No arbitrary, artificial adversity like you’re proposing, no.
People spanked their kids for tens of thousands of years and then, starting a few decades ago, people started to say, “Hey, maybe this just teaches kids that violence is a reasonable solution to things. Why don’t we stop and see if that isn’t better?”
Those people could well have been wrong. But that didn’t make the experiment not be worth testing.
Some things are of high enough value that it’s worth making a break and seeing how that pans out.
50 years ago was 1968. What technology was a fantasy to everyone on the planet then that is here now?
Computers? No, they had them back then.
The Internet? No, they had that in a very, very, very basic form.
Stealth technology? No the Blackbird had been around for nearly a decade.
Cable Tv? No that was around back then.
Exactly what technology is around today that everyone back in 1968 would have seen and run away screaming their heads off, “WITCHCRAFT!!! DEMON!!! SPAWN OF SATAN!!”
Been of interest to who? Sitting in the ground, far away from the isotope analysts, the DNA analysts, the labfuls of other techs who might find useful data from that context, who exactly is it going to be of interest to?
Look, if your argument is actually “We’ve been too cavalier about how we handle physical artefacts”, that’s, IMO, not even questionable. We absolutely have, and we can always do better.
If, however, your argument is “We’ve been too cavalier, and therefore we must wait for magic tech before touching anything not under immediate threat”, I’d say … well, what I’ve said already.
It’s a false dichotomy - the only alternative to just willy-nilly ripping everything out of the ground, grinding it into fine powder for analysis and throwing away the leavings *isn’t *“just look (but only later, when your magic eyes arrive), don’t touch”, it’s what we already do - careful, contextual extraction, analysis that tries to be as non-destructive as possible, and archival of the rest for later analysis and display.
Are you familiar with Laocoön and His Sons? Famous Roman sculpture of a guy and his kids getting eaten by snakes? It was dug up from a vineyard outside Rome in 1506. Michelangelo saw it - in fact, he was there when they dug it up - and he later claimed that its bold aesthetic and emotional expressiveness had a strong influence on his own work. And that’s just one example: it’s widely accepted among historians that 15th and 16th Century excavations of Roman sculptures, murals and architecture were among the most important catalysts of the periods cultural flowering. In other words: no Roman statues, no Italian Renaissance. And yet, if the OP had his way, they should have kept Laocoön underground for another 600 years. You know, just in case.
There is more to archaeology than scientific research.
What experiment? Not everybody spanked their kids, even less spanked them routinely. The notion of “let’s not spank the kids” isn’t a recent discovery.
No. But it is probably the best way.
My argument is that your “advanced science is borne of banning science experiments altogether until magic happens” argument is, err… misguided, let’s go with that.
It’s doubly misguided in that, even IF we went along with your “don’t apply current science until pipedream science happens”, by the time pipedream science *does *happen there will be new, better science “just 10 years away, honest”. Kinda like cold fusion. So by your rationale we wait for that, and then we wait for the next upgrade ; forever. All the while sitting on our butts and learning absolutely nothing.
A sound plan.
You’re comparing apples and oranges and, in doing so, have negated your own argument. We have a LARGE historical record of Washington along with numerous paintings, etc. Artifacts underground are virtually unknown in comparison. It’s totally not the same thing.
Even that argument is really past its due date when it comes to professional historians’ handling of artifacts (which is not to say that other entities, private or public, shouldn’t be horsewhipped for how they’re treating historical findings to this day). We’re long past the day where “archaeologists” were some bored nobleman hearing about one of their peasants uncovering a priceless trove of hundreds of ~6th century swords in a riverbed, coming to investigate then upon finding them “all rusted and unimpressive” instructed the local blacksmith to melt them all for slag.
This is a true 19th century story I came across during my own research BTW. If only we could invent a device to bitchslap someone through time and space…
“It belongs in a museum!!”
especially when it’s racially driven–why is it okay to dig up Native American graves, but not, say, Plymouth Rock graves?
The answer to that one might take a 150 page thesis, but it would however boil down to “because we had guns and money and they did not”. It’s true for Egyptian mummies, Inca mummies, Navajo burial caves, etc, etc. The only reason every museum in the world doesn’t have one or two terracotta warriors on display is because the Chinese, for their part, *did *have money. And cannon.
Well, also they were only unearthed in the 70s, by which time that sort of thing wasn’t really done even if you didn’t have cannons.
How about Jamestown graves?
Let’s look at this issue from Sage Rat’s viewpoint.
By using less than perfect technology, we are losing the opportunity to gather all available data from an archaeological site simply because the methods we are capable of are incomplete or underdeveloped. SageRat they states that we should defer such investigation until we can do the investigation without in any way disturbing the site.
ok, fine.
So, how long do we wait?
A fundamental maxim of physics states that in the ultimate fine detail, the act of observing changes the observed. So, should we wait until we have figured out how to violate quantum physics?
Following SageRat’s advice, we would defer archaeology until… we lose all interest in knowing history. At which point the bulldozers will happily roll in.
Or maybe just defer, as long as there is visible progress in the ability and efficiency of tools and techniques?
Ok.
But why stop at archaeology, let’s apply it to something both important and urgent.
Sagerat, your car is an inefficient mode of transport. As simple proof, both fuel efficiency for gas cars and energy efficiency for electric vehicles has been increasing every year.
Thus, you absolutely must immediately stop using your car, until we have perfected transport. If you do not do so, then you are violating your own principles.
I have not said to defer. I have said to move to non-destructive technologies and continue that way.
I’ve asked one question a couple of times in this thread. Do you care to answer it?
First of all, that’s infuriatingly vague and non-useful a thing to say. And it hinges on corrupting that old chestnut about advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic into “with enough technology, you can do *actual *magic”. But moving on,
WHY ?
Yes, archaeological items are a finite resource. Some of which will regrettably be damaged or destroyed during the digging (but not that many, and I assure you some intern is getting a stern talking to if and when that happens), some of which will be ever so slightly chipped for Science!, most of which will be photographed and catalogued and crated and stored in room 3B until the heat death of the Universe, and some of which will be on display in museums or doing the circuit of scientific experts and generating that most precious of historical artefacts : student master theses and reams upon reams of boring-ass articles about shoe buckles or Assyrian bricks no one will ever EVER read. Unless they’re working on a master thesis of course (no, no one reads those either). 
But still : a resource. Yes, when we destroy some of them (or when we store them in room 3B, which will itself soon be buried in the dust and mud of ages due to shrinking government funding), we rob them from future generations. My question to you is : SO FUCKING WHAT ?
It’s true of every resource there is. Should we also stop using uranium and plutonium because In The Future we’ll have cold fusion ? Stop driving cars, heating and lighting our homes because In The Future everything is powered by magiteck ? Stop grinding gypsum into plaster and rocks into gravel because In The Future the plasmacrete of our buildings will be extruded from the very air by atom replicators ?
Resources shouldn’t be squandered or wasted. But it’s being a Luddite (or one of those “let’s go live in the Vercors by 14th century standards !” old school hippies, who all came back after their first winter) to declare we should stop using them entirely, just because there is a finite amount of them.