Decorated wild-boar tusk found in Russia may have been medieval warrior's good-luck charm 24%

By Margherita Bassi10%

7/19/2026, 12:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Overconfidence Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.1% saturation with 206 hits. Analysis detected 1,404 faulty-reasoning hits from 820 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.6% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,262 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.70% of the article peer group.

Archaeologists in Russia have discovered a rare medieval wild-boar tusk that was likely used by a warrior or noble as a good-luck charm, a new study reports. 
The unusual finding, a large tusk mounted with an engraved metal cap, dates to between the mid-12th and early 13th century. 
It was found in Novgorod the Great (also called Veliky Novgorod or Novgorod), one of the oldest major towns in Russia. 
One characteristic of the amulet, in particular, stood out. 
"It's extraordinary because of its size. 
It's extremely big," Natalia Eniosova , co-author of the study and a metal scientist in the Department of Archaeology at Lomonosov Moscow State University, told Live Science. 
The tusk isn't complete, but the length of what's left is 3.9 inches (10 centimeters) long, with the widest point measuring 1.1 inches (2.8 cm) across. 
She and her colleagues' research revealed that the tusk came from a wild boar that was at least 8 years old and weighed over 220 pounds (100 kilograms). 
"Such an animal would not have been hunted for food," she said, explaining that domestic pigs were a more practical and common food source at the time. 
The wild boar may have been eaten anyway, but the team doesn't know for sure. 
Another trait that makes the amulet unique is its mount. 
While it looks like it's made of silver, Eniosova was surprised to find that it was almost 100% tin ‪—‬ specifically, a silver-imitating tin-lead alloy. 
Just like today, tin wasn't as valuable or as expensive as silver, but because there weren't many tin sources in Europe at the time, it was still rare. 
A close-up of the tin mount and its engraved decorations. 
(Image credit: Tyanina E.A. et al. 
The Volga River Region Archaeology (2026)) It's interesting that such a soft material was carved with engraved decorations, Eniosova pointed out. 
"It wouldn't have been easy, and this ornament is quite elaborate," she said. 
"It's a very, very well-done object." 
All of these unusual characteristics seem to align with the artifact's discovery in a part of the Troitsky XVI excavation area that would have been inhabited by wealthy individuals. 
In fact, it was probably a hunting trophy belonging to an aristocrat, noble or military man, Eniosova said. 
Historical texts report that wild-boar hunting in medieval times in what is now Russia was a privilege of the "druzhina," or military retinue, and the nobility, according to the study, which was recently published in the journal The Volga River Region Archaeology . 
Regardless of whether the wild boar was eaten, at least one of its tusks was extracted and then mounted with metal. 
The team thinks it was kept as a good-luck charm, mostly because of its size. 
"It is highly probable that this mounted tusk functioned as a martial or hunting talisman," the researchers wrote in the study. 
"It symbolized the transfer of the beast's physical prowess to the hunter and served concurrently as a charm for good fortune." 
Similar animal amulets with holes at the top, worn as necklaces, were popular in Veliky Novgorod during this time period, Eniosova noted. 
The newfound wild-boar tusk is missing its top part, but it may have once had a hole. 
A close-up of an engraved ornament on the boar tusk's mount. 
(Image credit: Tyanina E.A. et al. 
The Volga River Region Archaeology (2026)) It still would have been a rare object, however. 
Boar tusk amulets were common in earlier periods, but they were very rare between the second half of the 11th century to the first half of the 13th century, despite the enduring widespread belief that these tusks had magical qualities. 
The amulet could be linked to Scandinavian mythology, according to Eniosova. 
Indeed, some of Veliky Novgorod's first settlers were from Scandinavia. 
But the amulet was created over 150 years after they left the area, so the relation is hypothetical, Eniosova said. 
Archaeologists discover that parties 11,000 years ago were BYOB  bring your own boar 
'We got evidence of boars, deer, bears, aurochs': Ancient DNA reveals sunken realm Doggerland had habitable forests during the last ice age 
Warty pig is oldest animal cave art on record 
Veliky Novgorod first appears in historical documents in the ninth century and was a major trading hub in the medieval polity known as Kievan Rus. 
Archaeologists theorized that at the time the boar tusk amulet was made, the city was inhabited by landowners and/or people involved with the fur trade, Eniosova said. 
The finding is a "highly significant and unusual discovery," Alexei Gippius , a philologist at HSE University in Moscow who is familiar with Novgorod archaeology, told Live Science in an email. 
Gippius, who knows the researchers but wasn't involved in the new study, added that the research sheds "new light on the origins and functioning of the mythological beliefs of the early Rus elite." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Margherita Bassi: 3.1%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 7.6%Margherita Bassi: 1.7%Live Science: 1.3%Anchoring Bias7.6%This article: 12.8%Margherita Bassi: 2.6%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic12.8%This article: 9.4%Margherita Bassi: 2.3%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.2%Live Science: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Margherita Bassi: 4.8%Live Science: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias15.5%This article: 1.6%Margherita Bassi: 3.6%Live Science: 3.4%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 1.9%Live Science: 3.6%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 1.8%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias1.8%This article: 1.8%Margherita Bassi: 1.5%Live Science: 3.2%Negativity Bias1.8%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: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%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: 8.7%Margherita Bassi: 1.8%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect8.7%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: 1.2%Margherita Bassi: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.2%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: 25.1%Margherita Bassi: 5.7%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority25.1%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 0.9%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma2.6%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: 7.3%Margherita Bassi: 4.9%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 5.5%Margherita Bassi: 0.6%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring5.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.5%Margherita Bassi: 1.2%Live Science: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion1.5%This article: 2.6%Margherita Bassi: 1.0%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question2.6%This article: 9.5%Margherita Bassi: 2.7%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.7%Margherita Bassi: 0.5%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal1.7%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.4%Margherita Bassi: 3.5%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.4%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: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Margherita Bassi: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Margherita Bassi: 3.0%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 3.3%Margherita Bassi: 0.7%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 8.4%Margherita Bassi: 4.7%Live Science: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice8.4%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: 1.7%Margherita Bassi: 1.1%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

820 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech558writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 13 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Eniosova • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAlexei Gippius • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAlexei Gippius • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Alexei Gippius

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words24% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Alexei Gippius: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Alexei Gippius: 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.