{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030726256983240222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02094972067039106, 'mean_word_length': 5.210982658959537, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Art and archaeology

relating to the site. These sections are a treasure trove of information, and are particularly useful in expanding the traditional focus from Classical and Hellenistic development to encompass the lives of these sanctuaries under the Roman period through to the fourth century AD (as Melfi herself points out: 493). Several times, however, Melfi is forced, despite her stated limitations, to include literary and epigraphical evidence for other cult sites in order to make sense of her archaeological data (for example, Arcadia (243); Messenia (275); and Athens (318)). Her conclusions about the general picture of Askelpian cult spaces are intriguing. She develops a picture of Asklepian cult space which is constantly changing under the influence of historical events, society and culture, thanks to profound interactions with important powerful individuals (494, 521−24, 533). Melfi outlines chronological periods of activity (foundation, diffusion, expansion and rebirth) and associates particular types of physical structures with each period (495−507). She charts the geographical expansion of Asklepian cult space and underlines the importance of the site at Epidauros as a model for other Asklepios sanctuaries (508). She highlights a shift within the spatial layout of the sanctuaries from an emphasis on private ritual to performative public ritual (526−27) and underlines the multitude of roles the god, and the physical spaces of his cult, came to play within society (538). This is a worthy and well-timed contribution to the study of Asklepian cult space and Greek religious space in general, despite its stated limitations. We are still, however, in the early stages of the quest to redress completely the imbalance in scholarly focus between cult practice and cult space. While it is clearly crucial to highlight the importance of the archaeological evidence, it is even more crucial to integrate that evidence into our overall picture of ritual practice, rather than leaving it separated off in its own volume. That is a challenge still to be completed. M.C. SCOTT Darwin College, Cambridge mcs45@cam.ac.uk 213