Quo vadis \textit{history of ancient mathematics} who will you take with you, and who will be left behind? Essay review prompted by a recent publication (Q2073411)

The author decries the domination, among general histories of ancient mathematics, of an ``outdated'' approach, one ``that was focused on modern mathematics and often gave at best anachronistic depictions of earlier mathematical cultures (often judging their quality by the degree of their likeness to a respective modern parallel)''. This concern is not new, having been first voiced by \textit{S. Unguru} [Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 15, 67--114 (1975; Zbl 0325.01002)], and is more of a methodological nature than one of ignoring recent advances. The ``truly historical discipline'' the history of ancient mathematics, and of Egyptian mathematics in particular, has become ``in the past 30 years'' is a novelty only in the sense that experts in ancient languages and cultures have taken Oswald Spengler's theses, that mathematics is indissolubly connected to culture, not transferrable among cultures, and not to be approached as the linear development of one subject from the simple to the complex. This is not to say that Spengler's analyses of the mathematics of the various cultures he studied in \textit{Untergang des Abendlandes} were anything like the work of the experts in the various ancient cultures of the past 30 years. The fundamental point of view, however, was out in the open and was deliberately ignored by a generation of historians of mathematics. The author mentions that the ``older publications [\(\ldots\)] [,] based on a different methodological framework [,] are still being used by interested students or academics working in other fields (most notably mathematicians)'', by such well-known authors as B. L. van der Waerden, should raise suspicion, for ``at least their date of publication should signal that the content may not represent the latest stages of research.'' What is being meant is not the discovery of new papyri, revolutionizing our understanding of Egyptian mathematics and rendering obsolete the ``older publications'', but rather the fact, to stay with Egyptian mathematics, that Egyptologists have taken over the history of Egyptian mathematics and their reading of it is emphasizing completely different aspects. It may seem that the target of the author's criticism, [Mathematik im Vorderen Orient. Geschichte der Mathematik in Altägypten und Mesopotamien. Berlin: Springer Spektrum (2019; Zbl 1412.01002)], written by the retired mathematics teacher \textit{D. Herrmann}, which is the apparent focus of this essay review, which is the third volume in a series, is an easy target, given that its author has no expertise or knowledge in any of the languages or cultures he writes about. That is not the case, as other general histories of mathematics, currently on the market, are not considered adequate either. In the author's own words: ``\textit{Mathematik im Vorderen Orient} may be said to be paradigmatic for a number of critical issues that occur in recent publications that are below the current standard in the history of ancient mathematics.'' The author also suggests what the interested reader should consult instead of the irreparably flawed book under review and the references that can be found therein (there is, surprisingly, no mention of \textit{M. Michel} [Les mathématiques de l'Égypte ancienne. Numération, métrologie, arithmétique, géométrie et autres problèmes. Connaissance de l'Égypte Ancienne 12. Bruxelles: Éditions Safran (2014; Zbl 1314.01001)]). The author takes issue with the decline in the standards of publications by Springer (and others) after the onset of the ``camera ready'' period, in which no apparent editing is visible, comparing the standards of \textit{O. Neugebauer}'s [Mathematische Keilschrift-Texte. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag (1973; Zbl 0255.01001)] to Herrmann's book (the decline, however, was visible for anyone at the latest in 1994 with the publication of \textit{W. S. Anglin} [Mathematics: a concise history and philosophy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag (1994; Zbl 0806.01001)]). There is also a rather surprising questioning -- unimaginable if one were to cross the Rhine river to the West and leave German-speaking regions -- of the need for academically specialized literature in the local language: ``Regarding the statement for the need of a German publication, the question arises as to the necessity of a publication in German, as the English language skills of the mother-tongue German readers have become much better in recent years than might have been the case in Dietmar Herrmann's active professional life.'' In the reviewer's experience, regardless of generation, the readiness of German-speaking students to purchase English-language books is low. Moreover, the move to English-only academic publications would relegate German to something akin to folkloric status, a language appropriate for poetry, but not for thinking, a transformation that may be underway, but not necessarily one that needs to be encouraged. There is no doubt that the author is right with her criticism, that this is not a turf war between Egyptologists and mathematicians. The question that the author leaves out, and that the \textit{Zentralblatt} reviewer of Herrmann's book addresses squarely, is that of the readership for any history of mathematics, regardless of the methodological point of view, of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the information to be found within its covers. Is a book in the history of mathematics, a general one or a more specialized one, addressed to other doctorate-holding historians of mathematics or is there a wider audience imagined for it? Given that courses in the history of mathematics are extraordinarily rare, given that it is not a required subject for any undergraduate major (in Germany or elsewhere) -- it used to be a required course for the secondary education mathematics majors at the West campus of Arizona State University, but there are alternatives to taking it for more than a decade --, the professionalization of the history of mathematics provides no help with its declining readership. An anachronistic presentation, the ``outdated'' one, may be more palatable to the only readership outside of the small history of mathematics community.