DOI Artikel:
Suchodolski, Stanisław: Beware, the fraud!: On alleged finds of deniers with the legend GNEZDVN CIVITAS and other coins from the reign of Bolesław the brave
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.21230#0305
are dealing with one and the same specimen. If this is indeed the case,
one of two possibilities will have to be accepted: Bochenek either had
the coin before Krasicki did, or after. The first alternative was advocated
in 1974 by Tadeusz Kałkowski.' It is not elear on what basis he assumed
that Bochenek sold his collection in Germany in the first half of the 19th
century. There, in Wolfenbuttel, the coin in ąuestion is supposed to have
been extracted from this collection by Krasicki, who in turn sold it to
Skórzewski. There are two arguments against this solution: first, Kóhne
stated in 1862 that the owner of the coin was Bochenek; secondly, ac-
cording to information provided by this same author it came from the
Rychnowo hoard. Since this latter was not discovered until 1854, the
coin could not have made its way across the border before that date. In
order to salvage Kałkowski's conception, one would have to assume that
Bochenek acąuired a Gnezdun cwitas denier in 1854 or 1855 and almost
immediately exported it to Germany, sińce before March of 1857 (ac-
cording to Stronczyński, ca. 1852) it had been purchased there by Kra-
sicki. Vossberg's information may have ah eady been out of date in 1862
when Kóhne published it, unaware of its obsolescence.
The second possibility is that Bochenek purchased this valuable ex-
hibit from Krasicki prior to 1862, and then sold it to Skórzewski.
As can be seen, both variants are plausible, even though there are
counter-arguments to both. The basie objection to the first variant is the
short period of time within which the two transactions are thought to
have taken place; the second variant runs up against the lack of informa-
tion about Bochenek's mediation in transferring the specimen from
Krasicki to Skórzewski. These are not, however, definitive objections. Some
resolution may be derived from an analysis of the documentation sur-
rounding this coin. As mentioned earlier, Vossberg knew that Bochenek's
specimen came from Rychnowo. Krasicki, on the other hand, had no
such information. To be sure, he had been informed of the find be-
tween Toruń and Bydgoszcz (Grudziądz), but this hoard was not identi-
fied with the Rychnowo hoard until Ryszard Kiersnowski did so in 1957.6
5 T. Kałkowski, Tysiąc lat monety polskiej, 2nd ed. (Cracow 1974), pp. 38 ff. It is unclear why this
author - contrary to Kóhne's report - denies that the coin came from Rychnowo. On the other
hand, he associates the denier CNP 46 with this ensemhle (and with Bochenek's collection).
6 Zakrzewski, op. cit. p. 1; T. and R. Kiersnowski, Wczesnośredniowieczne skarby srebrne
z Pomorza. Materiały (Warsaw-Wrocław 1959), pp. 92 f., no. 143 (= PSW II).
305
one of two possibilities will have to be accepted: Bochenek either had
the coin before Krasicki did, or after. The first alternative was advocated
in 1974 by Tadeusz Kałkowski.' It is not elear on what basis he assumed
that Bochenek sold his collection in Germany in the first half of the 19th
century. There, in Wolfenbuttel, the coin in ąuestion is supposed to have
been extracted from this collection by Krasicki, who in turn sold it to
Skórzewski. There are two arguments against this solution: first, Kóhne
stated in 1862 that the owner of the coin was Bochenek; secondly, ac-
cording to information provided by this same author it came from the
Rychnowo hoard. Since this latter was not discovered until 1854, the
coin could not have made its way across the border before that date. In
order to salvage Kałkowski's conception, one would have to assume that
Bochenek acąuired a Gnezdun cwitas denier in 1854 or 1855 and almost
immediately exported it to Germany, sińce before March of 1857 (ac-
cording to Stronczyński, ca. 1852) it had been purchased there by Kra-
sicki. Vossberg's information may have ah eady been out of date in 1862
when Kóhne published it, unaware of its obsolescence.
The second possibility is that Bochenek purchased this valuable ex-
hibit from Krasicki prior to 1862, and then sold it to Skórzewski.
As can be seen, both variants are plausible, even though there are
counter-arguments to both. The basie objection to the first variant is the
short period of time within which the two transactions are thought to
have taken place; the second variant runs up against the lack of informa-
tion about Bochenek's mediation in transferring the specimen from
Krasicki to Skórzewski. These are not, however, definitive objections. Some
resolution may be derived from an analysis of the documentation sur-
rounding this coin. As mentioned earlier, Vossberg knew that Bochenek's
specimen came from Rychnowo. Krasicki, on the other hand, had no
such information. To be sure, he had been informed of the find be-
tween Toruń and Bydgoszcz (Grudziądz), but this hoard was not identi-
fied with the Rychnowo hoard until Ryszard Kiersnowski did so in 1957.6
5 T. Kałkowski, Tysiąc lat monety polskiej, 2nd ed. (Cracow 1974), pp. 38 ff. It is unclear why this
author - contrary to Kóhne's report - denies that the coin came from Rychnowo. On the other
hand, he associates the denier CNP 46 with this ensemhle (and with Bochenek's collection).
6 Zakrzewski, op. cit. p. 1; T. and R. Kiersnowski, Wczesnośredniowieczne skarby srebrne
z Pomorza. Materiały (Warsaw-Wrocław 1959), pp. 92 f., no. 143 (= PSW II).
305