Understanding the context from which evidence emerges is of paramount importance in reaching robust conclusions in scientific inquiries. This is as true of the present as it is of the past. In a trans‐disciplinary study such as More et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GH000064) and many others appearing in this and similar journals, a proper analysis of context demands the use of historical evidence. This includes demographic, epidemiological, and socio‐economic data—common in many studies of the impact of anthropogenic pollution on human health—and, as in this specific case, also geoarchaeological evidence. These records anchor climate and pollution data in the geographic and human circumstances of history, without which we lose a fundamental understanding of the data itself. This article addresses Hinkley (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GH000105) by highlighting the importance of context, focusing on the historical and archaeological evidence, and then discussing atmospheric deposition and circulation in the specific region of our study. Since many of the assertions in Bindler (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GH000135) are congruent with our findings and directly contradict Hinkley (2018), this reply refers to Bindler (2018), whenever appropriate, and indicates where our evidence diverges.

中文翻译：

---

历史背景在跨学科研究中了解过去气候，污染和健康数据的作用：对More等人的评论的回应，2017年。

了解证据出现的背景对于在科学查询中得出可靠的结论至关重要。现在和过去都是如此。在诸如More等人的跨学科研究中。（2017，https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GH000064）以及许多其他出现在本期刊和类似期刊上的文章，要对上下文进行适当的分析，需要使用历史证据。这包括人口统计，流行病学和社会经济数据（在许多关于人为污染对人类健康影响的研究中很常见），以及在这种情况下，还包括地球考古学证据。这些记录将气候和污染数据固定在历史的地理和人类环境中，否则我们将对数据本身失去基本的了解。本文针对欣克利（2018，https://doi.org/10。1002 / 2018GH000105），着重强调背景的重要性，着重于历史和考古证据，然后讨论我们研究的特定区域中的大气沉积和环流。由于Bindler（2018，https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GH000135）中的许多断言与我们的发现一致，并且直接与Hinkley（2018）相矛盾，因此在适当的情况下，此答复引用Bindler（2018），并指出何处我们的证据不一致。