First and foremost, let me thank Stephanie Wynne-Jones and Oliver Harris for their critical and thought provoking comments on my paper Revisiting the Trelleborg house. A discussion of house types and assemblages. In the original paper, the use of house types in settlement archaeology was critically reviewed and it was argued that the concept of the house type is limiting for the understanding of the archaeological house. As an alternative to the house type, a perspective on archaeological houses inspired by DeLandas assemblage theory was presented (DeLanda 2006, 2016). As both Wynne-Jones and Harris rather add to the critique of the concept of the house type than question or reject it, it seems unnecessary to develop further on the critique in this context. Still, both comments contribute with valuable points which address some of the less developed elements in my paper. Therefore, I will use the possibility to elaborate on two issues I have encountered with the concept of the assemblage in archaeological contexts and which I find mirrored in the comments: What is the aim of studying archaeological assemblages? And how is an archaeological assemblage created (and recreated)?

中文翻译：

---

回复评论：深入挖掘组合

首先，让我感谢 Stephanie Wynne-Jones 和 Oliver Harris 对我的论文 Revisiting the Trelleborg house 提出的批判性和发人深省的评论。对房屋类型和组合的讨论。在原始论文中，住宅类型在聚落考古学中的使用受到了批判性审查，并认为房屋类型的概念限制了对考古房屋的理解。作为房屋类型的替代方案，提出了受 DeLandas 组合理论启发的考古房屋的观点（DeLanda 2006, 2016）。由于 Wynne-Jones 和 Harris 都倾向于对房屋类型的概念进行批判，而不是质疑或拒绝它，因此似乎没有必要在这种情况下进一步展开批判。仍然，这两个评论都提供了有价值的观点，解决了我论文中一些欠发达的元素。因此，我将利用可能性来阐述我在考古背景下遇到的组合概念的两个问题，我发现这些问题反映在评论中：研究考古组合的目的是什么？考古组合是如何创建（和重新创建）的？