In their lucid and thought-provoking paper, Carolina Andersson, Agneta Lagerlof and Eva Skyllberg clearly identify the looming quandary of contemporary archaeology: how can we promote our professional concerns with scientific and patrimonial ‘quality’ in a context increas ingly dominated by (often short-term) economic and political considerations? Almost twenty years have passed since the Valletta Convention called for the reconciliation of archaeology and spatial planning (CoE treaty n° 143, 1992), but some European countries still remain ambivalent or uncertain regarding the systems they have chosen to implement. In terms of their overall policies on archaeological heritage management, Sweden and France are both clearly on the ‘public service’ end of the spectrum, where the state is expected to take re sponsibility over threatened archaeological remains and then control the quality of their protection and study (cf. Demoule 2002; Demoule 2010; Willems & Van den Dries 2007:10; Kristiansen 2009:643 ff). Given these affinities, some recent experiences in French archaeology can well serve as examples – or indeed as cautionary tales – for the un folding situation in Sweden. A brief terminological excursus will clear the way, insofar as both Swedish and French can offer some linguistic depths vis-a-vis the lin­ gua franca. In the critical spirit of this paper, the casual expression ‘de velopment-led archaeology’ appears difficult to uphold. It builds on an ambiguity in the English language between a wide-ranging and noble notion of development (‘sustainable’, ‘social’, ‘cultural’) and the more