An Alternative Way Towards Food Production: The Perspective from the Libyan Sahara

Food production originated in various ways in different parts of the world. Plant domestication with the adoption of agriculture has been successful in some areas, but not in others, where animal domestication with nomadic pastoralism proved to be more effective. Likewise, the preceding phases of pre-adaptation and development of a broad spectrum of wild resource exploitation followed different pathways, according to the locally available resources, climatic and geographic conditions, and social organizations. Northern Africa greatly contributed to the understanding of the origin of food production under preconditions that differed from those in the Fertile Crescent. Apart from a narrow strip along the Nile valley, northern African lands are arid and scarcely productive for agriculture. Nevertheless, early studies interpreted northern African archaeological records of the Early and Middle Holocene according to the traditional north-western Mediterranean and Near Eastern frames of reference. Consequently, terms such as Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic were uncritically applied to northern African contexts. This paper compares and discusses the evidence for food production in the Near East and northern Africa, considering the question of introduction or local breeds of domesticated animals in the Maghreb and the Sahara. It then reviews the relevant data for long-held diffusionist models of pastoralism into Africa to provide a different perspective and the proper means of interpretation of the northern African archaeological records. Finally, it examines some recent findings from the Tadrart Acacus, in the Libyan Sahara, which contribute to clarification of distinctive African pathways and propose an alternative model for the beginnings of food production.     

Commentary. The diseases of Alexander the Great

The accompanying articles that speculate that Alexander the Great had a traumatic carotid dissection or congenital cervical scoliosis demonstrate the difficulties in retrospective diagnosis as a historical enterprise. The extant primary sources were written centuries after Alexander's death and are ambiguous in their original languages, and even more so in translation. Thus we cannot be certain what illness Alexander actually had. Furthermore, anachronistic diagnosis removes Alexander from the medical context of this time, telling us little of historical significance about him. Such investigations also illustrate the more general limits that the absence of context imposes on the study of ancient history.     

Historical development of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia

This review examines the history of discoveries that contributed to development of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. The origin of the hypothesis is traced to the recognition that neuroleptic drugs interfere with brain dopamine function. This insight was derived from two distinct lines of research. The first line originated from the discovery in 1956 that reserpine depletes brain serotonin. This finding resulted in a sequence of studies that led to the discovery that brain dopamine is involved in neuroleptic-induced extrapyramidal motor disturbances. The second line of research was aimed at determining the mechanism of action of psychomotor stimulants. This research produced evidence that stimulants directly or indirectly activate brain dopamine receptors. Because nonreserpine neuroleptics such as chlorpromazine block stimulant-induced movement, these findings suggested that neuroleptics were dopamine antagonists. Most previous accounts of the development of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia emphasize the first line of research and ignore the second.     

Aspects of the history of the nerves: Bell's theory, the Bell-Magendie law and controversy, and two forgotten works by P.W. Lund and D.F. Eschricht

The French physiologist Fran?ois Magendie showed, in 1822, that the anterior roots of the spinal nerves are motor and the posterior sensory. The English anatomist Charles Bell claimed the discovery, but his claim was based on republications of papers in which the wording had been altered to be consistent with Magendie's findings. Bell also appropriated Herbert Mayo's discoveries of the functions of the fifth and seventh cranial nerves. Bell repeated his claims in a number of influential publications, supported by his brothers-in-law John and Alexander Shaw. And for a century and a half, Bell figured as the discoverer in most references to the subject. During this period, several reviewers did go back to Bell's original papers, disclosing Bell's falsifications in the republished texts. But Magendie was not definitely acknowledged as the discoverer of the function of the spinal nerve roots until Cranefield's (1974) treatise. Cranefield, as did all other reviewers, overlooked accounts from 1825 by P.W. Lund and F.D. Eschricht. They critically reviewed Bell's early publications and reached conclusions similar to those of Cranefield concerning the roles of Bell and Magendie in the discovery of the function of the spinal nerve roots.