If the above photograph is that of an old family grave used by a previous owner of the land then it had to be the Galibert or Lawrence family, as it does not look that old, certainly constructed in the last hundred years or so. In all likelihood it is this tomb that was dug for the Galibert family by Bourrel, and then later utilized by the Lawrence family.
The position of this second tomb is in a far more secluded and altogether more private spot for relatives to visit their dearly departed.
An anomaly with the Pontils Tomb construction in its purpose as a family tomb is that it is not the normal construction design one would expect as there was no way, without dismantling it, to add any further bodies. Family tombs have an entry hatch that can be removed to add more coffins as needed without destroying the tomb. So when the above tomb construction was built that was it, a finished product: there was no intention of adding any more bodies.
For arguments sake let’s say this second tomb was the one used by the Galibert family and not the Pontils tomb. Gilibert then moves to Limoux transferring the interred bodies of his family into new coffins and leaves the empty coffins inside. Perhaps he even leaves a stone slab covering the hole, just taking the more fancy and expensive pieces of stonework with him. Along comes the Lawrence family and seeing the grave lifts the slab to find the two empty coffins. He wants to use the grave as his family tomb and knowing of the old ruined tomb on the rocky outcrop, he transfers the empty coffins into it and has Bourrel or someone build the above ground tomb that we know about, possibly some of the original design was still evident or perhaps there was local knowledge of how it once looked and it was rebuilt in a similar fashion. This would explain the lack of a 'door' to add more coffins, it was just a sort of memorial.
Henry Lincoln says he could not find any official record of when the Pontils Tomb was constructed and Pierre Jarnac bases his report on testimony from Adrian Bourrel who he identifies as the second son of Louis Lawrence, taking the name apparently of Lawrence’s common law wife instead, who also seems to have been related to the stonemason Bourrel that constructed a tomb in 1903. Remember this 1903 tomb was not the Pontils above ground construction but a grave like seen in the second tomb photo. But this version of the tomb’s history contradicts with that told to Lincoln by a previous owner of the land who said his Grandfather had told him there was always a tomb there. (At Pontils) Perhaps it was the same man Bruce and I met more recently and perhaps also the same man or his family mentioned in an article about the Knights Templar by David Ellsworth, citing a testimony given to him by some local peasants about the history of the tomb, that also confirms what we and Lincoln were told, that there was always a tomb placed at this location. But Ellsworth goes one step further mentioning a record dating from 1709 that has a tomb located in Pontils. Unfortunately he gives no references for this record so it cannot be verified.
There is also a rumour in the area that the 1933 Pontils tomb was a copy of one that previously stood there some time earlier and which was destroyed by a man called Colbert in his overzealous search for old mine entrances in the area.
So was the tomb built on an earlier ancient tomb mimicking one that had been there previously but had fell to ruin, or was 1933 the very first time a tomb was constructed on the site?
It is probable that there has been a tradition of building or using an existing tomb on the site, perhaps even dating back to Poussin’s time and before.
Disbelievers in the Pontils tomb appearing in the Poussin painting often quote part of Louis Fédié’s article he wrote in 1878 about his visit to Peyrolles to look at a menhir located there, which is thought to be the oldest man-made structure in the area. The article appeared in the publication: Étude Historique sur le des Haut-Razès, in Mémoires de la Société des Arts et des Sciences de Carcassonne, Vol. 4 pp. 42-92 and the bit the disbelievers use as their evidence is that he failed to mention the existence of any tomb at Pontils.
So because someone visits the area and writes an article about his visit, which seems to have been specifically to see this old bit of erected stone, fails to mention they saw a tomb, it didn’t exist. Is that evidence? I don’t think so.
How many people visited the area when we know the tomb was there and didn’t mention it, thousands I would think?
But it existed, they just didn’t think it worthy of a mention, and it is quite easy to miss if you are not looking for it. In 1878 it may have been a ruin, nothing more than a heap of rubble and unrecognizable as a tomb. But since no official records exist to prove or disprove when the tomb was built, or how many succession’s of tombs have been constructed on the site, we are left with contradictory testimony, so as I said before, I think it boils down to who or what you want to believe, which is fine by me.
