ABSTRACT
There is a widely held assumption that human endeavour and thought, especially in science, fall off rapidly in quality or relevance as we move into the past. Historians of science point to the dangers of allowing that to shape their enquiries (Herries-Davis, this volume). It leads to an interest in only those who contributed to matters considered important today, or who seem to echo contemporary language. Such a partial and tendencious view of what is historically relevant, compounds the already severe problems of reconstructing the thought and conditions of the past.
