Alfred Amonn, Das Problem der Entstehung des Geldes (1946)

Alfred Amonn’s German-language article examines monetary origins through a methodological defence of Kaulla’s Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Geldes against Herbert A. Cahn’s criticism. It distinguishes the reconstruction of particular historical developments from economic explanation through institutional purposes and advantages. Disputes over coin stamps, precious-metal valuation, and early exchange practices show why documentary evidence and rational inference must be distinguished without excluding either.

Amonn begins with the characteristic approach of monetary theory:

In der Geldtheorie pflegt gewöhnlich auch die Frage der Entstehung des Geldes aufgeworfen zu werden und — dem Wesen der Theorie entsprechend — rational beantwortet zu werden.

English translation: In monetary theory the question of the origin of money is also commonly raised and — in accordance with the nature of theory — answered rationally.

The difficulty is not rational explanation itself, but its confusion with historical demonstration. Money need not have emerged everywhere through an identical process. Evidence concerning one people or period cannot establish a universal history of its beginnings. Amonn therefore challenges the unrestricted formulation of the historical question:

Seine Frage darf nicht einfach so lauten: Wo und wann und wie und aus welchem Grunde ist das Geld — überhaupt — entstanden?

English translation: His question must not run simply thus: Where and when and how and for what reason did money — in general — come into being?

Historical plurality nevertheless leaves room for a common explanatory factor. Different developmental paths could have been shaped by the practical advantages of monetary exchange. Explanation through usefulness does not require a conscious inventor or a deliberately instituted monetary system:

Dies kann aber kaum etwas anderes als ein bei allen Völkern auf höheren Stufen der Entwicklung sich geltend machender rationaler Faktor gewesen sein — nicht im Sinne bewusster und beabsichtigter, sondern unbewusster, unbeabsichtigter Rationalität.

English translation: But this can hardly have been anything other than a rational factor asserting itself among all peoples at higher stages of development — not in the sense of conscious and intended rationality, but of unconscious, unintended rationality.

This distinction supports economic reasoning while limiting its historical claims. Economists must not present plausible reconstructions as documented events; historians must not dismiss explanatory inference simply because direct testimony is unavailable. Surviving evidence already presupposes developed monetary practices, leaving the transition from barter beyond straightforward documentary reconstruction.

The principal controversy concerns the original significance of coin stamps. Against Cahn’s preference for a guarantee of weight, Amonn argues that stamping could not protect a coin against clipping or wear. Continued weighing of Roman coins further weakens the identification of a stamp with reliable weight certification. Since weighing was comparatively simple whereas determining metallic composition was difficult, certification of material quality appears more plausible. Yet Kaulla’s argument about Lydian coinage primarily concerns provenance: the stamp indicated where a coin would circulate at nominal value and thereby encouraged its acceptance abroad. Assurance about composition was secondary. Marks on temple property cannot settle the issue, because physically similar stamps can carry different institutional meanings.

Further disagreements expose the risks of moving between periods or conceptual levels without qualification. Amonn distinguishes fluctuating market prices from an officially maintained monetary ratio between gold and silver. He also defends the “closed household economy” as an ideal type describing a predominant economic structure, not a claim that all exchange was absent. Exceptional transactions do not by themselves invalidate that concept. His criticism of Schmoller’s younger historical school similarly targets the accumulation of individual facts without sufficient attention to their explanatory significance.

Amonn’s reconstruction of Kaulla connects sacred valuation with practical adaptation. Precious metals initially acquired exceptional esteem through religious associations rather than technical suitability for exchange. The suggested connection between gold–silver valuation and solar and lunar cycles remains hypothetical. Metal objects and fragments could subsequently settle differences in barter, develop into standards of valuation, and become general means of exchange and payment. Uncertainty about Lydian electrum made provenance stamps useful for wider circulation, while rulers’ fiscal interests helped promote coinage.

The article’s contribution is a division of explanatory labour. Historical inquiry differentiates contexts and constrains conjecture; economic reasoning interprets purposes and institutional meanings that evidence alone does not disclose. Although Amonn sometimes presses practical plausibility forcefully, his central demand is reciprocal restraint: rational reconstruction must acknowledge its evidentiary limits, and historical scholarship must recognize its dependence on interpretation.