Evidence coverage: 401 BC–401 BC. This is the span of collected observations, not the currency’s lifetime.
This record includes associated currencies and earlier interpretations. The article selects the evidence relevant to its own history.
Payment-unit admission based on C1038; coin-type evidence FTM000574 remains an instrument record.
No distinct predecessor currency is established in the loaded view.
No distinct successor currency is established in the loaded view.
Supporting material, not parents or children.
A proposed daric-to-Macedonian accounting interpretation is recorded with scholarly objections and a Greek/English numeral discrepancy. The local succession remains open.
Sources and qualifications →Yegül distinguishes the earlier Mnesimachos mortgage from its later wall copy and notes substantial disagreement over their dates. The post-conquest mortgage remains a real obligation, but it cannot be assigned a 334 BCE daric-conversion date.
Sources and qualifications →The reviewed account continuity does not close the gap to Sasanian or Achaemenid money. A shared dinar name or coin-weight imitation does not establish those ancestry links.
Sources and qualifications →Dated evidence, not exact birth or extinction dates.
Military pay expressed in darics; ancient testimony cited through Alram
C1038An Athenian treasury account records gold darics in 429/428 BC.
C1039Includes dated issues, standards, subdivisions and institutional changes. Each event retains the source's date qualifications.
Kroll dates replacement by Persian royal-image gold and silver types to around 515 BC.
C248Persian military pay was conventionally reckoned at one daric monthly.
C1038An Athenian treasury account records gold darics in 429/428 BC.
C1039Dated observations, not a complete lifespan. 429/428 BCE treasury entry is inventory evidence, not the first dated payment obligation. A 401 BCE campaign pay observation anchors this scoped unit. Croeseid/daric grouping remains open; no connected modern descendant established.
Persian military pay was conventionally reckoned at one daric monthly.
Metrology and denominations; citing Xenophon Anabasis 1.3.21
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
Persian rulers continued Croeseids before introducing royal archer issues.
Persian Legacy; Introduction of the daric
Selected archaeological and succession statements.
Precise earliest mint/issuer, causal reconstruction and metallurgy remain debated; no universal ancestry claim.
Persian Legacy; Introduction of the daric
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
An Athenian treasury account records gold darics in 429/428 BC.
Opening; IG I3 p.383 lines 17–18
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
Alram reports an official rating of twenty sigloi per daric.
Metrology and denominations
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
Macedonian gold displaced the daric’s prominence; daric-type production also continued under Alexander.
Opening; Typology and minting sections
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
Kroll and Alram describe the Persian gold-weight transition differently; this review leaves the Croeseid/daric identity boundary open.
Persian Legacy versus Metrology and denominations
Selected archaeological and succession statements.
Precise earliest mint/issuer, causal reconstruction and metallurgy remain debated; no universal ancestry claim.
Persian Legacy versus Metrology and denominations
Inventory mentions are not by themselves evidence of obligations denominated in the unit.
Metrological details differ from Kroll.
Descat reconstructs a Persian assessment behind the later Sardian tribute; Thonemann endorses conversion from daric reckoning to Macedonian gold accounting.
p.101; bibliographic record
Reconstructed fiscal arithmetic, not a preserved pre-conquest assessment or an explicit ancient conversion decree.
Page 101 body inspected; neighboring pages not retrieved
pp.386–387 and notes 98–101; supporting context pp.385–389
Endorses Descat’s reconstruction; not independent documentary confirmation of the earlier assessment.
Yegül’s notes report objections to the one-twelfth assessment and to inferring tax rates from the mortgage amount.
Public abstract and notes 18–20,31
Notes report objections by Billows and Monson; those cited works have not been independently read here.
Abstract and substantive notes inspected; not full article body
In the Cambridge dossier, Greek I.9 reads four gold obols for Nagrioa, while its English translation reads three.
No.7: date; Greek I.9–10 and II.7–19; accompanying translation
Internal mismatch: Greek I.9 gives four obols, English gives three.
Date of inscription must be distinguished from land grant.
I.Sardis I 1, I.2–10 and column II; third-century BC dating
Monetary metadata inspected, not the stone.
Chrysous is not automatically a daric or a particular Macedonian coin.
The dossier dates the inscription to 214 BC; Yegül’s note 31 discusses c.220–200 BC. Both distinguish it from the earlier land grant.
No.7: date; Greek I.9–10 and II.7–19; accompanying translation
Internal mismatch: Greek I.9 gives four obols, English gives three.
Date of inscription must be distinguished from land grant.
Public abstract and notes 18–20,31
Notes report objections by Billows and Monson; those cited works have not been independently read here.
Abstract and substantive notes inspected; not full article body
Yegül distinguishes the earlier Mnesimachos mortgage from its later wall copy and notes substantial disagreement over their dates. The post-conquest mortgage remains a real obligation, but it cannot be assigned a 334 BC daric-conversion date.
Subsection Mnesimachos Inscription, notes 60–63
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
The reviewed account continuity does not close the gap to Sasanian or Achaemenid money. A shared dinar name or coin-weight imitation does not establish those ancestry links.
Safavid standards; Rumlu payment in 1506; western/Khorasan distinctions; pp. 20–22 (notes 50–55), 159–160 (notes 77–80)
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Safavid standards; Rumlu payment in 1506; western/Khorasan distinctions; pp. 20–22 (notes 50–55), 159–160 (notes 77–80)
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Kroll dates replacement by Persian royal-image gold and silver types to around 515 BC.
Darius reform paragraph
Selected archaeological and succession statements.
Precise earliest mint/issuer, causal reconstruction and metallurgy remain debated; no universal ancestry claim.