Reply to comments: Digging deeper into the assemblage

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)?