Dark Marks

[Sainyn Swiftfoot]

I've always thought that the Dark Mark is always visible on the Death Eaters' arms, but they start burning and look much clearer when Voldy-poo is calling them. I never doubted this until a friend said that they aren't visible AT ALL normally and are visible only when Voldemort calls them... What is it actually? Is there any cannon proof for either?

[Tim the Enchanter]

I've always thought that the Dark Mark is always visible on the Death Eaters' arms, but they start burning and look much clearer when Voldy-poo is calling them. I never doubted this until a friend said that they aren't visible AT ALL normally and are visible only when Voldemort calls them... What is it actually? Is there any cannon proof for either?

Dark Marks are always visible - they're magical tattoos. Yes, they do become clearer when they burn, but they never fade away completely. Even when they are not activated, they are still visible and can affect the bearer, judging by how Snape unconsciously touches his forearm in Goblet of Fire when Voldemort is mentioned, if my memory is correct.

Even after Voldemort's first fall, all Death Eaters retained their Dark Marks. However, it is unknown what would happen to Dark Marks after Voldemort's final defeat in Deathly Hallows, since he's dead for good. But I doubt they'd just disappear. They have some powerful magic built into them.

Tim the Enchanter

[Halgy]

I think they might have faded after Voldemort's first fall. After all, it would be hard for Malfoy and the others to say they weren't deatheaters if they had the dark mark. If the mark faded, then started to reappear as Voldemort gained power again.

What's more, Sirius didn't know about the dark mark in GoF, or at least he said he didn't know why Karkarov would show Snape something on his arm. This would suggest two things. First, that he was lying to protect Snape (unlikely, given that he hated Snape) or, second, that the original Order (and by logical extension the Ministry) didn't know about the Dark Mark yet. They definitely would have discovered the marks when they caught deatheaters.

Finally, when Snape shows Fudge his mark at the end of GoF:
“There. The Dark Mark. It is not as clear as it was an hour or so ago, when it burned black, but you can still see it. Every Death Eater had the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord. It was a means of distinguishing one another, and his means of summoning us to him."
Snape had to explain what it was to Fudge. Likewise, the phrase "but it's still visable" seems to indicate that it is rather difficult to see, suggesting that it fades somewhat over time. I don't think they fade completely, though.

But think how stupid it would be to brand yourself with such a condemning mark. If it were ever seen, they'd be locked up straight away. It would be like writing "I do Heroin" on your forehead; sure, drug dealers would be able to identify you and be able to tell that you want drugs, but the cops would probably have a few questions for you. And any attention from authority is the last thing druggies (or deatheaters) want.

[Inverarity]

I seem to recall a few scenes in the book where the Death Eaters try to hide their Dark Marks. Wasn't Harry convinced (correctly) that Draco had one in HBP, so he was trying to spot it?

If it were only visible when Voldemort summons them, then they wouldn't be able to use it to identify themselves to each other.

Yes, it is rather stupid to tattoo everyone in your secret conspiracy like that, but Voldemort did lots of stupid things in the books. Also, wizards wear long-sleeved robes, so presumably their forearms aren't usually visible.

[Elf]

Judging by Molly's reaction to the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup it was known to be a symbol of the Death Eaters, but maybe the general public didn' t know about the tatoos.

[the opaleye]

Judging by Molly's reaction to the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup it was known to be visible to the Death Eaters, but maybe the general public didn' t know about the tatoos.

Yes, people knew what the Dark Mark was but I do not think they knew that the Death eaters had it branded on their arms as a tattoo. I believe the Dark Mark is always visible but faded after periods of disuse. So it would have faded considerably over the years Voldy was away but still could be seen. It would be like any type of scar I think which fades over time.

Remember the conversation overheard in GoF between Karkaroff and Snape? They discuss how it is becoming darker not how it has appeared again. Sorry, I'm at uni with no access to the books for proper references.

Since few people knew about the marks outside of the DE's then I don't think it would have been a largely incriminating factor for people like Lucius. Also, Lucius could probably perform a disillusionment charm or something to disguise it if he had to (although because it is dark magic would a disillusionment charm work???)

As Inverarity said it is stupid for Voldy to brand his minions like that but it's typical Voldemort. He wants to leave his mark on everything.

[Equinox Chick]

I'm still very undecided about this. If the Mark was visible then the Ministry would have been able to round up all Voldy's followers very easily. Equally, Sirius could have proved he wasn't a DE because he didn't have the Mark.

I think Snape reacts more to the feel of it, and so does Draco when Madam Malkin gets too close.

Perhaps it's something that can be magically hidden, rather like the charmed Galleons that Hermione imbues with the Protean charm. They're not visibly different until activated.

When Harry is in the graveyard in GOF, he sees the Dark Mark on Pettigrew's arm, and Voldy says

"It is back,"he said softly,"they will all have noticed it ... amd now, we shall see ... we shall know ..." From GOF page 560 The Death Eaters UK Paperback.

He then presses his finger to it and Harry sees it go jet-black.


Carole

[Inverarity]

I'm still very undecided about this. If the Mark was visible then the Ministry would have been able to round up all Voldy's followers very easily.


How? Are they going to make everyone in the wizarding world file past and roll up their sleeves?

Equally, Sirius could have proved he wasn't a DE because he didn't have the Mark.

Assuming that every single follower of Voldemort has a Dark Mark, which was probably not true even when his following was still small. It could have been argued that Sirius had just turned traitor, and his betrayal was supposed to earn him full DE status.


OTOH, Voldemort's words do seem to imply that maybe it's something that faded when his power went away. And Snape would have had to be awfully vigilant to ensure no one at Hogwarts ever saw his forearm, for all the years he taught there.

Still, I think, at best, it's a mark that appears without the wearer's control. Maybe it does fade except when invoked, but neither Voldemort nor his followers know where they might be when the Dark Lord decides to summon them, so they're still going to have to effectively keep their forearms covered at all times, just in case.

[Karaley Dargen]

I'm still very undecided about this. If the Mark was visible then the Ministry would have been able to round up all Voldy's followers very easily. Equally, Sirius could have proved he wasn't a DE because he didn't have the Mark.


Well - they could have claimed that they were Imperiussed into receiving the Dark Mark... After all, no cow asks to get a mark either, you just do it and the cow can't do anything about it. They just say that they didn't ask for it and don't remember where it came from, and the Ministry would have a hard time proving it definitely.

The same way, they probably said that Sirius, since he was a spy, received no Dark Mark so that none of his friends would notice.

Hmm... I don't know what my opinion on the visibility is though. Maybe they'd fade a lot, so that you can hardly see them, like a very old scar, and only grow stronger if Voldemort himself is strong.

[Sainyn Swiftfoot]

One reason why I think the Dark Mark is always visible is that perhaps, Voldemort wants to impress upon his followers the finality of becoming a Death Eater-- once you're one, there's no turning back. The Dark Mark is with you for all your life, your reminder that you are his servant.

...what a load of waffle. >.>

[Russia Snow]

I don't think you'd be able to tell all the deatheaters by the Dark mark, surely it is something only the very inner cirlce of Voldy's deatheaters have. When he summons them, he doesnt summon everybvody who ever helped him does he? Just his inner circle.

I am sure somewhere (I am too lazy to find a quote) it says that greyback was allowed to wear Deatheater robes, but wasnt given a dark mark? or did I imagine that?

I am undecided whether it would be visible all the time or not. When the Dark lord was powerful mayvbe it showed and when he was out of power it didnt? I dont know, but yeah, it seems pretty stupid to tatoo all your followers when they're trying to hide that they are your followers...:rolleyes:

Russia xxxxx

[Equinox Chick]

How? Are they going to make everyone in the wizarding world file past and roll up their sleeves?

Well, yes actually. The Wizarding world managed to throw Sirius into Azkaban without a trial so I hardly think a little thing like forcing someone to show their arms would faze them.

And no, not get them all to file past. But if they had Avery in a holding cell they could quite easily rip his sleeve and look at his arm. Wizarding justice, at this time, is very much 'act first and ask questions later'.

That's why I think it's unlikely the mark was continually visible. It would be very easy to prove who was a DE - Imperiused or not.

It could have been argued that Sirius had just turned traitor, and his betrayal was supposed to earn him full DE status.

Yes, that could be argued, except that the 'traitor' had been passing secrets for a full year before the Potters' deaths.

Pettigrew had the Dark Mark. I think his friends would have noticed if it had been visible all the time. Suggestion - perhaps they could hide it.

And Snape would have had to be awfully vigilant to ensure no one at Hogwarts ever saw his forearm, for all the years he taught there.

Exactly - he's Potions Master. I can't see him brewing potions with long robe sleeves flapping around the place.

I am sure somewhere (I am too lazy to find a quote) it says that greyback was allowed to wear Deatheater robes, but wasnt given a dark mark? or did I imagine that?
No you didn't imagine it. He didn't have a DE mark.

One reason why I think the Dark Mark is always visible is that perhaps, Voldemort wants to impress upon his followers the finality of becoming a Death Eater-- once you're one, there's no turning back. The Dark Mark is with you for all your life, your reminder that you are his servant.
It would still hurt them though. When Snape clutches at his arm it could well be in pain. I don't think they'd forget.

By the way, in the scene with Madam Malkin, Draco jerks his hand away when she tries to roll up his sleeve ... so it could be argued that he didn't want his arm to be visible ... but, a bit later on, he pulls the robes over his head and storms out of the shop. Now, obviously he's not naked, but he was probably pulling away because of the pain and not because the tattoo could be seen.

Carole

[Halgy]

Judging by Molly's reaction to the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup it was known to be a symbol of the Death Eaters, but maybe the general public didn' t know about the tatoos.
Yeah, that's what I meant.

Since few people knew about the marks outside of the DE's then I don't think it would have been a largely incriminating factor for people like Lucius.
Even if few people knew about the tattoos, almost everyone knew about the actual Dark Mark (sign in the sky), which is closely connected to Voldemort. As such, having the sign of the Dark Lord branded into their flesh would be pretty damning.

How? Are they going to make everyone in the wizarding world file past and roll up their sleeves?
If someone is in for questioning (like Lucius and many Death Eaters were), then it would be pretty simple to check their arms.

Assuming that every single follower of Voldemort has a Dark Mark, which was probably not true even when his following was still small.
I am sure somewhere (I am too lazy to find a quote) it says that greyback was allowed to wear Deatheater robes, but wasnt given a dark mark? or did I imagine that?
Yes, we know that some people like Greyback didn't get the tattoo (I'm too lazy for a page number, too, but I know it's true).

It could have been argued that Sirius had just turned traitor, and his betrayal was supposed to earn him full DE status.
True enough; the lack of a tattoos doesn't exonerate someone, but having one can only help to convict them.



I maintain that the mark faded completely during Voldemort's exile; it is the simplest explanation of why the Ministry did not use the tattoos to prosecute Death Eaters and why Sirius did not know of them.

And it makes sense; since Voldemort was very weak at the time immediately after his downfall (the time when most of the Death Eaters would have been prosecuted), the Protean charm that he used to create the marks would also be weak. When he regained his rudimentary body in beginning of GoF, he and his magics regained some strength, so the mark began to reappear. As Snape said:
This Mark has been growing darker all year.
GoF p.710, American hardcover
The idea that it faded during Voldemort's downfall is supported by Karkaroff:
[The mark has] never been this clear, never since--
GoF p.519, American hardcover
Unless, of course, he was referring to something else. I don't think he was, though.


I think that after Voldemort returned, the mark was persistent. However, it would seem to fade from jet black with time:
The Dark Mark. it is not as clear as it was an hour ago, when it burned black, but you can still see it...
GoF pp. 710-11, American hardcover
But I doubt that it would disappear completely, since it was visible during GoF.


In the end, I would say that the Mark dissapeared (or at least faded significantly) during Voldemort's exile, returned with his re-rise, and permanently remains to some extent thereafter. If anyone see's any holes in my logic, let me know.