Potaissa Sphinx statue

The Potaissa Sphinx is a remarkable bronze statue from the 3rd century, originating in Potaissa, a settlement within the former Roman province of Dacia. This sculpture exhibits striking similarities to the renowned Naxos Sphinx, a masterpiece from 560 BC now housed in the Delphi Archaeological Museum.

Discovery and History

The first depiction of the Potaissa Sphinx, along with the inscription found on it, in the February 6, 1847 issue of the Illustrirte Zeitung.

In February 1847, a German archaeological journal published the first detailed account of the Potaissa Sphinx. The article included a description of the statue, its inscription, and an accompanying drawing. According to contemporary reports, the statue was discovered during an excavation near Turda. The artifact, a bronze sphinx on a quadrangular pedestal, was reportedly found near the Roman settlement of Potaissa, which had served as a base for the Roman Legio V Macedonica.

The statue quickly drew the attention of both archaeologists and linguists. Following a thorough analysis, German archaeologists concluded that both the statue and its inscription were authentic. Despite their extensive efforts, the inscription could not be deciphered. In 1847, Hungarian professor János Érdy-Luczenbacher presented the statue to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, where it was examined by members of the academy, as well as Croatian, German, and Austrian scholars. However, the inscription on the statue remained undeciphered even during its academic exhibition and continued to elude interpretation for nearly 150 more years. The statue enjoyed significant renown, as an entire page was dedicated to it in the 1847 issue of the Hungarian Academic Bulletin.

The statue was initially added to the private collection of Count József Kemény, a prominent archaeologist and historian who had led the excavation. Kemény was well-regarded for his efforts to preserve Transylvania’s cultural and historical artifacts. Sadly, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848–1849, the statue was stolen along with many other treasures from Count József Kemény’s collection when his estate was ransacked. In a heartfelt letter to his friend Sándor Mike, Kemény lamented the loss of these invaluable artifacts, which had been carefully preserved as part of his life’s work. The lack of information about the statue's fate has fueled numerous theories, with some suggesting it was smuggled abroad and now resides in a private collection, while others believe it may have been melted down or irretrievably lost during the chaos. Despite later attempts to locate the statue, its fate remains a mystery, and it is presumed lost to history. Luckily a contemporary description of the statue by historian Johann Ferdinand Neigebaur, who examined it in 1847, provides detailed dimensions. Thanks to Neigebaur's accurate descriptions and drawings, the sculpture has remained available for study after its disappearance.

In 2003, the inscription was finally deciphered, revealing a text in Greek letters that encoded a Hungarian-language phrase, further bolstering the artifact’s historical significance.

Historical and Religious Context

The statue may have originally been part of a shrine dedicated to the goddess Isis, whose worship was widespread in the Roman Empire. If true, this connection would further underscore the cultural diversity of Potaissa and its significance as a crossroads of Roman and local traditions. The Potaissa Sphinx fits within a broader pattern of sphinx veneration in Pannonia, where similar votive altars dedicated to sphinxes have been discovered in Savaria and Aquincum, underscoring their integration into regional religious practices. The inclusion of a swastika a common solar symbol in ancient art on the Potaissa Sphinx underscores its role as a representation of solar and divine powers, resonating with the religious traditions of the Roman Empire.

Inscription

The mystery of the inscription on the Potaissa Sphinx remained unsolved for nearly 150 years, despite the efforts of several renowned 19th-century scholars. In 2003, the puzzle was finally solved by Dr. Péter Révész, a professor of informatics and honorary professor of classical philology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Through his research, Dr. Révész determined that the inscription is an archaic Hungarian text written in a unique form of the Greek alphabet.

This groundbreaking discovery established the statue as the oldest known written record of the Hungarian language. The inscription, written in an archaic verse form, was later confirmed as authentic by multiple experts and published in the journals such as the Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Arkeonew or Heritage Daily.

Dr. Révész’s findings also suggested that Hungarian-speaking groups may have been present in the region of Roman Dacia as early as the 3rd century CE, predating the traditional timeline of Hungarian settlement in the Carpathian Basin. This has spurred new discussions and research into the early history of the Hungarian language and its speakers.

After the decipherment however, some experts such us Mihai Vinereanu called the statue a fake.[citation needed]

Decipherment Process

Dr. Révész approached the inscription using a combination of linguistic analysis and computational techniques. Recognizing that the text employed a mirrored, right-to-left version of the archaic Greek alphabet, he reconstructed the sequence of letters to reveal a coherent pattern. By interpreting the phonetic values of the letters as representing Hungarian sounds, he identified the inscription as an archaic Hungarian verse. His analysis revealed the following text:

"Íme, imádd: itt híres oroszlán"

("Behold, worship: here lies the sacred lion.")

The inscription, written in a metrical poetic form, provided crucial evidence for the interpretation. This approach not only resolved a century-old puzzle but also confirmed the text as an archaic Hungarian language record, offering insights into early Hungarian culture and its connections to the Carpathian Basin during Roman times.

Authenticity

Arguments Against Authenticity

One of the few contemporary records of the statue was found in the archives of József Kemény, whose early career involved a document falsification scandal. This led to suspicions that the statue might have been fabricated. According to Mihai Vinereanu, the statue never physically existed, and the entire story was a 19th-century invention by Kemény.[citation needed]

Arguments For Authenticity

The strongest evidence for the statue's authenticity lies in its inscription, which uses forms of the Greek alphabet that were only identified nearly 50 years after the statue’s discovery. József Kemény could not have known about these forms, which rules out the possibility of him forging the artifact based on such details.

Roman-era sources also corroborate the existence of a sphinx statue. These texts mention a sphinx erected in an Isis temple in the settlement, aligning with the context of the artifact’s reported discovery.

The linguistic content of the inscription further supports its authenticity. The Hungarian text, written in Greek letters, contains only words that would have been plausible in the third century CE. It avoids any terms that were introduced into Hungarian later, which reflects a level of linguistic precision impossible for a 19th-century forger, especially given the undeveloped state of historical linguistics at the time.

A German archaeological newspaper published a detailed drawing of the statue and its inscription in 1847, predating many of the accusations of forgery. Furthermore, in a private letter, József Kemény reported that his mansion had indeed been looted during the revolution, providing an explanation for the artifact's disappearance.

Additionally, the statue was presented to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, where it was examined by a range of Austrian, Hungarian, Croatian, and German historians. This lends credibility to its physical existence during the 19th century.

Although Kemény had a questionable start to his career, having forged a document early on, his later works were authentic. He was a respected member of numerous scientific institutions, known for collecting, rather than fabricating, artifacts.

Conclusion

If József Kemény had forged the statue, he would have needed to demonstrate an understanding of Greek epigraphy decades ahead of contemporary archaeologists and discover linguistic patterns in Hungarian over half a century before these theories emerged. He would also have had to identify specific Roman records nearly a century in advance. Despite these extraordinary requirements, Kemény appeared uninterested in the sphinx, never deciphering its inscription or exploiting it for personal or scientific gain. These factors, combined with the broader evidence, make the forgery hypothesis highly improbable.

See also

• Sphinx of Naxos
• Sphinx
• Great Sphinx of Giza