My point of view on this topic is like this.  
  
Historiography may be considered an answer to the invitation to read the pasts developing
on multiple horizons, starting from the constituens reported in the sources. This happens
as each element arranges itself in history, structuring itself and shaping knowledge in
morphological structures that, when analyzed, give back the meaning of each single unit,
illustrating the historical texture, the passing from past to future through the present.
This all is activated in these messages according to the force and the position of the
elements. It can happen, that either some pieces of information are selected to the
detriment of others; or, that a sort od adaptation to the new environment develops; or,
that a tradition that does not come into contact with others, become isolated.
Historical reconstruction from this morphological perspective could therefore be
appropriate in the recording of different dimensions of economic thought. In this sense,
investigation, even if only episodic and carried out to 'test the ground' of new
territories, descend along hidden channels, and open new path, and also errors.
  
This dynamism is a tangible network of debates, of intertwined programs and projects,
something like laboratories, brainstorming of ideas in which thought has been shaped adn
knowledge (errors too) spread. We have to consider all that as historical data.
  
Daniela Parisi