{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019793459552495698, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034423407917383822, 'mean_word_length': 6.26875, '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}}
Geophysical indicators of culturally emplaced soils and sediments

Archaeologists dealing with earthen forms must distinguish those constructed by humans from those with a natural origin. Geophysical techniques can help identify culturally loaded soils and sediments. We suggest that intrinsic changes in geophysical properties, due to cultural loading, can serve as fingerprints in determining whether a mound or other earthen form is natural or culturally constructed. Culturally emplaced soils might be identified through anomalous values in geophysical properties or through unusual spatial or stratigraphic complexity. The identification of this “lumpiness” in geophysical properties may involve geophysical techniques quite different from those employed in traditional archaeogeophysical surveys. Experiments at three prehistoric mound sites (the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, Effigy Mounds National Monument, and the Hopeton Earthwork) illustrate a number of these techniques including studies of the anisotropy (directionality) of geophysical properties, seismic Rayleigh (surface) waves, and magnetic susceptibility. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.