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#0314
allegedly sent from Ciechanów to Warsaw in 1921, and forwarded in 1950
(from the archives of the State Archeological Museum?) by Roman
Jakimowicz to the Directory of research on the origins of the Polish state,
end up in Płock? Why did neither the addressee, or any later scholars
(e.g. Prof. Rajewski) ever make use of information of such revelations?
Upon analysis of the entire text, we arrive at the conclusion that its
author was attempting to elevate the prestige of Ciechanów, counter-
feiting a splendid pedigree for his city using archaeological sources. Here
one can see a close analogy to similar actions on the basis of written sources.
In Ciechanów there appeared not long ago an alleged Medieval local
annual. It was fabricated by a local patriot, Jerzy Gaczyński, so well that it
was immediately received positively by some medievalists, and it took
some time before it was unmasked by Henryk Rutkowski.19 Likewise the
archaeological report ąuoted above is done so carefully that it initially
inspired my confidence. Its author, probably also Jerzy Gaczyński,20 as-
sumed the very effective principle of not identifying his revelations
straight out, but rather suggesting them to the reader, better yet by cit-
ing tried and tested authorities (E. Majewski, L. Krzywicki). In the case
of the coins, he chose types of good reputation, without, however, par-
ticularly emphasizing this fact. The Sobieslav denier is supposedly not
recognized at all. It was described precisely enough, however, that the
reader could do so himself. Giving the exact place where the coin is
kept, including the telephone number, is a masterpiece in psychology,
giving the discovery maximum credibility. As in Lvov, thus in the case of
Ciechanów, we are dealing with a fraud. The difference, however, con-
sists in the fact that the latter stopped on the verbal layer, without any
effort to produce the artifacts themselves.
At this point we may recall another fraud that progressed yet farther,
sińce it involved not single coins, but an entire set, in the form of a hoard.
In 1992, there appeared almost simultaneously in the numismatic trade
in Warsaw and Lublin, in relatively large ąuantities, coins that rather
19 H. Rutkowski, Rocznik Ciechanowski jako mistyfikacja, Kwart. Hist. XCVIII (1991), part 4,
pp. 75-82.
20 Another argument for the identity of the author of both texts is the common theme
occurring in both of them: pagan relics in Ciechanów (cf. Rutkowski, op. cit. p. 80). It is also
significant that one of the distributors of these texts, doubtless in good faith, was the same
person, Rev. Tadeusz Żebrowski, who was in contact with Gaczyński (ibid., p. 76).
314
(from the archives of the State Archeological Museum?) by Roman
Jakimowicz to the Directory of research on the origins of the Polish state,
end up in Płock? Why did neither the addressee, or any later scholars
(e.g. Prof. Rajewski) ever make use of information of such revelations?
Upon analysis of the entire text, we arrive at the conclusion that its
author was attempting to elevate the prestige of Ciechanów, counter-
feiting a splendid pedigree for his city using archaeological sources. Here
one can see a close analogy to similar actions on the basis of written sources.
In Ciechanów there appeared not long ago an alleged Medieval local
annual. It was fabricated by a local patriot, Jerzy Gaczyński, so well that it
was immediately received positively by some medievalists, and it took
some time before it was unmasked by Henryk Rutkowski.19 Likewise the
archaeological report ąuoted above is done so carefully that it initially
inspired my confidence. Its author, probably also Jerzy Gaczyński,20 as-
sumed the very effective principle of not identifying his revelations
straight out, but rather suggesting them to the reader, better yet by cit-
ing tried and tested authorities (E. Majewski, L. Krzywicki). In the case
of the coins, he chose types of good reputation, without, however, par-
ticularly emphasizing this fact. The Sobieslav denier is supposedly not
recognized at all. It was described precisely enough, however, that the
reader could do so himself. Giving the exact place where the coin is
kept, including the telephone number, is a masterpiece in psychology,
giving the discovery maximum credibility. As in Lvov, thus in the case of
Ciechanów, we are dealing with a fraud. The difference, however, con-
sists in the fact that the latter stopped on the verbal layer, without any
effort to produce the artifacts themselves.
At this point we may recall another fraud that progressed yet farther,
sińce it involved not single coins, but an entire set, in the form of a hoard.
In 1992, there appeared almost simultaneously in the numismatic trade
in Warsaw and Lublin, in relatively large ąuantities, coins that rather
19 H. Rutkowski, Rocznik Ciechanowski jako mistyfikacja, Kwart. Hist. XCVIII (1991), part 4,
pp. 75-82.
20 Another argument for the identity of the author of both texts is the common theme
occurring in both of them: pagan relics in Ciechanów (cf. Rutkowski, op. cit. p. 80). It is also
significant that one of the distributors of these texts, doubtless in good faith, was the same
person, Rev. Tadeusz Żebrowski, who was in contact with Gaczyński (ibid., p. 76).
314