{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04528206425499621, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009107007336200354, 'mean_word_length': 4.569014084507042, '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}}
(W.R.) Biers Art, artefacts and chronology in classical archaeology. London: Routledge, 1992. Pp. xiii + 105 + illus. £25 (£7.99, paper).

This is the second volume of Karageorghis' project to publish Cypriot terracottas dating from the Chalcolithic to the end of the Cypro-Archaic period and deals with pieces made between about 1450 and 750 BC. In his preface K. notes that this is not an exhaustive catalogue, though he hopes to have included all types. His omission of much of the material from settlements, owing to its poor state of preservation, has hopefully not undermined his chronological conclusions. An introduction surveys the whole era under review. The mould is dismissed as not being used before the archaic period following Vandenabeele's reassessment of the evidence (Cypriote Terracottas, 54-68). There are three principal chapters dealing with Late Cypriote II-III; Cypro-Geometric I; and Cypro-Geometric III. Within the chapters the types are distinguished with a letter, prefaced with G for those in Chapter II and LG for those in Chapter III. Varieties within the types are designated by bracketed Roman numerals. Chapter I makes a further distinction by fabric. Types A-J come under the broad heading of 'Base-Ring' ware. As K. rightly points out, the material of the figurines, presumably except for those attached to Base-Ring ware vases (J), although resembling the Base-Ring pottery fabric, stands by itself. For the hollow figurines he proposes the novel method of modelling the clay around a pointed piece of wood. This group includes the familiar types of Late Bronze Age female figurines, those with bird-like faces and earrings, and those with a normal face, as well as bulls, and 'horses'. These, in particular the female figurines, have long claimed the attention of scholars and continue to do so. (Cf. Merrillees, Centre d' Etudes Chypriotes 18 [1992-3] 3-7. It is a shame that not all K.'s entries are as fully treated as those in this study.) Of particular interest are the pieces in group D, miscellaneous isolated human figures, and the bottle-shaped figurines of group E with the erroneous 'Astarte' label to which I have frequently objected. The figurines of Types A-I (i.e. all the 'Base-Ring' isolated examples) merit 'general remarks'. Refreshingly K. does not attempt to name the females of types A-C, but rather proposes that a firm establishment of an iconographic type of divinity led to their proliferation. Types K-T are of 'Plain Ware'. Not until we read the comment following the catalogue of type K (Plain Ware female figures) are we told that this distinction has chronological significance and it might have been clearer had this second group been placed in a separate chapter. Some of the types, such as naked females and bulls, are already familiar, but new are a possible monkey (M), anthropomorphic masks (N), 'centaurs' (S), ships (Tii), and mouse-traps (Tiii). The terracottas of the Geometric period were collected together by Vandenabeele and published with a useful table that summarizes the chronological conclusions (Vandenabeele, op. cit.). K.'s Chapters II and III include some more examples and a few more types, such as sanctuary models (GK[iii]), a house model (LGB), anthropomorphic vases (LGE) and birds attached to other objects (LGL). The description of anthropomorphic masks (GHi) as moulded is at odds with the contention that this technique was not introduced until later. (The ears of one of the earlier masks (N8) are also said to be moulded.) For an explanation we must refer back to Vandenabeele (op.cit. p. 65). A sub-heading for group A of LG infers that all types in this category have mobile legs. However, these are correctly omitted in the descriptions of the items in group iv which should therefore have their own letter. Wrongly assigned is CGAii.2 for which there is certainly no evidence for the attachment of mobile legs (or a suspension hole in the head).