고대 회계제도의 생성과 발전의 역사: 새로운 증거

This study examines to compare historical developments of accounting systems which independently stemmed from various regions of the ancient world where inter- regional communication was difficult due to the geographical distance. Based on the archaeological evidence and records found to date, I summarize the results as follows:First, scratches engraved on ochre stones associating inventory tallies found in the Blombos Cavern in South Africa, the oldest known remains of human nature around 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, should be regarded as the origin of accounting activities. They are viewed as demonstrations of human’s innate creativity (so-called accounting capacity) for communicating information about economic activities in the prehistoric community. Second, the token accounting system of Sumer, which recorded transactions by maintaining multiple accounts around B.C. 8,000, should be considered as the origin of double-entry bookkeeping system. Without the system that incurred considerable accounting costs at that time, commercial trades with diverse customers might have been impossible. Third, prior to the Renaissance, the accounting system in each region of the world originated independently and developed gradually in accordance with the region’s economic development. For example, in Arabia, following the economic growth, Sumer and Zakat accounting system evolved to Genizah system. In China, the single entry bookkeeping system gradually altered to the mixture of singles and doubles, and ultimately to the full double entry system. Moreover, accounting systems in primitive Africa, ancient Europe, Inca, and Australian aborigine, respectively, originated and developed independently. Inter-regional exchanges of the systems did not occur extensively until the thirteenth century although unignorant disseminations had been present within each region. Fourth, before the Renaissance, each region’s accounting system had improved in remarkably similar speed because the process of economic development around the world had generally followed similar steps before that time. However, the Arabic accounting system was relatively more advanced than those of other regions due to the commerce encouragement policy under the Islamic rule and to the Zakat system which obligated merchants to contribute part of the profits to the community. Fifth, although it is true that the ancient accounting system in each region evolved in more elaborate and systematic fashion, such development did not necessarily mean desirable. The progress might rather bring forth information losses and greater accounting costs. For instance, after the introduction of accounting equation into the system, the subsequent realization principle drove out recognition of asset remeasurement gain or loss which had been frequently seen in old ages. Furthermore, in spite of adopting a low-leveled accounting system in ancient times, useful information seemed sufficiently provided to interests groups, which implies that it is unnecessary to impose a cost- induced complex accounting system on all entities. As mentioned above, prior to the Renaissance when the modern double-entry bookkeeping system established, an ancient accounting system in each region had consistently developed in response to its economic progress. However, for the past five centuries from the Renaissance to date, accounting systems have made little progress despite the remarkable economic growth in the globe. The reason for this stalemate, I argue, is the loss of transversality which all sectors of our society can accept. For instance, the abandonment of accounting thoughts to pursue economic income measurement which governed Europe in the nineteenth century, and the domination of conservative accounting standards which arose after the Great Depression in the United States triggered the loss of transversality.