{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026536629621229303, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009072352007257882, 'mean_word_length': 4.7421875, '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}}
Eternal stones: Stonehenge completed

Looking back, there were three Ages. In the First Age, diverse Great Men came and observed, and some even dug in the ground. There were an Architect sent by the King, Antiquaries, a Rich Man, Painters, a Mining Geologist, and at the end a Colonel who Worked by Himself. Their accounts were scattered and brief. In the Second Age, Real Archaeologists visited several times, their excavations at the centre small but precise. They left one oracular text, but this was largely an Oral Tradition which gave little importance to Publication of Detail. In the Third Age, the pace quickened. There were Excavations and Survey round and about, and finally Three Women of Wessex were brought together to complete The Task. For two years they laboured, and Paper was brought in Great Rolls from Belgium (not, it is thought, by ice sheets), and in the end It Was Done: the Stonehenge report. At last! Thanks to English Heritage, who commissioned it via Wessex Archaeology, and to Ros Cleal, Karen Walker & Rebecca Montague, who wrote it, assisted by numerous others including Julie Gardiner and Michael Allen, we have as full and monumental a report on the 20th-century excavations at Stonehenge as could have been hoped for. The report revives the work of Gowland and Hawley, applies artifical resuscitation to the excavations of Atkinson and Piggott, draws on the results of the recent Stonehenge Environs Project led by Julian Richards and on work by others such as Evans and Pitts in order to put the monument in context, and presents a series of new radiocarbon dates, which are at the heart of an important restatement of the chronology of the monument. Taken alongside Christopher Chippindale’s history of interpretation of the monument (Chippindale 1993), this is indeed Stonehenge complete. It is a massive achievement. The aims of the report are threefold: to bring together an archive of all 20th-century work at the site, preferring to include any relevant documentation rather than leave it out; to present the sequence of development at the monument in a new chronology, backed by new radiocarbon dates on carefully chosen and evaluated samples; and to relate the site to its local landscape. The successes of the report are extensive and impressive, in each of these fields. The report is structured by a narrative of the development of the monument, but it is convenient here to take each element separately. Here one can find, at last, detailed and more-orless definitive presentations of all the available evidence for the features of the site: the ditch, segment by segment, Aubrey Holes, Avenue and other elements of the periphery, interior post-holes, and the still confusing mass of stone-holes and other features at the centre. There are extensive illustrations, cleverly presented: the ditch segments for example being shown by a combination on the same pages of sections at various scales, plans and Hawley photographs. In its own right, this sets a new standard of site presentation. The central stone-hole cuttings are shown in part with the aid of colour. Given the lack of detail published from earlier excavations, the policy of total inclusion was undoubtedly the right one. But do not expect an easy read as a result. The recording extends partially to the vertical dimensions of the site, with photos of the stones and some elevations, prepared as long ago as 1919. This is useful but incomplete, as I found in preparing a paper for the recent Royal Society conference on Stonehenge; plans are afoot for a full coverage of the neglected verticality of the monument. There are also detailed finds reports. These are illuminating. Beaker pottery from phased contexts, for example, consists of single sherds from not more than six vessels. Since their contexts range from Q Hole 5 and upper fills of sarsen stoneholes to the primary fill of Z Hole 16, their usefulness as chronological markers of the sequence of construction cannot be great. The great mass of detail that the report generates is held within a narrative of monument and landscape development. The report retains three phases but defines them differently to Atkinson (1956; 1979). As each phase is introduced, there are neat summaries of suggested date span, plan and main features (pp. 62, 115, 167). In brief, in Phase 1, c. 2950-2900 BC, ditch, inner bank and outer counterscarp bank