{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029980013324450366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011992005329780146, 'mean_word_length': 5.206611570247934, '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}}
Canal Boats along the Illinois and Michigan Canal: A Study in Archaeological Variability. Floyd Mansberger and Christopher Stratton. 2000. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, Archaeological Research Reports No. 10. Springfield, Illinois, xiii + 68 pp. (paper), ISBN 1-930487-00-2

Let us turn to the question of workability. Has EA succeeded in distinguishing stylistic traits from functional traits in the archaeological record? Taking inspiration from the cultural geneologies designed by traditional American culture-historians like James Ford, it was Dunnell's belief that stylistic traits, as opposed to functional ones, would reveal themselves by distributing over time in the classic battleship unimodal curve so (rightfully) prized in statistical sedation. They often do. But it also happens that traits that are functional in a Dunnellian sense can describe distributions of the same shape. Moreover, it seems that traits that are supposedly stylistic in Dunnellian terms can distribute themselves in patterns that, at least in theory, are appropriate only to functional ones. To make matters worse, a growing body of thought within the EA camp holds that traits can as easily as not distribute in patterns dictated not by their own stylistic or functional status at all, but rather by the status of one or more additional, somehow more dominant traits with which they happen to be linked (a phenomenon or, as some would have it, evolutionary "force" known as "sorting").