Counter-memories of the Spanish Civil War: vandalism of Bilbao’s Iron Belt fortified line (Basque Country)

Counter-memories of the Spanish Civil War: vandalism of Bilbao’s Iron Belt fortified line (Basque Country) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Counter-memories of the Spanish Civil War: vandalism of Bilbao’s Iron Belt fortified line (Basque Country) Tania González-Cantera, Xavier Rubio-Campillo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The archaeological traces of warfare define a complex heritage scenario as these traumatic historical events generate contested political narratives. The Republican fortified line known as Bilbao’s Iron Belt reflects the tensions of the different narratives surrounding the Spanish Civil War in the Basque Country. These tensions sometimes are materialised through vandalism actions (abandonment, graffiti, destruction), which counterpose new visions to the official narrative. This article explores the vandalism around the iconic Iron Belt heritage through a selection of three sectors. Results show that this is a widespread phenomenon and that, in some cases, it has become a chronic problem. Moreover, in those sites where vandalism actions have a clear intention for vindication, as in the case of political graffiti, they are directly related to their socio-cultural context. Beyond the intention of these (re)actions that transform archaeological heritage to claim alternative political narratives, we wonder if they also seek to promote a damnatio memoriae process. We also raise the question whether these graffiti can also be worth preserving as a symbol of present-day heritage-related activities. Archaeology History Cultural Studies vandalism war heritage graffiti Bilbao’s Iron Belt Spanish Civil War Basque Country. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 1 Introduction Conflict spaces and monuments are a key historical source to study the official discourses that have prevailed about wars, as well as their transformation over time. Cultural heritage, and especially the war-related, is both a symbol reflecting group identity and an instrument in forging such identity (Marschall 2017, 4). However, official discourses of warfare grounded on conflict heritage are often heavily dominated by political interests; they may disagree with a wide diversity of citizens and particularly the local population that suffered the consequences of violent conflict. This complex relationship between heritage, politics and society is one of the central issues studied by current paradigms, such as critical heritage studies (Harrison, Dias, and Kristiansen 2023), community archaeology (Moshenska and Dhanjal 2022) or social archaeology (González-Ruibal, Alonso González, and Criado-Boado 2018). Vandalism is a form of social contestation of cultural heritage and the political discourses built around it (Marschall 2017; Selejan 2021). The term was first used during the French Revolution in reference to the destruction of symbols of the Ancient Regime. Robespierre argued that the radical clearance of any signs of despotism from the public spaces was key to the construction of the new republic (Bresnahan 2014; Chatzigiannis 2015, 124). Thus, vandalism actions imply a physical interaction or communication between people and their material environment (Hána and Šel 2022) as it leaves a material trace in the landscape, which can be studied as an archaeological artefact (Chatzigiannis 2015, 121-22). Violent acts against heritage tend to have a greater impact on society because of media coverage; a paradigmatic example was the attack on the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban in 2001 (Centlivres 2008). However, there are actions that could be considered vandalism, yet they go unnoticed due to their non-violent nature, such as the degradation of heritage environments, the widespread production of graffiti or the proliferation of the phenomenon of archaeological looting (McKinnon 2015; Müller 2020; Cheetham 1994). A range of authors has previously analysed specific acts of vandalism against heritage sites from different perspectives. For example, in the hinterland of the World Heritage Site of Petra (Jordania), a group of archaeologists documented structures that had been vandalised and looted during a series of test excavations (Vella et al. 2015). However, within the different typologies of vandalism, research on the particular phenomenon of graffiti is more common. Between 2013-2014 the memorial museum of the Mauthausen concentration camp (Austria) carried out a pioneering analysis of the graffiti that visitors had been leaving throughout the complex for decades. This process of documentation and study was the germ of the subsequent museum intervention, which aimed to preserve these graffiti and use them as a teaching element (Aichberger 2014; Kranebitter 2015, 41-56). More recently, another research has highlighted the link between graffiti in Prague’s public space (Czech Republic) and its environment, with a strong emphasis on the political ones (Hána and Šel 2022). There are even researchers who claim that graffiti should be considered heritage sites rather than vandalism actions since their cultural significance (Burdick and Canessa Vicencio 2015, 3; Forster, Vettese‐Forster, and Borland 2012, 45-49). The potential of critical analysis of heritage-related vandalism is challenging because its characteristics (temporality, counter-cultural). This paper focuses on the vandalism against Spanish Civil War heritage through the fortified line known as Iron Belt. It is a unique milestone in the memory of this conflict, as well as the largest heritage element of the war in the Basque Country. This region was a focus of resistance to Franco’s dictatorship and, lately, coexisted with political violence due to the activity of the terrorist group ETA[1]. It is therefore an area that is sensitive to official counter-narratives (Molina Aparicio 2013; Pérez Pérez 2013; Santamarina Otaola 2019). One example is that a multitude of vandalism actions have been documented against monuments in memory of Franco’s soldiers or German airmen (Jaio 2019; Alonso Carballés and Momoitio 2017); however, there are no precedents in the study of this actions in relation to Spanish Civil War heritage. Specifically, we explore the following questions: what are the predominant vandalism actions on the Iron Belt heritage? is there a pattern between these actions and the socio-political context of the municipalities where these war remains are located? do these actions have a predetermined political dimension? We have used an interdisciplinary method based on a geospatial database and the combination of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and data visualization approaches. This paper is structured as follows: next section defines the context of the Iron Belt and the narratives generated over 80 years, together with a summary of the properties of the sectors under study. The results obtained at the global and sectoral level are then presented, followed by an in-depth discussion of what lies behind the vandalism recorded in this conflict heritage element and its political uses. [1] The terrorist group ETA (an acronym for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna which means «Basque Country and freedom») was an armed organization which aligned with Basque pro-independence and left-wing ideologies. It was active from 1959 until its complete disarmament in 2018, although the cessation of its armed activity was announced in 2011. 2 Iron Belt: origin and memorialization process After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (SCW, 1936-1939) the northern loyalist territories (Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque region of Biscay) were surrounded by rebel-controlled zones ( Figure 1 ). The newly created Basque government[2] decided to build a defensive line around the capital, firstly named Bilbao’s (Defensive) Belt, with the idea of resisting a long-term siege. This fortified structure, that was heavily inspired by World War 1 fortifications (Redondo Rodelas 2005, 44), defined a protecting an area of 80 kilometres (Líbano Silvente et al. 2021, 123), which included a wide range of resources and infrastructure. The Belt heavily relied on “the undefeated nature of Bilbao” derived from the sieges it suffered in the 19th century civil wars between Liberals and Traditionalists factions (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 418; Martín Etxebarria 2019). (Insert Figure 1) The construction of the line began in October 1936, and it was immediately surrounded by logistical and political issues. These problems include the abandonment of the project by two of the leading engineers: Pablo Murga was arrested and sentenced to death for spying, whereas Alejandro Goicoechea defected to the Francoist side (García Voltá 1975, 66; Líbano Silvente et al. 2018, 247). This defection was particularly important because Goicoechea provided them with detailed information on the fortifications: the defences lacked heavy weapons, over 40% of the planned defences were not finished and there was even a barely fortified sector at Gaztelumendi mountain (Larrabetzu). In fact, the Republican government and the army were aware that the Iron Belt was not strong enough to repulse a Francoist offensive (De Miguel 2005, 44-45; Lamas Arroyo 1972, 415-16) and the morale of the defending troops was low (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 329-30; Steer 1963, 168). Franco’s army assaulted the Iron Belt through the Gaztelumendi hill between 11 and 12 June 1937 with a combined infantry attack and intense aerial bombardment by the German Condor Legion and the Italian Legionary Air Force (Martínez Bande 1971, 170-74). It was a decisive military action, as the breakthrough took place just 10 km from Bilbao, thus causing the fall of Biscay in just one week. 2.1 Political use under the Francoist dictatorship After Biscay’s capture, the new regime took advantage of every aspect of the war to carry out an ideological and cultural penetration on the daily life (Rodrigo 2017, 483). “Bilbao’s (Defensive) Belt”, the original name of the fortified line, became disused after Francoist conquest. Francoists renamed it as “Iron Belt” to magnify their victory in Gaztelumendi through a term that alluded to the industrial background of the Basque Country (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 312; García Voltá 1975, 109). Mussolini’s regime also echoed this new term and popularised its Italian version ("Cintura de Ferro"). In addition to the name change, this victory space was used from the outset for propaganda purposes in the ongoing war context (del Arco Blanco 2022, 182-83). In 1938, the National Tourist Service organised 4 different guided tours to visit the ruins resulting from the Spanish Civil War (North region, Aragon, Madrid, Andalusia) named Rutas de la Guerra en España [War routes in Spain] (Concejal López 2014; Correyero Ruiz 2004). The Francoists included in this route the Gaztelumendi section of the Iron Belt ( Figures 2-3 ), incorporating the tourist component into a battlefield landscape that was completely desolate due to the proximity of the events in time (Brena Alonso 2016, 5). (Insert Figures 2-3) In the aftermath of the war, local institutions followed the official policy of the new regime of erecting monuments to honour Francoist soldiers in symbolic places (del Arco Blanco 2022). The “heroic deed” of breaking the Iron Belt was no exception and the Francoists built a large cross on the summit of Gaztelumendi. This public commemoration and the narrative developed during these years emphasized the strength of the Iron Belt to highlight the audacity and bravery of the Francoist armies that were able to conquer it. One of the results of this long term promoted discourse was the normalization and assimilation of the term “Iron Belt” by society to the present day (Líbano Silvente et al. 2021, 124). 2.2 Contestation and gradual interest during Late Francoism and democratic period During late Francoism, the discourses generated by the winning side were increasingly challenged by the local population through attacks on monuments and symbols of the regime. In this way, they explicitly questioned the vision of the war promoted by Francoists, while expressing their political discontent and their ideological differences (Marschall 2017, 4). One example of this rising social trend was the contestation to the Francoist myth on the Iron Belt’s assault at the Gaztelumendi peak: the cross was partially destroyed ( Figure 4 ) with explosives in a vandalism attack attributed to the terrorist group ETA (del Arco Blanco 2022, 273; Alonso Carballés and Momoitio 2017, 151). (Insert Figure 4) After the return of democracy (1977), the Iron Belt and the wartime heritage were forgotten due to its contested nature. This trend was caused by two main factors: firstly, because of the Pact of Oblivion agreed between the main political forces during the Transition period to avoid dealing with the legacy of the SCW and Franco’s dictatorship (Preston 1986; Aguilar y Humlebæk 2002). Secondly, this decision took place in a period of an increasing armed activity by ETA, which reached its peak in the 1980s. The fact that ETA members proclaimed themselves the successors of the 1936 Basque army soldiers (named gudaris ) generated tense debates at a social level that contributed to the self-interested oblivion of the wartime heritage of the SCW in the Basque Country. This historical comparison between the gudaris and ETA members even led the Spanish National Court to ban the Bizkargi Eguna [Bizkargi Day]in Larrabetzu in remembrance of the 1936 soldiers for fear that it would become an act of glorification of terrorism as late as 2013 (Herrero Acosta and Ayán Vila 2016, 114). During the 2000’s, critical voices began to emerge about the situation of this heritage, still amid a general attitude of social oblivion about the SCW. In this situation, some spaces and structures in the Iron Belt perimeter were destroyed due to infrastructure or housing works. A clear example is what happened on the Berango side of the Mendibe-Areneburu hill: only one machine gun nest of the original four survived the construction of the Uribe Kosta road in 2006 (Miñambres Amézaga 2020, 18). The approval of the Spanish Historical Memory Law in 2007 opened the possibility of regulating and protecting this war heritage (Herrero Acosta and Ayán Vila 2016, 99). In the Basque Country, the political consensus around this research field strengthened after ETA’s announcement of the definitive ending of violence in 2011. The new Basque nationalist government created Gogora - Institute for Memory, Coexistence and Human Rights (2015) and promoted the traditional memorialist line that enhanced the Basque myths (del Arco Blanco 2022, 287-88; Herrero Acosta and Ayán Vila 2016, 114). Gogora ’s 2017-2020 action plan included the removal of Francoist symbols from public spaces. In compliance with this, Larrabetzu’s town council approved the removal of the Gaztelumendi cross in a plenary session held on the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Gernika (26 April 2017). Several people were injured during this demolition process, so the event received extensive media coverage (García 2018; Alonso 2017). In parallel to these actions, the Iron Belt became the first war site to receive heritage status in the Basque Country in 2019 (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 10). A buffer of protection was defined in the decree to protect its multiple defence lines. The remains were recorded and classified into different degrees of protection, which regulated the uses and activities of these spaces (Gobierno Vasco 2019). [2] The Spanish Republic granted autonomy to the Basque Country at the beginning of the war to secure the support of Basque nationalists (traditionalist and Catholic). This first Basque executive was a government of concentration: it was led by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) and had the representation of the rest of the forces loyal to the Republic (González Portilla and Garmendia 1988). 3 Materials Among all the war and postwar heritage that has been vandalised in the Basque Country, in this article we focus on a sample of the Iron Belt structures and its derived heritage (stelae, commemorative crosses...). Due to Iron Belt’s large size and diversity, we selected a sample on three sectors of the line ( Figure 5 ): a) section I – Punta Lucero hill (Zierbena) b) section IV – mount Gaztelumendi and Larrabetzu village c) sector V – Mendibe-Areneburu hill (Berango/Sopela) and Santa Marina crags (Urduliz). (Insert Figure 5) 3.1 Section I: Punta Lucero hill (Zierbena) Punta Lucero is a unique site as its landscape combines defensive structures built during three different conflicts: the Third Carlist War (1872-1876), the SCW (1936-1939), and World War II (WWII, 1939-1945). In 1936, the Carlist coastal battery was refitted as part of the Iron Belt, and three lines of fortifications strengthened the defensive positions (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 78; Martínez Bande 1971, 46-47). After the Francoist capture of this position in June 1937, a new coastal battery and quarters were built in the context of the WWII; these constructions were used by several cohorts doing their compulsory military service until the 1980s. Since the military abandonment of this site, the conservation status of these remains has deteriorated considerably. This is not a unique phenomenon in the municipality of Zierbena: in 2018, a team of archaeologists excavated the nearby site of El Moreo to evaluate the inclusion of some Iron Belt remains (ZIEF10-ZIEF11) in the aforementioned law (Escribano-Ruiz et al. 2018). As these remains had been severely affected by construction works in the early 2000s, they were finally excluded from protection. Nowadays, the protection decree establishes the protection of 9 structures in Punta Lucero (ZIEF01-ZIEF 09). However, the lack of political commitment to the protection and rehabilitation of these structures has been a debate in Zierbena for decades as some local associations and political parties have called for its refurbishment due to their «historical importance»” (Ll. 2014). 3.2 Section IV: mount Gaztelumendi and Larrabetzu village (Larrabetzu) The Gaztelumendi mountain, located in the north-west area of Larrabetzu village, is the sector that Franco’s army chose to carry out the assault on the Iron Belt. The protection buffer in this sector is up to 30 metres due to its war significance, whereas the generic protection perimeter established in decree 195/2018 is 5 metres wide (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 40). The amount of heritage elements preserved in the area is large and dispersed so the analysis has focused here in two different subsectors: Gaztelumendi mountain (LARF01-LARF09, LARF47-LARF48, LARF52-LARF53) and Larrabetzu village (LARF16, LARF19, LARF23-LARF30, LARF33). The aim was to glimpse possible differences in warfare and urban contexts. Recent years have seen a growing interest on memorialising this iconic sector of the Iron Belt due to its symbolism. Some of the most remarkable actions in remembrance of the SCW in the town centre are the Larrabetzu’s Memory Space, the Historical Memory square, or the mural reproduction of Picasso’s Guernica . 3.3 Section V: Mendibe-Areneburu hill (Berango/Sopela) and Santa Marina crags (Urduliz) The fifth sector of the Iron Belt included a first line of contact was established in Barrika, the main line of resistance in Urduliz and the reserve line on the Sopela-Berango-Getxo axis (Líbano Silvente et al. 2018, 249). The different role of each of the three lines have led to the analysis of two areas. The Mendibe-Areneburu hill concentrates 10 structures of the Iron Belt between Berango (BERF01) and Sopela (SOPF01-SOPF04, SOPF06, SOPF21-24), whereas Santa Marina’s crags (Urduliz) has 9 protected structures (URDF17, URDF19-URDF27). This section has been the focus of an intense memorialization process, that ranges from the creation of the Iron Belt Memorial Museum in Berango to the design of the Memorial Park sculpture complex in Urduliz. 4 Methods The amount and diversity of Iron Belt heritage elements required an interdisciplinary approach as it was necessary to integrate geographical, archaeological, and textual sources. We decided to use a Digital Humanities approach because it allows to create a methodological framework as a meeting point of several disciplines (Huggett 2012). This framework is based on the creation of a geospatial database of Iron Belt’s elements. This database stores and classifies, among other variables, the typology and characteristics of the vandalism actions suffered by the war structures of the three Iron Belt sections. This diverse corpus of evidence is then analysed with spatial analysis and data visualization. 4.1 A geospatial database of conflict heritage The lack of an open geospatial infrastructure on the Iron Belt was the reason why we needed to collate information from different sources in a common geospatial database. It was created with the SQLite software and implemented in SQL language. Among the data compiled in the database there are the records of the protection law (available at Ondare – the Basque heritage dataset) or the results of archaeological fieldwork. 4.2 Fieldwork During summer 2022, we carried out archaeological surveys in the aforementioned sectors. These surveys included 125 elements, raking from Iron Belt structures (both listed and non-listed in the decree), memorialization landmarks, monuments, to heritage presentation elements (i.e. signals, museums). A database record was created for each item (e.g. structure); each entry included attributes such as its geographic coordinates, architectural details, and its conservation state. The documentation of vandalism actions was not originally envisaged on an individual basis but was included under the heading of conservation. After some reconnaissance visits, we decided to create individual fields in the database to document these actions. These database fields were: "vandalism" (yes/no), "vandalism_typology" and "graffiti_ideology". 4.3 Spatial analysis The starting point of this integral analysis was the geolocation in coordinates of these heritage elements and their data processing by a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. This work has used GIS in two main tasks: to georeference heritage elements identified in the survey, and to analyse the spatial structure on different variables (e.g. preservation state, typology, ownership). 4.4 Data Visualization Heritage-related vandalism can be georeferenced to search spatial distributions yet some relevant factors, such as the typology, are harder to explore using GIS. Data visualization tools are designed to identify complex patterns in large volumes of complex data. This analytical tool has seen less uses within archaeological (Llobera 2011) or heritage-related research (Manovich 2015) and its uses for the SCW are also limited (Rubio-Campillo, Feliu Torruella, and González Cantera 2021). In this research, these techniques have been applied to identify possible dynamics and relations within multiple non-spatial data, and to present the complex patterns found in the analysis. 5 Results 5.1 Vandalization dynamics at the Iron Belt Vandalism is one of the most visible present-day actions over Iron Belt heritage. It is suffered in a generalised way by the Iron Belt structures that we have analysed and, in some sites, it has even become a chronic issue. The case study with the highest number of documented vandalism actions is the Punta Lucero complex (Zierbena) followed by Santa Marina crags (Urduliz) ( Figures 6a-6b ). These two locations are precisely the ones most frequented, given their popularity among hiking (Zierbena) or climbing enthusiasts (Urduliz). In the rest of the cases, these actions tend to be more isolated and are usually concentrated around certain structures. Sometimes this is because they are more easily accessible (as in the case of the BERF01 machine gun nest in Berango), as these structures are located near paths and not in the middle of the forest. Other times, it is also due to their historical performativity and their importance in the landscape (such as the LARF04 structure in Gaztelumendi, which we will discuss later). In line with accessibility, we have as well observed a certain influence of “patrimonialisation” in the process of vandalisation of the Iron Belt elements. Except for Punta Lucero (Zierbena), where the remains of the Iron Belt are not patrimonialised, in the rest of the cases, there is a greater vandalisation of the structures located in places that have been reconditioned for visits. On the other hand, those structures hidden in the forest mass, and which have not been reconditioned go more unnoticed and are, in general, less vandalised. The durability of the materials used in the structures, especially concrete, is also a basic aspect to consider within the analysis of the vandalization phenomenon. Machine gun nests, which are precisely made of concrete, are one of the most affected typologies in several of the analysed towns (Berango, Larrabetzu and Urduliz). The higher frequency of vandalization activities in concrete-built elements is relevant in the case of Zierbena, although in this case it is concentrated in the post-war period structures (such as the barracks or the new coastal battery and its buildings). In Sopela, this trend does not happen as vandalism in slick slit trenches and foxholes, i.e. in the structures dug into the ground, is particularly prevalent. (Insert Figures 6a-6b) Vandalism actions differ according to the material characteristics of the structure targeted. For example, in the elements that (re)use the terrain for their construction or war function (such as trenches), their use as a marginal space stands out: either as a rubbish dump or as a space for carrying out sex-affective relationships. However, in those structures of the Iron Belt built in concrete, graffiti ranks among the main acts of vandalism. This also repeats in the vandalism against monuments or memorial elements linked to the Iron Belt, with the case of the Urduliz Memorial Park standing out. The attack against these elements implies an explicit criticism of the memorialization process as well. Whereas the monumentality and symbolism of the monument used to be the main cause of graffiti and attacks on the regime’s monuments, nowadays a small proportion of the graffiti is politically charged ( Figure 7 ). This phenomenon has been detected in Punta Lucero (Zierbena) and Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). The political movements reflected in the graffiti represent ideologies with a strong support in the region such as supported in these areas, such as socialism or communism in Zierbena or Basque pro-independence left in Larrabetzu. The diversity of situations found on each town suggests that a closer look to each sector is needed to interpret the case study. (Insert Figure 7) 5.2 Specific insight (I): Punta Lucero New uses are being carried out on the Iron Belt and postwar heritage in Punta Lucero due to the institutional neglect and the continuous flow of visitors. These activities include a diversity of marginal uses (such as rubbish disposal or drug use, Figure 6b ). These practices and their material culture are similar to those detected during the archaeological intervention in the nearby site of El Moreo, where drug use and cruising were documented (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 336). Graffiti presence is also widespread in this site, a phenomenon that can be dated between the 1980s (when the military use of this space ended) and today. It is difficult to make a more accurate chronological approximation of these representations due to both the density and especially the superimposition of graffiti on these structures. In these representations, authors claim their authorship through unique signatures and usually reflect their personal concerns or interests, a fact that derives for example from the support messages for the main football club in the region (Athletic Club de Bilbao). Another relevant and unique aspect of this complex is the repetition of the same graffiti on several structures: a cartridge ( Figures 8a-8b ). The multiple representation of military material culture as a signature in a landscape full of war structures such as this one is singular. This could be interpreted as a “fetishisation” of this particular space, which had been in military use for a long time (about a century). (Insert Figures 8a-8b) The number of political content graffiti in Punta Lucero is also significant, despite being politically opposed to the rest of the case studies. They are an ideological cartography of the region where this place is located: an area with a working class and immigrant tradition, where the harshness of the mines and industry in the 20th century was the seed of the workers' movement in the Basque Country. Communism and anarchism are the ideologies with the highest number of graffiti and take on different forms. Among the communist messages, we can find from those that simply reproduce the hammer and sickle to those which defend the USSR and the personalities of Lenin and Stalin. There are frequent allusions to “UHP ( Uníos Hermanos Proletarios )” [Unite Proletarian Brothers], a slogan spread by both communists and anarchists after the Asturias revolution of 1934 and frequently used in the SCW (De Pablo and Logroño 1993, 233). The concerns of anarchism are represented mainly through the symbol and flag of the movement. Anti-fascists representations show the need for organisation and unity to stop fascism is the most widespread message of the anti-fascist movement in this site. The number “1312”, which is used as a synonym for ACAB ( All Cops Are Bastards ), usually accompanies the anti-fascist messages, thus introducing the theme of opposition to the police forces. Graffiti with a nationalist slant is present in a testimonial quantity and comes in its totality from the Basque independence left-wing, such as the use of the ambiguous slogan Agur eta ohore Eusko Gudariak [Goodbye and honour Basque soldiers]. This was originally an expression aimed at honouring the gudaris who fell during the war and later adopted by the terrorist group ETA (Del Moral García 2019). 5.3 Specific insight (II): Larrabetzu The vandalism detected on the Iron Belt heritage in Larrabetzu is mainly focused on the proliferation of pictorial representations. Although it is true that no graffiti was documented on the Iron Belt structures located in the Larrabetzu town centre, we found a significant number in Gaztelumendi. A large number of the graffiti documented had a strong political component, in many cases ETA-related. In the machine-gun nest on the summit (LARF04) is where most cases were recorded: four in the same structure. The high concentration of ETA messages in this structure may be due to the nearby presence for decades of the Francoist cross, with which there was even visual contact. Of these four graffities, two were depictions of the terrorist group’s effigy (an axe and a snake), another one was its slogan Bietan jarrai [following the two ways: political and military] and the last one was a message of support: Gora ETA [Let’s go ETA]. One of the effigies was superimposed on an original engraving from 1937 with the initials from the Basque nationalist and conservative party PNV ( Figure 9 ). In the Gaztelumendi structures there is also room for environmental demands, as graffiti against the artificial introduction of eucalyptus have been documented. Although the chronological range for ETA-related graffiti is from the foundation of the gang (1959) to present day, the one alluding to eucalyptus we can narrow it from the birth of the environmentalist movements in the Transition (late 70s - early 80s) until now (Veiras and Soto 2011). All these pictorial interventions reflect different ideological axes of the Basque pro-independence left (such as the legacy of ETA and environmental concerns), which is a relevant political force in this rural area. A related issue within vandalism is archaeological looting by amateur metal detectorists, which is unfortunately a frequent activity at Gaztelumendi. This situation is denounced by residents and the local association Karraderan, who have become aware of the heritage around them, especially since the protection decree of the Iron Belt. (Insert Figure 9) 5.4 Specific insight (III): Berango/Sopela The careful conservation and maintenance of the Iron Belt heritage in Berango and Sopela does not preclude vandalism actions. We have documented graffiti, whose chronology would be between the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century, and rubbish accumulations ( Figure 6b ), especially on the hillside near Berango ( Figure 10 ). This is mainly due to the easy accessibility of these structures and their better visibility thanks to a larger number of signposts marking the sites. As an example, the BERF01 structure, the main heritage space used for educational activities by the Memorial Museum, was surrounded by a diversity of decontextualised objects such as a plastic chair, which had been moved there for recreational purposes. In the Mendibe-Areneburu mountain section belonging to Sopela, there are no signs of any kind of vandalism. Besides the authorities’ care, accessibility to these Iron Belt structures also plays an important role in their preservation. The fact that these elements are in the middle of the forest mass and far from the rural roads makes this heritage to remain unknown by the general public. (Insert Figure 10) 5.5 Specific insight (IV): Urduliz The frequency and popularity of vandalism on the Iron Belt heritage in Urduliz is noteworthy ( Figure 6b ). Specifically, the Memorial Park is a popular target for graffiti given its peripheral position within the town ( Figure 11 ). Here the graffiti motives are personal and do not include political content, unlike the cases mentioned above. These activities also target Iron Belt structures, fieldwork identified vandalism on three protected elements; this is a low percentage considering the large number of protected elements in this area. The problem is its constant tendency over time: since the decree for the protection of the Iron Belt (2019) at least two acts of vandalism, which had caused serious structural damage, have been recorded in this area (Zárate 2020). In URDF17 structure, which is attached to the hermitage of Santa Marina, one of the masonry walls was used to break the hermitage railings and the side walls were also removed. Another structure affected was URDF21: it was filled with posts and logs with the apparent intention of reusing its base for the construction of a hut. Graffiti has also been found on these structures. These are the only cases studied where we can establish a specific chronological range: from 2018 to present day. This is because the archaeological reports indicate that prior to these interventions the structures were semi-buried (Líbano Silvente et al. 2018, 257) and, thus, non-vandalised. As a result of all these incidents, the town council decided to install security cameras as a deterrent measure while rehabilitating the affected structures. It is the only municipality out of the four that have been analysed that has taken this preventive measure. This action must also be contextualised within the wealthy economy of the Uribe Kosta region, where Urduliz is located (as well as Berango and Sopela) (López 2019; Fernández 2024). (Insert Figure 11) 6 Discussion After every war, conflict landscapes remain being a “contested” space as multiple groups continue to compete for them (Little y Shackel 2014, 40; McKinnon 2015, 24). Vandalism of these spaces is one of many mechanisms in the struggle for hegemony. In trying to understand what lies behind this heritage vandalism, some scholars have theorised around the “human pleasure in destroying the property of real or imagined enemies” (Braarvig 2014, 154). These acts of damage and desecration for the purpose of revenge are termed “vindictive vandalism” (Cohen 1982; Müller 2020, 571-74). According to this view, these actions are carried out to cause maximum emotional harm in retaliation for intentional or structurally embedded suffering caused by the enemy (Marschall 2017, 207). In fact, perpetrators choose that specific asset or monument due to its theorical symbolism (Hána and Šel 2022, 693), as it is appreciated by a real or perceived enemy. Vandalism on the SCW and Francoist heritage in the Basque Country has been frequent since the last years of the dictatorship. Political vindication underlies the vandalism against the heritage of these two periods from the start. Back in 1970, when the Francoist cross of Gaztelumendi was attacked with explosives (Alonso Carballés and Momoitio 2017, 151), the dictatorship described this action as “terrorism” (Burton Becquer 1970). This violent and deliberate connotation of damnatio memoriae persists in the actions against the surrounding Francoist monuments, while in the vandalism of Iron Belt structures and monuments do not. Between 2021-2022, there were three violent attacks on Francoist monuments in Biscay by the youth pro-independence organisation Ernai (Rojas 2021; Pardo 2022). In two of these cases, in the actions against the Francoist crosses in Lemoa and Barakaldo, both local councils had already initiated the procedures to remove the monuments to satisfy popular will. The law left the door open to keep the crosses on some mountains due to their religious connotation, if they did not have a direct link to the exaltation of Franco’s victory (Rolando Rico and Peña-Muñoz 2021, 42-44); thus, this slowed down the removal of some of these monuments because the debate arose as to whether the removal of the original Francoist inscription was sufficient to strip the monument of this meaning. Faced with this situation, certain groups of the population decided to make these elements disappear from the public space. This shows that although the type of heritage targeted (SCW vs. Francoist) and the way they have been attacked are radically different, the intentionality of the perpetrators is common: the public expression of their political ideas and their desire for society to echo this (Aichberger 2014, 46). Nowadays Iron Belt landscapes and structures are generally used as spaces for socialising through alcohol or drug consumption and as a blank canvas for graffiti artists to express their personal concerns. Although these activities are a cross-cutting phenomenon in all four case studies analysed, the negative impact of these actions in heritage elements is correlated with the lack of care of local institutions. For example, vandalism presence in Punta Lucero is chronic due to a continued lack of interest of the Zierbena council in this heritage. In fact, some structures (ZIEF10, ZIEF11) were excluded from protection as they had been so severely affected by urbanization works in the early 2000s (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 69-70). Given the deliberate abandonment of these archaeological remains, we could be dealing with a phenomenon of institutional vandalism, which could be economically motivated. At the other extreme is the regular cleaning and care of this heritage in Berango by the municipal staff, as could be testified during the fieldwork. This marked difference in the management of this heritage is partly due to the ambiguity of the decree concerning the deterioration of the Iron Belt. Throughout the decree, the importance of the conservation of this fortified line is emphasised. In fact, it calls for “consolidation and conservation work to be carried out in situ and, where necessary, for the restoration of the remains present or likely to appear, thus ensuring their maintenance and preservation against degradation processes” (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 37). It speaks, therefore, of “degradation processes”, but there is no explicit reference to the possibility of the Iron Belt being subject to acts of vandalism. This lack of specificity when considering what is meant by “degradation processes” has direct repercussions on the current state of conservation of the Iron Belt. A practical example is that the decree does not contemplate sanctions for the perpetrators of the vandalism mentioned in this article (graffiti, use of these spaces as rubbish dumps) since, beyond looting[3], there is no mention of the possibility of humans interacting with this heritage in any other negative way. Among the vandalism actions that we have documented in the Iron Belt, those of a non-violent nature stand out, especially the phenomenon of graffiti. People who immortalise their messages graphically want to make a lasting, public statement, which becomes an active memory (Blake 1981). Signs and symbols are charged with meaning depending on the context, the person who draws them and the person who looks at them (Aichberger 2014, 50). In our case study, most graffiti do not respond to a political intention but reflect someone’s impulse to say something or simply to confirm their own existence. Baker considers the main motivation for this to be a simple “I am” statement or reaffirmation, which is equally present in what could be considered the earliest examples of graffiti, namely prehistoric rock art, in the form of images of human hands and feet (Baker 2003, 23; Merrill 2011, 63; McKinnon 2015, 20). There are also researchers who also see it as a way out of anonymity, sometimes arising from a desire to break the rules (Aichberger 2014, 46). However, other authors suggest that the depiction of name, tastes or even political inscriptions and graffiti in places where young people congregate could also be interpreted as gestures of familiarity with the place (Chatzigiannis 2015, 123; Rocks-Macqueen 2015). In the case studies analysed, graffiti with political content have only been identified at Punta Lucero and Gaztelumendi and it may be linked to a distinct social, economic, and political context. Anti-fascist, communist and anarchist messages are common at the top of Punta Lucero, highlighting the use of symbols and even allusions to historical leaders such as Lenin or Stalin. The repeated use of the hammer and sickle or the anarchist symbol in Punta Lucero aligns with the research developed in the Mauthausen memorial. Communism and anarchism consolidate as the hegemonic movements represented in the graffiti of these conflict and memory spaces through the depiction of their most recognisable symbols (Aichberger 2014, 45). As in other research on political graffiti (Hána and Šel 2022, 692), there are also various representation alluding to historical leaders (i.e. Lenin or Stalin). Interestingly enough, these messages do not mention classical communist SCW symbols such as Dolores Ibárruri “la Pasionaria” (despite the proximity of her birthplace, Gallarta), or the slogan “No pasarán”, of which the politician made extensive propaganda use. In Gaztelumendi, several ETA-related graffiti were found aligning with the group’s actions and ideology. They use a narrative of historical continuity of the myth of the “Basque soldier” fighting for freedom of his homeland, which began in the war with the gudaris and was later continued by ETA members. The role of nationalism in the “counter-memory” process of the Iron Belt in Gaztelumendi is not new. At the nearby site of La Loba (Gamiz-Fika), archaeologists documented the engraving AÑO 1944 GORA EUZCADI [Year 1944, let’s go Basque Country] on the access door to a munitions dump (Líbano Silvente et al. 2018, 252). It would therefore be plausible to trace a genealogy of pictorial representations of nationalist ideology in this sector of the Iron Belt. Another question is whether we can consider this particular heritage vandalism as a form of damnatio memoriae. A graffiti is understood as damage to property or vandalism (Ralph 2014), because after all it is “a form of transgression, of a prohibition, an illegality”(Gamboni 1984, 38). Despite this conception, society is increasingly aware of the paradoxical status of graffiti representations as both an art form and a crime. Some street artists have broken down the traditional boundaries between high and low culture by reframing graffiti as something to be valued rather than despised. For example, the well-known street artist Banksy has produced a number of graffiti in war contexts, such as those on the Palestinian side of the Israeli security barrier in the West Bank (Merrill 2011, 63-67). It has been recognized that graffiti at modern sites and installations should be considered as “part of the site’s narrative” (Schofield 2005, 76), thus raising the need to protect them. In prisons, graffiti have been valued and many examples are retained, even if kept from public view (Wilson 2008, 67-68). However, the question here is: where is the boundary for considering the depiction of graffiti a political claim or an action that seeks to erase the original meaning of these spaces ( damnatio memoriae )? Today, there is a commitment that this blurred boundary is marked by the artistic value of graffiti and the socio-political commentary, and which others will strive to understand in the future (Merrill 2011, 67). All in all, we wonder about what should prevail: the social or historical significance of graffiti, its artistic perception or its anti-social devaluation? (Burdick and Canessa Vicencio 2015, 735). A paradigmatic case to illustrate this debate is the graffiti that is superimposed on the original 1937 engraving on the LARF04 machine gun nest in Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). The historical continuity traced by both representations in the vindication of the same discourse is a double-edged sword. It could be a strong argument for protecting these graffiti now that ETA no longer exists, given their historical relevance, or, on the contrary, it could be an argument for their removal, given that they could be interpreted as glorification of terrorism. This debate is not new and even the courts have intervened: many people have been convicted for making graffiti or writing ETA-related proclamations on social networks in recent years (Torrús 2017; Segovia 2016; Del Moral García 2019). However, in November 2023, the Spanish National Court acquitted for the first time a young man for having painted a graffiti with the support message Gora ETA [Let’s go ETA] in Ermua (Biscay). The judge discussed the dilemma that this type of graffiti involves as a possible crime is mixed with freedom of expression. In her sentence, she ruled that freedom of expression must prevail as it is one of the main characteristics of a democratic state (Azpiroz Pagola 2023; Otálora 2023). This is an example that both the meaning and the value of these actions is changeable. Decisions regarding which graffiti examples to preserve continue to reflect contemporary politics and values (Hána and Šel 2022, 694). These factors ultimately determine whether vandalism at heritage places represents cultural significance or conservation sacrilege (Merrill 2011, 73; Forster, Vettese‐Forster, and Borland 2012, 62). However, there is often a gap between popular will and the decisions taken by public institutions on heritage issues. This dichotomy is often greater in war memory issues as they can generate social tensions; the Iron Belt and its associated heritage is a good example. The management of these conflict spaces is inherently complicated for these reasons. We also raise the question of whether a collaboration between these two social spheres (institutions and population) would lead to a change in the management of these spaces and their different forms of vandalism. [3] Article 8 of the decree prohibits the use of metal detectors without authorisation, as well as the practice of looting (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 40). 7 Conclusions The landscape and heritage of Bilbao’s Iron Belt is a direct reflection of its historical circumstances as it has been surrounded by different interpretations and memories since its construction. Public interest in the heritage of this mythical structure of the Spanish Civil War has grown considerably during the last decade and culminated with the approval of a heritage protection decree in 2019. Institutional recognition has not prevented this fortified line from being deteriorated and vandalism from continuing. In the selection of towns that have been analysed (Zierbena, Berango/Sopela, Urduliz and Larrabetzu), we have documented evidence of different types of vandalism: from archaeological looting to the use of these structures as a marginal space (for example, for the consumption of alcohol/drugs or as a rubbish dump). The most widespread vandalism phenomenon is the proliferation of graffiti. Some representations, such as those documented in Zierbena and Larrabetzu, have a clear political intentionality and are closely related to the socio-political context of their surroundings. A few of them even trace historical continuation with political vindications initiated in the past. Considering that nowadays the cultural significance of graffiti is beginning to be recognized in certain heritage contexts (among them conflict sites), the question is whether they constitute a mere political claim or an action of damnatio memoriae . These questions ultimately determine whether vandalism at heritage places represents cultural significance or conservation sacrilege. Declarations Acknowledgement Supplementary information Both the dataset and the code used in the preparation of this article will be published under an open data licence. References Aguilar P, Humlebæk C (2002) «Collective Memory and National Identity in the Spanish Democracy: The Legacies of Francoism and the Civil War». History Memory 14(1–2):121–164. https://doi.org/10.2979/his.2002.14.1-2.121 Aichberger N (2014) «Besucherinnen-Graffiti und Gedenkorte. Eine Annäherung an die Inschriften der KZ Gedenkstätte Mauthausen». In Jahrbuch Mauthausen , edited by A. Kranebitter, 41–56. Mauthausen: Gedenkstätte Mauthausen Alonso Carballés JJ, Momoitio I (2017) Memorias de piedra y de acero: los monumentos a las víctimas de la Guerra Civil y del Franquismo en Euskadi . Gernika-Lumo: Fundación Museo de la Paz de Gernika Alonso JM (2017) «Cuatro heridos en el derribo de una cruz franquista en Vizcaya al caerles piedras». El Confidencial , July 14, 2017. https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/pais-vasco/2017-07-10/varios-heridos-en-el-derrumbe-de-una-cruz-franquista_1412640/ Azpiroz Pagola M (2023) «‘Gora ETA’ idaztea ez da terrorismoa goraipatzea, Espainiako Auzitegi Nazionalak ebatzi duenez». Argia . November 24, 2023. https://www.argia.eus/albistea/gora-eta-idaztea-ez-da-terrorismoa-goraipatzea-espainiako-auzitegi-nazionalak-ebatzi-duenez Baker F (2003) «The Red Army graffiti in the Reichstag, Berlin: Politics of rock-art in a contemporary European urban landscape». In European landscapes of rock-art , edited by C. Chippindale and G. Nash, 20–38. London and New York: Routledge Beldarrain Olalde P (2012) Historia crítica de la guerra en Euskadi (1936-37). Intxorta 1937 Kultur Elkartea, Oñati Blake C, Fred (1981) «Graffiti and Racial Insults: The Archaeology of Ethnic Relations in Hawaii». In Modern Material Culture: The archaeology of us , edited by R.A. Gould and M.B. Schiffer, 87–99. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-293580-0.50012-3 Braarvig J (2014) «Iconoclasm–three modern cases». In Iconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity , edited by K. Kolrud and M. Prusac, 153 – 70. London and New York: Routledge Brena Alonso JÁ (2016) «El Museo de la Guerra de Bilbao (1937–1938). Cinturón de Hierro y turismo bélico al servicio de la propaganda del Régimen». Saibigain. Revista digital de la Asociación Sancho de Beurko 2: 2–49 Bresnahan K (2014) «On Revolutionary Vandalism». Architectural Theory Review 19 (3): 278 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2014.1036486 Burdick C, Canessa Vicencio F (2015) «‘Popular Demands Do Not Fit in Ballot Boxes’: Graffiti as Intangible Heritage at the Iglesia de San Francisco, Santiago?». Int J Herit Stud 21(8):735–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1028963 Burton Becquer R (1970) «Ciento dieciséis hechos delictivos graves cometidos por activistas de la E.T.A.» ABC , December 6, 1970 Centlivres P (2008) «The Controversy over the Buddhas of Bamiyan». South Asia Multidisciplinary Acad J 2(12). https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.992 Chatzigiannis D (2015) «Vandalism of Cultural Heritage: Thoughts Preceding Conservation Interventions». Change Over Time 5(1):120–135. https://doi.org/10.1353/cot.2015.0000 Cheetham DW (1994) Dealing with vandalism: a guide to the control of vandalism. Construction Industry Research and Information Association - Thomas Telford Services, London Cohen S (1982) Images of Deviance . Penguin Education. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth Concejal López E (2014) «Las rutas de guerra del Servicio Nacional del Turismo (1938–1939)». In Visite España: la memoria rescatada , edited by C. Miguel Arroyo and M.T. Ríos Reviejo, 260–273. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de España and Museo del Romanticismo Correyero Ruiz B (2004) «La administración turística española entre 1936 y 1951. El turismo al servicio de la propaganda política». Estudios turísticos Extra 163–164:55–79 Del Arco Blanco MÁ (2022) Cruces de memoria y olvido: los monumentos a los caídos de la Guerra Civil española (1936–2021). Crítica, Barcelona De Miguel P (2005) «Franco rompe el cinturón de hierro». En Franco rompe el «cinturón de hierro» (junio 1937) . Madrid: Unidad Editorial De Pablo JM, Logroño JM (1993) «Cine y propaganda en el País Vasco durante la Guerra Civil: los reportajes franquistas». Filmhistoria online 3 (1–2): 231 – 38 Del Moral García A (2019) Sentencia Penal No 59/2019 , Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Penal, Sección 1, Rec 381/2018 de 05 de Febrero de 2019 . Madrid: Tribunal Supremo Escribano-Ruiz S, Santamarina-Otaola J, Herrero Acosta X, Pozo C, Martín G (2018) Echebarria. «Cinturón de Hierro en Punta Lucero (Zierbena)». Arkeoikuska: Investigación arqueológica 2018, 360–368 Fernández V (2024) «Esta es la comarca más rica de Euskadi: conoce la zona con mayor nivel de renta». Crónica Vasca - El Español , February 7, 2024. https://cronicavasca.elespanol.com/sociedad/20240202/esta-la-comarca-de-euskadi-conoce-mayor/829667163_0.html Forster AM, Vettese-Forster S, Borland J (2012) «Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Historic Graffiti». Struct Surv 30(1):43–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/02630801211226637 Gamboni D (1984) «Skizze eines Hin und Zurück: Graffiti, Vandalismus, Zensur und Zerstörung». In Graffiti Wand kunst und wilde Bilder , edited by P. Bianchi, 38–42. Stuttgart: Birkhäuser García J (2018) «La chapuza del derribo de la cruz del Gaztelumendi». El Correo , October, 2018. https://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/chapuza-derribo-cruz-20181004220513-nt.html García Voltá G (1975) La Campaña del Norte. Bruguera, Barcelona Gobierno Vasco (2019) Decreto 195/2018, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se califica como Bien Cultural, con la categoría de Conjunto Monumentl Cinturón de Hierro y defensas de Bilbao (Álava y Bizkaia) . Boletín Oficial del País Vasco – 08/12/19. https://www.legegunea.euskadi.eus/decreto/decreto-1952018-26-diciembre-que-se-califica-como-bien-cultural-categoria-conjunto-monumental-cinturon-hierro-y-defensas-bilbao-alava-y-bizkaia/webleg00-contfich/es/ González Portilla M, Garmendia JM (1988) La guerra civil en el País vasco: política y economía. Siglo Veintiuno ed, Madrid González-Ruibal A, Alonso P, González, Criado-Boado F (2018) «Against Reactionary Populism: Towards a New Public Archaeology». Antiquity 92(362):507–515. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.227 Hána D, Šel J (2022) «Political Graffiti in the Political Symbolic Space of Prague, Czechia». Urban Res Pract 15(5):679–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2021.1902556 Harrison R, Dias Nélia, and Kristian Kristiansen (2023) Critical Heritage Studies and the Futures of Europe. UCL, London Herrero Acosta X, Ayán Vila X (2016) «De las trincheras al museo: sobre el reciente proceso de patrimonialización de la Guerra Civil española en Euskadi». In Lugares de Memoria Traumática: representaciones museográficas de conflictos políticos y armados , edited by I. Arrieta Urtizberea, 99–122. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco Huggett J (2012) «Core or Periphery? Digital Humanities from an Archaeological Perspective». Hist Social Res / Historische Sozialforschung 37(141):86–105 Jaio I (2019) «De palos y piedras: la monumentalización y el transcurso del tiempo.» In Postguerres , edited by T. Abelló i Güell,G.C. Catinni, V. Gavín Munté 188–205. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona Kranebitter A (2015) KZ-Gedenkstätten und die neuen Gesichter des Rechtsextremismus: Jahrbuch 2014: Forschung - Dokumentation - Information. New Academic, Vienna Lamas Arroyo Á (1972) Unos… y… otros. Luis de Caralt, Barcelona Líbano Silvente I, Salazar Cañarte S, Miñambres A, Vega López S, Zuazo Gibelondo K, Olabarrieta I, Trebolazabala A, Baizan J (2018) «Seguimiento arqueológico en el cinturón de hierro de Bilbao. Terminos de Loba (Gamiz-Fika) y Santa Marina (Urduliz)». Kobie Paleoantropología 36:245–263 Líbano Silvente I, Salazar Cañarte S, Vega López S, Baizan J, Zuazo K, Gibelondo MC, Salas et al (2021) «Seguimiento arqueológico en el cinturón de hierro de Bilbao Eperlanda I(Gamiz-Fika)». Kobie. Paleoantropología 38: 121 – 38 Little BJ, Shackel PA (2014) Archaeology, heritage, and civic engagement: working toward the public good. Left Coast, Walnut Creek, California Ll. S (2014) «Reclaman la recuperación de la batería de Punta Lucero por su importancia histórica». El Correo , February 4, 2014. https://www.elcorreo.com/vizcaya/v/20140204/margen-izquierda/reclaman-recuperacion-bateria-punta-20140204.html Llobera M (2011) «Archaeological Visualization: Towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc)». J Archaeol Method Theory 18(3):193–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-010-9098-4 López L (2019) «¿Dónde viven los vizcaínos más ricos?» El Correo , September 11, 2019. https://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/viven-vizcainos-ricos-20190912220356-nt.html Manovich L (2015) «Data Science and Digital Art History». Int J Digit Art History 1(6). https://doi.org/10.11588/DAH.2015.1.21631 Marschall S (2017) «Targeting Statues: Monument Vandalism as an Expression of Sociopolitical Protest in South Africa». Afr Stud Rev 60(3):203–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2017.56 Martín Etxebarria G (2019) «Defendiendo la Invicta Villa. Génesis y desarrollo de la línea de Bilbao y su ría y Abra durante la Última Guerra Carlista (1872–1876)». Vasconia. Cuadernos de Historia-Geografía 43 (2019): 33–73 Martínez Bande JM (1971) Vizcaya . Monografías de la guerra de España. San Martín, Madrid McKinnon JF (2015) «Memorialization, Graffiti and Artifact Movement: A Case Study of Cultural Impacts on WWII Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands». J Maritime Archaeol 10(1):11–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-015-9133-4 Merrill SOC (2011) «Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege?». Time Mind 4(1):59–75. https://doi.org/10.2752/175169711X12893985693711 Miñambres Amézaga A (2020) Berango in memoriam, 1936–2020: Gerra Zibila = La Guerra Civil. Berango Udala, Berango Molina Aparicio F (2013) «Intersección de procesos nacionales. Nacionalización y violencia política en el País Vasco, 1937–1978.» Cuadernos de Historia Contemporánea 35 (0): 63–87. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42649 Moshenska G, Dhanjal S (2022) Community Archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford Müller M (2020) «Heritage Erasure and Vandalism in Modern and Ancient Egypt». In From Past to Present. Studies in Memory of Manfred O. Korfmann , edited by S. Blum, T. Efe, T. Kienlin and E. Pernicka, 569–584.Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt Otálora ÓB (2023) «La Audiencia Nacional considera que pintar Gora ETA no es un delito de enaltecimiento del terrorismo». El Correo . November 23,2023. https://www.elcorreo.com/politica/audiencia-nacional-considera-pintar-gora-eta-delito-20231122005627-nt.html Pardo MA (2022) «Ernai Ezkerraldea derriba la cruz de la Dársena de Portu». Deia , March 22, 2022. https://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2022/03/22/ernai-ezkerraldea-derriba-cruz-darsena-1722922.html Pérez Pérez JA (2013) «Historia (y memoria) del antifranquismo en el País Vasco». Cuad de Historia Contemporánea 35(0):41–62. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42648 Preston P (1986) The triumph of democracy in Spain. Methuen, London, New York Ralph J (2014) «Graffiti archaeology». In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology , edited by C. Smith, 3102–3107. New York: Springer Redondo Rodelas J (2005) Franco rompe el «cinturón de hierro»: (junio 1937). Unidad Editorial, Madrid Rocks-Macqueen D (2015) «Graffiti Archaeologists!» Doug’s Archaeology Investigating the Profession and Research (blog). October 28, 2015. https://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/graffiti-archaeologists/ Rodrigo J (2017) «On Fascistization: Mussolini’s Political Project for Franco’s Spain, 1937–1939». J Mod Italian Stud 22(4):469–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024 Rojas J (2021) «Ernai derrumba la cruz de Lemoa», Cadena SER , October 11, 2021. https://cadenaser.com/emisora/2021/10/11/radio_bilbao/1633963923_297198.html Rolando Rico N, Peña-Muñoz A (2021) «Estudio histórico-arqueológico del Conjunto Monumental Franquista ubicado en Lemoatx (Lemoa, Bizkaia)». Associació Memòria Soterrada, Lemoa Udala, Barcelona Rubio-Campillo X, Feliu Torruella M, González Cantera T (2021) «Datos, patrones y narrativas: Nuevas perspectivas sobre la Guerra Civil y la represión franquista a partir de la visualización de datos abiertos». Ebre 38: revista internacional de la Guerra Civil, 1936–1939 10:147–167. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hysd7 Santamarina Otaola J (2019) «Guerrillas, terrorismos y antiterrorismos: Conceptos, materialidades y paisajes del conflicto armado reciente en el País Vasco». In Postguerres , edited by T. Abelló i Güell,G.C. Catinni, V. Gavín Munté 1155–1176. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona Santamarina Otaola J (2022) «Euzkadi-ko lur-ganian: arqueología del paisaje de la guerra civil en el País Vasco (1936–1950)». PhD dissertation. Universidad del País Vasco, 2022. https://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/58540 Schofield J (2005) Combat archaeology: material culture and modern conflict. Duckworth, London Segovia J (2016) «Un año de cárcel para el joven que alegó que hizo pintadas a favor de ETA porque iba bastante bebido», Cadena SER , May 4, 2016. https://www.iustel.com/diario_del_derecho/noticia.asp?ref_iustel=1108595 Selejan IL (2021) «Vandalism as Symbolic Reparation: Imaginaries of Protest in Nicaragua». Camb J Anthropol 39(2):19–38. https://doi.org/10.3167/cja.2021.390203 Steer GL (1963) El árbol de Guernica. Ediciones Gudari, Caracas Torrús A (2017) «La Audiencia ha condenado al menos a 30 personas por enaltecimiento de ETA y/o los Grapo desde 2016», Público , October 29, 2017. https://www.publico.es/sociedad/deriva-justicia-audiencia-condenado-30.html Veiras X, Soto MA (2011) La conflictividad de las plantaciones de eucalipto en España (y Portugal). Greenpeace, Madrid Vella C, Bocancea E, Urban TM, Knodell AR, Tuttle CA, Alcock SE (2015) «Looting and Vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting Modern Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Petra’s Hinterland». J Field Archaeol 40(2):221–235. https://doi.org/10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000119 Wilson JZ (2008) Prison: Cultural memory and dark tourism. Peter Lang, New York Zárate C (2020) «Dañan por segunda vez el Cinturón de Hierro de Urduliz», DEIA , May 6, 2020. https://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2020/05/06/danan-segunda-vez-cinturon-hierro-4707197.html Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6338821","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":435933001,"identity":"0c05afd7-9cf6-45c2-929f-90a31b8e8b9d","order_by":0,"name":"Tania González-Cantera","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7454-6183","institution":"Universitat de Girona","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tania","middleName":"","lastName":"González-Cantera","suffix":""},{"id":435933002,"identity":"eb4fe872-f314-48ab-a9fe-238cd3077555","order_by":1,"name":"Xavier Rubio-Campillo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4428-4335","institution":"Universitat de Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xavier","middleName":"","lastName":"Rubio-Campillo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-30 13:53:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79787907,"identity":"6ffb4ab6-e3fb-4185-8370-67089050866c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:17:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1009783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Northern Front at the start of Franco’s offensive to reach Bilbao. The authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"01.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/1d19215b3895d1c873bcb689.jpg"},{"id":79787652,"identity":"a942f7d1-ac30-4ddb-b83c-3008ec72957b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2895915,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLeaflet of the tourist war route that Francoists planned in 1938. In the central area there are two images of the Iron Belt structures in Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). Spanish National Library (BNE) - MV/1/1/1355.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"02.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/0070a78c6d204512d0ed6aae.jpg"},{"id":79787640,"identity":"5051be7f-8041-4519-afcd-9fcdaf95a184","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":169416,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTourists visiting Iron Belt’s structures in Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). Spanish National Library (BNE) - GC-CARP/489/1/42.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"03.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/d27dd07372e428b710238ca2.jpg"},{"id":79787637,"identity":"38c88390-3397-4d44-a0f5-77f5263c2a9c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1123629,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Francoist cross of Gaztelumendi in 2015: on the left, we can distinguish the damage caused by the explosive device that was placed at its base in the 1970s, while on the right the vindictive graffiti that was superimposed on the Francoist text can be seen.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"04A04B.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/43bdb02a9296054b9362679d.jpg"},{"id":79788285,"identity":"bb012c92-12f1-479f-9d21-4c7a369adfdf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:25:41","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":534612,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap showing the three sections and the case studies analysed on a wartime map. Historical Archive of the Basque Country - Carlos Blasco Olaetxea Collection, Maps of Guipúzcoa and Biscay’s campaign - C12/10\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"05.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/1e457b831bff5ae91f5bb19e.jpeg"},{"id":79787645,"identity":"6d8db432-4874-436f-bad3-3a115abf70d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":264429,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScatter plot of vandalism actions in the Iron Belt according to the typology of the structure and the town. Bar chart showing the typology of vandalism actions per town\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"06A06B.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/7dceaf871f273a6a962eed4c.jpg"},{"id":79787641,"identity":"76b69cc3-4e3c-4bd5-b1d7-b27389b3bc39","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":121364,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScatter plot showing the amount of the graffiti topics according to each town\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"07.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/71bcb4aba8ec27f67e742068.jpg"},{"id":79787650,"identity":"2da905d7-e1ce-43e7-b5cb-2982a2dd9937","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":697747,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCartridge depictions in the barracks and checkpoint of the post-war complex built in Punta Lucero.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"08A08B.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/daa26c4f2c153bc035fdadf2.jpg"},{"id":79787646,"identity":"f7d8680d-bf6a-461e-a30f-f16dfeee658e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71136,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePolitical graffiti in LARF04 machine gun nest (Gaztelumendi, Larrabetzu): Schematic representation of ETA’s symbol on an original 1937 engraving of the Basque Nationalist Party (\u003cem\u003ePNV\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"09.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/c456ccbf65036936f2623119.jpg"},{"id":79787910,"identity":"3c8c09dd-8487-43b4-b0d0-bcae76fa10ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:17:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5142490,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVandalism of the Iron Belt structures in the Berango/Sopela sector.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/e185d2c826ef1ed39031ddf9.jpg"},{"id":79787644,"identity":"baed13c6-dcd2-4204-b3e3-bffb68cf183e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:09:41","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4795946,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVandalised elements of the Iron Belt in Urduliz\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/211c57216592bf48e04296c6.jpg"},{"id":79788380,"identity":"4e8d3c22-a526-4fd6-bf45-18534bf6d99f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-02 17:33:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":17598079,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6338821/v1/21ac77d6-e6f8-4ecd-bc9f-9d8d0c4984d1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounter-memories of the Spanish Civil War: vandalism of Bilbao’s Iron Belt fortified line (Basque Country)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eConflict spaces and monuments are a key historical source to study the official discourses that have prevailed about wars, as well as their transformation over time. Cultural heritage, and especially the war-related, is both a symbol reflecting group identity and an instrument in forging such identity (Marschall 2017, 4). However, official discourses of warfare grounded on conflict heritage are often heavily dominated by political interests; they may disagree with a wide diversity of citizens and particularly the local population that suffered the consequences of violent conflict.\u0026nbsp;This complex relationship between heritage, politics and society is one of the central issues studied by current paradigms, such as critical heritage studies\u0026nbsp;(Harrison, Dias, and Kristiansen 2023), community archaeology\u0026nbsp;(Moshenska and Dhanjal 2022)\u0026nbsp;or social archaeology\u0026nbsp;(Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Ruibal, Alonso Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, and Criado-Boado 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVandalism is a form of social contestation of cultural heritage and the political discourses built around it (Marschall 2017; Selejan 2021). The term was first used during the French Revolution in reference to the destruction of symbols of the Ancient Regime. Robespierre argued that the radical clearance of any signs of despotism from the public spaces was key to the construction of the new republic (Bresnahan 2014; Chatzigiannis 2015, 124). Thus, vandalism actions imply a physical interaction or communication between people and their material environment (H\u0026aacute;na and \u0026Scaron;el 2022) as it leaves a material trace in the landscape, which can be studied as an archaeological artefact (Chatzigiannis 2015, 121-22). Violent acts against heritage tend to have a greater impact on society because of media coverage; a paradigmatic example was the attack on the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban in 2001 (Centlivres 2008). However, there are actions that could be considered vandalism, yet they go unnoticed due to their non-violent nature, such as the degradation of heritage environments, the widespread production of graffiti or the proliferation of the phenomenon of archaeological looting (McKinnon 2015; M\u0026uuml;ller 2020; Cheetham 1994).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA range of authors has previously analysed specific acts of vandalism against heritage sites from different perspectives. For example, in the hinterland of the World Heritage Site of Petra (Jordania), a group of archaeologists documented structures that had been vandalised and looted during a series of test excavations (Vella et\u0026nbsp;al. 2015). However, within the different typologies of vandalism, research on the particular phenomenon of graffiti is more common. Between 2013-2014 the memorial museum of the Mauthausen concentration camp (Austria) carried out a pioneering analysis of the graffiti that visitors had been leaving throughout the complex for decades. This process of documentation and study was the germ of the subsequent museum intervention, which aimed to preserve these graffiti and use them as a teaching element (Aichberger 2014; Kranebitter 2015, 41-56). More recently, another research has highlighted the link between graffiti in Prague\u0026rsquo;s public space (Czech Republic) and its environment, with a strong emphasis on the political ones (H\u0026aacute;na and \u0026Scaron;el 2022). There are even researchers who claim that graffiti should be considered heritage sites rather than vandalism actions since their cultural significance (Burdick and Canessa Vicencio 2015, 3; Forster, Vettese‐Forster, and Borland 2012, 45-49).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe potential of critical analysis of heritage-related vandalism is challenging because its characteristics (temporality, counter-cultural). This paper focuses on the vandalism against Spanish Civil War heritage through the fortified line known as Iron Belt. It is a unique milestone in the memory of this conflict, as well as the largest heritage element of the war in the Basque Country. This region was a focus of resistance to Franco\u0026rsquo;s dictatorship and, lately, coexisted with political violence due to the activity of the terrorist group ETA[1]. It is therefore an area that is sensitive to official counter-narratives (Molina Aparicio 2013; P\u0026eacute;rez P\u0026eacute;rez 2013; Santamarina Otaola 2019). One example is that a multitude of vandalism actions have been documented against monuments in memory of Franco\u0026rsquo;s soldiers or German airmen (Jaio 2019; Alonso Carball\u0026eacute;s and Momoitio 2017); however, there are no precedents in the study of this actions in relation to Spanish Civil War heritage. Specifically, we explore the following questions: what are the predominant vandalism actions on the Iron Belt heritage? is there a pattern between these actions and the socio-political context of the municipalities where these war remains are located? do these actions have a predetermined political dimension? We have used an interdisciplinary method based on a geospatial database and the combination of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and data visualization approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper is structured as follows: next section defines the context of the Iron Belt and the narratives generated over 80 years, together with a summary of the properties of the sectors under study. The results obtained at the global and sectoral level are then presented, followed by an in-depth discussion of what lies behind the vandalism recorded in this conflict heritage element and its political uses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[1] The terrorist group ETA (an acronym for \u003cem\u003eEuskadi Ta Askatasuna\u003c/em\u003e which means \u0026laquo;Basque Country and freedom\u0026raquo;) was an armed organization which aligned with Basque pro-independence and left-wing ideologies. It was active from 1959 until its complete disarmament in 2018, although the cessation of its armed activity was announced in 2011.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Iron Belt: origin and memorialization process","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (SCW, 1936-1939) the northern loyalist territories (Asturias, Cantabria and the Basque region of Biscay) were surrounded by rebel-controlled zones (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1\u003c/strong\u003e). The newly created Basque government[2] decided to build a defensive line around the capital, firstly named Bilbao\u0026rsquo;s (Defensive) Belt, with the idea of resisting a long-term siege. This fortified structure, that was heavily inspired by World War 1 fortifications (Redondo Rodelas 2005, 44), defined a protecting an area of 80 kilometres (L\u0026iacute;bano Silvente et al. 2021, 123), which included a wide range of resources and infrastructure. The Belt heavily relied on \u0026ldquo;the undefeated nature of Bilbao\u0026rdquo; derived from the sieges it suffered in the 19th century civil wars between Liberals and Traditionalists factions (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 418; Mart\u0026iacute;n Etxebarria 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe construction of the line began in October 1936, and it was immediately surrounded by logistical and political issues. These problems include the abandonment of the project by two of the leading engineers: Pablo Murga was arrested and sentenced to death for spying, whereas Alejandro Goicoechea defected to the Francoist side (Garc\u0026iacute;a Volt\u0026aacute; 1975, 66; L\u0026iacute;bano Silvente et al. 2018, 247). This defection was particularly important because Goicoechea provided them with detailed information on the fortifications: the defences lacked heavy weapons, over 40% of the planned defences were not finished and there was even a barely fortified sector at Gaztelumendi mountain (Larrabetzu). In fact, the Republican government and the army were aware that the Iron Belt was not strong enough to repulse a Francoist offensive (De Miguel 2005, 44-45; Lamas Arroyo 1972, 415-16) and the morale of the defending troops was low (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 329-30; Steer 1963, 168).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranco\u0026rsquo;s army assaulted the Iron Belt through the Gaztelumendi hill between 11 and 12 June 1937 with a combined infantry attack and intense aerial bombardment by the German Condor Legion and the Italian Legionary Air Force (Mart\u0026iacute;nez Bande 1971, 170-74). It was a decisive military action, as the breakthrough took place just 10 km from Bilbao, thus causing the fall of Biscay in just one week.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Political use under the Francoist dictatorship \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter Biscay\u0026rsquo;s capture, the new regime took advantage of every aspect of the war to carry out an ideological and cultural penetration on the daily life (Rodrigo 2017, 483). \u0026ldquo;Bilbao\u0026rsquo;s (Defensive) Belt\u0026rdquo;, the original name of the fortified line, became disused after Francoist conquest. Francoists renamed it as \u0026ldquo;Iron Belt\u0026rdquo; to magnify their victory in Gaztelumendi through a term that alluded to the industrial background of the Basque Country (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 312; Garc\u0026iacute;a Volt\u0026aacute; 1975, 109). Mussolini\u0026rsquo;s regime also echoed this new term and popularised its Italian version (\u0026quot;Cintura de Ferro\u0026quot;). In addition to the name change, this victory space was used from the outset for propaganda purposes in the ongoing war context (del Arco Blanco 2022, 182-83). In 1938, the National Tourist Service organised 4 different guided tours to visit the ruins resulting from the Spanish Civil War (North region, Aragon, Madrid, Andalusia) named \u003cem\u003eRutas de la Guerra en Espa\u0026ntilde;a\u003c/em\u003e [War routes in Spain] (Concejal L\u0026oacute;pez 2014; Correyero Ruiz 2004). The Francoists included in this route the Gaztelumendi section of the Iron Belt (\u003cstrong\u003eFigures 2-3\u003c/strong\u003e), incorporating the tourist component into a battlefield landscape that was completely desolate due to the proximity of the events in time (Brena Alonso 2016, 5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figures 2-3)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the aftermath of the war, local institutions followed the official policy of the new regime of erecting monuments to honour Francoist soldiers in symbolic places (del Arco Blanco 2022). The \u0026ldquo;heroic deed\u0026rdquo; of breaking the Iron Belt was no exception and the Francoists built a large cross on the summit of Gaztelumendi. This public commemoration and the narrative developed during these years emphasized the strength of the Iron Belt to highlight the audacity and bravery of the Francoist armies that were able to conquer it. One of the results of this long term promoted discourse was the normalization and assimilation of the term \u0026ldquo;Iron Belt\u0026rdquo; by society to the present day (L\u0026iacute;bano Silvente et al. 2021, 124).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Contestation and gradual interest during Late Francoism and democratic period\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring late Francoism, the discourses generated by the winning side were increasingly challenged by the local population through attacks on monuments and symbols of the regime. In this way, they explicitly questioned the vision of the war promoted by Francoists, while expressing their political discontent and their ideological differences (Marschall 2017, 4). One example of this rising social trend was the contestation to the Francoist myth on the Iron Belt\u0026rsquo;s assault at the Gaztelumendi peak: the cross was partially destroyed (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4\u003c/strong\u003e) with explosives in a vandalism attack attributed to the terrorist group ETA (del Arco Blanco 2022, 273; Alonso Carball\u0026eacute;s and Momoitio 2017, 151).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 4)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the return of democracy (1977), the Iron Belt and the wartime heritage were forgotten due to its contested nature. This trend was caused by two main factors: firstly, because of the Pact of Oblivion agreed between the main political forces during the Transition period to avoid dealing with the legacy of the SCW and Franco\u0026rsquo;s dictatorship (Preston 1986; Aguilar y Humleb\u0026aelig;k 2002). Secondly, this decision took place in a period of an increasing armed activity by ETA, which reached its peak in the 1980s. The fact that ETA members proclaimed themselves the successors of the 1936 Basque army soldiers (named \u003cem\u003egudaris\u003c/em\u003e) generated tense debates at a social level that contributed to the self-interested oblivion of the wartime heritage of the SCW in the Basque Country. This historical comparison between the \u003cem\u003egudaris\u003c/em\u003e and ETA members even led the Spanish National Court to ban the \u003cem\u003eBizkargi Eguna\u003c/em\u003e [Bizkargi Day]in Larrabetzu in remembrance of the 1936 soldiers for fear that it would become an act of glorification of terrorism as late as 2013 (Herrero Acosta and Ay\u0026aacute;n Vila 2016, 114).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the 2000\u0026rsquo;s, critical voices began to emerge about the situation of this heritage, still amid a general attitude of social oblivion about the SCW. In this situation, some spaces and structures in the Iron Belt perimeter were destroyed due to infrastructure or housing works. A clear example is what happened on the Berango side of the Mendibe-Areneburu hill: only one machine gun nest of the original four survived the construction of the Uribe Kosta road in 2006 (Mi\u0026ntilde;ambres Am\u0026eacute;zaga 2020, 18).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe approval of the Spanish Historical Memory Law in 2007 opened the possibility of regulating and protecting this war heritage (Herrero Acosta and Ay\u0026aacute;n Vila 2016, 99). In the Basque Country, the political consensus around this research field strengthened after ETA\u0026rsquo;s announcement of the definitive ending of violence in 2011. The new Basque nationalist government created \u003cem\u003eGogora\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e- Institute for Memory, Coexistence and Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e (2015) and promoted the traditional memorialist line that enhanced the Basque myths (del Arco Blanco 2022, 287-88; Herrero Acosta and Ay\u0026aacute;n Vila 2016, 114). \u003cem\u003eGogora\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2017-2020 action plan included the removal of Francoist symbols from public spaces. In compliance with this, Larrabetzu\u0026rsquo;s town council approved the removal of the Gaztelumendi cross in a plenary session held on the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Gernika (26 April 2017). Several people were injured during this demolition process, so the event received extensive media coverage (Garc\u0026iacute;a 2018; Alonso 2017). In parallel to these actions, the Iron Belt became the first war site to receive heritage status in the Basque Country in 2019 (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 10). A buffer of protection was defined in the decree to protect its multiple defence lines. The remains were recorded and classified into different degrees of protection, which regulated the uses and activities of these spaces (Gobierno Vasco 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[2] The Spanish Republic granted autonomy to the Basque Country at the beginning of the war to secure the support of Basque nationalists (traditionalist and Catholic). This first Basque executive was a government of concentration: it was led by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) and had the representation of the rest of the forces loyal to the Republic (Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Portilla and Garmendia 1988).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Materials","content":"\u003cp\u003eAmong all the war and postwar heritage that has been vandalised in the Basque Country, in this article we focus on a sample of the Iron Belt structures and its derived heritage (stelae, commemorative crosses...). Due to Iron Belt’s large size and diversity, we selected a sample on three sectors of the line (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5\u003c/strong\u003e): a) section I – Punta Lucero hill (Zierbena) b) section IV – mount Gaztelumendi and Larrabetzu village c) sector V – Mendibe-Areneburu hill (Berango/Sopela) and Santa Marina crags (Urduliz).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 5)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Section I: Punta Lucero hill (Zierbena)\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePunta Lucero is a unique site as its landscape combines defensive structures built during three different conflicts: the Third Carlist War (1872-1876), the SCW (1936-1939), and World War II (WWII, 1939-1945). In 1936, the Carlist coastal battery was refitted as part of the Iron Belt, and three lines of fortifications strengthened the defensive positions (Beldarrain Olalde 2012, 78; Martínez Bande 1971, 46-47). After the Francoist capture of this position in June 1937, a new coastal battery and quarters were built in the context of the WWII; these constructions were used by several cohorts doing their compulsory military service until the 1980s. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince the military abandonment of this site, the conservation status of these remains has deteriorated considerably. This is not a unique phenomenon in the municipality of Zierbena: in 2018, a team of archaeologists excavated the nearby site of El Moreo to evaluate the inclusion of some Iron Belt remains (ZIEF10-ZIEF11) in the aforementioned law (Escribano-Ruiz et al. 2018). As these remains had been severely affected by construction works in the early 2000s, they were finally excluded from protection. Nowadays, the protection decree establishes the protection of 9 structures in Punta Lucero (ZIEF01-ZIEF 09). However, the lack of political commitment to the protection and rehabilitation of these structures has been a debate in Zierbena for decades as some local associations and political parties have called for its refurbishment due to their «historical importance»” (Ll. 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Section IV: mount Gaztelumendi and Larrabetzu village (Larrabetzu)\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Gaztelumendi mountain, located in the north-west area of Larrabetzu village, is the sector that Franco’s army chose to carry out the assault on the Iron Belt. The protection buffer in this sector is up to 30 metres due to its war significance, whereas the generic protection perimeter established in decree 195/2018 is 5 metres wide (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 40). The amount of heritage elements preserved in the area is large and dispersed so the analysis has focused here in two different subsectors: Gaztelumendi mountain (LARF01-LARF09, LARF47-LARF48, LARF52-LARF53) and Larrabetzu village (LARF16, LARF19, LARF23-LARF30, LARF33). The aim was to glimpse possible differences in warfare and urban contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent years have seen a growing interest on memorialising this iconic sector of the Iron Belt due to its symbolism. Some of the most remarkable actions in remembrance of the SCW in the town centre are the Larrabetzu’s Memory Space, the Historical Memory square, or the mural reproduction of Picasso’s \u003cem\u003eGuernica\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Section V: Mendibe-Areneburu hill (Berango/Sopela) and Santa Marina crags (Urduliz)\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fifth sector of the Iron Belt included a first line of contact was established in Barrika, the main line of resistance in Urduliz and the reserve line on the Sopela-Berango-Getxo axis (Líbano Silvente et al. 2018, 249). The different role of each of the three lines have led to the analysis of two areas. The Mendibe-Areneburu hill concentrates 10 structures of the Iron Belt between Berango (BERF01) and Sopela (SOPF01-SOPF04, SOPF06, SOPF21-24), whereas Santa Marina’s crags (Urduliz) has 9 protected structures (URDF17, URDF19-URDF27). This section has been the focus of an intense memorialization process, that ranges from the creation of the Iron Belt Memorial Museum in Berango to the design of the Memorial Park sculpture complex in Urduliz.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe amount and diversity of Iron Belt heritage elements required an interdisciplinary approach as it was necessary to integrate geographical, archaeological, and textual sources. We decided to use a Digital Humanities approach because it allows to create a methodological framework as a meeting point of several disciplines (Huggett 2012). This framework is based on the creation of a geospatial database of Iron Belt’s elements. This database stores and classifies, among other variables, the typology and characteristics of the vandalism actions suffered by the war structures of the three Iron Belt sections. This diverse corpus of evidence is then analysed with spatial analysis and data visualization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.1 A geospatial database of conflict heritage\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe lack of an open geospatial infrastructure on the Iron Belt was the reason why we needed to collate information from different sources in a common geospatial database. It was created with the SQLite software and implemented in SQL language. Among the data compiled in the database there are the records of the protection law (available at \u003cem\u003eOndare \u003c/em\u003e– the Basque heritage dataset) or the results of archaeological fieldwork.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2 Fieldwork\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring summer 2022, we carried out archaeological surveys in the aforementioned sectors. These surveys included 125 elements, raking from Iron Belt structures (both listed and non-listed in the decree), memorialization landmarks, monuments, to heritage presentation elements (i.e. signals, museums). A database record was created for each item (e.g. structure); each entry included attributes such as its geographic coordinates, architectural details, and its conservation state.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe documentation of vandalism actions was not originally envisaged on an individual basis but was included under the heading of conservation. After some reconnaissance visits, we decided to create individual fields in the database to document these actions. These database fields were: \"vandalism\" (yes/no), \"vandalism_typology\" and \"graffiti_ideology\".\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3 Spatial analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe starting point of this integral analysis was the geolocation in coordinates of these heritage elements and their data processing by a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. This work has used GIS in two main tasks: to georeference heritage elements identified in the survey, and to analyse the spatial structure on different variables (e.g. preservation state, typology, ownership).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.4 Data Visualization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeritage-related vandalism can be georeferenced to search spatial distributions yet some relevant factors, such as the typology, are harder to explore using GIS. Data visualization tools are designed to identify complex patterns in large volumes of complex data. This analytical tool has seen less uses within archaeological (Llobera 2011) or heritage-related research (Manovich 2015) and its uses for the SCW are also limited (Rubio-Campillo, Feliu Torruella, and González Cantera 2021). In this research, these techniques have been applied to identify possible dynamics and relations within multiple non-spatial data, and to present the complex patterns found in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e5.1 Vandalization dynamics at the Iron Belt\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVandalism is one of the most visible present-day actions over Iron Belt heritage. It is suffered in a generalised way by the Iron Belt structures that we have analysed and, in some sites, it has even become a chronic issue. The case study with the highest number of documented vandalism actions is the Punta Lucero complex (Zierbena) followed by Santa Marina crags (Urduliz) (\u003cstrong\u003eFigures 6a-6b\u003c/strong\u003e). These two locations are precisely the ones most frequented, given their popularity among hiking (Zierbena) or climbing enthusiasts (Urduliz). In the rest of the cases, these actions tend to be more isolated and are usually concentrated around certain structures. Sometimes this is because they are more easily accessible (as in the case of the BERF01 machine gun nest in Berango), as these structures are located near paths and not in the middle of the forest. Other times, it is also due to their historical performativity and their importance in the landscape (such as the LARF04 structure in Gaztelumendi, which we will discuss later).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with accessibility, we have as well observed a certain influence of \u0026ldquo;patrimonialisation\u0026rdquo; in the process of vandalisation of the Iron Belt elements. Except for Punta Lucero (Zierbena), where the remains of the Iron Belt are not patrimonialised, in the rest of the cases, there is a greater vandalisation of the structures located in places that have been reconditioned for visits. On the other hand, those structures hidden in the forest mass, and which have not been reconditioned go more unnoticed and are, in general, less vandalised.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe durability of the materials used in the structures, especially concrete, is also a basic aspect to consider within the analysis of the vandalization phenomenon. Machine gun nests, which are precisely made of concrete, are one of the most affected typologies in several of the analysed towns (Berango, Larrabetzu and Urduliz). The higher frequency of vandalization activities in concrete-built elements is relevant in the case of Zierbena, although in this case it is concentrated in the post-war period structures (such as the barracks or the new coastal battery and its buildings). In Sopela, this trend does not happen as vandalism in slick slit trenches and foxholes, i.e. in the structures dug into the ground, is particularly prevalent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figures 6a-6b)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVandalism actions differ according to the material characteristics of the structure targeted. For example, in the elements that (re)use the terrain for their construction or war function (such as trenches), their use as a marginal space stands out: either as a rubbish dump or as a space for carrying out sex-affective relationships. However, in those structures of the Iron Belt built in concrete, graffiti ranks among the main acts of vandalism. This also repeats in the vandalism against monuments or memorial elements linked to the Iron Belt, with the case of the Urduliz Memorial Park standing out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe attack against these elements implies an explicit criticism of the memorialization process as well. Whereas the monumentality and symbolism of the monument used to be the main cause of graffiti and attacks on the regime\u0026rsquo;s monuments, nowadays a small proportion of the graffiti is politically charged (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 7\u003c/strong\u003e). This phenomenon has been detected in Punta Lucero (Zierbena) and Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). The political movements reflected in the graffiti represent ideologies with a strong support in the region such as supported in these areas, such as socialism or communism in Zierbena or Basque pro-independence left in Larrabetzu. The diversity of situations found on each town suggests that a closer look to each sector is needed to interpret the case study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 7)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2 Specific insight (I): Punta Lucero\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNew uses are being carried out on the Iron Belt and postwar heritage in Punta Lucero due to the institutional neglect and the continuous flow of visitors. These activities include a diversity of marginal uses (such as rubbish disposal or drug use, \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6b\u003c/strong\u003e). These practices and their material culture are similar to those detected during the archaeological intervention in the nearby site of El Moreo, where drug use and cruising were documented (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 336).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGraffiti presence is also widespread in this site, a phenomenon that can be dated between the 1980s (when the military use of this space ended) and today. It is difficult to make a more accurate chronological approximation of these representations due to both the density and especially the superimposition of graffiti on these structures. In these representations, authors claim their authorship through unique signatures and usually reflect their personal concerns or interests, a fact that derives for example from the support messages for the main football club in the region (Athletic Club de Bilbao). Another relevant and unique aspect of this complex is the repetition of the same graffiti on several structures: a cartridge (\u003cstrong\u003eFigures 8a-8b\u003c/strong\u003e). The multiple representation of military material culture as a signature in a landscape full of war structures such as this one is singular. This could be interpreted as a \u0026ldquo;fetishisation\u0026rdquo; of this particular space, which had been in military use for a long time (about a century).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figures 8a-8b)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe number of political content graffiti in Punta Lucero is also significant, despite being politically opposed to the rest of the case studies. They are an ideological cartography of the region where this place is located: an area with a working class and immigrant tradition, where the harshness of the mines and industry in the 20th century was the seed of the workers\u0026apos; movement in the Basque Country. Communism and anarchism are the ideologies with the highest number of graffiti and take on different forms. Among the communist messages, we can find from those that simply reproduce the hammer and sickle to those which defend the USSR and the personalities of Lenin and Stalin. There are frequent allusions to \u0026ldquo;UHP (\u003cem\u003eUn\u0026iacute;os Hermanos Proletarios\u003c/em\u003e)\u0026rdquo; [Unite Proletarian Brothers], a slogan spread by both communists and anarchists after the Asturias revolution of 1934 and frequently used in the SCW (De Pablo and Logro\u0026ntilde;o 1993, 233). The concerns of anarchism are represented mainly through the symbol and flag of the movement. Anti-fascists representations show the need for organisation and unity to stop fascism is the most widespread message of the anti-fascist movement in this site. The number \u0026ldquo;1312\u0026rdquo;, which is used as a synonym for ACAB (\u003cem\u003eAll Cops Are Bastards\u003c/em\u003e), usually accompanies the anti-fascist messages, thus introducing the theme of opposition to the police forces. Graffiti with a nationalist slant is present in a testimonial quantity and comes in its totality from the Basque independence left-wing, such as the use of the ambiguous slogan \u003cem\u003eAgur eta ohore Eusko Gudariak\u003c/em\u003e [Goodbye and honour Basque soldiers]. This was originally an expression aimed at honouring the \u003cem\u003egudaris\u003c/em\u003e who fell during the war and later adopted by the terrorist group ETA (Del Moral Garc\u0026iacute;a 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3 Specific insight (II): Larrabetzu\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe vandalism detected on the Iron Belt heritage in Larrabetzu is mainly focused on the proliferation of pictorial representations. Although it is true that no graffiti was documented on the Iron Belt structures located in the Larrabetzu town centre, we found a significant number in Gaztelumendi. A large number of the graffiti documented had a strong political component, in many cases ETA-related. In the machine-gun nest on the summit (LARF04) is where most cases were recorded: four in the same structure. The high concentration of ETA messages in this structure may be due to the nearby presence for decades of the Francoist cross, with which there was even visual contact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf these four graffities, two were depictions of the terrorist group\u0026rsquo;s effigy (an axe and a snake), another one was its slogan \u003cem\u003eBietan jarrai\u003c/em\u003e [following the two ways: political and military] and the last one was a message of support: \u003cem\u003eGora ETA \u003c/em\u003e[Let\u0026rsquo;s go ETA]. One of the effigies was superimposed on an original engraving from 1937 with the initials from the Basque nationalist and conservative party PNV (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 9\u003c/strong\u003e). In the Gaztelumendi structures there is also room for environmental demands, as graffiti against the artificial introduction of eucalyptus have been documented. Although the chronological range for ETA-related graffiti is from the foundation of the gang (1959) to present day, the one alluding to eucalyptus we can narrow it from the birth of the environmentalist movements in the Transition (late 70s - early 80s) until now (Veiras and Soto 2011). All these pictorial interventions reflect different ideological axes of the Basque pro-independence left (such as the legacy of ETA and environmental concerns), which is a relevant political force in this rural area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA related issue within vandalism is archaeological looting by amateur metal detectorists, which is unfortunately a frequent activity at Gaztelumendi. This situation is denounced by residents and the local association Karraderan, who have become aware of the heritage around them, especially since the protection decree of the Iron Belt.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 9)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.4 Specific insight (III): Berango/Sopela\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe careful conservation and maintenance of the Iron Belt heritage in Berango and Sopela does not preclude vandalism actions. We have documented graffiti, whose chronology would be between the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century, and rubbish accumulations (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6b\u003c/strong\u003e), especially on the hillside near Berango (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 10\u003c/strong\u003e). This is mainly due to the easy accessibility of these structures and their better visibility thanks to a larger number of signposts marking the sites. As an example, the BERF01 structure, the main heritage space used for educational activities by the Memorial Museum, was surrounded by a diversity of decontextualised objects such as a plastic chair, which had been moved there for recreational purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Mendibe-Areneburu mountain section belonging to Sopela, there are no signs of any kind of vandalism. Besides the authorities\u0026rsquo; care, accessibility to these Iron Belt structures also plays an important role in their preservation. The fact that these elements are in the middle of the forest mass and far from the rural roads makes this heritage to remain unknown by the general public.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 10)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.5 Specific insight (IV): Urduliz\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe frequency and popularity of vandalism on the Iron Belt heritage in Urduliz is noteworthy (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6b\u003c/strong\u003e). Specifically, the Memorial Park is a popular target for graffiti given its peripheral position within the town (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 11\u003c/strong\u003e). Here the graffiti motives are personal and do not include political content, unlike the cases mentioned above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese activities also target Iron Belt structures, fieldwork identified vandalism on three protected elements; this is a low percentage considering the large number of protected elements in this area. The problem is its constant tendency over time: since the decree for the protection of the Iron Belt (2019) at least two acts of vandalism, which had caused serious structural damage, have been recorded in this area (Z\u0026aacute;rate 2020). In URDF17 structure, which is attached to the hermitage of Santa Marina, one of the masonry walls was used to break the hermitage railings and the side walls were also removed. Another structure affected was URDF21: it was filled with posts and logs with the apparent intention of reusing its base for the construction of a hut. Graffiti has also been found on these structures. These are the only cases studied where we can establish a specific chronological range: from 2018 to present day. This is because the archaeological reports indicate that prior to these interventions the structures were semi-buried (L\u0026iacute;bano Silvente et al. 2018, 257) and, thus, non-vandalised.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result of all these incidents, the town council decided to install security cameras as a deterrent measure while rehabilitating the affected structures. It is the only municipality out of the four that have been analysed that has taken this preventive measure. This action must also be contextualised within the wealthy economy of the Uribe Kosta region, where Urduliz is located (as well as Berango and Sopela) (L\u0026oacute;pez 2019; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez 2024). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Insert Figure 11)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter every war, conflict landscapes remain being a \u0026ldquo;contested\u0026rdquo; space as multiple groups continue to compete for them (Little y Shackel 2014, 40; McKinnon 2015, 24). Vandalism of these spaces is one of many mechanisms in the struggle for hegemony. In trying to understand what lies behind this heritage vandalism, some scholars have theorised around the \u0026ldquo;human pleasure in destroying the property of real or imagined enemies\u0026rdquo; (Braarvig 2014, 154). These acts of damage and desecration for the purpose of revenge are termed \u0026ldquo;vindictive vandalism\u0026rdquo; (Cohen 1982; M\u0026uuml;ller 2020, 571-74). According to this view, these actions are carried out to cause maximum emotional harm in retaliation for intentional or structurally embedded suffering caused by the enemy (Marschall 2017, 207). In fact, perpetrators choose that specific asset or monument due to its theorical symbolism (H\u0026aacute;na and \u0026Scaron;el 2022, 693), as it is appreciated by a real or perceived enemy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVandalism on the SCW and Francoist heritage in the Basque Country has been frequent since the last years of the dictatorship. Political vindication underlies the vandalism against the heritage of these two periods from the start. Back in 1970, when the Francoist cross of Gaztelumendi was attacked with explosives (Alonso Carball\u0026eacute;s and Momoitio 2017, 151), the dictatorship described this action as \u0026ldquo;terrorism\u0026rdquo; (Burton Becquer 1970). This violent and deliberate connotation of \u003cem\u003edamnatio memoriae\u003c/em\u003e persists in the actions against the surrounding Francoist monuments, while in the vandalism of Iron Belt structures and monuments do not. Between 2021-2022, there were three violent attacks on Francoist monuments in Biscay by the youth pro-independence organisation \u003cem\u003eErnai\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Rojas 2021; Pardo 2022). In two of these cases, in the actions against the Francoist crosses in Lemoa and Barakaldo, both local councils had already initiated the procedures to remove the monuments to satisfy popular will.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe law left the door open to keep the crosses on some mountains due to their religious connotation, if they did not have a direct link to the exaltation of Franco\u0026rsquo;s victory (Rolando Rico and Pe\u0026ntilde;a-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz 2021, 42-44); thus, this slowed down the removal of some of these monuments because the debate arose as to whether the removal of the original Francoist inscription was sufficient to strip the monument of this meaning. Faced with this situation, certain groups of the population decided to make these elements disappear from the public space. This shows that although the type of heritage targeted (SCW vs. Francoist) and the way they have been attacked are radically different, the intentionality of the perpetrators is common: the public expression of their political ideas and their desire for society to echo this (Aichberger 2014, 46).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNowadays Iron Belt landscapes and structures are generally used as spaces for socialising through alcohol or drug consumption and as a blank canvas for graffiti artists to express their personal concerns. Although these activities are a cross-cutting phenomenon in all four case studies analysed, the negative impact of these actions in heritage elements is correlated with the lack of care of local institutions. For example, vandalism presence in Punta Lucero is chronic due to a continued lack of interest of the Zierbena council in this heritage. In fact, some structures (ZIEF10, ZIEF11) were excluded from protection as they had been so severely affected by urbanization works in the early 2000s (Santamarina Otaola 2022, 69-70). Given the deliberate abandonment of these archaeological remains, we could be dealing with a phenomenon of institutional vandalism, which could be economically motivated. At the other extreme is the regular cleaning and care of this heritage in Berango by the municipal staff, as could be testified during the fieldwork.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis marked difference in the management of this heritage is partly due to the ambiguity of the decree concerning the deterioration of the Iron Belt. Throughout the decree, the importance of the conservation of this fortified line is emphasised. In fact, it calls for \u0026ldquo;consolidation and conservation work to be carried out in situ and, where necessary, for the restoration of the remains present or likely to appear, thus ensuring their maintenance and preservation against degradation processes\u0026rdquo; (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 37). It speaks, therefore, of \u0026ldquo;degradation processes\u0026rdquo;, but there is no explicit reference to the possibility of the Iron Belt being subject to acts of vandalism. This lack of specificity when considering what is meant by \u0026ldquo;degradation processes\u0026rdquo; has direct repercussions on the current state of conservation of the Iron Belt. \u0026nbsp;A practical example is that the decree does not contemplate sanctions for the perpetrators of the vandalism mentioned in this article (graffiti, use of these spaces as rubbish dumps) since, beyond looting[3], there is no mention of the possibility of humans interacting with this heritage in any other negative way.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the vandalism actions that we have documented in the Iron Belt, those of a non-violent nature stand out, especially the phenomenon of graffiti. People who immortalise their messages graphically want to make a lasting, public statement, which becomes an active memory (Blake 1981). Signs and symbols are charged with meaning depending on the context, the person who draws them and the person who looks at them (Aichberger 2014, 50). In our case study, most graffiti do not respond to a political intention but reflect someone\u0026rsquo;s impulse to say something or simply to confirm their own existence. Baker considers the main motivation for this to be a simple \u0026ldquo;I am\u0026rdquo; statement or reaffirmation, which is equally present in what could be considered the earliest examples of graffiti, namely prehistoric rock art, in the form of images of human hands and feet (Baker 2003, 23; Merrill 2011, 63; McKinnon 2015, 20). There are also researchers who also see it as a way out of anonymity, sometimes arising from a desire to break the rules (Aichberger 2014, 46). However, other authors suggest that the depiction of name, tastes or even political inscriptions and graffiti in places where young people congregate could also be interpreted as gestures of familiarity with the place (Chatzigiannis 2015, 123; Rocks-Macqueen 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the case studies analysed, graffiti with political content have only been identified at Punta Lucero and Gaztelumendi and it may be linked to a distinct social, economic, and political context. Anti-fascist, communist and anarchist messages are common at the top of Punta Lucero, highlighting the use of symbols and even allusions to historical leaders such as Lenin or Stalin. The repeated use of the hammer and sickle or the anarchist symbol in Punta Lucero aligns with the research developed in the Mauthausen memorial. Communism and anarchism consolidate as the hegemonic movements represented in the graffiti of these conflict and memory spaces through the depiction of their most recognisable symbols (Aichberger 2014, 45). As in other research on political graffiti (H\u0026aacute;na and \u0026Scaron;el 2022, 692), there are also various representation alluding to historical leaders (i.e. Lenin or Stalin). Interestingly enough, these messages do not mention classical communist SCW symbols such as Dolores Ib\u0026aacute;rruri \u0026ldquo;la Pasionaria\u0026rdquo; (despite the proximity of her birthplace, Gallarta), or the slogan \u0026ldquo;No pasar\u0026aacute;n\u0026rdquo;, of which the politician made extensive propaganda use. In Gaztelumendi, several ETA-related graffiti were found aligning with the group\u0026rsquo;s actions and ideology. They use a narrative of historical continuity of the myth of the \u0026ldquo;Basque soldier\u0026rdquo; fighting for freedom of his homeland, which began in the war with the gudaris and was later continued by ETA members. The role of nationalism in the \u0026ldquo;counter-memory\u0026rdquo; process of the Iron Belt in Gaztelumendi is not new. At the nearby site of La Loba (Gamiz-Fika), archaeologists documented the engraving \u003cem\u003eA\u0026Ntilde;O 1944 GORA EUZCADI\u003c/em\u003e [Year 1944, let\u0026rsquo;s go Basque Country] on the access door to a munitions dump (L\u0026iacute;bano Silvente et al. 2018, 252). It would therefore be plausible to trace a genealogy of pictorial representations of nationalist ideology in this sector of the Iron Belt.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother question is whether we can consider this particular heritage vandalism as a form of \u003cem\u003edamnatio memoriae.\u003c/em\u003e A graffiti is understood as damage to property or vandalism (Ralph 2014), because after all it is \u0026ldquo;a form of transgression, of a prohibition, an illegality\u0026rdquo;(Gamboni 1984, 38). Despite this conception, society is increasingly aware of the paradoxical status of graffiti representations as both an art form and a crime. Some street artists have broken down the traditional boundaries between high and low culture by reframing graffiti as something to be valued rather than despised. For example, the well-known street artist Banksy has produced a number of graffiti in war contexts, such as those on the Palestinian side of the Israeli security barrier in the West Bank (Merrill 2011, 63-67). It has been recognized that graffiti at modern sites and installations should be considered as \u0026ldquo;part of the site\u0026rsquo;s narrative\u0026rdquo; (Schofield 2005, 76), thus raising the need to protect them. In prisons, graffiti have been valued and many examples are retained, even if kept from public view (Wilson 2008, 67-68). However, the question here is: where is the boundary for considering the depiction of graffiti a political claim or an action that seeks to erase the original meaning of these spaces (\u003cem\u003edamnatio memoriae\u003c/em\u003e)?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToday, there is a commitment that this blurred boundary is marked by the artistic value of graffiti and the socio-political commentary, and which others will strive to understand in the future (Merrill 2011, 67). All in all, we wonder about what should prevail: the social or historical significance of graffiti, its artistic perception or its anti-social devaluation? (Burdick and Canessa Vicencio 2015, 735). A paradigmatic case to illustrate this debate is the graffiti that is superimposed on the original 1937 engraving on the LARF04 machine gun nest in Gaztelumendi (Larrabetzu). The historical continuity traced by both representations in the vindication of the same discourse is a double-edged sword. It could be a strong argument for protecting these graffiti now that ETA no longer exists, given their historical relevance, or, on the contrary, it could be an argument for their removal, given that they could be interpreted as glorification of terrorism. This debate is not new and even the courts have intervened: many people have been convicted for making graffiti or writing ETA-related proclamations on social networks in recent years (Torr\u0026uacute;s 2017; Segovia 2016; Del Moral Garc\u0026iacute;a 2019). However, in November 2023, the Spanish National Court acquitted for the first time a young man for having painted a graffiti with the support message \u003cem\u003eGora ETA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[Let\u0026rsquo;s go ETA] in Ermua (Biscay). The judge discussed the dilemma that this type of graffiti involves as a possible crime is mixed with freedom of expression. In her sentence, she ruled that freedom of expression must prevail as it is one of the main characteristics of a democratic state (Azpiroz Pagola 2023; Ot\u0026aacute;lora 2023). \u0026nbsp;This is an example that both the meaning and the value of these actions is changeable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecisions regarding which graffiti examples to preserve continue to reflect contemporary politics and values (H\u0026aacute;na and \u0026Scaron;el 2022, 694). These factors ultimately determine whether vandalism at heritage places represents cultural significance or conservation sacrilege (Merrill 2011, 73; Forster, Vettese‐Forster, and Borland 2012, 62). However, there is often a gap between popular will and the decisions taken by public institutions on heritage issues. This dichotomy is often greater in war memory issues as they can generate social tensions; the Iron Belt and its associated heritage is a good example. The management of these conflict spaces is inherently complicated for these reasons. We also raise the question of whether a collaboration between these two social spheres (institutions and population) would lead to a change in the management of these spaces and their different forms of vandalism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[3] Article 8 of the decree prohibits the use of metal detectors without authorisation, as well as the practice of looting (Gobierno Vasco 2019, 40).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe landscape and heritage of Bilbao\u0026rsquo;s Iron Belt is a direct reflection of its historical circumstances as it has been surrounded by different interpretations and memories since its construction. Public interest in the heritage of this mythical structure of the Spanish Civil War has grown considerably during the last decade and culminated with the approval of a heritage protection decree in 2019.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional recognition has not prevented this fortified line from being deteriorated and vandalism from continuing. In the selection of towns that have been analysed (Zierbena, Berango/Sopela, Urduliz and Larrabetzu), we have documented evidence of different types of vandalism: from archaeological looting to the use of these structures as a marginal space (for example, for the consumption of alcohol/drugs or as a rubbish dump).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most widespread vandalism phenomenon is the proliferation of graffiti. Some representations, such as those documented in Zierbena and Larrabetzu, have a clear political intentionality and are closely related to the socio-political context of their surroundings. A few of them even trace historical continuation with political vindications initiated in the past. Considering that nowadays the cultural significance of graffiti is beginning to be recognized in certain heritage contexts (among them conflict sites), the question is whether they constitute a mere political claim or an action of \u003cem\u003edamnatio memoriae\u003c/em\u003e. These questions ultimately determine whether vandalism at heritage places represents cultural significance or conservation sacrilege.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupplementary information\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth the dataset and the code used in the preparation of this article will be published under an open data licence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAguilar P, Humleb\u0026aelig;k C (2002) \u0026laquo;Collective Memory and National Identity in the Spanish Democracy: The Legacies of Francoism and the Civil War\u0026raquo;. History Memory 14(1\u0026ndash;2):121\u0026ndash;164. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2979/his.2002.14.1-2.121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2979/his.2002.14.1-2.121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAichberger N (2014) \u0026laquo;Besucherinnen-Graffiti und Gedenkorte. Eine Ann\u0026auml;herung an die Inschriften der KZ Gedenkst\u0026auml;tte Mauthausen\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eJahrbuch Mauthausen\u003c/em\u003e, edited by A. Kranebitter, 41\u0026ndash;56. Mauthausen: Gedenkst\u0026auml;tte Mauthausen\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlonso Carball\u0026eacute;s JJ, Momoitio I (2017) \u003cem\u003eMemorias de piedra y de acero: los monumentos a las v\u0026iacute;ctimas de la Guerra Civil y del Franquismo en Euskadi\u003c/em\u003e. Gernika-Lumo: Fundaci\u0026oacute;n Museo de la Paz de Gernika\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlonso JM (2017) \u0026laquo;Cuatro heridos en el derribo de una cruz franquista en Vizcaya al caerles piedras\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eEl Confidencial\u003c/em\u003e, July 14, 2017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/pais-vasco/2017-07-10/varios-heridos-en-el-derrumbe-de-una-cruz-franquista_1412640/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/pais-vasco/2017-07-10/varios-heridos-en-el-derrumbe-de-una-cruz-franquista_1412640/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAzpiroz Pagola M (2023) \u0026laquo;\u0026lsquo;Gora ETA\u0026rsquo; idaztea ez da terrorismoa goraipatzea, Espainiako Auzitegi Nazionalak ebatzi duenez\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eArgia\u003c/em\u003e. November 24, 2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.argia.eus/albistea/gora-eta-idaztea-ez-da-terrorismoa-goraipatzea-espainiako-auzitegi-nazionalak-ebatzi-duenez\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.argia.eus/albistea/gora-eta-idaztea-ez-da-terrorismoa-goraipatzea-espainiako-auzitegi-nazionalak-ebatzi-duenez\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker F (2003) \u0026laquo;The Red Army graffiti in the Reichstag, Berlin: Politics of rock-art in a contemporary European urban landscape\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eEuropean landscapes of rock-art\u003c/em\u003e, edited by C. Chippindale and G. Nash, 20\u0026ndash;38. London and New York: Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeldarrain Olalde P (2012) Historia cr\u0026iacute;tica de la guerra en Euskadi (1936-37). Intxorta 1937 Kultur Elkartea, O\u0026ntilde;ati\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlake C, Fred (1981) \u0026laquo;Graffiti and Racial Insults: The Archaeology of Ethnic Relations in Hawaii\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eModern Material Culture: The archaeology of us\u003c/em\u003e, edited by R.A. Gould and M.B. Schiffer, 87\u0026ndash;99. Amsterdam: Elsevier. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-293580-0.50012-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/B978-0-12-293580-0.50012-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraarvig J (2014) \u0026laquo;Iconoclasm\u0026ndash;three modern cases\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eIconoclasm from Antiquity to Modernity\u003c/em\u003e, edited by K. Kolrud and M. Prusac, 153\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;70. London and New York: Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrena Alonso J\u0026Aacute; (2016) \u0026laquo;El Museo de la Guerra de Bilbao (1937\u0026ndash;1938). Cintur\u0026oacute;n de Hierro y turismo b\u0026eacute;lico al servicio de la propaganda del R\u0026eacute;gimen\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eSaibigain. Revista digital de la Asociaci\u0026oacute;n Sancho de Beurko\u003c/em\u003e 2: 2\u0026ndash;49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBresnahan K (2014) \u0026laquo;On Revolutionary Vandalism\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eArchitectural Theory Review\u003c/em\u003e 19 (3): 278\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2014.1036486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13264826.2014.1036486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurdick C, Canessa Vicencio F (2015) \u0026laquo;\u0026lsquo;Popular Demands Do Not Fit in Ballot Boxes\u0026rsquo;: Graffiti as Intangible Heritage at the Iglesia de San Francisco, Santiago?\u0026raquo;. Int J Herit Stud 21(8):735\u0026ndash;756. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1028963\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13527258.2015.1028963\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurton Becquer R (1970) \u0026laquo;Ciento diecis\u0026eacute;is hechos delictivos graves cometidos por activistas de la E.T.A.\u0026raquo; \u003cem\u003eABC\u003c/em\u003e, December 6, 1970\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCentlivres P (2008) \u0026laquo;The Controversy over the Buddhas of Bamiyan\u0026raquo;. South Asia Multidisciplinary Acad J 2(12). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.992\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4000/samaj.992\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChatzigiannis D (2015) \u0026laquo;Vandalism of Cultural Heritage: Thoughts Preceding Conservation Interventions\u0026raquo;. Change Over Time 5(1):120\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1353/cot.2015.0000\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1353/cot.2015.0000\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheetham DW (1994) Dealing with vandalism: a guide to the control of vandalism. Construction Industry Research and Information Association - Thomas Telford Services, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen S (1982) \u003cem\u003eImages of Deviance\u003c/em\u003e. Penguin Education. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConcejal L\u0026oacute;pez E (2014) \u0026laquo;Las rutas de guerra del Servicio Nacional del Turismo (1938\u0026ndash;1939)\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eVisite Espa\u0026ntilde;a: la memoria rescatada\u003c/em\u003e, edited by C. Miguel Arroyo and M.T. R\u0026iacute;os Reviejo, 260\u0026ndash;273. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Espa\u0026ntilde;a and Museo del Romanticismo\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCorreyero Ruiz B (2004) \u0026laquo;La administraci\u0026oacute;n tur\u0026iacute;stica espa\u0026ntilde;ola entre 1936 y 1951. El turismo al servicio de la propaganda pol\u0026iacute;tica\u0026raquo;. Estudios tur\u0026iacute;sticos Extra 163\u0026ndash;164:55\u0026ndash;79\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDel Arco Blanco M\u0026Aacute; (2022) Cruces de memoria y olvido: los monumentos a los ca\u0026iacute;dos de la Guerra Civil espa\u0026ntilde;ola (1936\u0026ndash;2021). Cr\u0026iacute;tica, Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Miguel P (2005) \u0026laquo;Franco rompe el cintur\u0026oacute;n de hierro\u0026raquo;. En \u003cem\u003eFranco rompe el \u0026laquo;cintur\u0026oacute;n de hierro\u0026raquo; (junio 1937)\u003c/em\u003e. Madrid: Unidad Editorial\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Pablo JM, Logro\u0026ntilde;o JM (1993) \u0026laquo;Cine y propaganda en el Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco durante la Guerra Civil: los reportajes franquistas\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eFilmhistoria online\u003c/em\u003e 3 (1\u0026ndash;2): 231\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDel Moral Garc\u0026iacute;a A (2019) \u003cem\u003eSentencia Penal No 59/2019\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eTribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Penal, Secci\u0026oacute;n 1, Rec 381/2018 de 05 de Febrero de 2019\u003c/em\u003e. Madrid: Tribunal Supremo\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscribano-Ruiz S, Santamarina-Otaola J, Herrero Acosta X, Pozo C, Mart\u0026iacute;n G (2018) Echebarria. \u0026laquo;Cintur\u0026oacute;n de Hierro en Punta Lucero (Zierbena)\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eArkeoikuska: Investigaci\u0026oacute;n arqueol\u0026oacute;gica\u003c/em\u003e 2018, 360\u0026ndash;368\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez V (2024) \u0026laquo;Esta es la comarca m\u0026aacute;s rica de Euskadi: conoce la zona con mayor nivel de renta\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eCr\u0026oacute;nica Vasca - El Espa\u0026ntilde;ol\u003c/em\u003e, February 7, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cronicavasca.elespanol.com/sociedad/20240202/esta-la-comarca-de-euskadi-conoce-mayor/829667163_0.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cronicavasca.elespanol.com/sociedad/20240202/esta-la-comarca-de-euskadi-conoce-mayor/829667163_0.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eForster AM, Vettese-Forster S, Borland J (2012) \u0026laquo;Evaluating the Cultural Significance of Historic Graffiti\u0026raquo;. Struct Surv 30(1):43\u0026ndash;64. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/02630801211226637\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/02630801211226637\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGamboni D (1984) \u0026laquo;Skizze eines Hin und Zur\u0026uuml;ck: Graffiti, Vandalismus, Zensur und Zerst\u0026ouml;rung\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eGraffiti Wand kunst und wilde Bilder\u003c/em\u003e, edited by P. Bianchi, 38\u0026ndash;42. Stuttgart: Birkh\u0026auml;user\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a J (2018) \u0026laquo;La chapuza del derribo de la cruz del Gaztelumendi\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eEl Correo\u003c/em\u003e, October, 2018. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/chapuza-derribo-cruz-20181004220513-nt.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/chapuza-derribo-cruz-20181004220513-nt.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a Volt\u0026aacute; G (1975) La Campa\u0026ntilde;a del Norte. Bruguera, Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGobierno Vasco (2019) \u003cem\u003eDecreto 195/2018, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se califica como Bien Cultural, con la categor\u0026iacute;a de Conjunto Monumentl Cintur\u0026oacute;n de Hierro y defensas de Bilbao (\u0026Aacute;lava y Bizkaia)\u003c/em\u003e. Bolet\u0026iacute;n Oficial del Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco \u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;08/12/19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.legegunea.euskadi.eus/decreto/decreto-1952018-26-diciembre-que-se-califica-como-bien-cultural-categoria-conjunto-monumental-cinturon-hierro-y-defensas-bilbao-alava-y-bizkaia/webleg00-contfich/es/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.legegunea.euskadi.eus/decreto/decreto-1952018-26-diciembre-que-se-califica-como-bien-cultural-categoria-conjunto-monumental-cinturon-hierro-y-defensas-bilbao-alava-y-bizkaia/webleg00-contfich/es/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez Portilla M, Garmendia JM (1988) La guerra civil en el Pa\u0026iacute;s vasco: pol\u0026iacute;tica y econom\u0026iacute;a. Siglo Veintiuno ed, Madrid\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Ruibal A, Alonso P, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, Criado-Boado F (2018) \u0026laquo;Against Reactionary Populism: Towards a New Public Archaeology\u0026raquo;. Antiquity 92(362):507\u0026ndash;515. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.227\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15184/aqy.2017.227\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026aacute;na D, Šel J (2022) \u0026laquo;Political Graffiti in the Political Symbolic Space of Prague, Czechia\u0026raquo;. Urban Res Pract 15(5):679\u0026ndash;698. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2021.1902556\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17535069.2021.1902556\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarrison R, Dias N\u0026eacute;lia, and Kristian Kristiansen (2023) Critical Heritage Studies and the Futures of Europe. UCL, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerrero Acosta X, Ay\u0026aacute;n Vila X (2016) \u0026laquo;De las trincheras al museo: sobre el reciente proceso de patrimonializaci\u0026oacute;n de la Guerra Civil espa\u0026ntilde;ola en Euskadi\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eLugares de Memoria Traum\u0026aacute;tica: representaciones museogr\u0026aacute;ficas de conflictos pol\u0026iacute;ticos y armados\u003c/em\u003e, edited by I. Arrieta Urtizberea, 99\u0026ndash;122. Bilbao: Universidad del Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuggett J (2012) \u0026laquo;Core or Periphery? Digital Humanities from an Archaeological Perspective\u0026raquo;. Hist Social Res / Historische Sozialforschung 37(141):86\u0026ndash;105\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaio I (2019) \u0026laquo;De palos y piedras: la monumentalizaci\u0026oacute;n y el transcurso del tiempo.\u0026raquo; In \u003cem\u003ePostguerres\u003c/em\u003e, edited by T. Abell\u0026oacute; i G\u0026uuml;ell,G.C. Catinni, V. Gav\u0026iacute;n Munt\u0026eacute; 188\u0026ndash;205. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKranebitter A (2015) KZ-Gedenkst\u0026auml;tten und die neuen Gesichter des Rechtsextremismus: Jahrbuch 2014: Forschung - Dokumentation - Information. New Academic, Vienna\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLamas Arroyo \u0026Aacute; (1972) Unos\u0026hellip; y\u0026hellip; otros. Luis de Caralt, Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026iacute;bano Silvente I, Salazar Ca\u0026ntilde;arte S, Mi\u0026ntilde;ambres A, Vega L\u0026oacute;pez S, Zuazo Gibelondo K, Olabarrieta I, Trebolazabala A, Baizan J (2018) \u0026laquo;Seguimiento arqueol\u0026oacute;gico en el cintur\u0026oacute;n de hierro de Bilbao. Terminos de Loba (Gamiz-Fika) y Santa Marina (Urduliz)\u0026raquo;. Kobie Paleoantropolog\u0026iacute;a 36:245\u0026ndash;263\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026iacute;bano Silvente I, Salazar Ca\u0026ntilde;arte S, Vega L\u0026oacute;pez S, Baizan J, Zuazo K, Gibelondo MC, Salas et al (2021) \u0026laquo;Seguimiento arqueol\u0026oacute;gico en el cintur\u0026oacute;n de hierro de Bilbao Eperlanda I(Gamiz-Fika)\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eKobie. Paleoantropolog\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e 38: 121\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle BJ, Shackel PA (2014) Archaeology, heritage, and civic engagement: working toward the public good. Left Coast, Walnut Creek, California\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLl. S (2014) \u0026laquo;Reclaman la recuperaci\u0026oacute;n de la bater\u0026iacute;a de Punta Lucero por su importancia hist\u0026oacute;rica\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eEl Correo\u003c/em\u003e, February 4, 2014. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elcorreo.com/vizcaya/v/20140204/margen-izquierda/reclaman-recuperacion-bateria-punta-20140204.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elcorreo.com/vizcaya/v/20140204/margen-izquierda/reclaman-recuperacion-bateria-punta-20140204.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLlobera M (2011) \u0026laquo;Archaeological Visualization: Towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc)\u0026raquo;. J Archaeol Method Theory 18(3):193\u0026ndash;223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-010-9098-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10816-010-9098-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez L (2019) \u0026laquo;\u0026iquest;D\u0026oacute;nde viven los vizca\u0026iacute;nos m\u0026aacute;s ricos?\u0026raquo; \u003cem\u003eEl Correo\u003c/em\u003e, September 11, 2019. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/viven-vizcainos-ricos-20190912220356-nt.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/viven-vizcainos-ricos-20190912220356-nt.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManovich L (2015) \u0026laquo;Data Science and Digital Art History\u0026raquo;. Int J Digit Art History 1(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.11588/DAH.2015.1.21631\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11588/DAH.2015.1.21631\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarschall S (2017) \u0026laquo;Targeting Statues: Monument Vandalism as an Expression of Sociopolitical Protest in South Africa\u0026raquo;. Afr Stud Rev 60(3):203\u0026ndash;219. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2017.56\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/asr.2017.56\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n Etxebarria G (2019) \u0026laquo;Defendiendo la Invicta Villa. G\u0026eacute;nesis y desarrollo de la l\u0026iacute;nea de Bilbao y su r\u0026iacute;a y Abra durante la \u0026Uacute;ltima Guerra Carlista (1872\u0026ndash;1876)\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eVasconia. Cuadernos de Historia-Geograf\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e 43 (2019): 33\u0026ndash;73\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez Bande JM (1971) \u003cem\u003eVizcaya\u003c/em\u003e. Monograf\u0026iacute;as de la guerra de Espa\u0026ntilde;a. San Mart\u0026iacute;n, Madrid\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKinnon JF (2015) \u0026laquo;Memorialization, Graffiti and Artifact Movement: A Case Study of Cultural Impacts on WWII Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands\u0026raquo;. J Maritime Archaeol 10(1):11\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-015-9133-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11457-015-9133-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMerrill SOC (2011) \u0026laquo;Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege?\u0026raquo;. Time Mind 4(1):59\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2752/175169711X12893985693711\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2752/175169711X12893985693711\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMi\u0026ntilde;ambres Am\u0026eacute;zaga A (2020) Berango in memoriam, 1936\u0026ndash;2020: Gerra Zibila\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;La Guerra Civil. Berango Udala, Berango\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolina Aparicio F (2013) \u0026laquo;Intersecci\u0026oacute;n de procesos nacionales. Nacionalizaci\u0026oacute;n y violencia pol\u0026iacute;tica en el Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco, 1937\u0026ndash;1978.\u0026raquo; \u003cem\u003eCuadernos de Historia Contempor\u0026aacute;nea\u003c/em\u003e 35 (0): 63\u0026ndash;87. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42649\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42649\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoshenska G, Dhanjal S (2022) Community Archaeology. Oxbow Books, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller M (2020) \u0026laquo;Heritage Erasure and Vandalism in Modern and Ancient Egypt\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eFrom Past to Present. Studies in Memory of Manfred O. Korfmann\u003c/em\u003e, edited by S. Blum, T. Efe, T. Kienlin and E. Pernicka, 569\u0026ndash;584.Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOt\u0026aacute;lora \u0026Oacute;B (2023) \u0026laquo;La Audiencia Nacional considera que pintar Gora ETA no es un delito de enaltecimiento del terrorismo\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eEl Correo\u003c/em\u003e. November 23,2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elcorreo.com/politica/audiencia-nacional-considera-pintar-gora-eta-delito-20231122005627-nt.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elcorreo.com/politica/audiencia-nacional-considera-pintar-gora-eta-delito-20231122005627-nt.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePardo MA (2022) \u0026laquo;Ernai Ezkerraldea derriba la cruz de la D\u0026aacute;rsena de Portu\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eDeia\u003c/em\u003e, March 22, 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2022/03/22/ernai-ezkerraldea-derriba-cruz-darsena-1722922.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2022/03/22/ernai-ezkerraldea-derriba-cruz-darsena-1722922.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez P\u0026eacute;rez JA (2013) \u0026laquo;Historia (y memoria) del antifranquismo en el Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco\u0026raquo;. Cuad de Historia Contempor\u0026aacute;nea 35(0):41\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42648\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5209/rev_CHCO.2013.v35.42648\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreston P (1986) The triumph of democracy in Spain. Methuen, London, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRalph J (2014) \u0026laquo;Graffiti archaeology\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Global Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e, edited by C. Smith, 3102\u0026ndash;3107. New York: Springer\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRedondo Rodelas J (2005) Franco rompe el \u0026laquo;cintur\u0026oacute;n de hierro\u0026raquo;: (junio 1937). Unidad Editorial, Madrid\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRocks-Macqueen D (2015) \u0026laquo;Graffiti Archaeologists!\u0026raquo; \u003cem\u003eDoug\u0026rsquo;s Archaeology Investigating the Profession and Research\u003c/em\u003e (blog). October 28, 2015. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/graffiti-archaeologists/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/graffiti-archaeologists/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodrigo J (2017) \u0026laquo;On Fascistization: Mussolini\u0026rsquo;s Political Project for Franco\u0026rsquo;s Spain, 1937\u0026ndash;1939\u0026raquo;. J Mod Italian Stud 22(4):469\u0026ndash;487. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1354571X.2017.1350024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRojas J (2021) \u0026laquo;Ernai derrumba la cruz de Lemoa\u0026raquo;, \u003cem\u003eCadena SER\u003c/em\u003e, October 11, 2021. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cadenaser.com/emisora/2021/10/11/radio_bilbao/1633963923_297198.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cadenaser.com/emisora/2021/10/11/radio_bilbao/1633963923_297198.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRolando Rico N, Pe\u0026ntilde;a-Mu\u0026ntilde;oz A (2021) \u0026laquo;Estudio hist\u0026oacute;rico-arqueol\u0026oacute;gico del Conjunto Monumental Franquista ubicado en Lemoatx (Lemoa, Bizkaia)\u0026raquo;. Associaci\u0026oacute; Mem\u0026ograve;ria Soterrada, Lemoa Udala, Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubio-Campillo X, Feliu Torruella M, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez Cantera T (2021) \u0026laquo;Datos, patrones y narrativas: Nuevas perspectivas sobre la Guerra Civil y la represi\u0026oacute;n franquista a partir de la visualizaci\u0026oacute;n de datos abiertos\u0026raquo;. \u003cem\u003eEbre 38: revista internacional de la Guerra Civil, 1936\u0026ndash;1939\u003c/em\u003e 10:147\u0026ndash;167. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hysd7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.31219/osf.io/hysd7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantamarina Otaola J (2019) \u0026laquo;Guerrillas, terrorismos y antiterrorismos: Conceptos, materialidades y paisajes del conflicto armado reciente en el Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco\u0026raquo;. In \u003cem\u003ePostguerres\u003c/em\u003e, edited by T. Abell\u0026oacute; i G\u0026uuml;ell,G.C. Catinni, V. Gav\u0026iacute;n Munt\u0026eacute; 1155\u0026ndash;1176. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantamarina Otaola J (2022) \u0026laquo;Euzkadi-ko lur-ganian: arqueolog\u0026iacute;a del paisaje de la guerra civil en el Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco (1936\u0026ndash;1950)\u0026raquo;. PhD dissertation. Universidad del Pa\u0026iacute;s Vasco, 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/58540\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://addi.ehu.es/handle/10810/58540\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchofield J (2005) Combat archaeology: material culture and modern conflict. Duckworth, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSegovia J (2016) \u0026laquo;Un a\u0026ntilde;o de c\u0026aacute;rcel para el joven que aleg\u0026oacute; que hizo pintadas a favor de ETA porque iba bastante bebido\u0026raquo;, \u003cem\u003eCadena SER\u003c/em\u003e, May 4, 2016. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iustel.com/diario_del_derecho/noticia.asp?ref_iustel=1108595\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iustel.com/diario_del_derecho/noticia.asp?ref_iustel=1108595\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelejan IL (2021) \u0026laquo;Vandalism as Symbolic Reparation: Imaginaries of Protest in Nicaragua\u0026raquo;. Camb J Anthropol 39(2):19\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3167/cja.2021.390203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3167/cja.2021.390203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteer GL (1963) El \u0026aacute;rbol de Guernica. Ediciones Gudari, Caracas\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorr\u0026uacute;s A (2017) \u0026laquo;La Audiencia ha condenado al menos a 30 personas por enaltecimiento de ETA y/o los Grapo desde 2016\u0026raquo;, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026uacute;blico\u003c/em\u003e, October 29, 2017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.publico.es/sociedad/deriva-justicia-audiencia-condenado-30.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.publico.es/sociedad/deriva-justicia-audiencia-condenado-30.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVeiras X, Soto MA (2011) La conflictividad de las plantaciones de eucalipto en Espa\u0026ntilde;a (y Portugal). Greenpeace, Madrid\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVella C, Bocancea E, Urban TM, Knodell AR, Tuttle CA, Alcock SE (2015) \u0026laquo;Looting and Vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting Modern Damage to Archaeological Heritage in Petra\u0026rsquo;s Hinterland\u0026raquo;. J Field Archaeol 40(2):221\u0026ndash;235. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson JZ (2008) Prison: Cultural memory and dark tourism. Peter Lang, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZ\u0026aacute;rate C (2020) \u0026laquo;Da\u0026ntilde;an por segunda vez el Cintur\u0026oacute;n de Hierro de Urduliz\u0026raquo;, \u003cem\u003eDEIA\u003c/em\u003e, May 6, 2020. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2020/05/06/danan-segunda-vez-cinturon-hierro-4707197.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.deia.eus/bizkaia/2020/05/06/danan-segunda-vez-cinturon-hierro-4707197.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Girona","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"vandalism, war heritage, graffiti, Bilbao’s Iron Belt, Spanish Civil War, Basque Country.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe archaeological traces of warfare define a complex heritage scenario as these traumatic historical events generate contested political narratives. The Republican fortified line known as Bilbao’s Iron Belt reflects the tensions of the different narratives surrounding the Spanish Civil War in the Basque Country. These tensions sometimes are materialised through vandalism actions (abandonment, graffiti, destruction), which counterpose new visions to the official narrative. This article explores the vandalism around the iconic Iron Belt heritage through a selection of three sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults show that this is a widespread phenomenon and that, in some cases, it has become a chronic problem. Moreover, in those sites where vandalism actions have a clear intention for vindication, as in the case of political graffiti, they are directly related to their socio-cultural context. Beyond the intention of these (re)actions that transform archaeological heritage to claim alternative political narratives, we wonder if they also seek to promote a \u003cem\u003edamnatio memoriae\u003c/em\u003e process. We also raise the question whether these graffiti can also be worth preserving as a symbol of present-day heritage-related activities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Counter-memories of the Spanish Civil War: vandalism of Bilbao’s Iron Belt fortified line (Basque Country)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-02 17:09:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6338821/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7e59ce85-02f9-4c90-aa94-c53d393e6dfa","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":46517012,"name":"Archaeology"},{"id":46517013,"name":"History"},{"id":46517014,"name":"Cultural Studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-02T17:09:36+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-02 17:09:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6338821","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6338821","identity":"rs-6338821","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}