God's Eye: An Ancient Asteroid Impact Crater?

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Turandokht said:

I don't mean to revive too old of a thread, but it was this thread that sparked my interest in actually joining the forum. 

Sweetsunray, I appreciate the effort you put into this, but I feel you're overlooking a volcano, which is probably a hotspot -- and hotspots like to produce fairly predictable lines of eruptive events. Dragonstone, of course, is only three hundred miles from the Gods Eye, and we don't know all that much about any potential volcanic activity between the two. Driftmark is further west, and might conceivably be an extinct volcano just like the Gods Eye is. An impact crater is even so, surely more likely; but I think that one might imagine for practical reasons that if there was still a legacy of volcanic activity in the Gods Eye then it would be a natural place for an order of Greenseers to use as a holdfast because the lake might remain ice free during a really bad winter... 

True that there's Dragonstone, but that's still a far distance away. We have no basalt deposits known or described in the surrounding area of the Gods Eye, no old geyser phenomenon. German Eyfel area is littered with evidence of volcanic activity, even though it's inactive for millions of years. There are numerous maars, numerous hexa-form basalt pillars sticking out of the ground, pyroclastic bombs miles away, cold geysers working like clockwork, etc. The Riverlands is perhaps the most extensively described area of all Westeros and yet we have nothing that even remotely hints at it being a volcanic area in times long past that would be in evidence if there once stood a giant volcano where the Gods Eye is now.

[LmL]

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

True that there's Dragonstone, but that's still a far distance away. We have no basalt deposits known or described in the surrounding area of the Gods Eye, no old geyser phenomenon. German Eyfel area is littered with evidence of volcanic activity, even though it's inactive for millions of years. There are numerous maars, numerous hexa-form basalt pillars sticking out of the ground, pyroclastic bombs miles away, cold geysers working like clockwork, etc. The Riverlands is perhaps the most extensively described area of all Westeros and yet we have nothing that even remotely hints at it being a volcanic area in times long past that would be in evidence if there once stood a giant volcano where the Gods Eye is now.

One thing to note is that Moat Cailin is made from black basalt, and huge chunks of it at that.  It may or may not be "oily stone" as well, but it is definitely called black basalt. I wonder where that came from? Because it is a fortress and not a growth of rock, we don't know where that basalt came from. It was built before the LN by gods only knows who... I love Moat Cailin, lol. 

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, LmL said:

One thing to note is that Moat Cailin is made from black basalt, and huge chunks of it at that.  It may or may not be "oily stone" as well, but it is definitely called black basalt. I wonder where that came from? Because it is a fortress and not a growth of rock, we don't know where that basalt came from. It was built before the LN by gods only knows who... I love Moat Cailin, lol. 

Yes, Moat Cailin. But as you say, we don't know where the rock came from. And since it is built in the Neck, which is watery and reachable by sea, the basalt may have come from anywhere. It was also built by some petty king to keep people from the Riverlands out, which indicates it wasn't built by people in the RL. How likely is it that a RL petty king would have sold basalt to build something that would keep him out?

[Maester of Valyria]

17 hours ago, Turandokht said:

I don't mean to revive too old of a thread, but it was this thread that sparked my interest in actually joining the forum. 

Sweetsunray, I appreciate the effort you put into this, but I feel you're overlooking a volcano, which is probably a hotspot -- and hotspots like to produce fairly predictable lines of eruptive events. Dragonstone, of course, is only three hundred miles from the Gods Eye, and we don't know all that much about any potential volcanic activity between the two. Driftmark is further west, and might conceivably be an extinct volcano just like the Gods Eye is. An impact crater is even so, surely more likely; but I think that one might imagine for practical reasons that if there was still a legacy of volcanic activity in the Gods Eye then it would be a natural place for an order of Greenseers to use as a holdfast because the lake might remain ice free during a really bad winter... 

[Yay!!! I can talk about volcanoes again!!!]

First of all, welcome to the forums! You've picked a good thread to start with.

We actually know quite a lot about volcanic activity just from examining the maps. First, we have Dragonstone, Driftmark, and Massey's Hook (likely volcanic), the Mountains of the Moon point towards some form of tectonic activity (whether they are/were volcanic or not I am as yet undecided). I'm more and more coming around to the idea of the Neck being volcanic, given that it's inhabited by creatures which shouldn't be able to survive the winters in the region (ie geothermal heating), and the Three Sisters in the Bite, the Cape of Eagles and the Iron Islands all pointing towards a tectonic plate boundary.

However, I'm afraid I still remain convinced that the God's Eye was formed by glacial erosion during successive ice ages.

 

 

As for the basalt used in the construction of Moat Cailin, @LmL and @sweetsunray may be interested to hear my explanation for that. I believe that the Cape of Eagles, where Seagard stands, is a volcanic cape. This fits with the Neck being volcanic (see above). Also, if you compare the Cape to this picture of the volcanic Banks Peninsula in New Zealand you'll see that the visual similarity is undeniable. Here we have a potential source for Moat Cailin's black basalt.

Or you know, it could be a boring explanation like sweetsunray suggested and the rock could have been carried in by ship.

[Turandokht]

6 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

[Yay!!! I can talk about volcanoes again!!!]

First of all, welcome to the forums! You've picked a good thread to start with.

We actually know quite a lot about volcanic activity just from examining the maps. First, we have Dragonstone, Driftmark, and Massey's Hook (likely volcanic), the Mountains of the Moon point towards some form of tectonic activity (whether they are/were volcanic or not I am as yet undecided). I'm more and more coming around to the idea of the Neck being volcanic, given that it's inhabited by creatures which shouldn't be able to survive the winters in the region (ie geothermal heating), and the Three Sisters in the Bite, the Cape of Eagles and the Iron Islands all pointing towards a tectonic plate boundary.

However, I'm afraid I still remain convinced that the God's Eye was formed by glacial erosion during successive ice ages.

 

 If I allow myself to be talked out of a volcano for the moment (and if I can use one post to answer both you and sweetsunray)-- which is reasonable, I was just playing devil's advocate over nobody even bringing up Dragonstone -- I do object to the Gods Eye being formed by glacial erosion rather more strongly than an impact crater*. The reason for that is that -- and perhaps I've missed something, I don't claim to be the most observant person on the planet-- there just are not all that many lakes in the Riverlands. Glacial areas with lakes tend to have a lot of lakes. The Riverlands are entirely too tidy; compare with southern Manitoba or extreme southwestern Ontario, or northern Minnesota. Or southern Finland. Very large glacial carved lakes do form, but the Gods Eye is not actually all that large, and it's also distinctly singular. If the Riverlands were dominated by post-glacial landforms we would expect it to be a metaphorical "Land of Ten Thousand Lakes". 

The mountains of the moon might have a volcanic origin, though an issue is that it's implied the Neck has been sinking, which would be a divergent boundary. I suppose that would imply a geologic configuration sort of like Iceland's, of intense volcanism and a divergent rift, though there are several volcanic features co-located in Africa in a continental craton that are probably better technical examples, with a shield slashed through by a LIP. 

*I also have certain technical objections to the idea that an impact crater must be surrounded by mountains. Look at the Yucatan and the prototypical example there; it's completely buried, but the cenote system shows how utterly critical to the local hydrology the impact crater structure still is.

[LmL]

18 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It was also built by some petty king to keep people from the Riverlands out, which indicates it wasn't built by people in the RL. How likely is it that a RL petty king would have sold basalt to build something that would keep him out?

Where is this info from? Wherever it is from, I don't think it's right. No petty king built Moat Cailin - it's completely, 100% beyond the capabilities of the First Men, and anything built before the LN is basically a mystery anyway. It does seem to be built to keep southern people out of the north, but that's all we can say for sure. I agree the blocks could have come from anywhere. 

[sweetsunray]

6 hours ago, LmL said:

Where is this info from? Wherever it is from, I don't think it's right. No petty king built Moat Cailin - it's completely, 100% beyond the capabilities of the First Men, and anything built before the LN is basically a mystery anyway. It does seem to be built to keep southern people out of the north, but that's all we can say for sure. I agree the blocks could have come from anywhere. 

Why is building with basalt beyond the capabilities of the First Men before the LN? That's like saying the Ness of Brognar and Stonehenge and Palenque couldn't have been built by humans and people, just because it was the stone age or early bronze age.

[Maester of Valyria]

11 hours ago, Turandokht said:

 If I allow myself to be talked out of a volcano for the moment (and if I can use one post to answer both you and sweetsunray)-- which is reasonable, I was just playing devil's advocate over nobody even bringing up Dragonstone -- I do object to the Gods Eye being formed by glacial erosion rather more strongly than an impact crater*. The reason for that is that -- and perhaps I've missed something, I don't claim to be the most observant person on the planet-- there just are not all that many lakes in the Riverlands. Glacial areas with lakes tend to have a lot of lakes. The Riverlands are entirely too tidy; compare with southern Manitoba or extreme southwestern Ontario, or northern Minnesota. Or southern Finland. Very large glacial carved lakes do form, but the Gods Eye is not actually all that large, and it's also distinctly singular. If the Riverlands were dominated by post-glacial landforms we would expect it to be a metaphorical "Land of Ten Thousand Lakes". 

I do see your point about the seeming lack of other large lakes in the Riverlands. While I suppose it is possible that there are many smaller lakes that don't appear on the maps (and in fact this is to be expected anyway in a region with so many rivers), I do wonder if the area's underlying geology might hold the explanation. Perhaps the God's Eye basin is the only area where the rock is easily eroded, or maybe the glacial sheets narrowed by the time they reached the Riverlands.

11 hours ago, Turandokht said:

*I also have certain technical objections to the idea that an impact crater must be surrounded by mountains. Look at the Yucatan and the prototypical example there; it's completely buried, but the cenote system shows how utterly critical to the local hydrology the impact crater structure still is.

Yes, but the Yucatan crater is tens of millions of years old, so the crater walls (as opposed to mountains) have eroded away over time. If the God's Eye was in fact an impact crater only ten thousand or so years old then you'd expect it to still have it's crater walls.

11 hours ago, Turandokht said:

The mountains of the moon might have a volcanic origin, though an issue is that it's implied the Neck has been sinking, which would be a divergent boundary. I suppose that would imply a geologic configuration sort of like Iceland's, of intense volcanism and a divergent rift, though there are several volcanic features co-located in Africa in a continental craton that are probably better technical examples, with a shield slashed through by a LIP. 

I'm still trying to decide whether the Mountains of the Moon are fold mountains or volcanic, but I do think the Neck is a divergent plate boundary, with small island chains and a region of geothermal heating.

[Turandokht]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Why is building with basalt beyond the capabilities of the First Men before the LN? That's like saying the Ness of Brognar and Stonehenge and Palenque couldn't have been built by humans and people, just because it was the stone age or early bronze age.

Indeed, I would say that we know altogether very little about First Men civilisation, but the important thing we do know is that they had organised kingship and relatively large Kingdoms and bronze-working, and that takes us far enough to make inferences from Earth history (the following is in support of your opinion, apologies if it comes off a bit pedantic). Moat Cailin may be far more impressive than Mycenae, but what of the triple-walls of Saksaq Waman? (can be seen here)

The temples of Malta are dated as far as 3600 BCE, but look at the complexity: (Aerial view, plan form of surviving structures)

The Maltese didn't have anything special, they were strictly using stone tools; Tawantinsuyu just had mass organisation and simple copper tools. Here is a Nuraghe in Sicily, demonstrating tower construction.  Not worthy of being Moat Cailin, you say? Well, take a look at a reconstruction of a large one in Sardinia: 

(At the Parco della Giara)

 I suspect the crenellations may be a bit fanciful, but certainly a few such strongholds and some great halls like the Temples of Malta, ensconced behind a three-layered curtain wall like Saksaq Waman's, and built of basalt, maybe even basalt ashlars or at least cut massy blocks, is well within the technical and organisational capabilities of a society of the same general sophistication as the First Men.

 

59 minutes ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I do see your point about the seeming lack of other large lakes in the Riverlands. While I suppose it is possible that there are many smaller lakes that don't appear on the maps (and in fact this is to be expected anyway in a region with so many rivers), I do wonder if the area's underlying geology might hold the explanation. Perhaps the God's Eye basin is the only area where the rock is easily eroded, or maybe the glacial sheets narrowed by the time they reached the Riverlands.

Yes, but the Yucatan crater is tens of millions of years old, so the crater walls (as opposed to mountains) have eroded away over time. If the God's Eye was in fact an impact crater only ten thousand or so years old then you'd expect it to still have it's crater walls.

I'm still trying to decide whether the Mountains of the Moon are fold mountains or volcanic, but I do think the Neck is a divergent plate boundary, with small island chains and a region of geothermal heating.

 

 Well, the islands don't necessarily mean anything except mountains, as I suspect they're all in the shallow water continental shelf of Westeros, and thus aren't of unique origin and at periods of lower sea level were probably attached to the mainland. They would mostly point where mountain ranges continue under the sea. I admit that makes the Iron Islands at least problematic. The plate boundary you describe has a lot of merit; to me Essos looks painfully like it should have been connected to Westeros -- but also connected to Planetos' Arctic continent (which I think we can assume is a continent). A relatively recent rifting event seems almost painfully necessary, so Essos is probably moving southeast at a clip equal to India's on the march north to collision with Asia. If I'm right, there's an R-R-R Triple Junction under the Narrow Sea where it meets the Shivering Sea -- somewhere West Northwest of Braavos--and the divergent plate boundary at the neck is nothing more than an extension of the one which has been forming the Shivering Sea for the last millions of years. 

 

 I really think the Gods Eye must be a crater. The shape is too perfect, too characteristic, and the lack of other lakes at all on the map of the Riverlands really argues against serious glaciation having taken place there. The number of lakes you'd expect would be so extensive as to excite considerable comment from those travelling through the area and we don't see any of that. That said, just because I think the origin is must be either an impact or a volcano (and is probably by consensus an impact), doesn't mean I agree with the dating to quasi-historical times. It probably is millions of years old. 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, Turandokht said:

Indeed, I would say that we know altogether very little about First Men civilisation, but the important thing we do know is that they had organised kingship and relatively large Kingdoms and bronze-working, and that takes us far enough to make inferences from Earth history (the following is in support of your opinion, apologies if it comes off a bit pedantic). Moat Cailin may be far more impressive than Mycenae, but what of the triple-walls of Saksaq Waman? (can be seen here)

The temples of Malta are dated as far as 3600 BCE, but look at the complexity: (Aerial view, plan form of surviving structures)

The Maltese didn't have anything special, they were strictly using stone tools; Tawantinsuyu just had mass organisation and simple copper tools. Here is a Nuraghe in Sicily, demonstrating tower construction.  Not worthy of being Moat Cailin, you say? Well, take a look at a reconstruction of a large one in Sardinia: 

(At the Parco della Giara)

 I suspect the crenellations may be a bit fanciful, but certainly a few such strongholds and some great halls like the Temples of Malta, ensconced behind a three-layered curtain wall like Saksaq Waman's, and built of basalt, maybe even basalt ashlars or at least cut massy blocks, is well within the technical and organisational capabilities of a society of the same general sophistication as the First Men.

Exactly: Malta dates as far as 3600 BCE. Carbon dating this summer pushes Ness of Brognar at Orkney islandsback to 3500 BCE, where the houses had stone beds and stone cupboards, and was the necessary evidence that the stone ring building as a culture spread south from Orkney. The voles at Orkney (that can't swim) fit the genetic profile of those of Belgium, not Scandinavia, not Iberia, so they traveled somehow along with settlers from mainland Europe (Belgium, Northern France, etc) who instead of crossing the channel the shortest way, traveled by sea to the northern most islands of Great Britain to Orkney. By the end of summer 2016 they started to dig a total unprecedented building that is likely even older, and fundaments seem to have been laid down with stones from what even may have been stones from a circle. Summer 2017 may push the whole Orkney stone age culture back to 4000 BCE for all we know.

And then Central America. While not as old, aside from gold for jewelry they had no metal tools. The Mayan cities like Tikal, Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Yaxchilan, Flores, the Zapotec Monte Alban, Teotihuacan, Toltec Tula - it was all built without the wheel and without metal. It's planned architecture, artistic, and gigantic. They are evidence what people can achieve with just stone alone.

Aztec Tenochtitlan is actually relevant to Moat Cailin: both built from basalt. Tenochtitlan was a city built on a marsh lake with canals, and it was bult from basalt, because such stone is porous and doesn't sink. Once the Spanish conquered it, they used different stone material. The result is that no house, no church stands straight in Mexico City. Moat Cailin is a giant fortress built in a swamp. So, George had to make the material basalt in order to have it stand for thousands of years in that environment.

You don't need metal to build stone defenses that are grand and big and planned, and I'm inclined to believe it were men who built Moat Cailin, not giants, nor children of the forest.

[Turandokht]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Exactly: Malta dates as far as 3600 BCE. Carbon dating this summer pushes Ness of Brognar at Orkney islandsback to 3500 BCE, where the houses had stone beds and stone cupboards, and was the necessary evidence that the stone ring building as a culture spread south from Orkney. The voles at Orkney (that can't swim) fit the genetic profile of those of Belgium, not Scandinavia, not Iberia, so they traveled somehow along with settlers from mainland Europe (Belgium, Northern France, etc) who instead of crossing the channel the shortest way, traveled by sea to the northern most islands of Great Britain to Orkney. By the end of summer 2016 they started to dig a total unprecedented building that is likely even older, and fundaments seem to have been laid down with stones from what even may have been stones from a circle. Summer 2017 may push the whole Orkney stone age culture back to 4000 BCE for all we know.

And then Central America. While not as old, aside from gold for jewelry they had no metal tools. The Mayan cities like Tikal, Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Yaxchilan, Flores, the Zapotec Monte Alban, Teotihuacan, Toltec Tula - it was all built without the wheel and without metal. It's planned architecture, artistic, and gigantic. They are evidence what people can achieve with just stone alone.

Aztec Tenochtitlan is actually relevant to Moat Cailin: both built from basalt. Tenochtitlan was a city built on a marsh lake with canals, and it was bult from basalt, because such stone is porous and doesn't sink. Once the Spanish conquered it, they used different stone material. The result is that no house, no church stands straight in Mexico City. Moat Cailin is a giant fortress built in a swamp. So, George had to make the material basalt in order to have it stand for thousands of years in that environment.

You don't need metal to build stone defenses that are grand and big and planned, and I'm inclined to believe it were men who built Moat Cailin, not giants, nor children of the forest.

 

 And what I really love about Martin's writing is that it always produces a conversation like this--from the rock used to build Moat Cailin to the origin of the builders, we may presume, but not really know. For the most part... I think the theories and the speculation are an intentional part of the world-building, more than I think there are vast grand hidden plots written in the novels... I rather think that we are supposed to think there are, because in a medieval, a pre-modern worldview, the legends and reality are indistinct from each other. Even quite recently in the US, things like old shot towers and abandoned parts of mills would have their origins completely forgotten and have attached to them wild legends of being old Viking fortifications from the age of Eric the Red. Religion, myth, and actual history blended together for most of history, and in the same way creating a world in which the readers naturally establish those same kinds of connections around even the most trivial and clearly offhanded details is part of Martin's creative brilliance, perhaps the most signature and unique part.

 

 Basically, those trivial details cease to be trivial, because we're immersed in a world with older modes of thought, where it is simply impossible to really know if something was built by the gods twelve thousand years ago or men a thousand years ago. It is simply old, from beyond history, and multiple different stories of origin will coexist without a frame of knowledge existing in which the correctness of each can be reliably determined. I think a lot of people reading ASOIAF are drawn into that mindset quite effectively, and it helps fuel the existence of all the theories in whole or part. 

[LmL]

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Why is building with basalt beyond the capabilities of the First Men before the LN? That's like saying the Ness of Brognar and Stonehenge and Palenque couldn't have been built by humans and people, just because it was the stone age or early bronze age.

It's the size of the blocks, the height of the curtain wall. The blocks are "as big as a crofters cottage," and stacked up 50 feet high to make a curtain wall. In a swamp. The First Men built nothing like this anywhere else. Blocks that big would weigh hundreds of tons. Interestingly, the only match for that construction style is found at Yeen, also made from enormous hewn black of black stone.  

[LmL]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Exactly: Malta dates as far as 3600 BCE. Carbon dating this summer pushes Ness of Brognar at Orkney islandsback to 3500 BCE, where the houses had stone beds and stone cupboards, and was the necessary evidence that the stone ring building as a culture spread south from Orkney. The voles at Orkney (that can't swim) fit the genetic profile of those of Belgium, not Scandinavia, not Iberia, so they traveled somehow along with settlers from mainland Europe (Belgium, Northern France, etc) who instead of crossing the channel the shortest way, traveled by sea to the northern most islands of Great Britain to Orkney. By the end of summer 2016 they started to dig a total unprecedented building that is likely even older, and fundaments seem to have been laid down with stones from what even may have been stones from a circle. Summer 2017 may push the whole Orkney stone age culture back to 4000 BCE for all we know.

And then Central America. While not as old, aside from gold for jewelry they had no metal tools. The Mayan cities like Tikal, Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Yaxchilan, Flores, the Zapotec Monte Alban, Teotihuacan, Toltec Tula - it was all built without the wheel and without metal. It's planned architecture, artistic, and gigantic. They are evidence what people can achieve with just stone alone.

Aztec Tenochtitlan is actually relevant to Moat Cailin: both built from basalt. Tenochtitlan was a city built on a marsh lake with canals, and it was bult from basalt, because such stone is porous and doesn't sink. Once the Spanish conquered it, they used different stone material. The result is that no house, no church stands straight in Mexico City. Moat Cailin is a giant fortress built in a swamp. So, George had to make the material basalt in order to have it stand for thousands of years in that environment.

You don't need metal to build stone defenses that are grand and big and planned, and I'm inclined to believe it were men who built Moat Cailin, not giants, nor children of the forest.

The problem is that the First Men did not build anything like this anywhere else. Not even close. It's a total outlier. Moat Cailin would be among the most impressive of all the very odd and inexplcable structures we find on earth, some of which were listed above. And honestly, we don't have good explanations for how some of those places were built, such as balbek or Sacsayhuaman of even the Sphinx Temple and Great Pyramids. I am not a believer in alienes, but I am highlighting that we do not know how, who, or when for many of these places. Stone cannot be radiocarbon dated, so dating has to be done with surrounding material, which is problematic.

The point is that the size of the blocks at Moat Cailin is just far beyond anything used in any other First Men construction. The fact that it was built in a place which is now swamp means that it must have been built before the area was turned to marshland, when you could still have a solid base of land on which to leverage cranes or ramps or whatever else you'd need to lift those blocks and stack them up. Because the Long Night is a viscous kind of social and historical and cultural bottleneck event, anything built before the Long Night is basically a mystery. So what we have is a castle completely unlike anything in Westeros which was built before the big cultural reset button of the Long Night. The First Men who emerged on the other side of the LN built crappy ringforts and very conventional square tower castles.  Ergo, we have basically no idea who built MC, but if it was First Men, it was First Men who possessed skill and technology which was lost during the LN.  

I would also point to Castle Pyke and the First Keep of Winterfell and Storm's End, all of whom are built with round tower design which the First Men were not capable of, supposedly. Pyke in particular is certain to have been built before the LN, because it was found in situ by the first "First Men" to come to the Iron Islands. Even the Ironborn, who claim a non-FM descent, say that they found Castle Pyke and the Seastone Chair as is when they got there. That means that someone came to the Iron Islands before the LN, built an advanced castle at Pyke with round towers, some disaster befell the area, causing the collapse of part of the castle and peninsula, and THEN the modern inhabitants of the Iron Islands claim to have found the castle as is, ruined already.  

In other words, someone was in Westeros before the LN running around building things like Moat Cailin, castle Pyke, the Wall, Storm's End, the fused stone fortress at Battle Isle beneath the Hightower, maybe the First Keep... things which are not supposed to be possible according to what we think we know of the First Men. So again, whether it was First Men learning from foreigners form the GEotD or the GEoTD themselves, there is a lost chapter here and these structures cannot be explained by what we know of the First Men. If the FM built them, they were in possession of knowledge and power since lost, abilities not thought to be possessed by First Men.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, LmL said:

Stone cannot be radiocarbon dated, so dating has to be done with surrounding material, which is problematic.

Not really. Where people build monuments, there are builders camping around. Builders have fires and trenches of leftover food. And then soil itself often contains organic material. In graves organic material is stored. In temples organic material was sacrificed. In houses a hearth was kept. Sadly enough people are not sceptic enough of Hancock.

2 hours ago, LmL said:

In other words, someone was in Westeros before the LN running around building things like Moat Cailin, castle Pyke, the Wall, Storm's End, the fused stone fortress at Battle Isle beneath the Hightower, maybe the First Keep... things which are not supposed to be possible according to what we think we know of the First Men. So again, whether it was First Men learning from foreigners form the GEotD or the GEoTD themselves, there is a lost chapter here and these structures cannot be explained by what we know of the First Men. If the FM built them, they were in possession of knowledge and power since lost, abilities not thought to be possessed by First Men.

And I disagree that the FM were not capable of building these things, let alone in a magical world. What knowledge or power was lost? People still build high and large castles and buildings on difficult locations in Westeros, and as I said, for that you don't actually need metal. You are basing it on the supposed feudal history of Westeros, which is certainly a pseudo-history.

[sweetsunray]

5 hours ago, Turandokht said:

For the most part... I think the theories and the speculation are an intentional part of the world-building, more than I think there are vast grand hidden plots written in the novels... I rather think that we are supposed to think there are, because in a medieval, a pre-modern worldview, the legends and reality are indistinct from each other. Even quite recently in the US, things like old shot towers and abandoned parts of mills would have their origins completely forgotten and have attached to them wild legends of being old Viking fortifications from the age of Eric the Red. Religion, myth, and actual history blended together for most of history, and in the same way creating a world in which the readers naturally establish those same kinds of connections around even the most trivial and clearly offhanded details is part of Martin's creative brilliance, perhaps the most signature and unique part.

Well, he infuses his world building with symbolism that does point to more than just world building. But I agree that does not necessarily interfere with the rudimentary geological history George may have in mind. If you created a swamp area for some reason and you put an old giant fortress there, and you don't want it half sunken by now, then naturally you would choose basalt as its building materia, which could have been brought across water, which solves transportation issues. The source of the basalt is likely a coastal area that is/was volcanically active. 

Your example about buildings being ascribed to Eric the Red are indeed quite good. The Taín is another perfect example of a pseudo history told and eventually written down to explain the names of certain places in Ulster. There is probably a historical truth in the Taín regarding the values of the people at the time, such as fairness and rules of combat and that most war acts were over cattle. While it also simultaneously is an echo or remainder of mythology and religion and symbolism of older times, of people that have long since past, even in the times of the telling.

And I agree that George has written his world and its history to do all three as well. There's mythological world building, there's symbolism, and there's geology and actual mundane explanations, and the three may be in conflict with each other. And in fact, George did imo purposefully bring in conflicting tidbits.

[LmL]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Not really. Where people build monuments, there are builders camping around. Builders have fires and trenches of leftover food. And then soil itself often contains organic material. In graves organic material is stored. In temples organic material was sacrificed. In houses a hearth was kept. Sadly enough people are not sceptic enough of Hancock.

And I disagree that the FM were not capable of building these things, let alone in a magical world. What knowledge or power was lost? People still build high and large castles and buildings on difficult locations in Westeros, and as I said, for that you don't actually need metal. You are basing it on the supposed feudal history of Westeros, which is certainly a pseudo-history.

The important thing is the size of the blocks. Nowhere in Westeros do we hear of any castles built with cottage-sized blocks, except Moat Cailin. Not only that, but these cottage sized blocks are stacked up 50 feet high, and nowhere in Westeros do the First Men do anything like this. We aren't talking about metal, simply the ability to lift blocks that size and stack them that high. 

You also didn't address the issue of round towers. Pyke, Storm's End, and the First Keep are dated to before the Andals, long before, and they all have round towers. They all also have clues about magical / unique origins. 

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, LmL said:

The important thing is the size of the blocks. Nowhere in Westeros do we hear of any castles built with cottage-sized blocks, except Moat Cailin. Not only that, but these cottage sized blocks are stacked up 50 feet high, and nowhere in Westeros do the First Men do anything like this. We aren't talking about metal, simply the ability to lift blocks that size and stack them that high. 

You also didn't address the issue of round towers. Pyke, Storm's End, and the First Keep are dated to before the Andals, long before, and they all have round towers. They all also have clues about magical / unique origins. 

It's not difficult to build a round tower. The only true issue is the roofing and vaulting in any architectural sense. I also do not believe that the people that built in and around Westeros were necessarily one cohesive culture, especially when we talk about a continent the size of South America. Again I'll use the Mayans as example whose cultural range goes from the Yucatan to Honduras. One of the remarkable and most obvious observations one can make over the architecture from the Yucatan, into the Chiapas hills, on to Guatemalan jungle and Hondurese interior is that they all have unique architectural features or styles or buildings that you don't see in other Mayan cities. For instance, there's the Caracol observatorium of Chichen Itza, and you don't have anything like it anywhere else. But the Puuc hills 6-7 hours busride away are completely different with all the unique buildings and palaces of Uxmal (serial tile work, called Puuc style). 2 hours busride north of nearby Chichen Itza you have Ek Balam, which again has unique elements. Palenque uses loads of plaster and the "palace" has a unique square tower. Flores in Honduras specialised in true sculpturing, that you don't see anywhere else. Bonampak is unique for its frescoes, while it has features in comon with standing stone steles with engraved figures like Yaxchilan. Despite the fact that they all have ball game courts and some type of pyramid they also all have something unique. Closer to the Gulf you have the giant Olmek heads. And in Oaxaca at Monte Alban you have a building with 5 corners not unlike the pentagon. It would thus be far stranger to me if there was no unqiue element in any of the building style across Westeros that does not appear anywhere else.

Nor do I have any issue with Moat Cailin builders finding ways with levers and pulleys to lift huge blocks that weigh tons into the air at the site. That is the typical feature of humans: where there is a will, there is a way.

[LmL]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

It's not difficult to build a round tower. The only true issue is the roofing and vaulting in any architectural sense. I also do not believe that the people that built in and around Westeros were necessarily one cohesive culture, especially when we talk about a continent the size of South America. Again I'll use the Mayans as example whose cultural range goes from the Yucatan to Honduras. One of the remarkable and most obvious observations one can make over the architecture from the Yucatan, into the Chiapas hills, on to Guatemalan jungle and Hondurese interior is that they all have unique architectural features or styles or buildings that you don't see in other Mayan cities. For instance, there's the Caracol observatorium of Chichen Itza, and you don't have anything like it anywhere else. But the Puuc hills 6-7 hours busride away are completely different with all the unique buildings and palaces of Uxmal (serial tile work, called Puuc style). 2 hours busride north of nearby Chichen Itza you have Ek Balam, which again has unique elements. Palenque uses loads of plaster and the "palace" has a unique square tower. Flores in Honduras specialised in true sculpturing, that you don't see anywhere else. Bonampak is unique for its frescoes, while it has features in comon with standing stone steles with engraved figures like Yaxchilan. Despite the fact that they all have ball game courts and some type of pyramid they also all have something unique. Closer to the Gulf you have the giant Olmek heads. And in Oaxaca at Monte Alban you have a building with 5 corners not unlike the pentagon. It would thus be far stranger to me if there was no unqiue element in any of the building style across Westeros that does not appear anywhere else.

Nor do I have any issue with Moat Cailin builders finding ways with levers and pulleys to lift huge blocks that weigh tons into the air at the site. That is the typical feature of humans: where there is a will, there is a way.

So, the fact I am asserting is this:

Moat Cailin is built out of huge blocks, far beyond the size of anything else the First Men claim to have done.

This invites exploration of the possibility that it was not built by first men. I am not claiming to know for a fact who built it, but I am saying it is far beyond the capabilities otherwise shown by the First Men, and thus may not have been built by them. It's certainly an idea worth considering. Not only does it have a 50ft high curtain wall built from the cottage sized blocks, it also once sported 20 towers, 3 of which remain. It's a massive structure built in a completely unique way with no approximate match in all of Westeros. 

Your remarks about the variety of building styles in South America is interesting, but my point is that there is not a single thing which goes along with Moat Cailin. It's a total oddball. You can say you think the FM still built it, but you cannot deny that it is unique.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that it is likely to have been built before the Long Night and before the Neck was flooded, when it would have been much easier to build a giant castle there. It also shows clear signs of having suffered a violent trauma, not natural erosion, and that fits with it having been built before the LN and having suffered through the trauma of the moon meteor impacts.

As for the round tower thing, I am referring to two pieces of text:

Raventree Hall was old. Moss grew thick between its ancient stones, spiderwebbing up its walls like the veins in a crone's legs. Two huge towers flanked the castle's main gate, and smaller ones defended every angle of its walls. All were square. Drum towers and half-moons held up better against catapults, since thrown stones were more apt to deflect off a curved wall, but Raventree predated that particular bit of builder's wisdom. - Jaime I, ADWD

And then this from TWOIAF, the section on Winterfell:

Within its walls, the castle sprawls across several acres of land, encompassing many freestanding buildings.  The oldest of these - a long-abandoned tower, round and squat and covered with gargoyles - has become known as the First Keep.  Some take this to mean it was built by the First Men, but Maester Kennet has definitively proved that it could not have existed before the arrival of the Andals since the First Men and the early Andals raised square towers and keeps.  Round towers came sometime later.

Now, I think it's likely that the First Keep, built over the crypts, was probably built way back in the day, long before the Andals, because I think there is abundant evidence that advanced builders existed in pre-Long Night Westeros, as I have said. But the point is that the maesters are well convinced that round towers were not built by the First Men, even if this leads them to a counterintuitive conclusion that the oldest part of Winterfell is only a couple of thousand years old, when the Starks go back 8,000 years. One possible explanation for the First Keep is that it has been rebuilt, as bunch of the rest of the castle has been, but the gargoyles are so worn as to be unrecognizable, which means they are pretty damn old. 

It's the same for Storm's End - the maesters conclude it is far too advanced a building technique to have been built by First Men, and so must have been built by the Andals. But I think we all assume Storm's End is very old, and we pretty much know it was built with spells laid into it, as Melisandre says. In other words, the maesters have a contradiction on their hands - the First Men are not known for building round towers or anything so advanced as Storm's End, according to the maesters, but there are these few odd places like Pyke and Oldtown and the Wall and Storm's End and I would suggest Moat Cailin which do not fit in their chronology or history. To me the answer seems obvious - these anachronistic structures all seem to be very, very old, and many or most built with magic, and they were built before the Long Night by whomever was here at that point, perhaps by different groups, who knows. Point is, after the LN, we get the "First Men" who are known for building ringforts and square-tower castles which are not very advanced, for thousands of years until the Andals arrive and push technology forward a bit. That's why the maesters don't think the FM capable of building the First Keep or Storm's End or Pyke. They are right, as long as we define "First Men" as "the First Men since the Long Night," but most of these odd structures seem to date to before the Long Night, and we can't be certain of very much that happened before then.

Interestingly, one of the few things we can be absolutely certain about is that dragonlords came to Oldtown and built that fused stone fortress sometimes before the Long Night, and that by itself raises new possibilities to any mystery about the Dawn Age and the Long Night. 

[sweetsunray]

Whether it were First Men or proto-First Men or pre-First Men does not really matter to me. It is certainly built by people. I already addressed the "uniqueness" of it, or that of the round towers. My reply is still "so what?"

Your argument of size: basically you're saying, well nothing else this gigantic was built by the people of the pre LN era (nad the pre LN era people are still called FM), so it were people with special knowlege. Hmmm we actually have an analogical situation with Harrenhal. Nobody else of the modern-feudal Westerosi ever built a castle the size of Harrenhal, and yet it was still built by a modern Westerosi, an Iron Born Hoare, who are the most Andalized greenlander IB's there have been.

The children aren't known to have built anything, although they used stone tools. The giants either (although they bury their dead).

What is clear to me is that the material suggests there already was a swamp. There being a swamp is the most logical reason for it to have been built from basalt. That the swamp was there is further evidenced by the fact that Moat Cailin was built in the sole area of the Neck that is somewhat accessible, even before KR was laid out. If it wasn't a swamp yet, but actual land, then there would have been more similar structures to make for a wider barrier, or at least multiple barriers. But no - Moat Cailin's defenses rely on the surrounding area to be a death trap.

It should be clear that it was built by people who lived in the north and wanted to keep people out from the south. And it was a megalomaniac project a la Harrenhal. I suspect the builder was the first king of Barrowhall, the First King of the First Men (who's a man and not a giant imo). The curse legend alone suggests this was a megalomaniac.

Meanwhile the First Men came into Westeros before the LN, not after. So, Moat Cailin built by an early FM creates no issue with it being built before the LN. It does however create an issue with the legend of the creation of the Neck, if you believe that is related to the LN. I think we probably ought to dissociate the Hammers of the Waters from the Long Night.

Once we do that we have this scenario: let's say we got back 12000-11000 years with FM invading Westeros and the war between the Children and FM. The children bring down the hammer of the waters, creating the Neck. Still, people manage to cross and conquer the North. A megalomaniac king rises up and has Moat Cailin built, possibly even against any giants and children south of the Neck. 

[LmL]

6 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

What is clear to me is that the material suggests there already was a swamp. There being a swamp is the most logical reason for it to have been built from basalt. That the swamp was there is further evidenced by the fact that Moat Cailin was built in the sole area of the Neck that is somewhat accessible, even before KR was laid out. If it wasn't a swamp yet, but actual land, then there would have been more similar structures to make for a wider barrier, or at least multiple barriers. But no - Moat Cailin's defenses rely on the surrounding area to be a death trap.

That's a really good point, I had not thought of that. It could also be that Moat Cailin was built on a hill or high point when the land was not swamp, and that's why the only passable route through runs by MC. But you raise a good point which I had not though of. 

 

11 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

t should be clear that it was built by people who lived in the north and wanted to keep people out from the south. And it was a megalomaniac project a la Harrenhal. I suspect the builder was the first king of Barrowhall, the First King of the First Men (who's a man and not a giant imo). The curse legend alone suggests this was a megalomaniac.

I agree with he first part, and the Barrow King idea is a good one. I would think he's a pre-Long Night figure for sure. 

As for Harrenhall, it's somewhat unique for it's size, but it's building technique is nothing special. It's not unique in the way Moat Cailin is. The ability to lift blocks that size indicates a certain level of knowledge and technical skill, and we only see this level of skill in a couple of places that date back to the time of the Long Night. 

A certain part of this discussion would turn to what the definition of "First Men" really is, and hjow many different groups contributed to the gene pool of ancient Westeros. 

14 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Meanwhile the First Men came into Westeros before the LN, not after. So, Moat Cailin built by an early FM creates no issue with it being built before the LN. It does however create an issue with the legend of the creation of the Neck, if you believe that is related to the LN. I think we probably ought to dissociate the Hammers of the Waters from the Long Night.

I disagree, for a thousand reasons and one. All of my research points towards the Hammer falling at the time of the Long Night. That doesn't make it so, I could be wrong, but for myself I am quite convinced. I think most of the timeline issues work a lot better when you move the hammer up tot he LN and the pact to right after the LN, when the FM had just been nearly eradicated and had their asses saved by the cotf. That is a good explanation for why the FM would abandon their former religions and take up Old Gods worship.

But carry on...

14 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Once we do that we have this scenario: let's say we got back 12000-11000 years with FM invading Westeros and the war between the Children and FM. The children bring down the hammer of the waters, creating the Neck. Still, people manage to cross and conquer the North. A megalomaniac king rises up and has Moat Cailin built, possibly even against any giants and children south of the Neck. 

Sure, if you buy that timeline. I myself am as sure that the Hammer was a meteor impact as I am of anything. But really, it doesn't matter much in regard to MC.  We don't really know if the Neck was flooded by the Hammer for sure anyway. That's always been a strange, less than clear addition to the Hammer of the Waters mythology. It's unclear if it is supposed to be two hammer attacks, or just conflicting tales about them calling it down from the Isle of Faces or Moat Cailin. Point is, the Neck may not have been transformed by the hammer, poerhaps just flooded a bit, and it may have always been a marsh.  The best match for the architecture and building style of MC is at Yeen, which is in a jungle / swamp, not too different from MC. If it was not built by FM, it might have been built by the people who built Yeen. Remember that MC does not exist in a vacuum. We have the fused stone fortress and the IronIslands weirdness of the Seastone Chair and Castle Pyke. There is abundant evidence of more than the main body of "FFirst Men" being in ancient Westeros, that is kind of my point. I am not really talking about giants, just non-First Men, or First Men from before the Long Night in possession of advanced technology that was lost during the LN, and that's why the maesters think of the FM as only making ringforts and more primitive castles.