A forgotten pillar

 

Everything begins in Casteillas

While buying a book, we were exposed to part of the shop, whereby we stumbled upon an enigmatic pillar, which served no real purpose. Of course, we did not just stumble upon it: we were shown, as the bookseller knew that we were interested in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, and he told us that this pillar was linked with it – in fact, he said it came from Rennes-le-Château.
At the time, we launched an appeal on the French part of the website, asking whether anyone had further information. Against all expectations, we received a reply, as well as several documents that provided further evidence and insights into the discovery. As such, we are able to report on our findings regarding this rather bizarre story. Indeed, it is now clear that the pillar was part of an old ruin, discovered several years ago – one about which we had heard on the grapevine, though the rumours about it were far more spectacular – of course – than what the truth of the matter appears to be.

Our correspondent showed us photographs of a column, whose base resembled the base of the pillar we had been shown. Once this was understood, we merely had to dig a little bit deeper, as well as scour the other documents that were sent.
Though we are able to present some conclusions, these are not all-encompassing. The information at our disposal are on occasion incomplete, but as Rome wasn’t built in one day, so, it seems, it will be a matter of weeks, months if not years before all the available information on this discovery is once again re-assembled.

It appears that the pillar originates from a site near Rennes-le-Château: le Casteillas. Since many years, the site is believed to have a direct rapport with Rennes, and according to some, even with the mystery of the village itself. From the parking of Rennes, the hill is very visible, but nevertheless not truly prominent. However, while climbing le Casteillas, one’s eyes are constantly drawn to Rennes-le-Château… and Bugarach.

Historical notes

Louis Fédié was the author who first took a major interest in this site. Furthermore, the conclusions he drew might in the end be seen as the final say on the matter. He argued that a second fort was located in the middle of the city known as Rhedae. This bastion assured, on this side, a solid, advance defence. It was apparently from this point that an attack was launched against Rennes, in 1362 – a disastrous attack, as Rennes was taken by the Catalan mercenaries led by Henri de Trastamare. Fédié, in “Le comté de Razès et le diocèse d’Alet”, published in 1880, explained that, even though the name of “Casteillas” means “Great Castle” (or, according to some, “big”), nothing remained on the terrain of this construction – or in the living memory of the people. We add that if this castle was indeed as big and great as it was claimed, then there would be a substantial amount of foundations, which would have remained and withstood the test of time. Their absence would thus mean that something is not as straightforward as it would appear to be the case on first sight. As such, it is indeed more likely to assume that we are not confronted with a “Great Castle”, but with an advanced defence post, a type of moat. Seeing the construction of these is far less prone to withstand the test of time, it would easily explain why little or nothing remains of this. Indeed, once the art of war had begun to use artillery, such methods of defence were outdated, as was underlined here.
Others, like father Sabarthès, have posited – at their own risk and peril – that this site is the fortified town of Rhedae itself. As to its placement, we note that le Casteillas is an elevation, facing Rennes, on the left side of the Couleurs stream, above “Bals”. As one can see on any map, we are about a kilometre north-east of Rennes.

One Casteillas could hide another castle

We would like to add that one detail has escaped the tenors of the mystery – even though perhaps they should have paid due attention to this. Indeed, this negligence might cost those who have underlined the Templar importance of Le Bézu, a location which has been used as a pivotal springboard to launch so many theories about a Templar connection to this area.

Either way, we note that at the sale to Raymond-Roger, count of Barcelona, of the county of Razès by Raymond-Bernard and his wife Ermengarde, there is talk about “ambos castors de Rhedez”, which underlines that there were indeed two castles in Rennes. As such, as there can only be two possible locations for these two castles, one has to be the one at Rennes, and the other has to be Les Casteillas. This is not the final truth, but it is the final conclusion, unless evidence to the contrary can be brought forward.
Indeed, we are told that the site once revealed stones that appeared to be worked by human hands, and which could only originate from an old defensive wall, just like on the southern side of this hill, one sees the remains of what appear to be human constructions. The future might provide further insight into these details, but it is a fact that its elevated position means it was a privileged position, and that it would lend itself perfectly as an observational post, from which one could relay information back to Rhedae, through whatever means. A first visual inspection of this site does however suggest we are confronted with natural stones – however artificial some of them look – but, again, the site’s location is very important and the presence of stones deposited by nature should be seen as an open invitation, requiring less work for those using the site.

A nice day, in August 1980

After Fédié, it seems that it remained very quiet until August 1980, when things all of a sudden went in overdrive. It is August 23 when a soldier, belonging to the 3rd RPIMA of Carcassonne, makes a discovery at Casteillas. He finds that the site has largely been cleared by a bulldozer. That in itself is remarkable, for we are told that the access to the site is difficult – the opinion of the local farmers, who frequent the area. But even though a bulldozer has “cleared” the area, our soldier is stunned to still make certain discoveries. He finds, for example, the remains of what appear to be an ancient gate, composed of stones that are carefully cut. A bit further, he finds an opening which he soon realises is not natural. Our adventurer vows to return. But before he can, a journalist decides to enter the debate and decides to run the story. And the circus begins.
Fastforward to 2008, and the work of the bulldozer can still be seen. Access to the site is not too difficult, and one can see the extensive bulldozing that has occurred. A type of gate has been half-constructed and when one follows the cleared pathway to the left, one comes upon the foundation of what appears to a home – begun, but never finished.

A reality that is not mysterious

First point of interest is to note that the site itself is owned by Philippe Schrauben, member of the Société d’Etudes Scientifiques de l’Aude and well known in Rennes-le-Château. Apparently, Schrauben had certain plans with this site, but for reasons unknown, he did not receive the proper permits from the proper authorities… this might explain why the gate was never completed, and the house never built.
An article appears in Le Midi Libre, August 28, 1980, titled “Des vestiges qui font ressurgir… le mystère” – it is clear that the inclusion of “mystery” in the title is a vital ingredient. After the usual overview of the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, there is talk about the adventures of our parachutist Patrick Potpovitny, whereby the word “temple” is used to apparently describe what he has found on top of Les Casteillas. The article states that there will be a follow-up, but in the end, it is clear that this would be a right of reply by Schrauben, who uses the pages of L’Indépendant, on September 12, under the title “les vestiges du Casteillas : une énigme en forme de canular”.
Schrauben states this is not a temple at all. In fact, they are stones recovered from elsewhere, which are going to be used in the construction he is planning for that site. The reply also has a copy of a letter to be sent from Brussels, dated September 17, to the attention of M. Lambège, mayor of Rennes-le-Château. In it, he explains that he has seen the article in the local press, and asks the mayor to dissuade other “searchers” not to make too much publicity, for in truth they are vandals, pretending to be archaeologists.
So, it seems, the mystery is solved, and it would appear that the journalist who wrote the first article has his fingers burnt with undue speculation.

Cavities?

Let us return to the article in the Midi Libre, where one reads: “while running around the edges of the hill, Potpovitny and his friends saw on the slopes caves that were carved, to all appearances, by human hands.” According to the article, there was no doubt whatsoever that the hill had been inhabited by Mankind. But by whom precisely? Why and in what age, those questions were paramount in the mind of apparently both the soldier and the journalist.
The article as such is well-known and can be found on certain French sites devoted to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château. But in the text, there is one phrase that is quite – if not very – interesting: it relates that the caves have a number, which is painted on the entrance. This is an important detail, for it betrays… shows… that the cave itself was known to the archaeologists, and in this case, it is more than likely that those who painted the number, were the archaeologists that belonged to the DRAC. Such markings are also visible in a number of caves in the perimeter of Perillos. The number itself merely reveals that the site has been catalogued by the proper authorities.
Another opening could be found no more than five metres further, but as there was danger of it collapsing, no-one could be found that was willing to enter it and find out what lay inside. As far as we can tell, there were four sites that were searched. One of our correspondents personally went to these sites, to see what was what. He was even able to take certain infrared photographs, which confirmed that the opening went further, but he was of course unable to see how far, or what it could contain.
Let us note that the texts that speak about this specific item often speak about “several” caves, whereas those that claim to have searched the area, only ever speak of one. It would suggest that for the untrained eye, only one site can be discovered, or perhaps that one site is so overpowering, that the mind is unable to see the others? Or perhaps that the others are very difficult to find?

The flop

What next? This is easy: the entire story soon disappeared. No doubt the owner wanted to make sure that whatever he had posited there, would now be safe from any person who was intent on going there… perhaps those poor people that mistook what he had deposited there with ancient remains? The stones that appeared to be from a temple, were removed, and no doubt it would be Schrauben who could enlighten us what he did with them after he had apparently not the proper authorisation to construct a home on the site.
It is now the most natural of conclusions to state that the “visible material” that was identified as a temple was indeed brought from elsewhere, recently. That they had no relation at all with the site itself. But it is also possible that while Schrauben’s troops were preparing the site for whatever construction he was intending to build there, they opened up certain old remains – cavities which might have been exposed to the light of day for centuries. Indeed, the parachutist stated that in his opinion, the remains he had discovered dated back to the 12th and 13th century, which could easily conform to the period when Rennes was reputed to be a medieval fortress. But it could equally mean that beneath these important remains, there are even older remains.

A journalist’s perspective

Our journalist knew our soldier. But it is an altogether different question whether today, the latter can still be contacted. If that were the case, it would be an excellent idea to ask him to provide further detail as to what was meant when he said he had seen the foundations of a building that reminded him of that of the tour Magdala. Noting that the journalist has made elsewhere some “journalistic” interpretations, one needs to be extremely wary as to what to read in statements that make comparisons with the tour Magdala, one of the landmarks in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château – one that to this very day continues to drive people insane.
Despite the possibility that certain journalistic freedoms were used, it remains a strong possibility that the site indeed had a tower – especially in light of the possibility that this was a fortress. Still, whether the tower here would have the dimensions of a tour Magdala remains unlikely, but one never knows, does one? Let us also note that no-one seems to mention the existence of a wall that sits next to or near this tower. This absence suggests that there is indeed very little “defence” in this structure, and it would suggest that this height was used to be the site of a watchtower, and nothing more – or less. At the same time, the lay of the land is such that from le Casteillas, one doesn’t see the floor of the valley that leads from Couiza to Quillan. But it is clear that there is obvious and clear intervisibility between le Casteillas and Rennes-le-Château, and that in itself is important.
Even if by some miracle the measurements of this tower were the same as the tour Magdala, it is clear that it was Saunière who would have come here, and would have made the measurements of this tower. He would then have fed this information onto his architects, who would then have given rise to the tour Magdala as we see it today.

VIDALA

Amidst the various pieces that have been photographed, one has a clear inscription: “VIDALA 1870”. The very date makes it clear that this could not have been part of a medieval fortress. At the same time, the date is contemporary with Saunière’s lifetime, and hence, it too could not have originated here, as there would have been local records detailing it. As such, we need to admit that the only logical conclusion at the moment is that Schrauben was truthful when he stated that he had brought that material from elsewhere to this site.
A more careful reading of the inscription suggests that written after the last A, there is a small square, the importance of which is not totally evident.

As a preliminary conclusion, one could argue that there are several interesting discoveries made here. However, as usual, the one that was most widely reported, was erroneous, and it appears that the more interesting points were actually once again demoted to secondary headlines. That’s just typical of Rennes, isn’t it?

André Douzet
We would like to thank Lio for all his information and help, as well as his willingness to let us reproduce the accompanying photographs.