Did the ancient Romans have double-entry bookkeeping?

Sławomir Sojak
{"title":"Did the ancient Romans have double-entry bookkeeping?","authors":"Sławomir Sojak","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0053.6062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The main purpose of the article is to establish whether the ancient Romans used double-entry bookkeeping. The secondary aim is to present a wide range of accounting vocabulary used by the Romans, which was later used by Venetian merchants and Luca Pacioli in the 1494 treatise on double-entry bookkeeping and which is still in use today.Methodology/approach: The paper uses a deductive inference method based on an anal-ysis of the economic, legal, and historiographical literature on the accounting vocabulary used in the state and private finances of the Romans. Findings: Although the terminology presented in the article suggests that the Romans had a highly developed accounting system using the principle of double entry, this was not the case. No material evidence of this has been found in accounting documents, such as single accounting records, repeated counter entries or balance sheets. Historians of ac-counting and banking rely on the analysis of secondary historical sources, such as legal literature that documents the course of trials in which account books were the main evidence. One trial that was fully described in the literature was between the partners Fannius and Roscius, in which Cicero was the defender of Roscius. The article demonstrates that Ciceros defense speech does not prove the existence of double-accounting in Rome. Reflecting on the reasons for the absence of double-entry bookkeeping, the author pre-sents de Ste. Croix's arguments, the most important of which was the Roman numerical notation system (I, V, X, L, C, M) did not force bookkeeping entries into columns. This was only done by the Arabic numeral notation system, which quickly translated into the opposite double notation.Research limitations: The lack of surviving documents and a need to rely on legal litera-ture.Originality/value: The article proves that the double notation the debit/credit convention cannot be ascribed to ancient Rome. However, the article informs the reader about the richness of the accounting and financial terminology of Rome at the turn of the era.","PeriodicalId":53342,"journal":{"name":"Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowosci","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowosci","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0053.6062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of the article is to establish whether the ancient Romans used double-entry bookkeeping. The secondary aim is to present a wide range of accounting vocabulary used by the Romans, which was later used by Venetian merchants and Luca Pacioli in the 1494 treatise on double-entry bookkeeping and which is still in use today.Methodology/approach: The paper uses a deductive inference method based on an anal-ysis of the economic, legal, and historiographical literature on the accounting vocabulary used in the state and private finances of the Romans. Findings: Although the terminology presented in the article suggests that the Romans had a highly developed accounting system using the principle of double entry, this was not the case. No material evidence of this has been found in accounting documents, such as single accounting records, repeated counter entries or balance sheets. Historians of ac-counting and banking rely on the analysis of secondary historical sources, such as legal literature that documents the course of trials in which account books were the main evidence. One trial that was fully described in the literature was between the partners Fannius and Roscius, in which Cicero was the defender of Roscius. The article demonstrates that Ciceros defense speech does not prove the existence of double-accounting in Rome. Reflecting on the reasons for the absence of double-entry bookkeeping, the author pre-sents de Ste. Croix's arguments, the most important of which was the Roman numerical notation system (I, V, X, L, C, M) did not force bookkeeping entries into columns. This was only done by the Arabic numeral notation system, which quickly translated into the opposite double notation.Research limitations: The lack of surviving documents and a need to rely on legal litera-ture.Originality/value: The article proves that the double notation the debit/credit convention cannot be ascribed to ancient Rome. However, the article informs the reader about the richness of the accounting and financial terminology of Rome at the turn of the era.
古罗马人有复式记账法吗?
目的:本文的主要目的是确定古罗马人是否使用复式记账法。第二个目的是介绍罗马人使用的广泛的会计词汇,这些词汇后来被威尼斯商人和卢卡·帕乔利(Luca Pacioli)在1494年关于复式记账法的论文中使用,至今仍在使用。方法论/方法:本文采用了一种演绎推理方法,该方法基于对罗马国家和私人财政中使用的会计词汇的经济、法律和史学文献的分析。研究结果:虽然文章中提出的术语表明罗马人有一个高度发达的会计系统,使用复式记帐法的原则,但事实并非如此。在会计凭证中,如单一的会计记录、重复的柜台分录或资产负债表中,没有发现这方面的实质性证据。会计和银行历史学家依赖于对次要历史资料的分析,例如记录审判过程的法律文献,其中账簿是主要证据。文献中详细描述了法尼乌斯和罗西奥之间的审判,其中西塞罗是罗西奥的辩护人。本文论证了西塞罗的辩护演说并不能证明罗马存在双重记帐。在反思没有复式记账法的原因时,作者提出了de Ste。克罗伊的论点,其中最重要的是罗马数字符号系统(I, V, X, L, C, M)并没有强制将簿记条目分成列。只有阿拉伯数字记数法才能做到这一点,它很快就被翻译成相反的双记数法。研究局限:缺乏保存下来的文件,需要依靠法律文献。独创性/价值:本文论证了借方/贷方惯例的双重记数法不能归因于古罗马。然而,这篇文章告诉读者关于罗马会计和金融术语的丰富性在这个时代的转折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信