> The point is not if barter is used sometimes or if some people, in some circumstances, would start using cigarettes as money, but if that's the main history of money, specifically in the context of early states, as has been claimed for many years without any kind of evidence.
Both sides of the argument are making claims without evidence, because evidence prior to record-keeping of debt doesn't exist, and never will. There are only theories about how money came into being, and some are more plausible than others.
Graeber himself contradicts his own "debunking" of Menger's theory:
> "All evidence that exists points to money emerging as a series of fixed equivalents between silver – the stuff used to measure fixed equivalents in long distance trade, and conveniently stockpiled in the temples themselves where it was used to make images of gods, etc – and grain, the stuff used to pay the most important rations from temple stockpiles to its workers. Hence a silver shekel was fixed as the amount of silver equivalent to the numbers of bushels of barley that could provide 2 meals a day for a temple worker over the course of a month. It was the Temples that actually had a need to extend a silver system from a unit used to compare the value of a limited number of rare items traded long distance, used almost exclusively by members of the political or administrative elite of the societies in question – to something that could be used to compare the values of everyday items, like planks of wood, jugs of beer, and so forth."
Why silver?
Why were they already stockpiling silver?
How was it decided that silver would be used to measure fixed equivalents in long distance trade?
How was it decided the ratio of silver to bushels of barley?
What were these political and administrative elite doing when they proposed to offer a certain amount of silver for some long-distance traded rare items? (We have a word for this: 'barter')
Why would the foreigners they are trading with even want all this silver?
It takes some circular reasoning to get to where Graeber thinks he is, because he misinterpreted Menger to begin with. The above does not discredit Menger at all.