This segment is dedicated to the different theories on the emergence of money. The first topic to be explored is the classical economists' theory of money's emergence.

According to classical economic theories, in particular that championed by Adam Smith, money emerged naturally from barter in response to its limitations. Initially, exchanges were carried out by direct barter, but this method was often complicated by the problem of "double coincidence of wants": each person had to possess exactly what the other wanted. Gradually, certain commodities (such as salt, precious metals and livestock) came to be accepted by all as intermediate means of exchange, thanks to their utility, durability and divisibility. Thus, money spontaneously appeared to facilitate and fluidify economic exchanges.

A critique of this theory can be formulated. This notion that coins are an evolution of barter is problematic because the minted coin definitely emerges from authority, since it's minted by authority. This is driven, not insignificantly, by the authorities' desire to control the economy and assert monetary sovereignty.

On the other hand, if we're talking about money as a concept, not necessarily coins, then it's less clear-cut because, with the first coins, the Lydian staters, we've found silver blobs that weren't marked. It remains to be seen whether they were in circulation. If they were circulating, this means that people may have originally identified this asset as a potential currency that could be widely demanded and easily exchanged. And maybe it was only afterwards that the authorities noticed this situation and took control of it by putting a stamp on it to certify it.

There are a lot of advantages to doing this - no need to check it, weigh it, all that. Obviously, we'll talk about that. Coins are clearly a tool that have been used by states from the outset. However, in terms of the emergence of money as such, we don't know whether it really came from an authority that imposed it or whether it emerged through trade or commercial exchanges. This subject will be explored further in this section.

We already know that the first precious metal coins were not used to facilitate daily exchanges because their value was far too high. We also know that they were mainly used for military payments. This is a good argument for the thesis that money didn't necessarily emerge from the market. The units of account, the denominations of the first coins, were probably too large for, say, buying bread or doing daily shopping. It could, for example, be the equivalent of a day's wages. This provides a sense of the scale. So these coins probably had too much purchasing power to be used in small-scale trade. On the other hand, there's nothing to say that these coins wouldn't have been used to make larger exchanges, such as merchant exchanges. We know that they were mainly used for military payments. This is one of the most popular theories to explain the appearance of the first coins. Remember, we're talking about coins here, not necessarily about money in general. So, the first coins had their first role, and that was to pay for military payments, for mercenaries.

Alexander the Great, for example, made great use of it, as we'll see later.

We've also seen that as early as ancient China, cowrie shells were used for economic exchange (remunerating labor, measuring value and purchasing land). What's more, in Mesopotamia and Egypt, functional monetary systems already existed and were used for trade, wage payments and tax payments. This suggests it is incorrect to think that coins in the Western conception emerge from the need to make exchanges more fluid.

Since coins are issued by an authority, we can perhaps assume that, from the outset, they have been linked to the issuing authorities. That makes sense. On the other hand, we don't necessarily know how the forms of money or the forms of monetary systems, the proto-coins, that preceded them emerged. On the one hand, we're going to suggest that it was the temples that identified these monetary units and, afterwards, people used them. And, on the other hand, we'll tell you, no, it was the merchants who needed a means of exchange, a way of trading with the outside world, and it was they who identified, for example, silver metal, to be used because it was in demand from the outside world. The precise origin remains uncertain, giving rise to these two opposing theories. We don't have perfect proof to explain whether money emerges naturally from the need to trade, for example by merchants, or whether it emanates from authority.

In conclusion, coins necessarily emanate from authority, since they were stamped by said authority. On the other hand, it is plausible that money (that which preceded coins) emerged to facilitate exchange. Historical examples, such as those cited above, support this view.