OT: A Question for Economists, Archaeologists and Historians. A plea for help.

[Brennus]

This is difficult because of the coercion factor. Barbaric societies that begin trading with more civilised ones usually adopt coins voluntarily, to ease trade with the foreign merchants.

So for an example of being forced to go from barter to coinage, you'd need a barbaric society that was conquered and permanently occupied by a more civilised opponent before much trade took place between them. Which is rare. Conquest usually follows trade, rather than preceding it.

The only examples I can think of are the Australian Aborigines forced to adopt British coinage, or Pacific island tribal cultures forced to by colonisers. The Red Indians probably don't qualify.

I am glad your not marking my thesis lol. Nice info.

[abou]

If you do some research into Iran and the Successors you might have some luck. In many of those regions a barter system was used, but Alexander and others afterward worked to establish a monetary system. Barter still existed, of course, but there was a big push to getting Persian metals melted and turned into coins. Unfortunately, I can't for the life of me remember the book. If I find it, I'll let you know, but that could give you a direction to start.

[paullus]

Shoot, they barely used coinage in Egypt, and getting them to do so was like pulling teeth for the Ptolemies. I'd be inclined, by the way, to see the introduction of coinage as tied to trade before tying it to invasion. The bars they were using in southern England were so much bigger than comparable values in coinage, and wouldn't have been looked upon happily by continental traders. I don't say that to disagree with you about the Belgae invasion, just that I figure the coins would be introduced sporadically through trade. Now, if you see an elimination of bars and abundance of coinage--a sharp shift, ya know?--I'd say that's a pretty meaningful piece of evidence for invasion.