The Coumesourde Stone Part 1: A stone… but which one?

 

"Where history is silent, the stones speak, goes a saying popular with archaeologists.”
(Gérard de Sède in “The Accursed Treasure of Rennes-le-Château”)

The memory of stone

To what would the mystery of Rennes-le-Château be reduced if the mosaic of elements that have made this into what it is, would be eliminated one by one? The question is whether the whole would remain standing. Over time, some of the primary elements that were part and parcel of the “original mystery” have been forgotten, abandoned and sometimes discredited. There were the parchments, which propelled the mystery forward, but which were then discredited when it was learned that de Chérisey had created them. There were the Stations of the Cross and other aspects of the church in Rennes-le-Château – and elsewhere – that were subjected to painstaking analysis. Sometimes, it turned out that the author – Gérard de Sède – had altered photographs in some to convey “his message” – which definitely did not seem to be born out by the evidence on the ground.
But amidst the pool of elements, certain items remained standing, and they were often stones: the Dalle des Chevaliers; the tomb of Marie de Nègre; the Coumesourde Stone. The former exists, the second is widely believed to have existed (but destroyed by Saunière), the latter was the subject of intense debate.

The arrival of the Coumesourde stone

In the overview of important stones associated with the mystery, the tombstone of Marie de Nègre and the Coumesourde stone are key ingredients, though often why so, is less clear. Furthermore, both are often spoken off in the same vein, as if there is – or was – some causal connection between both. In both instances, for example, it was assumed that they were freestanding stones. Whereas in the case of the tombstone of Marie de Nègre, this would be a logical assumption, there is nothing on record that would immediately qualify the Coumesourde stone as such.
Though an unfounded assumption, it does typify the basic problem of the Coumesourde stone. As soon as it was brought into the enigma, it was surrounded by a series of uncertainties, often at a very basic – and hence fundamental – level, which did not help those who were trying to speak in favour of its existence and its importance.
For example, from the start, there was nothing but a drawing, which many considered to be of dubious origin. And indeed, each person who spoke of the stone, seemed to come with his own drawing of the stone, which largely resembled the other versions, but which was never one hundred percent identical. Already, this is greatly confusing for anyone trying to find out which one adheres the closest to reality.
Furthermore, whereas we would not expect to find photographs of this stone in the first half of the 20th century, with modern technology now in existence, one would expect to see photographs of this stone – which would enable a quick verification of which drawing is the most precise. Unfortunately, where the stone was precisely located – or whether it even still existed – was an unknown. To this, we need to note that as versions of the drawing multiplied, theories and speculation constructed upon the – or a – drawing became ever more complex if not fanciful, whereas no-one was ever able to strengthen the foundation of the debate – by providing proof of the stone’s existence.

A lesson in topography

In any effort to find validation, we need to look at some fundamental aspects. First of all, let us look at the name, Coumesourde, which is derived from a location near Rennes-le-Château. However, any verification on the map will quickly reveal that the name is listed as “Coume Sourde” – in two words. Though some have hence begun to write the name of the stone in two parts too, more generally, the stone is still referred to as “Coumesourde”.
The IGN map for the Quillan area (1/25000) reveals two locations known as “Coume Sourde”. The first is located on a section of the road that links the two Rennes. The road is well-known to Rennes enthusiasts, as it passes by certain sites, such as La Valdieu, La Maurine and other hamlets and sites that are reputed to have “indications” as to the nature of the enigma. As to Coume Sourde itself, it refers to a few constructions that were no doubt once part of an agricultural installation. The second site, located somewhat lower in altitude, is that of a brook that originates above the hamlet in question.

A lesson in orthography

Robert Charroux

We wouldn’t expect too many revelations from merely identifying a location on a map. But we are somewhat taken aback by the fact that the preferred spelling of the site – when it comes to the naming of the stone – is different from the name that is found on the map. We note that the report as created by Ernest Cros lists the name of the site in one word. Robert Charroux did so too. As does Pierre Jarnac, and so does Gérard de Sède. Are we to believe that none of these authors ever looked at a map of the region? Or are we instead forced to assume that actually the location on the map as “Coume Sourde” has nothing to do with the location known as “Coumesourde” – which would thus be located somewhere else, though not in the area of Rennes-le-Château, as the maps do not refer to a “Coumesourde”. As unlikely as the latter scenario might be, it might be what is implied, for these and no doubt other researchers would have gone to “Coume Sourde”, in the hope of finding the stone, and either make a new drawing or even a photograph.
Another assumption was eventually accepted – at least for those who promoted the existence of this stone: that the stone was actually “removable” and was allegedly found with a doctor from Paris. Hence, the problem was resolved, for the stone – which was not there – had merely been moved elsewhere.

Drawings everywhere

First of all, let us try to make an inventory of all the known drawings and references that relate to this stone, and which could be considered as “primary evidence”. It thus becomes quickly clear that most secondary sources – those who have speculated on the stone and continue to do so today – have used either the drawing of Ernest Cros or Gérard de Sède. As might be expected, there were differences in the precise placement of certain letters, as well as what was on the front and what was on the back of the stone. We should note that anything on the back of this stone would make it a freestanding structure, which would thus suppose that the stone could be removed from the site.

To quote Ernest Cros

The most primary evidence in the story of the Coumesourde Stone is a very small report, only a few pages long, which has been attributed to Ernest Cros, who would appear to be the first to mention a stone that he considered to be of sufficient interest to dedicate a small report to. We will not tackle the controversial debate whether or not he was a Freemason or not, as at present, it is not important in this debate.
The typed text was included in the book “Les Archives du trésor de Rennes-le-Château”, published by Bélisane in 1988. It is now debated whether this typewritten document is actually the original document, as some have traced the typed pages to Noel Corbu’s typewriter. Of course, the possibility that Corbu typed or retyped this document does not mean he fabricated the entire report, as some of the sceptics have argued. It might merely mean that Corbu typed up an original report from Cros.

If we are to believe the document, then the discovery was made around 1928 – post Saunière – and its discoverer was Ernest Cros himself, an amateur archaeologist. In the report, we also see an expose of a possible decodation, which seems to lead to a “treasure”, whose location is revealed by the decodation of the inscription.
Here, we come upon the “problem” as indicated by the sceptics, for the document states things like “Mr. Cross supposed that the author of the inscription…”. It does make it rather difficult to straightforwardly identify the author as Cros, unless he liked to refer to himself in the third person.

To quote Jacques Cholet

We have to wait until 1967 before further information is discovered in the infamous report that is known as “the Cholet report”. The popular legend goes that this report was composed by someone who had made detailed studies of Rennes – and specifically its church – and drew some of his personal conclusions based on these inspections. He also argued that he was almost killed, the victim of an assassination attempt that was masked as an accident, when leaving the church of Rennes-le-Château.

On page 6 and 7 of this document, he discusses briefly an inscription, which he does not label as “Coumesource”, but which is easily recognised as such.

To quote Robert Charroux

Next is Robert Charroux, in his “Trésors du monde”, published by Fayard in 1972. Apparently, this edition is now very rare and “sought after”. What is curious in this edition, is that it is a revised edition of a previous book, with the same title, that was published in 1962. In the 1962 edition, there is indeed a chapter dedicated to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, but when you read it, you will not find any references to the Coumesourde stone. In the revised edition, however, the entire story is developed in much more detail. The obvious question needs to be posed as to what happened between 1962 and 1972 that this author was able to go from nothing to a quite detailed account of the controversy. The answer will soon become self-evident.
But before doing so, we need to underline that Robert Charroux offers a hypothesis which he presents as the fruit of a personal, meticulous piece of research. We learn for example that the treasure of Rennes is in the citadel of the king and belongs – belonged? – to the Templars. The methodology of accessing this wealth is by being able to read two clues, one of which was inscribed on the tombstone of Marie de Nègre and the other on the Coumesourde stone. The precious depot itself was placed in two locations, one known as Bézu and the other in Val-Dieu. Of course, to find the precise location of the latter, one needs to get to the stone itself and Charroux notes that it is in a hollow of a rock, which is indicated by an arrow and a cross. Once the stone has been found, all one needs to do is trace the lines on a map of the region, to find where the treasure is hidden. How simple it seems to be to get very rich! Still, let us note that the outline of the inscription on the stone is vastly different from what Ernest Cros presented in his report.

To quote Gérard de Sède

It would be surprising if Gérard de Sède did not mention the Coumesourde stone, and he did, in “L’or de Rennes”, published in 1967 by Juillard. In fact, though de Sède mentions it, he does not make too big a deal of the stone, though we should note that he provides yet another – third – version of what the inscriptions on this stone look like. It is rather remarkable to find three quite diverging versions of one stone, when apparently one original served as the source of all. To this, we need to add further consternation when we can read underneath the drawing “Figure 3 – The Coumesourde Stone (drawing by Ernest Cros)”. As it is not conform to what is visible in the Cros report, it is clear that one of the two is false. The question is which one – or whether they are both non-conform to an original – if not the fruit of someone’s ingenuity.

To quote Pumaz

Finally, the Coumesourde stone is discussed by Pumaz, written in 1977. He uses the same – false? – drawing that was shown by de Sède. In this case, however, he states that the stone was located on the plateau of Lauzet.

Copies and carbon copies

As mentioned, since, most other authors have used either the version as given by Gérard de Sède or that by Ernest Cros – whereas many, no doubt, who used the former, though it was conform to the latter, seeing it stated as such. As to the one that was used by Robert Charroux, it seems that this was the least popular and hardly taken up by any of the other authors. A consensus, as such, seemed to indicate that de Sède – pretending to copy Cros’ – was the only – though contested – representation.
Furthermore, we should add that some internet sites show a photograph which is claimed to be that of “Coume-Sourde”, which was found ca. 1970 near la Valdieu. It is this one that is indeed in the possession of a lawyer who lives in the Paris region. Apart from being a “tribute artefact”, the stone also has the noted problem that its design is “landscape”, whereas the “real stone”, based on the drawings that are in circulation, seems to be “horizontal”. Indeed, though there are differences amongst the primary sources, at least they all agree that the stone is “horizontal” rather than landscape. As to underline that this is a tribute artefact, it probably suffices to point out that the photograph of this artefact shows how well it has preserved its inscriptions – far too well for being an original artefact.

Interpretations

What is precisely written on the stone? For this, we will quote from Robert Charroux, who sums up quite succinctly the “basic argument”.

PS: a part
REDDIS: in Rennes
REGIS: of the king
CELLIS: in the cellars
ARCIS: in the citadel (though other possible translations)
PRAE-CVM: Heralds (short for “prae-convm”), Heralds of Christ, claimed to be a reference to the Templars in the 13th and 14th century.
Hence: “in Rennes, a treasure is hidden in the caves of the citadel of the king. This treasure belongs to the Templars.”

However, there are variations on this theme:
PS: property.
REGIS: of the king
REDDIS: in Rennes
ARCIS: de Blanchefort (blanca fortax, arcis)
CELLIS : in the cellar (or crypt)
PRAECUM: coming from the Templars.

As to where this all fits into a larger whole: “Since the 13th century, the Voisin, de Marquesave, the Hautpoul and the Fleury families all possessed […] the secret of the place of one or more treasure caches created during the troubles of the Revolution. One chronicle states that in 1789, before emigrating, the counts of Fleury engraved ‘the enigmatic indications of the secret in the tombstone of the lady of Blanchefort as well as the Coumesourde stone.’” Charroux then states how some of these treasures belonged to a king, another to the Templars, etc. As to the Templar treasure, it was “buried or walled in, in two parts, in the 14th century”, as mentioned, in Bézu and Val-Dieu, or at Casteillas, in the River of Colours to be precise.
Charroux then offers the interpretation that Cros gave:
SAE: la Sauzée (Sauzils)
SIS: the rocks
+: the Templar Cross
IN MEDIO LINEA: the bisectrix of the angle SAE + SIS
UBI M SECAT: there where it cuts the largest side of the triangle
LINEA PARVA (implied: UBI M SECAT): there where the smallest side cuts the largest.
PS PRAECVM: a part of the treasure of the Templars
+: the Templar Cross, referring to les Tiplies or Bézu, where this engraved stone was still visible in December 1958 (the same sign existed still in 1958 on a rock near Val-Dieu).

Charroux then referred to the work of Cros in discovering and tracing the inscriptions, which were said to have been the work of a member of the Hautpoul-Fleury family, before their emigration.
He did nevertheless underline some problems with all of this: the tombstone of Marie de Nègre has been destroyed and how it looked, had been reconstructed from memory. As to the Coumesourde stone, there were entire words missing, and the precise placement of certain characters – which was very important – was only known by approximation. “The task of the treasure hunter is therefore to rediscover the text in its entirety.” And what to make of this, which is the very next sentence? “Mr. Ernest Cros, who was a Johannite disciple (an Oriental Christian sect approved by the bailiffs of the Temple) had the Coumesourde stone transported to Paris, either to his family, or, and we think more likely, to the seat of a secret society. Since that time (1945-1946) the stone has disappeared.”

A stone gallery

Let us now reproduce the principle representations of the stone – four in total – so that we can also add some initial observations to them.

The Cross version

The first drawing was allegedly made by Ernest Cros, in 1928. If the oldest – even if copied or invented by Corbu many decades later, it would remain more than likely the oldest version – than it would also been seen as the authoritative version.

If we look at the carvings carefully, we see a collage of words, letters and signs, all playing with an equilateral triangle.

The Cholet version

In the report, the image seems to be reduced to its most simple format.

The de Sède version

This is the most popular, perhaps because it is also believed to conform to the “original” (Cros) version.

In this instance, the triangle is no longer equilateral, the two descending sides are much longer than the “horizontal” side. The inscriptions are nevertheless identical to the Cros version. The same cannot be said for the crosses, which have been “Templarised”. The version, however, also has a new element: the manner in which the triangle is represented suggests the outline of the shape of the stone upon which the inscription was found.

The Charroux version

The final version is that of Charroux, which was reconstructed by electronic means.

Here, everything is very ambiguous, for it is a drawing that could just as well belong to the tombstone of Marie de Nègre as to the Coumesourde stone. The same applies to some of the inscriptions, some of which are held to be part of the tombstone inscription: REDDIS REGIS CELLIS ARCIS, written above the outline of the triangle that is apparently the Coumesourde stone. Furthermore, even though the size of the design appears to be more equilateral as per Cros, the top line of the triangle is not drawn, making this a rather bizarre omission on Charroux’s part. Finally, let us note that in Charroux’s explanation of what this inscription might mean, he makes references to three crosses, whereas his design merely shows two!

continued >>

André Douzet