I generally enjoy reading Smolenski's writting, but this article was less valuable to me. Maybe it was because the article was aimed at an academic audience, or perhaps it was because it felt a little bit like it was a meta debate about which academic discipline needs to pay attention to the other.
Either way, she makes a nice point about Adam Smith not necessarily implying there ever was such a thing as the "Age of Barter." And I also appreciated the her emphasis that value emerges from the decisions of individuals.
Value, in all its permutations, is clearly of overriding importance for human social organization. The subjective process of valuation, which occurs within the 'conscience' of each person, motivates action in habitual ways.
And
Anthropologists cannot accurately describe it [value] without taking into account bottom-up methodological approaches that centre the individual as a locus of motivation and social action.
It's not a terribly long read. Check it out, if you find academic debates to be your kind of thing.