The Twisted Trilithon - Stone 56 and its

skew.

An investigation into its origin and

possible significance.

By Tim Daw

All Cannings Cross, Devizes, SN10 3NP - email tim@canningscross.net

Abstract: Stone 56 at Stonehenge is not

perpendicular to the acknowledged

solstitial axis of the whole monument.

This anomaly is, when noticed, usually

dismissed as a botched re-erection. This

paper argues that it is an original

designed feature of the monument and that

it reveals a second set of solstitial

alignments hitherto unrecognised at

Stonehenge.

Stone 56 is the tallest stone at Stonehenge; it is the remaining

upright of what was the Great Trilithon. This was the middle

trilithon of the Sarsen Horseshoe which is bisected by the

solstitial axis of the Midsummer Sunrise (MSSR) and Midwinter Sunset

(MWSS). To use ecclesiastical terminology it is the great back wall

of the apse behind the altar. But it is twisted; it is not

perpendicular, it is not at 90, to the main axis. It is at about

80 to it.

All the models and plans of Stonehenge “as it was”, and many of

those of “as it is”, don’t show this noticeable 10 skew so it is

worth confirming this observation. (The ground level plan of Stone

56 shows it thinner to the south east but the stone thickens as it

rises and becomes nearly parallel to the south western, or back

face, so this face best represents the alignment of the stone on

ground level plans.)

Figure 1: Stonehenge plan showing the acknowledged solstice axis, a perpendicular line and

the twist of Stone 56. By Author based on plan

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_Plan.jpg ©Anthony Johnson 2008 Used under

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This discrepancy, when noticed, is usually dismissed as a trivial

mistake made when the stone was straightened in 1901. But there is

an alternative hypothesis which this paper tests. That is that

Stone 56 is in its original position and an extension to the

hypothesis is that this was a deliberate positioning with symbolic

meaning.

A 10 skew of the whole trilithon puts one side out of line by over

80cm; if the trilithon was standing this would be very obvious and

with the rest of the monument built to very small tolerance levels

that degree of error is anomalous. Because of the uncertainties

caused by Stone 56 having been re-erected and Stone 55 having fallen

any accuracy of measurement of less than a degree or so would be

spurious to claim.

The 1901 excavation.

In 1901 Professor William Gowland FSA was charged by the Society of

Antiquaries of London, and other learned bodies, with the conduct of

the excavations necessary to straighten stone 56. The method used to

straighten the stone was devised by a Mr. Carruthers, and Detmar

Blow was responsible for the superintendence of the engineering

operations. Gowland oversaw the excavations.

Gowland’s “recording was impeccable for the time and publication was prompt”

(Parker-Pearson et al, 2007, 624.) His report (Gowland & Judd,

1902, 37-118.) is a model of clarity. Gowland was an experienced

engineer who had spent many years doing archaeological surveys in

Japan which formed the basis for a series of reports.

The abstract of the report he gave to the Society of Antiquaries,

December 19th, 1901. (Gowland, 1902, 7) states: The primary object, the

replacement of the “leaning-stone” in its original erect position, was effected by enclosing

the stone—which had declined from 77 degrees in 1650 to the dangerous angle of 61

degrees in 1901, and which showed three serious fissures on its upper side—in a cradle of

stout timbers, and raising it with ropes and winches, while supporting it also on the

underside by struts of stout timber. To secure it for the future the whole of the underlying

soil was removed in successive sections down to the rock level and replaced by concrete; and

it was in the course of this excavation that the discoveries to be described were made.

As to foundations, the “leaning stone” was found to go down 8 ft. below the surface datum,

to terminate obliquely, and to rest upon two “sarsen” supports. Its fellow, the “recumbent

stone,” had been supported on one face by a pile of “sarsen” blocks, and on the other by two

large blocks, by which a row of stone mauls was found, which seem to have been used to

wedge the “recumbent stone” tight. If set back in its place this indicated the “recumbent

stone” would be exactly in line with the “leaning stone.”

The key points of this passage are that Stone 56, the “leaning-

stone” was replaced in its original position, that its supporting

stones were found in position and that the soil was removed in

sections and replaced by concrete in these sections so that the

accuracy of the position of the stonehole was maintained. Maybe

because of the depth of the hole, the rear supporting wall of chalk

was intact and solid, this was removed and replaced in three

sections, so that when the first section was replaced there was

still two thirds of the original wall to position it to, and so on.

It is also important to note that Stone 55, the “recumbent-stone”

would, if re-erected in its excavated foundations, be “exactly in

line with” stone 56.

There has been some confusion caused by the presence of a large pit

to the north east of Stone 56 and a ramp leading into it from the

north west. Parker-Pearson et al 2007, 618-626, distinguishes it

from the actual stonehole and concludes it was dug after the

erection of the trilithons and that the north east packing stones of

56 were removed then. Because of the ramp it suggests that something

heavy was removed, a candidate might be the Lake House Meteorite,

but whatever the purpose of the pit it is immaterial to the

alignment and erection of the Great Trilithon. So the

contemporaneous documentary evidence is that a careful and skilled

excavator believed the stone had been re-erected in its original

position, and no doubts seem to have been expressed to suggest

otherwise.

Other Excavation Evidence

Gowland recorded other features from his excavations. He excavated

under Stone 55, the recumbent stone, and discovered its stonehole

with the original packing stones in place.

It is worth noting out here that one of the very rare errors in

Cleal et al. 1995 occurs in the description of this stonehole

(p.198). It states that “The ‘cavity’ as it shows in section is barely 2ft (0.61m) deep

and it seems unlikely that such a large stone could have stood in it.”

Gowland marked the depth of his sections in numbered six inch

(150mm) layers, As can be seen in Gowland’s section below (Gowland

& Judd, 1902, 52 and based on same by Author) the cavity is marked

as being about 7 marks deep from the ground level on the left, from

layer 2 to layer 9. So it was at least a metre in depth,

approximately the same depth as the bulbous root of the stone.

Using a simple graphic block of the outline size of Stone 55 figures

2 & 3 demonstrate how it fits in line with Stone 56, and within the

packing stones.

Figure 2: Profile of Stonehole 55 and same with illustrative block. Gowland & Judd, 1902, 52

and based on same by Author.

Figure 3: Excavations plan of Great Trilithon and same with illustrative block. Gowland &

Judd, 1902, 46 and based on same by Author.

These support Gowland’s conclusion that; “If set back in its place this indicated

the “recumbent stone” would be exactly in line with the “leaning stone.” (Gowland,

1902, 7)

The Bluestone Horseshoe

To the north east of the Great Trilithon there was the end of the

Bluestone Horseshoe. This horseshoe shaped set of standing

Bluestones is also bisected by the solstitial alignment. There are

three stones which survive in some form at the end of the horseshoe.

In the diagrams above can be seen the central stone, 67 which has

fallen, crushed beneath the fallen sarsens.

Either side of the centre there were two bluestone pillars, 68 with

a tongue and 66 with a groove; these features don’t line up so are

assumed to be from an earlier use of the stones.

Stone 68 is marked on the ground level plan above. But it is

leaning, pushed over when Stone 56 was resting on it.

Gowland excavated to the base of 68 so we can estimate its original

position by taking a vertical line from the centre of the base from

his plans.

Figure 4: Section of excavation to north of Stone 56, Gowland & Judd, 1902, 54, and based

on same by Author.

Figure 4 indicates that the stone, when vertical, was about 35 cm

towards the south west.

The partner Stone to 68 is Stone 66 and it survives as a stump

mostly under Stone 55b. It can just be seen in figure 5 which also

indicates where Stone 68 was originally.

Figure 5: Photograph by Author of Stone 68

Figure 5 shows Stone 68 with the groove in the foreground, the arrow

indicates its original position. Stone 67 lies diagonally behind it.

The two broken parts of Stone 55 are behind both stones and Stone 66

can be seen looking like a pebble at the rear of the gap between the

two parts of 55.

A sketch plan (figures 6 & 7), based on Cleal et al. 1995, shows the

positions of all these stones. The central line is the acknowledged

solstitial alignment.

The axis that Stones 68 and 66 lie on is indicated, allowing for

Stone 68’s original position being about 35 cm to the south west. I

know of no evidence for the original stonehole of Stone 67 in the

middle; it has not being subjected to a recorded excavation.

Figure 6: Sketch by Author of Great Trilithon and surrounding stones with Solstitial Axis

marked, based on Cleal et al. 1995.

It is obvious that the end of the Bluestone Horseshoe follows the

same skew as the end of the Sarsen one. This may just be aesthetic,

with the large wall of the Great Trilithon it would have looked

unbalanced not to position the bluestones in front of it at an equal

distance from it, or the alignment may have been important in its

own right. Either way it is a very strong suggestion that the Great

Trilithon as a whole was at the skewed angle when erect.

The Altar Stone

As one moves further north east into the centre there is the Altar

Stone, stone 80. There is no settled consensus as to its original

position, but there is a possibility, maybe a strong possibility,

that it is largely in its original horizontal position. It is hard

to argue how it could have fallen into its present position if it

had been felled by the collapse of the Great Trilithon. It may be a

reused stone from another site, which may have been standing there,

but that was then placed horizontally at Stonehenge and that is why

there is no clear stonehole for it or a logical explanation for an

original vertical position.

Further to the north east there are two postholes, 3364 and 3362, in

front of the Altar Stone. Anything further into the middle has been

lost to ancient excavations.

Figure 7: Sketch plan of the central area of Stonehenge by Author, based on Cleal et al. 1995

Central line indicates solstitial alignment towards mid-summer sunrise to top, see also

figure 1.

Again it can be seen the remarkable consistency of the 80 angle for

these central structures that lie across the main axis of

Stonehenge. I recall the words of Auric Goldfinger (Fleming

2006, 222-223.); “'Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago:

'Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it's

enemy action.'”

I think the hypothesis that this just one stone, 56, badly re-

erected is unsupportable.

To the south west of the Great Trilithon there are the remains of

the Bluestone circle. There is a hint, and no more than a hint,

based on the limited excavations that it too is skewed.

There are other features such as Stone 33, postholes and various

sightlines that are at a similar alignment, but any significance of

their positioning can be left for another day. It may also be noted

that objects such as the Bush Barrow lozenge celebrate the same

angle.

The observation is that there was an original skewing at about 80

of the main central stones of Stonehenge from an expected

perpendicular position.

Credible Hypotheses

As noted above the skewing of so many key features makes the

likelihood that it is the product of careless restoration very

unlikely. There may be a degree or two of error, but not the

majority of it.

There are two possible hypothesis left; careless erection by the

original builders or a significance to the asymmetry.

The care and precision of the monument argue against it being a

mistake; it certainly would have been very noticeable as being

crooked. I have erected two small monoliths in the passageway of

the Long Barrow I am building at a similar skew; it is very

noticeable.

If it was deliberate can we deduce the significance? Many very

deliberate alignments, such as that of cursuses are a complete

mystery. Unless they align to a major celestial event, or landmark,

assigning significance can be more a matter of faith than science.

There are also may claimed alignments, especially at Stonehenge,

that are tenuous at best and may be most usefully classified as

apophenial without supporting evidence.

But if there is an obvious alignment to a well-known major event

then this adds weight to the possibility of it being a deliberate

planned alignment, especially if other monuments of the age also

align to it.

The rising of the midwinter solstice sun occurs at about 80 to the

rising of the midsummer sun, and the setting of the midsummer sun at

the opposite 80 to the setting of the midwinter sun. The exact

degrees depend on the horizon, where in the rising or setting of the

orb you measure and of course the date that the alignment was set.

It is probable that the alignments at Stonehenge were symbolic

rather than a working observatory. For accuracy and ease of use

wooden posts are far more practical, to mark them in stone may just

be a celebration of them.

As Clive Ruggles notes (Ruggles 1997, 209): "In the literature on

archaeoastronomy, declinations are often quoted to a precision of 0.1 or even greater.

However, the quality of the material evidence, together with the fact that the horizon around

Stonehenge is relatively close (Cleal et al. 1995, 37) and devoid of prominent distant features

interpretable as accurate foresights, do not justify considerations of declination to a

precision much greater than the nearest degree, or approximately twice the apparent

diameter of the sun or moon. To do otherwise is to risk obscuring any intentional, low-level

astronomical effects with meaningless detail."

A pragmatic approach is to base 2500BCE solar alignments on being

one degree north of the present position on the horizon for the

summer solstice and one degree south for the winter solstice.

(Ruggles 1999: 19–24)

A plan of Stonehenge (Figure 8) suggests that the Great Trilithon

would have aligned to the two solstitial sunrise and the two

solstitial sunset events, one set through the middle gap, one set

across the width.

Figure 8: Stonehenge Plan by Author showing Solstitial alignments – Based on plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge#mediaviewer/File:Stonehenge_plan.jpg used under

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The plan shows up some more intriguing possibilities. Gerald Hawkins

(Hawkins 1966, 143) believed that Station Stone 94 and Stonehole G

as well as Station Stone 93 and Stonehole H aligned towards the

Midwinter Solstitial Sunset. The plan he used had the Great

Trilithon as being symmetrical about the central axis and so he

missed that it runs along the 93 to H line.

There is a debate over Stoneholes F, G and H. In brief, it is at

least probable that Stonehole H is a stonehole, as are Holes F & G,

because of the size and shape of the hole. H probably was dubbed

the “Bush Hole” because it had a smaller hole in the side wall where

a bush or tree had grown in the disturbed ground.

The midwinter sunrise - midsummer sunrise is marked at nearby

Durrington Walls as well as other Neolithic monuments so it was

known to the people of the time.

There is also a cluster of cremation burials on this alignment.

Because of the uneven past excavations and recordings of them we

cannot be sure that cremation remains were not missed in the

excavated parts of Stonehenge, and of course we know nothing of what

lies buried in the unexcavated parts. So while the cluster may be

significant there must be some caution applied.

The south western faces of the Great Trilithon are the most finely

worked and flat of any stones at Stonehenge, but whether the

alignment was taken along the flat face, or through the centre of

the stones is and will remain unknown.

It is also notable that the outer circle of sarsens blocks the

ground level view of the alignment. If the alignment is seen as

being purely symbolic, as, for instance, are the easterly alignments

of churches, then this is not a problem. But it is worth recording

that the lintel of the trilithon stood high above the outer circle

and even that it has two mysterious false mortises in what was the

top surface.

Experimental evidence

To test the hypothesis that the Great Trilithon was aligned

widthways to the midwinter solstice sunrise and midsummer solstice

sunset suitable conditions to observe the events were waited for.

Public access to the interior of the Stonehenge circle for the

midwinter solstice sunrise and the sunset the evening before summer

solstice enabled them to be easily observed, if the clouds parted.

The winter solstice of 2012 and the summer solstice of 2014 provided

an opportunity to photograph these sunrises and sunsets along the

rear face of Stone 56.

The winter solstice sunrise was observed from behind Station Stone

93, the Mistletoe on it in the picture merely illustrates the

problems of obtaining a clear view during the celebrations. The sun

was seen to rise behind Stone 10 in line with the Great Trilithon.

Figure 9.

The summer solstice sunrise was observed at the Great Trilithon. The

picture is taken from about 2.75m from ground level, to be above the

crowd head height. The sun was seen to set in line with the Great

Trilithon. Figure 10.

Figure 9: Sunrise 21st December 2012. Picture by Tim Daw, taken from behind Station Stone

93 (pictured) Sun risen behind Stone 10 in line with Stone 56.

Figure 10: Sunset June 20th 2014. Picture by Tim Daw, taken along the south west face of

Stone 56.

Conclusion

These solstitial events are marked by alignments at other

contemporary monuments. They are major solar events and the stones

align to them as well as to the previously recognised solstitial

events.

The hypothesis that the skewing of Stone 56 is original and

deliberate is supported by the experimental results; confirming that

it, and its similarly placed neighbours, align to the midwinter

solstitial sunrise and the midsummer solstitial sunset, in addition

to the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset. That the builders

of Stonehenge could mark two separate alignments with such economy

and elegance further increases my admiration for them.

References

CLEAL, R.M.J., WALKER, K.E. & MONTAGUE, R.,1995, Stonehenge in its

Landscape: Twentieth-century Excavations, English Heritage Archaeological

Report 10, London.

FLEMING, I, 2006, Goldfinger, Penguin Books, London.

GOWLAND, W., 1902, The Recent Excavations at Stonehenge, with Inferences as to the

Origin, Construction, and Purpose of That Monument. Man Vol. 2, (1902), 7-

11, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,

London.

GOWLAND, W., & JUDD, J. W.,1902, Recent Excavations at Stonehenge.

Archaeologia (Second Series), 58(01), 37-118, London.

HAWKINS, GERALD S., in collaboration with JOHN B. WHITE, 1966.

Stonehenge Decoded, Souvenir Press Ltd., London.

PARKER PEARSON, M., R. CLEAL, P. MARSHALL, S.NEEDHAM, J. POLLARD, C.

RICHARDS, C. RUGGLES, A. SHERIDAN, J. THOMAS, C. TILLEY, K. WELHAM,

A. CHAMBERLAIN, C. CHENERY, J. EVANS, C.KNUSEL, N. LINFORD, L.

MARTIN, JMONTGOMERY, A. PAYNE & M. RICHARDS. (2007). The age of

Stonehenge. Antiquity 81: 617–39, London.

RUGGLES, C. (1997). “Astronomy and Stonehenge”, in Science and

Stonehenge, edited by Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfrew, pp. 203–229.

Proceedings of the British Academy, 92.: Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

RUGGLES, C.. (1999). Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Yale

University Press.