The Archaeology of Money

Abstract

Money is one of the most timeless, all-pervading, and arbitrary inventions in human history. Its ubiquity in time and space offers great scope for comparative archaeological research into its varying material manifestations. This article takes a broad approach, ranging from Old World prehistory to twentieth-century ethnography. First, the development of archaeological approaches to coinage and money is outlined. Subsequent sections explore research into the use of objects as currencies in prehistory; the origins of coined money; archaeological sites illustrating the adoption and functions of coinage in and around the classical Mediterranean; and the study of coins as archaeological artifacts in the more recent past and in non-European contexts. Finally, we suggest some potential ways forward, employing comparative archaeological study to enhance our understanding of the complexity of functions performed by monetary objects, both in the past and in the present.

Everyday mundane repair: banknotes and the material entanglements of improvisation and innovation

“…Banknotes represent various kinds of value, ranging from economic, cultural, and historical value to the specificities of personal and social values. An economic view of the value of banknotes highlights their roles as a medium of exchange and payment, "store of value," and "unit of account" that they materialize (DeVoe and Iyengar 2010; Guyer 2012; Hart and Ortiz 2014; Haselgrove and Krmnicek 2012;Maurer 2006;Mishra, Mishra, and Nayakankuppam 2006). Currency has been closely linked with the symbolism of national identity (Helleiner 1998), and new banknotes are no exception.…”

The Psychological Science of Money

“…Serious challenges have been posed to such accounts by recent research on barter (Ferraro, 2011 ;Humphrey, 2002 ;Humphrey & Hugh-Jones, 1992 ); on the "social" qualities and not strictly "economic" uses of money today, even in the contemporary West (Wilkis, 2013 ;Zelizer, 2007 ); and the archaeological origins of money itself (Haselgrove & Krmnicek, 2012 ), as we have discussed above. At the same time, Bohannan's "spheres of exchange" model has proven important to contemporary work in the anthropology of money, for this "theory of value in nonexchange," as Sahlins ( 1972 , p. 277) puts it, can constitute a signifi cant challenge to assumptions about money's fungibility, liquidity, and universality when applied to the modern side of the conventional narrative of money.…”

“…On the archaeology of money and the origins of coinage, seeEagleton and Williams ( 2007 ),Grierson ( 1977 ),Haselgrove and Krmnicek ( 2012 ),Smith ( 2004), von Reden ( 1997, and several of the contributions toWray ( 2004 ).…”

Materiality, Symbol, and Complexity in the Anthropology of Money

“…Serious challenges have been posed to such accounts by recent research on barter (Ferraro, 2011 ;Humphrey, 2002 ;Humphrey & Hugh-Jones, 1992 ); on the "social" qualities and not strictly "economic" uses of money today, even in the contemporary West (Wilkis, 2013 ;Zelizer, 2007 ); and the archaeological origins of money itself (Haselgrove & Krmnicek, 2012 ), as we have discussed above. At the same time, Bohannan's "spheres of exchange" model has proven important to contemporary work in the anthropology of money, for this "theory of value in nonexchange," as Sahlins ( 1972 , p. 277) puts it, can constitute a signifi cant challenge to assumptions about money's fungibility, liquidity, and universality when applied to the modern side of the conventional narrative of money.…”