The reconstruction of the parish church of Notre Dame, which started in 1895, led to the discovery of numerous ancient stone blocks and some Merovingian sarcophagi in the foundation trenches.

The recovered elements suggest a monument about nine meters high, probably built in the early 3rd century in honor of the emperor through allegorical representations.

The pillar is likely part of a complex of monuments and cult buildings that also includes at least one temple, possibly dedicated to Minerva, as evidenced by a epigraphy, and an altar, all belonging to a still unidentified secondary settlement.

The site's religious function continued into the Early Middle Ages with the construction of a Merovingian church that reused elements of the ancient monuments in its foundations.

Father Camille de La Croix, the discoverer of the ruins, conducted excavations from February 10 to 22, 1896, along the southern wall and the facade of the old nave.

[Note 2] However, Father de La Croix took approximately one hundred photos of the blocks once extracted, which are currently held in the departmental archives of Vienne.

[TM 3][A 2] A controversy arose between Bosseboeuf and La Croix regarding their respective roles in the discovery and interpretation of the blocks, which were associated with several buildings, including a monumental pillar, a fanum-type temple with a polygonal cella,[Note 3] and an altar associated with one of the former.

From 1970 to 1972, the remains attributed to the pillar were meticulously studied by archaeologist Jean-Pierre Adam, coinciding with the establishment of a local museum of ancient archaeology, founded in 1972 at the initiative of Gilbert Charles-Picard, with the intention of housing and showcasing them.

[TM 8] In addition, the museum's layout was revised to correct the block assembly errors, improve the presentation of the remains, and enhance visitor information.

[26][9] Émile Espérandieu correctly identifies a pillar, but in 1912, in the Revue archéologique and on a suggestion by Franz Cumont,[27] proposes a reconstruction that is not considered very credible by Henry Auvray in the 1930s.

[28] Adam's reconstruction, proposed in 1972, is more aligned with the available evidence and suggests that the column, estimated to be nine meters high, consists of a bare base, three tiers of sculpted blocks with successive setbacks, and is topped by a now-missing monumental statue.

[TM 10] The rock used, homogeneous from one block to the next, is a locally extracted Rauracian [fr] (Upper Jurassic) oolitic limestone of such hardness that some inclusions (fossils, flint nodules) remained in place, in relief, within the sculptures.

[A 5] The relatively poor quality of the base material needed to apply a lime wash to the monument's faces for leveling purposes.

[32] The proposed reconstruction by Jean-Pierre Adam depicts a base comprising four layers of non-sculpted blocks, constructed with successive setbacks in a square plan and reaching a total height of about 1.70 meters.

[T 9] The relief of the sculptures is more pronounced than on the lower tier, which may be intended to facilitate the reading of the motifs, given that they are at a higher level and farther from the observer's eye.

[36] The general architecture of the pillar (tiers with successive setbacks up to the top) suggests that the summit statue was a major element of the monument.

Alternatively, the god could be depicted in another posture, such as standing or on horseback, engaged in combat, accompanied by a prisoner or an Anguipede, as proposed by Gilbert Charles-Picard.

[T 12] In 1912, Émile Espérandieu proposed that his reconstruction of the Yzeures column be topped by a statue of Jupiter on horseback defeating the Anguipede, symbolizing the emperor's victory over Rome's enemies.

[41] The theme, the style of the sculptures, with notable Oriental influences in the representation of characters on the first two tiers,[T 5] and the monument size collectively suggest a dating to the early 3rd century.

This element, which serves as a terminus post quem, is not an indicator of precise dating, as the coins found likely continued to circulate long after Domitian's death.

[44] The dedication to Minerva, likely not linked to the pillar, is dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and exhibits technical similarities (same type of rock, painted decoration[TM 11]).

[45] However, its function appears to be different since its decoration represents only gods or mythological heroes, in contrast to the sites at Glanum or Igel, where some sculptures depict secular scenes or representations of the deceased.

[A 10][17] The decorative elements allow the restored monument to be interpreted as a votive column to Jupiter, which would be a symbolic homage to the emperor through the allegories depicted in the scenes and characters.

[17][21] One of the functions of this pillar is likely to remind the conquered peoples of the imperial role and power,[A 10] inscribed in permanence as suggested by the evocations of the Dioscuri and the swan of Leda, symbols of eternity.

[T 12] Combining sacred and profane symbolism, the pillar is most probably part of the monumental adornment of an important ancient cult center, which also included at least one temple and an altar.

[3] The continued religious function of the site after the fall of the Roman Empire, evidenced by the reuse of monument remnants, attests to its importance.

The use of the blocks served a dual purpose: providing solid construction material and, by burying them in the foundations, removing them from view to make people forget the cult they represented.

[53][54] The hypothesis of a secondary settlement linked to this cult center is highly plausible,[55] despite the lack of formal confirmation based on the available evidence.