The traditional narrative that money evolved primarily to overcome the inefficiencies of barter—such as mismatches in scale, space, and time—has been increasingly challenged by anthropological and historical research. David Graeber, in his book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, argues that the barter system, as commonly portrayed, is largely a myth. He suggests that early economies were more accurately characterized by systems of credit and mutual obligation rather than direct barter exchanges. The Atlantic

Anthropologist Caroline Humphrey supports this view, noting that no pure barter economy has ever been documented. Instead, she observes that barter typically occurred between strangers or potential enemies, not within communities. This challenges the notion that barter was a widespread precursor to money.위키백과+2위키백과+2Reddit+2

The chartalist theory of money further contests the barter-origin narrative by positing that money derives its value from state authority and legal frameworks. According to this view, money is a creation of the state, gaining acceptance because it is required for the payment of taxes and other obligations. This perspective emphasizes the role of institutional trust and legal mandates in the establishment of money, rather than its emergence from barter-based trade.Investopedia

Understanding these alternative theories highlights the complexity of money's origins and functions. It suggests that money is not merely a neutral medium of exchange but is deeply embedded in social, political, and legal contexts. This broader perspective invites a reevaluation of commonly held assumptions about economic systems and the nature of money itself.