Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / What Counted as Money Before Coins? - Beyond the Barter Myth | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

What Counted as Money Before Coins? - Beyond the Barter Myth | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

0:04
Welcome to Sleepy Facts About History. Before
0:12
coins, before paper notes, and before the very
0:16
idea of cash, people still needed to measure
0:19
value, facilitate trade, and settle their debts.
0:22
This episode explores what societies actually
0:26
used as money before modern currency existed.
0:29
From weighed silver in the late Bronze Age Mediterranean,
0:32
to grain debts recorded on Mesopotamian clay
0:35
tablets, It looks at how very different objects,
0:39
cattle on the East African grasslands, cowrie
0:43
shells in West African markets, and wooden tally
0:46
sticks in medieval England, serve distinct monetary
0:50
functions without ever being stamped into coins.
0:53
The episode also challenges the widespread assumption
0:57
that early economies relied primarily on direct
1:00
barter before the invention of currency. Looking
1:03
at the historical evidence reveals that ancient
1:05
and medieval societies developed sophisticated
1:08
credit systems and monies of account, separating
1:11
the abstract measurement of value from the physical
1:14
objects used to settle obligations. I wanted
1:18
to understand why we so often assume money must
1:22
be a single physical thing when the historical
1:24
record shows it is actually a set of social practices.
1:29
Some questions sound simple until you try to
1:32
answer them. And asking what actually makes something
1:34
money reveals a much more varied and adaptive
1:37
human history than the familiar story of progress
1:41
from barter to coins. Before coins, before notes,
1:48
before the very idea of cash, a merchant weighed
1:51
unmarked silver against a stone. A scribe pressed
1:56
grain debts into clay. A split stick of wood
2:00
circulated as payment recognized by the king's
2:03
treasury. Each was a different answer to the
2:06
same question we rarely think to ask. What makes
2:10
something money, when money is not a thing at
2:13
all, but a system of trust? Imagine several people,
2:18
in different places and different centuries,
2:21
settling obligations without coins or notes.
2:25
A merchant in the eastern Mediterranean, around
2:28
the 13th century before the Common Era, holds
2:32
a small lump of silver in his palm. He checks
2:36
it against a dark stone weight on a balance scale.
2:40
The silver has no stamp, no portrait, no denomination.
2:45
It is simply metal, valued by weight. This weighing
2:50
is how a transaction concludes. A few centuries
2:54
earlier and farther east, a temple administrator
2:57
presses a reed stylus into soft clay. He records
3:01
that a farmer owes a certain quantity of grain.
3:05
The grain will be paid. but the tablet is the
3:08
record of obligation. The grain itself serves
3:12
as both measure and payment. Across an ocean,
3:16
strings of polished shell beads change hands
3:19
to settle a marriage agreement. On a grassy plain,
3:23
cattle are driven from one family to another
3:26
to resolve a blood feud. In a medieval English
3:30
village, a labourer's promised work days are
3:33
recorded in a manor court roll. In a West African
3:37
market, A trader extends credit counted in cowrie
3:41
shells that will be settled later. These are
3:44
all moments of money. None of them involve coins.
3:49
None involve paper notes. Yet in each case, something
3:55
is functioning as money. It is measuring value,
3:59
settling obligations, facilitating exchange,
4:02
storing worth across time. What makes that possible?
4:07
And why can the jobs we associate with money
4:10
be divided among several different goods, rather
4:13
than concentrated in one object? To pursue this,
4:17
we need to set aside a familiar picture. Most
4:21
of us carry a default assumption. Money is essentially
4:25
a physical thing, a coin or a note or now a digital
4:30
record. Before these existed, people must have
4:34
bartered directly. They traded one good for another.
4:39
in the cumbersome search for a double coincidence
4:41
of wants. From this view, money evolved in a
4:46
neat line. Barter, then commodity money, then
4:50
coinage, then paper, then digital. This episode
4:55
will ask you to let that picture go. Not because
4:59
it is entirely wrong, but because it obscures
5:02
far more than it reveals. The historical evidence
5:06
suggests something more interesting and more
5:08
complex. Let us begin with a functional definition
5:13
of money. This is the analytical tool we will
5:17
use throughout. Money in most economic and anthropological
5:21
accounts does four jobs. It serves as a unit
5:25
of account. This is a standard for measuring
5:29
value, like a yardstick for economic worth. It
5:33
serves as a medium of exchange. This is something
5:37
accepted in trade to make transactions easier.
5:41
It serves as a store of value. This is something
5:45
that can hold purchasing power from one period
5:48
to the next, and it serves as a means of payment.
5:53
This is what actually settles an obligation or
5:56
debt. These four functions are analytical categories,
6:00
not natural kinds. They are tools for thinking,
6:05
not descriptions of inherent properties, and
6:09
the crucial point is that they need not all reside
6:12
in the same object. Consider again our Mesopotamian
6:17
temple administrator. He is working somewhere
6:20
around the 20th century, before the common era
6:23
in what is now southern Iraq. The cuneiform tablets
6:28
from this period were recovered from temple and
6:30
palace archives at Ur and Nippur. They show a
6:34
sophisticated system of accounting. Grain is
6:38
the common measure for many obligations. A farmer
6:42
owes the temple a certain quantity of grain.
6:46
The debt is recorded in grain. The payment will
6:50
be made in grain. Here, grain functions as a
6:55
unit of account and a means of payment. But silver
6:59
also appears in these records, often as a unit
7:02
of account. This is the shekel of silver, against
7:06
which other goods are measured. A debt might
7:09
be recorded in silver shekels. But the actual
7:13
payment could be made in grain, oil, wool, or
7:16
labor. converted at established rates. The silver
7:21
shekel is a measuring standard, a money of account
7:24
even when no silver changes hands. This is not
7:29
barter. This is a monetary system, but one in
7:33
which the functions are divided. Grain does some
7:37
jobs. Silver does others. The clay tablet records
7:43
the relationship. Now shift to our merchant in
7:47
the late Bronze Age Levant. He may be handling
7:51
goods from the Uluburun shipwreck, which sank
7:54
off the coast of modern Turkey around 1300 BCE.
7:59
The wreck contained bronze ingots, silver scrap,
8:03
and stone balance weights. The silver was not
8:06
coined. It was weighed. A transaction required
8:12
a balance scale, standardized weights, and trust
8:15
in the purity of the metal. Here, Silver functions
8:19
as a medium of exchange and a means of payment,
8:23
but its value is established by weight, not by
8:26
any stamp of denomination. The unit of account
8:30
might be a weight standard. It might be a shekel
8:34
or a mina, rather than a coin. The physical silver
8:39
is a money object, but the weight standard is
8:43
a money of account. They are not identical. The
8:48
merchant must know both the weight and the going
8:51
rate. He must trust the scale and the counterparty.
8:56
He must accept that the silver might need to
8:59
be tested or cut. This is monetary exchange,
9:03
but it is not coinage and it is not barter. Across
9:08
the Pacific, in island societies studied by anthropologists
9:12
including Broniswar Malinowski and later researchers,
9:17
Strings of shell beads serve as means of payment
9:20
in specific social contexts. A marriage obligation
9:24
might be settled with shell beads. A compensation
9:28
payment might require a certain number of strings.
9:33
But these shells do not function as a general
9:36
medium of exchange in daily market transactions.
9:39
They are not a unit of account for all goods.
9:44
Their monetary function is embedded in particular
9:46
social relationships and ceremonial occasions.
9:50
The same object, shell beads, operates differently
9:54
depending on whether the context is marriage,
9:57
funeral, trade, or diplomacy. This is money,
10:01
but it is restricted purpose money, not general
10:04
purpose currency. It is worth noting that the
10:08
anthropological observations we have come from
10:10
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, after
10:13
centuries of contact and change, they are not
10:17
direct windows onto pre -contact systems. On
10:21
the East African grasslands, cattle serve as
10:24
store of value and means of payment for bride
10:27
wealth and blood wealth. Blood wealth is the
10:31
compensation owed for a killing. A family's wealth
10:35
is measured in cattle. A serious obligation is
10:39
settled in cattle. But cattle are not a convenient
10:43
medium of exchange for daily purchases. One does
10:47
not buy a basket of grain with a cow. The transaction
10:51
costs are too high. The divisibility is too poor.
10:57
The social meaning is too weighty. Cattle are
11:01
money in some registers and not in others. They
11:05
are a store of value par excellence. They are
11:10
a means of payment for major obligations, but
11:14
they are not a medium of exchange for ordinary
11:16
trade. In medieval England, from the 12th to
11:20
14th centuries, wooden tally sticks record debts
11:24
and tax payments. A stick is notched to indicate
11:29
the amount owed, then it is split down the middle.
11:33
The creditor holds one half, the debtor holds
11:38
the other. The notches must match for the debt
11:42
to be validated. These tally sticks are transferable.
11:47
A creditor might pass his half to a third party
11:50
who then holds the claim. The stick itself has
11:54
little intrinsic value. It is not silver, not
11:59
grain, not labor. It is a record, a credit instrument,
12:04
a claim that can be transferred. Here the medium
12:08
of exchange and the means of payment. are not
12:11
a commodity at all but a record of obligation
12:14
the record is accepted because the exchequer
12:18
and the legal system recognize it the surviving
12:21
sticks and exchequer records document official
12:24
practice but the informal credit arrangements
12:28
of ordinary people are harder to recover and
12:32
in that same medieval english village the laborer
12:35
promises work days recorded in a manor court
12:37
role the days are a unit of account They are
12:42
so many days of plowing, harvesting, ditch digging.
12:46
They are also a means of payment for obligations
12:49
owed to the Lord. The labor itself is the payment.
12:55
But it is measured, recorded and transferable
12:58
in the sense that the obligation can be reassigned
13:01
or commuted. This is a monetary system in which
13:05
the currency is human effort, measured and accounted.
13:10
The measurement and accounting are enforced by
13:12
the structure of manorial authority. The monetary
13:16
function is embedded in a structure of power
13:19
and constraint. These scenes taken together establish
13:23
the central question. What makes them all instances
13:27
of money? The answer is not the material. Silver,
13:33
grain, shells, cattle, wood, labor. The materials
13:39
could hardly be more different. The answer is
13:43
functional. In each case, something is serving
13:46
one or more of the four jobs of money. It is
13:50
measuring value, facilitating exchange, storing
13:53
worth, settling obligations. And in each case,
13:58
the jobs are distributed differently across materials
14:00
and practices. This brings us to the mechanism
14:04
that makes such division possible. It is the
14:08
distinction between money of account and money
14:10
object. A money of account is an abstract measuring
14:14
standard. Examples include the Mesopotamian shekel
14:18
of silver or the medieval English pound. It exists
14:23
as a unit of measurement, a way of recording
14:26
and comparing values. Even when no physical object
14:30
corresponds to it, a money object is a physical
14:34
thing that circulates. It passes from hand to
14:38
hand. It serves as medium of exchange or means
14:43
of payment. The two can coincide. A coin is both,
14:50
but they need not. Many historical societies
14:54
developed elaborate monies of account without
14:57
corresponding money objects or with only partial
15:00
correspondence. The Mesopotamian shekel is a
15:05
clear case. Debts are recorded in shekels of
15:09
silver. Payments are made in grain, oil, wool,
15:14
labor. These are converted at rates known from
15:18
law codes and administrative texts. The shekel
15:22
measures. Other things pay. This is a credit
15:28
money system. It is a system of measuring and
15:31
settling obligations through records, promises
15:34
and offsetting debts, rather than through the
15:37
physical transfer of a single money object. The
15:41
clay tablet is not money in the sense that it
15:44
circulates like a coin, but it is monetary in
15:47
the sense that it records and enables the settlement
15:50
of obligations in a measured system. The medieval
15:54
tally stick operates similarly. The stick records
15:58
a debt in pounds or shillings, the money of a
16:01
count. The actual settlement might be in coin,
16:05
in kind, in services, or in the transfer of the
16:08
stick itself to another creditor. The stick is
16:12
a credit instrument, a transferable claim. It
16:16
functions as medium of exchange in a limited
16:19
but real way. The exchequer accepts tally sticks
16:23
for tax payments. They circulate among merchants
16:27
and creditors. They are recognized because the
16:31
institutional system validates them. This mechanism,
16:36
credit money, money of account, the separation
16:39
of measuring from paying. allows societies to
16:42
develop sophisticated monetary systems without
16:45
any coinage at all. And this brings us to the
16:49
barter myth, which must be directly addressed.
16:53
The barter myth imagines a world where I have
16:56
chickens and you have shoes. We must find each
17:00
other and agree on a rate. If our wants do not
17:04
coincide, no trade occurs. This is sometimes
17:08
presented as a historical stage. the inevitable
17:12
precursor to monetary exchange. It is not. The
17:18
barter myth is a modern theoretical construct,
17:21
not a description of historical societies. It
17:25
appears in some 18th and 19th century economic
17:28
thought, notably in certain passages of Adam
17:31
Smith. It has persisted in textbooks and popular
17:35
understanding despite lacking anthropological
17:38
or historical support. The evidence suggests
17:41
something quite different. Most non -state societies,
17:46
most non -coin economies, used some form of money
17:50
of account, credit, or standardized exchange
17:52
good. The Mesopotamian tablets, the weighed silver
17:57
of the Mediterranean, the shell beads of the
18:01
Pacific, the cattle of East Africa, the tally
18:05
sticks of England. These are not exceptions,
18:08
not isolated sophistications. They represent
18:12
a common pattern. This is the development of
18:15
measuring and settling systems that are monetary
18:18
without being coin -based. Barter existed, certainly.
18:23
One can find instances of direct exchange without
18:27
monetary mediation. But it was not the normal
18:30
mode, not the universal stage. It often occurred
18:34
alongside monetary systems rather than preceding
18:38
them. The double coincidence of wants is a real
18:41
problem. But historical societies solved it in
18:46
many ways. They used credit, standardized goods,
18:50
communal accounting. They did not simply suffer
18:53
through it until coinage emerged. This correction
18:57
matters because it changes how we understand
19:00
the variety of non -coin money systems. These
19:04
were not primitive precursors, not fumbling steps
19:07
toward the real thing of coinage. They were sophisticated
19:11
systems in their own right. Each was adapted
19:15
to specific social, economic and environmental
19:18
conditions. The distinction between gift, tribute,
19:23
debt, price and ceremonial wealth must be maintained
19:26
here. The same object could operate in different
19:30
registers depending on context. Consider cowrie
19:35
shells in West Africa and the Indian Ocean world
19:38
from the 14th to 19th centuries. European trading
19:43
company accounts and local chronicles document
19:45
vast imports of cowries from the Maldives. They
19:50
document their use as a unit of account and medium
19:53
of exchange across multiple states and trade
19:55
networks. In some markets, cowries were the everyday
19:59
currency. In others, they were a standard against
20:04
which other goods were measured. But their use
20:07
varied. They were not a general -purpose currency
20:11
everywhere. In some contexts, they were specialized
20:15
to certain transactions, certain social strata,
20:18
certain regions, and they were not neutral tokens.
20:24
Their value depended on supply, on the trading
20:27
networks that brought them, on political authority
20:30
that recognized them, on cultural acceptance.
20:33
They were embedded in relationships of trade,
20:36
power, and belief. The European Trading Company
20:40
accounts that recalled this trade reflect the
20:43
perspective of merchants and administrators.
20:46
They do not necessarily reflect the experience
20:49
of African traders and consumers, or consider
20:53
wampum in Eastern North America. These are shell
20:57
beads used for diplomatic records, ceremonial
21:00
gifts, and monetary payments. The same purple
21:04
and white beads could encode a message in a belt
21:07
presented at a council. They could serve as a
21:10
gift establishing reciprocal obligation. They
21:14
could function as payment in a trade. The context
21:18
determined the register. To call wampum simply
21:22
Indian money is to collapse distinctions that
21:26
mattered enormously to the people who used it.
21:29
It had mnemonic functions. It recorded treaties
21:33
and marked events. These are not monetary in
21:37
the modern sense. It had ceremonial functions
21:41
that bound communities rather than simply settling
21:44
accounts. The monetary functions were real, but
21:49
they were not separable from these other dimensions.
21:53
The tally stick system of medieval England illustrates
21:56
another dimension. This is the capacity of record
22:00
-keeping itself to serve monetary functions.
22:03
The stick is a physical object, but its value
22:08
is entirely relational. entirely dependent on
22:11
the institutional system that recognizes it.
22:14
This is not commodity money in which the object
22:17
has intrinsic value. It is credit money in which
22:21
the object is a claim, a promise, a record. The
22:26
Exchequer's acceptance of tally sticks for tax
22:28
payments gave them a kind of public validation.
22:32
Their transferability gave them circulation.
22:36
Their physical form The matching notches, the
22:39
split, provided security against forgery. This
22:44
is a monetary system built on accounting and
22:46
trust rather than on precious metal. Labor obligations
22:51
in manorial and colonial systems show yet another
22:54
configuration. Days of work are a unit of account.
22:58
They are measurable, comparable, recordable.
23:03
They are also a means of payment for obligations
23:06
owed to a lord or a colonial administration.
23:10
But labor is not a store of value in any simple
23:13
sense. One cannot save labor in a vault. It is
23:19
not a medium of exchange in the sense that one
23:21
can trade labor directly for most goods. The
23:25
functions are divided in a way that reflects
23:28
the power relations of the system. The lord or
23:32
the colonial state defines the obligation. measures
23:35
the labor, enforces the payment. The monetary
23:39
function is embedded in a structure of authority
23:42
and constraint. Cattle in East and Southern Africa
23:46
show how a single good can serve monetary functions
23:49
in some contexts while remaining non -monetary
23:52
in others. Bride wealth payments, blood wealth
23:56
compensation, the establishment of social relationships.
24:00
These are serious monetary functions. Cattle
24:05
are a store of value. a measure of wealth a means
24:08
of settling major obligations but the transaction
24:12
costs of using cattle for daily purchases are
24:15
prohibitive the social meaning of cattle their
24:20
role in establishing kinship in marking status
24:23
in maintaining relationships means that their
24:26
transfer is never simply economic the same object
24:30
operates in multiple registers calling it money
24:34
without qualification misses the specificity
24:37
of its use. What emerges from these comparisons
24:41
is not a single story of progress or a single
24:44
definition of money. It is a picture of variety,
24:48
of adaptation, of the division and recombination
24:52
of monetary functions across materials and practices.
24:56
The modern assumption that money is essentially
24:59
a physical thing is a historical accident of
25:03
the last few centuries. It is a parochial one
25:07
at that. For most of human history, money was
25:11
a set of practices. It was weighing, recording,
25:15
promising, transferring, offsetting. The materials
25:19
mattered, but they were not the essence. The
25:23
shared convention, the institutional recognition,
25:26
the social agreement, these are what transformed
25:30
these materials into money. This is why the question,
25:34
what counted as money before modern cash, has
25:37
no single answer. It has many answers, each specific
25:42
to a society, a period, a set of relationships.
25:46
The Mesopotamian grain and solver system was
25:49
money. The weighed silver of the Bronze Age Mediterranean
25:54
was money. The shell beads of the Pacific, the
25:58
cattle of East Africa, the tally sticks of medieval
26:01
England, the cowries of West Africa, the labor
26:05
obligations of manorial courts. All were money
26:09
in the sense that they served monetary functions.
26:13
And all were not money in the sense that they
26:16
did not conform to the modern coin -and -note
26:18
template. The functional definition allows us
26:22
to see this variety without forcing it into a
26:25
single mold. It allows us to ask of any practice
26:30
or object, what jobs is it doing? Is it measuring
26:35
value? Facilitating exchange? storing worth,
26:41
settling obligations. And it allows us to see
26:46
that these jobs can be divided. They can be performed
26:50
by different goods in different contexts. They
26:54
can be embedded in different social relationships.
26:57
This is not to say that anything valuable is
27:00
money. Value is necessary but not sufficient.
27:05
A beautiful object, a sacred relic, a useful
27:09
tool. These may be valuable without being monetary.
27:14
What makes something money is not its intrinsic
27:17
worth but its social function. It is its acceptance
27:21
as a measure, a medium, a store, a means of payment
27:26
within a recognized system. The system is what
27:30
matters. The institutional recognition is what
27:34
gives these objects their monetary function.
27:37
The social agreement is what makes the weighing.
27:40
the recording the passing the transferring the
27:43
promising into money and this system is always
27:47
in some degree a matter of contention of negotiation
27:50
of power who defines the unit of account who
27:57
enforces the obligation who recognizes the tally
28:01
stick accepts the carry shell validates the labor
28:05
record monetary systems are not neutral technical
28:09
arrangements They are social institutions embedded
28:13
in relationships of authority and dependence,
28:16
of trust and coercion, of shared understanding
28:20
and contested meaning. The evidence for these
28:24
claims comes from multiple sources, each with
28:27
its own limits. The Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets
28:32
show us the accounting of temples and palaces,
28:35
the institutional center of the economy. They
28:39
tell us less about ordinary household transactions,
28:43
less about the practices of people who did not
28:45
generate written records. The Uluboran Shipwreck
28:50
gives us a snapshot of long -distance trade,
28:53
a moment frozen in time, but it does not give
28:57
us the full range of Bronze Age exchange. The
29:01
anthropological studies of Pacific shell money
29:04
capture practices observed after centuries of
29:07
contact and change. The medieval tally sticks
29:11
and exchequer records document official practice.
29:15
But the informal credit arrangements of ordinary
29:18
people are harder to recover. The European Trading
29:22
Company accounts for cowrie shells record the
29:24
view of merchants and administrators. These limits
29:28
mean that our understanding of pre -modern money
29:31
is partial. It is shaped by the survival of evidence
29:35
and the perspectives of those who recorded it.
29:39
We know more about institutional accounting than
29:42
about household exchange. We know more about
29:46
long distance trade than about local markets.
29:50
We know more about official records than about
29:53
oral agreements. The uncertainty is not a failure
29:57
of research but a condition of the evidence.
30:01
We must be careful not to project the visible
30:04
systems onto the invisible. We must not assume
30:08
that what was recorded was universal. What can
30:11
we say with confidence? We can say that money,
30:15
understood functionally, existed in many forms
30:19
before modern cash. We can say that the functions
30:23
of money were often divided among different goods
30:25
and practices. We can say that barter was not
30:30
the normal universal stage before coinage. We
30:34
can say that non -coin economies were not primitive
30:37
but sophisticated, adapted to their conditions.
30:41
We can say that money of account and credit money
30:44
were widespread and important, and we can say
30:48
that the modern identification of money with
30:50
physical currency is a limited and historically
30:53
specific view. What remains uncertain? The precise
30:59
mechanisms of everyday transaction in many societies.
31:02
The extent to which ordinary people used money
31:06
of account in their daily lives, as opposed to
31:08
elites and institutions. The degree to which
31:12
shell money systems operated as general purpose
31:15
currencies versus restricted purpose payment
31:18
systems. The origins and persistence of the barter
31:22
myth in modern thought, despite its lack of historical
31:26
support. The relationship between ceremonial
31:30
wealth and monetary wealth in many societies.
31:33
Whether they are distinct spheres or points on
31:36
a continuum, these uncertainties are not failures
31:40
to be overcome. but markers of the limits of
31:43
our knowledge. They remind us that historical
31:46
understanding is provisional. New evidence and
31:51
new questions will continue to reshape what we
31:53
think we know. Let us return, in closing, to
31:58
the scenes with which we began. The merchant
32:01
weighing silver. The scribe recording grain.
32:05
The pacific islander passing shells. The pastoralist
32:10
transferring cattle. the medieval laborer promising
32:15
work days, the West African trader extending
32:19
credit in cowries. Each scene illustrates a different
32:23
configuration of the four functions of money.
32:27
In none of them does a single object perform
32:29
all four jobs. In each of them, the monetary
32:34
function is embedded in a specific social system,
32:37
with its own rules, its own recognitions, its
32:41
own constraints. The merchant's silver is medium
32:45
of exchange and means of payment, but its value
32:49
is measured by weight against a standard, not
32:52
by stamp. The scribe's grain is unit of account
32:55
and means of payment, but the tablet is the record,
33:00
not the money. The shells are means of payment
33:04
in a specific social context, not a general medium
33:07
of exchange. The cattle are store of value and
33:12
means of payment for major obligations. but not
33:15
convenient for daily trade. The labor days are
33:19
unit of account and means of payment, but embedded
33:23
in a structure of obligation and power. The cowrie
33:27
credit is a claim, a promise, a record of relationship
33:31
not yet settled in physical transfer. Together,
33:35
these scenes show that money is not one kind
33:38
of object, but a shared system for measuring
33:41
and settling relationships, built from many materials.
33:45
The system is what makes the weighing, the recording,
33:49
the passing, the transferring, the promising
33:52
into money. And the system can be built from
33:55
silver or grain, shells or cattle, wood or labor,
33:59
records or promises. It depends on the society,
34:03
the period, the available materials, the social
34:07
relationships, the institutional frameworks.
34:10
This is the understanding that the evidence supports.
34:14
Not a single origin. not a linear progress not
34:18
a primitive past and sophisticated present but
34:22
a varied adaptive contested history of people
34:25
creating systems to measure and settle their
34:28
relationships using what they had in the conditions
34:32
they face the question was never simply what
34:36
object is money the question was always what
34:40
system makes a lump of silver a string of shells
34:43
a notched stick a recorded labor day function
34:47
as money, and how that system distributes its
34:51
jobs across the materials and practices of a
34:54
particular life.