Eddard in Wonderland

[LmL]

Real quick, GreenKing, let me just say I don't think there was two separate Hammers at all. They were both part of the same event, in my opinion. There's really no evidence to suggest they were separate.

I don't want to bog down the thread, so if you want to see my thinking on this and the evidence I've gathered, check out "The Language of Leviathan" in my signature.

Very interesting riverlands - underworld comparison, that all seems right.

[The Green King]

OKay LmL. But just consider these ideas 

 

>in Westeros  the meteor material from the second moon, cooled down way faster >> other process, but not ice, just different chemical/magical reaction.  

 

> Also and more important Pale Stone = meteor material + Weirwood tree (turns to stone too, and is blood related) + cooled down by seawater (bashing and hammering in intervals, very cold seawater (just noting: salt water on hot material like that = Salt and Smoke) this is defenitely the material for  'Dawn'

Likely to be found in  >> Starfall, the Iron Islands, the Three sisters, Isle of Faces...

Weirwood makes the pale stone a bloodstone, gives it also its paler color, and has different chemo/magical composition (neutralising the negative aspects, harnessing the magical aspects differently), the cooling down process is also important to consider. Because it's natural, it does hammer. But.... NOT Ice

 

> Purpleness of the Eyes and light hair (Targ and Dayne) = Either, they are smiths, in which case it is a genetic alteration that appeared long ago. Either the forging or the witnessing of the forging brought this about. >> indication of working with the moonstone.

Or same idea but the genetic change happened through the wielding of the sword.

(could also be related to moon-sickness=lunacy= madness in some of the descendants, however not at all of them, the defects just are more clear and linked to the moonstone elements, can manifest differently)

[Kingmonkey]

Very interesting. It ties in with Martin and Scottlands ties to the books. Thought if you want something a bit funny- recently a study found that most southern britions still contain a good bit of cletic DNA- more then their germanic roots. Granted, GRRM didn't know that at the time.

Actually this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone who's studied beyond the conventional histories. The idea that the "Celtic fringe" of the UK represents Celts being pushed by Saxons into the extremities of the isles derives from a historian and linguist called Edward Lhyud in the 17th century. What he was really observing was that the languages we know today as Celtic are related.

Prior to this, there was no historical mention of the people termed the Celts being any more than a minor presence in Britain, occupying small regions of southern England in the late Iron Age. When Caesar arrived in Britain, he described the division of blond English, dark Welsh and red-headed Scots, 500 years before the arrival of the Saxons who's invasion is supposed to have created this division.

What seems to have happened is that the language and culture (what historian Simon James refers to as the "Celtic cultural package"), rather than the people themselves, was pushed to the fringes by the incoming Saxon culture. How much population replacement actually took place is still hotly debated, but as you say recent DNA evidence seems to point in favour of those who argue that there was very considerable intermingling.

Dragging this back on topic a little, I suspect that GRRM was quite aware of this. The Andals essentially take the same role as the Saxons as the replacement population, and the general in-world historical belief is that they largely pushed out the First Men into the extremity of the North. It's fairly apparent that there's much more First Men influence in the south than that historical narrative allows, and it's much more that the culture of the Andals became dominant in the south.

[The Green King]

Andals and Rhoynar in the south. Although it really does beg the question to which extent that is actually true. The culture we get to see is often more the culture of the noble houses. However, the smallfolk, which still makes the largest part of the population We don't get that many extensive descriptions of how the smallfolk combine the crossover(s) between Old and New Gods and other cultural elements. We often see the culture of the nobles. Historically, a lot of the older traditions got integrated in the new ones or were carried on simultaneously, even though the trends of the new more dominant culture under the nobles might have changed. 

[Marcus Agrippa]

Actually this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone who's studied beyond the conventional histories. The idea that the "Celtic fringe" of the UK represents Celts being pushed by Saxons into the extremities of the isles derives from a historian and linguist called Edward Lhyud in the 17th century. What he was really observing was that the languages we know today as Celtic are related.

Prior to this, there was no historical mention of the people termed the Celts being any more than a minor presence in Britain, occupying small regions of southern England in the late Iron Age. When Caesar arrived in Britain, he described the division of blond English, dark Welsh and red-headed Scots, 500 years before the arrival of the Saxons who's invasion is supposed to have created this division.

What seems to have happened is that the language and culture (what historian Simon James refers to as the "Celtic cultural package"), rather than the people themselves, was pushed to the fringes by the incoming Saxon culture. How much population replacement actually took place is still hotly debated, but as you say recent DNA evidence seems to point in favour of those who argue that there was very considerable intermingling.

Dragging this back on topic a little, I suspect that GRRM was quite aware of this. The Andals essentially take the same role as the Saxons as the replacement population, and the general in-world historical belief is that they largely pushed out the First Men into the extremity of the North. It's fairly apparent that there's much more First Men influence in the south than that historical narrative allows, and it's much more that the culture of the Andals became dominant in the south.

Yes, agreed on the DNA. I never thought of Britian as imporant during the Dark and Mid period. They sent troops for the crusade's but eh.

 

It's shows the Andals in vastly more dominant role's and the first men weaker outside of the north. I suppose it depends on the reader however.

 

Andals and Rhoynar in the south. Although it really does beg the question to which extent that is actually true. The culture we get to see is often more the culture of the noble houses. However, the smallfolk, which still makes the largest part of the population We don't get that many extensive descriptions of how the smallfolk combine the crossover(s) between Old and New Gods and other cultural elements. We often see the culture of the nobles. Historically, a lot of the older traditions got integrated in the new ones or were carried on simultaneously, even though the trends of the new more dominant culture under the nobles might have changed. 

Agreed, this is how I see it.

[Kingmonkey]

Yes, agreed on the DNA. I never thought of Britian as imporant during the Dark and Mid period. They sent troops for the crusade's but eh.

 

It was something of a case of "Europe eh", between the fall of the Western empire and the crusades. Don't underestimate the impact of Britain, though. England was something of a backwater and the Celtic speaking fringes remote, but that remoteness helped preserve a lot of classical learning from the losses suffered through the upheavals of Europe, notably in the scriptoria of Iona and Ireland. For several centuries the insular and particularly Irish Christian tradition provided a real centre of learning for Europe, hence Ireland's traditional nick-name as "the land of saints and scholars". 

[Kingmonkey]

Andals and Rhoynar in the south. Although it really does beg the question to which extent that is actually true. The culture we get to see is often more the culture of the noble houses. However, the smallfolk, which still makes the largest part of the population We don't get that many extensive descriptions of how the smallfolk combine the crossover(s) between Old and New Gods and other cultural elements. We often see the culture of the nobles. Historically, a lot of the older traditions got integrated in the new ones or were carried on simultaneously, even though the trends of the new more dominant culture under the nobles might have changed. 

 

Yes, this is very good point. Certainly there's a strong historical precedent for this. History tends to be recorded from the viewpoint of the upper strata of society, and similarly the material culture of those upper strata tends to survive better. While the Faith of Seven is clearly dominant in southern Westeros, we can't really know how much influence of the older culture really remains. Certainly in Britain, there's plenty of evidence that many old traditions survived under the Christian faith; that's why we see (perhaps rather distorted) pre-Christian symbolism in late medieval church decoration, and survivals of numerous local traditions with pre-Christian origins into the modern day. 

 

ASOIAF seems to me to be written with an eye to the way this kind of cultural and historical bias creates false assumptions. We don't get the wholesale unique cultures and precise delineations of myth common in fantasy fiction, but something much messier and more realistic. There's a great passage where Brienne talks to Nimble Dick about how local heroes can play very similar roles in different places, and I think we should read the myth of Westeros as being as prone to syncretism as our own myths are.  I've had that debate with LmL a few times.

 

Similarly I suspect that the strangely extended timeline of Westerosi history should be treated as a mythological rather than historical fact. Early European histories tended to be compressed by the requirement of making them fit with a Biblical narrative that had Europe empty of people until the arrival of descendants of Noah, but elsewhere it seems to have been extremely common for people to believe their society and their culture and their kings to have been in existence for far longer periods than they actually were.

[Knight of the Amused Tree]

Great write up Kingmonkey. I love this thread so much it hurts. Being moderately well read in both the Celtic and Germanic/Norse mythos, I have always seen more parallels in ASOIF on the Celtic side. Your thoughts on Celtic similarities of the Tower of Joy, liminal places, quest myths and ritualistic challenges is something that has been knocking around it my brain for a long time. Thanks for putting it into words much better than I ever could. 

 

On the topic of population replacement in Britain, from memory my read on the DNA evidence was while there were some pockets of strong Norse DNA in Scotland's Isles / the North of England and  strong Angle/Saxon DNA in East Anglia the rest of the Britons were never subsumed by the Saxon or moved West into Cornwall, Wales and later Brittany. Their decedents are still there and the dominate population group. If I'm correct, it only became vogue for the English to start identifying as "Anglo Saxon" and Germanic when they imported the German George I as their king in 1714. As the king and court were German it became cool and sophisticated to be German too. 

[The Green King]

 

Yes, this is very good point. Certainly there's a strong historical precedent for this. History tends to be recorded from the viewpoint of the upper strata of society, and similarly the material culture of those upper strata tends to survive better. While the Faith of Seven is clearly dominant in southern Westeros, we can't really know how much influence of the older culture really remains. Certainly in Britain, there's plenty of evidence that many old traditions survived under the Christian faith; that's why we see (perhaps rather distorted) pre-Christian symbolism in late medieval church decoration, and survivals of numerous local traditions with pre-Christian origins into the modern day. 

 

ASOIAF seems to me to be written with an eye to the way this kind of cultural and historical bias creates false assumptions. We don't get the wholesale unique cultures and precise delineations of myth common in fantasy fiction, but something much messier and more realistic. There's a great passage where Brienne talks to Nimble Dick about how local heroes can play very similar roles in different places, and I think we should read the myth of Westeros as being as prone to syncretism as our own myths are.  I've had that debate with LmL a few times.

 

Similarly I suspect that the strangely extended timeline of Westerosi history should be treated as a mythological rather than historical fact. Early European histories tended to be compressed by the requirement of making them fit with a Biblical narrative that had Europe empty of people until the arrival of descendants of Noah, but elsewhere it seems to have been extremely common for people to believe their society and their culture and their kings to have been in existence for far longer periods than they actually were.

 

I strongly tend to agree with this. Also the symbols of 'The Stanger'  found in caverns (North and the Vale i think), could indicate something else than just the presence of the Andals in those regions. It actually could even be that these are the earliest symbols found of 'The Stranger'  and that this wouldn't only be proof to 'The Stanger'  predating the Andals or the Faith, it could even be that this is proof of 'The Stranger' having influenced the Faith heavily. Although it's likely that there were originally seven gods in the Faith, they might have been replaced at some of the original figures that were revered.

 

I'm just using this example to indicate the dialectic evolutions in the religion(s) of Planetos that may have taken place, and of which we have numerous historical proof in our own history. I feel that similar dialectics, incorporations and appropriations may have taken place in GRRM's Planetos too. There are a lot of indications to that having taken place. And some of the concequences may even be severe to get a really good picture of what went on. For instance, it may very well be that every region had it's mythical figure similar to Azor Ahai, but there is no reason to just accept that Azor Ahai will be the only one because the others are 'similar'. As we have een sevral times in history and also in GRRM's Planetos, it may be that some of the little differences do have a big impact. So yes, it's possible that their is an Heikoon the Hero, with a similar mirroring story as Azor Ahai, but who is a totally different character with a different agenda, or differnt traits. I mean this strictly as an example, but i also point this out because this might mean that one myth or prophesy could actually imply multiple characters. It might even imply not just two sides of a coin, but up to eight sides of a cube (by matter of speaking).

 

This is also one of the indications why we should be very wary of buying in to the simple dualism of either fire or ice. The fact that there are differences between fire, ice but also fire plus ice in a cmbined form, seem to indicate a few variations. And i think the simple dualistic views is not at all something that is one of the main charactristics of GRRM's  writing or intentions. What he does do, using these symbolic antagonists as a pretense for a much more complicated and rafined story. Even the most of his heroic characters don't have a simple good vs evil moral, so it seems quite to believe this is going towards a simple battle between 'fire and ice' factions. 

 

It's also one of the reasons why i believe that, seeing that the factions of the Others and the followers of R'hllor have ways to come back from the dead, the realm of men/CotF, might apply other means of bringing people back. This might be in the first place by not dying at all. Jon's possible warging into Ghost can indicate another way. But yes i think some people might not have actually died. This would also be closer to the solutions that we would have for the explanation of the Celtic 'Otherworld'. As long as their dissapearance or death is believed, these characters actually have crossed over to the 'Otherworld', where they might be involved in a mysterious mission. Missions, voyages and other absences, as well as changing of names and appearances or involvement of ploys and ruses and them being related to the 'Otherworld' are quite frequent practices in Celtic myths and tales. More important is that their belief system doesn't really have the concept of 'Hell' or 'Heaven', something which in Westeros seems to be more present (or atleast represented by) the followers of R'hllor, the Others and most of all the Manyfaced God (and the concept of mercy). This is why i presume it more logical that a few characters might be hiding, and the reasons could be various. Oaths and vows of honorable men and women being one of the strong possibilities to tie them to the obligation of being absent is a possibility. The vows and oaths in front of Weirwood trees ( or objects made thereof) could be a way to uphold the oath or vow made. 

 

Great write up Kingmonkey. I love this thread so much it hurts. Being moderately well read in both the Celtic and Germanic/Norse mythos, I have always seen more parallels in ASOIF on the Celtic side. Your thoughts on Celtic similarities of the Tower of Joy, liminal places, quest myths and ritualistic challenges is something that has been knocking around it my brain for a long time. Thanks for putting it into words much better than I ever could. 

 

On the topic of population replacement in Britain, from memory my read on the DNA evidence was while there were some pockets of strong Norse DNA in Scotland's Isles / the North of England and  strong Angle/Saxon DNA in East Anglia the rest of the Britons were never subsumed by the Saxon or moved West into Cornwall, Wales and later Brittany. Their decedents are still there and the dominate population group. If I'm correct, it only became vogue for the English to start identifying as "Anglo Saxon" and Germanic when they imported the German George I as their king in 1714. As the king and court were German it became cool and sophisticated to be German too. 

 

 

Seems quite logical. Also, even though the Celts were warriors too, they are known to marry into populations. Whenever they could avoid battle, they most likely would. Some resources also indicate that their marriages weren't that lasting, and never were intended to be like that. Some marriages thus were more of a temporary nature, and this only changed with the coming of christianity. The marrying into populations was important because, however it seems a bit logical, with the Celts it took on the form of gradually overtaking a population. 

 

That Anglo-Saxons weren't that wanted and often opposed because they did get some noble titles that used to belong to former Briton nobles is nicely illustrated by some of the versions of the Robin Hood saga's. They did not just settle in the land, but sometimes also aquired titles to which they shouldn't have had claim, as a compensation for supporting one or other king or fuedal lord in their oppression of the smallfolk. The giving of land and titles as a compensation didn't make that they were accepted as 'actual nobility', not by the noble or by the smallfolk, but it was more a price that was paid for services in order to gain or keep the power. However it did give some Anglo-Saxons more rights then most commoners. The result is of course that after a while they are established in power and in certain regions without the difference being anything else than historic tales more than actual DNA difference.

[Marcus Agrippa]

 

It was something of a case of "Europe eh", between the fall of the Western empire and the crusades. Don't underestimate the impact of Britain, though. England was something of a backwater and the Celtic speaking fringes remote, but that remoteness helped preserve a lot of classical learning from the losses suffered through the upheavals of Europe, notably in the scriptoria of Iona and Ireland. For several centuries the insular and particularly Irish Christian tradition provided a real centre of learning for Europe, hence Ireland's traditional nick-name as "the land of saints and scholars". 

From the roman period britian was always backwater- It mght have peaked aroud 250's in terms of population if I remember. It's be a while. That's true- only the byzatines had better records. I am sort of shocked on much less the Italian city states had then the eastern empire.