{"id":10609,"date":"2024-05-28T15:27:05","date_gmt":"2024-05-28T12:27:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.utu.fi\/hiiskuttua\/?p=10609"},"modified":"2024-05-28T15:27:05","modified_gmt":"2024-05-28T12:27:05","slug":"authority-crisis-in-vora","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.utu.fi\/soihtu\/authority-crisis-in-vora\/","title":{"rendered":"Authority crisis in V\u00f6r\u00e5"},"content":{"rendered":"

Runestone finds in Ostrobothnia in the 1980s set off a debate about their age and about the prehistory of the region. Mutual distrust emerged between local Swedish speakers and the academic establishment.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The communication breakdown can be seen as an authority and epistemic crisis. Who is qualified to judge the age of a runestone? To shape the narrative of Ostrobothnian history?<\/p>\n

\u201cVoid theory\u201d<\/h2>\n

Starting in the 1920s, a dearth of Viking Age finds from Ostrobothnia led to a hypothesis that the area lacked permanent settlement at that time. The locals, for whom the area had been Swedish-speaking since time immemorial, saw this as an erasure of their history. They thought the establishment treated the \u201cvoid theory\u201d as an axiom. I see a difference in views regarding the burden of proof.<\/p>\n

Hard to date scratches<\/h2>\n

It is difficult to date scratches on rock \u2013 scientific dating methods such as carbon-14 dating do not apply. Runologists use letter forms, language features and stylistic traits, as well as the archaeological context. The letter forms and linguistic forms in the V\u00f6r\u00e5 inscriptions do not always \u201cmatch\u201d: some look very old (ca. 800), others late (12th<\/sup> c.). Most runologists thought the runes were carved in the 19th<\/sup> or 20th<\/sup> c. One archaeologist suggested they were made with modern tools.<\/p>\n