64 SOCIAL SCIENTIST not obscure the fact that modern science did originate and develop in Europe. What requires emphasis is that this was due to specific material conditions obtaining in European society and not because of the innate genius of Europeans. Nor does it imply any ineptness on the part of the people of the regions where it did not develop. Most of the contributions included in the collection belong to tlie colonial period. Nineteenth century writing on Indian history was marked by two trends. One was that of colonial scholarship wherin the scholars, both Indian and British, were viewing the past of a colonised civilisation from the point of view of European consciousness. Although much obscure material came to light in the process, there can be little doubt that by and large they viewed Indian history as that of a subject people. The second trend was that of nationalist historiography whereby nationalist scholars were using Indian history as a weapon in the anti-imperialist struggle. The very approach of nationalist historiography presents twin dangers which, in varying degrees, are manifest in the writings of the nationalists: firstly, expediency at the cost of scientific rigour and secondly, evoking chauvinism by treating the past as a series of glorious achievements being undone by the colonial power. Without in the least undermining the significant role of the nationalist approach in the anti-imperialist struggle, one must be wary of uncritically substituting it for a scientific account of India's past. Most of the articles in the section on medicine based on an analysis of the text of Carak'samhita provide a detailed account of the medical practices and prejudices in ancient India and one is really struck by how little the present-day practioners of Ayurveda liave moved since ancient times. While J Jolly demonstrates the subservience of medical practitioners to the powers that be, Chattopadhyaya argues that it was a mere ruse. Bodding's study of Santhal medicine illustrates how from day-to-day experience tribes build their systems of medicine and how it stays at a purely empirical level. The section on alchemy, chemistry etc has P C Ray's article on "Antiquity of Hindu Chemistry" listing various achievements. G P Majumdar, in his article, "The History of Botany and Allied Sciences", makes bold to assert that long before the Vedic physicans who knew tlie physiological fact that the heart is the centre of all vital activities, Harita-samhita mentions tlie "circulation of blood5' and that the ancients knew of the bacterial origin and the infective nature of certain diseases. Similarly P C Sengupta, in his articles on Aryabhata and others forcefully argues for the historical firsts by the Indian astronomers but is not in a position to provide any clues to subsequent stagnation of Indian astronomy. This kind of writing of history of science indicates the anxiety of the authors to make dubious priority claims in order to prove the "superiority" of their civilisation. The historians of science of the last century however did yeoman