This article defines social and financial money as distinct institutions that account for different realms of value. I present a fundamental dichotomy among economists' where orthodox theory defines money as a medium of exchange whereas heterodox chartalist economists characterize it as a unit of account. I argue that (pre)historical data provides clear evidence in support of the heterodox position. The unit of account function of money is exemplified by how wampum accounted for social debts and was expanded to also serve financial functions by European colonial governments. The heterodox position is further evidenced with the metal coins that denominated Rome's financial money that transitioned to serve primarily social purposes in early Anglo-Saxon Britain. Focusing on the accounting function of social and financial monies transcends the Polanyian special-versus-general-purpose framework that often still structures archaeological practice. With this framework of money defined by what gives it value, I then evaluate recent claims that financial money was integral to the political economies of Bronze Age Europe. I conclude that the adoption of the orthodox assumption that money is primarily a medium of exchange inhibits understanding of what money is and how the political economies of ancient societies were organized.

中文翻译：

---

了解金钱；或者，为什么社会会计和财务会计不应该混为一谈

本文将社会货币和金融货币定义为负责不同价值领域的不同机构。我提出了经济学家之间的基本二分法，正统理论将货币定义为交换媒介，而非正统图表主义经济学家则将其描述为记账单位。我认为（史前）历史数据提供了支持非正统立场的明确证据。货币的记账单位功能以贝壳串珠如何计算社会债务为例，并被欧洲殖民政府扩展到也服务于金融功能。这种非正统的立场进一步证明了罗马金融货币的金属硬币，这些货币在早期的盎格鲁-撒克逊英国转变为主要服务于社会目的。关注社会和金融货币的会计功能超越了波兰尼式的特殊目的与通用目的框架，该框架仍然经常构建考古实践。通过这个由赋予其价值的因素定义的货币框架，我随后评估了最近关于金融货币是青铜时代欧洲政治经济不可或缺的一部分的说法。我的结论是，采用货币主要是交换媒介的正统假设阻碍了对货币是什么以及古代社会的政治经济是如何组织的理解。