Evidence coverage: AD 120–AD 120. 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.
No distinct predecessor currency is established in the loaded view.
No distinct successor currency is established in the loaded view.
Ushavadata’s year42 inscription records3000 kahapanas as perpetual principal:2000 placed with one Govardhana weavers’ guild and1000 with another, with interest alone available to beneficiaries.
Sources and qualifications →The endowment assigns twelve kahapanas for clothing to each of twenty resident monks; principal and recurring entitlement are denominated in the same local unit.
Sources and qualifications →Contractual principal and periodic entitlement establish a local account unit. Do not equate every South Asian pana/karshapana by name.
Sources and qualifications →Delhi tanka to Suri rupee remains a promising account-continuity question. Ancient kahapana and the separate Afghan, Nepalese, Hyderabad and Patna regional lines require their own evidence; they are not assigned a Mughal parent by name alone.
Sources and qualifications →Indo-Greek denominations spread into India, but De Romanis shows that drachm coins could circulate while accounts remained in karsapana. Neither that coin sequence nor a repeated dramma name establishes the missing medieval-to-Mughal account links.
Sources and qualifications →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.
Sources and qualifications →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.
Sources and qualifications →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.
Sources and qualifications →Dated evidence, not exact birth or extinction dates.
Ushavadata’s year42 inscription records3000 kahapanas as perpetual principal:2000 placed with one Govardhana weavers’ guild and1000 with another, with interest alone available to beneficiaries.
C1823The endowment assigns twelve kahapanas for clothing to each of twenty resident monks; principal and recurring entitlement are denominated in the same local unit.
C1824Dated observations, not a proven complete lifespan.
Ushavadata’s year42 inscription records3000 kahapanas as perpetual principal:2000 placed with one Govardhana weavers’ guild and1000 with another, with interest alone available to beneficiaries.
Inscription12,ll1–3; Majumdarp34
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Read entire exposed inscription12 transliteration and translation.
Primary inscription via scholarly edition transcription; image not inspected.
Inscription12,ll1–3; Majumdarp34
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Indexed PDF passage printed34 inspected: year42 explicitly equated to120AD.
The endowment assigns twelve kahapanas for clothing to each of twenty resident monks; principal and recurring entitlement are denominated in the same local unit.
Inscription12,l3 and translation
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Read entire exposed inscription12 transliteration and translation.
Primary inscription via scholarly edition transcription; image not inspected.
Contractual principal and periodic entitlement establish a local account unit. Do not equate every South Asian pana/karshapana by name.
See scoped account observations.
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Read entire exposed inscription12 transliteration and translation.
Primary inscription via scholarly edition transcription; image not inspected.
Delhi tanka to Suri rupee remains a promising account-continuity question. Ancient kahapana and the separate Afghan, Nepalese, Hyderabad and Patna regional lines require their own evidence; they are not assigned a Mughal parent by name alone.
Ain 10, Silver Coins and Copper Coins, pp. 31–32; salary and accountants’ reckoning; Chapter 5, pp. 99–111; imperial, Nawabi and Company account arrangements
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
English transcription inspected; site header attribution inconsistent with translation/pagination, so no Persian manuscript verification claimed.
Ain 10, Silver Coins and Copper Coins, pp. 31–32; salary and accountants’ reckoning; Chapter 5, pp. 99–111; imperial, Nawabi and Company account arrangements
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Indo-Greek denominations spread into India, but De Romanis shows that drachm coins could circulate while accounts remained in karsapana. Neither that coin sequence nor a repeated dramma name establishes the missing medieval-to-Mughal account links.
pp.666–669, Staters and drachmas; distinguish Indo-Greek and later Sasanian routes; pp.135–137, especially136 notes75–79; DOI10.17885/heiup.1582.c22725
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
pp.666–669, Staters and drachmas; distinguish Indo-Greek and later Sasanian routes; pp.135–137, especially136 notes75–79; DOI10.17885/heiup.1582.c22725
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
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.
pp.135–137, especially p.136 n.78: treasury categories and continued kārṣāpaṇa accounts
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
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.
Case 1, India, Coins in trade: Persian and local Gandharan standards
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.
Search-indexed museum passage inspected by research delegate; full PDF returned403.
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.
pp.107,115–117: standardized weights and uncertain seed basis
Not a complete origin, lifespan or current-status audit.