ANCR-701 Lessons

The Room of Runes is quite busy today. Even before students enter, the fizz and crackle of magic can be heard echoing down the hallway. Inside, Professor Wessex walks around the room observing three interns repeatedly casting spells on various objects, incurring a dizzying array of bright flashes of light. Presumably this procedure is quite risky, though none of the participants look particularly nervous. One intern suddenly stops, a spark of excitement in his eye, and the cessation in motion attracts Professor Wessex immediately. For a brief moment, you see a more human side of the professor, as she talks animatedly with the young man. Exactly what is said is drowned out by the spellcasting of the other two interns and the general hubbub the students create while they gather and wait for class to begin, but the intern beams at what you can only assume is praise. 

After furiously scribbling something quite lengthy into a leather journal, the intern resumes his work, and the professor returns to her pacing.  Finally, as the clock strikes the evening hour, the interns begin packing up as neatly and efficiently as house-elves. The blond woman gives the trio the barest of nods as they say their farewells before they leave the classroom and she starts the lesson. 

Introduction
Our topic today is the culmination of all the information we have learned over the course of the year. Knowing what material runes are inscribed on, what activation method was used, and if it is a syllabary or an abugida, are all critical pieces of information that tell us much about a script. However, the reason we want to know these things about a script is so we can better prepare a hypothesis and, eventually, test our theories. The content in this lesson will cover the general procedure that various research professions related (and unrelated) to ancient runes go through when attempting to prove or disprove hypotheses. 

There are all types of hypotheses that need to be proved at one time or another. Depending on the situation, there may be a need to prove the basic phonetic meanings, the magical effects, the cultural significance of a phrase, the period of time in which a rune was used, the region and culture where a script was used, or even the authenticity of the inscription. The procedure is different for each of these cases. Obviously, proving the phonetic meaning of an inscription is very different from — and usually less dangerous than — proving magical effects, and requires different tools and approaches. However, there is a basic general formula that I can present you with, as well as an array of specialized spells and methods that are very common for the various scenarios you may come across.

An Ancient Runes Arsenal
First, there are quite a few spells that are used daily in research as diagnostics and as proof. First and foremost, there is the Enchantment Revealing Charm, but once that has been used, there are many other avenues to explore. To be clear, these are not spells to be used in the field, such as when magiarchaeologists uncover artefacts out of rock at a dig site, nor are they spells that a curse-breaker would be using. Using these spells on items you just dug out of the ground or just plucked off of a shelf in a royal tomb would be catastrophically foolish. Not only does the object itself require significantly more study before anyone starts casting spells willy nilly, but a magically charged tomb or a digsite with, potentially, hundreds of other artefacts just meters under the earth is not the most safe or predictable place to test a hypothesis. To be clear, these spells do not need to be used in a place without any magic at all, but it should be a place where magic is stable, so there are no metaphorical “rogue Bludgers” that could tamper with your results.

The Chronicle Charm
Without further ado, we will learn the spell to date material. This is one of the most commonly-used spells in a magiarchaeologist, historian, or curse-breaker’s arsenal. One issue with this spell is that it is not able to accurately date the enchantment, only the material to which it has been applied, which does not always answer all necessary questions. So far, there is no spell that can accurately pinpoint the date at which an enchantment was placed due to the fact that, as we discussed in the last lesson, magic does not maintain a steady rate of decay across the board.

It was invented in the 1760s by Ioanna Theotokis, the daughter of a noble family of Greece. In her significant spare time, she was an unassuming and amateur antique collector who simply wanted to verify that she had not been swindled, as she had narrowly avoided similar situations in the past. Previously, she had to rely solely on common sense and spotty historical records to prove or disprove that the item she had purchased was authentic. The object in question was purported to be an ancient Roman amphorae, but fakes were fairly simple to reproduce with magic. Unfortunately, her amphorae was found to be a fake and the vendor was suddenly nowhere to be found, but at least we now have the benefit of her experience. 

The Chronicle Charm
Incantation: Dies Quaero (DEE-ehs Kuh-WAY-roh)
Wand Movement: A clockwise circle around the entirety of the object
Willpower: Moderate
Concentration: Moderate, on the target object

On the plus side, this spell is quite accurate, providing a range of roughly 100 years, as the object will vibrate once per century of its lifetime. However, it has been known to react negatively with some ancient magic, with some very catastrophic results. You will remember the incident with a potentially magically viable spell tablet in Rongorongo from last year’s articles, and this was not an isolated incident. There have been similar issues — though not necessarily ending in spontaneous combustion. 

One notable example is the Indus script. If you’ve diligently read as instructed, you will know that your textbook indicates that there were substantial setbacks regarding its decipherment that have left researchers in the dark about this script. But you will note that they do not go into extreme detail on the subject. While the full tale may not be professionally appropriate for a scholarly textbook, it is an excellent parable for those of you learning about runic research. 

To give the full story of the Indus script’s trajectory, the majority of magical artefacts written in this script were discovered and excavated from 1841 to 1845. When attempting to date an ancient seal from these excavations — hypothesized to be 4,945 years old at the time — there was a catastrophic explosion that destroyed not only the artefact and the research station in which it was housed, but the storerooms of other ancient artefacts that were housed a few kilometers away on the same property. In short, everything in a few meter radius was charred and/or upturned as though it had gone through both a ravaging fire and a rather extreme earthquake. While it did not do any severe damage to the team working on the artefacts, some did suffer concussions and sadly, all artefacts of the Indus Script and some other assorted pieces on hand that had been slated for study that month were destroyed. Fortunately, most of the notes taken prior to the dating were kept in another location, and what we know is largely based on those tentative findings as well as a few more artefacts that have been unearthed since the catastrophe. It is widely believed that the older the object is, the more troublesome a reaction an artefact is likely to have. It’s not a hard and fast rule, though not a bad guideline to tentatively follow.

What researchers have learned from this experience is to attempt to conduct dating tests on the youngest item first, if possible. Additionally, it is preferred to test them on a non-magical artefact from the same site. Even with these measures in place, oftentimes it is considered very dangerous to test the age of particularly ancient scripts, and it is often done safely away from civilization — and most importantly, other artefacts. Furthermore, it is only when there is a large corpus to take the place of the object that it should be destroyed.¹ 

Myriad Methods for Detecting Materials
Unlike other similar enchantments that detect components of beverages, food, or potions, the Principal Part Indicator only shows the most prevalent material of the target.² Therefore, if you cast it on an antique gold cauldron to assure yourself that it is not a cheap imitation metal, the spell will ignore any trace potion residues, dried blood, dust particles, and the delicate silver scrollwork on the legs and instead simply tell you that the cauldron is made of gold, as it makes up the majority of the target’s composition. The issue is that the material only needs to make up the majority of the object, so a carpet that is composed of fifty-one percent Acromantula silk and forty-nine percent disguised Crup fur, sheep’s wool, and synthetic fibers will still “show up” as Acromantula silk. Similarly, something that is forty percent gold plated with an inner core of thirty-five percent lead and twenty-five percent copper would only return results of gold.

In comparison to The Chronicle Charm, this enchantment is significantly less reactive with magic, as it is less intrusive to the object it is cast upon. There are very few reports of this spell ever reacting negatively, excepting the case of backfires. While it is unknown when this spell was invented, it was very widely used by merchants as early as ancient Roman times and, due to its usefulness, has remained popular since. When successfully cast, the spell indicates the target’s main material by writing out the letters of the object in briefly smouldering, but heatless, letters which appear on or over the object. However, since this was popularly employed in a time where multiple languages and scripts were in frequent contact and use, you must concentrate strongly on the script in which you wish the letters to appear, or else you will get a mix of symbols that is impossible to decipher.

Principal Part Indicator
Incantation: Ekeininos (EH-kay-NEE-nawhs)
Wand Movement: Two rough jabs towards the object
Willpower: Low
Concentration: High, on the target object and the script of resulting answer

The aforementioned backfire occurs most commonly when the spell is mispronounced, and causes the target object to sprout unsightly — and clip-resistant — hairs instead, so do be mindful to give the last syllable an “AW” sound of Greek rather than the long “OH” sound of Latin. 

In the cases where it’s necessary to know all the components of an artefact, Agglomeron’s Parts Potion is the most commonly used tool. It is quite the complex brew, but usually kept on hand by any adept potions master. To use, dip parchment in the solution and then immediately pour the remainder of the potion on the target object. For accuracy’s sake, the entirety of the object must be covered. The length of time that must pass will vary based upon the number of “ingredients” in the object, but when finished, the parchment will bear a tidy list of the component parts. Afterwards, you will be met with a completely untouched object, as it would be a bit pointless if, in testing your item for purity, your item was then destroyed. Additionally, it can only be used on solid items, as adding the potion to a liquid to determine its parts just results in the potion mixing with the rest of the liquid and ruining the results.

Finally, there are some cases where the purity of an object is in question. For example, a swindler on the streets of Knockturn Alley may sell the unsuspecting witch or wizard a gold-plated replica of an Egyptian amulet, only to have them donate it much later to the British Museum of Magic. To ensure that an object is entirely pure, a vial of Unadulterated Unction is preferred. One can simply purchase a neutral brew and add a tiny pinch of the ingredient you need to test against or, for a higher price, you can often buy a specific potion attuned to the desired material, provided that it is not rare or protected. Coat the entire object in the potion and wait a moment or two for the result. A bright golden glow indicates a pure object, whereas a murky brown haze indicates an impure one. 

For both of these potions, there are occasions where there are negative reactions, usually resulting in your project dissolving as if dipped in acid and the accompanying parchment erupting into flames. Therefore, it is best to conduct preliminary tests on your object to see if it is susceptible to the ingredients or wildly unstable.

Diagnostic Spells and Brews
This title is rather a wide category, and indeed the two spells we have already covered technically could fall under this heading as well. However, the two spells we have covered so far are used — if safe — on nearly every single artefact and inscription, whereas these spells are a bit more specialized and are only used if the situation, the facts, and the hypothesis, call for it.

Uncovering Blood Magic
This particular enchantment was originally developed by a Finnish researcher, Fiks Blüt, following the Agate Debacle, as he saw a great need to rule out this kind of information when studying ancient artefacts.³ However, because blood magic is a rather nebulous and varied category of magic, the spell does leave some holes in one’s knowledge. It is able to pick up any trace of blood magic, and though the spell is not capable of telling you exactly the kind or aim, it does help narrow things down. If an opalescent sheen temporarily appears on the object after the spell is cast, this is a positive result, indicating something in the inscription or artefact’s magic involves blood in some way. If there is no blood magic present, there will be no change. While it is not as specific as many would like, it has been incredibly helpful in the categorization and study of many Norse and Maya artefacts, particularly in one tomb that contained powerfully enchanted armor that was attuned to protect a ruling family, but would weaken all others.

The Sanguine Spell
Incantation: Fuil Anseo (FWILL On-SHUH)
Wand Movement: Hold wand against a main pulse point, usually in the throat
Willpower: Moderate
Concentration: High, on the life-giving power of blood as well as on the target

Associations With Other Artefacts
The next spell is a very recent development created by the contemporary magiarchaeologist Isra Agassi. When cast, this spell reveals thin, weblike links between the object it is cast upon and any other object to which it has some magical connection. This has proved to be of tremendous use on a number of occasions. One particularly handy application occurred when it was used to detect which pieces of royal tomb goods were part of a cursed set of jewelry. The main limitation of this spell is that the pieces do need to be fairly close to each other for the threads to be thick enough to be visible. If a connected piece is still in the dig site while the other is being studied in an enclosed space elsewhere, the spell will not be able to indicate a link accurately, as the link may appear transparent. Additionally, the spell is typically more successful if the caster is able to sense — and therefore focus on — magical signatures.

The Iunctus Charm
Incantation: Iunctio (ee-OONK-tee-oh)
Wand Movement: Four straight line segments, each one starting the center of the object and moving in one of the cardinal directions, ultimately forming a cross
Willpower: High, particularly if it is possible that there are many linked objects or that they are far away from the target object
Concentration: Moderate, on the magical signature of the target object

Astronomical Alignment
In cases where a link to a particular Moon phase, planetary alignment, or season is suspected, there are a few common practices for testing. Firstly, in the case of a suspected association with a particular Moon phase, the researcher can simply study the object for an entire month, taking notes and testing at each stage of the cycle. This is the most preferable method, as it authentically recreates the situation, and there are very few odd variables to control for. In most cases, the researcher simply views the object at night, or when the Moon has risen, and halts their observations when the Moon has set, but on other occasions, teams are preferred, especially in cases where the object is to be observed constantly.

However, in some cases it is not possible to study the inscription for the entire cycle, as it has been determined or hypothesized that it is not attuned to the Moon, but instead to a particular star, constellation, syzygy, or otherwise. These cycles can sometimes span centuries, and there are very few researchers who are quite so single-minded as to dedicate themselves to an entire lifetime of study of a single hypothesis. Often, in these cases, the inscription is positioned in such a way that the only time it is hit with sunlight or moonlight is when the particular celestial object (to which it is believed to be attuned) is in a particular phase of its cycle. This is achieved via windows, small tunnels, shafts, or any other small hole in the ground. In these cases, many researchers attempt to cast Lumos Solem on the object, or even douse the inscription in Luminescent Liquid.4 While there are also spells to mimic moonlight, and even create a false Moon — as you have seen at Hogwarts’ own nocturnal greenhouse — this is quite the undertaking and is usually too much trouble for a researcher to learn and perfect.

While it may seem a bit haphazard, the system does work. In fact, this is how the mystery of the “Gaulish Gargoyle” was finally resolved. Standing at roughly three meters tall, this fearsome depiction of a chimera bearing an inscription around the base sat inside a Gaulish tomb outside of the small wizarding village of Kineallen, Switzerland for centuries. General digs were completed, but the majority of researchers were loath to unearth the statue and take it away for study after the first group that attempted the feat were afflicted by rather alarming narcolepsy. As it did not seem to exhibit any other magic apart from its protection against being moved, it was left alone until a group of Swiss teens attempted to vandalize the site. Alarmed, one of the troupe lit their wand via the Sunlight Charm. Understandably, their alarm only increased when the great stone chimera suddenly animated and breathed fire. The group fled immediately, but one relayed their encounter to a local magihistorian, Caspari Decatur, who further investigated the situation. After replicating the results, Decatur was overjoyed to discover that the flame from the chimera served to illuminate a hitherto undiscovered additional burial chamber. Later calculations revealed that the great stone guardian was placed in such a way that it would only be illuminated once every twenty years, on the morning of the first day of Lughnasadh.

Testing Hypotheses 
Now these are the tools used to test a hypothesis, but they are only small parts of a larger system. You don’t want to just go around dunking fragile ancient objects in potions willy nilly. You want a plan and to have thought through all possibilities. 

While there is no one real method, common sense and data collection are crucial. First and foremost, you must gather as much information as you can. This requires significant study of the object and all that is currently known about its corresponding culture, time period, and similar artefacts. In many cases, enough is known about an object to decipher it, or even to indicate what kind of runic enchantments are on the object. If not, you must continue with the process, or, stepping a bit outside the sorcerous method, you can attempt to hazard a feasible guess to be shared with others. The best course of action if taking the latter road is to publish your hypothesis and submit it for critical reception and review by scholars in the same field as you. Many witches and wizards do not make it to this step simply because they are afraid of discovering a flaw in their hypothesis, but do not let this hold you back. This is one of the safest, simplest ways to gather feedback, spot potential problems and strengthen your hypothesis.

Once you have published or in some other way publicly advertised your theory, solidify it based on the feedback you receive. Your goal is to remove as many dangers as possible and also attempt to remove interference that could taint your work. Eventually, there is nothing left to do, but put your head in the dragon’s mouth and test your hypothesis. It should go without saying that this can go terribly, catastrophically wrong, which is why you need to be creative and proactive about finding pitfalls or alternatives before you test. It is all about finding ways to reproduce the required conditions without actually fulfilling them, as they are often dangerous or impossible. You can’t take a shield into battle to prove it’s impenetrable, nor can you fire an enormous projectile at an ancient artefact. As an example, testing to see if a stone slab is related to sacrifice could be done with safely collected blood and donated organs, not actual disemboweled persons.

We will take a look at a brief case study. In 2014, I was part of a team that found an artefact in Borneo, which supposedly aided the fertility of Acromantula. Clearly, no Acromantula was going to allow us to leave the artefact there for months while we studied it — at least without eating us — and a tremendous surge in the Acromantula population was incredibly undesirable for the local populations. Many possible theories were tossed around as to how the dormant enchantment might be set off. At first it was put into a tarantula enclosure with no change. After many unsuccessful trials, the conditions for the enchantment to take effect were triggered by Thestrals carrying vials of sealed Acromantula venom around their necks. The key, it seemed, was to ensure that the runes came into contact with at least one teaspoon of the venom per week. 

However, this sort of creative thinking on its own is not enough. The less glamorous side of testing hypotheses requires meticulous notes — indeed, more notes than you think are necessary. My interns, whom you saw at the beginning of class, can serve as an example in this case. The artefacts they were testing are informally known as “sponges,” that is, artefacts that absorb all magic directed at them.  If you were paying attention, you noticed that Amari’s spell rebounded and was not absorbed. It is crucial that we know why, as that spell has been absorbed previously and just today caused a different effect. This is why he immediately recorded some notes on the situation. Anything could have affected it: the spell, the amount of willpower and concentration, the time of day and date, the location, what he ate for lunch, if he had a cold, who else was present, the angle of the enchantment, his wand specifications, or a hundred other things. Until we study them for longer and detect a pattern, these notes are all we have.

Closing
While that is hardly all there is to say about the various methods and resources for testing theories about runic inscriptions, this covers the majority of general use diagnostic spells and techniques. In the next lesson, we will be looking at an area of magic that commonly overlaps with runes and runic magic, and the influence of this area on runes. Before we reconvene, however, there are a number of assignments to be done. There are two mandatory assignments covering the general topics of the lesson today, as well as your practice N.E.W.T. assignment and an opportunity to brew one of the potions mentioned in class today, thanks to the help of Professor von Graft. In addition to these assignments, it would behoove you to read the section on Old Turkic in Spellman’s Syllabary.

Footnotes

1. You will note that the relatively recent Rongorongo tablet, by all expectations, should not have been problematic, as it was assumed to have been quite young in comparison. The reaction still puzzles and intrigues the magiarchaeological community.
2. Scarpin’s Revelaspell is traditionally preferred for this need.
3. Granted, this particular spell would not have helped to avoid the problem that led to the Agate Debacle, but since he was the nephew of the deceased parties, it did make him think long and hard about safer, quicker ways to prove or disprove theories.
4. If you slept through your Second Year classes, you may wish to ask a student leaving the greenhouses for more details on Luminescent Liquid.

Original lesson written by Professor Venita Wessex
Image credits here, here, here, and here