{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034227567067530065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012950971322849213, 'mean_word_length': 4.41, '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}}
Museums and the interpretation of visual culture Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean

are some very minor criticisms. Some of the figures do not give an indication of scale (e.g. 2.19, 3.3, 6.7, 7.5), maps could have been uniformly drawn to reflect name changes of modern African states (some show Dahomey and others Benin, for instance, and there is the odd Zaire), and the photograph in figure 4.23 is really too dark to be of value. I am also not convinced about the use of the term “Iron Age” as being a suitable chronological label for the wider period under discussion (p. 11); medieval may be useful, albeit again having Eurocentric connotations, but for the sake of simplicity, and for the target audience, this is an important work on the historical archaeology of Africa. On the whole this is a very satisfying work, and Timothy Insoll is to be congratulated on his immense achievement. As a synthesis it will stand as a standard text for many years to come, and will doubtless serve as an impetus for more fieldbased research within the wider sphere of the archaeology of religion.