13

Just a warning, if you haven't read all of the Harry Potter series, this includes some spoilers. Instead of getting sloppy with large parts in spoiler notation, I'm just warning you here. If you don't want spoilers, stop reading here.

This question about Harry losing the resurrection stone started me thinking about that particular point in the story and it raised a few questions:

  • Did Harry intend to lose the stone for good - so nobody could find it, or did he just want to lose it for himself?
  • Was the stone really lost to all?
  • Was this actually a good way to lose the stone?
  • Can any object in the magical world ever be completely lost or hidden?

My answer to the first question is that Harry does seem to think ahead and think in terms of "fixing" things for everyone (Hermione points this out when she comments that he has a habit of rescuing people). I think he was trying to lose the stone forever, but the only thing I have to back it up is what I just wrote.

Was just dropping the stone a good way to lose it forever?

It seems like all it would take would be some kind of basic location spell to find the stone, or try repeating a summoning charm while focusing on different areas of the forest.

If it's protected from those spells in some way, one could us other spells, such as something to levitate stones, then lower all non-magical stones in an area and look for the one stone still levitating.

With this in mind, was just dropping the stone really a good way to lose it, considering anyone determined to find it would find a way to protect themselves (from the dangers in the forest) and search the area, using spells to find the stone?

That leaves me asking:

  • Was Harry trying to lose the stone forever, for everyone?
  • Would it be able to be located with spells or is it really lost to everyone (barring incredible luck)?
  • Is it really possible to completely lose or hide any object in the magical world?
  • 2
    Which question do you want answered? The four in bullet points or the two at the bottom? – AncientSwordRage Jan 10 '12 at 8:37
  • 1
    @Pureferret: I've edited the post so there are three questions at the end (which I think all tie in together) that are open and ready to be answered. – Tango Jan 10 '12 at 16:19
  • Much bette, though I still can't answer. – AncientSwordRage Jan 10 '12 at 16:21
  • 1
    @alexwlchan obviously JKR has never heard of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granular_convection – user11521 Oct 20 '14 at 1:37
  • 1
    So now we can look forward to a book titled Albus Potter and the Resurrection Stone? – EvilSnack Oct 16 '16 at 19:24
8
  • Did Harry intend to lose the stone for good - so nobody could find it, or did he just want to lose it for himself?

I think when he dropped it, it may not have been intentional, but he did make the conscious decision to let it stay lost:

The Resurrection Stone slipped from between his numb fingers

(Ch.34)

"The thing that was hidden in the Snitch," he began, "I dropped it in the forest. I don't know exactly where, but I'm not going to go looking for it

(Ch.36)


  • Was the stone really lost to all?
  • Was this actually a good way to lose the stone?

Well, no one else knew where he dropped it, only he and Dumbledore knew he ever had it, so I'd say it's fairly well lost. First, consider how many people actually walk around the Forbidden Forest. Then, what are the chances of anyone picking up a seemingly random stone in the Forbidden Forest? And then what are the chances they know what the Resurrection stone is? And then what are the chances they figure out that this particular stone is the Resurrection stone?


  • Can any object in the magical world ever be completely lost or hidden?

I'd say if anything can, it's this.


It seems like all it would take would be some kind of basic location spell to find the stone, or try repeating a summoning charm while focusing on different areas of the forest.

If it's protected from those spells in some way, one could us other spells, such as something to levitate stones, then lower all non-magical stones in an area and look for the one stone still levitating.

...

  • Would it be able to be located with spells or is it really lost to everyone (barring incredible luck)?

I'd say it's likely to be immune to summoning and probably other locating charms, with the possible exception of Harry's, as he was the last owner/user. Other than that, it ought to be subject to other spells, including those that could uniquely identify it as the Resurrection stone once one had it in one's possession.

So, in absolute terms, no, nothing can be lost forever (destroyed, yes; lost, no), someone could (eventually) stumble on it by chance. But in practical terms, the chances of someone finding the stone again are, I would say, at least billions to one.

  • 2
    I really like your awnser, (and just noticed it's from 2 years ago), but I'd like to add something: While someone that could find the stone by chance didn't knew it was the ressurection stone, the stone itself "ressurects" without any >spell<, as such, someone just sitting next to the stone thinking about someone they lost could activate the stone =) – Oak May 12 '14 at 17:41
  • 1
    Speaking of wandering around the Forbidden Forest and picking up a random stone and having it turn out to be the Resurrection Stone ... that part of the forest you'd be wandering around in is where the Acromantulas live! So ... I think that'd make it even less likely ... – davidbak May 5 '15 at 22:47
3

Was Harry trying to lose the stone forever, for everyone?

I don't think that the canon supports "for everyone" interpretation, but it doesn't reject it either. He didn't want to be tempted by it himself, but that doesn't preclude not wanting others to be tempted.

Remember that the stone is really the least dangerous of the Hallows as far as possible damage it can do.

As far as "forever" - he did his best to accomplish the task given the reality constraints he was operating under (e.g. going to meet Voldemort to be killed).

Would it be able to be located with spells or is it really lost to everyone (barring incredible luck)?

No canon answer but seemingly so. It is no longer a Horcrux so it doesn't have a "no accio" charm on it even if it had one before.

Is it really possible to completely lose or hide any object in the magical world?

Yes, to a degree. You can make object non-accioable.

However Dumbledore explains (no quote at hand) that one can detect traces of powerful magic, so fully hiding something by magic is hard - you MAY need to "lose" it in the middle of the ocean or something.

2

I can't tell whether the stone was lost forever, but that didn't really figure into the decision when Harry has dropped it.

Harry had to drop the stone before meeting the Dark Lord, because there was a risk that his servant Death Eaters would have found the stone if they searched Harry's body. If they did, they might even get suspicious and examine why Harry kept a gemstone with him at that time, and even bring the Dark Lord back from death. This was a risk Harry certainly could not take at that time.

If all went accordingly to Harry's plan, and he died there and then but the Dark Lord also got defeated soon, Ron and Hermione would surely have retrieved his body from the forest, and they would have found that he could somehow break the Golden Snitch open. They were the only ones who knew Harry's theory that the Snitch contained the Resurrection stone, so they might have searched the nearby forest floor for the stone, whereas the Snitch wouldn't have given this clue for the Death eaters.

Even if Ron and Hermione didn't find the stone, the stone would be the most likely to be found by forest creatures, especially Centaurs, who might actually be wise not to use it, but even if they used it, that didn't pose as much immediate danger as if it got into the hand of Death Eaters.

  • 3
    The resurrection stone didn't actually resurrect people. It brought back a shade that only the user could see, and evidently only so long as they were holding the stone. – Kevin May 19 '12 at 14:20
0

Harry assumed that he was about to die, and he knew (or should have known) that Voldemort would recognize the ring.

Although Voldemort was 99% sure that the ring had been taken care of as a Horcrux, finding it on Harry's body would have confirmed it beyond reasonable doubt.

  • I don't see this as actually addressing the question. – Tango Apr 20 '17 at 3:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.