THE DISPUTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CULTURAL HERITAGE

GÖRAN GRUBER This article deals with the conflict about the responsibility for costs in connection with contract archaeology. Today, according to Swedish legislation, whoever wants to disturb, move, or destroy an antiquity must pay for the archaeological excavation. The starting point for the article is an empirical case from the province of Östergötland to which an actor perspective is applied. The case is also placed in a context to do with tendencies towards change and the discussion in recent years concerning the cultural heritage and national memory policy. By showing features of continuity and discontinuity in cultural heritage management the author seeks to reveal and reflect on the dilemmas surrounding the legislation, which dates back to the r9yos and is questioned by many.


Göran Grrrber
As archaeologists we are all familiar with the conflict about the responsibility for antiquities in connection with land development.
Many of us working in contract archaeology encounter it every day. Landowners, private entrepreneurs, local authoritiesthe developers/ entrepreneurs'wonder why they should have to pay for a particular archaeological excavation. The answers we give usually refer to the law cited above, which can be traced back to the seventeenth century and is "the world's oldest law on ancient monuments". Alternatively, we hide behind the decision of the regional authority, saying that we as archaeologists have simply been contracted to do the job. If this does not satisfy the entrepreneurs we try to argue that the antiquities actually represent important scientific values and that these are a part of "our shared cultural heritage". But is this answer enough, or is it the case that we are mostly unable to answer those who ask?
That there is a conflict over the issue of responsibility is nothing new.
Ultimately it reflects the tension between the state monument policy and the private/municipal monument policy, and that the goals set up for the cultural heritage, the antiquities, are not always the same. One explanation is that, while the state level emphasizes the overall national cultural benefit, a concrete and more practically oriented policy is relevant in the local context. This dichotomy may be far too simple. In recent decades contract archaeology has repeatedly been the subject of public inquiries. The focus of these has been, above all, on defects in the archaeological system and its organization. On the other hand, it may be noted that questions concerning the responsibility for costs have been ignored (SOU zoo':8o). We may ask whether these issues are regarded as unproblematic, and whether the question of responsibility has been settled once and for all.
In the work on my doctoral dissertation I have had reason to approach the question of cost responsibility on an empirical basis. This concerns a specific conflict occasioned by development on the Kvarnbacken industrial estate in the town of Vadstena, situated in the province of Östergötland. Work with the case has not been about trying to determine whether one actor or the other has been "right" or "wrong" from a legal, moral, 1 In the rest of the article 1 choose the term "entrepreneur" in accordance with the definition in the National Heritage Board's rules and general recommendations for the implementation of chapter 2, sections 10 -13 of the Heritage Conservation Act (19()():950) (KRFS 2007:2).Alongside the more positive)y charged term "entrepreneur" (Swedish företagare), we should note that this group of actors often goes under the name "developers" (Swedish exploatorer), which is considered to have less favourable connotations of exploitation. or other point of view. Instead the study has given an opportunity to examine the different actors' rhetoric and argumentation about antiquities and archaeology. By analysing different material on the matterdocuments, newspaper texts, and interviews -I have tried to come close to the actors and how they speak about what has happened. What are their goals? What values do they ascribe to the antiquities in general and the archaeological remains at Kvarnbacken in particular? What does the mobilization process between the actors look like in this case?
When it comes to the application of the Heritage Conservation Act, it has been noticed that this varies considerably in different parts of the country (SOU zoo':8o). I have looked at a case in the province of Östergötland. Since work on the dissertation is still in progress, I will not present any direct results here. Instead, basing myself on the arguments used in the conflict, combined with more general discussions about the cultural heritage and a look into the latest inquiry into contract archaeology, I will examine the question of continuity and discontinuity in cultural heritage management. This provides a background for asking questions of a reflective character concerning the issue of responsibility in connection with land development. The starting point for my study is that different actors meet in local contexts concerning cases of contract archaeology. The actors have differing goals, interests, working methods, and understandings of each other, which means they can easily end up in conflict with each other. It is therefore important to try to ascertain what these structures look like in order to be able to handle them.

Contract archaeology
Stig Welinder (zoo' ) has drawn a picture showing how Swedish archaeology since the end of the nineteenth century has been divided into a university subject on the one hand and a concrete practice on the other, the latter mainly consisting of institutions responsible for the cultural heritage, such as museums and public authorities. It is in the interaction between these two "poles"the academy and the administration that archaeology is to be understood. According to Welinder archaeology in the twentieth century changed in pace with the political will, societal ideologies, and the general debate about society and culture.
Economic growth, higher standards of living, democratization, and the education explosion are some factors reflected in the growth of archaeology. During this century archaeology as a field has been in harmony CURRENT SwEDISHAROHAEDLocYyvoL 17 2009 with the public sphere rather than in conflict with it.
Contract archaeology is a clear reflection of this. This is an activity that arises as a consequence of the need for modern society to develop. The post-war era was a time when the welfare state -"the people's home" Ewas built. The nation was the people, which required national unity and cultural uniformity. Archaeology became a part of this construction, a part of the modern project. In the report issued by experts on cultural heritage management in 1938 there was a proposal to revise the current Ancient Monuments Act. One suggestion was that enterprises affecting an ancient monument should themselves bear the costs of a special excavation of it or the measures required to preserve it (Adlercreutz zoor:z9). This practice was introduced in the Act of r9yz (SFS r9qz:3go), and today it is part of the Cultural Heritage Act (SFS t988:9go).
When it comes to contract archaeology there is a well-established narrative of the field's development from the late r9gos onwards. A canon that we find, for example, in public inquiries (SOU zoo':8o). It concerns how the work initially had a goal that was exclusively antiquarian and practical, namely the objective collection of finds and the documentation of archaeological remains. The role of the universities was to do research on this material, while the task of the museums was (besides taking part in the work of contract archaeology) to exhibit the results to the general public. The construction of the new society meant that contract archaeology expanded vigorously. This created an imbalance between society's need to develop and the interests of cultural heritage management, and contract archaeology was forced to give priority to the antiquarian and practical routines and tone down its responsibility for research and mediation (Holmström zoor). The professionalization of archaeology in the latter part of the twentieth century is considered to have had the consequence that it simultaneously lost its dialogue with the general public and isolated itself from the surrounding world in its expert role (Gustafsson R Karlsson zoo').
Since the r99os the goal of the work has changed towards an increasingly explicit scientific character. In recent years the aim has been broadened as a consequence of factors such as the broader view of cultural policy. We can read that society's "expectation of contract archaeology should be that it must contribute to expanded knowledge The disputed responsibility for the cultural heri tage which will ultimately but also directly benefit the citizens". Not just research but the whole of society is regarded as the recipient of the results of contract archaeology (SOU zoo':8ot tz, 8).
On an ideological, economic, and structural level, contract archaeology can be viewed in the tension between a practice and a science, and it may be said to be an expression of the exercise of authority and archaeological practice. The law as an extension of policy is the power that is supposed to dictate the framework for the work. The scientific part has been increasingly emphasized, but above all there has recently been an adjustment to the so-called market, which includes fluctuations in the economic cycle affecting development, purchasing procedures, and internal competition, utilitarian aspects of knowledge generation, and so on. Contract archaeology is part of a larger field, cultural heritage management, and today it is at the intersection between different spheres of politics and regulation, scientific theory and method, and the market.

Fields of tension and shi ftsi n values
In recent years the interest in the past is said to have increased. In various contexts there is talk of "the return of history" on a broad front, after a crisis when the utility of history was unclear to many. We are said to be increasingly turning to the past with the expectation that it will help us understand and feel equipped for today's and tomorrow's challenges (Kristensson-Uggla z, ooz; Karlsson zoo'). The interest in the past naturally also includes both the cultural heritage and archaeology, whose public relations have been and still are discussed (Nilsson R Karlsson z, ooz ; Petersson zooz. ; Holtorf z, oog, Holtorf zoo'; Svanberg R H. Wahlgren zoo'). Academics have called into question the national framework of archaeology and cultural heritage management. This critique is based, for example, on the idea that there is no fixed and final history, since everyone participates as we shape and are shaped by the past. Quite simply, there is no longer talk of a uniform culture or a linear history; instead the emphasis is on the many small narratives about the past and on the future as many different possibilities (Jensen r c1 c1 y).
Cultural policy is one of the tools used by the state to legitimize its power vis-a-vis the citizens (Harding zoo'). In the rhetoric about national cultural policy, of which cultural heritage policy is a part, the earlier outlook on culture has likewise been partly abandoned. This is a consequence of the changes in society in recent decades, an attempt to cope with globalization, democratization, and multiculturalization.
CURRENT SWEDISH ARCILAEOLOGY, Voc i y, soos Cöran Cruber Alongside defending and preserving the cultural heritage, there is also stress on the need for everyone to understand, participate in, and assume responsibility for the cultural environment and national and international solidarity, and to respect the cultural heritage of different groups. In anticipation of the new public inquiry into cultural policy, the person in charge, Eva Swartz, said the integration issue is in fact the greatest challenge of cultural policy (Dagens Nyheter z8 June zoo').
The consequences for the state administration of the cultural heritage and historic monuments as a result of a growing and increasingly polyvalent concept of cultural heritage have been the subject of discussion in recent years, and one of the questions asked is: "What does the state want to do with the cultural heritage?" (Beckman r Lagg).
In the discussion of the future role of the cultural heritage, two lines can be noted: (r) continued strong state control of cultural heritage management; (z) a vigorous reform of this (Aronsson zooma). According to the former, cultural heritage and its management is not something that arose spontaneously and autonomously from the heart of the people but has its roots as an aspect of social policy. To hand over "antiquarian power" entirely to representatives at the local level, to public opinion and municipal politicians, would therefore be "dangerous and naive". Instead the role of the state expert is emphasized, that the central task and responsibility of heritage management must be to assume the pedagogical responsibility, to make the objects and sites "speak". By reflecting the differentness of bygone societies, heritage management can contribute to an understanding of today's cultural pluralism and thus fulfil a living need in society (Pettersson z. oog :z paff. ).
The latter line questions the task of heritage management to identify and highlight for other parts of society what is to be included in the shared cultural heritage. Debaters here call for a clearer rejection of the nationalist foundation of heritage policy. The aim of heritage management, according to Jonas Grundberg, must be that "as many citizens as possible should be given the opportunity to take part in the varied cultural heritage processes that together express people's will to root themselves in time and place with each other through their local culture and environment" (Grundberg zooo: r o g). Letting cultural heritage processes in society arise and be shaped by people from below increases the citizens' mandate for the administration of heritage managementalthough, as he stresses, it should still have the right to determine the "norms and forms" and "suppress" negative expressions (ibid. ). At the same time, Grundberg questions the role of the cultural and historical fields as arenas for establishing consensus and legitimacy for the political system. He suggests that the values that hold society together today might have been moved to other political fields than cultural policy (Grundberg zoo':Sz, ). Svante Beckman (z,oog) applies a broader perspective when he sketches the changes in the perception of the value of the cultural heritage in recent years. If the goals used to be of a national character, with the emphasis on preserving, caring, and exhibiting/educating, then these have been increasingly replaced by goals for which the cultural heritage is a resource not only for individual welfare but also for social and economic development in society. Beckman points out three clear tendencies to change: Change in actors' patterns, flows of resources, and controlthe reduced significance of public authorities in favour of the market and the growing significance of the entire cultural heritage field.
Change in values, goals, and functionshere there has been an adaptation to democratic and multicultural patterns of thought.
Changes in the people, the public, i.e. , the receiversat the end of the twentieth century these became consumers whom the cultural heritage institutions serve on the culture-history market, providing them with experiences, entertainment, knowledge, local identity, etc.
Anders Frenander (zoog) sums up the situation for Swedish cultural policy overall as a struggle between, on the one hand, the goals of cultural policy as a humanist and social rationality and, on the other hand, increasingly powerful economic interests. In this tension he thinks that we can see a reduced role for politics and a rise in the power and influence of the "economic sphere". For example, culture, especially in regional and local contexts, is increasingly seen as a means to boost competitiveness and attract investments and jobs.
A focus for today In February z, ooq the then government decided to appoint a person to inquire into "certain issues" in the field of contract archaeology. A system that is regarded as consisting of three main parties/actors: the authorities in the cultural heritage sector, those undertaking the development (the entrepreneurs), and the institution contracted to do the archaeological excavation (SOU zoo':8o). s The inquiry was a consequence of the fact that the parliamentary auditors in a report criticized the way in which contract archaeology and its organization functioned. Unlike the suggestion put forward by the auditors, the Standing Committee on Culture restricted the inquiry so that it would not consider issues to do with the Public Purchasing Act. Instead the directive was, among other things, to perform an analysis summing up how contract archaeology contributes to and achieves the goals of cultural policy. In considering how the current rules were followed, the focus here was above all on the National Heritage Board and the Country Administrative Boards. " The directive also included the task of analysing how contract archaeology reports its results and communicates knowledge to the public. A concrete assignment was to review the work of the excavation departments of the National Heritage Board and suggest a future organization.
An important conclusion of the inquiry is that the regional authoritiesthe County Administrative Boardstoo often are weak purchasers of contract archaeology. It argues that the excavating institutions have far too much opportunity to steer the scope and ambition of the excavation. Three reasons for this are pointed out: (r) the scant resources of the County Administrative Boards which make it difficult for the regional authority to fulfil its duties; (z) lack of training and information measures which means that the staff are not sufficiently familiar with the rules and how they should be applied; (g) the application of the rules being influenced by the attitudes of the authorities and their staff. As regards the latter, the inquiry found that contract archaeology in certain respects is highly traditional, and accustomed methods and patterns are difficult to change.
The inquiry into contract archaeology also stresses that, if the credibility of the contract archaeology system is to be maintained, it is important that the costs are not higher than warranted. The best way to keep the costs down is to avoid interfering with antiquities, which is also the intention of the legislation. It is therefore important that developers and authorities together have access at an early stage to information about the occurrence of antiquities and are thus given a chance to steer the development so that any interference can be avoided or minimized. Further, it is considered important to increase competition for contracts between the excavating institutions/companies. Increased competition is expected to bring high quality and cost-efficiency. This should not be viewed as a goal but as a means to use and distribute resources more efficiently.
One of the concrete suggestions of the inquiry is that, if the "legitimacy" of contract archaeology is to be maintained, it is important that its results are made available in various ways to the recipients: to academia, to the citizens, and to the planners. Above all the inquiry stresses that the findings of major archaeological projects should be easily accessible and that this, unlike the situation today, should be a part of the excavation and be covered by the developer's cost responsibility.
We may observe briefly here that in the new recommendations from the National Heritage Board for zooy concerning the implementation of the second chapter of the Heritage Conservation Act, which were issued after the inquiry into contract archaeology, the focus is entirely on the relationship between the authorities and those contracted to excavate, in line with the findings of the inquiry. The relationship between the entrepreneurs and the authorities is limited to a few lines about information as to how the entrepreneurs should act and consultation about consequences and other matters. The general public are regarded as recipients of results in connection with archaeological excavations (KRFS z, ooy:z).

KVARNBACKEN, VADSTENA
In the spring of z, ooy the company ABS Pump Production AB began to extend its factory in the town ofVadstena. The reason was that the company wanted to concentrate its production of specially manufactured pumps in one factory. This entailed stopping the manufacture in a factory in the town of Mölndal on the Swedish west coast. By pure chance, an archaeologist from Östergötland County Museum was passing the site in Vadstena during the initial phase of the construction. She wondered whether the rather large digging operation that was in progress had been preceded by an archaeological investigation. The archaeolo- gist contacted the Östergötland County Administrative Board to ask about this. On y May z.ooy the assistant county director of monuments and sites visited the place and noticed that there were exposed skeletal parts which had been disturbed by the digging. This later turned out to be the remains of a late medieval place of execution and burial along with a Viking Age grave of a woman and child.
The County Administrative Board immediately stopped the work in progress. An archaeological excavation of the site was then ordered in two stages. Right from the start the remains caused uncertainty as to who should pay for the excavation. The company claimed that the detailed development plan for the area lacked any information about known antiquities. The County Administrative Board, on the other hand, said that the authority, in a statement concerning the plan, had warned that there could be antiquities in the area but the local authority, in its final version of the plan, had not paid any attention to this warning.
In this initial phase the County Administrative Board stood its ground and the company paid for the first excavation (a type of preliminary investigation). But when it turned out that a complete excavation of the site would cost around tloo, ooo SEK the company was no longer interested in paying for excavations. Instead ABS Pump Production AB appealed against the decision by the County Administrative 118 CURRENT SIvEDISH ARcHAEDLDGY, VDL r7, 200' The disputed responsibility for the crdtnral heritage Board and sued the state, through the National Heritage Board, in the Property Court in Linköping. The company argued that the antiquity was previously unknown and that the regional authority had moreover misled the company into paying for an excavation of an area that they had not intended to develop at all.
In this situation we can understand from the source material that the National Heritage Board agreed with the company that the antiquity was unknown before the development and that the state should therefore pay the cost of the archaeology. But because of a legal technicality, no such decision was made; instead the court stayed the proceedings. The matter dragged on. After a while, perhaps at the urging of the court (the sources are uncertain here), the County Administrative Board and the company met to arrange a settlement. As a result, the company agreed to pay z, oo,ooo SEK of the excavation costs while the state would pay the balance. When the National Heritage Board learned about this, this central authority declared that the settlement was impossible; according to them the antiquity was unknown. Moreover, the National Heritage Board thought that if the company had erred by not stopping the work when the skeleton was exposed, the County Administrative Board ought to have reported the matter to the police. Instead the National Heritage Board decided that the state should bear the entire cost of the excavation.
As will be evident from this brief presentation of the events at Kvarnbacken, it is a rather turbulent case. This text is not the right place to reveal all the details. In the following I shall instead single out three of the actors: the company, the County Administrative Board, and the local authority. The County Museum and the National Heritage Board are naturally also interesting stakeholders in the decision-making game, buthere I have chosen to ignore them in order to clarify the main local and regional lines of conflict. The actors' primary goals ABS Pump Production AB is a company in the Cardo group and is a global as well as local actor working on a commercial basis. ' The main aim of the factory expansion was to concentrate production to become more competitive. The antiquity that was unexpectedly uncov-ered initially came as a major threat. The company's representatives were afraid that the construction would be stopped, with enormous costs as a result. It soon turned out that the location of the skeletons would not be an obstacle to the continuation of the work. This was not a concrete problem, then. On the other hand, the company did question its responsibility for the archaeological costs, largely because they were so high.
The local authority acts in accordance with local political conditions. For Vadstena the political rhetoric largely concerns how the municipality should manage as independently as possible. Having previously been a part of the large municipality of Motala, Vadstena is still dependent on the former central place because so many people from Vadstena work there. The municipality is also both a shrinking and an ageing population, which is viewed as a serious problem. During the period studied here, the municipality was governed by a coalition of conservatives and social democrats. Together they said they had "laid aside their ideological differences to work with practical development policies". Quick decisions were a key word, and when ABS Pump Production AB was granted planning permission the political leadership praised the building committee in the local media for the short processing time.
Tourism is important for Vadstena. Every year about zoo, ooo people visit the town. The municipal rhetoric is full of pride in the historical monuments such as the castle and the convent church, and the figures associated with them, Gustav Vasa and Saint Bridget. But local politicians are simultaneously aware that Vadstena "cannot live on the castle", and therefore the expansion of ABS Pump Production AB was important, not just because of the new jobs it would bring but also for establishing the image of Vadstena as an industrial town. They were anxious to spread this image alongside the already established one, that of Vadstena as a town of culture, heritage, and tourism.
The County Administrative Board is an actor representing the state. Its main aim or task in this connection is to "supervise cultural heritage management in the county" according to the Heritage Conservation Act. Among other things, this means fulfilling the preservation intentions in the Act, and, if any exception to this has to be made, to decide on the conditions imposed on the developerfor example, the extent, ambition, and costs of excavation. As for Kvarnbacken, the task became a concrete action in that the Board had to ensure that The disp&&ted responsihility fo& the c«lt«ral heritage l ig L In the foreground is an archaeologist from Östergötland County Museum, which was the &nstitution contracted to per form the excavations at Kvarn backen in Vadstena, Ostergötland. In the background we can see the steel skeleton of the new factory being bu&lt for ABS Pump Production AB. Photo: Lmma Karlsson. the exposed skeletal parts were retrieved and documented before they disintegrated. Decisions were made as to what should happen to the site and the antiquity in the future, which meant an excavation of the site, to be paid for by the company and carried out by Östergötland County Museum. Values ascribed to anticiuitieslarchaeolo~& "History is important" is a direct quotation from one of the actors. But when it comes to the actors involved in the Kvarnbacken case, one could say that there is general agreement about this statement. Everyone expresses a similar opinion. What is meant by it is the necessity to excavate, document, and collect finds from the site and thus generate valuable new knowledge about the pastknowledge which can then be spread, or trickle down, to the general public. All three actors can be said to link this to a national narrative about the past. Here Vadstena with its remains is something of a "national interest". Archaeology is regarded as a jigsaw puzzle, with each excavation contributing a small piece to the whole picture. This is reminiscent of the uniform national culture mentioned above. It is Sweden's history that has to be excavated. Ideas about everyone participating and multicultural perspectives on history, on the other hand, are absent. E'g 3 One of the antiquities excavated at Kvarnbacken was a late medieval place ofexecution and burial used from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. A total of about a 3 individuals were identified, and in seven cases it was definitely established that the person had been beheaded. Photo: Emma Karlsson. For the municipal politicians, new historical knowledge about Vadstena reinforces the important role of the place in the past. Ultimately it gives "pride" to the inhabitants. They are concerned about the history of the town, its monuments and historical persons. But there is a dilemma in this. While history and the cultural heritage are an important part of the town's identity and tourism in Vadstena, recurrent archaeological excavations are a problem and an obstacle to the development of the town. Since the whole town centre is one large antiquity, the politicians wonder about the value of yet another archaeological investigation in yet another street trench. Here a concrete utilitarian perspective is applied to archaeology and its results. And this in tum is set up against concrete economic values. They note, for example, that archaeology and its results are of no significance at all in a tourist context. Not even the results of such a spectacular site as Kvarnbacken mean very much here. "We have enough cultural heritage, we don't need any more, " says one politician. "Who is to look after all the knowledge, who can grasp it all?" they ask. "We, the local authority, can't do it. " Instead they view "the state" as the passive recipient of the knowledge, that is, everyone together, the citizens. They therefore think that it must be the state that bears the costs of archaeology, not individual landowners or the local authority, as this only obstructs local development.
When it comes to the utilitarian aspect, the company feels that it does not gain anything from archaeology. "We won't sell a single extra 122 CURRENT SvvEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL t y, E00g The dispFIted responsihility for the cvltttral heritage pump because of this. " There may be a few "goodwill effects" derived from archaeology. The company is visible in the newspapers. Moreover, the excavation itself was something of an event that could be shown off to customers and other visitors. At the same time, we may note that it seems to be important for the company to show a benevolent attitude to the past since it is situated in a historically charged town like Vadstena. The company needs to have good relations with the local people as well as with its own employees. When it comes to the employees, moreover, many of them thought that the company had to take responsibility for the antiquity and for what had happened. Since the study was conducted, the company has also financed a small-scale exhibition in the entrance hall. But this type of goodwill gesture must be regarded as something that counts for. little in its commercial thinking, and a spokesman of the company has declared that "large economic values are at stake when we look for old values".
The County Administrative Board stresses the cognitive values above all, that is, the knowledge acquired by excavating, documenting, and collecting. This follows the intentions of the law, to try to generate as much new knowledge as possible from every excavation in proportion to a reasonable cost. The County Administrative Board also expresses emotive values when it says that it is unsuitable to let the burial place remain within the industrial estate. It is interesting that the County Administrative Board also discusses the antiquity in terms of economic development. The costs for archaeology are considered "reasonable", but it is felt that it is up to other actors to create additional economic value based on the result. The Board does not put forward any ideas of its own as to how this should be done; instead there are statements such as: "Do something exciting, write a book. " Furthermore, they argue that, since the state's right to a site is annulled after the removal of an antiquity, this enables the developer to use the place and this in tum generates income.

Mobilizati on process
We may observe that the actors' goals range from private enterprise to local development policy to national preservation policy, and in this case there are shared interests above all between the first two. As regards the values that the actors ascribe to the cultural heritage in general and antiquities/archaeology in particular, there is a distinct consensus among all three actors which is linked to knowledge about the past in CURREÄT SIVFOISI I ARCFIREOLOGY VOL I 7, L00&g l23 relation to a national Swedish history. What constitutes a conflict in this, however, is how this field of policy is to be weighted in relation to other fields of policy. When it comes to the crunch, the national goals for. the cultural heritage and antiquities are of little weight in the local context. At the same time, it may be noted that what is associated with the late-modern experience industry is still valued less than the modern manufacturing industry. This applies even in a place like Vadstena, which is often described as a town of culture and tourism. The imbalance between cognitive and national values and the local development gives rise to the mobilization process in the Kvarnbacken case. Here the actors use different technologies and resources in the form of economic capital, municipal self-government, party-political organization, public opinion, the power of the state, etc, in this process.
In the Kvarnbacken case we can see how both the company and the local authority in different ways pursue the issue of cost responsibility rather hard. Both believe that today's situation makes the antiquities an obstacle and they call for a change in the system or the rules so that the state will intervene and cover the costs of archaeological excavation. In the concrete case this is reflected, for example, in the suit brought by the company. They thought that the County Administrative Board had acted wrongly and they had the financial muscle to argue their. case in court. The local authority chiefly asserted its stance on Kvarnbacken through statements in the local newspapers. When it comes to their own antiquities cases, although the local authority says that it accepts the current legislation, we can understand that the municipal officials constantly search for creative solutions to minimize and avoid the costs of archaeology. In the case of Kvarnbacken perhaps we should also interpret the statement in the detailed development plan for the area in relation to what the County Administrative Board has said on the matter. The politicians act within the political system in order to bring about the change in the law that they consider necessary. They do this through bills in parliament and motions at party congresses. The County Administrative Board is also dissatisfied with the present situation, yet its aim is not to change the system but instead to tighten the application of the existing legislation. As regards the outcome of the Kvarnbacken case, the Board thinks that this has spread the idea among other local authorities in Östergötland that it is all right to dig first and then the state will come along and pay, a belief that must be eliminated. There is also discontent with what the local authority in 124 CURRENT SIEEDIEH ARGI IREDLÜGY, VDL I 7, -009 The disp«ted respo»sibiiity for the c«lt«rai heritage pig q Alongside the cxecution and burial place there was a Viking Age grave of a woman and child. The grave is d;&tcd approximately to the tenth century. It has I& rich content of grave g&&ods including buckles, an equal-armed hrooch, Arabian silver coins converted into pendants, h&&nes of horse, cattle, pigs, and dog. One of the more sensational finds in the grave &vas parts of what &vas identified as a crucifix of burnt deer antler. Photo: Lmma Karlsson. Vadstena wrote in the detailed development plan for the Kvarnbacken area in relation to the statement issued by the Board. Moreover, the Board feels that the local authority mostly tries various ways to make the processing of individual cases more complicated and difficult.

THE DILEMMAS OF DISTRIBUTING RESPONSIBILITY
In the account above of the Kvarnbacken case, as well as of the cultural heritage and its management in general and contract archaeology in particular, we find elements of both continuity and discontinuity. The former is above all linked to state control. The law emphasizes the ambition to preserve, and exceptions to this are granted on condition that knowledge is generated. The aim may be said to be to live up to the historical ideas on which the whole of cultural heritage management is based, which are linked to a national policy, research, and state cultural engineering (Pettersson zoo' : tyg ).We find discontinuity in the perception that conditions have changed both for preservation activities and for the entire sector in the form of shifts in ideology, economy, and theory of science. Whether the relationship between this continuity and discontinuity should be viewed as applying mainly to the early twenty-first century or is a tension that has always existed would require a historical perspective that this article does not directly consider. On the other hand, the struggle between state and private memory policy is not new. Magdalena Hillström shows in her dissertation, for example, how the goal of state-regulated antiquarian research in the nineteenth century was monopoly research intended to serve as a political tool for writing the history of the state and public life. This was seriously questioned by contemporary private research, the goal of which was instead to ascertain what once happened in the country. For private research it was the history of the people, their customs and habits in different ages, that had to be traced in order to find "the innermost root of the people" (Hillström zoo6: 1 z. r).
The continuity and discontinuity that I have demonstrated in this text reflect how different values and norms that govern our action can in tum be connected to the values of modern and late-modern society respectively. This does not mean that one set of values was replaced by another at a distinct watershed. Instead they should be understood as existing in parallel, with a shift in the centre of gravity in pace with changes to society. From an actor perspective, moreover, they can also display contradictory logics. Modern society's view of the past and its knowledge production can therefore be described as a tenacious structure, or alternatively a "much-needed brake" on a late-modern reflexive attitude and visions of everyone's participation and multicultural expressions (Aronsson zooyb:gy; Andersson et al. zoo':rop).
The Kvarnbacken case shows how the traditional collective identity-creating values are still considered valid by the actors in the local and regional context. It is both the local and the national cognitive jigsaw puzzle that gives archaeology its legitimacy, and therefore it is considered important. In the local perspective there is an expectation that can be said to correspond to the goals highlighted hy, for example, the inquiry into contract archaeology: to contribute new knowledge which will ultimately benefit the citizens. "This means that it is the general public as much as research that is the recipient of the results of contract archaeology" (SOU zoo' :8o:1z8, my italics). The inquiry's interpretation is that archaeology today has a broader aim. For the critical reader, however, this is just a continuation of a traditional "trickle-down model" for the way knowledge is communicated to "the people". The responsibility that goes with following a more active and dialogic communication, which is linked in cultural policy to terms such as everyone's understanding of and participation in the cultural environment, is conspicuous by its absence.
Today it is true that there is increasing talk about the importance of the cultural heritage sector seeking to cooperate with other actors and other sectors in connection with local issues of cultural heritage and its management. Cooperation is regarded as a way to open up the operations to others and thereby increase the participation of both planners and citizens. But is this possible, for example, for the part that concerns contract archaeology? Can cooperation be on equal terms if one of the basic conditions, the responsibility for costs, is a subject of conflict and not accepted by all the parties? Can cooperation, regardless of how desirable it may be considered, be regarded as equal if it takes place under threat? As we noted earlier, it is in the economic sphere that we find the clearest shift of focus today. As a consequence of the economic rhetoric, the past, the cultural heritage, antiquities, archaeology, contract archaeology, and so on, have become commodities which are offered CURRENT SwEDIEH ARGHAEQLQGY, Voc i 7, zoo' to customers on various types of market. In late-modern society the cultural heritage can be said to be "both a polyvalent site for cultural consumption as well as a more unambivalent economic commodity for various strategies of economic regeneration and place promotion" (Dicks z, ooo: ge). Yet although the cultural heritage is taken for granted as a resource in local and regional development policy, archaeology, as in the Kvarnbacken case, finds it difficult to assert itself when the results are expected to show measurable economic benefits. In any individual case, the economic usefulness is unclear in relation to the costs. Just as in the nineteenth century, there is a tension today between a private (partly also municipal) and a state memory policy. In the early twenty-first century this has found expression in a conflict about the responsibility for costs in connection with land development. What rights should be ascribed to the landowner and who owns the antiquities? This is not a new conflict, and many readers will no doubt recognize the argumentation of the actors in the Kvarnbacken case.
This case reveals the doubts about national cultural heritage policy, the legislation, the exercise of authority. Yet it also shows how the regional authority, the state, marks its position of power as a way to react to these doubts. On the national level the state instead shows its power by adjustments in the contract archaeology system and its organization. Here the market is the tool whereby increased competition among a large number of contract archaeologists is supposed to guarantee good quality and low costs. As the state tries on different levels to strengthen its grip on contract archaeology through action, the rhetoric is simultaneously about the reform of the cultural heritage, from national uniformity to multicultural modes of thought. In other words, the continuity and discontinuity create a difficult imbalance here between national rhetoric and practice.
The inquiry into contract archaeology, which wanted a holistic approach to the activities, declared that the defects are not in the legislation but in the application of the system, which has led to an imbalance between, above all, the authorities and the contracted archaeologists. The entrepreneurs, the third actor in the system and those who bear the responsibility for costs, are represented in the inquiry chiefly by the state itself through the National Road Administration and the National Rail Administration. Based on the limitations imposed on the inquiry, I would describe its goal as being to maintain a traditional preservation perspective. The national and public goals of the cultural heritage had to be clarified and strengthened. The state did not give the inquiry any mandate to suggest fundamental or crucial changes to the system. Against the background of the continuity and discontinuity in today's activities, a question arises. Is the practice that was created with the Ancient Monuments Act in the rciqos legitimate and valid in the early twenty-first century as well? Is the foundation for cultural heritage management and contract archaeology the same today as it was then? If not, how is this to be reflected in the legislation on the distribution of responsibility?
Translated by Alan Crozier