These are related scales within the Roman account system. They do not each need their own currency node.
Scale
Earlier relation
After retariffing
Denarius
10 asses
16 asses
Sestertius
2½ asses
4 asses
Sestertius / denarius
¼
¼
The early denarius equalled ten asses and the sestertius two and a half. Retariffing made these sixteen and four asses while preserving four sestertii per denarius. These are denominations within the retained Roman account profile, not separate currency generations. This does not identify every provincial assarion with the Roman as.
The antoninianus introduced in 215 is generally interpreted as a double denarius, but the tariff is inferred and debated. Record it as a coinage episode within Roman accounting, not a new currency or a terminal date for denarius reckoning.
The301 monetary dossier from Aphrodisias values the argenteus at 100 denarii and the nummus at 25, and regulates settlement of public and private debts across the September revaluation. New coin denominations therefore did not abolish denarius accounting.
Denarius communis is a modern scholarly expression, not an attested ancient official name. Retain it as a search alias with this qualification, not as a newly founded currency.
P.Vrat.inv.2 lists a contribution of 3,600 myriads of denarii beside contributions in solidi. Its proposed date is around the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. This records parallel reckoning, not termination of the older account.
Dzierzbicka and Łajtar cite P.Oxy.55.3804.271 (566) for4,800 myriads per solidus. This supports later Egyptian myriad reckoning; association with the older denarius profile is qualified because late usage and nummus terminology changed. It is not evidence for an unchanged denarius coin or constant value.
Literary evidence equates the Roman aureus with25 denarii or100 sesterces. Gold therefore already belonged to the earlier denomination system; it was not an unrelated monetary invention when later gold accounting emerged.
A gold siliqua or keration is one twenty-fourth of a solidus. Rovelli rejects the assumption that the late Roman silver coins conventionally called siliquae necessarily carried that nominal value. Their modern name cannot establish a permanent peg or a denarius→antoninianus→argenteus→siliqua account genealogy.
Bagnall’s fourth-century Egyptian evidence treats solidi and silver bullion as independently valued in denarii after324. Gold could itself denominate prices without an automatic denarius equivalence. Retain two overlapping account profiles; no fixed adopted-basis relationship is established.
Admit a qualified gold-account branch through Roman monetary reforms: the aureus was a denomination of denarius/sestertius reckoning; gold valuation separated, and the solidus replaced the aureus and became an independent accounting basis. This is our synthesis of documented monetary transformation, not a quoted genealogical conclusion. The274–375 research envelope compresses reform and account emergence, not a founding date, fixed conversion or end of denarius reckoning.
Mechanism: the former gold denomination develops into an independent account basis through reform. Denarius accounting continues beside it.
This is a branch between two retained identities. Antoninianus, argenteus and silver siliqua remain coin evidence. No hard-peg or step-parent record is added.
This updates the earlier hold on Roman ancestry. The prior finding that there was no universal fixed denarius/solidus conversion remains valid. An exact conversion decree is not required for every ancient link when several sources establish monetary transmission, but this interpretive link must remain qualified.
What this changes for the drachm
The model now has a qualified route through Egyptian accounts, their later local integration into Roman reckoning, the Roman gold branch and the already documented western branches. This is not a claim that Greek money founded Rome, or that every intermediate transition is certain.
16 current endpoint codes: AOA, BRL, CVE, DJF, EUR, GNF, KMF, MGA, MRU, MZN, STN, UYU, VUV, XAF, XOF, XPF. The deepest qualified route uses the retained Athenian account witness of426/425BCE. Strict ancestry coverage is unchanged.
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.
Bactrian documentA at Rob, dated approximately 332 CE in the more recent chronology, stipulates a20-gold-dinar fine to the royal treasury and another to the opposing party. This is a monetary legal obligation. Admit a scoped local gold-dinar profile; the older published343 CE era conversion is not silently reused.
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.
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.
The British Museum’s guide notes shared standards between imported Persian and local Gandharan coins and proposes possible influence. This supports a metrological/transmission candidate; it does not yet demonstrate that a named Gandharan account unit inherited Persian obligations.
Kenoyer documents standardized Harappan weights. The inspected evidence does not establish a named monetary account or the later inheritance of kārṣāpaṇa. Hold a Harappan→Gandharan→rupee chain; this does not assert an absence of exchange or accounting.
Roman gold-account ancestry is a qualified synthesis. Inspect more regional obligation conversions and independent gold-account emergence before asserting an immediate parent, fixed rate or one universal transition date.
The silver-siliqua name is not sufficient evidence of a hard peg. No new adopted-basis record is created.
Late denarius, myriad and nummus usage needs document-specific semantic review; the566 witness does not establish an unchanged denomination across six centuries.
The earlier bronze/as witness remains retrospectively and chronologically qualified. Roman provincial assaria require their own local identification.
Bactrian drachma observations are qualified associations with the broad Attic tradition; the independent regional identity boundary remains open.
Asangorna staters require denomination and identity adjudication before creating or merging a currency profile.
Aï Khanoum’s Indian treasury categories do not establish a complete Taxila account regime or equality with drachmas.
Gandharan/Persian weight transmission is a candidate, not yet proven account ancestry. Harappan metrology does not by itself connect to historical kārṣāpaṇa.
Rob’s gold-dinar fines establish a local account. Earlier Kushan gold-account succession and later regional continuation remain to be evidenced.
Claims and exact source inspection
C2075 · supported
The early denarius equalled ten asses and the sestertius two and a half. Retariffing made these sixteen and four asses while preserving four sestertii per denarius. These are denominations within the retained Roman account profile, not separate currency generations. This does not identify every provincial assarion with the Roman as.
The antoninianus introduced in 215 is generally interpreted as a double denarius, but the tariff is inferred and debated. Record it as a coinage episode within Roman accounting, not a new currency or a terminal date for denarius reckoning.
Debasement and the Decline of Rome (2015), 181–205 pp.194–200, especially p.199 n.136: antoninianus valuation historiography — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2077 · supported
The301 monetary dossier from Aphrodisias values the argenteus at 100 denarii and the nummus at 25, and regulates settlement of public and private debts across the September revaluation. New coin denominations therefore did not abolish denarius accounting.
Die Aufwertung des Jahres 301 n. Chr., Tyche 30 (2015), 145–172 Section II, I.Aph.230e lower block lines 1–2 and 3ff.: tariffs and public/private debts; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
Inflation and monetary reforms in the fourth century: Diocletian’s twin Edicts of AD 301 (2020), 165–194 Section II, I.Aph.230e lower block lines 1–2 and 3ff.: tariffs and public/private debts; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2078 · supported
Denarius communis is a modern scholarly expression, not an attested ancient official name. Retain it as a search alias with this qualification, not as a newly founded currency.
P.Vrat.inv.2 lists a contribution of 3,600 myriads of denarii beside contributions in solidi. Its proposed date is around the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. This records parallel reckoning, not termination of the older account.
Dzierzbicka and Łajtar cite P.Oxy.55.3804.271 (566) for4,800 myriads per solidus. This supports later Egyptian myriad reckoning; association with the older denarius profile is qualified because late usage and nummus terminology changed. It is not evidence for an unchanged denarius coin or constant value.
P. Vrat. inv. 2: A List of Contributions in Money, JJP 36 (2006), 35–41 pp.37–39: mixed contributions; p.37 P.Oxy.55.3804.271 dated 566; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics — Scholarly article transcription inspected through p.39; original P.Oxy.3804 and images not independently collated.
Literary evidence equates the Roman aureus with25 denarii or100 sesterces. Gold therefore already belonged to the earlier denomination system; it was not an unrelated monetary invention when later gold accounting emerged.
A gold siliqua or keration is one twenty-fourth of a solidus. Rovelli rejects the assumption that the late Roman silver coins conventionally called siliquae necessarily carried that nominal value. Their modern name cannot establish a permanent peg or a denarius→antoninianus→argenteus→siliqua account genealogy.
From the Fall of Rome to Charlemagne (c.400–800) pp.64–66: Constantinian reform, aureus replacement and silver-siliqua naming problem — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2083 · supported
Bagnall’s fourth-century Egyptian evidence treats solidi and silver bullion as independently valued in denarii after324. Gold could itself denominate prices without an automatic denarius equivalence. Retain two overlapping account profiles; no fixed adopted-basis relationship is established.
Admit a qualified gold-account branch through Roman monetary reforms: the aureus was a denomination of denarius/sestertius reckoning; gold valuation separated, and the solidus replaced the aureus and became an independent accounting basis. This is our synthesis of documented monetary transformation, not a quoted genealogical conclusion. The274–375 research envelope compresses reform and account emergence, not a founding date, fixed conversion or end of denarius reckoning.
Dio, Zonaras and the Value of the Roman Aureus, JRS 51 (1961), 40–45 p.40 publisher extract: aureus equals 25 denarii or 100 sesterces; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics; pp.64–66: Constantinian reform, aureus replacement and silver-siliqua naming problem — Publisher extract at p.40 inspected; complete article not inspected.
Inflation and monetary reforms in the fourth century: Diocletian’s twin Edicts of AD 301 (2020), 165–194 p.40 publisher extract: aureus equals 25 denarii or 100 sesterces; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics; pp.64–66: Constantinian reform, aureus replacement and silver-siliqua naming problem — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
From the Fall of Rome to Charlemagne (c.400–800) p.40 publisher extract: aureus equals 25 denarii or 100 sesterces; pp.168–171: integrated denominations, independent gold valuation, argenteus tariff; p.176: later denarius semantics; pp.64–66: Constantinian reform, aureus replacement and silver-siliqua naming problem — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2085 · 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.
Two Greek Texts on Skin from Hellenistic Bactria, ZPE 159 (2007), 273–279 p.351, inscription 4a: transfer and sealing of 500 drachmas; pp.273–277: archaeological dating; c.220–170 BCE; document 1 line 4, 100 drachmas — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2087 · 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.
Two Greek Texts on Skin from Hellenistic Bactria, ZPE 159 (2007), 273–279 pp.273–277: archaeological dating; c.220–170 BCE; document 1 line 4, 100 drachmas; p.351, inscription 4a: transfer and sealing of 500 drachmas; pp.63–64 n.15: 20 staters as account unit; pp.66–67: regional monetary distinctions — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
Inscriptions économiques de la trésorerie hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum, BCH 107.1 (1983), 315–381 pp.273–277: archaeological dating; c.220–170 BCE; document 1 line 4, 100 drachmas; p.351, inscription 4a: transfer and sealing of 500 drachmas; pp.63–64 n.15: 20 staters as account unit; pp.66–67: regional monetary distinctions — Published transcription/discussion p.351 inspected; original container not independently collated.
New Research on the Bactrian Tax-receipt, Ancient History Bulletin 32 (2018), 61–71 pp.273–277: archaeological dating; c.220–170 BCE; document 1 line 4, 100 drachmas; p.351, inscription 4a: transfer and sealing of 500 drachmas; pp.63–64 n.15: 20 staters as account unit; pp.66–67: regional monetary distinctions — Relevant substantive passages and stated locators inspected in revision39; no complete corpus or original-object collation.
C2089 · qualified
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.
The British Museum’s guide notes shared standards between imported Persian and local Gandharan coins and proposes possible influence. This supports a metrological/transmission candidate; it does not yet demonstrate that a named Gandharan account unit inherited Persian obligations.
Money Gallery Large Print Guide, Room 68 (2020) Case 1, India, Coins in trade: Persian and local Gandharan standards — Search-indexed museum passage inspected by research delegate; full PDF returned403. Possible influence remains qualified.
C2091 · supported
Kenoyer documents standardized Harappan weights. The inspected evidence does not establish a named monetary account or the later inheritance of kārṣāpaṇa. Hold a Harappan→Gandharan→rupee chain; this does not assert an absence of exchange or accounting.
Bactrian documentA at Rob, dated approximately 332 CE in the more recent chronology, stipulates a20-gold-dinar fine to the royal treasury and another to the opposing party. This is a monetary legal obligation. Admit a scoped local gold-dinar profile; the older published343 CE era conversion is not silently reused.
Tools of Economic Activity from the Greek Kingdoms of Central Asia to the Kushan Empire pp.464 n.93 and 467–469: c.332 marriage contract; gold-dinar fines and Kushano-Sasanian issues; Document A translation: fine of twenty dinars of struck gold; old era conversion343 superseded here by c.332 in Morris — Author-uploaded chapter text inspected, especially pp.464 and467–469; publisher PDF retrieval failed.
Bactrian marriage contract, Encyclopaedia Iranica (2005) pp.464 n.93 and 467–469: c.332 marriage contract; gold-dinar fines and Kushano-Sasanian issues; Document A translation: fine of twenty dinars of struck gold; old era conversion343 superseded here by c.332 in Morris — Published translation inspected. Its older343CE dating is retained in source history but c.332CE follows the more recent scholarly treatment.
C2093 · qualified
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.
Older claims and observations remain preserved. The new adjudication changes the earlier ancestry hold without erasing its valid coexistence finding. The compact layout and dated adopted-basis markers are retained. Graph, chronology, evidence and static UI checks are run; DOM stubs and static SVG inspection are not browser QA.