Esthetically, I'm appalled at seeing crucifixion victims nailed through the wrists or forearms. Ugly, grotesque, repulsive! Though the Romans may sometimes have used that method, as far as I can see it's mostly a recent fad, prompted by the discovery of a notch in a bone of one crucifixion victim--a notch that may have had nothing to do with crucifixion.
What are the earliest depictions of Roman crucifixion?
I'm no art expert; but as far as I've found, the earliest is the Alexamenos graffito, scratched on the wall of the imperial palace in Rome in the first century A.D., to make fun of a Christian named Alexamenos: see http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm
[attachment=1:3bby80nd]Alexamenos Grafitti.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
The arms of the figure are apparently tied, and I, at least, can see no nails. But then this is a crude caricature, not a realistic drawing.
Second oldest is this ivory plaque in the British Museum, from around 420-430 A.D. (about a century after Constantine abolished crucifixion):
see http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hi ... et_th.aspx ; also Kenneth Clark, The Nude, page 306 (Doubleday paperback, 1956)
[attachment=2:3bby80nd]ps297856_l.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
Notice the nails are clearly in the palms of the hands. And in spite of so-called experts who claim that a footrest was not historical, this figure seems to have his feet on some sort of support--as the Alexamenos figure clearly does.
The Kenneth Clark book mentions a panel from the wooden doors of Santa Sabina in Rome, from around the same time [see next post].
Finally, there's this miniature painting in the Codex Rabulensis or Rabbula Gospels, from 586 A.D. : see Art Treasures in Italy, (McGraw-Hill, 1969) page 49
[attachment=0:3bby80nd]rabbula-crucifixion.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
Of course, the drapery added to the central figure is not historical, and is merely due to Christian horror of nudity; but notice again the nails in the palms of the hands. In this case there are no footrests, and nails go through the ankles.
What are the earliest depictions of Roman crucifixion?
I'm no art expert; but as far as I've found, the earliest is the Alexamenos graffito, scratched on the wall of the imperial palace in Rome in the first century A.D., to make fun of a Christian named Alexamenos: see http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm
[attachment=1:3bby80nd]Alexamenos Grafitti.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
The arms of the figure are apparently tied, and I, at least, can see no nails. But then this is a crude caricature, not a realistic drawing.
Second oldest is this ivory plaque in the British Museum, from around 420-430 A.D. (about a century after Constantine abolished crucifixion):
see http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/hi ... et_th.aspx ; also Kenneth Clark, The Nude, page 306 (Doubleday paperback, 1956)
[attachment=2:3bby80nd]ps297856_l.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
Notice the nails are clearly in the palms of the hands. And in spite of so-called experts who claim that a footrest was not historical, this figure seems to have his feet on some sort of support--as the Alexamenos figure clearly does.
The Kenneth Clark book mentions a panel from the wooden doors of Santa Sabina in Rome, from around the same time [see next post].
Finally, there's this miniature painting in the Codex Rabulensis or Rabbula Gospels, from 586 A.D. : see Art Treasures in Italy, (McGraw-Hill, 1969) page 49
[attachment=0:3bby80nd]rabbula-crucifixion.jpg[/attachment:3bby80nd]
Of course, the drapery added to the central figure is not historical, and is merely due to Christian horror of nudity; but notice again the nails in the palms of the hands. In this case there are no footrests, and nails go through the ankles.