Craster, the Starks, the Others, and Human Sacrifice

[Loose Bolt]

7 hours ago, Roswell said:

His body is lying below Winterfell in a preserved condition

Not even bones will survive thousands of years. Or bodies of ancient Starks should have turned dust long time ago.

[Melifeather]

On 9/25/2022 at 10:37 AM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Why was baby Craster turned away at the wall? 

Because any man of the Watch that accepts paternity is acknowledging that they are an oathbreaker and can be executed. An oathbreaker is cursed by the gods.

[the trees have eyes]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I always thought they wanted the babies because the babies could be made into new Others/White Walkers and not just wights like all the other dead people.

Yes, that seems their object as evidenced by

A Storm of Swords - Samwell II

"The boy's brothers," said the old woman on the left. "Craster's sons. The white cold's rising out there, crow. I can feel it in my bones. These poor old bones don't lie. They'll be here soon, the sons."

My point point is that are Craster's sons in some way special or just the most easily and reliably obtained human children, as in why look a gift horse in the mouth?

1 hour ago, Melifeather said:

Because any man of the Watch that accepts paternity is acknowledging that they are an oathbreaker and can be executed. An oathbreaker is cursed by the gods.

Good point.  What would happen to the ranger who recognised the child as his?

A Game of Thrones - Jon VI

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

 

It's not so much about this conjecture, imo:

 

On 9/25/2022 at 4:37 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

Why was baby Craster turned away at the wall?  Probably because his presence would create an awkward situation for a noble family who was particularly prickly about their honor.  Craster's father was a Stark. 

 

[Bobby B. VIII]

I just listened to a podcast a few days ago that deals mostly with symbolism in ASOIAF. They discussed a theory in which they think those sacrifices from the starks may have been babies for The Others, and a possible reason behind why they disappeared for so long. Very interesting stuff. I'm not sure how the forums look on promoting things like this on here so if anyone wants to know the podcast name I would be happy to let you know. Also has a great 3-part-series on Odin/Norse symbolism in Jon and Bran, great stuff.

[StarkTullies]

On 9/28/2022 at 9:50 PM, Finley McLeod said:

This piece of history took place before the arrival of Queen Allysanne and her dragon.  I wonder if the story was edited to cover up for the Starks.  So we know the Starks were killing people to please the old gods.

I assume you are implying that the "author" of Fire & Blood (the fictional maester who fictionally wrote the book, not George Martin) might be covering up for the Starks.  That's not likely.  Fire & Blood is written from an intentionally biased and inaccurate perspective, as real history books often are.  The maester's point of view is not Martin's point of view, and the maester is clearly biased against the Northerners.  Every time he mentions them, he refers to them as "savages".  Because the maester is so biased against the North and yet did not even hint at the rumors of human sacrifice, that is a very strong case that the rumors did not exist.

Regarding the last sentence above, we don't know the Starks killed people to please the gods.  How could we... if the only information we have is the story given to us and you say the story was edited?  If the story was edited, the evidence was removed and we have nothing.

There is no indication in the story whatsoever that a single Stark within the past many hundreds of years ever sacrificed anyone.  If the woman in Bran's pre-Winterfell vision (literally thousands of years earlier) was a Stark (we don't know that) and it was a sacrifice rather than an execution (we don't know that either), that has no bearing on the nature of the Starks in the thousands of years since then.

[StarkTullies]

On 9/29/2022 at 2:59 PM, Moiraine Sedai said:

Jon was willing to sacrifice the world to pull his beloved sister away from her marriage.

Of course he wasn't.  Even if Jon leading an army of Free Folk to defend against a direct threat against the Night's Watch is oath-breaking treason, how is that "sacrificing the world"?  He is not leading an army of wights or Others... despite the countless unfounded "theories" that he will.

Second, this is not about pulling Arya away from her marriage.  Jon learned about Ramsay's marriage to "Arya" much earlier on in the book, and he did nothing about it.  Ramsay's letter clearly states that his bride escaped; "Arya" was no longer with him.  Jon planned to lead the Free Folk south because Ramsay declared war on the Watch.  See letter below:

"I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it."

[The Lord of the Crossing]

The rangers found human remains inside the giant Weirwood in the wilding village. The Northerners could have been putting their unwanted babies in the mouths of the trees.  The Weir would feed on the decaying remains. 

[Evolett]

15 hours ago, StarkTullies said:

There is no indication in the story whatsoever that a single Stark within the past many hundreds of years ever sacrificed anyone.  If the woman in Bran's pre-Winterfell vision (literally thousands of years earlier) was a Stark (we don't know that) and it was a sacrifice rather than an execution (we don't know that either), that has no bearing on the nature of the Starks in the thousands of years since then.

Hear hear! There is a visual parallel to this vision of Bran's IMO, that may tell us something about the significance of the vison itself. When Jon and the Freefolk arrive at Queen's Crown, they encounter an old man who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. This man had made himself a sort of a home in the partially crumbled building and was unfortunate enough  to be present when the party from beyond the wall arrived. There was a fire in evidence. Jon was ordered to kill the old fellow but his hesitation prompted Ygritte to do the job for him. Ygritte may be a symbolic weirwood (Ygg - the demon-tree as named by the Ironborn). The scene takes place somewhere in "the Gift," a portion of land granted the NW for their sustainance. So if the parallel is valid, we have a man who ordered the killing, a symbolic weirwood, an old man and a designated territorial location. Judging by Bran's sequence of visions, the killing of the old man by a woman may well represent an occasion connected to the founding of Winterfell. On account of the parallel, my guess would be that the Ur-Stark, maybe Bran the Builder, stumbled upon this highly promising site, found a weak occupant and executed him to subsequently claim the land. Whether this was additionally meant as a sacrifice by the party involved at the time or not, cannot really be determined by the reader. It may have been, or not. 

[Rondo]

The ritualistic murder in Bran's vision and the people in those visions were Starks.  The pregnant woman, the ugly fellow making arrows from the weirwood, the children, were all Starks.  

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Rondo said:

The ritualistic murder in Bran's vision and the people in those visions were Starks.  The pregnant woman, the ugly fellow making arrows from the weirwood, the children, were all Starks.

Is there anything that actually proves they are Starks? And is there anything that proves it was ritualistic murder and not an execution of a criminal?

[Ring3r]

11 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Is there anything that actually proves they are Starks? And is there anything that proves it was ritualistic murder and not an execution of a criminal?

There's nothing that proves it but it's pretty heavily implied.  Winterfell was supposedly founded by Bran the Builder....a Stark.  I can't imagine that they were in the habit of allowing randos into what amounts to their religious sanctum.

 

As far as the question of Craster....it's technically possible he's a Stark, but the timing of his birth would make more sense if he's the son of Bloodraven.  His age generally lines up, he's in his 60s or so.  It would give justification for the Others accepting his children - they would have First Man blood through the blackwoods.

[Loose Bolt]

20 hours ago, Rondo said:

The ritualistic murder in Bran's vision and the people in those visions were Starks.  The pregnant woman, the ugly fellow making arrows from the weirwood, the children, were all Starks.  

We know that Blackwoods were petty kings and controlled what is now called Wolfswood and b4 Winterfell was build there were some ringforts. So it is possible that man who died was a Blackwood king who owned a ringfort in place where Starks later build WF. Or Bran saw how Starks gained their land for WF and how last Blackwood king in the North was executed.

Besides it is possible that pregnant woman was a Bolton. After all she preyed for a revenge and now Boltons had taken over Winterfell. So in a way she had gained what she wanted.

[Only 89 selfies today]

Craster was not sacrificing humans.  I would call it giving up the babies for adoption.  He does sacrifice animals to feed the wights but the sons he gives up are not eaten.  The boys become White Walkers.  The connection between the Night's King, Craster, and the Starks is definitely present.  The White Walkers are a powerful species whose numbers were kept in check by nature.  Some ancient Stark somehow shared DNA with the White Walkers and provided a method for them to multiply.  

[Ring3r]

Hah, ASoIaF just keeps giving.  Until I started reading these forums, I had no idea that fans had even gotten into camps, in terms of "did the Starks do this" etc.  I took it for granted after reading a few times that the Starks had been up to human sacrifice deep in the past.

I still think that, but it's interesting to read points of view that are more fully on Team Stark.

Personally, with how GRRM likes to kill off popular characters and subvert norms, I think that the ancestors of the Starks are probably the overall villains of the story.  Why else have the current ones so damn like-able?

[Ring3r]

On 9/30/2022 at 11:10 AM, Loose Bolt said:

Not even bones will survive thousands of years. Or bodies of ancient Starks should have turned dust long time ago.

So, two things on that.  One, in world: Ice Preserves.  Two, real world: Egypt would like a word.

A cold or dry environment will absolutely preserve a body for multiple thousands of years, if it was properly prepared.

 

 

Alternately, the Starks may just be big fans of McDonalds.  Apparently, in the real world, 1st world corpses are no longer decomposing along normal time lines, because we eat so many foods with preservatives in them.  So yeah.  Stark: I'm Lovin' It!

[Loose Bolt]

6 hours ago, Ring3r said:

So, two things on that.  One, in world: Ice Preserves.  Two, real world: Egypt would like a word.

A cold or dry environment will absolutely preserve a body for multiple thousands of years, if it was properly prepared.

 

 

Alternately, the Starks may just be big fans of McDonalds.  Apparently, in the real world, 1st world corpses are no longer decomposing along normal time lines, because we eat so many foods with preservatives in them.  So yeah.  Stark: I'm Lovin' It!

WF was build above natural hot springs. So all parts of that castle should be warmer and more humid than it would be without those. Besides I am almost certain that ancient Starks did not use mummification.

[Moiraine Sedai]

8 hours ago, Ring3r said:

So, two things on that.  One, in world: Ice Preserves.  Two, real world: Egypt would like a word.

A cold or dry environment will absolutely preserve a body for multiple thousands of years, if it was properly prepared.

 

 

Alternately, the Starks may just be big fans of McDonalds.  Apparently, in the real world, 1st world corpses are no longer decomposing along normal time lines, because we eat so many foods with preservatives in them.  So yeah.  Stark: I'm Lovin' It!

Ethoxyquin and Vitamin E!!!!!!  Hah! Add the embalming fluids. It slows decay. 
 

Freezing temps do well to slow decay too.  

[Khal Rhaego Targaryen]

House Targaryen > The Prince that was Promised = Protagonist

House Stark >The Great Other = Antagonist

 

It is known  

[the trees have eyes]

On 10/6/2022 at 2:16 AM, Khal Rhaego Targaryen said:

House Targaryen > The Prince that was Promised = Protagonist

House Stark >The Great Other = Antagonist

 

It is known  

And how do you fit the fact that Jon is both Stark and Targaryen into this?

[BalerionTheCat]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:00 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The rangers found human remains inside the giant Weirwood in the wilding village. The Northerners could have been putting their unwanted babies in the mouths of the trees.  The Weir would feed on the decaying remains. 

The dead had been burned. So they do not come back as wights. It was not a sacrifice. But people who died for some reason. As far as we can tell, they put them in the tree for protection. Like the fugitives of the weirwood grove. The trees were seen as a protection against the Others. Not likely some place to sacrifice to the Others.