Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
I didn't mention Booth/Armstrong. (Indeed the more I think about
their schema the less I like it)
The census authorities had there own schema which also used
numbers to differentiate jobs.
I agree that it might be days in years (sounds sensible) but I
feel it's more likely to be occupational coding.
If the two people concerned had unusual jobs and also were
disabled in some way that would support my idea. If the jobs were
commonplace then the code would probably not be included and I'll
be included to agree that age is being shown .
Coding books were used and published. The 1881 census abstracts
have not been reprinted and are difficult to obtain.
David
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:00:12 +0100 David Short
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
# Regarding Dennis Durrants query about the numbers. They are not the
# Booth/Armstrong code as this has 5 figures. Those beginning with 1 are to
# do with agriculture and breeding and those beginning with 6 with dealing.
# Not appropriate for a 3 year old. So age in days seems better answer.
#
# David Short
---------------------------------
David Alan Gatley (Dr),
School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Staffordshire University,
Stoke-on-Trent,
ST4 2XW
Telephone 01782-294780 (Office)
01782-415340 (Home)
Fax 01782-294760
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/sociology
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/census
|