In this last lesson on archaeology in contemporary world, we want, on the one hand, to summarize which were the ambitions of the New Archaeology, or Processual Archaeology from the 60s onward on the other, which have been the ways that the most lively contemporary archaeology wants to walk through to treasure, such recent precious stimuli, and to correct some negative aspects that have been identified within those in the most recent times. To sum up, the main ambition of Processual Archaeology, according to which the methods of the positivist natural sciences were applicable to all sciences, natural and social, it was to make traditional archaeology, considered as basically descriptive, a scientific anthropology. As it has been effectively summarized by David Whitley, on the base of a model of science current in the 50s, its main points included: an interest in explaining empirical observations about human behavior through cross-cultural generalizations of laws; a belief that these empirical observations (our archaeological data), are independent of our theories, that this data can be used to test theories, and that the result will be an objective knowledge about the past, and the idea that a logical structure for scientific testing and explanation could be found in the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry, for example. In the previous lesson, we have recalled that a severe issue in the use of models within Processual Archeology, is that generalizations overcome the research of specificity. Similarly, within methods of Processual Archaeology, also a typically neo-positivist determinism is a major issue. In fact, what can be defined as an adaptationist perspective is entailed in many archaeological researches strictly based on an inflexible Processual Archaeology. In fact, in such cases, simplifying again, an external cause in the environment determines a different human behavior for adaptation, which produces a social phenomenon in a new form of culture. This kind of interpretation, which is typical of the researches on one of the examplar themes of Processual Archaeology, that is cultural change, tends to look at external causes, in the environment, for the origin of cultural changes first, and then to explain these as consequences of the environment and behavior, which are reflected almost mechanically, in the society. Such a viewpoint, which entails element of strong determinism, does not leave enough space for those aspects of the material culture, which depends on the human mind, its capacity of reaction, its multivariate knowledge, and cumulative experience. These aspects have been emphasized by the trends of Post-Processual Archaeology, and today are regarded as non-secondary elements within the formation of cultures by Cognitive Archaeology. Turning to the central issue of generalization that does not leave enough room to specificities, if the role of human mind is irrelevant, specificities cannot emerge, because specificities are elaborated by cognitive reactions of human mind, which can be differentiated, and partially differentiated in a non-predictable way. The role of mind and of cognitive process is connected to "freedom", which is the opposite of "need", the principal agent of the processual chain environment change/ necessary adaptation/ social change. Within the prevaling post-processual perspective of contemporary archaeology, the fascination of building archaeology as a subject with the validity of science persists, but the consideration that the possibility that archaeology could be a science, is a post-postivist illusion is stronger and stronger. Thus within contemporary post-processual archaeology, some archeologists adopt a humanistic perspective beside the scientific perspective, others replace the scientific perspective with a humanistic perspective. What does the growing importance of the humanistic perspective within post-processual archaeology mean? And that we would like to invite you to answer this question according to the tools that we illustrated and mentioned in the past and present lessons so to create a debate among you. It means a trend in which, in the analysis of data, the individual is considered as well as the group, and the historical context is not subordinated to the environmental milieu, and in the evaluation of the archaeological evidence, the greatest attention is paid to the particular, rather than the general, as well as, for the prevailing of the meaning over the structure, interpretation, often open, is privileged, compared to explanation that is often closed. It has been rightly maintained that in the processual perspective, the neo-positivist prejudices of the independence of fact and theory, of the non-compatibility of science and humanism, and the opposition between emotion and reason are regarded as insurmountable. On the contrary, it is actually in the post-processural perspective and in the recent articulations of critical archaeology and cognitive archaeology, that such antinomies tends to cancel each other, because the horizons of contemporary archaeology are getting not only broader, but also less rigid and non-preclusive, but rather really open. Within contemporary archaeology, that, according to some people, not only aims at going beyond every naive positivism, but is framed within post-structuralism and post-functionalism, opening up to post-modernism, rather than aiming at reaching presumed scientific certainties through dogmatic explanations, the focus is to understand complex issues. Concluding, we can say that the horizon of contemporary archaeology is characterized by less dogmatic certainties compared to that of processual archaeology, but it is a horizon that, more substantially than what happens actually for processual archaeology, is really more open to contamination with many more subjects, in the full certainty that not only scientific disciplines, but also humanities could make archaeology progress on the ground of a true historic science. Recalling a famous as well as effective expression of the New Archaeology, contemporary archaeology has gone beyond the time of the "loss of innocence", to venture in that of the "acquisition of consciousness".