No, this is a different place and is not the starting point for the bergere trail. I located this site by straight calculation based on three other points all clearly defined. I found that it had been clearly marked out over a twenty metre area.
I see, so this must be another stone head split into two, not the one found by Boudet in December 1884, and mentioned in LVLC (the one identified in 'Stüblein' as representing St Dagobert).
Any discussion about the Bergère...
text must take into account the SESA article attributed to Elie Tisseyre
published in 1906. Entitled Excursion à Rennes-les-Bains
, far too much faith has been put in it. Too many researchers have based the coded text on the alleged stele
inscription of Marie de Nègre
, as shown in that article. They assume incorrectly that the 128-letter text is derived from this 119-letter inscription, along with 9 additional letters derived from Marie de Nègre’s alleged dalle
inscription, as depicted in a work attributed to Eugène Stüblein
, Pierres Gravées du Languedoc
. The latter work has long been suspected of being a piece of Prieuré ‘intoxication’, the original having never been found, and the only example existing being part of the Prieuré document by Antoine L’Ermite
(a member of the Liège group, also known as the ‘Marquis de B.’).
I’ll now try to prove that the Tisseyre article is also a piece of disinformation (it also has an occult meaning - as does L’Ermite’s, but I won't cover this here). For an article produced under the name of a scholarly society this one is written in a chatty, rather trivial way and also contains the following bizarre errors:
1. Although the title claims the outing took place on 25 June 1905, the text gives the date as 24 June, i.e. significantly the Feast of John the Baptist (old Midsummer).
2. The route taken from Couiza railway station passing the château of the Joyeuse family, didn’t exist in 1905.
3. It gives the date of RLC church as 1740. This date has no significance and the stone at the entrance is inscribed 1646.
4. The ‘tower of recent construction’ could only be the Tour Magdala, which was incomplete in 1905, and had no staircase, yet the party claim to have viewed the surrounding countryside from the top.
5. From the tower they could see Couiza and the ruined castle at Coustaussa, neither of which are visible from here.
6. Described as ‘very crudely engraved’ and broken in the middle, the illustration shows an unbroken stone with a very clear inscription.
7. The article speaks of a dalle
8. The measurements given are very different to those of the ‘effaced’ broken stone that exists today at RLC.
Suspiciously, no examples of Volume XVII of the SESA Bulletin appear to exist, however this particular article was also published as a separate booklet by Victor Bonnafous
, who also published LVLC for Abbé Boudet
(despite it retaining the Pomiès printer's name). We must ourselves ask why. Gérard Jean
, SESA archivist, claimed that later in 1905, a member from Carcassonne collected the stone (from the ossuary) and took it back. In the 1980s his heirs donated it to the Musée Lapidaire in Carcassonne, who showed no interest. It remains in the family today, and is supposed to look like the one shown by Tisseyre, except that it is broken in two. (If true, the stone must have been engraved in around 1900, but I doubt this). Antoine Captier
has written to the present owner in the hope of having it returned.
Once this SESA article was published it was essential to make the true stone disappear to prevent any comparisons being made. In the archives at Carcassonne there is a transcript of the text from the original stone, and none of the anomalies are present. (It doesn’t only relate to Marie. I have this text, and will try to find it).
was a friend of Abbé Boudet
, and it’s almost certain that Boudet (working with Jourde
) is behind this article. The Bergère...
text was therefore not adapted from a pre-existing gravestone text, but the two were created at the same time (between 1900 & 1906). This means that the revised dalle
text (as in Stüblein) probably dates from the same period, for the 9-letters PRAE CUM are necessary.
The errors are deliberate and intended to draw attention to the essentially occult nature of the article, which I believe relates to the original ‘Coume Sourde’ stone - the one recently rediscovered by the Catalan group.
The excursion had never taken place. The inscription had never existed. The Bergère...
text cannot have been composed in the latter half of the 20th century. Saunière
did not pass his nights engraving or effacing any stones, but one was removed (in Feb 1895 Dominique-Olivier d’Hautpoul
complained to the mayor over the removal of his family‘s gravestone - to the ossuary). The article’s aim was to discreetly introduce information relating to the new coded parchments and this necessitated the invention of the inscription. It was no accident that Saunière’s domain was completed in the same year - 1906. The interior church decoration was completed in 1897, and the tomb at Les Pontils rebuilt on its old foundations in 1903. By 1906, everything was in place to draw the attention of a select group to Rennes-le-Château.