Debates about archaeological interpretation are always healthy and welcome, and when, as here, arguments are not killed off, they inevitably become stronger. Importantly, the comments by Magli and Belmonte (2023) serve as a reminder that reconciling conflicting theoretical perspectives is never easy when times are changing. Grounded in positivism, their critique draws upon assumptions that become justificatory assertions. For better or worse, archaeological thinking has moved away from the processualism of the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s—a key turning point being Hodder's (1984) review of positivism in archaeological interpretation and his call for more contextualised approaches. The authors might usefully have consulted this and other works before setting out onto the choppy waters of post-processual archaeology. Many of their points simply escalate questions posed in my original text (Darvill 2022), and they often fail to distinguish between suggestions, arguments and more solid interpretative statements. Notwithstanding, they neatly arrange their response around three issues that are here addressed seriatim.

关于考古学解释的争论总是健康而受欢迎的，而且当争论没有像这里那样平息时，它们不可避免地会变得更加激烈。重要的是，Magli 和 Belmonte (2023) 的评论提醒我们，在时代变迁时，调和相互冲突的理论观点绝非易事。基于实证主义，他们的批评借鉴了成为正当断言的假设。不管是好是坏，考古学思维已经摆脱了 1960 年代末、1970 年代和 80 年代初的过程主义——一个关键的转折点是霍德 (Hodder, 1984) 对考古学解释中的实证主义的回顾，以及他对更多情境化方法的呼吁。在开始进入后处理考古学的波涛汹涌的水域之前，作者可能已经有用地查阅了这部作品和其他作品。他们的许多观点只是将我的原文（Darvill 2022）中提出的问题升级，而且他们往往无法区分建议、论点和更可靠的解释性陈述。尽管如此，他们还是巧妙地围绕这里依次解决的三个问题做出了回应。