{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027301092043681748, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014820592823712949, 'mean_word_length': 4.413502109704641, '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}}
Carchemish: Reflections on the Chronology of the Sculpture

To Seton Lloyd, who has been my friend for 45 years, and long ago met me in the field at Khorsabad, Ur and Eridu, I dedicate this essay on Carchemish, a subject on which he has written with his customary distinction. The chronology and sequence dating of the rich series of sculpture discovered at Carchemish remains a problem, even after 60 years of investigation, but it is generally recognised that Leonard Woolley exaggerated the antiquity of some of the orthostats and it is no longer possible to assign any of them to the second millennium B.C. On the contrary, many critics will now support Frankfort's view that none of this particular series of sculptures could have been executed without an awareness of neo-Assyrian art. Frankfort's view is also shared by Akurgal who has judiciously assigned much of the Carchemish sculpture to a period ranging from the middle of the ninth to the latter half of the eighth century B.C. and has justified his sequence dating by reference to the development of sculpture at Zincirli where we have a sequence of carving which ranges from about 850–830 B.C. (Kilamu) or possibly a generation earlier, through Panammu I c. 790 B.C., Panammu II c. 760 B.C. and Bar-rakib c. 740 B.C.