# Did bartering really precede money? Is it really as clearcut as all that? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2015, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714 "2015-10-15T10:49:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/101 "2015-11-02T23:19:25Z")
I see a lot of people here arguing about points that Graeber is not making. His argument is not that no-one thought of swapping fruit for beefsteak until after minting coins, but that money and credit did not emerge out of an economy based on Smith-ian barter; instead, credit is the aboriginal economy, and money emerged relatively early on from multiple non-barter sources. In reference to his arguments regarding barter, I think he has selected his terminology badly, and he is to some extent attacking a straw man; the “gift economy” system has been well known for some time in anthropology, and I doubt that most people with any understanding of pre-currency-exposure cultures really think most exchanges involved directly swapping six taro roots for half a basket of soybeans. But he seems to be writing mainly for economists, who don’t seem to pay much attention to anthropology, and for people who have been exposed to standard economic arguments, so maybe there is a point to hitting them with the bluntest possible clue-stick. (Disclamer: IANA economist and I don’t know how novel Graeber’s ideas were to the average economist, although I see a lot of reviews that seem to find them so.) Here’s Graeber’s main thesis on barter again: [QUOTE=Graeber] In fact, our standard account of monetary history is precisely backwards. We did not begin with barter, discover money, and then eventually develop credit systems. It happened precisely the other way around. [/QUOTE] So he proposes: 1. People evolved economic systems based on credit 2. Then economic systems based on money 3. Then economic systems based on barter From the anthropological and archaeological record, the relative order of 1 and 2 is well established (see below). So the question is whether “barter” preceded or followed the invention of money. Graeber points out that the earliest societies were almost definitely gift-exchange economies; “credit systems”, but ones in which exchanges were not formalized, were frequently multilateral, and did not involve specific enumeration of debts (“you owe me three cows”). This is well in line with anthropological studies of surviving economically primitive societies, which typically expect that people will do favors for and distribute surpluses to others within the community, and that these gifts will in the fullness of time be reciprocated by the recipients, but in the form of a social obligation rather than as a direct quid-pro-quo transaction. The question of “value” is handled through subjective assessments of generosity / stinginess, rather than explicit calculations (“I gave him 2 sheep worth’s of fruit but he only gave me one sheep’s worth of roots”). Therefore, contrary to **The Hamster King’s** criticism, even counting systems were not necessary\*; counting, accounting, and record-keeping developed after formal trade emerged. Graeber points out that the currencies of the most economically primitive societies that we know of (obsidian, shells, beads, cocoa) were not used for everyday transactions but mainly for major social exchanges such as dowries/bride prices, resolving disputes, and tribute, which obscures their identity as money from our commodity-exchange-focused point of view. From the archaeological record, these forms of “ceremonial” money seem to have emerged early on and usually predate evidence of formal trade. As formal trade developed, societies first came up with the idea of recording debts owed (such as the sheep figurines mentioned by **The Hamster King** unthread), then later the idea of money as a standardized, universal unit of exchange that could be used to handle any transaction (he also discusses trading credit tokens as a route to money). Thus, money is quite early, but after credit, which remained a major form of economic exchange even after the idea of universal currency became widespread. Figuring out where #3 falls into the timeline requires a definition of “barter”. Graeber seems to use “barter” to imply a system of transactions that involve: 1. An immediate, on-the-spot exchange of goods 2. In which the exchange is predicated around equivalence of “value” (or at least an acceptable imbalance) 3. _Within_ a given community Graeber excludes informal delayed exchange of favors from his definition of barter; if I agree to make you an axe, in return for you bringing me some antelope meat from your next hunt, that is not barter per Graeber. Likewise, on-the-spot quid-pro-quo trades with members of _other_ groups is not part of his definition, as he sees them as largely irrelevant to the local economy (as they would most likely have been relatively infrequent and involving rare or distantly-obtained goods rather than daily items, as is true for most economically primitive societies up until recently). This seems overly restrictive, and not concordant with the way “barter” is typically used either in academia or in general conversation. But Graeber is specifically attacking the Smith-ian explanation for the development of money, in which money is invented to simplify equitable-value on-the-spot trades of different goods. His argument is that such transactions were too rare to require such simplification until after money had developed from ceremonial currency and credit-accounting systems. Furthermore, he argues that a system using Smith-ian barter as the default form of economic exchange requires a mindset that converts the value of the different goods to a universal standard, that could not have arisen until after the development of money as a unit of exchange. (This one I’m not completely convinced of.) I don’t think Graeber’s argument on barter is as well presented as it could be, and there are a number of errors, omissions, and oversimplifications along the way. In particular, his point could have been better made if he had picked clearer terminology for his specific definition of “barter”. But I think the overall conclusions are correct at least in outline, and his examination of the multiple forms of money and the routes leading to them is interesting. - Although **The Hamster King** has conflated the idea of written numbers with that of counting systems; it is possible to have the concept of “twenty-six” but not have a standardized method of recording that concept. How does he think the makers of the clay balls knew to put in three sheep figurines if they couldn’t count to three? ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/102 "2015-11-02T23:27:11Z")
[Missed the edit window]: Graeber also argues that economies where barter is the primary form of exchange are rare and transient, and tend to involve cases where at least one side is used to using money, and either the two sides don’t have (or have access to) a mutually accepted currency, or the other side is pre-currency. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/103 "2015-11-03T05:52:29Z")
From the **Hamster King** ’s [link](http://en.finaly.org/index.php/Two_precursors_of_writing:_plain_and_complex_tokens): [INDENT]The first occurrence of tokens at Tell Mureybet, in the third level of occupation of the site, is particularly revealing. There were no tokens in Mureybet I and II, when the village economy was based on hunting and gathering but already traded obsidian. Tokens coincide in Mureybet III with such new features as a quantum jump in quantity of cereal pollen in the soil, the first evidence for the cultivation of grain in fields around the site; the construction of rectangular silos; and a substantial increase in the population, which implies a new social structure.5 Accordingly, the invention of a record keeping device in the ancient Middle East appears to have little to do with animal domestication and herding. The correlation with trade is also not convincing. Instead, the need for counting and accounting seems to be related, in that part of the world, with an economy based on hoarding and cultivating cereals and the socioeconomic changes that followed agriculture.6 It seems indeed logical that an economy involving the planning of subsistence over the seasons would require record keeping. [/INDENT] So the rise of agriculture was connected with the rise of deferred payment, or credit. That sound plausible. Money came after the rise of agriculture. That also sounds plausible. Also, trade apparently preceded credit. “Barter came after money”: that is only plausible with a bizarro definition of barter. It’s fine to use unusual definitions. But if you do that you need to make it clear. Furthermore, such arguments say little about others such as Adam Smith who use the term in a more conventional manner. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/104 "2015-11-03T06:26:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Those who say the consensus conjecture is mistaken have the burden of the argument, and it seems to me that Graebel isn’t convincing. Hmm that’s the wrong way round. those with the original conjecture (Adam Smith etc) have to provide evidence. That evidence is lacking. You can’t just say “I’ve got a conjecture now prove it wrong”. Unfalsifiable claim ? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/105 "2015-11-03T23:59:11Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Hmm that’s the wrong way round. those with the original conjecture (Adam Smith etc) have to provide evidence. That evidence is lacking. You can’t just say “I’ve got a conjecture now prove it wrong”. Unfalsifiable claim ? The conjecture is supported by the observation that at least one case of barter (probably more) has been observed among chimpanzees in the wild. Money is observed among chimpanzees only after special training. So barter precedes money. But honestly, I find it difficult to imagine money preceding barter, provided you use a conventional definition of barter. That is to say transactions preceded advanced transaction technology. Arguments to the contrary rely on narrow definitions of barter. Don’t get me wrong. It’s fine to study modern manifestations of barter and note their characteristics. It’s also fine to discuss good to good trade mediated through the institution of gift exchange. But when you flat out say that money preceded barter, you should make clear that your claim doesn’t conflict with those using ordinary definitions, like Adam Smith. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/106 "2015-11-04T03:57:45Z")
Measure for Measure, can you just recap for me exactly what you mean by barter? What Adam Smith meant by barter and perhaps the conventional meaning? I think think is where it gets confusing when trying to establish why mainstream economists say that barter preceded money. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/107 "2015-11-04T04:38:18Z")
No problem, here you go, and I’ll add emphasis: > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’ll start with a citation from Lipsey, Steiner et al (1990) _Economics_, 9th edition: “The earliest market economies depended on **barter** , **the trading of goods directly for other goods**.” Bargaining or haggling isn’t necessarily implied. Indeed, while money may or may not affect the amount of haggling (unclear to me), that aspect is not addressed in typical introductory texts. What they say is that money does the following: [ul] [li]Provides a store of value,[/li][li]provides a unit of account,[/li][li]and most importantly provides a medium of exchange.[/li][/ul] Discussion: [https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/basics.htm](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/09/basics.htm) ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/108 "2015-11-04T04:53:05Z")
Chimps ? > [@](#): > > [First of all, the researchers](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130092136.htm) found that chimpanzees often did not spontaneously barter food items, but needed to be trained to engage in commodity barter. Moreover, even after the chimpanzees had been trained to do barters with reliable human trading partners, they were reluctant to engage in extreme deals in which a very good commodity (apple slices) had to be sacrificed in order to get an even more preferred commodity (grapes). Wait a minute… ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/109 "2015-11-04T08:20:42Z")
Oh sure. Look if I have an apple slice and my neighbor has a grape, neither of us really care. We lack motivation. But that wasn’t my link: [Chimps trade food for sex](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150416-basic-instincts-chimpanzee-mating-sex-science-animals/), though admittedly some disagree with that characterization. More seriously, your article notes that ownership norms underlie barter: there is the risk that your counterparty may just run off with both apple slice and grape. I suppose gift exchange might be simpler. But that too is a form of barter, insofar as it involves the trading of a good directly for another good. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/110 "2015-11-04T09:38:18Z")
Quote: Originally Posted by **Measure for Measure** [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18830528#post18830528) Oh sure. Look if I have an apple slice and my neighbor has a grape, neither of us really care. We lack motivation. But that wasn’t my link: [Chimps trade food for sex](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150416-basic-instincts-chimpanzee-mating-sex-science-animals/), though admittedly some disagree with that characterization. More seriously, your article notes that ownership norms underlie barter: there is the risk that your counterparty may just run off with both apple slice and grape. I suppose gift exchange might be simpler. But that too is a form of barter, insofar as it involves the trading of a good directly for another good. Looking at the article > [@](#): > > Some studies report cases of male chimps trying to sweeten the deal: sharing game they killed, or crops they filched, with females that mated with them. But > [@](#): > > Many studies don’t support the food-for-sex theory, Emery Thompson says: “People tend to hang on to the idea because they find it titillating.” The study linked fropm the Nat G page seems very tenuous and speculative > [@](#): > > ``` > We propose that hypotheses focussing on ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ and ‘showing-off’ strategies plausibly account for observed sharing behaviours > > ``` > [@](#): > > The ‘meat-for-sex’ hypothesis suggests that males share meat with females either to gain immediate access to swollen females [[8]](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000886#pone.0000886-Goodall1), [[9]](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000886#pone.0000886-Stanford1) or to establish or strengthen an affiliative relationship and thus increase future mating opportunities That sounds like it could be, actually, a debt system a la Graeber > [@](#): > > Meat sharing is infrequent at Bossou due to the scarcity of mammalian prey [[26]](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000886#pone.0000886-Sugiyama1); during this study it was only observed once: an adult female caught and shared a tree pangolin,… Instead of meat sharing, the regular sharing of cultivated plant foods may be employed by adult males as a ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ strategy to enhance affiliation with reproductively valuable females. Although the ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ explanation can plausibly account for these observations, it relies principally on one cycling female, and may not be representative of the behaviour as a whole. Elsewhere in the net > [@](#): > > “I kept finding references to ‘meat for sex’ all over the place, saying this is what chimpanzees do,” says [Ian Gilby](http://www.duke.edu/%7Eig25/), a primatologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “Knowing from observation and reading the evidence, they really don’t.” > Most reports of male chimps trading meat for sex are anecdotal, Gilby says. [Only one study](http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853994X00181) has found statistically meaningful, if indirect, support for such swaps, showing that male chimpanzees are more likely to hunt for monkeys when oestrous females are around. > Yet when Gilby’s team examined observations from four chimpanzee communities in Uganda and Tanzania spanning 28 years, they found no evidence that female fertility affected whether males hunted or not. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/111 "2015-11-06T02:14:13Z")
Regarding your last quote (which was pretty good, kudos): 1. [The article](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18968-exchange-meat-for-sex-no-thank-you/) also mentioned another meat for sex study, so this looks like an open issue and, 2. > [@](#): > > One possibility is that chimpanzees use meat to gain coalitional support and even grooming services from other males and females, Gilby says. The extent of meat sharing tends to correlate with grooming, but no one has yet demonstrated any sort of quid pro quo. > > A more likely explanation is that chimps share meat because others beg, Gilby says. He has found that the more a chimp eating meat is harassed, the more he shares; that begging slows the speed at which chimps eat meat; and that begging tends to stop one meat is shared. > > “It doesn’t involve males thinking about who owes them favours,” Gilby says. “It is essentially ‘you’re in my face bugging me, because you’re there harassing me for meat I can’t eat’.” ## …so 3) the trade could involve meat for grooming or meat for “Getting out of my face leaving me in peace goddamn it”. Either way that’s barter. Though I concede that last claim is a bit of a stre-e-e-tch. The debt system looks more like gift exchange to me. But either way, _that is barter_: goods are being exchanged for other goods. Economists typically using narrow definitions of debt and broad definitions of barter. Graeber in contrast uses broad definitions of debt and narrow definitions of barter. Now there’s nothing intrinsically superior about one set of definitions or another, _provide you are clear about what you are doing_. It only becomes bad scholarship and a shell game when you use one definition system to critique another without making clear that you are actually discussing different things. I continue to find it implausible that mediums of exchange preceded good for good exchange. But that said, gift exchange may very well have preceded money. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/112 "2015-11-06T05:12:35Z")
> [@](#): > > But either way, _that is barter_: goods are being exchanged for other goods. I don’t agree > [@](#): > > [[9]](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000886#pone.0000886-Stanford1) or to establish or strengthen an affiliative relationship and thus increase future mating opportunities …doesn’t give an idea of an intent for a specific repayment, but rather the establishment of an vague sense of community and obligation - that’s pretty much what Graeber says, especially if you see him interviewed and get the body language. So, it might be open ended if you really want to hang on for a definitive study sometime in the future but it doesn’t look like you’re going to get one, judging by already completed studies. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/113 "2015-11-06T05:16:12Z")
And that’s assuming that sex is an actual _thing_ that can be bartered. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/114 "2015-11-06T21:49:00Z")
Well sex can be traded for money. (Or so I’ve heard.) I see no reason why it couldn’t be traded for another good or service. I’m not sure how to settle the question of whether gift exchange is a form of barter. I say it involves an exchange of goods, so it is. At any rate, I repeat: if you assert that you’ve made a criticism of an idea, it’s bad form to use a wildly different set of definitions. That’s a [strawman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/115 "2015-11-08T09:56:18Z")
Thank you all. Very helpful. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714/116 "2015-11-08T12:07:32Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Well sex can be traded for money. (Or so I’ve heard.) I see no reason why it couldn’t be traded for another good or service. > > I’m not sure how to settle the question of whether gift exchange is a form of barter. I say it involves an exchange of goods, so it is. > > At any rate, I repeat: if you assert that you’ve made a criticism of an idea, it’s bad form to use a wildly different set of definitions. That’s a [strawman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument. But that defines Graeber’s argument out of existence. He goes by an open ended sense of obligation, and if chimps do behave like the study says then that’s pretty much what they do. But it does look like an exchange of sorts. You’ve convinced me that some chimps have been found to possibly have an exchange for sex though it’s not a consensus view. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-bartering-really-precede-money-is-it-really-as-clearcut-as-all-that/734714.md?page=5)