Ancient chariot emerges among remains of mysterious society that burned down its own buildings and then disappeared 47%

By Margherita Bassi10%

7/16/2026, 1:04:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 19.3% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,912 faulty-reasoning hits from 867 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.7% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,634 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.20% of the article peer group.

Archaeologists in Spain have discovered the remains of a 2,400-year-old bronze chariot that was used to honor the gods and may have had links to the ancient Etruscans, who lived in what is now Italy.  
The discovery is "without known parallels" in Iberia, according to the research team. 
The roughly 24-inch-long (60 centimeters) chariot was designed with a flat, table-like top that people would have used as a surface for burning incense as a divine offering, according to a translated statement . 
The side of the chariot showcases a face sticking out its tongue. 
This face appears to be an unusual fusion of a gorgon , an ancient protective symbol associated with Medusa ; and Achelous , a powerful river god in Greek mythology who could turn into a bull, Guiomar Pulido González , an archaeologist at the Mérida Institute of Archaeology (part of the Spanish National Research Council) who was involved with the discovery, told Live Science. 
Archaeologists unearthed part of the chariot, including two legs and two wheels, at an archaeological site called Casas del Turuñuelo (Spanish for "Houses of Turuñuelo") in Spain's Badajoz province, close to the border with Portugal. 
The two legs look like two people holding up the table part of the chariot. 
A face on the chariot appears to be an unusual fusion of a gorgon and Achelous, a river god in Greek mythology who could turn into a bull. 
(Image credit: Construyendo Tarteso Project ) Both of the short sides of the chariot feature a mythical creature associated with safeguarding: a lion with wings and an eagle head, called a griffin . 
"All the figurative parts of the chariots point to protective divinities," Pulido explained, though "we are not sure what they are protecting ‪—‬ maybe the content of the chariot, or the viewers looking at them." 
Archaeologists have previously discovered similar chariots made by the Etruscans , a pre-Roman people who lived in Italy from about 900 to 100 B.C. 
However, the newfound one is the first known chariot to feature a gorgon-Achelous face mashup, and the first of its kind to be found in the Iberian Peninsula, according to Pulido, who is also a doctoral student at the Autonomous University of Madrid studying ancient Mediterranean imports throughout the Iberian Peninsula. 
Both of the short sides of the chariot feature a griffin, a mythical creature associated with safeguarding. 
(Image credit: Construyendo Tarteso Project ) Restorers working on the artifact noticed that the two people holding the chariot are wearing skirts, which would be unusual for an Etruscan chariot; typically, Etruscan-crafted bronze figures are naked, Pulido said. 
Despite this anomaly, the theory is that the chariot was made by the Etruscans and arrived in modern-day Spain via trade routes. 
The chariot was found in a layer suggesting it was discarded around the end of the fifth century B.C., though the design of the gorgon-Achelou face's iconography indicates that it could have been made as early as the sixth century B.C. 
The humanlike figures on the chariot are clothed, which is unusual because other Etruscan-crafted bronze figures are naked. 
(Image credit: Construyendo Tarteso Project) An enigmatic people 
The archaeological site that yielded the bronze chariot is in an area known as the Middle Guadiana River Valley, which has 14 known sites left behind by an enigmatic people that completely disappeared from the archaeological record around 400 B.C., Pulido noted. 
They were probably local populations that were heavily influenced by or mixed with the Tartessians , a civilization that settled in the Iberian Peninsula around the eighth century B.C. and was known for its elaborate writing system . 
Each of the 14 sites holds the remains of burnt buildings that were subsequently filled in with soil and fragmented objects, Pulido said. 
The recently discovered chariot had been intentionally broken  it has no other damage besides being halved  and included in the debris. 
Construyendo Tarteso Project Construyendo Tarteso Project Related stories 
Pristine Etruscan tomb discovered in Italy contains more than 100 untouched artifacts 
2,500-year-old tomb of a 'warrior prince' with chariot and helmet discovered on Italy's Adriatic coast 
'Nailed-head ritual' in Iron Age Spain was more 'complex than initially thought,' severed skulls reveal 
The current leading theory regarding these ruins is that, for some unknown reason and around the same time, the inhabitants of these centers burned down their buildings, filled them in and then abandoned the sites. 
The burning and filling seem to have been too intentional for it to have happened in the context of an enemy attack, according to Pulido. 
"Instead, they may have formed part of a carefully planned ritual of closure, a symbolic farewell to buildings that were intentionally decommissioned," she said. 
Then, this culture "disappeared from the archaeological record," Pulido said. 
But other evidence, including imported pottery from Greece and other Etruscan bronze objects, suggests that whoever these people were, they participated in the ancient trade networks stretching across the Mediterranean, with their elite having enough wealth to afford imported objects, she said. 
See if you know what these mysterious artifacts are with our archaeological fragments quiz! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.9%Margherita Bassi: 3.1%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias17.9%This article: 4.7%Margherita Bassi: 1.7%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.7%This article: 11.5%Margherita Bassi: 2.6%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 10.0%Margherita Bassi: 2.3%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Margherita Bassi: 4.8%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias15.7%This article: 12.7%Margherita Bassi: 3.6%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.5%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Margherita Bassi: 1.9%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.4%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Margherita Bassi: 1.8%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.4%Margherita Bassi: 5.7%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 2.9%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%Margherita Bassi: 4.9%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 1.2%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Margherita Bassi: 1.0%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 7.5%Margherita Bassi: 2.7%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 3.8%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature3.8%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.5%Margherita Bassi: 3.5%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.5%Margherita Bassi: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading2.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.1%Margherita Bassi: 3.0%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote17.1%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.3%Margherita Bassi: 4.7%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Margherita Bassi: 1.1%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.4%

867 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker33%attributed speech579writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 64 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageGuiomar Pulido González • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
92%flagged-word coverage
288 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+26.3 ptsWriter: 10.5%Guiomar Pulido González: 36.8%36.8%Unattributed Quote-7.4 ptsWriter: 19.5%Guiomar Pulido González: 12.2%12.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%Guiomar Pulido González: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.