The ancient trade data used in the paper, a collection of around 12000 texts, is quite fascinating. However, is it possible that there still exist certain systematic selection biases associated with specifically these data being archived and recovered? Given that the gravitational model/triangulation exercise might not be that precise for locating peripheral cities compared to core cities, is it possible there could exist certain linkage between extent of a city's "peripheralization" and its inclusion/exclusion in/from the trade dataset? If that's the case, could it potentially compromise the precision of estimating trade network as a whole, or on the other hand, what if a larger proportion of lost cities are actually peripheral? Thanks!
The ancient trade data used in the paper, a collection of around 12000 texts, is quite fascinating. However, is it possible that there still exist certain systematic selection biases associated with specifically these data being archived and recovered? Given that the gravitational model/triangulation exercise might not be that precise for locating peripheral cities compared to core cities, is it possible there could exist certain linkage between extent of a city's "peripheralization" and its inclusion/exclusion in/from the trade dataset? If that's the case, could it potentially compromise the precision of estimating trade network as a whole, or on the other hand, what if a larger proportion of lost cities are actually peripheral? Thanks!