Williams wrote:
You will see that point B of the diagram (Blanchefort) is defined as "... the small ruin of the watchtower which crowns the mountain of Blanchefort."

Roscoe wrote:

Blanchefort is a plateau. When you say 'crowns the mountain' what do you mean? There are three noticeable ruins which crown this plateau. This is indeed the words of Henry Lincoln from the book 'The key to the Sacred Pattern', but what do YOU mean?

Williams wrote:

There is only one ruined watchtower up there, as far as I'm aware.

"... the small ruin of the watchtower which crowns the mountain of Blanchefort."

In a nutshell, the highest point on the Roc de Blanchefort.  Anywhere else on that rock just seems arbitrary, in my opinion.



Roscoe wrote:

There are at least three ruined structures on the plateau of Blanchefort.

If it's arbitrary then the proposition that the pentacle is as much as 143 metres out becomes irrelevant.


 Lincoln's maps of Blanchefort and Bezu actually show more than one ruin


Williams wrote:
Point D (Château du Bézu / Château d'Albedun / Château des Templiers - take your pick) is defined as "... the high rocks on the summit of the mountain of Bézu, marked on the map as Château Templier Ruines."

Roscoe wrote:

It is most likely this point, it is the correct point on Blanchefort that is in dispute. With reference to your web page [] what would be the error if you took the other points on Blanchefort and from the Tour d'Alchemie, bearing in mind that the Tour Magdala is at best just over 100 years old and never formed part of the original pentacle. Even given this, your largest error to your 'Best Fit' is 143 metres. That's about 2% over the distance and you make several assumptions that can introduce their own errors.

Williams wrote:

What several assumptions have I made?

Some R-le-C authors (including one I used to be in frequent contact with) have suggested the possibility that the Tour Magdala might have been built on the site of an ancient monument of some kind, or perhaps a former place of Pagan worship, or whatever. I doubt there's any evidence to support the notion, but I suppose it can't be ruled out absolutely.

Also, I should point out that it was Henry Lincoln - not I - who determined that it be the Tour Magdala which fixes the Rennes-le-Château point of the Pentacle of Mountains. I quote:

    "Point A [of the Pentacle of Mountains] is fixed upon Saunière's Tour Magdala at Rennes-le-Château." (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 185)


 Roscoe wrote:

But my question is what happens to the accuracy if the Tour d'Alchemie is used?

These people you describe must answer for themselves. Theirs is not my argument.

The question is unanswered

What is the purpose of the small holes in the tower?


Roscoe wrote:

David Wood is a land surveyor by trade and can be seen on the facing page of page 1 of Genisis using a theodolite on the northern apex of his pentagram. In other words one of his datum points is an apex of the pentagram. This is precisely how the Quillan map makers would have fixed the points, not your method. Yet you are using their map as a reference.

Williams wrote:

He was not "on the northern apex of his pentagram". He was near the edge of an escarpment; the actual intersection point (which I call P1), or the apex if you prefer, is several hundred metres away (I've been there). In the one e-mail communication I received from David Wood many years ago, he said (in response to me asking what it was he was supposedly surveying in that photo) that it is sometimes necessary to perform a "ressection". Nevertheless, he may well have just been posing for the photograph.

The IGN would have used a combination of ground trig and, when it became possible, aerial survey. Now they use mostly aerial survey and GPS for large-scale horizontal mapping.


Roscoe wrote:

I suspect he was posing for the photograph 

I don't have as much a problem with this as you seem to. Notice I didn't say he was at the northern apex in the caption under the photograph at the beginning of this page.

The point is that David Wood is an expert in this field.

Are You?

Roscoe wrote:

What is your trade and why do you think you can do a better job than an expert in this particular field?


Williams wrote:
When did I ever suggest that I thought I could do "a better job than an expert" (David Wood, in this case)? Please don't invent my opinions. I have never thought such a thing.

I think we both hold David Wood in high regard, but his unquestioned expertise does not - as far as I am aware - extend into GPS survey (I wouldn't go so far as to label myself an expert in GPS survey either, but I do have many hours of experience, and I feel that I had done an adequate amount of research on the subject).

It's worth mentioning that, for all David Wood's technical expertise, he did not publish any geographical coordinates (in any shape or form) in any of his books (GENISIS, GENESET or Poussin's Secret), or magazine articles (eg. NEXUS). I very strongly suspect that if he had had coordinates (from his surveys), then he would have published them. No coordinates for any of the markers of the Circle of Circles, no coordinates for the centre of the Circle of Churches, no surveyed angles, no lengths, and he was almost certainly unaware that the church at Serres (one of the churches of the Circle of Churches) was mapped too far south by the IGN (the error is evident on the so-called fugitive maps he produced, one or two of which I still have). I don't believe that he actually had any coordinates (other than those he may have measured off a map), and with good reason. Shortly after I first met his co-author in 1996, I asked "Where are the coordinates?" because I was starting to take an interest in Wood's geometry, and I wanted to check accuracy, amongst other things. I was assured that David Wood had obtained coordinates, but I've always thought it strange that not even his numerically literate co-author had any of them (he had to resort to measuring them from a map). Nearly ten years later:   neither hint nor sign of those coordinates.

I believe that I was the first person to obtain (in September 1999) and publish accurate coordinates for the locations of David Wood's 'Extended Pentagram' (and they are coordinates that *anyone* can check with a GPS receiver). Those coordinates allowed me - at long last - to calculate the angles and line lengths, and reliably assess the accuracy of the figure.

So, to summarise:   Whilst I could hardly gainsay David Wood with regards to trigonometrical or aerial survey (he is, after all, a British Army-trained tertiary trig surveyor), I - not he - was the first to obtain accurate coordinates for the locations in his geometry.


Roscoe Note:

Williams did exactly the same as he accused David Wood.

Roscoe wrote:

Extract from

Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Close Air Support (CAS)

Issued by the US Joint Chiefs of staff ; 3rd September 2003


"Errors are induced by inaccurate GPS data, poor azimuth, range and elevation data, system calibration and user skill. These errors are magnified with range and can result in significant target location errors (TLEs). Due to the variables listed previously, TLE will generally vary from 10 meters at 1 km to more than 300 meters at maximum ranges."

Basically whilst GPS is OK for most purposes accuracy (to the level you are demanding) can be degraded in Mountainous areas.

The maps were constructed using a theodolite starting from a datum position. You cannot compare mapping with GPS and mapping with the old method, the two methods are different and there will be an error and this error can be outside the constraints of your results.


Williams wrote:
I have based the relevant parts of the analysis on Henry Lincoln's own unequivocal definition of the Pentacle of Mountains given by him on page 185 of his book, Key To The Sacred Pattern.

Roscoe wrote:

Perhaps Lincoln is using a different set of ruins to you. How can you be sure which one he is using from the book?

Williams wrote:

I think his definition (page 185 of Key To The Sacred Pattern) is unequivocal enough, and I've followed it to the letter. I don't think I've made any mistakes there.



Roscoe wrote:

Lincoln has continuously said as far as I can remember that Blanchefort has three structures on its summit.




Williams wrote:
I don't think you quite appreciate what it is you are asking of me. I would have to buy one or more 1:25,000-scale maps (or purchase digital ones), and then pour over them for hours trying to find "ALL of the churches" (as you have specified), and then I would have to painstakingly measure off their coordinates and enter them into a database. It is a *very* major task, and a pointless one.

Roscoe wrote:

If you are not prepared to back up your claim with action then don't make it the insinuation that you can make any pattern. Please be advised that any bluffs you make regarding this matter will be called. The proof or otherwise of this depends on your ability to randomly reproduce it. You appear to have decided that you can't and the insinuation is completely off the top of your head with no factual data to support your insinuation. I regard that you have conceded your point that patterns can be made out of anything and that this particular pattern reported by Lincoln, Wood and others is by default, valid.

Williams wrote:
I am tempted to say, again, that you haven't actually read my analysis - parts of which demonstrate how pentagonal geometry can easily occur given a sufficient number of points (random or otherwise). But I'll refrain.

And I've never said that I can "make any pattern". Where did I say that? I certainly didn't suggest it.

Let me reiterate:   I am not taking you up on your challenge because it's pointless and it's burdensome. It is too much work for me, sorry.


Roscoe wrote:

You've changed your stance, now you appear to be adding the caveat  "given a sufficient number of points". Nobody will disagree with this. But you don't have a sufficient number of points here and this is my point.

Here's one of the patterns:


For the purposes of this discussion ignore the points within the circle with the exception of Esperaza church at the centre.

We have the chord from Les Sauzils church to St Ferriol church. By the very nature of a circle if this chord divides the circumference six times then this chord is identical to the radius of the circle. So basically Esperaza, Les Sauzils and St Ferriol churches form an equilateral triangle.

OK so far?

Now there are two other churches on the circumference (i.e. this radial distance from Esperaza) that have a chordal distance that will divide the circumference into five equal parts.

Still with me?

The bottom line is that this radius is EXACTLY the same as the distance from one of the apex points on the original Pentacle of Mountains through the centre of the pentacle to the opposite intersection of two lines.





Williams wrote:
You require that "ALL OF THE CHURCHES [my capitals] in the area are involved in the pattern in some way with no exceptions", and yet you also request - in the same breath - that I make "a pattern out of similar pattern of churches in a SIMILAR NUMBER OF CHURCHES [my capitals] in London over a 8 mile radius". The apparent contradiction aside, you seem to automatically assume that there is a similar number of churches, contained "over an 8-mile radius" in London, to the total number involved in some way or other with Lincoln's geometry on the Quillan map.

Roscoe wrote:

All of the churches within an 8 miles radius, make a pattern out of them. The request is quite clear. We have a little obfuscation from you here methinks.


Williams wrote:
No obfuscation from me, I assure. Just a pointless and burdensome challenge from you.

Roscoe wrote:

I make no apologies that it is burdensome if it's become too hot in the kitchen then it's time to get out. Basically we have to assume that you cannot do this otherwise you would. I suspect that you thought you can make glib claims without them being challenged. you thought wrong.

Williams wrote:
Again, you appear not to have read my analysis, and you have missed the point.

I have sub-metre accurate coordinates for the trig point at La Pique (and a number of other locations) which one can use as a means of testing (admittedly quite roughly) the accuracy of consumer-grade GPS receivers like the Garmin etrex, Garmin 12, or whathaveyou. Comparing position fixes obtained with a Garmin etrex, to those obtained with the Trimble ProXRS, has never showed - over multiple separate visits - a difference greater than 4 metres. The cheap GPS units - thanks to the removal of Selective Availability - give position fixes within 4 metres of that obtained with the survey-grade ProXRS (which cost several thousand pounds). If GPS were not accurate in a mountainous environment (as you insist), then there is simply *no way* that I could have repeatedly obtained near-identical results with three independent GPS receivers, over multiple visits.

As for La Pique not being the central mountain of the Pentacle of Mountains, well, I agree... but here is what Henry Lincoln has written on the matter:

"Lines were drawn on the map to fix the central point [of the pentagon of mountains]. Again the seemingly impossible happened. At the centre of the huge pentagon marked out by the five peaks is yet another mountain. It is called La Pique." (The Holy Place, page 71)

"The defining of the centre of the star [the Pentacle of Mountains], however, produces still one more startling and concrete fact. The location is marked by yet another mountain. It is called La Pique. Yet another - and amazing - coincidence." (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 131)

"Six mountains arranged in so precise and meaningful pattern - the odds against such a natural occurrence must be astronomical. It would be interesting to know of any other place quite like it anywhere in the world." (The Holy Place, page 71)

"...the highest point [of La Pique] does not lie with exactitude upon the geometric intersection. It is some 250 yards to the south east. A first reaction is one of disappointment. But then, I must ask, should one expect a miracle?" (Key To The Sacred Pattern, page 131)


Roscoe wrote:

Clearly you appear to be expecting a miracle


Williams wrote:

There are no such thing as miracles.


Roscoe wrote:

The problem is, as I keep emphasising, is that you are trying to compare results made with GPS to results made with a theodolite

i.e. The IGN maps.

There will be errors up to 150 metres, well within your results.

Use a theodolite the same as the Land surveying expert David Wood did and then come back to me with your results.

You are comparing eggs with bananas whereas Wood is comparing eggs with eggs.

Williams wrote:
This is becoming tedious. I have not made myself clear, obviously.

When you are on the *top* of a mountain, or a high ridge, one usually enjoys (if there are no trees or significantly higher mountains in the locality) an unobstructed view of the sky (or at least most of it). GPS receivers rely on an unobstructed view of a significant portion of the sky. That is what you usually get when you are situated on the top of a mountain or a high ridge. The five locations which define the points of the Pentacle of Mountains are (arguably) mountain tops. Such locations are usually ideal for taking GPS readings. Do you accept that? As I have already said, in the case of many of the locations relevant to Wood and Lincoln's geometry, I have undertaken multiple visits to those locations, and have obtained practically identical position fixes. The probability of obtaining practically identical position fixes by random chance over multiple visits is *extremely* small. Do you understand and accept that?

I am quite aware of the problems of multipath errors, ionospheric distortion, poor satellite geometry, clock errors, etc., etc.

Of course, not all locations relevant to Wood or Lincoln's geometry happen to be on mountain tops, but so long as the GPS receiver has a direct 'line of sight' between it and *at least* 4 satellites, and if the satellite geometry is favourable, then reliable position fixes can (and certainly have) been obtained.

Roscoe wrote:   It's becoming tedious for me too especially when I give you references and you don't bother reading them.

Such locations are usually ideal for taking GPS readings. Do you accept that?

Roscoe wrote:  

No I don't


Roscoe wrote:

I would prefer you used the method that the original IGN mapmakers used. GPS is optimised for sea level, Blanchefort is 467 metres above sea level, couple this with a slant range to a satellite of several thousand miles and the curvature of the earth and you have error. At least up to 100 metres which is within the range of error we are talking about regarding the pentacle but perhaps acceptable for normal use.

Williams wrote:
Doing it the way "the original IGN mapmakers" did it, would - and correct me if I am wrong - involve first having to establish one or more very accurate baselines several miles in length (a mammouth, highly specialised task - got a spare 100 ft. chain handy?), and then struggle up and down hills and mountains with a theodolite (after having been thoroughly trained in its use) in order to create several secondary baselines, whilst other members of the team dart about the land with survey poles. Then, after enough secondary baselines have been established, one could then perhaps begin to triangulate the positions of the churches, châteaux, road junctions, etc.   Am I at least on the right track here?

As for GPS, I'm afraid you're out of your depth. You say that Blanchefort is 467 metres above sea level (my edition of the 1:25,000-scale Quillan map indicates 476 metres above MSL - but let's not split hairs), and that "couple this with a slant range to a satellite of several thousand miles and the curvature of the earth and you have error." This is really bad news. Modern aircraft - many of which rely heavily on GPS for navigation - are in big trouble then, aren't they? I mean, if the error at just 467 metres above MSL is "at least up to 100 metres", then surely it must be several kilometres by the time we get up to altitudes like 30,000 ft., right?

Unless something is wrong with the receiver or unless there's bad satellite geometry, multipath, malfunctioning satellites, severe ionospheric interference, wrong datum, etc., etc. - then the error even at 467 metres above MSL, is never anywhere near 100 metres (the GPS system would be next-to-useless if that were the case). When I state that a pair of coordinates are accurate to, for example, 5 metres, then I am confident that that is the case. Don't forget (and I've said this enough times already), that in the case of the Pentacle of Mountains, I have visited each location several times with a GPS unit (over several years) and got practically the same coordinates each time.  I just don't understand why that means nothing to you.

I am now no longer prepared to argue any further with you on this point because it is one that will never resolve. We are just going to have to agree to differ.


Roscoe wrote:

Yes well I'm very glad it isn't MY problem.

Aircraft aren't using the IGN map made with a theodolite they are using a map optimised to the GPS system and this is the key point which seems to be passing you by.

You are trying to compare a GPS system with another system and there will be errors between the two systems of measurement of up to 150 metres.

Please do not try to intimidate me with comments about me being out of my depth, it isn't working. I'm an engineer who has fitted GPS systems in the past. I'm far more aware than you are of its limitations.

Williams wrote:
Yes, that's one of David Wood's alignments, more-or-less. Now, let's look at the various classes of marker which form this alignment:

- Churches
- Châteaux
- Ruined châteaux
- Mountaintops / hilltops
- Road/track junctions
- Calvaires
- Springs

Roscoe wrote:

And all of them well known sites of Pagan ritual. With regard to the churches and Chateau's these were most likely placed over previous megalithic sites which formed a previous sacred site. Also as you are not aware of how the pattern was placed then you may not be aware as to why a structure like a chateau was position.

Evidence suggests that the pattern probably wasn't "placed" at all. Those alignments, as impressive as they may appear to you, are most likely - though not definately - the fruit of random chance, and nothing more. Whenever you have a sufficient number of points scattered over an area, that is what you get.

Williams wrote:

I could argue with you on this until I'm blue in the face.   You will never - ever - accept even the mere possibility that Henry Lincoln and David Wood's geometry might have occurred by random chance.


 Roscoe wrote:

Then if it is random chance then this should be repeatable with a similar number of objects.

Go for it, reproduce this. Your bluff has been called.

A computer looking for patterns will not do.

 Here's the Esperaza pattern again.

You may have five identical objects of your own choice within an eight mile radius.

Your task is to reproduce the following results:

  1. Three IDENTICAL objects to form a perfect equilateral triangle. Six of these triangles produce a hexagon around which a circle is drawn.

  2. On this circle two other objects of precisely the same nature are positioned. That's five IDENTICAL objects in total.

  3. These further two IDENTICAL objects are of a distance that will form a five sided figure within the same circle.

  4. The radius of the circle is justified by another figure made up in the near vicinity that carries this same distance in it's structure.

As you will see from Lincoln's Key to the sacred Pattern page 193 this pattern produces a significantly more incidence of hits but I'll be generous to you and not require you to reproduce them. Just stick to the points above.

If you say it's random then your task is either to reproduce this with an object of your own choice.

or concede.

Just a quick note:

The fact that the church of Esperaza is dedicated to St Michel is VERY significant. My book will tell you why.

Whilst I'm on the subject of my book. I must tell you that I am at present constrained by what I can say here. You are only getting a fraction of the whole story.


Roscoe wrote:

Christian Churches are normally placed North/South, tell me why this should a difference to the Christian worshippers?

Williams wrote:
Well that's strange, because if my memory serves me right, most of the churches that I visited down there were not aligned north-south.   I'd say most were aligned approximately east-west (very approximately in some cases).

 Roscoe wrote:

That's right - The Cardinal points. Nice of you to confirm this.

So tell me why then? Why aligned (as YOU put it) East/West. What does this have to do with the Christian worshippers?

You didn't answer in your rush to pick up on what you thought was a mistake. I didn't say what I was using in the church to dictate the alignment.


Williams wrote:
I do not currently have coordinates for most of the road junctions, calvaires and springs shown on the Quillan map, and I certainly am not going to waste time and energy in compiling a list of them (it takes ages). Using just churches, châteaux, ruined châteaux, mountaintops/hilltops (with altitudes greater than 500 metres), two or three springs, and the junction at Combe Loubière, I used my LGAS (Landscape Geometry Analysis System) programme to search for linear alignments of these features (minimum of 6 markers), and it found 121 alignments with lengths between 6000 and 12000 metres (although most of them are very similar to one another, so they appear merged). Admittedly, my alignment-finding algorithm is not very sophisticated; it is probably missing a lot of valid lines, and many of those 121 lines that it has found are probably not valid for a number of reasons. But some are. If only 20-or-so of those 121 alignments are valid, then that supports the case that such alignments are very common, and probably not significant.

Roscoe wrote:

If you are serious about getting to the bottom of this then you must take these things into consideration The pattern is a throwback to pre Christian worship and dolmans and Menhirs are everywhere. The pattern has been inadvertently enhanced by the more recent church buildings. The builders of these churches probably had no idea regarding the pattern they were inadvertently forming.

Williams wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.

Roscoe wrote:

Yes well I think that those viewing this without prejudice would have successfully got my point.


Roscoe wrote:

There are hundreds of Calvaires. Why did the Holy Roman church see fit to place them here. Why? Because the locals were Pagan that's why and worshipped these things. We also have the more recent Cathars of course.

Williams wrote:
Whilst calvaires at road or track junctions might have had their origins in marking supposed sites of Pagan activities, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of those calvaires were erected purely for customary or traditional reasons.

 Roscoe wrote:

In that case why aren't they found in similar numbers elsewhere in France?

Not very familiar with Pagan worship practices are you?

Williams wrote:
" I've double-checked this with GPS ".

In other words, I have visited Le Bézu church twice on different days with a GPS unit, and obtained practically identical position fixes. That's unlikely to be coincidence. Comparing the GPS coordinates with those obtained from the map, it became clear that the map symbol is displaced by approx. 1.6 mm (the church symbol is too far east).


Roscoe wrote:

That's one what's the other. GPS will give you one reading. Probably accurately give you a Lat/Long in this case. What are you comparing this with? The map? Try using David Wood's method with a theodolite.

Williams wrote:
What you are suggesting is not very sensible. Consider, for example, the five locations of the Pentacle of Mountains: I have obtained and published coordinates for each location, each stated to 5-metre precision. In other words, the positions described by those coordinates are within 5 metres of where the GPS receiver was placed. Now, in the case of the Pentacle of Mountains, I am able to calculate angles to a precision of slightly better than 0.2 degrees, and lengths to 10-metre precision. That level of precision is more than sufficient for the purposes of landscape geometry research. Bornholm, by the way, is a different kettle of fish - the geometry is heavily extrapolated (but let's not go there).

I have to say that I'm having some difficulty following your logic. First you declare that accurate GPS coordinates can't be obtained in mountainous terrain, but then you say, "GPS will give you one reading. Probably accurately give you a Lat/Long in this case."   Why in this case?   What's different about it?

By the way, we are rarely interested in lat/long coordinates; orthogonal grid coordinates are so much more convenient.


Roscoe wrote:

OK Lets go back to basics here.

What are you trying to do?

You are trying to compare the accuracy of something made by using line of sight bearings (IGN map or the original pattern makers) with something that doesn't (i.e. GPS).  

Additionally your GPS system carries slant range errors in mountainous terrain. These errors can be as much as 150 metres.

I suppose I should say that the pattern makers may well of got the definitive accuracy wrong with regard to actual Lat/Long co-ordinates but they weren't actually too interested in this kind of accuracy anyway. They did their entire science with line of sight bearings, you aren't. You will only get proper results if you compare line of sight bearings with line of sight bearings. You've got all kinds of problems in addition to slant range coupled with earth curvature and height of observation. You've got varying earth oblations, the earth isn't a perfect sphere. Normally these things don't matter but they do when you try to do what you are doing. 

The errors are small, about 150 metres.

You can only compare eggs with eggs or line of sight with line of sight.


Williams wrote:
" I've double-checked this with GPS ".

In other words, I have visited Le Bézu church twice on different days with a GPS unit, and obtained practically identical position fixes. That's unlikely to be coincidence. Comparing the GPS coordinates with those obtained from the map, it became clear that the map symbol is displaced by approx. 1.6 mm (the church symbol is too far east).


Roscoe wrote:

You really don't seem to know much about surveying do you?


Williams wrote:
How much should I know?


Roscoe wrote:

How did they make the IGN maps? GPS?


Roscoe wrote:

For your information map surveyors do not use GPS they use trig points and a theodolite. GPS simply isn't accurate enough. However you start from a known point which you designate the datum point.

Williams wrote:
You are well behind the times, Roscoe.

Many - perhaps most - modern map surveyors use differential GPS positioning for horizontal mapping, and possibly even for levels too if their application can tolerate a metre-or-two of uncertainty (but perhaps even that has improved by now). I'm sure that there are applications which require ultra-precise angle and/or distance measurement where a theodolite might be preferred.

 Roscoe wrote:

The IGN maps and the original pattern weren't made with GPS.


Williams wrote:
Another question which you had further 'developed' after posting the first version.

I'm going to save myself some energy here. Please refer to these links (I presume that you can read French):


Roscoe wrote:

I see all of these authors doesn't answer the question either. I asked what their purpose is and what their name means. You didn't answer and they didn't answer either. Here's what they said:

[snip poor translation]


Roscoe wrote:

I see all of these authors doesn't answer the question either. I asked what their purpose is and what their name means. You didn't answer and they didn't answer either.


Yes yes very nice very pretty. Now back to my question : Their PURPOSE is............................?

To bring the head closer, what head are we bringing closer? I didn't ask what a Borie was nor did I ask what a Cadole is but thanks for providing it anyway. There's never been any water on this hillside and yet the default answer has been they're for growing vines. Remind me not to invest in your vineyard.

Well your solution to this appears to be lets AVOID awkward questions about the capitelles which may expose your ignorance.


Williams wrote:
I guess you were hoping for something more sensational - anything that would keep the origin of those huts essentially unexplained.   After all, the "ancient civilisation" hypothesis is far more exciting...

Here is the mundane reality:   those dry-stone huts were built from the rocks and stones dug out of the ground by farmers wanting to plant grape vines, or olive trees, or to clear the ground for pasture. The more ideal flatter stones (further prepared if necessary) were used in the construction of the huts, whilst the others - perhaps awkwardly shaped or of lesser quality, were used to build the bounding walls of the vineyard, or olive grove, pasture field, or whatever. In the case of those so-called 'capitelles' at the Grand Camp, they were most likely to have served vineyards. The huts provided shelter from wind and rain, sudden storms, and the sun during the hottest part of the day. I know just how refreshingly cool their interiors are on a hot day because I've sat in one (yes - on a hot day). During colder parts of the year, the south-facing orientation of the hut helped to better illuminate and warm the interior (if the sun was shining, obviously). Some were also used to store tools and equipment (some still are!), and occasionally to shelter animals. Some were permanently inhabited. Many were built by the farmers themselves, although there were specialists who earned a living from building them. They were being built until the early 1900s, and most are no older than two hundred years. There is absolutely nothing mysterious or unexplained about them. They don't date back millenia as some people prefer to imagine. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of similar structures in various condition across southern France.

Occam's razor might be helpful to us here, Roscoe.

As for your assertion that "There's never been any water on this hillside and yet the default answer has been they're for growing vines":   Hmmm... that's funny - I'm sure that I passed a vineyard (or two) during a wander through the Grand Camp last year. And, it just so happens that I filmed the event. I'll upload the video footage to my website in the next day, or two.

By the way, the Year 2000 edition of my 1:25,000-scale Quillan map shows at least three vineyards on the Grand Camp, and a spring called "La Fontaine de Lauzi".   Never any water, you say?



Roscoe wrote:

You do far too much guessing and not enough groundwork regarding this particular area.

Lincoln discovered the Great Camp from an irregular pentacle that is made up of sides that have integer multiples of the same distance. At the northernmost apex of this irregular pentacle we have this:

La Pierre Droit

It leans towards Rennes-le-Chateau and has been there a long time.

I have another explanation for the positioning of this stone that will be revealed shortly.

It's link with the word 'Capitelles' is significant. 

Roscoe wrote:

To bring the head closer, what head are we bringing closer?

Williams wrote:
I think that you (or the translation software) may have misunderstood the intended meaning of   à rapprocher de   in the original French text:

Le terme “capitelle” vient de l'occitan : sans doute principalement de la forme gardoise « capitèla » (fem.), à rapprocher de « caput », la tête et par extension ce qui recouvre et protège. « Capitèla » désigne originellement une cabane de vigne en pierre sèche.

I understand it to mean that the word capitèla relates to the Latin caput (head)... but then my French leaves a lot to be desired, too.

Check out this page (sorry, it's in French - again) for a fairly detailed, and possibly well-informed discussion on the origins of the word capitelle, and others.


 Roscoe wrote:

Probably a corruption of the Latin

Capelli Militia - Templar Tower