we must be aware of clear trends that favour the preservation of some items over others, with an emphasis on monumental remains, and even of some archaeological periods over others [1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6]. All heritage should be considered socially valuable, and the recording and understanding of historical objects as the remains of human action in its natural environment must be regarded as a priority [7]. This is related to the meaning of archaeology. Why? For what purpose? And, for whom? The previous questions directly interrogate the theoretical stance adopted by every archaeological project [8; 9]. In this way, heritage is understood as historic legacy, a product of a cultural and historical process on which our identity rests. We are interested in popularising historical heritage, and for that we need to understand what it means, reflecting on the ownership, exploitation, and enjoyment of this social asset [10]. Naturally, this leads to questions such as 'what is that is being bequeathed?' and 'who has a say on what is bequeathed?' We are convinced that heritage is historically, socially, and culturally contingent and must be turned into a cultural asset [10; 11]. This demands a relational reading of archaeology as a product of history, as cultural heritage, which inevitably affects our views on valorisation. We need to shed off unidirectional approaches and accept that the collective perception of these assets is the result of historical and social processes [4; 10; 12]. One of the main fields of interest for our research team is the study of large caves with long archaeological sequences [13], as well as of small settlements of hunters-gatherers-fishers, rock shelters, small caves, and open-air settlements, and the everyday life of the prehistoric communities that inhabited them [14]. The digital techniques presented here intend to make the knowledge acquired by our research team available to society. This also includes requesting that preservation policies overcome the monumentalism of some management models, arguing for a heritage policy that integrates all records (rock shelters, small caves, villages, towns, huts, and archaeological finds...) in their territorial context to improve the everyday life of local communities [14]. To date, the socialisation and communication of research [15] has crystallised in public talks, open days, etc., in addition to standard dissemination through scientific publications. For this reason, the need to adopt a consistent approach to the three aspects of the archaeological process--research, preservation, and socialisation--is undeniable. Our site is peculiar from an administrative point of view. The land is owned by the Spanish Ministry of Defence, which has to authorise all works. Although, in Spain, heritage matters have been devolved to regional governments, in this instance the authorisation depends on the Spanish Ministry of Culture. In the city of Ceuta, therefore, heritage policies follow the Historical Heritage Act (Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio), which guarantees the involvement of the public administration in the protection of historical heritage from private interests. In this context, the Benzu rock shelter and cave was declared Bien de Interes Cultural (BIC, the maximum protection figure in Spain) in 2008, (B.O.E. 242, 7 October 2008, p. 40394). BICs are included in a list of movable and immovable items that are regarded as important from a heritage point of view, and this theoretically affords them a degree of protection. Among other things, BICs are considered in relation to their environment, which must also be protected by public bodies. Despite this legal protection, the site of Benzu rock shelter and cave has been deteriorating owing to the activity of the quarry located in Mogote de Benzu, including the collapse of the front ceiling, falling blocks of rock downslope, and fissures. This is causing serious damage to the site, as well as putting the nearby village of Cabililla de Benzu at risk.