Banknotes, bookkeeping barter, and cloth money: Conversions of “special‐purpose money” in the cloth and dammar trade of Sulawesi, Indonesia, 1860–1905
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trade in cotton cloth and dammar in late nineteenth‐century Sulawesi passed through three distinct exchange spheres mediated by barter. The highland end users transformed European‐made cloth into a special‐purpose money like the classic case of brass rods among the Tiv. In contrast to Bohannon's treatment of the Tiv, I set the highlanders' use of cloth money in the same analytic frame as the money of European trading companies and their local intermediaries. Each of these three exchange spheres utilized a different special‐purpose money, each of which performed only a few of the functions of general‐purpose money. European traders utilized “financial paper” as a “means of exchange” with European partners. They utilized a system of “bookkeeping barter” to manage the trade with their local intermediaries, where money now served as a “standard of value” and “unit of account.” Lastly, the highlanders utilized the cotton cloth they bartered for dammar as a “means of payment” but not as a “means of exchange.” By examining the terms by which money was socially embedded in all three exchange spheres, we gain an alternate perspective on the creation of many of the classic “social currencies” emerging out of early international trade networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".