Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years(phys.org)
phys.org
Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-lawyers-sheepskin-anti-fraud-device-hundreds.html
87 comments
So these non-fungible blocks that proved you had a stake... could you maybe trace back the transaction history for a piece of property using some kind of chain of these blocks?
Yes, but then things evolved into more sophisticated and less cumbersome methods of ensuring authenticity.
Sophistication and uncumbersomeness (?) are not necessarily good things.
I bet a lot of the advocates of these block chains would claim that the lack of sophistication and cumbersomeness was an advantage.
You'd say things like "if it ever caught on in a big way, what's to stop banks or even governments issuing block-denominated securities, causing inflation? Would people put blocks in banks for safe-keeping, where they'd just end up recreating the fractional reserve system you claim these blocks avoid?".
And advocates would say "no, that won't happen, people would like to keep a hold of their own blocks, no-one would want an IOU from a bank if they could physically hold their very own block instead".
You'd say things like "if it ever caught on in a big way, what's to stop banks or even governments issuing block-denominated securities, causing inflation? Would people put blocks in banks for safe-keeping, where they'd just end up recreating the fractional reserve system you claim these blocks avoid?".
And advocates would say "no, that won't happen, people would like to keep a hold of their own blocks, no-one would want an IOU from a bank if they could physically hold their very own block instead".
I would guess consuming the amount of wood required to implement such a transaction history might end up proving to have disastrous results on the environment.
But proving you have a stake doesn't take that much work, right?
to prove that, you had to rub the block as fast as possible. this heat generated was then used to heat the houses
The original "block chain"
Yes, and the people using it were the original "block heads" :)
[deleted]
There would be some work required to prove that a particular chain of blocks is the correct one and not another.
[deleted]
The first image in OP's Wikipedia link depicts something I would definitely describe as "blockchain": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick#/media/File:SAM_PC...
Maybe a future blockchain would be based on biology in silico and rates of mutation would be the coin.
I prefer Rai stones... the transaction history is encoded as an oral history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
Banksy does something similar now: https://reprage.com/post/how-banksy-authenticates-his-work
"So Banksy created a not-for-profit company, Pest Control"
I now want Banksy to name my future endeavors.
I now want Banksy to name my future endeavors.
> I now want Banksy to name my future endeavors.
"If you’re thinking of writing in to ask Banksy to paint your sitting room or design your company logo - please don’t."
I guess you are out of luck here, but if you don't mind aiding and abetting the commission of a trespass - maybe you can trade in.
"If you’re thinking of writing in because you have privileged access to a secure facility that needs vandalising - please do."
Quotes from https://pestcontroloffice.com/faq.asp
LEGAL WORDS THAT HAVE TO APPEAR AT THE BOTTOM OF A SUBMISSION
"If you’re thinking of writing in to ask Banksy to paint your sitting room or design your company logo - please don’t."
I guess you are out of luck here, but if you don't mind aiding and abetting the commission of a trespass - maybe you can trade in.
"If you’re thinking of writing in because you have privileged access to a secure facility that needs vandalising - please do."
Quotes from https://pestcontroloffice.com/faq.asp
LEGAL WORDS THAT HAVE TO APPEAR AT THE BOTTOM OF A SUBMISSION
So you're saying that you first need to found your startup as a dystopian venture with a secure facility that needs vandelising, then rebrand your company around the art created?
That is deliciously vile.
I'm thinking something like "Uber for cosmetics testing", where people can sign up to test cosmetics on their household pets in a distributed marketplace.
Ooh nice or along those lines, baby cosmetics and accessories - lipsticks, wigs, Botox lip treatments. All at home!
I didn’t say I wanted banksy to make art for me. I want him to make up a name. It was poignant. It used real words with all of the letters, and not some trendy drop the vowels BS
I bet you'd get exactly what you asked for, but not what you hoped for.
In the book Gates of Fire, it's mentioned that split pieces of wood were used as "dog tags" for soldiers.
Each solider would write his name on the stick, break it in half, toss one half into a basket and tie the other stick to themselves.
At the end of the battle, any stick still in the basket that wasn't claimed was clearly a "casualty". The sticks tied to the individuals could also be used for identification.
Each solider would write his name on the stick, break it in half, toss one half into a basket and tie the other stick to themselves.
At the end of the battle, any stick still in the basket that wasn't claimed was clearly a "casualty". The sticks tied to the individuals could also be used for identification.
I’ve never understood - what do you do if the tally sticks don’t match? You just know there’s a dispute but it doesn’t resolve the dispute does it? So what next?
You tell them to f off? Its like asking what happens when you're handed a bill that is clearly counterfeit
That doesn't answer the question, because the point of the two halves is that they are independently recording the contract.
If we use a split stick to record how much money you owe me, and I simply add more marks to mine, to pretend you owe me more, it's obvious that I'm cheating. But if I simply split a brand-new stick and add marks on it, then our sticks won't match up at all. How will a court know which is the original?
Presumably they had some way to sign them? After all, that's why both parties sign both contracts today. If you go change yours, I still have your signature on mine.
If we use a split stick to record how much money you owe me, and I simply add more marks to mine, to pretend you owe me more, it's obvious that I'm cheating. But if I simply split a brand-new stick and add marks on it, then our sticks won't match up at all. How will a court know which is the original?
Presumably they had some way to sign them? After all, that's why both parties sign both contracts today. If you go change yours, I still have your signature on mine.
Let's say we cut notches perpedicular to where the split will be, and then split through the notches. If you cut more notches in your side of the wood, it will be obvious that you've done so - the two sides will fit together perfectly in shape and in grain, but one side will have extra notches. It's not like I could have filled in the notches on my piece.
Right. That's what I said in my middle paragraph.
But if I simply throw away my half and make a new half, a court will have no way of knowing which was the original. (Unless each half was signed by both parties.)
But if I simply throw away my half and make a new half, a court will have no way of knowing which was the original. (Unless each half was signed by both parties.)
[deleted]
You could split wood more than 2 ways, then register one of the pieces. Or a system of splitting multiple pieces of wood, leaving some for registration. No idea if this is what anyone has done.
Signing makes sense.
Signing makes sense.
Splitting more tallies from one stick was done on certain occasions, especially if intentional fraud was a concern.
I dont understand. Its straight up told that the party giving the money had the longer stick, meaning the party with most to lose had to match the longer stick
If I give you $100, and we mark it on a stick, and then split it and give me the longer one, and then I throw away my half and split a new one that says you owe me $200, how do we resolve it when the halves come together and don't match? I say you made a new half-stick, and you say I did.
Both parties in a contract can have an incentive to lie.
Both parties in a contract can have an incentive to lie.
I think in this case one of the recipients has a monopoly on violence and doesn't care how much money you think they owe you.
[deleted]
You have to give both parties incentive to produce the original stick. So if they don’t match then you both lose.
I don’t think all contracts have an obvious both losing state though.
I don’t think all contracts have an obvious both losing state though.
> I don't understand
Think about two situations:
Firstly, if I lend you money, we split sticks, then I throw away my stick and get a new stick that says I lent you more money.
Secondly, if you lend me money, we split sticks, then I throw away my stick and get a new stick that says you lent me less money.
In both cases you're claiming my stick is clearly counterfeit because it doesn't match yours and I'm (falsely, but nobody knows that except the other party) claiming your stick is clearly counterfeit because it doesn't match mine.
What happens next? We're no better off than if we only had a verbal record and were disagreeing. So what is the point in the sticks?
Understand?
Think about two situations:
Firstly, if I lend you money, we split sticks, then I throw away my stick and get a new stick that says I lent you more money.
Secondly, if you lend me money, we split sticks, then I throw away my stick and get a new stick that says you lent me less money.
In both cases you're claiming my stick is clearly counterfeit because it doesn't match yours and I'm (falsely, but nobody knows that except the other party) claiming your stick is clearly counterfeit because it doesn't match mine.
What happens next? We're no better off than if we only had a verbal record and were disagreeing. So what is the point in the sticks?
Understand?
> Its like asking what happens when you're handed a bill that is clearly counterfeit
Presumably they would say that your stick is the one that is clearly counterfeit.
So how do you resolve that?
Presumably they would say that your stick is the one that is clearly counterfeit.
So how do you resolve that?
From what I can tell (this is not my field), at least as concerns the English state, the tally stick was divided into the "stock," which was kept by the state, and the "foil," which went with the individual.
This video shows a number of examples of stocks (apparently few foils survive) and how they recorded debts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxAYSXJ41Y .
It explains that they were used to record money that was deposited, essentially a receipt, by removing wood from the then original stick before it was split into the stock/foil. My guess (again not my area) is that it primarily functioned this way:
1. The removed wood representing the debt. I have no confirmation, but I would expect the stock/foil was created in view of the depositor who understood its markings.
2. The entity seeking repayment would not be able to fake their receipt, presumably to indicate they had deposited more money than they had (i.e., by removing wood from their foil). If they tried, the stock would still have that wood present, but the other grooves and grain of the stock/foil would align. The state would easily be able to tell that someone had subtracted wood from their foil.
3. The state could, of course, destroy the stock and claim its nonexistence, but information of that would, presumably, escape and others would be less likely to lend to the state. It appears there is writing on the stock/foil, so perhaps that served a secondary verification function (e.g., handwriting comparison or reference to a paper ledger)?
[EDIT: The process of making English tallies was laid out in the "The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180" (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/excheq.asp. It describes making these tally sticks in the section "As to the Maker of Tallies." Unfortunately, I do not see the details of dispute resolution in that document. But, I only skimmed it.]
This video shows a number of examples of stocks (apparently few foils survive) and how they recorded debts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxAYSXJ41Y .
It explains that they were used to record money that was deposited, essentially a receipt, by removing wood from the then original stick before it was split into the stock/foil. My guess (again not my area) is that it primarily functioned this way:
1. The removed wood representing the debt. I have no confirmation, but I would expect the stock/foil was created in view of the depositor who understood its markings.
2. The entity seeking repayment would not be able to fake their receipt, presumably to indicate they had deposited more money than they had (i.e., by removing wood from their foil). If they tried, the stock would still have that wood present, but the other grooves and grain of the stock/foil would align. The state would easily be able to tell that someone had subtracted wood from their foil.
3. The state could, of course, destroy the stock and claim its nonexistence, but information of that would, presumably, escape and others would be less likely to lend to the state. It appears there is writing on the stock/foil, so perhaps that served a secondary verification function (e.g., handwriting comparison or reference to a paper ledger)?
[EDIT: The process of making English tallies was laid out in the "The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180" (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/excheq.asp. It describes making these tally sticks in the section "As to the Maker of Tallies." Unfortunately, I do not see the details of dispute resolution in that document. But, I only skimmed it.]
Another old process (ancient?) a teacher of mine once mentioned is that of always having three witnesses to any official transaction (usually one being a Notary to record) and two other people present.
Having three people present is a way to protect against he said/she said.
Having three people present is a way to protect against he said/she said.
Three people is the minimum viable democracy: the smallest number for which a majority is possible.
This principle is used all over robust engineering, from Raft to best-of-three sensors.
This principle is used all over robust engineering, from Raft to best-of-three sensors.
An alternative to blockchains, Corda does something similar instead of the wasteful proof of works.
You only need 1 witness for that. The first two are the parties.
3 is an enhancement for redundancy. Habit an odd number is a false confidence. Think about it: what happens if you have 4 witnesses? They could tie? How is that worse, as it adds more information that maybe 2 of the first 3 are lying or wrong?
3 is an enhancement for redundancy. Habit an odd number is a false confidence. Think about it: what happens if you have 4 witnesses? They could tie? How is that worse, as it adds more information that maybe 2 of the first 3 are lying or wrong?
Having just the notary there relies on trusting the notary to be an impartial party, with just one witness in addition to the two parties there's only one point of verification meaning only one person you have to corrupt to be able to lie about what happened. Bringing in more people increases the size of the conspiracy required to lie about the transaction.
My understanding is that these were used as what we currently refer to as treasuries. I.e., debt that the government owes to an investor. So, if you want to lend the government some money, you get half a piece of wood with some notches indicating how much you lent. Then when it is time to collect you go to the government show them your piece of wood and if it matches you get your money plus whatever interest.
So if they do not match the government simply does not give you your money.
So if they do not match the government simply does not give you your money.
So it is in the best interest of the government to get a rasp and file some of of their side of the block. Nothing will match and thus they don’t have to pay.
If the government wants to default on its debts it can generally just do so. People lend money to the government because they choose to trust it for various reasons.
If the government decided to say tomorrow that $100 bills with serial numbers AB1234567000-AB12334567999 were counterfeit and should not be accepted, what do you think would stop them?
If the government decided to say tomorrow that $100 bills with serial numbers AB1234567000-AB12334567999 were counterfeit and should not be accepted, what do you think would stop them?
Maybe in the short term, but long term it's best for a government to pay off its debts. Who would lend money to the government if it was well known that they will never pay back?
If the two sticks don't match, then the two parties didn't mutually authenticate and then nothing further happens.You can't even say there's a dispute. You can't say anything.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Is the phrase,"get short end of the stick" originate from this?
[deleted]
No. It comes from choosing somebody at random from a whole group. Get thin sticks (branches from any tree), cut them all around 10 cm and one of them cut it shorter (like 5 cm for example). Now hold the entire bunch of sticks in your hand, carefully to have them same height at visible end (hiding in your hand which one is the short one) and let everybody except yourself draw a stick at random. Whoever gets the short one is the one that would do the task at hand. If everybody draws all long sticks you're the one with the short one at the end. Hence the phrasing.
This is a (modern, mistaken) conjoining of two similar phrases
- drawing the short stick (where you hold five sticks / matches, in your hand one of which is cut short but no one can tell cos they are held in someone's hand)
- Grabbing the shitty end of the stick. Which seems fairly obvious if a stick was used for any clearing out style work.
(there seems to be no obvious "short end" of a stick)
- drawing the short stick (where you hold five sticks / matches, in your hand one of which is cut short but no one can tell cos they are held in someone's hand)
- Grabbing the shitty end of the stick. Which seems fairly obvious if a stick was used for any clearing out style work.
(there seems to be no obvious "short end" of a stick)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/end-of-the-stick.html has some thoughts.
I like the horse answer at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67813/origin-of-... whether it is true or not.
I like the horse answer at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67813/origin-of-... whether it is true or not.
the stocks caught on fire
Thousands of years ago in ancient China they used chopped segments of bamboo for authentication purposes as well. They would chop a bundle of stalks into two bundles, and one bundle would be held by a (regional) king and distributed to key checkpoints. Then they gave the other, matching, bundle to another kingdom with whom they wanted to communicate.
Later when a messenger wanted to bring a message past a guard station, the messenger would prove their authenticity by presenting a segment of bamboo, which could then be matched up with a corresponding segment held by the guard station.
Apparently this practice and specifically the splitting of the bamboo into two pieces for this purpose is mentioned in the ancient Chinese dictionary, the Shuowen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi).
Source: Lao Kan, Chü-yen Han-chien k'ao-shih (居延漢簡考釋) (Decipherment and Critical Studies of the Inscriptions on the Wooden Tablets from Chü-yen). Chungking: Academia Sinica, 1943-44. Ts'e 1-4, shih-wen, I, 81b-82b; ts'e 5-6, k'ao-cheng, I, 32a-34a, cited in Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and Inscriptions, by Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien, University of Chicago Press, 1962; in particular see pages 106 and 110.
Later when a messenger wanted to bring a message past a guard station, the messenger would prove their authenticity by presenting a segment of bamboo, which could then be matched up with a corresponding segment held by the guard station.
Apparently this practice and specifically the splitting of the bamboo into two pieces for this purpose is mentioned in the ancient Chinese dictionary, the Shuowen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi).
Source: Lao Kan, Chü-yen Han-chien k'ao-shih (居延漢簡考釋) (Decipherment and Critical Studies of the Inscriptions on the Wooden Tablets from Chü-yen). Chungking: Academia Sinica, 1943-44. Ts'e 1-4, shih-wen, I, 81b-82b; ts'e 5-6, k'ao-cheng, I, 32a-34a, cited in Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and Inscriptions, by Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien, University of Chicago Press, 1962; in particular see pages 106 and 110.
It also was a practice in European medieval history, and at least until 1837: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DkyahZplFo
Apparently we've been doing notched sticks since the Paleolithic age.
Apparently we've been doing notched sticks since the Paleolithic age.
"The Palace of Westminster, the medieval royal palace used as the home of the British parliament, was largely destroyed by fire on 16 October 1834.
The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used as part of the accounting procedures of the Exchequer until 1826. The sticks were disposed of carelessly in the two furnaces under the House of Lords, which caused a chimney fire in the two flues that ran under the floor of the Lords' chamber and up through the walls."
Since medieval times the Exchequer had used tally sticks, pieces of carved, notched wood, normally willow, as part of their accounting procedures.
The parliamentary historian Caroline Shenton has described the tally sticks as "roughly as long as the span of an index finger and thumb".
These sticks were split in two so that the two sides to an agreement had a record of the situation. Once the purpose of each tally had come to an end, they were routinely destroyed.By the end of the eighteenth century the usefulness of the tally system had likewise come to an end, and a 1782 Act of Parliament stated that all records should be on paper, not tallies.
The novelist Charles Dickens, in a speech to the Administrative Reform Association, described the retention of the tallies for so long as an "obstinate adherence to an obsolete custom"; he also mocked the bureaucratic steps needed to implement change from wood to paper. He said that "all the red tape in the country grew redder at the bare mention of this bold and original conception."
By the time the replacement process had finished there were two cart-loads of old tally sticks awaiting disposal"
Burning of Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Parliament
The blaze was caused by the burning of small wooden tally sticks which had been used as part of the accounting procedures of the Exchequer until 1826. The sticks were disposed of carelessly in the two furnaces under the House of Lords, which caused a chimney fire in the two flues that ran under the floor of the Lords' chamber and up through the walls."
Since medieval times the Exchequer had used tally sticks, pieces of carved, notched wood, normally willow, as part of their accounting procedures.
The parliamentary historian Caroline Shenton has described the tally sticks as "roughly as long as the span of an index finger and thumb".
These sticks were split in two so that the two sides to an agreement had a record of the situation. Once the purpose of each tally had come to an end, they were routinely destroyed.By the end of the eighteenth century the usefulness of the tally system had likewise come to an end, and a 1782 Act of Parliament stated that all records should be on paper, not tallies.
The novelist Charles Dickens, in a speech to the Administrative Reform Association, described the retention of the tallies for so long as an "obstinate adherence to an obsolete custom"; he also mocked the bureaucratic steps needed to implement change from wood to paper. He said that "all the red tape in the country grew redder at the bare mention of this bold and original conception."
By the time the replacement process had finished there were two cart-loads of old tally sticks awaiting disposal"
Burning of Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Parliament
[deleted]
This is what happens when you don’t dispose of your records correctly.
A better link is the paper itself, which is quite readable, succinct, and much more interesting and informative:
https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10....
"Scratching the surface: the use of sheepskin parchment to deter textual erasure in early modern legal deeds"
by Sean Paul Doherty, Stuart Henderson, Sarah Fiddyment, Jonathan Finch & Matthew J. Collins
Heritage Science volume 9, Article number: 29 (2021)
https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10....
"Scratching the surface: the use of sheepskin parchment to deter textual erasure in early modern legal deeds"
by Sean Paul Doherty, Stuart Henderson, Sarah Fiddyment, Jonathan Finch & Matthew J. Collins
Heritage Science volume 9, Article number: 29 (2021)
From what I understand, even today certain important bills in the UK parliament are entitled to be transcribed onto vellum/parchment(?) if requested by the house. Such that this is one of the few major users of skins still left in our modern age.
edit: this may have been changed just as of a few years ago, on the argument that good quality archival paper practically lasts as long as parchment/vellum, and is much cheaper...
edit: this may have been changed just as of a few years ago, on the argument that good quality archival paper practically lasts as long as parchment/vellum, and is much cheaper...
What this tells me is that there is so much detail in history that we just can't get from surviving written records. In this case, the use of sheepskin was common practice, understood or at least practiced by many, with only a rare, relatively obscure reference to it. And now there is an educated guess, based on a highly skewed sample.
Mind you, the article's title is not warranted even by its own findings. It states that another possibly more important reason was cost and availability.
Mind you, the article's title is not warranted even by its own findings. It states that another possibly more important reason was cost and availability.
The more we look, the more we learn. If that's one thing we can learn from modern archaeological methods, it's that past generations had their own levels of sophistication and advancement, and we'd be wise to remember this
Yeah, humans haven't really changed very much biologically in the last 100000 years or so. Its often easy to think that advanced problem solving abilities are relatively modern, but theres not really any reason to think you or I are smarter than someone 50k years ago.
It also makes me wonder how many geniuses lived long ago. Was there someone born 80,000 years ago that would have been smart enough to design an FTL engine or know how to bridge quantum mechanics and general relativity? Perhaps only one person in 100,000 years is that smart and they were born way before their time.
What about people laboring in the fields or Cambodia or a sweatshop in Thailand even today. There must be many geniuses who have lived and died in drudgery.
The explosion of science in the late 1800s was largely the work of a over moneyed and underworked class of second sons and landowning clergy. They had lots of free time, education and wealth to explore their ideas.
The explosion of science in the late 1800s was largely the work of a over moneyed and underworked class of second sons and landowning clergy. They had lots of free time, education and wealth to explore their ideas.
One should also think about how stupid the average person is, realizing that half of them are even dumber than that....
Human advancement and civilization is brought forward by probably less than 10% of the population at any given time, the other 90% are either just going along for the ride or actively trying to destroy that advancement...
Human advancement and civilization is brought forward by probably less than 10% of the population at any given time, the other 90% are either just going along for the ride or actively trying to destroy that advancement...
Perhaps this is also why diplomas are called "sheepskins," since they were issued on them for similar reasons.
Or, as it was known back then, the baa-ckchain.
Like the wooden balls in Minority Report
“Device” here is a clickbait. Device means some separate entity which prevents fraud, but these’s no such device. It’s akin saying modern money printers use anti-fraud devices (watermarks).
1. a thing made or adapted for a particular purpose, especially a piece of mechanical or electronic equipment.
"a measuring device"
2. a plan, method, or trick with a particular aim.
Words often have more than one meaning.
2. a plan, method, or trick with a particular aim.
Words often have more than one meaning.
I appreciate your wariness of headlines. Device is used in this way often though.
I would call both watermarks and microprinting "anti fraud devices"
In case you ever wondered why the word for an ownership share is the same word as "stick, trunk, block of wood, or post" (Germanic / Dutch / Old English), this is apparently it.
Second aside, 100s of years of such wooden stocks were stored in the British Houses of Parliament. They were ordered cleaned out, but, apparently the cleaners got over zealous, and the stocks caught on fire with disastrous results.