The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
When Cloth Was Money, Literally
Before industrial production, textiles could make excellent currency.
In pre-industrial economies, textiles have many of the characteristics essential to a good currency. They're durable, portable, and divisible. Bolts can be produced in standard sizes and uniform quality. The quantity is limited, since cloth takes a long time to produce and it flows out of the money supply as it's transferred to everyday use, thereby avoiding inflation.
We tend to think of money as something established by central authorities, and sometimes cloth currency was just that. (In The Fabric of Civilization I discuss how China's Tang dynasty, short on coins, defined silk bolts as legal tender.) But that need not be the case. Elsewhere in the world, textile money emerged out of commercial usage, supported but not created by law.
Set in the mid-eleventh century, the Icelandic tale of Audun begins in the early summer, when a Norwegian merchant name Thorir arrives on the island's northwestern Westfjords peninsula. Living in a land inhospitable to forests or farming, Icelanders relied on imports for timber and grain. They paid for these goods in the same currency they used locally: a woolen twill cloth called vaðmál (or wadmal). Thorir could sell his goods in Iceland and return with a ship laden with textiles. But there was a problem. The customers didn't have enough cash—vaðmál— on hand.
"If the Norwegian was to get paid for his flour and timber, the Icelandic buyer was unlikely to have enough cloth woven until later in the summer at best," explains William Ian Miller, a legal historian and Icelandic saga scholar. "The merchant would have to wait until you literally made your money to pay him and not infrequently the merchant had to stay the long winter to get his payment." Meanwhile, the grain might go bad.
Fortunately for Thorin, the story's Icelandic hero Audun identifies creditworthy customers. If Thorin gives them grain now, he can reliably expect cloth in time to set sail in the late summer. As a reward for his credit-reporting services, Audun gets passage on the ship, setting in motion the tale's events.
Iceland's vaðmál wasn't just a commodity. Woven to specific standards, it was a legally recognized medium of exchange and store of value, the primary form of money during Iceland's Commonwealth Period (930–1262 CE). As a unit of account, the third function of money, a piece of vaðmál two ells wide and six ells long (about a yard by three yards) was, writes anthropological archaeologist Michèle Hayeur Smith, "ubiquitous as a measure and medium of exchange in Icelandic legal texts, sales accounts, church inventories, and farm registers into the seventeenth century." (This image, from an Icelandic manuscript, depicts measuring out an ell of vaðmál.)
The archaeological evidence backs up the written records. Microscopically examining more than 1,300 archaeological textile fragments, Hayeur Smith found clear indications of cloth becoming money. The material from the Viking Age, before 1050, includes many different weave structures and widely varied thread counts. Medieval fragments, by contrast, are much more uniform—overwhelmingly the dense twills recognized as legal money. The analysis, she writes, reveals "such degrees of standardization and ubiquity that one can only conclude that cloth truly had become a unit of measure, a type of 'legal cloth currency' produced and circulated among households of all ranks across the island." In the Middle Ages, "Icelanders were weaving money in abundance."
In West Africa, too, merchants at least as far back as the 11th century used textiles to create the currency they needed to conduct trade. For many West African fabrics, narrow strips are sewn together to form a larger textile, which is worn as a single piece. (Kente cloth is one example.) Unlike colorful textiles for apparel, a strip intended as currency would be left undyed and wound into a tight, flat coil as it came off the loom. Merchants could roll such coils on the ground, sling them on either side of a pack animal, or carry them flat on the head with other goods added on top. Since weaving widths varied from place to place, if a market attracted more than one type, traders established a standard rate of exchange. A given strip length, usually that of a woman's wrapper, would be the primary monetary unit, with a full cloth forming a larger denomination.
Although African currency cloth functioned primarily as money, it did have a consumer market among the poor and desert dwellers to the north, who had no cotton. Going north, therefore, a unit of cloth bought more; going south, it bought less. Traders adjusted their travel expenditures accordingly. "A merchant from Upper Volta, for example, going to Timbuctu to buy salt with cloth produced in his home area, would use cloth to pay his way on the northward journey," writes historian Marion Johnson, "but on the return journey he would prefer to use salt which appreciated in value as it moved southward, even if he had first to sell it for local cloth money.
The same was true of silver and gold flowing from the Americas, where it bought less, to Europe and Asia, where it bought more. Cloth money was actually more self-regulating and less prone to shortages or inflation than metallic currencies. When its value rose, weavers would make more. If it became less valuable, consumers would take more. The result was a fairly constant value over time, set by the cloth's price as a commodity.
Money is a self-perpetuating social convention, a token that we trust will be valuable in future exchanges. If buyers and sellers, courts and tax authorities, accept textiles as payment, they are money.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wish the U.S. and other countries would go back to currencies that have intrinsic value, like gold and silver, rather than this worthless and manipulated fiat currency we have now.
But we switched to fiat currencies exactly because they COULD be manipulated. The government wanted to be able to manipulate the currency.
It's like telling a bank robber that he should give up guns because they're threatening. Like that's going to persuade him...
That's silly. Fiat money goes back a long time. And while ONE reason to shift over to fiat currency is, not so much to "manipulate" it as to take advantage of inflation, that's not the only reason to do so.
The gold standard was eliminated because it is stupid. You actually want the money supply to slowly increase over time, with a standardized, moderate inflation rate, thereby encouraging spending rather than hoarding. And not only did the gold standard prevent that, but it was crazy and chaotic, because any time there was a price shock in the commodities market, it affected the value of the currency. The result of the gold standard was long, sustained panics, such as the Long Depression of the late 19th Century.
It has nothing to do with "bank robbery". It has to do with actually taking advantage of what the science of economics has taught us, rather than acting like a bunch of ignorant cave dwellers from centuries ago.
And the argument against fiat currencies is that, while in theory a fiat currency can be better than the gold standard, in practice the tendency is to inflate the currency too fast, as a form of stealth taxation.
Really? We've had almost 90 years since we came off the gold standard. We also have numerous other industrialized countries that have fiat currencies and have managed to not get into hyperinflation. Because you know what, central banks hate inflation.
Yes, we've had 90 years since we got off the gold standard, and a dollar is now worth less than a nickle used to be worth.
So?
Yes, I get it that you don't care. Some people do, and those people notice that inflation was a LOT lower in the long run under the gold standard. As much inflation in 3 centuries as in the last 70 years.
Some people do
Some people care about astrology too. But we don't put them in charge of the telescopes.
I'm stealing this analogy.
What's an hour's worth of labor worth, Brett?
What's real GDP?
But productivity has increased (and economic friction has decreased) significantly more. Gold supply is a purely arbitrary metric, and there is no reason we couldn't discover some gigantic new gold supply, or figure out how to synthesize gold, which would throw everything out of whack.
the tendency is to inflate the currency too fast, as a form of stealth taxation.
There is always going to be a danger of mismanagement. The gold standard doesn't prevent that. Instead, it induces the kind of problems Dilan mentions. You can easily have inflation under a gold standard if new supplies are found.
But the main danger is intermittent deflationary episodes. You lose the ability to use monetary policy to fight recessions, and if you face a balance of payments deficit you may need o raise interest rates to persuade those holding your currency to keep it rather than redeem it in gold.
I'm not so sure that mild deflation of prices is a bad thing, bernard11. Particularly if that price deflation is accompanied by wage inflation and technological innovation. That actually happened for the better part of 30 years (1870-1900).
I agree with you about the dangers of mismanagement. I would go one step further and say the downside risk of mismanagement is much greater with government then private industry, so significantly more discipline and caution is needed. A commodity backed currency enforces a measure of monetary and fiscal discipline on the government.
Note, I use the word commodity, not gold. Commodities come in many shapes and sizes and values.
It doesn't matter what commodity you choose, it's the same problem.
Particularly if that price deflation is accompanied by wage inflation and technological innovation. That actually happened for the better part of 30 years (1870-1900).
I'd like a cite to your data.
A commodity backed currency enforces a measure of monetary and fiscal discipline on the government.
How does it do that? It doesn't. Commodities, including gold, by the way, fluctuate considerably in value. There's no stability there.
In case anyone is still listening, I want to point out the observation that while those who favor the gold standard or something similar seem to be the conservatives here, and argue the issues. Those opposed the progressives or liberals, and immediately resort to mocking and name calling. Typical. There is no "one truth" in this regard, nor "irrefutable facts" about history, only analysis. For example, that getting off the gold standard ended the great depression in 1933; simplistic, and easily refutable. It's easily argued the depression extended into WWII, and didn't really end until 1946, having been only paused by the wartime economy; that the rapid contraction of the govt. in '46 and resurgence of capitalism ended it.
"Commodities, including gold, by the way, fluctuate considerably in value. There’s no stability there."
This is a pretty silly statement. Gold only fluctuates in terms of currencies! It's actually the currencies that are fluctuating, gold relative to other commodities, to other things of value, like a bag of groceries, real estate, energy, and so on, has been remarkably stable for thousands of years.
If fiat currencies were so good, why don't people just exchange all of their investment instruments, their assets, for dollars, and sit on them? Because of inflation OF CURRENCY, and government manipulation - governments that cannot be trusted to have the interests of the citizens at heart, governments that are populated with self-dealing grifters and cheats. Look at who Biden wants for Treasury Secretary - Janet Yellen - who wants to engineer social change through monetary policy, including narrowing the "wealth gap" and raising corporate taxes. No thanks.
For example, that getting off the gold standard ended the great depression in 1933;
Good thing nobody said that. Getting off was necessary, not sufficient. It was an important step.
This is a pretty silly statement. Gold only fluctuates in terms of currencies! It’s actually the currencies that are fluctuating, gold relative to other commodities, to other things of value, like a bag of groceries, real estate, energy, and so on, has been remarkably stable for thousands of years.
I don't think you can support that. If you can, show your work.
If fiat currencies were so good, why don’t people just exchange all of their investment instruments, their assets, for dollars, and sit on them? Because of inflation OF CURRENCY, and government manipulation ...
Publius, people don't convert their assets into currency because currency doesn't earn a return. Stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. do earn a return. This is simple common sense. If you don't understand it you don't need to be commenting on economics.
– governments that cannot be trusted to have the interests of the citizens at heart, governments that are populated with self-dealing grifters and cheats.
True for the soon-to-be ended Trump Administration. You got that right.
Look at who Biden wants for Treasury Secretary – Janet Yellen – who wants to engineer social change through monetary policy, including narrowing the “wealth gap” and raising corporate taxes. No thanks.
Whatever. You may dislike her policies. That doesn't make her a self-dealing grifter or a cheat.
Gold only fluctuates in terms of currencies! It’s actually the currencies that are fluctuating, gold relative to other commodities, to other things of value, like a bag of groceries, real estate, energy, and so on, has been remarkably stable for thousands of years.
It occurs to me that this is only possible if the relative prices of all those things are stable.
They are not.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
That's ridiculous.
By which I mean, the gold standard is ridiculous. It's a depression-maker, among other things.
That's hardly established. Before the great depression we had a fair number of busts, followed by quick recoveries. It's at least arguable what made the great depression 'great' was the response to it. Ending the gold standard was part of that response.
Brett,
Stop it.
Going off the gold standard was key to recovery. The sooner countries went off the quicker they recovered.
That is well-established.
Before the great depression we had a fair number of busts, followed by quick recoveries
You are parroting Amity Shlaes, who is an ignoramus. Ever heard of the Long Depression?
Among other things, it played a role in ending Reconstruction, as northern Republicans focused on economic issues and became aligned with business interests.
This.
Seriously, gold standard advocacy is like global warming denial- a great example of what happens when you have people who have too much time on their hands and think they can be an expert at anything but who don't understand basic aspects of what they are talking about.
In both cases, you have to believe that just about every expert is part of a worldwide consipiracy to suppress the truth. It's insanity.
Agreed. Civilization is able to exist because such people are kept out of power.
For any particular reason?
I assume because all fiat currencies are subject to long term inflation, and eventual crashes. The US currency has seen about 6,251% inflation over the last century, and about half of it since we dropped the gold standard.
Correction, that was 6,251% inflation over the last three centuries, with about half of it since we went off the gold standard.
*coughfractionalreservecough*
Oh bullshit.
First of all, there was in US dollar in 1720, so how the hell can you talk about its inflation.
Second, your number is ridiculously precise. 6,251%!!
Really? You're sure it wasn't 6,249%?
Third, as a technical matter, most price indices are Laspeyres indices, which are known to overstate inflation slightly. Over 300 years that's going to end being a lot.
Finally, coming up with anything like that, even if there had been a dollar in 1720, involves huge, highly shaky, assumptions. How much did a basic four-door sedan cost in 1720? A refrigerator? a television a ballpoint pen? What was the average monthly electric bill?
All these things, and thousands of others, that are a routine part of our consumption today weren't then, so comparing the cost of consumption bundles then and now might give you some sort of order of very general idea, that's all it does. Anyone who publishes a number like that is a fool.
You like to talk about your quantitative skills, Brett. Do you see that you've been taken in?
I went a'googling, and found this:
"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, today's prices in 2020 are 6,250.93% higher than average prices since 1700"
Looking farther down, though, we find:
"Raw data for these calculations comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI), established in 1913. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is sourced from a historical study conducted by political science professor Robert Sahr at Oregon State University."
so the 1700 numbers are from that study. Mr. Sahr's study may well be nonsense, but I wouldn't call Mr. Sahr a fool without reading the study.
Source
Do you prefer deflation?
Because you get a lot of it with the gold standard.
And please don't tell me gold is "stable." With gold the money supply fluctuates randomly.
Further, a government that is going to let its fiat currency undergo ruinous inflation is by definition irresponsible. The gold standard won't help, because the government won't stay on the gold standard.
The gold standard is only stable on average, not over short time frames. Whereas fiat currency is the exact opposite: Stable over short periods, but not long.
Fiat currency has been incredibly stable over the long term. Less recessions, spaced farther apart, and less severe.
And lots and lots of inflation.
Nope. A few percentage points a year in most industrialized countries. Which is exactly what you want.
No, ideally you want actual price stability, not continual inflation.
Inflation is desired by governments because they get the seigniorage; "Print" enough money that the price of everything goes up by 2%, and you've just transferred roughly 2% of the wealth of society into your own hands without openly taxing it away, and making people mad.
WTF are you talking about? That makes no sense.
What you want is wages rising faster than prices.
Small, consistent inflation is fine, desirable even.
No, ideally you want actual price stability, not continual inflation.
No Brett, you don't. If prices are stable, people will hoard money, because there's no reason to part with it. A dollar today will be worth a dollar tomorrow.
Which then results in a depression, because when people aren't spending money, you get unemployment and financial panic. So you end up with a deflationary spiral.
For ANY monetary system to work, over time, your money needs to go down in value. Not by a lot. Just by enough to force people to spend or invest rather than hoarding it.
Dylan, with stable prices people don't hoard money, they just don't spend it as fast as the government might like. People have normal, instead of exaggerated, time discounting.
And the economy does not grow as rapidly as it does with mild inflation. Plus, since it's hardly an exact science, there is always the danger of tipping over into deflation.
You seem to be making a moral argument rather than an economic one.
Really? = Fiat currency has been incredibly stable over the long term. Less recessions, spaced farther apart, and less severe.
On what time period do you base this statement.
Or they will just devalue, which happened zillions of times under the gold standard.
Say we had a time machine, and went back to the year 2000. I offer you two hundred dollars in US cash, or $200 worth of gold. Which do you take?
What is your point?
You seem to be asking whether, with hindsight, it would have been wise to invest in gold in 2000.
Answer: yes. So what?
Would it have been wise in 2012? No.
Look at this chart and tell us how stable gold prices are.
Yes, I prefer deflation because I'd rather pay less for goods today than I paid a year ago. Who wouldn't?
Creditors prefer deflation, debtors prefer inflation. (Unless they're stupid enough to borrow at a variable rate, of course.)
Governments hate deflation because they profit from seigniorage, and they want you spending your money as fast as you get it, not sitting on it because it will be worth more tomorrow.
prefer deflation because I’d rather pay less for goods today than I paid a year ago. Who wouldn’t?
Deflation is a disaster. You get no investment, because the price of your ultimate output relative to your inputs drop. Instead of buying a $1000 machine that will turn out widgets you can sell for $10 you are faced with buying a $1000 machine whose widgets will sell for only $8. Oh, and wages will drop so don't tell me you'll make it up in volume.
debtors prefer inflation. (Unless they’re stupid enough to borrow at a variable rate, of course.)
Why is that stupid? It's perfectly rational to borrow at a variable rate. Do you think the people offering you a fixed rate aren't taking inflation risks into account? Of course they are. You don't seem to understand how financial markets work.
"Do you think the people offering you a fixed rate aren’t taking inflation risks into account?"
Of course they are. But with a fixed rate I can budget. With a variable rate my expenses can vary outside my control.
People who borrow money with a variable rate are making a bet against the bank. The same principle as with casinos apples: On average, the house wins.
People paying mortgages :-). The farmer who bought seed at last spring's price, but can only sell his crop at fall's lower price. Holders of assets in general.
What is the intrinsic survival value of gold?
Gold is a luxury good. Copper is better for survival and silver is somewhere between gold and copper.
Gold has very little intrinsic value. I guess it's used in electronics today, but for most of history its non-monetary use was mostly just decorative.
If it were cheap it would have a lot of uses. But I don't expect it to be cheap enough to use for water pipes any time soon.
That's nonsense. Gold has many very desirable characteristics, including very high density (twice that of lead), naturally resistant to corrosion, and more. If it were more common it would be used for bullets - better bullets than lead! Better pipes than lead. Radiation shielding. More, and more.
And it's non-toxic! So it would substitute for lead even at a significantly higher price. Imagine: Gold rolled roofing: Your roof would be leak free for geological periods of time!
But what if Goldfinger irradiates Fort Knox?
Then all the gold that just sits there, will be radioactive while it just sits there!
Gold and silver were fiat-currencies too!
How is that?
Well, under the gold standard the government just announced the price of gold was $35/oz, or whatever, and then acted to maintain that price.
Nothing free-market about it.
No, under the gold standard they announced what the price of the currency in gold was, but you didn't have to use the currency. You could write contracts denominated in gold, under the gold standard.
That hasn't been legal in decades.
Not quite.
The law is that contracts "payable in gold" are also payable in regular money. Which is correct, because regular money is legal tender for all debts.
However, you can indeed write a contract denominated in gold, so long as the gold is actually necessary to the contract. So if you decide to barter your old car for your friend's vintage gold necklace, that you find particularly unique and beautiful, you may do so, and can even enforce the contract through specific performance.
"The law is that contracts “payable in gold” are also payable in regular money."
It did, from 1933-1977. Gold clauses were quite common before 1933, when they were prohibited as part of our going off the gold standard, so that private citizens couldn't abandon the now fiat currency in favor of gold.
In 1977 Congress repealed that, going forward.
31 U.S. Code § 5118. Gold clauses and consent to sue
"(2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.
I was referring to the law you were referring to, banning contracts payable in gold.
In any event, if you have a gold clause now, and it is breached, you are generally going to get damages, not specific performance, unless gold is of the essence of the obligation.
p.s. I just gifted the Kindle version of the book to my wife.
So, was vaðmál just a customary currency that arose spontaneously? Or was it recognized as having value because "it was a legally recognized medium of exchange and store of value" when it was "[w]oven to specific standards"?
I would guess it followed the same pattern as salt in Rome. Something everyone needs, can be stored indefinitely, and requires just the right amount of effort to maintain a constant supply to offset consumption.
Given the example above, you can imagine that people bartered for cloth they needed, but as they started bartering for cloth they would use for future trade, they insisted on more standardized cloth.
Usually you get the demand for standardization when somebody starts cutting corners because the product is no longer being used for its original purpose, and they think it doesn't need to be functional. At that point either you enforce standardization, or cloth suitable for clothing evolves into cheesecloth.
Though it's a fairly common myth, there is no historical evidence that the Romans used salt as a medium of exchange.
http://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2017/01/salt-and-salary.html
I wouldn't stake that claim on a single blogger.
It's an interesting question - I was taught the 'legionnaires paid in salt' thing in high school Latin, but it has always seemed impractical. When Claudius is trying to save up a little nest egg, how does he store it? I suppose a pottery jug is waterproof, but heavy. If he puts it in a leather sack the next bad rain will be a problem, etc.
IIUC in the days of sail, a Royal Navy captain could put the crew on half rations w/o complaint, but there could be big trouble if the rum ration was shorted. I wonder if something like that was true of salt - it was a regular ration issue, and one where the troops would vociferously object if it was missed, and that gradually morphed into 'it was a salary'.
Virginia Postrel risking soiling herself among the great unwashed of Reason -- we're not worthy!!!!!
I don't think you know what the term "soiling oneself" means.
I don't think you know that words have multiple meanings
Online clothes shopping in Pakistan