Google judges relevant content as content that is updated regularly as opposed to static content. An historical document is static content but it is still relevant content. Static historical content should be just as accessable as regularly updated content and should not be prioritised in importance by companies who control access to this information and have a financial interest in search results. Is this trend what we have to look forward to in the future? It's hardly a satisfactory state of affairs.
"What's Hot" vs "Relevant content that matters"
The Internet is a repository for historical information which originally got there because it was relevant. Being monetarily driven the Internet has become the ultimate marketing tool that promotes current trends and fashions to the detriment of the bedrock of information on which those very trends and fashions have been based.
While this is inevitable in a market driven economy such as ours surely being able to readily access recent historical information would be advantageous to the curious spirit? Unfortunately curious spirits are not a lucrative market.
Where we are now as a society is a direct result of what has gone before. Content shoud not be penalised in search results for being static in the historical sense.
This article about relevant content will be updated periodically to maintain its relevance ;-P