Even in the bronze age they had the concept of money, I think. The romans I'm sure they did.
Only a very primitive, aborigine-like society can live without it. And in such societies, you won't have true private ownership nor trade.
My only point was that money, as we think of it, is an abstract representation of wealth. It
is possible to have an economy with only concrete representations of wealth (i.e. bartering), but such a system is necessarily extremely inefficient compared to what we're used to. If somebody says "money is the problem", they propose reverting to an extremely primitive sort of culture. If somebody say "ownership is the problem", they propose reverting even further.