Anthropologists argue that the idea of a pure barter economy preceding money is a historical myth with no empirical evidence in human history. Research into modern and historical small-scale societies shows that exchange systems were typically based on gift economies, redistribution, or credit, rather than spot-trading.
Origin of the Myth: The narrative was popularized by classical economists like Adam Smith as a theoretical model to explain the efficiency of money, not as a documented historical reality.
Actual Pre-Monetary Systems: Communities relied on socially embedded reciprocity (gifting) or institutional redistribution (e.g., temples or palaces collecting and distributing resources).
When Barter Occurred: Anthropologists observe that barter typically appears only in societies with existing monetary systems but scarce currency, or between strangers and enemies who do not share social ties.
Consensus: Experts like Caroline Humphrey and David Graeber note that no ethnography has ever described a "pure" barter economy from which money emerged; instead, money likely originated as a unit of account for taxation and state administration
If they believe that, they are idiots.
Barter HAD to precede money, as there would be no need for money -- or even the concept of money -- until barter became difficult.
This is their reasoning as supplied by Brave AI:
Anthropologists argue that the idea of a pure barter economy preceding money is a historical myth with no empirical evidence in human history. Research into modern and historical small-scale societies shows that exchange systems were typically based on gift economies, redistribution, or credit, rather than spot-trading.