{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031791907514450865, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002890173410404624, 'mean_word_length': 5.040697674418604, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PERGAMUM AND SPERLONGA

one, interested in compositional issues, and a historical one, interested in political issues. The two approaches run parallel, and there seems to be no e¶ort to reconcile them. The real problem, however, is that there seems to be little ground for any conclusive compositional and historical interpretation of the groups, which are very fragmentary. For many restitutions, I. heavily relies on Pausanias, taking his references as systematic descriptions, and as records of the original sequence of the statues. I. acknowledges that this might not always have been the case (p. 191), but this possibility should have been taken into more serious consideration, especially in cases where no other evidence is available. Also, for many groups, chronologies are only approximate, and are often determined on the basis of the historical context, a strategy which runs the risk of some circularity in the argumentation. This is an intelligent, useful book, but many of I.’s conclusions are only plausible possibilities.