It may be earlier than you think": evidence, myths and informed debate in accounting history

The paper argues that the division between “old" and “new" accounting historians, whether marked by polemical exchanges or declarations of mutual respect, is a substantially false dichotomy that serves to mask the real problem facing accounting history: its newness as a sub-discipline in comparison with other areas of history. Consequently, whereas other histories can generally look to an underlying and rigorously grounded body of data and evidence to support the construction of competing theories, the evidential base in accounting history less often supports an informed debate. The paper examines the quality of the support for widely held views on the accounting practices of the early railway companies, as an exemplar of the quality of the support for existing theories in accounting history, and draws conclusions on how best to now advance more critically informed debates in accounting history.