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.
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.
Scholars’ Corner: New Analysis of the Crucified Man
By Hershel Shanks
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.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
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.”
Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission
This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.
If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:
Notes
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:
- The victim’s legs were not broken as a final coup de grâce. The break so identified by Haas was postmortem.
- The victim did not have a cleft palate. The upper right canine was not missing, despite Haas’s report to the contrary.
- The wood from which the plaque under the nail head was made was olive wood, not acacia or pistacia, as Hans suggested.
- 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.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
Rare Evidence for Roman Crucifixion Found in Second-Century Britain
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
“New Analysis of the Crucified Man” by Hershel Shanks first appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1985. It was first reprinted in BHD, September 2012.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
How high above the ground would it be to the top of the head of the cricified?
I think there are two types of Roman crucifixion: Nailing to a cross and being tied to a cross.
Nailing to a cross is “less severe” and “less humiliating” as the condemned dies within a day from loss of blood.
Tying to a cross is the most severe form of punishment usually reserved for robbers. Insects invited by the stench from the body fluid crawl in and out of the condemned’s crevices. Birds will perch and take a bite on the face and body. Lower abdomen will bulge because of the falling internal organs. The condemned goes mentally-ill shouting, laughing, pleading to be killed but death comes after several days to a week.
As to the vertical pole, whatever was available, an existing one from previous execution or a tree. The body examined was probably of a condemned thief.
There is a practice in the devoutly Catholic nation of the Philippines by which some pious Christians practice penance by having themselves partially crucified in the manner by which Jesus was traditionally crucified. They have found it necessary to support the arms with ropes, using the more modern, smoother, straighter and thinner nails only to provide the additional pain. Of course, they are cut down before irreparable damage is done. There have been medical tests done on (donated) cadavers which show that attempting to hold the weight of the body up solely by nails in the palms merely tears the palms open; while doing so with nails just above the wrists, between the arm bones, just barely holds up the body.
From a humanitarian viewpoint alone, we should be thankful that we know so little about the process. While no country with Christianity as its primary heritage would revive the practice, non-Christian as well as Christian countries are either more humane than ancient Rome (admittedly a very low bar) or would not give up the efficiency of shooting, hanging or beheading for such a slow process, except possibly as a means of interrogation. I am not sure whether the Nazis experimented with crucifixion; I doubt it, because even though there was an “inside the SS” movement to revive Norse paganism, the majority of Germans, even of the Nazis, believed themselves to be, theologically at least, Christians.
The Bible’s answer
Many view the cross as the most common symbol of Christianity. However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty. Still, the Bible provides evidence that Jesus died, not on a cross, but on an upright stake.
The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·ros′ when referring to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John 19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.” * According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, stau·ros′ “never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle.”
The Bible also uses the Greek word xy′lon as a synonym for stau·ros′. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” * The Companion Bible thus concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”
Is using the cross in worship acceptable to God?
A crux simplex—the Latin term for a single stake used for impalement of a criminal
Regardless of the shape of the instrument on which Jesus died, the following facts and Bible verses indicate that we should not use the cross in worship.
God rejects worship that uses images or symbols, including the cross. God commanded the Israelites not to use “the form of any symbol” in their worship, and Christians are likewise told to “flee from idolatry.”—Deuteronomy 4:15-19; 1 Corinthians 10:14.
First-century Christians did not use the cross in worship. * The teachings and example of the apostles set a pattern that all Christians should adhere to.—2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Use of the cross in worship has a pagan origin. * Hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, when the churches had deviated from his teachings, new church members “were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols,” including the cross. (The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) However, the Bible does not condone adopting pagan symbols to help make new converts.—2 Corinthians 6:17.
If Roman executioners used crucifixion on a regular basis, it would require reusable tools for the task. Wooden beams with pre drilled holes, iron fortified wooden dowels, ordinary rope, and fixed post holes make up for an efficient method to get the job done. Securing the victim to the beam or cross would be a method to insure the body would be supported until the public execution was completed. The body would be removed and most of the cross would be used again for the next execution. Nothing suggests the description in the Bible is inaccurate as to the piercing of the hands and feet. The fastening to the beam or “prospegnumi” (Greek), indicative of fastening with a “peg”, carries the idea of both rope and dowels used in fastening to a wooden beam. The nine times the word phrase “nailed to a cross” is used in Christian Scripture can be compared with similar usage in the LXX and contemporary sources. No conclusive evidence exists to state as Bill O’Reilly does in his book “Killing Jesus”, that Christ was not nailed to a cross. That opinion assumes much more about the Roman method of execution than actual facts support. Jesus was likely attached to a wooden beam by use of both ropes and pegs.
What type of Wood was used in the Roman’s crucifixions? during the time of Jesus?
So was it a upright pole stake or a cross?
This article unfortunately continues the tradition of the “cross” when Romans routinely simple nailed people to a POST, hands above the head, with no cross beam. The word used does NOT mean cross and was just a mistranslation by people who had fortunately never seen a crucifixion. Indeed, try to imagine Roman soldiers wasting all the time needed to create the kind of jointed cross that is usually seen in artworks while they banged up 500 to 1000 people along a road. Incidentally, the fact that the word means a large piece of wood and could be better translated post or staff depending on context makes the comment of Jesus sending out his disciples the last time, when he predicted troubles a lot more sensible. Take a big stick or staff along. NOT a “Cross” for ******** sake. Forgive me thinking of the word which fit’s best there. Let’s just say for “Pete’s” sake.
Saying that the crucifixion of Jesus was God the Father’s idea to endure the painful sequence that the sentence of crucifixion inflicts on a person just to die for other men’s sins goes beyond logic. Makes no sense what so ever, thus “senseless” Not suggesting this did not take place, rather this particular execution did… in fact, just as countless others by the hand of Roman rules & law. This account has been embellished on so many times that facts are buried under the writings of those who wish to promote their ideologies .
I’m curious as to why it is assumed that the arms were roped to the beam. With both heels nailed in place, the crucified man would hold on to the beam with no need for other support.