Dirty 'button' unearthed by metal detectorist turns out to be a rare 900-year-old coin from Norway's last Viking king 14%

By Kenna Hughes-Castleberry15%

7/9/2026, 9:19:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 1,359 faulty-reasoning hits from 972 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.5% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,890 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.30% of the article peer group.

A metal detectorist in Norway dismissed a rare 900-year-old silver coin as a button, before researchers realized it was a one-of-a-kind piece linked to Magnus Barefoot (also known as Magnus Berrføtt), the warrior ruler often called Norway's last Viking king. 
The coin, found in a field near Utstein Monastery in southwest Norway, dates to Barefoot's reign from 1093 to 1103. 
It is the first coin of its type ever discovered on Norwegian soil, according to a December 2025 translated statement from the University of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology. 
"It is a fascinating thought that we may be just one large treasure find away from having a completely different view of Magnus Berrføtt's coinage as well, and it underlines the importance of all new discoveries that are made," museum representatives said in the statement. 
The button that wasn't 
The metal detectorist, Morten Eek, found the object in April 2025. 
It came from the plow layer in the soil, about 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 centimeters) below the surface. 
One side looked bright and silvery, but the other was covered by copper and had a dark spot in the middle, giving it a button-like appearance. 
Eek took it home and placed it with other buttons, worn modern coins and pieces of scrap metal he had collected. 
It was only months later, when Eek showed his treasures to his fellow metal detectorists, that they noticed the silver side looked like a medieval coin. 
Its design resembled an illustration in the 1865 reference work " Norge's Coins from the Middle Ages," by C.I. 
Schive . 
The detectorists then contacted the University of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology, where researchers took a closer look. 
A close up of the other side of the coin looking like a button. 
(Image credit: H. 
Hollund, Archaeological Museum, UiS) A coin with a second life 
To the experts, the coin seemed strange because someone had altered it after it was minted. 
A copper plate had been placed over one side, and the coin's outer edge had been folded around it. 
Two rounded notches on the edge show where a chain or loop may have been attached, suggesting the coin was later worn as jewelry. 
Researchers could have removed the copper plate to see what was underneath, but doing so would have damaged the object's fragile state. 
The artifact's unique transformation reveals "something about people's relationship to what was initially a coin," museum representatives said in the statement. 
An X-ray image of the coin shows a griffin design. 
(Image credit: Hege Hollund, Archaeological Museum, UiS. 
) To investigate the coin's covered side, the team X-rayed it. 
The scan revealed a griffin , a mythical creature with the body of a lion and features of a bird of prey. 
The motif has sometimes been interpreted as the lion of St. 
Mark, a Christian symbol, but the museum noted that the animal on these coins closely resembles a griffin. 
In medieval Christian art, griffins were used to symbolize Christ's dual nature as both human and divine. 
The visible side revealed a "cross-over-cross" motif, with double-lined arms and small semicircles or bowl shapes at the ends. 
The pairing of the cross and griffin is what makes the coin so rare. 
"Two-sided coins with the motif combination of griffin and cross over cross are only known from four copies," the statement said, with one coin from the Sandur hoard , found in the Faroe Islands in 1863, and three others from Denmark's Mørstad hoard , which was found this past spring and contains nearly 5,000 coins. 
The rarity of such coins "may tell us something about the extent of Magnus Berrføtt's minting," museum representatives said in the statement. 
In total, about 100 coins, spread across 12 discoveries, are known from Magnus Barefoot's reign, according to the museum. 
That makes every new example valuable for understanding how coins were produced and circulated in Norway in the late Viking Age and early Middle Ages. 
Who was Magnus Barefoot? 
Magnus Barefoot is sometimes called Magnus Barelegs, thanks to the kilts he wore . 
He became king in 1093 after the death of his father, Olav Kyrre (also called Olaf III of Norway), whose reign was remembered as a relatively peaceful period. 
Barefoot followed a different path. 
Like his grandfather Harald Hardrada , the Norwegian king killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, Barefoot built his reputation through warfare. 
Related stories 
Silver coin featuring famous Viking king unearthed in Hungary 
Viking Age burial of chieftain with 'enormous power' found in Denmark  and he may have served Harald Bluetooth 
Giant Viking hall, possibly connected to Harald Bluetooth, unearthed in Denmark 
Barefoot spent much of his reign campaigning overseas . 
He sought to extend Norwegian power across the western sea routes, including the Isle of Man and parts of the Irish Sea. 
The museum noted that he was associated with the saying that a king was meant "for honor and glory, and not a long life." 
His death reflected this, as he died at around age 30, in 1103, when he was ambushed and killed during a campaign in Ireland. 
The coin points to more than Barefoot's military ambitions. 
According to the museum, it also reflected one of his domestic reforms. 
Earlier Norwegian rulers had reduced the silver content of their coins, but Barefoot restored a high silver standard, with coins that were around 90% silver. 
Whether the coin was lost at the Utstein Monastery during Barefoot's lifetime is impossible to know. 
Because it was turned into jewelry at some point, it may have circulated for years, or even generations, after it stopped being used as money. 
See how much you know about ancient norsemen with our Viking quiz! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 2.8%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 2.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.0%This article: 12.1%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 2.4%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 7.2%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.2%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 9.3%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.2%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias9.3%This article: 5.9%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 5.6%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 7.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 3.1%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 2.3%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.3%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 2.6%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.3%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 6.9%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.7%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 2.3%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.2%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.2%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.6%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect1.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.4%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 2.9%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.2%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 1.6%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.3%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 2.6%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority12.3%This article: 3.1%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.5%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.9%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 5.0%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization17.9%This article: 0.9%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring0.9%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.3%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 4.4%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 1.4%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.6%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 6.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.4%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.6%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.7%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 4.9%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.0%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.2%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.0%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.9%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.5%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 2.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.9%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.0%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Kenna Hughes-Castleberry: 1.5%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.2%

972 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech839writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMorten Eek • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMorten Eek • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
101 attributed words76% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Quote-first Misdirection+27.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%University of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology: 27.7%27.7%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%University of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%University of Stavanger Museum of Archaeology: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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