A more-general question is whether archaeology should be done at all. Some have argued that future imaging technologies will render it completely unnecessary t

A more-general question is whether archaeology should be done at all. Some have argued that future imaging technologies will render it completely unnecessary to dig and displace artifacts, and that future archaeologists and anthropologists will curse us for trashing untold volumes of evidence because we couldn't stand to wait. I don't really buy that, especially in the absence of any clues regarding what these magical 'future imaging technologies' might turn out to be, but it's an interesting argument to consider. It would certainly have applied many decades ago, and if we say it doesn't apply now, then where was the cutoff?