And - more to my point - there are things that are going to be destroyed that *we don't even know at this stage are important*. So no-one can tell you what those things might be that are being destroyed, not yet. They might be detected with Special Rays or analysed with impressive bits of kit with flashing lights on. Or whatever. So the plan of the people who look after avebury is to keep as much as possible unexcavated for the future. There's only a finite amount of archaeology out there. They don't want to be looked on as we now look on the Victorian speed-barrow-diggers of the past, chucking out bits and pieces that we now consider very valuable.
That's my point really, and if you don't want to do any reading about the subject to back up your own points, then how can the discussion progress?
Again, I'm not being awkward, but my above reading of your posts suggests that we don't have a single specific example of any archaeology that *might* be destroyed? No reason to believe that current techniques aren't sufficient to preserve important archaeology? And that's assuming that we're overly concerned with the medieval period to start with?
So the argument would seem to be that we shouldn't undertake restoration *just in case*? On that basis, we would *never* restore or dig, because no generation can *ever* be certain that they've reached the peak of technology.
At some point, we have to accept that every site of human activity can't be hermetically preserved for eternity, and nor is that desirable.
