• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Roman Crucifixion Research

Go to CruxDreams.com
In other tales of crucifixion the feet were nailed together by one nail on the front of the stipes or they were nailed separately. Given the evidence you have gathered it seems it was done on the sides for support and humuliation. Would you not think that nailing each foot separately on the front of the stipes would also serve that purpose? I would think that if nail went through where the foot meets the leg that would also provide the same effect as going through the heel.
 
Lictor, you address a particular topic prone to sensationalism or titillation


without resorting to either, which is not easy to do. Well damn done.
Thank you!
In other tales of crucifixion the feet were nailed together by one nail on the front of the stipes or they were nailed separately. Given the evidence you have gathered it seems it was done on the sides for support and humuliation. Would you not think that nailing each foot separately on the front of the stipes would also serve that purpose? I would think that if nail went through where the foot meets the leg that would also provide the same effect as going through the heel.
ShadowWolf, we have very little evidence to go on, but my goal with this website is to stick to what we KNOW. When we know very little, it's tempting, and maybe even necessary at times, to try to imagine something PLAUSIBLE. I try to keep the plausible imagination to a minimum and make sure it is well marked when we do use it.

The only EVIDENCE we have is of a man who seems to have had his feet nailed to opposite sides of the cross. COULD the feet have been nailed side by side to the front of the cross sometimes? Absolutely possible. Would it have provided the same effect? Your imagination is a good as mine. :) Probably so.

As far as providing support for the body, I'm not a doctor, so I report all of this second-hand and without authority, but my understanding is that the nail through the heel provides the maximum support for the body. Nailing through the front where the foot meets the leg would, I understand, necessarily break bones, which would then not be able to support the body.

That doesn't mean it wasn't done. But since our only piece of archaeological evidence employs a method medically recognized to provide the maximum support for the body, to me the case is strong that it was likely the "standard" way, if such a thing existed.

On the other hand, there is the Alexamenos graffito, which depicts a very different method of foot nailing. See out article on foot nailing:
 
Check out our latest article:
And please comment on the site the things you agree or disagree with!
Nicely done, Lictor! I agree with your scoring 100%!
 
Check out our latest article:
And please comment on the site the things you agree or disagree with!
yes yes...my desire to see nude xena carry her cross to the execution place
 
Check out our latest article:
And please comment on the site the things you agree or disagree with!
I think the roman soldiers liked to have some fun, so they will nail the condemned in different obscene position to a cross, which was missed in all movies, also missing is the possible rapes. In the case of Jesus they will have tried to offend him and(!) the priest most, so I am not sure, that he was not fully dressed in a kingly rope on cross. I would done that. But if I would do a movie today, I would try to offend most the Catholic Church by showing a nude Jesus (with erected penis) and I would show him enjoying anal sex. That brings me to the other thing missing in most movies, the Cornu. Also missing is some kind of death dance, remembering that crucifixion should represent (in roman context) some kind of getting fucked to death by the state/priapus/pan.
 
Ah, at last some intelligent criticism of the hopeless crucifixion scenarios in films.

I can understand the coyness in giving an accurate description of Christ's execution because of his religious status, that plus our rather weird attitude to our own anatomy that we all share in two different cohorts - it is clearly stated that Christ was 'made man' - so he was a bloke (not some godly other being with a gender-neutral body), also he was circumsized so clearly had all the tackle the rest of us men have, we are also informed clearly in the Gospels that his clothes were divided up between the soldiers - so he had none of them on when up on the cross. Yet to depict one of religion's major figures nude is still I guess a taboo.

Fair enough. But is that taboo about Christ's obvious nakedness a taboo against general nakedness or a taboo against seeing his genitals? I suspect the latter because The Last Temptation is not that shocking & seems to have been generally accepted. Personally, & I am not gay, but I find naked men & naked women beautiful & cannot understand the seeming repulsion at seeing the nude body.

So if The Last Temptation is acceptable why oh why can't a better & more accurate version of crucifixion in all its horror be filmed. Careful camera angles can avoid any sight of Christ's private parts, these could be camera shots from behind the cross which would emphasise brilliantly the mockery of the crowd who would be seen front on - mockery that the back view of a naked Christ (buttocks should hold no outrage) would be plainly shown at the crowd's reaction to his nakedness & the obvious suffering that would be causing him. Frontal shots could be from navel up or if really daring a hint of pubic hair could appear. The two thieves each side could be shown fully naked front on & would, by transmission of idea, show exactly what Christ would be like without actually showing it.
This scenario could be done & it would be tremendously powerful, the physical pain of the Crucifixion is just about being shown in film* but add to that the degrading shame & it would really show how Jesus suffered.

*Actually the physical pain is not being shown; in pretty well every film, including The Last Temptation, the actors just stand on their footrests looking about as inconvenienced as if their coffee was cold. Yes a bit of crying out as the nails were driven in, then a strange acceptance of the situation. Actually I think the nailing would be agony but being raised up, either on the cross or by just the patibulum, would be even worse as the weight begins to bear down on the nails & nerves would get pinched, panic would also set in. Once up, why aren't the actors writhing & struggling in terrible agony? Crucifixion was not standing up wearing a towel round the waist & looking a bit bored, it hurt!
 
I was wondering about that. Any idea why?

It's the second takedown. Mp5stab commented upon it when it happened the first time.
He had talked to me in private messaging about feeling guilty about the whole thing. I won't go into any further detail, to respect his privacy and wishes. Still, I'm upset that he pulled all of his fantastic writing and research before it could be widely appreciated
It's understandable if he's conflicted about crux. Even if there's no prurient interest at all, it's hard not to feel something dark and sacrilegious -- for a Westerner, that is.
 
Did anybody else see the article about them digging up a heel bone from the Roman period in England with the nail still in it? According to the article (and we all know how "ACCURATE" the internet can be) it is only the 4th known (and two of them are conjectures) physical example of a crucifixion.

The angle of the nail indicates the foot was probably nailed to the side of the stipe.

kisses

willowfall
 
Did anybody else see the article about them digging up a heel bone from the Roman period in England with the nail still in it? According to the article (and we all know how "ACCURATE" the internet can be) it is only the 4th known (and two of them are conjectures) physical example of a crucifixion.

The angle of the nail indicates the foot was probably nailed to the side of the stipe.

kisses

willowfall
There's a short discussion. It's easy to be a sceptic here; I know I am.
 
Did anybody else see the article about them digging up a heel bone from the Roman period in England with the nail still in it? According to the article (and we all know how "ACCURATE" the internet can be) it is only the 4th known (and two of them are conjectures) physical example of a crucifixion.

The angle of the nail indicates the foot was probably nailed to the side of the stipe.

kisses

willowfall
there was an article on this site that a copy of the program also a few years ago there was a program which showed some ankle parts with a nail in embeded in the side. on the question of why there no remains found, can I suggest that in Judea nails and heavy timbers would have been rare so would have been shalveged
 
I read some time ago that Archaeologists assume that in Palestine around the year 30 because of a lack of wood, the execution on the X-Cross was preferred. They could use poorer wood for this and they didn't have to use high-quality beams.
 
Did anybody else see the article about them digging up a heel bone from the Roman period in England with the nail still in it? According to the article (and we all know how "ACCURATE" the internet can be) it is only the 4th known (and two of them are conjectures) physical example of a crucifixion.

The angle of the nail indicates the foot was probably nailed to the side of the stipe.

kisses

willowfall
Willow, of course the InterWeb is accurate! I know that for a fact. There was an article on somebody's blog quoting a bulletin board post from about 15 years ago that said so!
 
there was an article on this site that a copy of the program also a few years ago there was a program which showed some ankle parts with a nail in embeded in the side. on the question of why there no remains found, can I suggest that in Judea nails and heavy timbers would have been rare so would have been shalveged

Judea had been at the cross roads of overland trade for well over 1,000 years by the time the Roman's decided to acquire it and was incredibly wealthy by the standards of the day. That was one of the reasons that conquerors as far back as written history (to say nothing of the Jews themselves) were anxious to take control of it. There was no real lack of anything there.

That being said, being builders (and fairly practical), the Romans would have salvaged anything they thought would be useful in the future (just as we do today) for reuse. So I am sure you are right, materials were salvaged, but not for lack of them availability.

kisses

willowfall
 
Back
Top Bottom