Abstract
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 under enumeration. The method involves comparing total fertility rate (TFR) estimates derived from two empirically derived models developed on a United Nations mortality and fertility dataset. The models utilise different age cohorts in their calculations (one relies on the proportion of pre-adults aged <15 years, while the other excludes all those aged <15 years).
The tested hypothesis is that similar TFR estimates using both models indicate a relatively unbiased sample, while 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 co-ordinated 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 under-representation, an approach is outlined for dealing with biased and unbiased cemetery samples in terms of reporting on demographic variables such as total fertility rates.
The tested hypothesis is that similar TFR estimates using both models indicate a relatively unbiased sample, while 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 co-ordinated 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 under-representation, an approach is outlined for dealing with biased and unbiased cemetery samples in terms of reporting on demographic variables such as total fertility rates.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International journal of osteoarchaeology |
| Publication status | Accepted/In press - 28 Nov 2024 |
Bibliographical note
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to acknowledge Dr Clare McFadden for input into early discussions regarding the approach taken by this paper, and Brianna Muir and Sharon Taylor for advice during the drafting and reviewing. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their suggestions which contributed to the improvement of this article. This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Data Availability Statement
United Nations (2024) and Roser (2024) data used in this article can be found in theSupplementary Materials.
Keywords
- Bioarchaeology
- Representation
- Skeletal samples
- D15-49/D15+
- D0-14/D