I think I outlined above my views on this (general) subject. It's so specific to the site in question and so requiring of all the information. As I mentioned before re: statue menhirs in SE france I would have loved to have seen the ones I saw in Rodez museum in situ, as it is I feel blessed to have seen them at all.
As I think I said before, in this particular case, I think it all boils down to this point that the stone may be susceptible to some sort of accellerated erosion and also that it is potencially unique.
If it were to transpire that the stone is perfectly stable and would not suffer from reburial/being left where it is, then I beleive that's the course to take as, as the point has been made, it can always be revisited when the funding or whatever is available TO study it.
If however the stone is very fragile then that's where the problem lies. Is there any point in reburying it for the sake of leaving it in context if the art itself is going be gone in a few years.
I am in no position to choose one of these options. I don't know what type of rock it is, if the fire damge has made the stone more fragile, what the soil conditions are, how deep or faint the carvings are, how the stone would be reburied and any number of other variables.
I can't really join the debate as such as, with the information I personally have, I can't form an opinion.
But yous carry on ;-)