The Athenian treasury account records principal and interest in talents,drachmas and obol fractions. Detailed disbursements cover 426/5–423/2 BCE, with a retrospective summary for 433/2–427/6.

An Attic property-security marker specifies a loan of 750 drachmas for Dionysos, corroborating drachma-denominated obligations beyond the fifth-century state treasury ledger.

Extend the Athenian profile to the Attic accounting standard adopted and spread by Alexander. Regional Hellenistic witnesses are qualified associations, not a claim that every Greek-speaking territory shared one currency.

P.Eleph.1 values a dowry at 1,000 drachmas and specifies an additional1,000 Alexander silver drachmas as a penalty. Berlin dates the contract310 BCE; association with the retained Attic profile is regional.

Antiochus II’s land sale requires thirty silver talents in instalments, entered in royal records. This254/253 BCE witness is associated with the wider Attic tradition, without creating a dynasty-only currency.

P.Dura15 records a 120-silver-drachma property price and matching penalty. Its editorial195 BCE date and association with the wider Attic profile remain qualified.

The1833 Greek drachma replaced the phoenix and revived an ancient name. This is not an ancient-drachma-to-euro inheritance link.

Egyptian silver accounting inherited the Attic drachma structure and developed a separate regional system with distinct internal and external valuations. Admit qualified ancestry, not a branch created solely by Ptolemaic rulers or reduced coin weights.

Morony explicitly derives the Sasanian fiscal drahm from the Attic drachma spread east by Alexander and transmitted through Seleucids and Parthians. Admit compressed, qualified ancestry; intermediate identity boundaries and dates remain unresolved.

The Amphipolis parchment’s document1 line4 records100 drachmas of coined silver. Editors place it approximately 220–170 BCE; a loan-repayment interpretation remains tentative. Associate this Bactrian Greek account witness with the broad Attic/Alexandrine tradition provisionally, without creating a currency for each dynasty.

Treasury inscription4a records a transfer of 500 drachmas and the sealing of the container. The jar texts are archaeologically placed in the mid-second centuryBCE. These are surviving treasury labels, not a complete ledger; association with the broad Attic tradition remains qualified.

Infrared reading confirms20 staters in an early-second-centuryBCE tax receipt from Asangorna. The editors favor a unit of account rather than payment specifically in gold coins. Its ratio and identity relation to the Bactrian drachma remain unresolved; preserve this as contextual evidence without creating a separate stater currency or dated Attic observation.

Bactrian drachma financial records are a qualified regional association within the retained Athenian/Alexandrine account tradition. Common royal authority does not merge the different monetary practices north and south of the Hindu Kush. Bactrian rulers receive no separate currency nodes merely for changing coin issues.

Aï Khanoum records drachmas, kasapana taxaena and kasapana nandena separately. Their equivalence is disputed, and identifying taxaena specifically with Taxila remains qualified. Later Deccan kārṣāpaṇa accounting could persist despite changing Indo-Greek coin supplies. No Greek-to-Indian account conversion is inferred.

Morris associates the gold dinars in these legal documents with Kushano-Sasanian issues. This provides regional monetary context, but does not itself establish the account transition from Bactrian drachmas, a Roman denarius parent, or continuity to a modern dinar. Hold those ancestry links.

The Athenian treasury account records principal and interest in talents,drachmas and obol fractions. Detailed disbursements cover 426/5–423/2 BCE, with a retrospective summary for 433/2–427/6.

An Attic property-security marker specifies a loan of 750 drachmas for Dionysos, corroborating drachma-denominated obligations beyond the fifth-century state treasury ledger.

P.Eleph.1 values a dowry at 1,000 drachmas and specifies an additional1,000 Alexander silver drachmas as a penalty. Berlin dates the contract310 BCE; association with the retained Attic profile is regional.

Antiochus II’s land sale requires thirty silver talents in instalments, entered in royal records. This254/253 BCE witness is associated with the wider Attic tradition, without creating a dynasty-only currency.

P.Dura15 records a 120-silver-drachma property price and matching penalty. Its editorial195 BCE date and association with the wider Attic profile remain qualified.

The Amphipolis parchment’s document1 line4 records100 drachmas of coined silver. Editors place it approximately 220–170 BCE; a loan-repayment interpretation remains tentative. Associate this Bactrian Greek account witness with the broad Attic/Alexandrine tradition provisionally, without creating a currency for each dynasty.

Treasury inscription4a records a transfer of 500 drachmas and the sealing of the container. The jar texts are archaeologically placed in the mid-second centuryBCE. These are surviving treasury labels, not a complete ledger; association with the broad Attic tradition remains qualified.