I have no doubt that they could one day find a tomb, identified as belonging to one “Jesus”, in however that is written in ancient Aramaic, or whatever.
Even a man that had been crucified.
So what? Lot's of people got crucified back then. In some places it's still going on. I won't mention which area of the world, or who's doing it.
“Jesus” probably was a fairly common name. Heck, even my own name, Chesley, was a lot more common 100 years ago, though rare now. We've gotten on ancestry.com and found about a dozen “Chesley”’s on my family tree, and another 8-9 on my wife's family tree. So why should “Jesus” be presumed to belong to the just one man?
So given that, why should NOT a man named Jesus have been crucified, who was NOT the Saviour? And if they found identifying marks as “King of the Jews”, or “the Messiah”, there, your fraud detector better start binging. But if they ever were actually able to prove that it was the Jesus's body lying in the grave, Christianity would die, immediately.
New scientific evidence in connection with its most recent display give more weight to the death and resurrection of Jesus:
http://guardianlv.com/2013/03/christ-burial-cloth-the-shroud-of-turin-bares-new-scientific-evidence/
"Jesus" is a version of "Joshua," and therefore extremely common among Jews at the relevant time period: as common as "Joshua" is today. "Mary," a verson of "Miriam," was also extremely common, as we observe reading the New Testament and trying to sort out all the different Marys, mother of this person, wife of that person, from this place or that place.
At least the names are gender-specific, though, so it's not like all the Taylors and Hunters and Dakotas today.