Are you sure about that statement?
I’m not a historian, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that currencies came very early, raw bullion wasn’t really used for normal trade, and silver was much more predominant than gold.
I’m not a historian, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that currencies came very early, raw bullion wasn’t really used for normal trade, and silver was much more predominant than gold.
The value of the constituent metal is dictated by the price (in count) that the mint pays. Nobody pays less because you could go to the mint, and if anybody demands more, you just melt the coin. It was the count that gave value to the metal, not the other way round.
The only evidence for currency from barter comes from the imagination of economists of a particular bent.
This is how you end up with the US government installing a military base over a huge stash of gold, called Fort Knox. They don't do the same for silver and copper.