Adam Smith took it for granted that prior to the "invention" of currency, people relied on barter. Now, some consider any form of transaction or cooperation among humans to be barter if it is not intermediated by money. *BUT*, if we understand barter to be the direct exchange of goods—there is not only **no evidence** to suggest that this was the guiding principle for all human interaction "before" money, there is no good reason to think that would have been the case.
Part of what is often overlooked is the prevalence of gifts. Without the hyper-mobility that has accompanied modern life, pre-historic peoples likely didn't have frequent contact without people don't really know. Which means most of their interactions were likely just gifts. Much the same way that one helps out a friend or family member by loaning a lawn mower, a cup of sugar, sharing a meal, etc. Calling that "barter" doesn't quite capture what's going on there, does it?
The article's primary point is that there has never been any archaeological or anthropological evidence that barter was the dominant system of exchange at any point in the planet's history.