{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020634920634920634, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010052910052910053, 'mean_word_length': 4.782874617737003, '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}}
Inscriptions are Texts Too1

Epigraphic evidence is a virtual terra incognita for Africanists; few of our sources have come down to us from the past quite so directly. This is in contrast to many other parts of the world, where dealing with inscriptions falls squarely within historians' purview. Where such evidence exists, it tends to exist in very large quantities. For example, for Ur III dynasty, of circumscribed length and extent (2112-2004 BCE, southern Mesopotamia) at least 50,000 texts have been published and tens of thousands more are known to exist. Even larger numbers exists for what is now India, although admittedly covering both a much larger area and a much longer period of time. One estimate is that more than 90,000 have been discovered. Nearly everything we think we know about the Maya civilization is derived from the numerous stelae that have been discovered there. The same applies to the pre-Islamic political entities in south Arabia. And so on. In contrast, the materials included in the work under review represent almost the entire corpus for sub-Saharan Africa. This embarrassment of riches outside Africa involves another embarrassment as well. Despite heroic efforts, many of these inscriptions—a majority for some areas—are attracting dust rather than scrutiny; as a result many of the interpretations built on the edited and published ones are potential prey to the evidence in those as yet unexamined. The so-called epitaphs of Gao have not wanted for study—study carried out largely by French orientalists looking for sources more congenial to their first fields of study, but harking back to Heinrich Barth, who at least had the excuse of being unaware of the inscriptions. The present work escapes this faute de mieux aspect; its author has been at work on them for nearly forty years and did not come to them from a sense of misplaced desperation.