Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This paper aims to provide a methodological approach to identify potential bias in cemetery sample age‐at‐death distributions and provide an alternative way to report fertility despite underenumeration. The method involves comparing total fertility rate (TFR) estimates from two empirically derived models developed on a United Nations mortality and fertility dataset. The models utilize different age cohorts in their calculations (one relies on the proportion of pre‐adults aged < 15 years, whereas the other excludes all those aged < 15 years). The tested hypothesis is that similar TFR estimates using both models indicate a relatively unbiased sample, although the converse would suggest cemetery sample bias in one broad age cohort. Results comparing the respective TFR estimates from D0–14/D and D15–49/D15+ models confirm that fertility estimates are comparable for unbiased samples. From this, a method for the coordinated application of the D0–14/D and D15–49/D15+ models were found to be valid in determining if a cemetery sample was biased. Following the determination of potential underrepresentation, an approach is outlined for dealing with biased and unbiased cemetery samples in terms of reporting on demographic variables such as TFRs.
This paper aims to provide a methodological approach to identify potential bias in cemetery sample age‐at‐death distributions and provide an alternative way to report fertility despite underenumeration. The method involves comparing total fertility rate (TFR) estimates from two empirically derived models developed on a United Nations mortality and fertility dataset. The models utilize different age cohorts in their calculations (one relies on the proportion of pre‐adults aged < 15 years, whereas the other excludes all those aged < 15 years). The tested hypothesis is that similar TFR estimates using both models indicate a relatively unbiased sample, although the converse would suggest cemetery sample bias in one broad age cohort. Results comparing the respective TFR estimates from D0–14/D and D15–49/D15+ models confirm that fertility estimates are comparable for unbiased samples. From this, a method for the coordinated application of the D0–14/D and D15–49/D15+ models were found to be valid in determining if a cemetery sample was biased. Following the determination of potential underrepresentation, an approach is outlined for dealing with biased and unbiased cemetery samples in terms of reporting on demographic variables such as TFRs.
The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) was established in 1997 as an initiative to record archaeological objects found by members of the general public. Initially set up in pilot form, in 2003 it was extended to the whole of England and Wales. 1 Surveys of Roman period finds recorded by the PAS have been published in Britannia since 2004. This sixteenth annual report summarises the general character and distribution of Roman finds reported in 2018 and publishes significant individual artefacts recorded by Finds Liaison Officers. OVERVIEW As in previous reports the summary of Roman period finds reported to the PAS in 2018 begins with a discussion of their distribution. Table 1 documents the numbers of object types recorded on the online-accessible database by county, as before using older administrative boundaries from England and Wales for consistency with previous reports and grouping counties by PAS region. The first three categories comprise coins, brooches and other personal ornaments made of metal, these being the numerically most important categories of Roman period finds. The fourth column reports the number of records of Roman objects in all materials, including metallic and non-metallic objects (i.e. ceramic, glass and stone objects and building materials). This follows the same format used for presenting finds from 2016 onwards. 2 As a single record may sometimes document more than one item, for example describing an assemblage of building materials or ceramics or a coin hoard, the total number of Roman objects documented in the year exceeds the total number of records for the year. The number of Roman coins documented in 2018 is therefore considerably greater than the number of Roman period records. Nonetheless the distribution of records serves as a reliable proxy indicator for the distribution of findspots of objects reported to the PAS. 2018 saw many records made for Roman objects found in eastern England, especially in coastal counties from North Yorkshire to Suffolk, in some counties of the southeast Midlands and in central southern and southwestern England. In western England and Wales the number of records is much smaller. The documenting of a small number of large hoards partly explains the very many coins documented in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Lincolnshire during 2018. Significant examples include a Severan denarius hoard from Norton, Doncaster (SWYOR-4B2BFF), and large third-century hoards from Riby, Lincs. (LIN-E5A12D) and English Bicknell, Glos.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.