{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0255885363357216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01330603889457523, 'mean_word_length': 5.229299363057325, '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}}
On the Reality of Gainey Points

ABSTRACT Eren, Meltzer, and Andrews (2018. “Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis?” PaleoAmerica 4: 201–218) repeat claims made elsewhere that deny the existence of a Gainey fluted point type/complex in the Great Lakes-Northeast region of North America and its distinctiveness from Clovis. The literature they cite that purports to refute the existence of Gainey does not do so. In fact, that literature is irrelevant to the question, and they ignore the 50+ years of published work that demonstrates in increasing detail how the Gainey point type differs from generally accepted characterizations of Clovis points and strongly suggests they post-date western Clovis forms. Treating all large, relatively parallel-sided points in the Great Lakes-Northeast as Clovis, despite evidence suggesting use and changes over hundreds of years, results in excessive time averaging and raises real doubts about conclusions based on that faulty assumption.