Astronomy of Planetos II: The Bloodstone Compendium

[LmL]

What are you saying about Darkstar and a cadet house? I didn't follow.

As for the 10,000 year conspiracy, the only things we have that are comparable are mystery cults like the notorious Illuminati, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, etc etc. The ostensible goal of these groups to preserve sacred knowledge that isn't fit for widespread consumption down through time, sometimes with the idea that it's being kept secret through a 'dark age' until the time is right for a re-flowering. The COSW / R'hllorists / Azor Ahai worshippers would fit this bill, albeit in a fully nefarious fashion instead of only somewhat nefarious. They've been keeping alive their special brand of fire knowledge, and at times it has flowered. They see themselves as needed to fight the Great Other, which I believe they are mistaken about.

[Modesty Lannister]

I think you should read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/

[LmL]

I think you should read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/

I've seen most of this, but not all. The star chart that didn't make it obviously has me gnashing my teeth... We're you referring to one thing in general? Several things are interesting, although of course not cannon as far as Elio's speculation. This part, though, is essentially a huge piece of my premise, and I had missed this quote:

Archmaester Rigney once wrote that history is a wheel, for the nature of man is fundamentally unchanging. What has happened before will perforce happen again, he said.

[LmL]

Only George can say for certain! What he wrote about those regions made it into the book almost in its entirety, so he’ll have to create more new stuff.

Haha, because those sections are full of very detailed astronomical metaphors which would fall apart of any details were changed, that's why those sections come straight from George in their entirety.

[Durran Durrandon]

What are you saying about Darkstar and a cadet house? I didn't follow.

As for the 10,000 year conspiracy, the only things we have that are comparable are mystery cults like the notorious Illuminati, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, etc etc. The ostensible goal of these groups to preserve sacred knowledge that isn't fit for widespread consumption down through time, sometimes with the idea that it's being kept secret through a 'dark age' until the time is right for a re-flowering. The COSW / R'hllorists / Azor Ahai worshippers would fit this bill, albeit in a fully nefarious fashion instead of only somewhat nefarious. They've been keeping alive their special brand of fire knowledge, and at times it has flowered. They see themselves as needed to fight the Great Other, which I believe they are mistaken about.

I am saying that if we are looking for members of a 10,000 year old cult, the Daynes deserve a look. I like them for good guys mostly, but that right their is a suspect notion. They can trace their origins back 10,000 year, they can trace their origins back to the Empire of the Dawn, and they followed a fracking falling star to the place where they built their strong hold. They actually had a magic fallen star, and presumably used it to forge a magic sword. If they aren't CoSW members, they might at least know something about them. Add to that a pretentious emo member who styles himself the Darkstar, whom Dorian Martell thinks is dangerous.

[Modesty Lannister]

I've seen most of this, but not all. The star chart that didn't make it obviously has me gnashing my teeth... We're you referring to one thing in general? Several things are interesting, although of course not cannon as far as Elio's speculation. This part, though, is essentially a huge piece of my premise, and I had missed this quote:

No. What is of interest here are oily black stones and mentions of Asshai. Elio is co-author of TWOIAF, so I would not call his interview on his own book a speculation.

[LmL]

2. What's your personal take on the black oily stone popping up everywhere from Asshai to the Iron Islands? Will that be relevant to the main series? How relevant is it to the idea that there were/are a forgotten race of people who once spread across the known world?

We believe it must relate to some ancient race or species that pre-dated human civilization, though probably not the children of the forest. And our suspicion is that they have something to do with the origins of Valyria. But is all that relevant to the present ASoIaF story? Perhaps only in a very indirect way, through Melisandre of Asshai.

Note the phrases "personal take," "we believe they must...," "probably," "our suspicion is..." and "perhaps." They also said the Far East sections were written almost completely by George.

Elio's entire take here is clearly speculation, not canon. If he knew the answer beyond what is in the worldbook, he wouldn't say anything, so as not to give away the answer. The fact that he is speculating so much on this indicates that he does not know the answer. He certainly could be right, and the greasy stone may well predate the long night, but I certainly am not taking anything he said here to confirm that in any meaningful way.

Thanks for sharing this with me though, there's three or four things in there that support my theory.

[Han Snow]

Some lost people from beyond the Sunset Sea, who are probably very connected to the oily black stone builders.

So except Daynes who are clearly modern surviving GEODAWNIANs still living in Westeros, there seems to be Western lands that are west of Westeros that are not Essos where the GEODAWNIANs still live? :ack:

[Modesty Lannister]

Note the phrases "personal take," "we believe they must...," "probably," "our suspicion is..." and "perhaps." They also said the Far East sections were written almost completely by George.

Elio's entire take here is clearly speculation, not canon. If he knew the answer beyond what is in the worldbook, he wouldn't say anything, so as not to give away the answer. The fact that he is speculating so much on this indicates that he does not know the answer. He certainly could be right, and the greasy stone may well predate the long night, but I certainly am not taking anything he said here to confirm that in any meaningful way.

Thanks for sharing this with me though, there's three or four things in there that support my theory.

Why are you so defensive. I did share it, because, as always, I want to have an open debate and take every source into consideration. Elio is a co-author of TWOIAF and I am certain he knows all the real stories behind the stories in the book. That being said, I don't believe he knows all the stories of ASOIAF, because when GRRM does not want to share, that's it. Elio himself in that very interview said George didn't want to write much about the Wall, so that he doesn't hint took much. The use of words you mentioned is a result of careful phrasing, necessary if one wants to avoid information leaks. As you said yourself, there are some things in the interview, which corroborate your theory and there some that don't. We all love our babies, but sometimes we have to modify them when a new information comes along.

[LmL]

If I'm defensive, it's because you're criticism is consistently non-constructive - the only person so far on either of my threads. You say negative things in a definitive fashion, like, "sorry, that just doesn't work." You seem to think your personal opinion about how bloodstone looks should make me throw out the 17 odd symbolic and textual corroborations, and here you are touting what is clearly speculation as proof against my theory. You even seem offended that I connect the bloodstone and greasy stone, saying "why do you insist on putting that part in?" Because there's a ton of evidence for it, none of which you have refuted.

Meanwhile, I glanced at your theory, and it's full of baseless speculation, which is fine and dandy, but for you to try to come here and shoot down my theory without debunking ANY of my evidence seems pretty friggin lame. I refrained from commenting on yours, because I don't really comment on theories I don't see much evidence for. Shooting down people's theories isn't what I do for fun. I basically only comment on others writing with something nice to say, or CONSTRUCTIVE criticism usually in the form of a question.

I did really like what you had to say about basalt, and I responded about that. But you are basically the one person one my entire thread who seems to consistently be negative, and without much if any evidence.

[LmL]

And you also have a habit of raising objections which I dealt with in my essay, which is frustrating, because I either have to repeat myself or just ignore it.

[LmL]

Lastly, there is your whole passive aggressive thing that you do. You attempt to suggest a large part of my theory is baseless, based on a paragraph full of probably and maybe and we think, so I think it's only fair for me to point out that this is in fact clearly speculation. Then, when I do so, you're all like "hey man, why so defensive?" You did that earlier in the thread as well, objecting in an overly negative fashion, with little evidence, ignoring my own arguments that dealt with your objections exactly, and then when I respond in detail to your specific criticism, you try to make it appear as though I can't handle criticism of my theory. But lots of people have disagreed with parts of my theory, or even most of it, and none of them have ruffled my feathers are in the slightest, except you, which you've done several times now.

You also make it out as if I am not open-minded to other possibilities, such as the idea that the greasy stone pre-dates the long night, even though I very clearly said, "that is possible," several times.

All of this is quite frustrating, especially since you are obviously very smart, very knowledgeable on mythology, and have had some good things to say as well. I'd like very much for thing to be cordial between us, but I really do have a problem with all the things I mentioned

Edit: addition: I am going to take a harder look at basalt, and if I find anything worth using, I will gladly credit you for the suggestion. And I do appreciate it.

[Associate Maester]

A couple things here. We have no evidence that Asshai is the home of R'hllorianism and/or red priests. The world book of course mentions them in the list of those that "practice their art" there. Asshai seems to be the de facto place that people (magically-inclined and otherwise) wanting arcane knowledge go study/learn.

There isn't an explicit link between R'hllorianism and shadow-binding. Melisandre happens to be both a shadowbinder and red priestess. However, we have no evidence that shadowbinding is part of the usual R'hllor arsenal (it may well be, but we don't know).

I would strongly suggest you break your essays down into smaller chunks. You're likely to get more feedback that way if you have it in smaller, more digestible chunks.

[LmL]

A couple things here. We have no evidence that Asshai is the home of R'hllorianism and/or red priests. The world book of course mentions them in the list of those that "practice their art" there. Asshai seems to be the de facto place that people (magically-inclined and otherwise) wanting arcane knowledge go study/learn.

There isn't an explicit link between R'hllorianism and shadow-binding. Melisandre happens to be both a shadowbinder and red priestess. However, we have no evidence that shadowbinding is part of the usual R'hllor arsenal (it may well be, but we don't know).

I would strongly suggest you break your essays down into smaller chunks. You're likely to get more feedback that way if you have it in smaller, more digestible chunks.

It's definitely a challenge to decide where to break things up, and future parts will probably be a bit shorter, but honestly these first two (and the next one at least) all have very interrelated and interdependent ideas.. If you present only a piece at a time, there's less corroboration and people may reject the hypothesis as unsupported by evidence. My hypothesis was fairly bold, so I really didn't want to present it without a fair amount of support... And actually, I did cut out a LOT of stuff, including many more detailing textual corroborations. That said, with my basic premise and hypothesis laid out, future essays can be shorter as they build off of this foundation.

Personally, I enjoy reading the long form essays, and writing them as well. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but that's what I am in to. I don't think one is by default better or worse, it's more to do with the subject at hand and the style of analysis.

I didn't really have any problem getting responses - the first one got over 300 responses in three days, and 90% or more were intelligent and / or contributed new ideas and examples. It was hard to keep up at times... I've gone back and taken notes on all the great ideas everyone put forward, so I can use them and give the appropriate credit. It's gone really well so far, the reaction has been waaaaay better than I ever hoped for. I was afraid people would be scared off by the length and detail, but apparently some people still have longer attention spans, thanks the gods.

As for the red priests and Asshai, I'll have to double check but I want to say they are often referred to as the red priests of Asshai. We are told the Azor Ahai story is from Asshai, and the red priests think he is their savior. Your point is valid though; just because Mel is a red priest and a Shadowbinder does not mean they go together or that other red priests are shadowbinders. The organization of the Red Temple seems a bit scattershot, it's hard to say how the hierarchy works exactly. Their priests seem to have a certain amount of autonomy. In any case, bearing this point in mind, I'll have to go reread all the Asshai / R'hllor talk to make sure I get that part right.

[Pielord]

One of your proposals is that the Bloodstone emperor who supposedly caused the long night is also Azor Ahai who supposedly ended it correct?

i think there might be someone similar

Were told that Brandon "The Builder" Stark built the wall and founded the watch

Old Nan tells that the Nights King is a stark and possibly a Brandon

And lastly that the Nights King was also defeated by Brandon 'The Breaker" Stark (with some wildling help)

That is alot of Brandon Starks running around at the time when the house is only just been formed dont you think?

Some speculate that the Nights King is The last hero and that The Nights King is Brandon the Builder

I think its quite possible that all three Brandons are one person, three parts of the same legend

It is also interesting to me at least that the only one out of Garth Greenhand and his (supposed) sons and daughters to be associated with a house outside of the reach is another Brandon, Brandon the bloody blade

a bloody blade would certainly be one way to describe a red sword

[LmL]

One of your proposals is that the Bloodstone emperor who supposedly caused the long night is also Azor Ahai who supposedly ended it correct?

i think there might be someone similar

Were told that Brandon "The Builder" Stark built the wall and founded the watch

Old Nan tells that the Nights King is a stark and possibly a Brandon

And lastly that the Nights King was also defeated by Brandon 'The Breaker" Stark (with some wildling help)

That is alot of Brandon Starks running around at the time when the house is only just been formed dont you think?

Some speculate that the Nights King is The last hero and that The Nights King is Brandon the Builder

I think its quite possible that all three Brandons are one person, three parts of the same legend

It is also interesting to me at least that the only one out of Garth Greenhand and his (supposed) sons and daughters to be associated with a house outside of the reach is another Brandon, Brandon the bloody blade

a bloody blade would certainly be one way to describe a red sword

Hey Pielord! I'm pretty much on board with most of that to some extent. Just to clarify, I believe Azor Ahai was the Bloodstone Emperor, but I am not at all sure he ended the LN. I'm considering that possibility for sure - that he caused it and did much evil, but found redemption at the end through sacrifice. But I haven't claimed that yet.. Just to be clear.

The NK / LH / BtB thing I am way hip to, I'm pretty sure I've read most of the threads you're thinking off. I think some of these myths are referring to one person, for sure, although I'm still trying to figure out exactly how that breaks down. Garth is really, really important as far as ending the LN, and that 'Bloody Blade' stuff is very, very interesting to be sure. I think you will like what I have to say when I get to that point. You're right to see the parallels there. :)

[Pielord]

Bran knew the story, but it had never been his favorite. Maybe one of the other Brandons had liked that story. Sometimes Nan would talk to him as if he were her Brandon, the baby she had nursed all those years ago, and sometimes she confused him with his uncle Brandon, who was killed by the Mad King before Bran was even born. She had lived so long, Mother had told him once, that all the Brandon Starks had become one person in her head.

now this is talking about the Brandons that were known by Old Nan in her lifetime but it could be a nod to how the old legends can get mixed together or split apart, especially when directly before this Old Nan was telling a story about Brandon the Builder and directly after a story of the long night and the last hero.

Maybe 10000 years in the planetos future there will be stories about (at least) three seperate Daenerys Targaryen's The Mother of Dragons, The Breaker of Chains, The Queen of Grass Sea In the same way that we have so many Brandon Starks from the age of heroes in the current time.

[Pielord]

Florian the Fool is probably another retelling of Azor Ahai, it ticks alot of the boxes

Age of Heroes, Man, Woman, Sword

Also a Knight when there were no Knights, the was a night though =)

Thats a little bit tenuous you might think but Saint Florian was a Roman millitary commander put to death by the Romans for refusing the practices of the roman gods. He's the patron saint of Firefighters, was sentenced to be burned at the stake but was instead drowned. You might notice a nice painting of him at the link where he is holding a red sword

The wowan from the Florian the Fool story is named Jonquil which is shade of the color Yellow

[Modesty Lannister]

Lastly, there is your whole passive aggressive thing that you do. You attempt to suggest a large part of my theory is baseless, based on a paragraph full of probably and maybe and we think, so I think it's only fair for me to point out that this is in fact clearly speculation. Then, when I do so, you're all like "hey man, why so defensive?" You did that earlier in the thread as well, objecting in an overly negative fashion, with little evidence, ignoring my own arguments that dealt with your objections exactly, and then when I respond in detail to your specific criticism, you try to make it appear as though I can't handle criticism of my theory. But lots of people have disagreed with parts of my theory, or even most of it, and none of them have ruffled my feathers are in the slightest, except you, which you've done several times now.

You also make it out as if I am not open-minded to other possibilities, such as the idea that the greasy stone pre-dates the long night, even though I very clearly said, "that is possible," several times.

All of this is quite frustrating, especially since you are obviously very smart, very knowledgeable on mythology, and have had some good things to say as well. I'd like very much for thing to be cordial between us, but I really do have a problem with all the things I mentioned

Edit: addition: I am going to take a harder look at basalt, and if I find anything worth using, I will gladly credit you for the suggestion. And I do appreciate it.

I have been nothing but constructive. I provided Aurora Borealis association for your thread, which was commended by many posters. I provided this link, because it is relevant for your thread. I provided "divine feminine" idea. I provided "the blood sacrifice" as a reason for oiliness of the black stone and the link to weirwoods. So, your accusations are baseless. I did question parts of your theory that I do not find logical or strong. That is the whole point of this forum. But, I never trolled you, nor nitpick. And I was not the only one questioning your arguments. This is a tough forum, full of trolling and we have to be prepared to face them. But, we should be prepared to face constructive criticism. Surrounding yourself with a handful of people who agree with you (to an extent) does not make your theory stronger. What makes it stronger is that, when faced with questioning or legitimate criticism, you can provide adequate answers and, if not, realise weak points that you (and others) can work on.

Accusing me of all the things that you just accused me of not only breaches rules of this forum, but is unfair and shows your inability to face any criticism.

You merged oily black stone and bloodstone into one with no evidence. When people questioned this (and I was not the only one), you did not provide anything viable. I tried to help you with basalt and blood sacrifice. You keep insisting a green stone with red spots equals black oily stone. That is just not the case. Yet, you push on like it's not a major problem in your reasoning.

You ignore almost all posters who mention Venus as the symbol of dawn and stick to Lucifer, which is something that made many people uneasy with the whole concept and unwilling to even read it.

My goal is not to rip your theory to shreds. I only wanted to make it better through discussion of its weak points. You showed an unbelievable immaturity in dealing with my criticism and in reacting to Elio's interview. You went so far to imply Elio does not know what he is talking about in his own book. How can anyone take you seriously? And be thankful trolls are more interested in who hates Sansa or Stannis. I really do wish they do not smell this thread.

[Cat of the First Men]

While you're correct about ancient trading of bitumen, it's not anywhere near solid enough to build walls and buildings from, in real life anyway. I'm not really seeing any symbolism associated with bitumen that ties in to what we know about the greasy black stone.

Also, remember that the greasy black stone "looks" greasy, or has greasy "feel" to it. If it was literally secreting oil, it would be described differently, it seems to me.

While I understand that you're following a line of symbolism around word associations with bloodstone, we can also consider other things, for example what is interpreted as oily rock may not be entirely made from the one rock. Bitumen was actually used as a very important material for building in ancient Mesopotamia.

All Mesopotamia says "Moving away from the marsh lands, Mesopotamians were building structures with bricks made out of clay up north, which were not much better than marsh reeds when faced with flooding. With the discovery of bitumen came the ability to build more durable bricks and structures, including the Ziggurat, and the Tower of Babel."

Plus, carvings were made from bitumen rock in ancient Mesopotamia which survive to now.

I've found 4 references to the oily black stone in the World book. In Yeen "A ruin older than time. Built of oily black stone, in massive blocks so heavy it would take a dozen elephants to move them."

"the Seastone chair. The throne of the Greyjoys, carved into the shape of a Kraken from an oily black stone."

"Some say as well that the stone of Asshai has a greasy, unpleasant feel to it, that it seems to drink the light, dimming tapers and torches and hearth fires alike"

"On the isle of Toads can be found an ancient idol, a greasy black stone crudely carved into the semblance of a gigantic toad"

These four quotes don't say the stone looks greasy or oily. It *is* greasy or oily, consistent with an exudation of grease/oil from the rock, or an ancient greasy/oily deposit onto it.

Another question is that all black stones are not oily, and the black stone worshiped by the Bloodstone Emperor from the comet may not be the oily black stone. The oily black stone may pre- or post-date the Bloodstone Emperor and the Long NIght by a considerable period.