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#0309
covery. We may quote the most important fragments: "In 1995 Lvov ar-
chaeologists discovered [emphasis added] yet another coin belonging to a rare and
extraordinarily valuable coin type struck by Bolesław the Brave (Fig. 1). It isfound
in the pńvate collection of a Lvov resident, J. Agafonov. According to him, the coin
was found by accident when the foundation was being dug under a building in the
village of Pidberizci in the Pustomyty region, in the oblast" of Lvov. This village
is located 15 km southeast of Lvov, on the right side of the Lvov—Tarnopol road. At
a distance of 1.5 km to the west of this village, near the forest, there is a settlement
front the Duchy period, occupying the southern and southwest slopes of the Pidluzhe
rangę. Here an inhabited dugout from the 12th and 13th centuries was discon-
ered... Without additional exploration and a precise analysis of the place where the
coin was discovered, it is difficult to state whether or not thefind is connected with
precisely this settlement" (p. 69).
The further text is unclear and hard to understand. One should ex-
pect a description of the new specimen. The reading of the text, how-
ever, and the references to the illustrations suggest that we are dealing
with the heretofore uniąue specimen from Cracow. Yet the metrologi-
cal data provided (diameter 1.8-1.9 cm, weight 1.8 g) do not corre-
spond to the data for the Cracow denier (1.8 cm and 1.67 g). One is
thus led to suppose that the data refer to the Lvov coin, as does in fact
the entire description.
Later this specimen is compared to the Cracow coin - which, inci-
dentally, is presented quite inaccurately. As previously pointed out, this
coin was not first published by Bernard Kóhne in 1863 and is not the
"second preserved specimen." It cannot be regarded as a distinctive fea-
ture that it has an "additional dot" between the letters B and O in the
name Boleslaus (marked in the sketches), sińce we are dealing with
a punch of Czapski's collection. Finally, the denier belongs to the Na-
tional Museum in Cracow, not to the Archeological Museum.
In the opinion of these authors, the "Lvov coin" is very similar to the
"Cracow coin" in terms of the images and the legends. The difference
consists in the fact that the "type of the 'Cracow' coin is more massive.
On the 'Lvov' coin one can see that the letters are indented and sim-
plified, which may indicate the later development of Latin writing"
(p. 73). This leads the authors to certain less than pellucid conclusions:
"Obviously the coins were struck using different dies. This enables us to
refine the traditional point of view, that coins with the legend Gnezdun
309
chaeologists discovered [emphasis added] yet another coin belonging to a rare and
extraordinarily valuable coin type struck by Bolesław the Brave (Fig. 1). It isfound
in the pńvate collection of a Lvov resident, J. Agafonov. According to him, the coin
was found by accident when the foundation was being dug under a building in the
village of Pidberizci in the Pustomyty region, in the oblast" of Lvov. This village
is located 15 km southeast of Lvov, on the right side of the Lvov—Tarnopol road. At
a distance of 1.5 km to the west of this village, near the forest, there is a settlement
front the Duchy period, occupying the southern and southwest slopes of the Pidluzhe
rangę. Here an inhabited dugout from the 12th and 13th centuries was discon-
ered... Without additional exploration and a precise analysis of the place where the
coin was discovered, it is difficult to state whether or not thefind is connected with
precisely this settlement" (p. 69).
The further text is unclear and hard to understand. One should ex-
pect a description of the new specimen. The reading of the text, how-
ever, and the references to the illustrations suggest that we are dealing
with the heretofore uniąue specimen from Cracow. Yet the metrologi-
cal data provided (diameter 1.8-1.9 cm, weight 1.8 g) do not corre-
spond to the data for the Cracow denier (1.8 cm and 1.67 g). One is
thus led to suppose that the data refer to the Lvov coin, as does in fact
the entire description.
Later this specimen is compared to the Cracow coin - which, inci-
dentally, is presented quite inaccurately. As previously pointed out, this
coin was not first published by Bernard Kóhne in 1863 and is not the
"second preserved specimen." It cannot be regarded as a distinctive fea-
ture that it has an "additional dot" between the letters B and O in the
name Boleslaus (marked in the sketches), sińce we are dealing with
a punch of Czapski's collection. Finally, the denier belongs to the Na-
tional Museum in Cracow, not to the Archeological Museum.
In the opinion of these authors, the "Lvov coin" is very similar to the
"Cracow coin" in terms of the images and the legends. The difference
consists in the fact that the "type of the 'Cracow' coin is more massive.
On the 'Lvov' coin one can see that the letters are indented and sim-
plified, which may indicate the later development of Latin writing"
(p. 73). This leads the authors to certain less than pellucid conclusions:
"Obviously the coins were struck using different dies. This enables us to
refine the traditional point of view, that coins with the legend Gnezdun
309