pp. 5-14, Figg. 5
A spearhead with runic inscription regarded in 1890 as a modern forgery (copied from a genuine object found in 1865) and ignored ever since is re-examined from a modem runological viewpoint. Most arguments then advanced prove inconclusive, and the modem interpretation of one rune as “j” rather than “ng” makes it possible to propose a new readingfor the inscription, which would undermine the hypothesis of a copy. However, one decisive argument remains: theform of one rune has no parallel elsewhere, except in a dmawing reproducing the genuine spearheadfound in 1865. This suggests that the inscription was indeed copied from that drawing, even though the spearhead itself may well be an authentic object. The traditional conclusion is confirmed, but on the basis of one argument alone.
In these circumstances, a closer investigation seems desirable.