{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0283436669619132, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018600531443755536, 'mean_word_length': 5.01063829787234, '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}}
A Statistical Analysis of Some Palenque Dates

Ever since it became possible to read Mayan dates there have been astronomical speculations about them. For those not familiar with the matter under discussion it may be stated that there are only three examples in all of texts which undoubtedly deal with astronomy: (I) the Venus Table of the Dresden Codex; (2) the Eclipse Warning Table of the Dresden Codex; (3) some 150 supplementary series attached to LC (long count)-dates dealing with the lunar age. Not even the length of the year the Mayan astronomers used is known. All this was thoroughly discussed by Teeple [1928, 1930]. More modem results, but perhaps more controversial ones, can be found in Aveni's recent books [1977, 1980]. The paper presented here was prepared to demonstrate that results which seemingly corroborate astronomical interpretations can usually be explained by mere random effects when a rigid statistical test is applied. The origin and the application of the test used is therefore discussed in detail, as well as some typical misleading probability levels resulting from 'common-sense statistics'.