"Archaeological" sites
Seems kinda odd to designate places whose provenance began in our lifetimes as archaeological... After all, the word implies "study of ancient times".
This is odder still:
Does America own Neil Armstrong's famous first footprints on the Moon but not the lunar dust in which they were recorded?
How can one possibly own a footprint, but not the medium in which the print was left? Sculptors would call that deliberately-shaped absence of material "negative space". On Earth, it's full of air. On the Moon, it's vacuum. Who can "own" a volume of nothing at all, no matter how its boundary surfaces are defined?
On the general question of preservation -- if it ever comes to that, and I have my doubts -- I favor leaving everything in situ, in domed enclosure, especially on Mars. On the other hand, construction of the dome will disturb the original site, anyway...