The Others are coming (part 3)

 

My foray into somewhat speculative anthropology c/o ChatGPT. Part three. There may be a fourth part to this extravaganza... 

Examine “little people” myths globally. What could have caused them? Actual "pygmy" races?

This is a classic question, and it’s one where careful comparative anthropology helps separate what is plausible, what is speculative, and what is not supported. The short answer is: “little people” myths almost certainly do not come from a single cause, and actual small-bodied human populations are only one limited contributor among several.

I’ll go through this systematically.

---

1. The global pattern (what needs explaining)

“Mythic little people” appear almost everywhere:

Examples

• Europe: elves, dwarfs, leprechauns, brownies
• British Isles: fair folk, sidhe
• Scandinavia: huldufólk
• Polynesia: Menehune
• Mesoamerica: alux, chaneques
• Andes: duendes
• Japan: koropokkuru
• Africa: forest spirits (sometimes distinct from real pygmy groups)
• North America: Nunnehi, Pukwudgie, “stick people”

Shared traits

Across cultures, they are typically:
• Smaller than ordinary humans
• Human-like, not animal-like
• Skilled (crafts, stonework, hunting)
• Live:
– Underground
– In forests
– In hills or ruins
• Precede current inhabitants
• Ambivalent:
– Helpful or dangerous
• Fade away rather than being exterminated

This regularity suggests deep cognitive or social causes, not coincidence.

---

2. Hypothesis 1: Real small-bodied human populations (“pygmies”)

What this explains

There are real populations with:
• Short average stature
• Long historical continuity

Examples:
• African rainforest hunter-gatherers (often called “Pygmy” peoples)
• Andaman Islanders (historically)
• Philippine Negrito groups

Encounters with such groups could generate myths.

Why this is insufficient

However:

• Many regions with “little people” myths:
– Never had such populations
• Myths often:
– Portray supernatural abilities
– Detach them from ordinary human society
• Real small-statured groups are:
– Fully human socially and culturally
– Not underground, invisible, or magical

Conclusion:

Actual small-bodied populations can explain some local myths, but not the global pattern.

They are a contributing factor, not the root cause.

---

3. Hypothesis 2: Memories of earlier human populations (stronger)

This is more interesting — and more plausible.

Archaeological context

We now know that:
• Homo sapiens replaced or absorbed earlier human groups
• Some of these groups may have:
– Been physically distinct
– Lived differently
– Occupied marginal niches

Candidates sometimes discussed:
• Early modern humans with different morphology
• Small-bodied archaic humans (e.g. H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis)

Why this fits better

“Mythic little people” often:
• Are described as:
– Skilled stoneworkers
– Builders of ancient structures
• Live in places associated with:
– Old ruins
– Megaliths
– Stone tools
• Are “not us, but once here”

This matches cultural memory of earlier inhabitants, not fantasy races.

Still:
• This cannot explain every instance
• Chronological depth is uncertain

---

4. Hypothesis 3: Children-as-others (cognitive anthropology)

This one is surprisingly powerful.

Humans everywhere:
• Are deeply attuned to children
• See them as:
– Smaller
– Less socially constrained
– Closer to animals and play
– Liminal (not yet fully social persons)

Many “little people” share childlike traits:
• Mischievous
• Rule-breaking
• Easily offended
• Not bound by adult norms

This suggests:

“Little people” may be mythic externalizations of liminality, modeled partly on children.

But children alone don’t explain:
• Antiquity
• Pre-human status
• Landscape integration

---

5. Hypothesis 4: Cognitive compression of “the other” (very important)

The human mind has a strong tendency to:

• Compress difference into size
• Use scale metaphorically:
– Big = powerful / dangerous
– Small = clever / hidden / marginal

“Mythic little people” often represent:
• Social outsiders
• Predecessors
• Marginal specialists
• Those who live “beside” society

Size is symbolic, not literal.

This explains why:
• They are small
• But disproportionately powerful or skilled

---

6. Hypothesis 5: Ruins, tools, and unexplained artifacts

Before archaeology:

• People encountered:
– Stone tools
– Burial mounds
– Megaliths
– Old earthworks

Without historical explanation, a natural inference is:

“Someone else made this.”

“Mythic little people” often function as:
• Culture-heroes
• Original builders
• Hidden craftsmen

This explains:
• Their technical skill
• Their retreat “underground”
• Their disappearance

---

7. Why size specifically?

Why small rather than just “other”?

Several reasons converge:
• Small = non-threatening but uncanny
• Small = able to hide
• Small = associated with children and spirits
• Small = opposite of giants (another widespread myth)

Giants and little people are paired symbolic opposites:
• Giants = chaos, brute force, excess
• Little people = trickery, skill, concealment

Both encode non-normal humanity.

---

8. What scholars generally agree on

There is broad agreement that:

• No single explanation works globally
• Myths are overdetermined
• “Little people” are:
– Composite figures
– Layered over time
– Reused to explain different things

There is no consensus that:
• They directly preserve memory of a single real “pygmy race”
• They represent a lost global small-bodied humanity

That idea is popular but unsupported.

---

9. A responsible synthesis

A cautious, defensible synthesis would be:

“Little people myths likely arise from a convergence of factors: encounters with earlier or marginal human populations, observations of small-bodied groups in some regions, symbolic uses of size to encode liminality, and the need to explain ancient remains and structures.”

This accounts for:
• Their universality
• Their variability
• Their persistence

---

10. One-sentence takeaway

‘Little people’ myths are not best explained by a single lost pygmy race, but by humanity’s long experience of living among other kinds of people, ruins, children, and margins — compressed into a durable symbolic form.

If you want next, we could:
• Compare little people with ancestor spirits
• Examine giants and titans as the complementary myth
• Look at how these figures get domesticated into folklore
• Or tie this back to totemism and plural humanity

Just say the direction.