The analysis of lipids and other biomolecules preserved in archaeological artefacts, using chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques, is a powerful approach, which has provided unprecedented insights into the diet and cultural practices of past populations. In more recent years, the now-mature field of organic residue analysis (ORA) has entered a new phase, undertaking large scale analyses and providing broader perspectives on the uses of pottery over a range of both temporal and spatial scales.

However, it has become apparent from the literature that there are significant pitfalls in applying the technique, often due to inexperience or lack of knowledge, that can lead to the production of data which is essentially worthless, because it either lacks analytical rigour or a valid archaeological interpretation. This is partly because ORA sits between chemistry and archaeology and projects are sometimes conducted by researchers not sufficiently familiar in the respective other discipline. Consequently, there have been numerous examples in recent years that showed a lack of understanding of critical points in ORA. This has two serious consequences: 1. the often-wide perpetuation of false knowledge, and 2. the use of a method that is both costly and destructive of irreplaceable archaeological material, which is not compensated for with useful information-gain.

Here, we address some common errors encountered either in published literature or during peer-review and discuss the most important errors and misconceptions around ORA. In particular, we discuss use of unsuitable biomarkers, contamination, poor analytical data quality, the limitations of gas chromatography (GC), GC-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and MS databases, and problems with the interpretation of ORA data. Here, we offer best practice advice and we hope that this will help, and encourage, all researchers looking to apply ORA in their studies, as we are optimistic that these pitfalls can be avoided, and the quality of published research consequently raised.

使用色谱和质谱技术分析考古文物中保存的脂质和其他生物分子是一种强大的方法，它为了解过去人口的饮食和文化习俗提供了前所未有的见解。近年来，现已成熟的有机残留物分析 (ORA) 领域进入了一个新阶段，进行了大规模分析，并为陶器在一系列时空尺度上的用途提供了更广阔的视角。

然而，从文献中可以明显看出，在应用该技术时存在重大缺陷，通常是由于缺乏经验或缺乏知识，这可能导致产生基本上毫无价值的数据，因为它要么缺乏分析的严谨性，要么缺乏有效的考古解释。这部分是因为 ORA 介于化学和考古学之间，并且项目有时由对各自其他学科不够熟悉的研究人员进行。因此，近年来有许多例子表明对 ORA 中的关键点缺乏了解。这会产生两个严重的后果：1. 错误知识的长期存在，以及 2. 使用一种既昂贵又具有破坏性的不可替代考古材料的方法，

在这里，我们解决了在已发表的文献或同行评审期间遇到的一些常见错误，并讨论了围绕 ORA 的最重要的错误和误解。我们特别讨论了不合适的生物标志物的使用、污染、分析数据质量差、气相色谱 (GC)、GC-质谱 (GC-MS) 和 MS 数据库的局限性，以及 ORA 数据的解释问题。在这里，我们提供最佳实践建议，我们希望这将有助于和鼓励所有希望在研究中应用 ORA 的研究人员，因为我们乐观地认为可以避免这些陷阱，从而提高已发表研究的质量。