{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02153558052434457, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010299625468164793, 'mean_word_length': 5.288235294117647, '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 Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Colleagues

ABSTRACT Radiocarbon dates reported by Romain and colleagues (2017) suggesting that Serpent Mound (33AD1) is an Adena effigy mound are problematic because they cannot be linked reliably to cultural activities associated with the original construction of the effigy mound. Additional arguments offered by Romain and colleagues (2017) in support of an Early Woodland age for Serpent Mound also are unconvincing. A Late Prehistoric age for Serpent Mound is supported by the radiocarbon dates reported previously, new radiocarbon dates, the relative abundance of serpent imagery in the Fort Ancient culture and the contemporaneous Mississippian Tradition, the virtual absence of serpent imagery in the Adena culture, and the fact that, whereas effigy-mound building is otherwise unknown in the Early Woodland period, it is well documented, if rare, for the Fort Ancient culture and in the not-so-terribly-far-away upper Midwest it is so common that it defines the broadly contemporaneous Effigy Mound culture.