78

In this article, I recall that many of the present theories make no mention of the essential role that money plays in many of today's games when accounting for the origin of money. Besides the economists' explanation in terms of barter, the anthropologists' gazes on the first monetary uses focalise on the dowry, debt, ceremonial exchanges, sacrifices… yet say nothing of the bets and rewards accompanying games. Still, numerous ethnographic as well as historical examples (from the North-American wampum to Homeric games) attest to a close relation between the first monetary instruments and ludic practices. A double obstacle seems to have occulted this fact: First, money is considered too serious for one to detect ludic origins. Second, games are seen as degenerate once there is money involved. Yet asking the question of the ludic origins of money constitutes a return to Mauss' foundational propositions when he affirmed not only the pre-monetary nature of bronzes in British Columbia, but also the ludic nature of the potlatch! In conclusion, I invite that we integrate this ludic dimension in the reflection on the origins of money (without going to extent of affirming that money has a solely ludic origin, which would be absurd).