I noticed that the primary data source of the paper is a collection of around 12,000 texts that constitute the hitherto deciphered and edited part of around 23,500 texts excavated primarily at the archaeological site of Kültepe, ancient Kaneš, located in Turkey’s central Anatolian province of Kayseri. I understand the limitation of data, but still wondering if such limitation of data will result in biased or imprecise estimation? One possible case is, what if one missing city happens to be a very an important node in the trade network and it does not do much trade with the three cities where texts were found? Thanks.
Just a very primitive questions.
I noticed that the primary data source of the paper is
a collection of around 12,000 texts that constitute the hitherto deciphered and edited part of around 23,500 texts excavated primarily at the archaeological site of Kültepe, ancient Kaneš, located in Turkey’s central Anatolian province of Kayseri. I understand the limitation of data, but still wondering if such limitation of data will result in biased or imprecise estimation? One possible case is, what if one missing city happens to be a very an important node in the trade network and it does not do much trade with the three cities where texts were found? Thanks.