The Bush Barrow Lozenge

THE BUSH BARROW LOZENGE Miracle cure for a Neolithic problem or simply more Snake-Oil? By Dean Talboys To the south of Stonehenge on a ridge known as Normanton Down lies a cemetery of round barrows belonging to the British Bronze Age. At the start of the 19th century, William Cunnington, an archeologist renowned for plundering such sites, discovered a body and treasure in one of the larger of the burial mounds called the “Bush Barrow”.
The artifacts included the remains of three or four daggers, an axe and a mace (an unusual inclusion in a southern British grave [1]) but by far the most spectacular of his finds were a gold belt hook and two gold lozenges. Though all three demonstrate an unusually high level of craftsmanship for the British Bronze Age, at an impressive 157 x 185.5mm the larger and so-called “Bush Barrow lozenge”, is particularly elegant.
At first the design appears remarkably symmetrical, even in its slightly battered state. The attention is drawn to a series of four concentric diamonds, the dimensions of which double each time from a central diamond, itself comprised of a three-by-three matrix of similarly proportioned, smaller diamonds. The edges of each diamond are decorated with a border of four parallel lines which adds to the overall appearance of a very precisely aligned design. The margin created between the two outermost diamonds is filled with a zigzag pattern which, once again, appears remarkably uniform. It is this uniformity of parallel lines which suggests a very methodical approach to the design, setting the Bush Barrow lozenge apart from other artifacts of the period.
Closer inspection of the lozenge photo shows the apexes of the diamonds to be slightly out of line and one side (from the center to the apex) to be wider than the other, although the lengths from the center to the top and bottom are almost equal. This could be due to the bend in the metal, which is difficult to calculate from the image. There also appear to be several mistakes along the parallel edges of the diamonds, the most obvious being the inclusion of one extra line on one side of the innermost diamond. But it is the zigzag decoration in the margins that shows the least forethought in this otherwise well-planned design, for it appears the craftsman was incapable of dividing the length to fit an exact number of triangles resulting in two thin “wedges” to the left and right.
Suck it and see ...
There has been speculation as to the purpose of the lozenge. Possibly the most extreme is from Martin Doutré [2] who claims it is a memory device containing “multiple coded relationships, which link mathematical endeavour at Stonehenge to similar endeavours upon the Giza Plateau of Egypt” and demonstrates in its construction the mathematical constants Pi and Phi as well as a knowledge of the 3-4-5 triangle thousands of years before Pythagoras. Archibald Thom [2] whose father, Alexander Thom, discovered the “Megalithic Yard” claimed that the flattened lozenge, when placed horizontally, could be used by an observer as a calendar to anticipate the rising and setting of the Sun and Moon on specific dates of the year – a portable version of Stonehenge. More recently the lozenge featured in Solving Stonehenge: The New Key to an Ancient Enigma [3] by archeologist, Anthony Johnson, who uses it to reinforce his idea that Stonehenge was planned using nothing more than pegs and cord. Johnson relied on computer modeling “to establish the underlying geometric principles used in its construction” from which he was able to recreate the basic four diamonds in 18 steps using a combination of intersecting arcs and lines (below).

The diamonds are then decorated with the parallel lines along their borders. A further six stages (and four arcs) are required to map additional points to complete the zigzag decoration in the outer margin. Johnson excuses the errors in the zigzag design as an extension of the horizontal sides of triangles in the opposite margins which appear to converge on the apex of the “wedges” (although extending the lines on the image shows this not to be the case), but offers no method by which the central motif of nine equal diamonds is constructed. The only tools we know must have been used in creating the lozenge are a straight edge and a point. Johnson states: “Experiments undertaken to recreate this pattern show that the neat V-shaped rounded bottom grooves which outline the lozenges can be faithfully produced with an appropriately shaped and polished point´” What he fails to produce is the tool capable of creating circles and arcs with radii ranging from 40-100mm which are necessary to determine the points of intersection at each stage of his method, making reference instead to “some kind of compass or scribing device”. Indeed, it requires a precision instrument along the lines of a dividers (used in navigation) or pair of compasses, both of which would leave puncture marks when positioned on the metal plate and neither of which were known to exist in Bronze Age Britain. The fact that a small gold button cover and gold bound amber disc incised with circular patterns were found close by does not prove they belong to the same period or that “[the Wessex artists] were familiar with the use of compasses to construct accurate circles”. Neither is it “self-evident” that the plate was engraved with “the gold sheet firmly fastened to a suitable base”, only that it is essential to Johnson’s technique.
So, can the design be recreated using only a straight edge and scribe?
The answer is “Yes” and with far fewer and less convoluted stages than required in Johnson’s method. To begin with the straight edge must contain some kind of scale for the craftsman to be able to mark the points without first scribing a baseline from which to work (because there is no evidence of one on the finished artifact). This does not imply knowledge of a universal measurement along the lines of the Megalithic Yard but simply the foresight to place markers on a strip of metal, wood or slate at roughly equal spacing. Analysis of the divisions between all lines shows the value of 22.4mm to occur 48 times with a maximum deviation of ±1.4mm. It is the distance between the apexes of each diamond on the longest side, the distance between apexes in the zigzag design, and the length of the innermost sides of the innermost diamond. The latter are divided into three with an accuracy of 7.8±0.4mm, which is almost half the distance between corresponding parallel lines of each concentric diamond’s borders (15.2±0.3mm with one exception where the gap is 15.8mm) and close enough to suggest the scale might have been based on multiples of 7.6mm. However, it is more likely that the ruler was around 15mm wide to be able to achieve such perfectly parallel sets of borders.

Step 1: He starts by marking points along the longest axis, in this case the width, and the centers top and bottom.	Step 2: Next he gauges and scribes the largest possible outermost diamond ...

... and then scribes the outer edges of consecutive inner diamonds parallel to the previous.	Step 3: He uses a similar technique to embellish each diamond with perfectly spaced borders of parallel lines.

Step 4: The inner diamond is subdivided using the width of the ruler.	At this point he realizes an earlier error in the length of one side of the innermost diamond and attempts to correct this visually by adding another line on the inside.

Step 5: Next he decides to embellish the outermost margin with a zigzag pattern using the scale as a guide …	… but the outer length is slightly greater than an exact number of divisions creating an overlap, or wedge, to the left and right.

Done! All that is left is to trim the edges.	An even simpler method requires no scale whatsoever, using instead the width of the ruler alone to determine the divisions in each of the steps, and even those of the zigzag lines (although it appears from the photo of the lozenge that the uprights are slightly bowed).
Suckers!
In response to previous claims to the contrary Johnson states: “The conclusion from the CAD analysis is that the Bush Barrow lozenge is not an elaborate sighting device, alidade, or prehistoric computer; it is decorated in the tradition of Bronze Age sheet metalwork, one that uses a beautifully simple geometric motif.” So simple it takes a computer “to establish the underlying geometric principles used in its construction” and so indicative of the period it is “our most outstanding and treasured Bronze Age gold artifact”! This is yet another example of the scientific license afforded those who uphold the orthodox archeological interpretation of Stonehenge as a truly British monument built by indigenous Neolithic farmers. By demonstrating how illiterate and mathematically challenged people were capable of geometry to rival that of their Middle Eastern contemporaries Johnson’s use of instruments and principles not known to have existed in Britain at the time and (in the computer) technology that would not exist for another 3,500 years goes unchallenged. And yet he feels vindicated in accusing others who have claimed astronomical links to Stonehenge and the Bush Barrow lozenge guilty of introducing “artifacts for which there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever” and of reinforcing their own theories with “all kinds of ‘mathematically verified’ data”. Incredible! Surely Johnson is just as guilty in attempting to use this totally unrelated piece of metal to understand “the prehistoric mindset and contemporary knowledge reflected in the construction of Stonehenge”. It’s not as if the design of the Bush Barrow lozenge vaguely resembles anything at Stonehenge or anything else in the one thousand years that (apparently) separates the two. We should not forget that the actual date the Bush Barrow lozenge was made is not known, only that it was found on the body of someone presumed to belong to the Bronze Age because there are no radiocarbon dates available and the nature of the burial can only be reconstructed and assumptions made on a secondhand interpretation of Cunnington’s original manuscript [1] – we don’t even know the sex or from where he or she originated. Neither do we know where the lozenge was made. It could belong to a time and place far removed from Bronze Age Britain, or at least to an artisan far removed for the geometry is more consistent with the architecture of the Pyramids than Stonehenge.
It remains to be seen how many more archeologists, bemused by this latest speculation, will simply ignore the impenetrable nonsense and accept Johnson’s machinations as further proof that Stonehenge was a late Neolithic British temple.
Rethinking Bush Barrow Current Archaeology http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ Issue 104, Jan/Feb 2009 Ancient Celtic New Zealand Martin Doutré http://www.celticnz.co.nz/ The Bush Barrow Gold Lozenge: Is It a Solar and Lunar Calendar for Stonehenge? Thom, A. S., Ker. J. M. D., Burrows, T. R. Antiquity 62, (1988) 492-502 Solving Stonehenge: The New Key to an Ancient Enigma Anthony Johnson 2008, Thames & Hudson Ltd., London
Dean Talboys is a consultant systems analyst. His book, The Stonehenge Observatory, is available for immediate download in PDF format from the web site. 238 Pages 27 Photographs 59 Illustrations Fully indexed and cross-referenced $8.99