September 16, 1922] 



NATURE 



37i 



when Chevreuil communicated to the French Academy 

 observations made in the Indian Ocean by Treves, who 

 adopted the erroneous theory of complementary colours. 

 The reader must be referred to the book itself for the 

 subsequent discussion. Some praise should be given 

 to the author for the manner in which he keeps up the 

 interest of his account and the fairness with which he 

 recites the arguments of different writers. According 

 to his own view a complete explanation is still wanting, 

 although he agrees that it must be based on the dis- 

 persion theory. But I would suggest that his reserva- 

 tions depend almost entirely on the importance he 

 attaches to discrepancies in the descriptions by different 

 observers and in their estimates of the duration of the 

 flash. Apart from real differences in atmospheric con- 

 ditions that may be very considerable, it is not to be 

 expected that men, not specially trained in such 

 observations, could tell with any degree of certainty 

 whether an outburst of light lasts a tenth of a second 

 or two seconds. Some have described the flash as 

 appearing in the form of a short line, while on others it 

 has left no impression of shape. The author, who has 

 been a professor of ophthalmology, is not likely to have 

 forgotten the possible effects of astigmatism, but even 

 a perfect eye might see a point of light drawn out into 

 a vertical line if the eyelids have been partially closed 

 to screen them from the glare of direct sunlight. When 

 seen through a telescope the appearance seems to be 

 much more regular, the green coloration first appearing 

 at the corners of the cusp that remains above the 

 horizon. There seems no reason to doubt that dis- 

 persion combined with absorption of light completely 

 accounts for the effect. 



Is it not time that the green flash should find its 

 place in elementary text-books ? It is eminently suit- 

 able for them, and only by this means shall we be saved 

 from further discussions covering the same ground. 

 Arthur Schuster. 



Village Communities. 

 The English Village : The Origin and Decay of i/s 

 Community. An Anthropological Interpretation. By 

 Harold Peake. Pp. 251. (London : Benn Bros.. 

 Ltd., 1922.) 155-. net. 



SEEBOHM in 1883 issued his well-known work on 

 the English village community, which he examined 

 in its relation especially to the manorial svstem and to 

 common field husbandry. Among the general con- 

 clusions of his work was the view that " neither the 

 village nor the tribal community seems to have been 

 introduced into Britain during a historical period 

 reaching back for 2000 years at least ; . . . the village 

 community of the eastern districts of Britain was 

 NO. 2759, VOL. J 10] 



connected with a settled agriculture which, apparently 

 dating earlier than the Roman invasion and improved 

 during the Roman occupation, was carried on, at length, 

 under the three-field form of the open-field system 

 which became the shell of the English village com- 

 munity." Without following out the discussion of 

 Seebohm's views it may be said that the accumulation 

 of archseological evidence since his day has made far 

 more probable his view that there were agricultural 

 settlements on cleared forest lands in Britain well 

 before Roman times. The mapping of the catalogued 

 Iron- Age finds from the lists given in the report on 

 the Glastonbury Lake Village would furnish presump- 

 tive evidence on this point. It is, however, clear that 

 Seebohm attributed great importance to Roman in- 

 fluence, which he says " enforced the settlement and 

 introduced . . . fixed rotation of crops " " within 

 the old Roman provinces (N. of the Alps) and in 

 the Suevic districts along their borders," the area 

 of " the geographical distribution of the three-field 

 system." 



In Seebohm's work there are frequent indications 

 of his feeling out towards what was then the almost 

 uncharted background of pre-history. It is the great 

 merit of Mr. Peake's work that he has used his 

 rich archaeological knowledge as well as his historical 

 reading in order to reach back beyond Seebohm. His 

 interest is not in any question of origins of manorial 

 organisation, but rather in the attempt to make the 

 much-needed link between archaeology and documentary 

 studies for Britain. That this is one of the prime needs 

 of our time admits of no question, and it is advisable 

 that specialists on both sides should treat with special 

 consideration pioneers who, like Mr. Peake, are trying 

 to find the much-needed links. 



For Mr. Peake the germ of the village community 

 is to be found among the Neolithic agriculturists of 

 the Swiss and Alemannic and Bavarian regions north 

 of the Alps and is a social characteristic of the dark, 

 broad-headed Alpine Race in those areas. He also 

 suggests their domination by Nordic men of the Bronze 

 Sword, but leaves the fuller working out of this subject 

 to a companion-book to be issued shortly. These 

 warriors set out about 1200 B.C. to dominate a large 

 part of Europe and reached Britain within less than 

 a century, as there is but very little difference in the 

 types of sword found along their routes. Their followers 

 were cultivators, and from evidence of bronze-sickles, 

 of ploughs as substitutes for hoes, and of bronze axes 

 in plenty, some late ones of which undoubtedly tell 

 of forest-clearing, Mr. Peake believes they spread, at 

 any rate, the germs of the village community in cleared 

 forest areas. The landing of these people at Chelsea 

 and Brentford as well as up the East Anglian Ouse 



