Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion

Crucifixion in Antiquity

What do we know about the history of crucifixion? In the following article, “New Analysis of the Crucified Man,” Hershel Shanks looks at evidence of Roman crucifixion methods as analyzed from the remains found in Jerusalem of a young man crucified in the first century A.D. The remains included a heel bone pierced by a large nail, giving archaeologists, osteologists and anthropologists evidence of crucifixion in antiquity.

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion

Crucifixion in antiquity was a gruesome execution, not really understood until a skeletal discovery in the 1980s that gave new insight into the history of crucifixion. Photo: Courtesy Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1 (1985)

What do these bones tell us about the history of crucifixion? The excavator of the crucified man, Vassilios Tzaferis, followed the analysis of Nico Haas of Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem suggesting Roman crucifixion methods: a contorted position: arms nailed to the crossbeam; legs bent, twisted to one side, and held in place by a single nail that passed through a wooden plaque, through both left and right heel bones, and then into the upright of the cross.

However, when Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles reexamined the remains, looking for evidence of Roman crucifixion methods, they found no evidence that nails had penetrated the victim’s arms; moreover, the nail in the foot was not long enough to have penetrated the plaque, both feet, and the cross. And, indeed, what were previously thought to be fragments of two heel bones through which the nail passed were shown to be fragments of only one heel bone and a long bone. On the basis of this evidence, Zias and Sekeles suggest that the man’s legs straddled the cross and that his arms were tied to the crossbeam with ropes, signifying the method of crucifixion in antiquity.

Literary sources giving insight into the history of crucifixion indicate that Roman crucifixion methods had the condemned person carry to the execution site only the crossbar. Wood was scarce and the vertical pole was kept stationary and used repeatedly. Below, in “New Analysis of the Crucified Man,” Hershel Shanks concludes that crucifixion in antiquity involved death by asphyxiation, not death by nail piercing.

In our free eBook Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus, expert Bible scholars and archaeologists offer in-depth research and reflections on this important event. Discover what they say about the story of the resurrection, the location of Biblical Emmaus, Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb, the ancient Jewish roots of bodily resurrection, and the possible endings of the Gospel of Mark.


Scholars’ Corner: New Analysis of the Crucified Man

By Hershel Shanks

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion

Drawing of the contorted crucifixion position proposed by Vassilios Tzaferis, based on the analysis of Nico Haas, which has since been challenged by Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles. For full caption, see drawing from Israel Exploration Journal 35:1. Photo: Courtesy Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1–2 (1970)

In our January/February 1985 issue, we published an article about the only remains of a crucified man to be recovered from antiquity (“Crucifixion—The Archaeological Evidence,BAR, January/February 1985). Vassilios Tzaferis, the author of the article and the excavator of the crucified man, based much of his analysis of the victim’s position on the cross and other aspects of the method of crucifixion on the work of a medical team from Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School headed by Nico Haas, who had analyzed the crucified man’s bones. In a recent article in the Israel Exploration Journal, however, Joseph Zias, an anthropologist with the Israel Department of Antiquities, and Eliezer Sekeles of Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School in Jerusalem question many of Haas’s conclusions concerning the bones of the crucified man.a The questions Zias and Sekeles raise affect many of the conclusions about the man’s position during crucifixion.

According to Haas, the nail in the crucified man penetrated both his right and left heel bones, piercing the right heel bone (calcaneum) first, then the left. Haas found a fragment of bone attached to the right heel that he thought was part of the left heel bone (sustentaculum tali). If Haas’s analysis is correct, the two heel bones must have been penetrated by the same nail, and the victim’s legs must have been in a closed position on the cross.

But according to the new analysis of the bones just published in the Israel Exploration Journal, the bone fragment Haas identified as part of the left heel bone was incorrectly identified. “The shape and structure of this bony fragment is of a long bone; it cannot therefore be the left [heel bone],” say the most recent investigators. Their conclusions are confirmed by x-rays, which reveal the varying density, structure and direction of the bones.

Haas also incorrectly assumed that the nail is seven inches (17–18 cm) long. In fact, the total length of the nail from head to tip is only 4.5 inches (11.5 cm). A wooden plaque less than an inch thick (2 cm) had been punctured by the nail before it passed through the right heel bone. After exiting from the bone, the nail penetrated the cross itself and then bent, probably because it hit a knot. As the new investigators observe, given the length of the nail, “There simply was not enough room for both heel bones and a two centimeter wooden plaque to have been pierced by the nail and affixed to the vertical shaft of the cross. … The nail was sufficient for affixing only one heel bone to the cross.”

In short, only the right heel bone was penetrated—laterally, or sidewise—by the nail. Accordingly, the victim’s position on the cross must have been different from that portrayed by Haas.

The new investigators also dispute Haas’s conclusion that a scratch on the bone of the right forearm (radius) of the victim, just above the wrist, represents the penetration of a nail between the two bones of the forearm. According to Zias and Sekeles, such scratches and indentations are commonly found on ancient skeletal material, including on the right leg bone (fibula) of this man. Such scratches and indentations have nothing to do with crucifixion.

How then was the crucified man attached to the cross?

As the new investigators observe:

“The literary sources for the Roman period contain numerous descriptions of crucifixion but few exact details as to how the condemned were affixed to the cross. Unfortunately, the direct physical evidence here is also limited to one right calcaneum (heel bone) pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at both ends.”

According to the literary sources, those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross, despite the common belief to the contrary and despite the many modern reenactments of Jesus’ walk to Golgotha. Instead, only the crossbar was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. As the first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from Jerusalem to secure timber for their siege machinery.

According to Zias and Sekeles:

“One can reasonably assume that the scarcity of wood may have been expressed in the economics of crucifixion in that the crossbar as well as the upright would be used repeatedly. Thus, the lack of traumatic injury to the forearm and metacarpals of the hand seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross. There is ample literary and artistic evidence for the use of ropes rather than nails to secure the condemned to the cross.”

According to Zias and Sekeles, the victim’s legs straddled the vertical shaft of the cross, one leg on either side, with the nails penetrating the heel bones. The plaque or plate under the head of the nail, they say, was intended to secure the nail and prevent the condemned man from pulling his feet free.

As Haas correctly suggested, the nail probably hit a knot which bent the nail. However, as Zias and Sekeles reconstruct the removal of the dead man from the cross:

“Once the body was removed from the cross, albeit with some difficulty in removing the right leg, the condemned man’s family would now find it impossible to remove the bent nail without completely destroying the heel bone. This reluctance to inflict further damage to the heel led [to his burial with the nail still in his bone, and this in turn led] to the eventual discovery of the crucifixion.”

Whether the victim’s arms were tied, rather than nailed to the cross is irrelevant to the manner of his dying. As Zias and Sekeles point out:

“Death by crucifixion was the result of the manner in which the condemned man hung from the cross and not the traumatic injury caused by nailing. Hanging from the cross resulted in a painful process of asphyxiation, in which the two sets of muscles used for breathing, the intercostal [chest] muscles and the diaphragm, became progressively weakened. In time, the condemned man expired, due to the inability to continue breathing properly.”


New Analysis of the Crucified Man” by Hershel Shanks first appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1985.



a. “The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,” Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 35, No. 1 (1985), pp. 22–27.

Zias and Sekeles also note a number of other errors in Haas’s report:

1. The victim’s legs were not broken as a final coup de grâce. The break so identified by Haas was postmortem.

2. The victim did not have a cleft palate. The upper right canine was not missing, despite Haas’s report to the contrary.

3. The wood from which the plaque under the nail head was made was olive wood, not acacia or pistacia, as Hans suggested.

4. The wood fragments attached to the end of the nail were too minute to be analyzed. Haas suggested the vertical shaft of the cross was olive wood. This is possible, but unlikely.


Posted in Crucifixion.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

8 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • sienna says

    how did they crucify Jesus?

  • Blob says

    I would guess that all crucifixions were not identically carried out. For example, an Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) passage prophesied that Jesus would be nailed through his feet AND his hands. It was a horrific experience, that he suffered for us.

  • Mark says

    My debate with a family member who is a Jehovah’s Witness ultimately like me to this article while trying to examine the evidence both for and against Jesus’s crucifixion being on an actual cross.
    Although I am quite the Layman when it comes to archaeological study, I found this article to be a wealth of information but I still have a couple of questions I’m hoping you could help me with.
    Knowing that the Romans were masters of execution and torture, what would have been a more efficient tool for them to use to prolong the suffering of somebody crucified? Since death ultimately came from asphyxiation after a prolonged struggle to keep breathing, would that have been best achieved with the condemned person nailed to a single upright post with their arms above their head or, with their arms outstretched to the sides either tied or nailed to the cross bar? I’ve read where the Romans would use whatever means possible at the times to crucify criminals, I’ve even read where when nothing else was available they would nail the victim to the side of a wall but again, knowing that the Romans seem to Pride themselves on the ra bility to inflict maximum damage during executions my thinking is that since they had a set place we’re executions happened on a regular basis and all of the means and implements were right there, having Jesus Carry the Cross Beam tothe execution site and then attaching that to the top of the steak would you seem to be The Logical conclusion. I would very much appreciate any feedback on this.

    Thank you

    • Darrel says

      I know the JW’s like to cite the “mercy stake” argument saying that that’s how the Greek word “stauros” is translated, but while “upright stake” might be the primary definition, the “cross” definition is still secondary, and Strong’s Concordance lists the meaning of the word as the “crosspiece of a Roman cross”. Strong’s Concordance is a lot more authoritative to me than the JW’s flawed interpretation of Greek.
      It should be noted that Christians have been using the cross as a symbol going back to before 200 AD (though not widely until 500 AD), which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of things. Crucifixions were still being carried out until Constantine banned them in the 4th century. I think a logical person would conclude that these people were close enough in time to know that a cross was a cross and not just a stake. Still, the JWs like to cite this unlikely misinterpretation because, hey, if we can’t even get the part about the stake right, what are the chances that the rest of our interpretations are flawed? Meaning you can only trust THEIR interpretation, despite the fact that their interpretation is not listed in any of the accepted versions on any standard online bible site. That really should say something right there.
      The people who interpreted the Greek NT to form the JW’s version of the Bible were not Greek scholars on the order of those who created the King James Version, and the JWs twist scripture to deny Jesus as God. Even if you take them to John 1:1 and show them that the “Word was God”, they say that the “Word was a god”. When you tell them that the same word used there, “Theos”, is used 311 other times in the NT, and almost always referring to God the Father, they tell you that you have to take everything in context. When I ask what context exists since this is at the very beginning of John, and there’s nothing after it that would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that should mean “a god” this time, despite what the other 310 examples mean, they have no answer.
      The next time they come to my door (I’m blessed to have a Kingdom Hall about a half mile from my house, so they come to my door a lot – LOL), I’m going to have them explain Zechariah 12:10 to me, where their version has “and they will look to the one whom they pierced”, whereas most of the reasonable and accepted translations show “then they will look on Me whom they pierced”, and if you look at the Hebrew word, ’ê·lay, it means “on me”, so their Hebrew scholars are just as bad, deceived, and blind as their Greek scholars.
      Another fun one will be having them explain John 8:58, which says “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’” Who, but God, is the great I AM? Why would Jesus say that if not to show us that He is God?
      Anyway, I wish you luck in opening their eyes. I pray for them, because I think they stand a lot to lose within their community because they’re faced with banishment from the church and relatives who are still JWs, and they may fear that more than they fear God, unfortunately. They’re very nice people, and they mean well, but they’re fully deceived and in denial of who Jesus is.

      • BAS says

        I had a couple of JW knock on my door which is why I am looking up crucifixion.
        I explained that I am a Catholic and whilst I know the problems regarding the Roman Church, I tend to follow the KJV.
        I believe in the holy trinity.

      • Terry says

        John 8:58 is an interesting study. The original Greek for this phrase, “I AM” is ego eimI ( Strongs #G1473, G1510, used 146 times in the New Testament and only translated “I AM” this one time!). More literally translated “I am he” (see 8:24, 28) for continuity of Jesus’ conversation. The capitalization of “I AM” is not in the original transcript and is an attempt to associate Exodus 3:14 which Jesus as an attempt to support Jesus as God. The term quoted in Exodus 3:14, “I AM THAT I AM”, should be translated “I Will Be Who I Will Be”. (Hebrew “hayah asher hayah” Strongs # H1961, H834). Jesus throughout his ministry never claims himself to be God or equal with God. (Always claims that he is the son of God and his servant). I am not a JW. However, I wish to shed light on translation errors that are leading people astray from true scripture.

    • Darrel says

      Here’s another article on this same site that’s good, and might help you:

  • Ted says

    There’s also a clue given to us in John 21:18-19 where Jesus reveals how Peter will die.

  • 1 12 13 14

    Some HTML is OK

    or, reply to this post via trackback.

Send this to a friend

Hello! Your friend thought you might be interested in reading this post from
Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion!
Here is the link:
Enter Your Log In Credentials...

Change Password