Money & Finance › What money is & money theory › What money is: a shared, transferable claim
The barter myth vs. credit origins of money
· Theory or school
Experts disagreeEconomists or investors genuinely disagree.
The textbook story says money replaced barter; anthropologists and historians argue that credit and debt records came first.
See it on the Money & Finance map →How it works
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) pictured a butcher, a brewer and a baker swapping goods until a common money emerged, because barter needs each side to want what the other has. Anthropologists have never found a society that ran on barter between neighbors. Early records show credit instead: debts tracked in a unit like silver and settled later. Barter does appear between strangers or when money breaks down, as in 1990s Russia or prison cigarette economies.
Why it matters
It changes how we see money: less a thing, more a system of IOUs and trust, which is how bank money works today.
Facts, rules and data
Anthropologist Caroline Humphrey (1985) found no pure barter economy ever described. David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011) popularized the case, drawing on Mesopotamian tablets and Alfred Mitchell-Innes (1913).
Debates and risks
Economists debate how much it matters: money could have emerged from credit, state taxes and trade at once, in different places.
Inside this (1)
Connections (2)
▸The barter myth vs. credit origins of money reframes the origins of What money is: a shared, transferable claimExperts disagree
The connection
If money grew out of barter, it is a thing: a handy commodity. If it grew out of credit, it is a social record of who owes what. The credit view fits modern money, which is mostly bank IOUs, and so reframes what money is.
When and why
Smith's story in 1776; challenged by Alfred Mitchell-Innes (1913), Caroline Humphrey (1985) and David Graeber (2011).
How solid is the link?
Fieldwork and ancient records show credit appearing early; the Bank of England's 2014 paper on money creation describes modern money as mostly bank IOUs.
Debates and risks
Many economists say the barter story was always a teaching simplification and the debate is overstated; others think it changes economics itself.
▸Mesopotamian temple loans and silver ledgers are key evidence in The barter myth vs. credit origins of moneyMainstream view
The connection
Mesopotamian tablets show temple and palace accounts in silver and barley units long before coins, with debts recorded and settled later. That is credit, not barter. Critics of Adam Smith's story use these records as their main historical case.
When and why
Sumer and Babylonia, roughly 3000–1750 BC; used by David Graeber (2011), economist Michael Hudson and other scholars.
How solid is the link?
The tablets are real and abundant; the dispute is over how to interpret them, not over the evidence itself.
Debates and risks
Whether temple accounts tell us how ordinary people traded in markets, where barter or silver payment may have been common, is unresolved.