Humanities and Social Sciences

Wiadomości Numizmatyczne


Wiadomości Numizmatyczne | 2009 | Rok LIII | Zeszyt 2 (188)

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


W ostatnim czasie udało się zarejestrować w jednym z prywatnych polskich zbiorów monet antycznych dwie brązowe monety należące do typu nienotowanego w dotychczasowej literaturze. Ze względu na niewątpliwe pochodzenie obiektów z obszaru Cyrenajki, jak również na podstawie zredukowanej legendy na rewersie oraz charakterystycznych motywów ikonograficznych, przedstawiane monety należy uznać za kwadranse Aulusa Pupiusa Rufusa — urzędnika rzymskiego, który w okresie poprzedzającym bitwę pod Akcjum (31 r. p.n.e.) odpowiadał za emisję monet na terenie Cyrenajki. Dotychczas znane były dwa typy bitych przez niego asów, dwa typy semisów oraz jeden typ kwadransa. Nieznany wcześniej drugi typ kwadransa, poddany analizie w niniejszym artykule, uzupełnia schemat mennictwa Pupiusa Rufusa w Cyrenajce o brakujący element.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Piotr Jaworski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


In the years 2004–2007 a number of interesting discoveries of Roman coins occurred in the basin of the river Bzura in central Poland. Among them the most notable are three hoards of denarii: from Krzyżanówek, Sobota and the region of Sochaczew. The original size of these assemblages is hard to estimate. With a probability bordering on certainty we may assume that only a part of the coins scattered by ploughing was recovered. Coins from the three hoards are confined to the period between the death of Nero (54–68 AD) and the first years of the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211 AD). Only a supposed Republican coin belonging to one of the hoards falls outside these chronological limits. Much more interesting than the content of the hoards is what we may surmise to have been the manner of their deposition. As may be concluded from what in most cases are rather laconic descriptions of the place of discovery of the coins, they were discovered not far from the river. Moreover, the fact that they had been scattered by ploughing suggests that originally they rested at a relatively shallow depth in the ground. From the described circumstances the recently discovered hoards are all similar to the largest deposit recorded on the river Bzura so far — the hoard from Drzewicz Nowy, described in detail and analysed in a monograph of A. Krzyżanowska (1976). The vestigial character of the data on the new hoards makes it possible only to propose a very cautious hypothesis as to the occurrence in the basin of the Bzura of a whole series of hoards of ‘Drzewicz type’, probably deposited for votive reasons. In the same area 54 silver and bronze Roman coins from 33 recent small finds were also registered. Most of them were denarii of the first and second centuries, including five subaerati (1 certain and 4 supposed). Only one of the recently found denarii had been struck in the third century. The rest of the newly discovered coins were two sestertii of the second and third centuries and two bronzes of the fourth century. On the basis of various premises (eg. coin finds from localities known through archaeological excavations) it is possible to assume that sizable numbers of these coins were discovered at a specific archaeological site and could be regarded as a settlement or grave find. The basin of the river Bzura, heavily populated during the Roman Period, abounds in finds of Roman coins and has yielded one of the largest concentration of recorded Roman coin finds in Poland.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Arkadiusz Dymowski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


In 2007, an excavation was undertaken in the supposed place of deposit of the Roman hoard of denarii in the village of Podzamcze (central Poland). In the older literature, the find used to be located in nearby Maciejowice. Coins found in Podzamcze in recent years, and the analysis of the information obtained so far concerning this discovery, allow the assumption that it was Podzamcze where the hoard of denarii discovered in 1875 was found. During the excavation three denarii were recovered below the humus layer: one each of Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. On 9 February 2008, the researchers undertook field prospecting again using metal detectors in the area of excavations conducted before, which resulted in recovering a quarter of another denarius of Commodus. The region of the confluence of the Okrzejka and Vistula rivers is relatively abundant in sites from the period of Roman influence. Sites of the Przeworsk culture are represented here, as well as those of the Wielbark culture, which at stage B2/C1a expanded into west Mazovia. Within this small area we find settlements, burial grounds, and also single items, including Roman coins. The coins are represented mostly by denarii from the second century, typical of Poland. However we also find earlier coins here, i.e. from the first century with an undated Republican denarius, as well as later ones, dating from the third century, represented by a follis of Maximianus Herculius (c 296–297?). In the light of the finds made in this area, the region of the confluence of the Okrzejka and Vistula rivers appears as a rather important local settlement center, which was probably connected with the outside world through various kinds of contacts.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Andrzej Romanowski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


27 coins struck over the period from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries were found during an excavation conducted in Stargard Szczeciński in 2005. Two rare specimens are worthy of attention: a bracteate with two crosiers in pale with crooks turned outwards in a radiating border (no. 16) and a counterfeit Czech peníz from the beginning of the sixteenth century (no. 9). The Stargard bracteate bears a close analogy to the two bracteates mentioned in the publication by Arthur Suhle on Kołobrzeg (Kolberg) coins in the Middle Ages in respect of symbolism and size. However, neither the iconography nor the technique of the coin workmanship argue for its attribution to the bishops’ mint in Kołobrzeg. Due to the type and the findspot, the bracteate should rightly be linked with a mint of Kamień (Cammin) bishops, but not with the mint in Kołobrzeg. Similarity of iconographic motifs occurring on bishop’s pennies and city seals of Kamień might indicate that striking bracteates with the crosiers in pale and pennies with a figure with crosiers in hands took place at the bishop’s residence in Kamień itself. Thus the specimen from Stargard is the first registered bishop’s bracteate from the Kamień mint in Pomerania. The other rare, perhaps even unique, phenomenon in Pomerania is a counterfeit one-faced penny (bílý peníz, i.e. ‘white penny’) of Czech king Ladislas II Jagiellon (1471–1516). The Stargard specimen is dated already from the sixteenth century, on account of the representation of a lion rampant. On the original peníze, the representation of such a lion occurred on the latest varieties, struck between 1509–1515. The Stargard specimen has no analogy in the find material from the areas of Brandenburg or Pomerania.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Genowefa Horoszko

Authors and Affiliations

Grzegorz Arkuszewski
Borys Paszkiewicz
Marzena Grochowska-Jasnos
Aleksandra Rogaczewska
Jerzy Piniński
Valentina Dubickaâ
Andrzej Romanowski
Michał Dzik
Aleksander Bursche

Instructions for authors

Submission guidelines for authors

We ask all authors to adhere to the following guidelines in preparing articles for publication:

We accept submissions in electronic form (electronic delivery or CDs) in a commonly used word processor format (such as MS Word or AbiWord).
If any characters outside the standard set of typefaces (Arial, Calibri, Courier, Times New Roman, Symbol, and Wingdings) are used, a PDF filemust additionally be supplied.

● Together with your article, supply a separate text file containing the following metadata:

- Title,
- Author(s),
- ORCID number (with the link),
- Affiliation,
- Abstract,
- Keywords,
- Bibliography.

● Submissions (except those intended for the sections “Finds,” “Reviews,” or “Chronicles”) should include an abstract (describing the content of the article in no more than 1,000 characters) and a summary (approximately 10% of the volume of the article). Both texts should be in English or prepared for translation into English. At the end of your article, include the author’s affiliation and e-mail address for publication.

● Do not use all-caps (except in quotes from inscriptions), automatically formatted numbered or bulleted lists, hyperlinks, underlining or color highlighting, or manual hyphenation. Do not use spaces to align or adjust the text. To create tables, use a table editor (not tabs or spaces).

● Citations are to be placed in footnotes at the bottom of the page (not within the text – this does not apply to catalogue references in coin descriptions). Whenever possible, footnotes should be used for bibliographic purposes; avoid using them for commentaries.

● Use the Oxford style of referencing for footnotes (the author’s name, year). If possible, use the same format for catalog citations in coin descriptions. The article should include a list of references at the end with bibliographic entries consistent with the format adopted in Wiadomości Numizmatyczne (examples can be found at

● For articles intended for publication in Polish, foreign alphabets should be transliterated in bibliographic entries in accordance with the Polish Standard (e.g. PN-ISO 9-2000 for Slavic alphabets; see For articles intended for publication in languages other than Polish, use the transliteration standards accepted in those languages – for English, this is the Library of Congress system, used depending on the options offered by the word processing software (

● For present-day facts, use current geographical names (as opposed to, for example, Russian names in post-Soviet countries outside Russia; this also applies to abstracts in foreign languages). However, for articles intended for publication in Polish, it is recommended to use accepted Polish transliteration and traditional transcription rules, but only in the main text (not in bibliographic entries). Also, remember that any lesser-known name should be explained once in transliterated form together with an indication of the administrative unit to which it belongs. In the description of historical facts, use historical names then in use (such as Królewiec and Rychbach, not Kaliningrad and Dzierżoniów).

● Illustrations should be supplied in separate files (as opposed to being embedded in the text):

- Photographs should be supplied as TIFF or JPG files at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi (preferably 600). Photographs of coins should be cut out from the background and properly scaled.
- Drawings (site plans, maps) should not be larger than the size of one printed page (12.5×19 cm).
- Illustrations should be captioned and described in the text as “Fig.”

Authors of articles in the “Finds” section are asked to tailor reports of coin finds to the following system whenever possible:

1. city/town/village, municipality, and county (within current administrative division!);
2. place found;
3. date found;
4. discovery circumstances and finder;
5. the archaeological context (including position within a grave);
6. the number of coins found, collectively or individually;
7. the method of preservation;
8. terminus post quem of the find;
9. the current location where the coins are held;
10. the list of the coins discovered and possible accompanying objects (remember to include metrological data, especially for ancient and medieval coins, identify the mint – if it may be different – and provide a catalogue references);
11. a brief commentary, if any.

Brevity is appreciated, and illustrations of coins and site plans are always welcome.
Compliance with the above rules will speed up the publication of the article in a form that is clear and satisfactory to authors.

Publication Ethics Policy

Principles of publication ethics

The editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne follows the principles of accountability and ethics recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for all those involved in the publication process and makes every possible effort to prevent any misconduct.


Fairness and impartiality: Submissions are evaluated on the merits of their content alone, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.

Publication decisions: The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. Decisions on the acceptance of an article for publication or its rejection are made by the editor-in-chief based on reviews that evaluate the article’s content, originality, clarity, and relevance to the scope of the journal. In making decisions, the editor-in-chief consults subject editors. The editor-in-chief is required to observe applicable provisions on defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, and to take full responsibility for decisions on the publication of articles.

Confidentiality: Editors and members of the Scientific Board must ensure that all materials submitted for publication remain confidential while under review. They may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone except the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers (e.g. translators), and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished articles, article excerpts, or materials contained therein may not be used by the editorial board or the editors for the purpose of their own research without the written consent of the authors.

Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record: Editors will safeguard the integrity of the published record, and publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions when needed. At the same time, the editorial board will make every effort to identify any research misconduct or publication misconduct. Plagiarism and articles based on falsified data are unacceptable. When ethical concerns arise about a submitted or published article, editors should take appropriate steps in response. The editors of the journal are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Retractions of published articles:
The journal’s editors will consider retracting a published article if:
- we have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, as a result of either misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental errors);
- the results were previously published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (cases of redundant publication);
- the article constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.
Notices of retraction should be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identify the retracted article, and state who is retracting the article. Notices of retraction should always include the reason(s) for the retraction, so as to distinguish honest error from misconduct. Retracted articles will be retained in the journal’s print copies and electronic archives, but their retracted status will be marked as prominently as possible.


Reporting standards: Authors of articles presenting the results of original research should provide an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to verify the hypotheses contained therein. Fabrication and the presentation of false or inaccurate research results constitutes unethical behavior and will result in the rejection of a manuscript or the retraction of a published article.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have made use of the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism is unacceptable.

Data access: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review, and they should be prepared to provide public access to such data and to retain such data for a specified period after the publication of their article.

Multiple or concurrent publications: Authors should in general not publish a manuscript describing the same research in more than one journal. However, in exceptional and justified cases, the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne will consider publishing a text published in another journal, provided that it was addressed to a different audience and in a different language.

Authorship: Articles in Wiadomości Numizmatyczne may be published only under the names of individuals who have made a significant contribution as authors and are responsible for the content of such articles. All persons whose contributions to the creation of the submitted article are negligible (for example, limited to providing research materials) may be mentioned in the acknowledgments, but they must not be listed as authors. In the case of doubts, the editorial board will asks for a description of the contribution of each person listed as an author. Authors should also disclose, in a footnote or in the acknowledgments, information about individuals and institutions that contributed to the creation of the article by making content-related, material, or financial contributions. The corresponding author should ensure that only appropriate individuals are listed as co-authors of the article and that such co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its submission for publication. Cases of scientific misconduct will be documented and disclosed.

Acknowledgement of sources: Authors should ensure the proper acknowledgement of the results of the work of other researchers. For this reason, they should cite publications they have used as sources of information and hypotheses when writing their articles.

Fundamental errors in published papers: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article.


Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions and may assist authors in improving their articles.

Promptness: Any reviewer who does not feel competent to review a submitted article or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality: The whole of a manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with anyone except the persons authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, using appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: Any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under review and any other published article should be reported to the editor. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. Reviewers should not agree to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing the article. Authors have the right to respond to the critical remarks of reviewers.

Peer-review Procedure

Review procedure

- All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne are subject to a double-blind review.

- Every scientific article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in the relevant specialization.

- The editorial board will make every effort to select reviewers with no professional or private relationship with the author of the text being reviewed.

- Reviewers are required to provide an objective review of the submitted article.

- Reviewers are required to disclose any irregularities that they discover, in particular any forms of plagiarism.

- Reviews must be made in writing and must include a clear evaluation of the submitted article.

- Reviewers evaluate whether or not the article is eligible for publication. The evaluation is based on the following criteria: whether the topic is approached in an innovative manner, whether the article takes into account the most recent subject literature, whether appropriate methodology has been used, and what impact the article will have on the current state of research in the field.

- The articles under review are treated as confidential.

- The reviewers remain anonymous.

- Authors are required to participate in the review process, in particular to incorporate or respond to suggested corrections and to remove identified errors.

- Once a year, the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne publishes a list of reviewers collaborating with the journal on a specific issue. The list is published in the journal’s print issue and on the journal’s website.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal observes the principles of scientific transparency and integrity.
We therefore accept no forms of plagiarism, ghostwriting, or honorary authorship. In order to prevent these, relevant provisions have been included into the agreements signed with authors.
All the articles intended for publication in the journal are screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate software.

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more