We extracted the scholarly reasoning systems of two internationally prominent humanities and social science scholars from their published corpora alone, converted those systems into structured inference-time constraints for a large language model, and tested whether the resulting scholar-bots could perform core academic functions at expert-assessed quality. The distillation pipeline used an eight-layer extraction method and a nine-module skill architecture grounded in local, closed-corpus analysis. The scholar-bots were then deployed across doctoral supervision, peer review, lecturing and panel-style academic exchange. Expert assessment involved three senior academics producing reports and appointment-level syntheses. Across the preserved expert record, all review and supervision reports judged the outputs benchmark-attaining, appointment-level recommendations placed both bots at or above Senior Lecturer level in the Australian university system, and recovered panel scores placed Scholar A between 7.9 and 8.9/10 and Scholar B between 8.5 and 8.9/10 under multi-turn debate conditions. A research-degree-student survey showed high performance ratings across information reliability, theoretical depth and logical rigor, with pronounced ceiling effects on a 7-point scale, despite all participants already being frontier-model users. We term this the Relic condition: when publication systems make stable reasoning architectures legible, extractable and cheaply deployable, the public record of intellectual labor becomes raw material for its own functional replacement. Because the technical threshold for this transition is already crossed at modest engineering effort, we argue that the window for protective frameworks covering disclosure, consent, compensation and deployment restriction is the present, while deployment remains optional rather than infrastructural.