The empirical calibrations I use are instrument specific, and I have data on ~10,000 archaeological samples collected over the last 10+ years on 3 instruments with ? (more than 3) different calibrations (repairs to tubes and detectors meant redoing the calibration). I didn't keep track of everything I should have from the beginning. Now, to keep things straight, I need to go back through my old data files and add metadata on which instrument was used and which calibration.
James Allison
- 138 Followers
- 207 Following
- 149 Posts
Archaeologist studying the ancient farmers of the Southwestern U.S. and eastern Great Basin; quantitative methods, ceramic analysis, archaeological theory.
@bischrob @ekansa @electricarchaeo
The post above was supposed to be tacked on to my replies to the thread about pxrf metedata. In my rush to finish before my laptop battery died, I broke the thread.
The post above was supposed to be tacked on to my replies to the thread about pxrf metedata. In my rush to finish before my laptop battery died, I broke the thread.
@bischrob @ekansa @electricarchaeo
For metadata on the calibration, I think minimally you would want the method (empirical versus fundamental parameters). If the calibration is empirical, important fields would be the name of the calibration, the reference samples set used to create the calibration, and the software used to create it.
For metadata on the calibration, I think minimally you would want the method (empirical versus fundamental parameters). If the calibration is empirical, important fields would be the name of the calibration, the reference samples set used to create the calibration, and the software used to create it.
@bischrob @ekansa @electricarchaeo If you open a pdz file in Bruker's (proprietary) Artax software, there is a 'parameter' tab that gives you 15 fields of metadata. It's a good start, but one obvious omission is information about the istrument itself. And the instrument I use has two collimeters in different sizes (3 or 8 mm); collimeter size should probably also be included in the metadata. If you are reporting quantitative data, you would also need to add metadata on the calibration method.
@bischrob I'll be there!
Robert BischoffOn 31 March 2026, we’ll be running a workshop on using ArchaMap for archaeological data synthesis and FAIR data workflows, including category matching, linked translations, and cross-dataset export. CAA 2026 in Vienna runs 31 March to 4 April 2026.
I think G is Armenian, or something closely related (but Armenian is the only living language in its branch of Indo-European, so if it isn't Armenian maybe it's an extinct language). I'm pretty sure the other IDs in the thread are correct: Greek, Finnish, Persian, Welsh, Gothic, and Hawaiian.
But that still leaves a couple unidentified. Do they have to be Indo-European? I can't think of any good candidates.
@PCI_Archaeology @ArchaeoBasti @CAA_int
I want to add tags for co-recommender @scschmidt and reviewer @bischrob and thank them for their help with the review. And, of course, congratulations to the authors!
PCI Archaeology2/3 Recommended by @jamesallison & Sophie C. Schmidt based on reviews by Robert Bischoff, @ArchaeoBasti and 1 anonymous reviewer. All editorial work accessible here: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.archaeo.100344
This is part of the #CAA2023 proceedings which decided to use our #OpenAccess system @CAA_int
This is part of the #CAA2023 proceedings which decided to use our #OpenAccess system @CAA_int
1/3 New recommendation: Antigoni Panagiotopoulou, Colin A. B. Wallace, Lemonia Ragia and Dorina Moullou (2025). Detection of temporal changes of the Omega House at the Athenian Agora. V2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15739599
