{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00375, 'mean_word_length': 4.821818181818182, '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 Roman Gold Ring from Kinwarton near Alcester, Warwickshire

Another important indication at Caerleon is that the difference in level between the mean high Springs and mean high Neaps is 3.1 m, again greater than the depth of the dockside wall. These apparent incongruities could be explained if the quays at London and Caerleon were located above the tidal reach of the respective rivers when originally built. In the case of London there is a suggestion, based upon mollusc analysis, that the tidal reach of the Thames in Roman times was downstream of London. At Caerleon, preliminary botanical studies suggest that the site excavated by GGAT was not beside a tidal river. In this connection it may be of interest that the first documentary reference to a 'Warth' (flat meadow beside a strand) there does not occur until 1314, a possible indication that estuarine flooding had taken the place of river inundation as a consequence of rising tidal level. This study suggests therefore that changes in sea level since the Roman era have significantly altered the coastal configuration of Britain and, as a consequence, extrapolating sea level data between distant sites using tide tables is unlikely to give reliable figures. In addition, the Roman dock facilities were probably situated above the normal tidal reach, i.e. they were river quays, not estuarine ones, and as a result their use as tidal bench marks is questionable. It makes sense for docks to be located beyond the tidal estuary of a river as this avoids building massive tidal resistant structures and provides a naturally safe haven.