiKi.

10. The WitchKing conducts an all-encompassing war that destroys the Dunedain in Eriador, but miraculously Tom and his forest are untouched!

Cons

1. There is really only one comment to be made here (aside from Gandalf going to have a long talk with Tom after the War of the Ring), that is -- Tom had the Ring in his grasp, played a parlor trick with it, then handed it back to Frodo and assured his safety thereafter.

Ah well, another perfectly good conspiracy theory down the drain.

That was an interesting read, but I think I would have placed

" 8. Bombadil was rather animated and joking, while WiKi was wooden and devoid of humor (perhaps overcompensating, huh?)."

because if you start taking in the differences between them as a sign of them being the same. . . . well then almost everything would speak for them being the same being.

Arkenstone = Silmaril
 

Let's kill this once and for all the answer is NO !!!

Thank goodness you didn't reply earlier. We wouldn't have had this interesting discussion with such an emphatic reply.

Now, since you are inclined to imperatives, did Balrogs have wings, or did they not? We need to settle this once and for all. ;)

Morthoron

Interesting.

I was actually referring to the "evidence" presented here:
http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm

As I said previously, it is totally tongue-in-cheek; I mentioned it because I think the Arkenstone-Silmaril theory is just as ridiculous.

Stoat:

Realizing you were being tongue-in-cheek, I thought I'd be mildly impertinent in return. ;) Anyway, it is quite hilarious the fellow @ flyingmoose.org came up with many of the same points that I did (although I thought my references to Väinämöinen and Þráinn gave my piece an almost scholarly flare :rolleyes:).

Ah well, you know what they say: great mimes wink alike.

Long home?
 

It was said in Silmarillion that:

Seemed somewhat intuitive that the Silmaril in the volcano should still be in the molten core of the Earth instead of being dug up and chiseled into some twopenny worth of heirloom...

Plus that and the fact that the light that the silmarils gave off was very great. In the Hobbit the Arkenstone is described to have a pallid light when he approached it with his torch, and when he came close, it reflected and glinted with thousands of facets of colour...much as a huge, good, well faceted diamond would.

But if it were a silmaril in the dragon horde he really wouldn't need a torch to see or find it, it would glow in the darkness like a star landed on the earth. And if he had picked it up and put it in his pocket it would have pretty much glowed through the fabric of his clothes and everyone would have pointed to him and said

"Why dear Bilbo, is that a Silmaril in your pocket or are you just happy to see us?"

Plus I do believe that when Bilbo uncovered it infront of the Bard and Thranduil, the big elf King would have known it for what it was, having been a kinsman of Thingols and all there's a good chance he would have perhaps seen the stone if not have at least heard the story often enough to identify it on sight.

So no, I really don't think there's a chance in Carn Dum that the Arkenstone was a Silmaril.

Why are we still talking about this... it's in the books, there are quotes on the thread to prove it...

It certainly did give you a scholarly flare, my learned friend.