Arcadia Discussion Zone

The treasure of Jerusalem was taken by Titus at the time of the breaking of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. His army then carries a part of the treasure of Jerusalem to Rome. This is historical fact and the removal of the treasures of Jerusalem is depicted on the triumphal arch in Rome.

The problem comes with the sacking of Rome in 410 C.E. by the Goths (they were not called Visigoths at this time). The story goes that the treasure was then brought back and deposited in their territory of South-Western Europe (there was no France as such) and that they buried it to hide it from the advancing Franks under Clovis after losing the battles of Vouillé in 508 C.E. At this time Rhedae would have been a powerful city of sufficient importance which could have been used as refuge for this treasure.

With respect to Rennes le Chateau, this thesis was initially developed by Gerard de Sède in several of his books. This theme was taken again and discussed by many authors. It originates in the work of Firmin JAFFUS: "The city of Carcassonne contained a part of the treasure of Jerusalem?", but this idea is even based on an older local tradition.

The first problem arises with the behaviour of the Goths after the sacking of Rome. The Goths under Alaric did not move directly to South Western Europe but moved south to Calabria. The idea was to cut off the supply of grain to the Roman empire from North Africa. Gaul was in turmoil and Alaric would not have risked taking such a treasure through this country at this time. If he wasn't attacked by the Roman Armies in Gaul then he would have been attacked by the Gauls. The ships that the Goth army was to take to North Africa were destroyed in a storm and what his more Alaric lost a good deal of his army. Alaric died of a fever whilst in Calabria and his brother-in-law Atauf took over the Goth army. Legend has it that they diverted a river and buried Alaric in the river bed then allowed the river back over his body. A technique worth remembering when looking for treasure around Rennes le Chateau.

After Alaric's death Ataulf took command of the Goths, leading them north, into a now subdued Gaul, where they settled in Aquitaine. This was on the advice of Priscus Attalus—the former emperor whom Alaric had set up at Rome in opposition to Honorius at Ravenna, and who had remained with the Visigoths after he'd been deposed—Ataulf led his followers out of Italy. Moving north into a momentarily pacified Gaul, the Visigoths lived off the countryside in the usual way. Ataulf may have received some additional encouragement to get out of Italy in the form of payments in gold from the Emperor Honorius — since Ataulf carried with him as a respected hostage the emperor's half-sister Galla Placidia, who had been his captive since the sacking of Rome. Galla Placidia eventually became Ataulf's wife.

This occurred in 412 so if the treasure of Jerusalem had been taken from Rome in 410 then it would have been carted first to Calabria in the southern toe of Italy and then carted back through the Alps to South-Western France.

There is a school of thought that the treasure was loaded onto the ships that were due to go to North Africa but is now somewhere at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

Alaric was not the first to have sacked Rome by the way.

The cursed treasure of Delphi is a more likely scenario if we are looking for treasure around Rennes le Chateau

Gaul was in turmoil and Alaric would not have risked taking such a treasure through this country at this time

Why not? The Visigoths had just defeated the Roman Empire? Who would they be afraid of?

"The city of Carcassonne contained a part of the treasure of Jerusalem?", but this idea is even based on an older local tradition.

Gregory of Tours reports this in his History of the Franks …. And so do a couple more historians around this time .. i of course use the word 'historian' here loosely....

Legend has it that they diverted a river and buried Alaric in the river bed then allowed the river back over his body. A technique worth remembering

Archaeology has shown that the Visigoths did not ‘divert’ rivers in their burial customs. If Alaric was buried near water, it is more likely to have been a small stream or something of that nature, if at all …Why should we remember this technique in relation to the Rennes le Chateau myth .....

Galla Placidia, who had been his captive since the sacking of Rome. Galla Placidia eventually became Ataulf's wife
Some of the treasure of Solomon was used by Ataulf at this wedding so we know the treasure was with him at this time. And as point of fact, Galla Placidia was supposed to have not been very impressed with being presented with jewells theat had been stolen from her kindred at Rome ....they also used plated and such like taken from the Temple of Solomon (apparently).

There is a school of thought that the treasure was loaded onto the ships
Some of the treasure was stolen by a section of the Visigothic army …..who were not originally Visigothic. They became the original Counts of Albi … and this family held Albi etc right up to the Albigensian Crusade. Legends say this family had a ‘treasure’ ….

was loaded onto the ships that were due to go to North Africa

And is it related to Alaric? Why would Alaric put it on ships to Africa? Or any Goth for that matter….
Thats kind of even more bizarre than thinking they took it into ancient France ...

Alaric was not the first to have sacked Rome by the way.

And?

The magic and mystique around the Visigothic kingdom at Toulouse was because they had the Sacred Treasure – that which came from Solomons Temple. I doubt those who sacked Rome before this had this same Sacred Treasure.

The cursed treasure of Delphi is a more likely scenario if we are looking for treasure around Rennes le Chateau

Why not both? Alaric did ransack his way through Greece too.

[quoteThe cursed treasure of Delphi is a more likely scenario if we are looking for treasure around Rennes le Chateau

Why not both? Alaric did ransack his way through Greece too.][/quote] is bergerdarcadie's reply.
I agree that the Visigothic stronghold of Rhedae was a suitable depository for storage of military looting referred to as the 'Thesaurus Regalis' in the second document of Ben Hammott.
The traditional 'Sacred Treasure' can well be there also. It seems likely that the actual entrance to the cave might be buried beneath two metres of sediment after 1500 years though I am certain that the location of such a cave would be well defined and marked by those who placed it there. Also it seems likely that this location would have been watched over by the ruling families over the centuries who would have maintained and renewed where neccessary the dolmen and other markers to preserve the site for the future which is now the present.

My impression is that the archeological evidence shows that Rennes-le-Chateau was never a city of great size or importance. It is probably not to be equated with the city of Rhedae, which was important to the history of Razes. Putnam and Wood comment:

"there cannot have been a large city on this site [Rennes-le-Chateau] without leaving substantial traces, and no such traces are to be found. Furthermore, it is not easy to see how the name Rhedae could have been changed to Rennes. Rhedae was at the crossing point of four major roads; how could this possibly be the case at Rennes-le-Chateau on its isolated hilltop? There is no archeological evidence of such roads either in the Roman period or at any time since. It is very difficult to believe that Rennes-le-Chateau was Rhedae." (Putnam and Wood, p.88)

If Rhedae was not Rennes-le-Chateau, and the later was just an Iron Age village of 300 or so inhabitants, that's probably not a very secure place to store treasure.

My other problem with this scenario is the picture of Wisigoths finding a large and conspicuous treasure, keeping it intact and then just carting it around the countryside, only to bury it somewhere for centuries until treasure hunters find it. Why on earth would they keep the treasure intact? Wouldn't they be using it for various purposes? Melt down the gold to make money, use jewels to decorate their armor or wardrobe (as Ataulf in fact did at his wedding), etc. Why would we expect find an INTACT buried treasure after all these years?

Hello Teabing,

that the archeological evidence

What evidence would that be?
Seeing as the area has not been mapped or studied archaeologically ….. then we do not have the (or any) evidence to make even an informed supposition.

that's probably not a very secure place to store treasure

I guess one has to think like a 5th/6th/7th century warlord who has created a kingdom in a certain area, and what their equivalent of the Tower of London would be I suppose

My other problem with this scenario is the picture of Wisigoths finding a large and conspicuous treasure, keeping it intact and then just carting it around the countryside,

They didn’t do that. They ransacked across Europe looting much treasure. Some of it would have paid the soldiery and mercenaries etc …and they would have had to have carted the treasure about …. All the ancient armies did this.

However, the Visigoths under Alaric were looking to settle somewhere within the Roman Empire.
They picked Southern Gaul and Toulouse.

only to bury it somewhere for centuries until treasure hunters find it.

They didn’t bury it somewhere for later treasure hunters to find it.
At the time they buried it and secured it because the power of the Visigothic kingdom and kingship was built on this sacred treasure. The regnum Tolosanum is first mentioned in the sources in 507AD. But in practice, as Wolfram suggests, we can date this Kingdom from the date they actually setteled there (418AD).

‘The basis of the royal finances was the domain taken over from the imperial possessions. The credit rating and the splendor of the kingship were determined by the treasure at Toulouse. It contained valuable objects made from coined and uncoined gold and silver, precious objects such as the bowl dedicated to Ragnahild, and finally the riches of Rome and Jerusalem. This treasure also included the archives. (What archives?). Into the treasure flowed the kings share of the booty, the gifts and tributes, the taxes of the Romans..’

They secured it because it gave them power and prestige. It wasnt buried just for later treasure hunters to find it.
They surely tried to stop it getting into wrong hands when the Kingdom began to fall???

I suspect when trying to locate this Toulouse treasure of the Goths, one must first ascertain where it was kept in Toulouse?
At the fall of the Kingdom of the Goths one must think what a Goth would have done with the treasure …..what the Royal Family would have considered important in this situation in relation to the treasure ....

Why would we expect find an INTACT buried treasure after all these years?

Well, why not?
I'm perfectly sure its happened before .....

Interesting about the royal treasure of Toulouse...I still have a lot to learn about the history of that time.

But as for the suitability of Rennes-le-Chateau for storing (part) of the royal treasure, if there was already Toulouse and Carcassonne why would they choose a tiny village without great defenses over those?

As for the archeological evidence, even if the entirely landscape of RLC hasn't been thoroughly dug up and excavated a city of 30,000 inhabitants (allegedly) with extensive fortifications would have left substantial material remains such as parts of walls, forts and certainly roads if it was as important during the time of the Romans and Goths as some authors seem to think it was. And Bill Putnam was a highly respected and experienced archeologist who personally surveyed the area, so I accept his observations:

-"There is no evidence at all of Roman roads to RLC, although a road did come up the Aude valley at least as far as the spa town of Alet-les-Bains...It is possible that a hill fort at RLC became a small Roman town, but there is no confirmation whatever in Roman place-names or Roman topography, which is well established for the province of Gallia Narbonensis..." p.86

-"The available evidence suggests that rather than a town there may have been a small Romanized villa with mosaic floors, or perhaps even a religious establishment devoted to the worship of a god whose origins were in the Iron Age period..." p.87

-"Any settlement surviving at RLC would have become part of the Visigothic Empire...it has been suggested that by this time the name of the hill-top settlement was Rhedae, and that it was a major center of the government of the Visigoths...Claims have been made that it was a major city of upwards of 30,000 inhabitants, spreading far and wide over the lower slopes of the hill...This is plainly nonsense...In fact extensive field walking on the lower slopes after ploughing in 1997 produced only a single shard of pottery of any sort. This was Roman samian pottery, dated to the 2nd Century AD. There was no other sign of human habitation...This of course does not dimiss the possibility that RLC was at one time a small Visigothic town, but with a population closer to 300 than 30,000." (p.87)

And again, the quote that I posted earlier:

-"there cannot have been a large city on this site without leaving substantial traces, and no such traces are to be found." (p.88)

All in all, RLC strikes one as a rather poor place to store and guard royal treasure.

But as for the suitability of Rennes-le-Chateau for storing (part) of the royal treasure, if there was already Toulouse and Carcassonne why would they choose a tiny village without great defenses over those?

I dont know if they chose RLC as an area to bury the treasure.

All i was trying to point out was that the Visigothic treasury was at Toulouse. After the fall of Toulouse, the treasure had to go somewhere.
The Sacred Treasure of the Visigoths was kind of immutable. It was not up for bargaining.

The Royal Family could use the Royal treasure to pay off whoever they needed to, and out of that part of the finances came their ability to finance their lifestyle etc etc.

The Sacred Treasure was not allowed to be accessed at all.

But as we know lots of other groups coveted that part of the treasure. After Clovis curtailed their kingdom, it seems all the Visigoths had left was Septimania.

I personally always assumed the treasure stayed at Toulouse until that kingdom fell. Did the treasure stay there? I dont know. But i would imagine the Royal family at the time would have taken it off for safekeeping?
But perhaps they didnt? Who knows?

Where would the Royal family have taken it to safeguard it?
Somewhere in their land they still owned - Septimania? Or into Spain (Toledo)? Or did they move it elsewhere in Southern France. Again, who knows?

I never thought that the treasure was buried UNDER the mountain that RLC sits on... which is what you seem to be implying?
However, perhaps in 6th & 7th century Septimania .... the area of the Razes was depopulated and so isolated, it may have been considered a good spot to hide a Royal treasure ... i dunno.

I know of the traditions of a treasure being buried there .,.. but this doesnt seem to be the Visigothic treasure ...

[quote from teabingAll in all, RLC strikes one as a rather poor place to store and guard royal treasure.][/quote].
The Couleurs river and dam seemed to have been very much the centre for the Rhedae population with the fortified portion with its own water supply on the hilltop and the flatter ground bordering the Sals river was probably well populated. The adjoining Coustaussa has extensive stone works and cleared ground. A well watered area where the Aude and the Sals valleys provide routes to the surrounding areas and to the south.
Rather a choice spot for the Visigoths to settle after moving from pillar to post across Europe.
They had aquired the skills for moving around in their wagons and acquired a good deal of wealth through their military activities. Why not stache both treasures in this secure environment? The locations could be so clearly indicated by the dolmens and other evidences of stoneworks such as Upilos or shepherds' huts and maintained by the ruling families down the ages to this day.
Dig that crazy paving.

What traditions are these?

Roscoe could speak to this subject better than I can, but I think, before dismissing entirely the idea of a larger settlement in this area in more ancient times, it's worth casting a slightly wider net than the immediate curtilege of the village.

Go a couple of clicks north-north-east to the hills above Coustaussa and you find lots of these:


Image courtesy of Panoramio

Up above these capitelles (and no, they're not shepherds' huts) there are the remains of stone walls that look like old defensive formations. Henry Lincoln has spoken and written much about this.

Also, this is one of mine below, looking south-west across the Couleurs Valley at the hill known as le Casteillas, almost like a twin hill to the one RLC stands on, in a way, and I think this might also be worth looking into as a former settlement.



Point being, and this is only my personal opinion, when we talk about the possibility of there being an ancient settlement in this area, we maybe need to think in terms of a bigger area than what is now the village of Rennes-le-Chateau. Whether this is what we term Rhedae or not is another matter, perhaps, because I understand the point that has been made above about how this could have been located in the vicinity of Limoux, further up the Aude, but whatever it may have been called - and maybe its better not to think in terms of a place called Rhedae, but just in terms of a larger settlement, of some kind - there seems to have been much more of a population there in the past than there is now. Someone built that walling up in the hills for a reason.

What traditions are these?

The traditions of something being buried in or on the Place de Lauzet (i think that is what its called).

I cant remember exactly where i read it, or who put it there, or how far these treasure legends go back.

Actually thinking about it, i think i may have read it in 'The Templars of Rousillon' ....... maybe someone can help out more with the detail ......

Something along the lines of a treasure being added to something already buried at Lauzet???

For Richard;

http://www.perillos.com/pillar_rlc.html

Glykon Post subject: Posted: 01 Jun 2008 1:15 pm



Joined: 03 May 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 77 Evidently, you are speaking here about the old oppidum called “Le Casteillas”.
Recent discoveries confirmed by archaeologists demonstrate that this site is well one of the two fortresses out of stones defending the site of “Rhedae” .
At the top of the hill were discovered many
objects from the Bronze Age; at the foot of the hill, on the eastern part, there is a necropolis of the fortress, and there still are many tombs there. Anyway, this site has the aspect of a tumulus.
When we wanted to buy this site, it was already sold by Mr. Schrauben, the former owner.
Actually the entire 15 hectares surface belonged till not long ago to the belgian Philippe Schrauben, the one that has assured the preface to an edition of the book "La vraie langue celtique et le Cromleck de Rennes-les-Bains". Also he assured the edition of " Les Mérovingiens à Rennes-le-Château, mythes ou réalités. Réponse à Messieurs Plantard, Lincoln, Vazart et Cie" (Editions Philippe Schrauben, Le Casteillas, 1984).

viewtopic.php?p=8866

Thanks, Sheila. I have read that article before, but not for a long time, and I'd forgotten it was on the SP site. Tks.

I do find that hill rather interesting (as much as anything because so little attention seems to have been paid to it). I've not been up it yet (next trip I will), but I do spend a lot of time looking at it from that field from where the photo above was taken. It's my favourite spot, I think, in the vicinity of RLC.

i would put it high on the list Richard.

The suggestion that the capitelles of Camp Grand were shepherds' huts is an nonsense. There must have been a helluva number of shepherds on one hillside ! They may have been used as storage huts perhaps in recents centuries. But as far as I can make out, the capitelles - which are not unique to the Sals valley - are prehistoric burial chambers. Not dissimilar to the chambered cairns in Caithness http://www.ancient-scotland.co.uk/site.php?a=172

Sandy you asked:



Wolfram says in the end-note (n.410, p.469) that it was the Breviarium Alaricianum, basically a compilation of Roman law.

Wolfram says in the end-note (n.410, p.469) that it was the Breviarium Alaricianum, basically a compilation of Roman law

Yeh, i read that after using the quote.

This is a great book on the Visigoths .... takes you right there ....

Hi Richard, when I was there last I spent an hour or two wandering this area, didn't find much, but there is a lot of worked stone lying around. Not having any expertise in this field ( pardon pun ) I wouldn't hazard a guess to the date of any building. Will revisit next summer for more exploration ( there are a few wire fences that need to be avoided to gain access ) so I might see you there?
Regards
Nic

Yeh! And just look at all those sheep.

Maybe they were for Little Bo Peep.

No they hadn't they'd merely sacked Rome, the Emperor Honorius was skulking in Ravenna and there were two very large Roman Armies in Gaul.



This is Gerard de Sede again. I have the book you refer to here and it doesn't say that.



Well I did say that legend has it, however if I'm looking for an archaeology site I do not say to myself All-Legends-are-Rubbish and then pack up and go home.



Gerard de Sede again I'm afraid.



Well that's where he was going, why wouldn't he take it with him?



The Celts did it. Another man called Brennus, the Raven King.



The Treasure of Delphi was taken to Tolosa (That's Toulouse). Strabo told us.



I wouldn't have said ransacked. You have to remember that Alaric was trying to negotiate with the Romans. Ransacking wouldn't have done his case any good. It's important to note that the sacking of Rome by the Goths was quite civilized by the standards of the time.

My point was that the Goths would have had to take Solomon's treasure around with him and they didn't go to South Western France until two years after the sacking of Rome.

I agree, but the problem is complex Richard. There doesn't appear to have been a road into Rennes le Chateau until Sauniere had one built, the only road appears to have gone to Rennes-les-Bains from Alet les Bains. It seems there was a thriving large city which, like a few other places in Europe, lost most of its inhabitants to the plague and was abandoned by the survivors. Herein lies the clue, we need bodies, lots of them to pinpoint the city. Lots of people live in large cities but they also die. It's a total guess but if Aereda is here then I would place the Great Camp to the south of this city with it's centre around Alet les Bains, it has an ancient road and it has water.

No, the Great Camp around Coustaussa is something else. It is even possible that Aereda is around Riversaltes to the east. There is some interesting archaeological remains there. However interestingly an ancient document describes the 42 strongholds of Rhedae and one of these is Montazels, the birthplace of Beringer Sauniere. The document also speaks of d'Altopol. The similarity of this word to Hautpoul is worth a mention but also Opoul which is fairly near to Riversaltes.

However since you brought up the great camp perhaps we might discuss precisely what this semi circle is. I'm only just coming to terms with how good vegetation is in pinpointing something underneath it. The capitelles are just north of this, about 300 metres. The grey dots are these "shepherd's huts" It seems we've got more shepherds than sheep.

Hi Roscoe, strangely I stood in that exact spot to take photo's of Coustaussa. The stone wall that runs vertical just above that semi-circle seemed to be part of a farm building ( it really didn't seem as old as the other "shepherd's huts etc"). I presumed that this was part of the same structure but totally demolished.
Here is another picture taken just feet away north of said wall, sorry about the quality it was from a mobile. The vertical wall is just visible at the centre with the road below hidden.

Regards
Nic

Alet would seem to make more sense, on the face of it, given its far more favourable location, and it also brings into play other important sites in this area, such as the mountain behind Alet, and its ancient church, as referred to on another thread. As ever, it's about a wider canvas than just one village. As we've discussed before, the sheer number of ruins one sees all over the 1:25,000 map emphasises this too. RLC, though, would presumably be a candidate for one of the strongholds you refer to, as would le Casteillas.