The Emergence of Ancient Egyptian Civilization
This modestly produced textbook is explicitly designed for the growing number of undergraduates who arrive in college classrooms knowing nothing at all about ancient history or the Near East .For them, the author has provided a "user-friendly" guide which is at its best in explaining fundamentals. For example, in treating such potentially sleep-making topics as ancient calendars and chronology, archaeological methods and purposes, the development of writing, and ancient cosmologies,
Chadwick is admirably straight forward .He is able to demon strategy eneral points by engaging his readers with specific examples. Concepts difficult for beginners (such as the heliacal rising of Sirius or radiocarbon dating) are made clear through a number of shrewdly Designed illustrations .Justas helpful is the balance the author brings to discussions of control over such as the origins of agriculture or the nature of there revolution under the "Heretic pharaoh" Akhenaten. Limiting coverage to Mesopotamia and Egypt is also a defensible option: after all, these two were the most important cultural traditions of the ancient Near East, and Chadwick does not pretend to have written a comprehensive history. Within its stated parameters, then, I have no quarrel with what this book attempts to do, and I daresay many students (especially in courses lasting one-semester) but more complex. More serious sins are found.
Chadwick is admirably straight forward .He is able to demon strategy eneral points by engaging his readers with specific examples. Concepts difficult for beginners (such as the heliacal rising of Sirius or radiocarbon dating) are made clear through a number of shrewdly Designed illustrations .Justas helpful is the balance the author brings to discussions of control over such as the origins of agriculture or the nature of there revolution under the "Heretic pharaoh" Akhenaten. Limiting coverage to Mesopotamia and Egypt is also a defensible option: after all, these two were the most important cultural traditions of the ancient Near East, and Chadwick does not pretend to have written a comprehensive history. Within its stated parameters, then, I have no quarrel with what this book attempts to do, and I daresay many students (especially in courses lasting one-semester) but more complex. More serious sins are found.
Introduction :
The last three decades have witnessed a growing number of publications that have challenged, and moved well beyond, the view that examination of accounting practices in archaic and ancient economies constitute an antiquated exercise located at the margin of scholarly enquirer, at times being a futile endeavor of no relevance to the present (e.g. Stevelinck, 1973, 1985). These studies investigating accounting practices in ancient civilizations have shed light on a number of key issues, including the behavioral (Mattessich, 2000; Mouck, 2004) and the social (Ezzamel, 1997), both dimensions showing great potential for enriching contemporary efforts to theorise the roles of accounting in organizations and society.
We believe now that a thorough overview of that literature is timely, identifying the achievements, limitations, and potential for future research in this field. A review of all the diverse literature on ancient accounting is beyond the scope of one paper; hence we limit our review to the literature dealing with Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt[1], focusing only on those parts that relate to the role of accounting practices in the processes of ancient accountability. This clearly excludes the important literature on other ancient civilizations (e.g., Greece: de Ste. Croix, 1956; Costouros, 1978; China: Fu, 1971; India: Scorgie, 1990; Rome: Oldroyd, 1995; Persia: Vollmers, 1996), as well as other roles of accounting in Mesopotamia (Mattessich, 1987) and ancient Egypt (Hain, 1966; Rathbone, 1994).
We should focus on some civilizations such as Mesopotamia and ancient Egyptian civilization, as they coexisted in identical and identical historical eras, but there were some different social, economic, and political affairs between those two civilizations.. For example, keeping records about land production in ancient Egypt was performed on behalf of the state or temples because such institutions, and ultimately the Pharaoh, owned most the land. In contrast, keeping such records in the contemporary civilization of Mesopotamia was in the main concerned with private ownership. Such historical proximity and contextual variety offers significant potential for exploring similarities and differences in the emergence and functioning of accountability systems in these two civilizations.
Our decision to focus on accountability is not motivated by a view that it is more significant than other areas where accounting intervenes, but is underpinned by our understanding that processes of accountability are endemic to all social organizations across human history. Our aim, therefore, is to identify the key attributes, scope, and implications of ancient accountability in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. We argue that such an undertaking is timely for two reasons.
First, a considerable literature examining accounting and accountability in ancient civilizations has focused on the technical aspects of such practices (Keister, 1963). Studies of this persuasion have adopted a strict historical standpoint and, hence, have enhanced understanding of the technicalities of accounting and record-keeping in ancient societies (Mattessich, 2000). In contrast, other studies on ancient societies offer rich insights with significant potential to advance knowledge of the roles of accounting and accountability in organizations and society, and in contributing to contemporary efforts to theorize accounting (Littleton, 1968, p. 48). In particular, we suggest that an emphasis on the context-embeddedness of ancient accounting and accountability would facilitate connecting with contemporary debates on the role of accounting in the development and functioning of different forms of accountability (Ezzamel et al., 1990; Munro and Mouritsen, 1996). In this sense, we seek to examine the underpinnings of the processes of accountability that may unfold those general or specific patterns they exhibit.
Second, in addition to the diversity of topics addressed by accounting academics, many of the contributions to this area have been offered by specialists in ancient history, in particular Assyriologists (e.g., Schmandt-Besserat, 1977, 1992; Nissen et al., 1993) and Egyptologists (Spalinger, 1986; Kemp, 1989) , the scattered nature of this research renders its impact on and implications for the theorizing of accounting marginal in mainstream accounting literature.
Contributions to this ancient accounting history span diverse topics:
Work on state projects, manufactures and workshops; taxation; temples; private estates; the household; semi-barter exchange; and the cult of the dead. They also cover varying socio-political and economic contexts, ranging from the predominantly state-controlled economy of ancient Egypt to the largely private trade economy of Mesopotamia. To-date, the literature on ancient accounting has progressed on a careful, but piecemeal basis, with little attempt to integrate, or even draw together, its key findings.We believe now that a thorough overview of that literature is timely, identifying the achievements, limitations, and potential for future research in this field. A review of all the diverse literature on ancient accounting is beyond the scope of one paper; hence we limit our review to the literature dealing with Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt[1], focusing only on those parts that relate to the role of accounting practices in the processes of ancient accountability. This clearly excludes the important literature on other ancient civilizations (e.g., Greece: de Ste. Croix, 1956; Costouros, 1978; China: Fu, 1971; India: Scorgie, 1990; Rome: Oldroyd, 1995; Persia: Vollmers, 1996), as well as other roles of accounting in Mesopotamia (Mattessich, 1987) and ancient Egypt (Hain, 1966; Rathbone, 1994).
We should focus on some civilizations such as Mesopotamia and ancient Egyptian civilization, as they coexisted in identical and identical historical eras, but there were some different social, economic, and political affairs between those two civilizations.. For example, keeping records about land production in ancient Egypt was performed on behalf of the state or temples because such institutions, and ultimately the Pharaoh, owned most the land. In contrast, keeping such records in the contemporary civilization of Mesopotamia was in the main concerned with private ownership. Such historical proximity and contextual variety offers significant potential for exploring similarities and differences in the emergence and functioning of accountability systems in these two civilizations.
Our decision to focus on accountability is not motivated by a view that it is more significant than other areas where accounting intervenes, but is underpinned by our understanding that processes of accountability are endemic to all social organizations across human history. Our aim, therefore, is to identify the key attributes, scope, and implications of ancient accountability in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. We argue that such an undertaking is timely for two reasons.
First, a considerable literature examining accounting and accountability in ancient civilizations has focused on the technical aspects of such practices (Keister, 1963). Studies of this persuasion have adopted a strict historical standpoint and, hence, have enhanced understanding of the technicalities of accounting and record-keeping in ancient societies (Mattessich, 2000). In contrast, other studies on ancient societies offer rich insights with significant potential to advance knowledge of the roles of accounting and accountability in organizations and society, and in contributing to contemporary efforts to theorize accounting (Littleton, 1968, p. 48). In particular, we suggest that an emphasis on the context-embeddedness of ancient accounting and accountability would facilitate connecting with contemporary debates on the role of accounting in the development and functioning of different forms of accountability (Ezzamel et al., 1990; Munro and Mouritsen, 1996). In this sense, we seek to examine the underpinnings of the processes of accountability that may unfold those general or specific patterns they exhibit.
Second, in addition to the diversity of topics addressed by accounting academics, many of the contributions to this area have been offered by specialists in ancient history, in particular Assyriologists (e.g., Schmandt-Besserat, 1977, 1992; Nissen et al., 1993) and Egyptologists (Spalinger, 1986; Kemp, 1989) , the scattered nature of this research renders its impact on and implications for the theorizing of accounting marginal in mainstream accounting literature.
- Ancient economies – ( Contextualizing Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt as ancient economies):
Given that accounting practices can be traced back before the invention of writing (Schmandt-Besserat, 1992), and indeed before the emergence of the economically rational being, any approach that subordinates research in ancient accounting history to rational economic thinking is problematical.
Our preference is for an understanding of accounting that is underpinned by the socio-political and economic contexts in which it operates. Hence, it would be difficult to understand the rationale for holding someone, say an ancient operator, accountable without considering the specific context of his/her activities, such as gender, age, and social status (Gelb, 1965).
In examining AAAJ 20,2 180 Downloaded by New York University At 12:13 16 October 2014 (PT) this context, we have to draw upon a specific terminology, and the question here is to what extent could contemporary terms, such as “economy” and “market”, be used to provide sensible descriptions of ancient societies. According to Finley (1992, p. 21), the ancients did not have a concept similar to the notion of what we now understand as “the economy”.
The ancient Egyptians had no idea about the concept of economics, and its various concepts. Of course they farmed, traded, manufactured, mined, taxed, coined, deposited and loaned money, made profits or failed in their enterprises. And they discussed these activities in their talk and their writing. But they did not merge these activities together in a specific way, Sure enough; the ancients did not develop a conceptual construct similar to the modern term “economy”, and care should be exercised when interpreting ancient practices to avoid conflating them with meanings the ancients would not have recognized. This difficulty, however, should not hamper efforts to study ancient societies.
The term "economics" should be used in ancient Egyptian societies for specific planning and implementation of many economic activities , but without assuming that it involved an ensemble of conceptual elements akin to those used today, for example such as a “price mechanism”. A similarly controversial issue is the extent to which markets existed and functioned in ancient economies.
Briefly, there are two schools of thought. The first affirms the existence and importance of markets, even though it acknowledges that such markets did not exhibit all the characteristics associated with what we now call market mechanisms. Under this view, the market consisted of a place where commodities were exchanged for a price was paid in kind rather than in coins (Janssen, 1975; Renger, 1984)[2]. The alternative school argues that ancient societies such as Mesopotamia either had no markets (Oppenheim, 1964) or had a notion of a market price that might have been fixed by the government rather than by free trade (Goetze, 1956; Leemans, 1960; Dalton, 1968). Polanyi (1957, 1977, p. 125) developed the notion of “market elements” in order to emphasize the institutional characteristics that constitute what he considers to be the market.
Our preference is for an understanding of accounting that is underpinned by the socio-political and economic contexts in which it operates. Hence, it would be difficult to understand the rationale for holding someone, say an ancient operator, accountable without considering the specific context of his/her activities, such as gender, age, and social status (Gelb, 1965).
In examining AAAJ 20,2 180 Downloaded by New York University At 12:13 16 October 2014 (PT) this context, we have to draw upon a specific terminology, and the question here is to what extent could contemporary terms, such as “economy” and “market”, be used to provide sensible descriptions of ancient societies. According to Finley (1992, p. 21), the ancients did not have a concept similar to the notion of what we now understand as “the economy”.
The ancient Egyptians had no idea about the concept of economics, and its various concepts. Of course they farmed, traded, manufactured, mined, taxed, coined, deposited and loaned money, made profits or failed in their enterprises. And they discussed these activities in their talk and their writing. But they did not merge these activities together in a specific way, Sure enough; the ancients did not develop a conceptual construct similar to the modern term “economy”, and care should be exercised when interpreting ancient practices to avoid conflating them with meanings the ancients would not have recognized. This difficulty, however, should not hamper efforts to study ancient societies.
The term "economics" should be used in ancient Egyptian societies for specific planning and implementation of many economic activities , but without assuming that it involved an ensemble of conceptual elements akin to those used today, for example such as a “price mechanism”. A similarly controversial issue is the extent to which markets existed and functioned in ancient economies.
Briefly, there are two schools of thought. The first affirms the existence and importance of markets, even though it acknowledges that such markets did not exhibit all the characteristics associated with what we now call market mechanisms. Under this view, the market consisted of a place where commodities were exchanged for a price was paid in kind rather than in coins (Janssen, 1975; Renger, 1984)[2]. The alternative school argues that ancient societies such as Mesopotamia either had no markets (Oppenheim, 1964) or had a notion of a market price that might have been fixed by the government rather than by free trade (Goetze, 1956; Leemans, 1960; Dalton, 1968). Polanyi (1957, 1977, p. 125) developed the notion of “market elements” in order to emphasize the institutional characteristics that constitute what he considers to be the market.
It is clear from the evidence we analyze below that local markets as locales of exchange existed in both Mesopotamia (e.g., Renger, 1984) and ancient Egypt (e.g., Janssen, 1975). In these market locations, buyers and sellers exchanged items that were in the main “valued” using a money of account in order to render them comparable and to ensure value reciprocity. In both civilizations, some of the key elements suggested by Polanyi were present; well defined market locales, buyers and sellers exchanging commodities at agreed prices but without coinage mediating the exchange, and markets that satisfied local needs.
Mesopotamia:
Economic activities in this area benefited from the floods of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, which enabled two bountiful harvests of cereals per year and provided conditions suited to cattle husbandry. In contrast, the area lacked natural resources such as wood, stone, and precious metals, hence the use of “international” trade to acquire these resources (Oppenheim, 1954).
Tokens, shaped into simple geometric forms, such as cones or spheres, were used for stewardship purposes, inscribed in lists of personal properties (Lau, 1906, pp. 43-4) in order to identify and secure a surplus for maintenance of farming communities (Schmandt-Besserat, 1982).
The Mesopotamian civilization emerged during the period (3700-2900 BC) amid the development of innovations that increased agricultural efficiency (e.g., the plough), speeded up transportation (e.g., sailing boats), and the use of better metal tooling (e.g., copper) (Postgate, 1992; Maisels, 1993). Clay tablets with pictographic characters were used to record commercial transactions performed by the temples (Schmandt-Besserat, 1982), and these preceded the earliest found examples of cuneiform writing in the form of abstract signs incised on clay tablets (Powell, 1981, pp. 419-20), which were written in Sumerian by 2900 BC (Rivero Mene´ndez, 2000, pp. 40).
This was the means of assuring the recipient of the sealed clay envelopes that the internal contents matched exactly the record impressed or incised on the external surface, providing a form of horizontal accountability.
Tokens, shaped into simple geometric forms, such as cones or spheres, were used for stewardship purposes, inscribed in lists of personal properties (Lau, 1906, pp. 43-4) in order to identify and secure a surplus for maintenance of farming communities (Schmandt-Besserat, 1982).
The Mesopotamian civilization emerged during the period (3700-2900 BC) amid the development of innovations that increased agricultural efficiency (e.g., the plough), speeded up transportation (e.g., sailing boats), and the use of better metal tooling (e.g., copper) (Postgate, 1992; Maisels, 1993). Clay tablets with pictographic characters were used to record commercial transactions performed by the temples (Schmandt-Besserat, 1982), and these preceded the earliest found examples of cuneiform writing in the form of abstract signs incised on clay tablets (Powell, 1981, pp. 419-20), which were written in Sumerian by 2900 BC (Rivero Mene´ndez, 2000, pp. 40).
This was the means of assuring the recipient of the sealed clay envelopes that the internal contents matched exactly the record impressed or incised on the external surface, providing a form of horizontal accountability.
At the end thank you about your visiting our site and we glade and happy to help you to get some information about you studies