Brown-Séquard's theory of recovery

Charles Edouard Brown-Séquard used observation of recovered patients and experimental animals to support his theory of cerebral localization. Recovery theories assume that the nervous system is composed of one organ or many, and that each organ has one function or many. From his own studies as well as others, Brown-Séquard concluded that the brain contained at least nine separate organs, each with a single distinct function, and that each organ is organized, not as a geographically isolated cluster of neurons, but as a widely disseminated network. According to his view, function is not uniformly distributed in an organ. Focal necrosis of part of an organ temporarily inhibits the action of distant, undamaged parts; resolution of this inhibition results in recovery. Using this theory of cerebral localization and recovery, Brown-Séquard practiced an early form of scientific neurology.     

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.     

The life cycle of bronze age metalwork from the Thames

The high proportion of Bronze Age metalwork found in the Thames has aroused interest for many years, but all too little is known of the circumstances in which this material was deposited. Much of it is weaponry, but there are finds of tools as well. This paper examines the material found upstream of Teddington and considers its treatment before it entered the river. A high proportion of the artefacts had been used and some of them deliberately destroyed. There are marked variations in the selection and treatment of these artefacts along different lengths of the river and in different periods of the Bronze Age, but it seems likely that the proportion of fine metalwork that was deliberately damaged before it entered the river increased sharply over time.     

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.     

Getting Started: Objectives and Justifications in the History of Neurology

Contemporary historiographical ideas have the potential to enrich the history written by practicing neurologists. Neurology is a science, and historians of neurology might profit from considering the experiences of historians of other sciences. An explicit consideration of the range of possible objectives, justifications, sources and methods of historical research may open new and exciting avenues of inquiry. Any plausible answer to the question, “What does a historian do when he or she sits down to write history” helps an historian to develop the structure of his or her project. The selection of sources for a historical study is improved, if also expanded, by understanding its aims.