In the course of this study the attempt has been made to compare and contrast the major points of theory and methodology of the two systems under consideration. This treatment has not, in spite of its length, been exhaustive, and there are many problems not dealt with, many assertions not answered. Notable among these is the assertion that recording in the Scientific system neglects the architecture as architecture. On the other hand, at least one of the assertions of proponents of the Proto-Scientific system, that the Scientific system neglects the connexion between the artefact and its context (Aharoni 1973A, 48), has been decisively answered: the identification of the context of an artefact is an empirical problem which can only be resolved by the use of an empirical methodology. Thus, if any system neglects the artefact/context connexion it is the Proto-Scientific system with its a priori epistemology.Some important questions also remain unanswered by Aharoni's article: for example, why did he believe that it is impossible to remove the halves of a series of empirical stratigraphic units as discrete and unmixed units that can be reliably matched to one another at different dates? As the debate over the relative merits of these two systems seems likely to continue for some time to come, it is to be hoped that someone will come forward to answer the remaining questions. In the meantime, Aharoni has stated that much of the criticism of the Proto-Scientific system is due to ignorance of recent, but as yet unpublished, developments in the methodology of the Proto-Scientific system (Aharoni 1973A, 48). There is much to be said for the argument that ignorance has fuelled the debate on both sides. It has often appeared as if some writers believed the latest, if not the last, word on the Scientific system to be Archaeology From the Earth (Wheeler 1954). It has also been said that: ‘To date, not a single final report volume has appeared covering the stratified material from recent excavations where the work was based on the full use of baulks and drawn sections’. (Dever 1973, 2*). In fact, while this may be true of the Levant, there are a large number of such reports on British and European sites, which may be used both as examples of what the Scientific system is and what it can do, and as sources of ideas for further developments and adaptations. Surely every archaeologist is also under an obligation to keep abreast of developments in theory and practice in areas beyond his immediate speciality; in this case isolation is all too likely to mean stultification. Only by the continuing expenditure of a great deal of careful thought on the improvement of stratigraphic theory and the methodology of excavation and recording, reporting of the observed evidence, and, equally, the critical evaluation and utilization of the reports resulting from these efforts, can standards within the discipline of archaeology be maintained, let alone raised. And it is taken for granted that the raising of standards, with its resultant better chance of truly understanding human history in its widest possible sense, is the constant aim of every archaeologist.