My apologies in advance if this seems a bit jumbled - not quite sure just how to phrase the question or the implications of it.

From my understanding, modern archaeology gains significant insights thanks to the behavior of previous generations and their propensity to just clear the surface of an area and just build on top of what was already there (exceptions of course being refuse sites, midden heaps, etc.) So digging within a classic city, like Rome or London, can turn up surprising finds of old houses, temples and the like.

Modern building styles however will generally clear an area fully, right down to the foundations. When we rebuild now, there is nothing that was previously there to leave behind. Granted, today's modern society is much more documented, and getting more so daily - so the future study of our times will be slightly easier. But what about 100 years from now?

For example, just a little over 140 years ago there was the Great Chicago Fire, and artifacts from that era still show up now and then following a (re)building project. But what about 140 years from now, someone building in a city where there was a massive tragic event that razed a portion of the city, what would they find?

Granted, we will still have our trash heaps to go through in the future - though, with even that technology improving, the degradation/disintegration rate is probably climbing - but what will archaeologists look for when wanting to see how the average person lived day to day?

...Or any ridiculously hot places. What was their experience like?

So reading 19th century Russian novels, fine arts seem to be a really big deal in Russian culture with music, ballet, operas, etc. I figure most of these were only accessible to to aristocratic class or bourgeois. If this isn't the case, I'd like that to be corrected. So after the October Revolution and the formation of the USSR once it gets all settled in, what happened to all that, the ballets, operas, music, etc.? Was it seen as bourgeois things and must be eradicated? I would think not since it seems pretty big in Russia today. Did people go to music halls and things during the Cold War? Were they even able to? I understand that paintings and films had to go under "Socialist Realism" but I don't know about the rest of it. Can anyon explain?

Is it just random or is it recorded in history?

What would this "side business" look like if permitted? Was bounty-hunting / mercenary work open to soldiers, or covered by others? How was it perceived?

And how would we determine the value of land, holdings ect.

I look down at my phone to trade stocks and I wondered how did they trade stocks back in the past? Did they stand in a market and yell out orders? Did they read public notices to figure out what you could buy and sell? How did they protect themselves from cheaters? Were they any ticker tapes like devices in the ancient era or in the Victorian era?

We often see depictions of natives who have descriptive names ('bright flower' or 'red fox', etc) and many old place names appear to be simple descriptions of the place (e.g. Milton = mill town).

In comparison, today we look up the meanings of names in baby books and names like London or the Thames don't mean anything in modern English.

When did this change? When and why did people begin using names that they didn't understand? Is this common in the test of the world?

(I apologize if this is more of a sociology question)

Siege towers, movies & games seem to love them. Multi-story towers on wheels that you roll up to the enemy castle, and look really impressive while doing so. But where they actually used? I've not found any mentions of them in any of the more "serious" books that I have read on the subject of ancient or medieval warfare, and they do seem rather unwieldy to me. The wheels would have to be rather thick in order for them to not sink into the ground (considering how heavy they most have been, at least if they are anything like how they're depicted in most games and movies), and they can't have been easy to move or build for that matter.

So has anyone found any sources that indicates that they were actually used (and if so, were they used more than once in a blue moon?)

I know the 4th crusade in many ways signalled the beginning of the end for Byzantium but they seemed to be in decline even prior to the Latin sack of Constantinople. Also what prevented the Byzantines from reestablishing themselves after the Nicean reconquest of their capital or at least solidifying/ their hold over their remaining territories in Greece, Thrace, and Asia Minor?

I know, this is probably a weird question but it's been stuck in my head all day and I'm really curious to know.