[viraptor]

Not really in trust for the natives. Just protected overall. In another place in Australia I can't tear down a house because it's over 100 years old and needs to be preserved for historical/architecture value. (It's... A random brick house) Not protecting a 15k year old village in the same way is what's indefensible. (Assuming there's something to protect there - that's another also valid thread in the comments here)

[oldlinux]

Yes, it's more of a "world heritage" concern. As in, these sites represent humanity's history and provide for our understanding of it collectively. The people descended most directly from those who originally inhabited these sites may have special concern with preservation, but heritage site preservation is a global collective responsibility.