Modern archaeological finds can still contribute much to the study of ancient literature. For example, forty years ago a survey of the early Greek dramatist Line Aeschylus’ plays would have started with The Suppliant Women.
Greg mentioned there are two ways perhaps, one is contrasting the idea of can still, other is going with same idea but I think contrasting the idea cant be possible if Author himself is saying
for example Herbal cure can still play a great role in healthcare. then he would always support that. why he would contrast it.
even if you contrast it would be concession and i am not coming up with idea contrasting it. for example one can say
Modern archaeological finds can still contribute much to the study of ancient literature.
but historians are not using it. They thik it has so and so problems. if the passage flow is this, why would author say can still be useful. he would just say the method can be useful but this has so & so limitations so we do not use it. still word hint it still has relevancy why would you reject that if yes then how