There is no factual history of the origin of money, but it is impossible to accept any situation beyond the following basic outline. This was first generated by Ludwig Von Mises, and is known as "the regression theorum":
At first people were self dependent, autonomous.
They slowly began to produce excess, and realized that trade would benefit them.
People slowly began trading things to one another.
However, problems arose: If you want a pickle, but only have a chicken, you would need to find a chicken-wanting-pickle-haver. Such difficulties led to INDIRECT BARTER.
People began trading their excess for things that they didn't want because they knew that other people would want them (for example: I trade my bread for peanut butter -- even though I'm allergic to it -- because the person who has shoes wants peanut butter).
Slowly, people began to decide upon a specific "medium of exchange" -- salt, gold, silver, tobacco, sea shells -- that most people wanted.
Gold and silver won out because a) most people want jewelry, b) it has "good money properties" (I have a hub that discusses these properties).
Everything beyond this point (fiat paper money) is merely an extension of this.
Please check out my "Evan's Easy Economics" articles to learn more.
Here's a question, does anyone think humanity will ever be advanced enough (even in some Dune-esque distant future) to evolve beyond currency and tyrannical resource scarcity and allocation economic systems?
Some will say that a system or tool such as money could not be moral or ethical; it’s how the tool or system is used that matters, but does it not facilitate treachery on a disastrous scale? Are laws and regulations...
Today it is 36 days that I live without money. It is a wonderful feeling to be free and not to depend on the activities of criminals - the banks and the financial system who steal other people's money - and their slaves...