The Marseille Columns of Vence

Updated, expanded and revised on October 28, 2025.

For over one hundred years, from sometime in the 2nd century BCE to 14BCE, the Romans waged a series of battles designed to clear the southeast region of France from the indigenous tribes who had occupied the land for centuries. In the end they were successful and over forty tribes were almost completely wiped out. For the next five hundred years Vence was a Roman city known as Vintium. Today approximately fifty relics from this Roman period remain in Vence.

Two of the most famous and beloved Roman artifacts in Vence are two granite columns commonly known as the Marseille columns. They date from the 3rd century, right around 212CE to be exact. These columns have a long and fascinating history and over the years there has been much debate about their origins. Numerous historians and authors have put forth a variety of theories about just where these columns came from, what they were used for and what the inscriptions found on them mean. For many years they were thought to be gifts from the city of Marseille to the city of Vence, a theory that has lost some of its support over time. Some authors have even speculated that there was originally a third column which is now missing.

What little we do know for certain about the columns comes from the inscriptions carved at the top of each one. Taken individually, the text on each of the two columns makes no sense. The inscriptions continue on each line from the left column to the right, so to read them accurately you must have the two columns placed side by side. It is here that the inhabitants of Marseille (hence the name of the columns) are expressly mentioned, but scholars and epigraphists can’t seem to agree on exactly what these inscriptions mean. There also seem to be two columns of text missing from the left column which further complicates things.

Today one of the columns (the left column) is located in Place du Grand Jardin, the large public square near the center of town, and the other (the right column) in Place Godeau, a small public square in the old town (once the town cemetery) behind the Vence Cathedral. As famous and revered as these columns are they are very easy to miss if you are not familiar with them. I’ve met several people who have lived in Vence for quite some time who had no idea they even existed, let alone the mysteries and questions surrounding them. They play an important and unique part in the history of Vence so the next time you are in Vence be sure to seek them out and have a look for yourself.

You can read a more in-depth account of the Roman artifacts in Vence in this article: Uncovering Vence’s Roman Legacy: Exploring the Roman Artifacts of Vintium.

Part of a Temple? Boundary Markers? Milestones?

Some historians believe these two columns were part of an old Roman temple dedicated to the god Mars which may have once stood where the current Vence Cathedral is now located. Others think perhaps they were part of a triumphal arch which once stood near Castellane and separated the territories of Marseille and Vence. Or, maybe they were simply milestones along the road. The truth is we don’t really know.

In 1696, a Marseille historian by the name of Antoine de Ruffi, wrote about the columns. He suggested that the president of the Alpes-Maritimes had commissioned the columns as a tribute to the Marseillais, or alternatively, that the Marseillais themselves had erected them as a gesture of gratitude for some favor they had received from him. Ruffi believed they had probably taken the stone for the columns from a quarry somewhere along the portion of the coast which was under their control.

Eugène Tisserand, a well-known historian of Vence from the mid-1800s, was the first to suggest that the columns came from an ancient Roman temple dedicated to the god Mars. In 1860 he wrote in his History of Vence, “Vence built a temple in the center of its walls dedicated to Mars and Cybele, to which Augustus assigned certain fixed revenues.” In an article intended for the Scientific Congress of Nice in 1866 titled “Mémoire sur les Angiquités de Vence” he linked the columns to this temple.

The notion that Vence once had a Roman temple dedicated to Mars was not a new one. The problem is there is little to no actual evidence that such a temple existed. The idea most likely stems from a small surviving altar inscribed with the words Marti Vintio: “to Mars of Vence.” If this altar did indeed come from a Roman temple, then the use of the phrase “Mars of Vence” would suggest that the god possessed a prominent and well-known sanctuary in the city. Similar to “Apollo of Delphi” or “Artemis of Ephesus.”

Jules René Bourguignat, a well respected French naturalist and malacologist who wrote a book on the Roman artifacts which have survived in Vence, Inscriptions Romaines de Vence (1869), believed that because the columns are so perfectly carved and polished they must have been some type of votive columns, probably used to adorn and embellish such a temple.

In 1943, a Italian archaeologist and epigrapher (a specialist who studies and interprets ancient inscriptions) by the name of Nino Lamboglia, agreed strongly with Bourguignat. His article, Questions de topographie antique dans les Alpes-Maritimes: Les deux colonnes dédicatoires de Vence (Questions of Ancient Topography in the Alpes-Maritimes: The Two Dedicatory Columns of Vence), was published in the Journal Rivista di Studi Liguri. He noted how surprised he was when he first saw the columns he had heard and read so much about. He was expecting to find rough stones, similar to the other Roman milestone and boundary markers which have survived over the centuries. Instead, he found beautifully smooth and polished columns. They were simply too large, too carefully crafted and clearly too important to be either milestones or boundary markers. Besides, he pointed out, the inscriptions at the top were too high to be read easily by someone traveling by.

Lamboglia theorized further that the building from which these columns originated must certainly have been a temple and that they formed the portico (covered porch or colonnaded entrance) or pronaos (interior vestibule or porch area in front of the sanctuary). The big question for Lamboglia was why the Greek city of Marseille and the Roman provice of the Alpes-Maritimes would both be involved with these columns found in a small Roman city. He concluded they must be considered evidence of some type of religious bond linking the two. He proposed that possibly the missing lines on the left column might say “ex voto” which could then be read as “in fulfillment of a vow of the Marseillais.”

In his small book Vence – Ses Monuments – Ses Saints – Ses Évêques – Ses Curés – Son Église – Son Trésor – Ses Reliques – Ses Chapelles the Vence historian Jacques Daurelle says, “Based on this inscription, the temple of Mars in Vence must have been renowned throughout Provence, as the people of Marseilles sent it votive columns, likely in memory of some victory achieved by them.”

In 1882, Otto Hirschfeld, a German historian and epigrapher specializing in Latin inscriptions, joined Bourguignat, Lamboglia, Joseph-Henri Allmer and others, in proclaiming that the columns were part of a temple. However, writing in Volume 12 of the Corpus des inscriptions latines (Corpus of Latin Inscriptions) of the Berlin Academy (C.I.L.), he also noted that Théodore Mommsen, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1902, had written just the opposite, suggesting that they were boundary markers: “I would rather believe that the two columns were placed side by side (juxta-positae) on the frontier (in confino) of the territory of the Vintienses and the Massilienses (the people of Vence and the people of Marseille), so that on one, one would read the name of the former, and on the other the name of the latter.”

Other scholars do not agree that the columns came from a temple. Aubin-Louis Millin, a French antiquarian, librarian, naturalist, member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, and “Grandmaison of France,” wrote a series of books in the early 1800s documenting his travels through southern France titled Voyage dans les départments du Midi de la France (Journey Through The Departments of Southern France). Millin’s theory about the columns is quite different from Bourguignat’s and Daurelle’s. According to Millin the columns were territorial markers used to mark the edge of the territories of Marseille and Vence.

The Origins of the Columns and What They Mean

For more than a thousand years these two columns stood side by side. It is only in relatively recent years that they have been separated, probably sometime around 1767. For many years, probably centuries, they stood together inside the Vence Cathedral supporting the vaulting of the choir. When the cathedral was renovated and the sanctuary was enlarged the columns were removed and temporarily abandoned.

The first mention of the columns can be found in a book by Raymond de Soliers entitled Antiquités de Provence which dates from around 1575. Soliers noted that the inscriptions on the columns were damaged and added, in Latin, “Moreover, two columns in the church of Vence, set a few steps apart from one another, whose inscriptions makes no sense if each column is read on its own.” Soliers was apparently the first to realize that the columns must be read one next to the other.

In 1620 Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, a Provençal magistrate and humanist scholar, also writing in Latin, recounts the inscriptions on the columns and says that, “the two columns support the sacred vault of the sanctuary in front of the altar.”

In 1657 Jean-Baptiste Guesnay, a Jesuit historian and antiquarian, wrote about the columns in the Annales de la Provence marseillaise. He provides the earliest printed notice of the inscriptions. Probably not understanding that two lines were missing from the left column and that the lines must be read left to right from one column to the next, Guesnay did not understand what the inscriptions meant. He blamed the stonecutter. “The letters,” he wrote in Latin, “are elongated, badly proportioned, the mason neglected the meaning of the words and jumbled the order of the lines to such an extent that it is almost unintelligible.”

Over the years several historians have speculated that there were originally three columns. In his book, Choreography or Description of Provence of 1664, Honoré Bouche was the first to suggest that indeed one of the original columns had been lost. He even went so far as to suggest that a third column contained the missing words that would complete the inscription.

Historian, archaeologist, and epigrapher Joseph-Henri Allmer, even asserted there must have originally been four (!) columns and that they were part of a portico belonging to a temple with a pediment that would have carried a lengthy inscription.

Tisserand repeated this claim in Histoire de Vence. He suggested that the third column was buried beneath Place Clemenceau which would explain why no one has ever seen it. However, there is no physical evidence to support these claims of missing columns and most scholars have dismissed them.

What The Columns Tell Us

The column in Place du Grand Jardin contains contains three lines of Latin text near the top (compared to the Place Godeau column which contains five) and over the years various scholars have speculated that perhaps a portion of this column was cut off at some point, thus removing the other two lines of text. The three lines of Latin text at the top of the column in the Grand Jardin read as follows:

CVRANTE AC
JVL. HONORATO
PP. PRAESID. ALP.

The five lines of text at the top of the column in Place Godeau read:

MASSILIEN
SIVM
DEDICANTE
PROC. AVG. EX
MARITIMARVM.

Taken together, with several abbreviations expanded, this would read as: …Massiliensivm, cvrante ac dedicante Jvl(io) Honorato, proc(uratore) Avg(usti), ex p(rimi) p(ilo), praesid(e) Alp(ivm) Maritimarvm. It would translate into English as: … of the Marseillais, under the supervision and dedication of Julius Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, former primipile, president of the Alpes-Maritimes.

In an article in the Memoirs of the Institute of Prehistory and Archaelogoy of the Alpes-Maritimes from 1994 Oswald Baudot writes, “This reading does not present any real difficulty. The letters are quite legible. The titles of imperial procurator and president are not unfamiliar to us. All the emperors since Augustus bear the title of Augustus. Only the title of former PP. caused some hesitation, since a primipile was the highest-ranking centurion in a cohort, we might say the highest-ranking battalion commander in a regiment. Julius Honoratus is therefore the most important official in the province of the Alpes-Maritimes, created by Augustus…”

What does present some difficulty, according to Baudot, is the interpretation of “Massiliensivm,” which appears here as a plural genitive, the possessive form of a plural noun. The Massilienses are the inhabitants of Marseille, but why they are mentioned in this inscription is a mystery. Baudout attributes this to the fact that the first two lines of the inscription on the left column are missing. He also notes that Bouche was the first in a series of epigraphists who would attempt to fill in the two missing lines on the first column. Bouche suggested that if the word “popvlo” was added to the first column, together with “massiliensivm” it would then read “by the people of Mareseille.”

Bourguignat believes that both columns are missing a first line which he says should be MARTI VINTIO and that the Grand Jardin column is also missing a second line, RESPVBLICA. In his book Vence – parcourue pour vous… noted Vence historian and author Daniel Petite surmises that when the columns were used in the Vence cathedral the top lines were removed, “Probably because it evoked a pagan god, incompatible with a Christian sanctuary.” If these missing lines are restored and the columns are placed side by side they would read as follows:

MARTI………………………VINTIO
RESPVBLICA…………….MASSILIEN
SIVM
CVRANTE AC……………DEDICANTE
JVL. HONORATO………..PROC. AVG. EX
PP. PRAESID. ALP………MARITIMARVM.

Taken together the text from both columns, translated by Bourguignat, reads as:

“To the god Mars of Vence; the republic of the Marseillais, through the efforts of Julius Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, former primus pilus, governor of the Alpes-Maritimes.”

Bourguignat claims adamantly that, “There can be no doubt about this interpretation.” Another historian, Emdond Blanc, points out that it would not make sense to add another line above the five lines already contained on the right column. He contends that those five lines constitute the entire right portion of the inscription.

Millin believed the missing lines should be restored as follows:

FINIS AGRI………………..MASSILIENSIVM
CVRANTE AC……………DEDICANTE
IVL. HONORATO………..PROC. AVG. EX
PP. PRAESID. ALP………MARITIMARVM.

This changes the meaning of the inscription considerably, resulting in the following: “Boundary of the territory of the Marseillais, through the efforts of Julius Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, one of the officials responsible for the defense of the Alpes-Maritimes.”

Bourguignat is once again adamant in his response saying, “This interpretation is unacceptable.” He does have quite a bit of reasoning to back up this assertions. Columns used to simply mark the boundary of Roman territories were always simple stones with minimal care taken in their construction. They were never perfectly rounded and polished as the Marseille columns are.

Additionally, the fact that these columns are made from porphyroid granite indicates they were not made anywhere near Vence as this type of stone is not local to the area. Hence, they must have been transported from a distance. Transporting simple boundary stones would have been seen as an extravagant and unnecessary cost that the Romans would never have considered. Boundary stones would have been quarried, cut and marked as close as possible to the place where they were intended to be used.

Bourguignat goes on to point out that territorial boundary markers were always singular, the Romans never placed two of them together. We have two of the Marseille columns and the text on each clearly indicates that they were meant to be placed side by side.

Bourguignat also notes that the columns contain the word “dedicante” which has a religious conotation and implies a dedication to a god. This would not have been present on as simple territorial boundary marker. He writes, “The word dedicante implies on the part of Julius Honoratus a dedicatory act to a local divinity.”

Charles Robert, a French historian, philologist, and epigrapher, and member of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, undermined this assertion by Bourguignat that the Roman verb “dedicare” was used only in a religious sense and thus implied a connection to a temple. A few years later, in 1877 he argued, using other inscriptions as examples, that “dedicare” was indeed often used to mean “to inaugrate” and was found on many secular monuments such as post stations and bath houses.

Ernst von Herzog, a German scholar specializing in the study of ancient Rome, particularly the study of inscriptions, proposed a new reconstruction of the inscription and the apparently missing text. In his book Galliae Narbonensis provinciae romanae historia (published in 1864) he suggested that it could have been originally written like this (this missing letters in bold):

Respublica massiliensivm et nicaensivm

Translated this would read: the republic of Marseillais and of the Niçois. Baudot dismisses this theory pointing out that in the 3rd centry A.D., it would be redundant to refer to Nice in this manner, as Nice was goverened by and under the domination of Marseille.

In an article on the Territory of the Province of the Alpes Maritimæ during Roman Antiquity, Stéphane Morabito talks about the columns: “The text engraved on the two columns preserved today in the town center of Vence, mentioning the Massilinenses and, perhaps, the Vintienses, is too imprecise for any reliable information to be drawn as to the administrative geography of this sector. These columns could have been placed in a monument located at the edge of a communication route, perhaps via Julia Augusta, at the passage of a territorial limit between Vintium and the nearest Marseille territory, namely Nikaia. The realization of this inscription under Caracalla by Julius Honoratus, procurator of the Alpes Maritimae also project manager of the repair of the way connecting the coast to Dinia, supposes the elevation of these columns and of the monument which included them during these works, road network, the use of a formula present on the mileage going in this direction. However, the mutilation of the text makes it impossible to define the theme of this inscription and to ensure its link with any territorial limit.” 

In his article, “Les Colonnes ‘Marseillaises’ de Vence,” Baudot proposes a theory that combines the two others: what if these columns were part of some type of roadside monument or triumphal arch? Perhaps situated at the entrance to a bridge or to the city of Vence.

He bases this hyposthesis on three premises: 1. Other surviving mile markers state that Julius Honoratus (the man mentioned on the Vence columns) was responsible for repairing the Roman road that linked Vence to Castellane and Digne in the year 213; 2. If the columns did indeed belong to some type of triumphal arch, it makes perfect sense why there are two columns with an inscription that spans them both: one for each side of the road; and 3. since the lines must be read from the left column to the right, one line at a time, it doesn’t really make sense that previous scholars have combined the first two lines on the right column (MASSILIEN and SIVM) in one word. Why would those two lines be read from top to bottom when everything else is read left to right? Baudot proposes this reading for the first two lines:

CONFINES MASSILIEN-
SIVM ET VINTIEN- SIVM.

This translates to: “Boundaries of the territory of the Marseillais and the Vençois.”

Of course, this is just another theory. And while it does make a lot of sense and does provide an intriguing solution to the problem, we will almost certainly never know for certain what these two columns were originally used for.

Finally Bourguignat takes issue with how the words EX. P. P. PRAESID are interrupted by Milin (and others) to actually be EX PRAEPOSITIS PRAESIDIO. In the first instance they mean “one who has been appointed” while in the second instance they mean “one of those appointed.” It’s a very subtle, but important, difference. Bourguignat claims that it makes much more sense to interpret this as “Julius Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, former primus pilus, governor of the Alpes-Maritimes” and NOT “Julius Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, one of the officials responsible for the defense of the Alpes-Maritimes.” A primus pilus was the hightest-ranking centurion in a Roman legion and Bourguignat feels that this former role of Julius Honoratus is mentioned as an honor.

The Column of Place du Grand Jardin – The Left Column

This column is the most visible and well known, as its placement in the Grand Jardin means it is more likely to be seen by visitors and tourists. After it was removed from the Cathedral in the late 1700s it was moved to Place la Poissonnerie (now Place Surian), a small square located very close to the Cathedral.

In 1808 Millin noted in his third volume of Voyage dans les départments du Midi de la France that while the Place Godeau column stood proudly where it remains today, the Grand Jardin column was found half buried in the courtyard of the City Hall. Millin had it uncovered. He translated the inscription as “Boundaries of the territory of the Marseillas, under the supervision of Julius Honoratus,” etc. He continued, “There were probably, at the point corresponding to the line where one reads Massiliensivm, the words finis agri or terminus agri, meaning ‘end’ or ‘limits of the territory of the Marseillais. They were boundary markers placed by the authority of the magistrate.” As Baudot notes, everyone writing about the columns for the next half century would echo this theory, that the columns were some type of boundary markers.

In 1836 a new Halle aux Poissons (Fish Market) was built at the corner of Place Clemenceau and rue Surian. The decision was made by the master mason, Jean Lambert, to use the abandoned column as a roof support for one of the corners (see the old postcard below). In the mid-1920s the Fish Market was expanded into a larger, more general covered market. For many years it served in this capacity until one night in 1927 when the roof of the market collapsed. Luckily no one was hurt and the building was repaired almost immediately. The column was, however, moved to the Municipal Halls around this time.

In 1970 and 1971 additional repair and renovations were carried out on the marketplace, including adding a door onto Place Surian and three steps to make access easier. It was also decided that the front of the building would be demolished and new entrance pillars would be constructed of stone from local quarries.

Donald Culross Peattie, was an American author, botanist and naturalist who lived in Vence with his wife and children for several years at the end of the 1920s. In his book Immortal Village, the only English language book written about Vence to date, he refers to only the column in Place Godeau. There is no mention whatsoever of the Grand Jardin column further confirming that it was indeed nowhere for the public to see at this time.

During the 1960s the city of Vence embarked upon a project to revitalize the Grand Jardin, overseen by Mr. H. Teissère, an architect and municipal councilor. Flower boxes were installed, paid automobile parking was instituted and the small fountain from Place Antony Mars was moved to the Grand Jardin.

It was sometime around this time that the column was moved to the Grand Jardin, though the exact date is unknown. In photos and on postcards from the mid-1970s (see the postcard above) it is possible to see the completed work of the Grand Jardin and that the fountain has been moved. However, there is no column behind it. It is only in photos from a few years later that we now see the column in its current place.

When the column was moved the original pedestal was replaced with a new (and some say, less elegant) pedestal, a large rectangular stone from the Sine quarry. A Latin inscription was engraved on the new pedestal which is intended to correspond to the one inscribed on the barrels of the columns.

Engraved on the base of the new pedestal is the following:

MARTI VINCIO
RP MASSILENSIVM
CVRANTE AC
DEDICANTE
IVL HONORATO
PROC AVG VOV

It can be translated from the Latin as:

“The city of Marseille dedicated [this column] to Mars Vincius. Jules Honoratus, procurator of Augustus, took care of it and made the dedication.”

The Column of Place Godeau – The Right Column

The second column now resides in Place Godeau, which was at one time called la Place du Vieux Cimetière, as the old Vence cemetery was once located here. In 1768, King Louis XV decreed that all cemeteries situated within towns or walled cities were to be relocated beyond their walls. It is said that even after the cemetery was moved, some bones remained. They were gathered together in one place and it is there that one of the columns was erected. An iron cross (The Sign of Salvation) sits on top of the column, installed sometime after it was moved to this location. At the foot of the column there is a small fountain, introduced around the same time.

When the column was moved a new pedestal was installed which has inscriptions on two of the four sides. Engraved on one side is:

HIC OLIM
ET SVPERSVNT
CINERES PATRUM
M DCC LXXX

Translated it says, “Here once were, and still remain, the ashes of our forefathers. 1780”

On the opposite side of the pedestal we find the following 13 lines of text. The stone has degraded significantly over time and the text is difficult to read, but scholars agree on the following:

TRANSLAT. HINC ET TOTA
HUJCE AREÆ AMPLITUD.
MAJORU CINERIB A M D CC
LXXIV NO OIB T N PRÆ NI
MIO COGESTU HANC
MASSILIÆ CONDITO
COLUMNA DONO UT PARE
ALTERA ADHUC EXTANTE
DEFIC. III NERUSIIS NOSTRIS
TRANSMISSAM SIGNO NUNC
SALUTIS CONSECRATAM
EREXIT ORDO MUNICIPII
VINTIENSIU A MDCC L XXX

“The complete ashes of our fathers were exhumed and transferred from here to the cemetery in the year 1774, after collecting them, not all, but many of them. In this year 1780, the citizens’ council of Vence erected this column, consecrated by the sign of salvation, offered by the founders of Marseille to our Nérusiens, while we keep a second column here and that the third is missing.” 

It is here that the theory of a third column comes into play. The writing on this pedestal reflects the opinion of Honoré Bouche who first proposed the idea in 1664. Eugène Tisserand would echo it his History of Vence published in 1860. It is important to note that there is no actual evidence to support this theory and it appears to be simply wishful thinking.

A Comparison of the Two Columns

The total height of the Grand Jardin column is 463cm from the base to the top (just over 15 feet). The height of the actual column itself is 302cm (just under 10 feet). The circumference is 148cm (just under 5 feet) with the average diameter being 47cm (about 1 1/2 feet). The top of the column is inserted into a small, square, Roman style capital (19.6cm tall) making it impossible to know the true height of the column itself. There is some speculation that perhaps more text is hidden under this capital (which would explain why this column has only three lines of text compared to the other which has five).

The total height of the Place Godeau column is 419cm from the base to the top (almost 14 feet). The height of the actual column itself is 298cm (just under 10 feet). The circumference is 142cm (just under 5 feet) with the average diameter being 45cm (about 1 1/2 feet).

Between the two columns there is a difference in height of only 4cm. The top of the Godeau column features two rounded convex moldings separated by a narrow groove. This indicates to many scholars that the column is “complete.” This molding does not appear on the column in the Grand Jardin, which fuels the speculation that either the column was cut at some point or that possibly the capital which currently tops it is covering it up.

Baudot notes that although both columns are almost identical in height, the left column appears shorter than the right at the top and longer at the bottom (based on the placement of the inscriptions). He speculates that the left column was cut at the top which would explain the two missing lines of the inscription. He goes on to suggest that the fact that the space between the bottom of the letters in the last line and the base of the right column is 2.3 meters, and that the same distance on the left column is 2.6 meters indicates that the right column was cut or broken at the bottom. Perhaps one column was accidentally broken and the other cut so that they would match in size, something that would have been absolutely necessary when they were placed inside the Cathedral to support the sanctuary vault.

The space between the top of the column in the Grand Jardin and the first row of text measures 13cm. Each of the letters measure 6cm in height and the space between the lines varies from 3cm to 5cm.

The space between the top of the column in Place Godeau and the first row of text is also 13cm. The height of the letters differ a bit on each line from 7cm at the top line, to 6.6cm on the second line, to 6cm on the remaining lines. The space between the lines varies from 3cm to 10cm.

Where Does the Stone Used for the Columns Come From?

There is also some controversy as to the materials which these two columns are made from. Most historians and scholars agree that both columns are formed from a block of porphyritic granite (a type of granite with a mix of large and small crystals). They do not agree on the origins of these materials. Some early writers thought that the stone was a Egyptian syenite, a granite prized by the Egyptians for its hardness and fine polish, and used in temples, obelisks, and statues throughout Egypt. Others theorized it was porphyritic granite from one of the quarries in the Estérel (in the Var department, not far from Vence to the west). It is indeed known that a Roman quarry existed near Boulouris which produced stone with a blue gray color, speckled with white, exactly the same as the two Vence columns.

However, modern research has revealed that they were most likely brought from a more distant destination. This is possible because each type of granite has a unique mineral composition, and comparative samples still exist from the quarries used in antiquity. Still, even with this modern technology we have differing views.

The Italian writer Cinzia Vismara, writing in Vence à l’époque romaine (Vence in the Roman Era), stated that the two columns do not come from the same source, proposing that the one from the Grand Jardin originated in Asia Minor while the one from the Place Godeau came from the island of Elba. Why two columns that were clearly meant to be used together would have been made from different types of stone is a question she doesn’t address.

M.R. Mazeran, a geologist specializing in ancient stone materials, wrote in a 1990 in an article titled “Caractérisation et origine des matériaux naturels de construction et d’ornementation utilisés dans les réalisations architecturales des Alpes-Maritimes” (Characterization and origin of the natural building and decorative materials used in the architectural works of the Alpes-Maritimes) in the Mémoires de l’Institut de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie des Alpes-Maritimes, vol. XXXII, that the two columns come from Balagne in Corsica.

Much of the research and information for this article was found in Les Colonnes Marseillaises de Vence by Jean-Louis Boutin, a hardback book published privately in 2014 that is now impossible to find. The only copy I’ve ever seen is in the Vence Public Library. I also relied heavily on an article titled “Les Colonnes ‘Marseillaises’ de Vence” by Oswald Baudot, published in 1994 in Mémories de l’Institut de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie des Alpes-Maritimes, Tome XXXVI.

Access

The first column is located in La Place du Grand Jardin in the heart of the city center. It may not look much like a garden now, but centuries ago the famous gardens of the Barons of Villeneuve (the Lords of Vence) were located here.

The second column is located in La Place Godeau, deep inside the Vence old town. The quickest way to reach it is via the Porte d’Orient on the west side of the walls.

Vence can easily be reached from just about anywhere in France by taking the A8 until you get to Cagnes-sur-Mer. If you are coming from the east get off on Exit 48 and if you are coming from the west you’ll want Exit 47. Take the M336, then the M36 and finally the M236 north into Vence. The most accessible parking is in the Parking du Grand Jardin, right next to the old town. Parking Toreille and Marie Antoinette Parkingare both close by as well.

There are two buses which run from Nice to Vence: #9 and #655. Just be careful with the #9, it can be a bit confusing because it has two routes leaving from the Park Phoenix in Nice. One route stops at the Polygon Riviera mall which is still about 8kms from Vence. Look at the route displayed on the front of the bus at the top. It should say “L’Ara” which is the last bus stop in Vence. All the #9 buses returning to Nice from Vence go all the way to Park Phoenix.

There is no train service directly to Vence. You can take the train to Cagnes-sur-Mer and then take either the #9 or #655 bus from Cagnes-sur-Mer to Vence.

The Vence Office de Tourisme is just across the street from the Grand Jardin. The old town, its ramparts and the portes are just a very short walk from any of the above parking lots. While you can visit the old town at any time, on any day of the year, I would suggest that you try to come on any day but Sunday or Monday so that you might enjoy some of the shops and boutiques that will otherwise be closed.