{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023622047244094488, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004374453193350831, 'mean_word_length': 5.183783783783784, '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}}
Changing Dynamics in the Archaeology of Iberia

choose to see those over-restored wall paintings as truly Minoan, as authentic in their recovered form and spirit, or more as creations reflecting visions of our own century confirms the truth of Conkey's insistent point. Much of this new work is slow, difficult, and painstaking, in large contrast to the confident grand sweep of the Abb6 Breuil's great study of half a century ago, Four Hundred Centuries of Cave Art (Montignac 1952), itself based on years of formidably diligent fieldwork. Palaeolithic cave art is yet another field within archaeology where the sketchy and patchy knowledge of firstand second-generation research both prompted and required strong and generalized accounts, whether explicitly theoretical or pushed forward by an unstated and robust "common sense." Then a painstaking accumulation of better factual knowledge, especially about fine-grained variability in space and time, both contradicts simple grand theory and makes for accounts that are more intricate, more local, more conditional-and less cleanly satisfying. I fear this is as it must and as it should be.