{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03078078078078078, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0045045045045045045, 'mean_word_length': 4.672340425531915, '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}}
Grecità and Hellenism in the West

excavation) for these periods and B. exhibits a firm command of them, with a sharp critical eye. In these chapters B. truly opens up a new region for Western scholarship and demonstrates the importance of this region for Roman Byzantine history. However, he uses archaeology infrequently and then only to summarize, not to analyse. Is this a comprehensive study of ancient Georgia? According to its title it should be, but the text tells another story. Many important incidents in Georgian history are omitted. Moreover, when talking about ancient Georgia, we must keep in mind that archaeology is at least the equal of written sources, and their superior for the sixth-first cc. B.C. B. uses archaeology to illustrate the written sources without, in many instances, appreciating the nature of archaeology itself. Like many historians, he himself states ' This book presents or summarizes... archaeology only in so far as its historical purpose requires' (2). This is of course a history of Georgia, not an archaeology, but to write a history of ancient Georgia is impossible without analysing archaeology and making an historical interpretation of it. I would describe this book more accurately as Essays in the History of Ancient Georgia. The bibliography (315-48) is impressive and very useful.