The Cisterns of Rennes-le-Château Part 2: Under the castle

 

The castle of Rennes

If one looks at the plan of the village of Rennes-le-Château, for example that of Jean-Jacques Bedu, which is the one most commonly used on the Internet, one finds the supposed layout of the ramparts. This interpretation is totally plausible according to what remains of the medieval walls and the logical assumption based on the nature of such an enclosure. The only problem with the plan of the ramparts is that it locates the ramparts on top of the only opening giving access to the cisterns. This would mean that in times of siege or war, the water access would not be available to the people inside the village… but would be to the enemy. In light of this observation, the proposed location for the ramparts becomes unacceptable, if not ridiculous.

So what then?
- the first suggestion could be that a secondary point of access was created to reach the cistern in times of siege. But where would this forgotten or invisible passage be located? Even if such a secondary route existed, the point remains that the primary access would still be liable to enemy intrusions.
- the second possibility is that those who tried to retrace the layout of the first line of ramparts were simply misled in their assumption. As a consequence, everyone using the layout today recreates this error unknowingly.
- another possibility is that there was another access to the cistern, and that it never was that access we know of today. We do know that the current entrance has been modified – or thus could be relatively new, allowing for a different entrance to the cisterns previously. An inspection of the entrance today suggests that the masonry of the entrance is not adequate to have been incorporated into a rampart.

There is also the supply of water to the castle, which pumped the water from the reservoir up towards the level of the village. With this system in place, there was no initial requirement for the present entrance, which sits far below the castle’s level.

Back into the underground

Let us once again consider the layout of the gallery that brings the water to the cisterns. The bowel is natural, that much is obvious. This was adapted and used by the inhabitants. Undoubtedly, the first lords must have given thought to this aspect of their castle, so essential to their survival if ever they were locked inside their castle. As a result, they would not devise an access route to the cisterns by descending down the hill, towards the current entrance; a more logical and direct approach from the castle would have been desired.

The layout of the castle and its citadel was, as we know, under the control of the noble families of Rennes. There was a feudal “high mound” with a “low court”, around which the village began to cradle itself. It is rare that a castle, except if it were to have some natural defensive characteristics (which is not the case here, but is e.g. at Montségur), is situated on the first line of defence. Still, that is the case at Rennes-le-Château. Normally, there is at least one line of defence protecting the castle from the shockwaves of the first assaults.
We would have expected the castle to be located at the centre of the plate on which rests the village. But instead, we find it clinging to the edge of the plate. Not only that, it is actually located inside the rampart, making the walls of the dwelling a first line of defence. An error of the builders? A not-thought through idea of the lords? Or a need dictated by a requirement that has so far escaped our attention?
What if the feudal castle was placed there because of a requirement that was simply impossible to modify, i.e. change its location? Could this requirement have been the water supply? Or something else?

The report of Louis Fédié

Louis Fédié reports on the existence of the water supply in the “Le Comté de Razès et le diocèse d’Alet”: “an underground fountain, which has the shape of a cistern, has its source under the northern ramparts; it never dries up.”
As to the fortifications, Fédié writes: “the fortifications which surrounded the citadel of Rhedae did not completely disappear.” He noted that some parts of the ancient defence line remained intact, and that from the first line of defence, the second enclosure could be seen, which was built inside the former. This “rose some steps from the first, but one hardly finds any traces. This is all that remains from the primitive fortifications of the Visigothic citadel. The first enclosure was rebuilt after the Albigensian crusade, and part of these new walls still exist, welded in some placed by remains of the Visigothic ramparts.”

Arguments

If the location of the castle was because of the water supply, than this argument could be countered by stating that the castle could have been moved to the centre of the village. Rather than an underground supply of water, a large cistern could have been constructed that collected rain water, as in the case of Quéribus, Aguilar or Opoul. Such a rather simple intervention would remove the castle from the first line of defence and make the village a much safer place for everyone living in it.
This argument can itself be countered if we assume that the natural network of water supply is part of a larger network of caves. If these caves were sufficiently wide and high, they could be used by humans for whatever means required. The system’s usage as a water supply would only be part of the usage.
If that is the case, than the initial usage of the network for water needs would allow for alterations to the system which would not draw any particular attention, even though the secondary usage could be “secret”. But there is another aspect to this: it would mean that the network could be controlled from its access point. This would mean that the location of the castle would be more aimed to control the local people, including their water supply, than it would be of any defensive qualities against any attack from an invading army. In short, the castle would be to control the village, not to safeguard the village from attack. And it would mean that whatever went on in the underground network would mean that only those who controlled the access to the system were in control of the system.

The presence of the well

Some will argue that the above is an assumption and one without any basis in reality – or backed up by proof. Indeed, it should be moved to the land of fairytales if one observation could not be made. We know for a fact that in the old enclosure of the castle of Rennes-le-Château there was a well. It is safe to assume that a well functions by its ability to draw water from it. This would require some equipment for that specific purpose – and it leads to the conclusion that there was a direct route of access from the castle to the underground network, via the well.

When we entered the underground network during the clean-up operations, we were able to locate ourselves in regard to the structures above. For sure, we were underneath the castle when the gallery ended. It would be here that we would expect the bottom of the well of the castle above to be located. But it is not. The well’s bottom is slightly more to the north, a few metres away. It is assumed that the builders of the shaft were at the bottom of the network that served the cisterns. By default, they had to be as otherwise, the well would not fill with water – defeating its object completely. It is this depth of this natural network that interests us, as it will show whether or not there is more in existence at this depth than merely galleries and a water supply… or whether there exist other elements that are less natural, and much more interesting.

continue>>