Did The Romans Use Metal Nails To Make Crosses?

[Guest katesavage2001]

I am a first time vistor ... I hope this is the right place to post a question.

 

I am reading a book in which a claim is made that nails were used to create the cross used to crucify Jesus. I was curious if the Romans used nails for this purpose or if they would have used pegs or some other method of fastening the beams of a cross together.

 

If you have an answer or a suggestion on how I could research this, I would appreciate the help.

 

Thanks.

[Sextus Roscius]

Welcome to UNRV! I hope you'll like it here. I'm sure you've taken the time to look around the forum so I shant bother you about that. Just, this thread would be more correctly placed in the Romana Humanitas or Imperium Romanorum forums.

 

As for info, the Romans did use metal nails. Wooden pegs were surpassed by that time, so the book is correct in saying that nails would've been used. Pegs migh have worked to hold the cross together, but to put things simply, you can't nail some one to a cross with wooden pegs.

 

However I welcome my fellows to correct me If I'm wrong.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Sextus Roscius

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I have a feeling that the Romans didn't really care, metal or wood, as long as the thing held together.

[Lost_Warrior]

Yep

 

I'd imagine they didn't use "nails" as we see them today, but rather spikes more like RR spikes but sharper. At least for the actual crucifiction (because regular nails wouldn't be long enough, nor would they do the job). Also as a side point, I'm fairly certain they crucified through the wrists, not the palms (because palms would probably tear out).

[phil25]

What is the evidence either way - the sources?

 

I have seen it argued that the condemned carried the crossbeam ONLY to their place of execution - the upright was already in situ? This by contrast to the traditional "stations of the cross" depiction of Jesus with the whil;e"X". But do we have reliable information on this - if so i am unsighted on it.

 

Are we even sure of the methods used?

 

Commonsense suggests that nails would work loose over the period of days a victim spent dying on the cross. The reult of the method of execution was that the victim rose and fell on his hands in a struggle to breath - a violent see-sawing moving that would surely have put huge stress on the junction between upright and cross beam, whether a T or X shape.

 

In ancient cultures, I suspect that pegs and joints (however crude) would have been more in use and the preferred approach - but do we know?

 

So far as fastening the victim to the cross is concerned, I have seen depictions both of ropes and hails. I know that the ankle bones of a crucified man were found in Jerusalem some decades ago - recognised as such by the spike/nail through the ankle joint. There was a shard of wood inserted between nail and victim as i recall.

 

What we need is someone who knows about Roman carpentry...

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

Yep

 

I'd imagine they didn't use "nails" as we see them today, but rather spikes more like RR spikes but sharper. At least for the actual crucifiction (because regular nails wouldn't be long enough, nor would they do the job). Also as a side point, I'm fairly certain they crucified through the wrists, not the palms (because palms would probably tear out).

 

Yes, but they were also more likely to simply tie the victim down instead of 'nailing' since even if they nailed the wrists etc, the chances the body would rip off due to the weight were still high. So if I am not mistaken the majority of the crucifixitions would have been used with rope, though we know in some cases, (like that of Jesus), iron pegs were used.

[phil25]

...though we know in some cases, (like that of Jesus), iron pegs were used.

 

As I noted in my previous post, we have actual archaeological evidence of this from Israel. I think the victims name was Jehonan.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I can't speak to the construction of all Roman crucifixion crosses, but they very much did use nails in all sorts of things. There is an excellent site with many pictures of various Roman artifacts, but I can't seem to locate it... Here is one fantastic sample though...

 

Glasgow Steel--Roman Nail

[longbow]

I have seen it argued that the condemned carried the crossbeam ONLY to their place of execution - the upright was already in situ? This by contrast to the traditional "stations of the cross" depiction of Jesus with the whil;e"X". But do we have reliable information on this - if so i am unsighted on it

Indeed,the upright post was fixed Permanently in the ground and the condemned man carried the patibulum (crossbeam) only.At the time of Jesus's execution the Romans were using the 'Tau cross' which is the shape of a 'T',the medieval and Renaissance artists depicted him carrying the entire 'Latin cross' (which has the crossbeam 3feet below the top of the upright post).

[Tobias]

So far as fastening the victim to the cross is concerned, I have seen depictions both of ropes and hails. I know that the ankle bones of a crucified man were found in Jerusalem some decades ago - recognised as such by the spike/nail through the ankle joint. There was a shard of wood inserted between nail and victim as i recall.

 

It probably varied with convenience, the station of the person being crucified, or what was available. Tying the victim to a cross was probably one of the worse ways; it allowed the victim just that little more laxity to make it nigh on impossible to breathe, at least for long, because the rope didn't necessarily hold the victim in place as well as the nails, allowing the victim to hang from the cross more.

Wooden spikes would have been used, i believe, but these were probably more disposable then metal ones i.e. thrown away after the death of the victim or decomposed or was eaten away etc, hence the lack of evidence for them.

The metal nails were probably used more and more as they held the victim in place effectively, would not allow the victim to hang more like the rope, or possibly break like wood and thus made for a more "effective" crucifixion, meaning the victim may have survived longer than for e.g. by the rope method, and thus make the lesson more clear; don't violate roman laws.

Now i feel like a bit of a ghoul, discussing crucifixion methods

 

As for the construction of the cross, i have little to offer there.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Tobias

[phil25]

...the station of the person being crucified...

 

I thought only slaves could be crucified?

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

I thought only slaves could be crucified?

 

No so, but possibly Roman Citizens themselves were not crucified. Anyone else was fair game if a crime was committed. Ala - Pirates crucified by Julius Caesar. (not slaves, just non-citizen criminals)

[eggers]

They used nails. Simple reason, they were meant to be a method of punishment and be a show to others, not a work of art. They hack out a bit of wood from joining surfaces to make a joint similar to a 'dado' wood joint and then nail them together. Nailing is quicker as it doesn't require any drilling, but wood dowels do. Once the cross is in the area you want to hang someone, you tie them to the cross so they can't actually move out of the way (natural re-action is to try to move you arm outta the way when someone is nailing it to a piece of wood), then hammer the nails through their wrists between the carpal bones and the radius and ulna (fore-arm bones if you don't know) and through the feet. (Whether you remove the rope or not at this point is meaningly, unless you can't hammer straight)

They hammered nails through the feet because they can overlap nicely and you need the knees to be bent. This is because once they hang you up there to die, the stress on the rib-cage caused by the arms to be nailed up means you can't breathe. You would need to push up with your legs to take a breath in. That way if you were hanging on the cross you can just about breathe, so you would live alittle longer, and make the punishment worse. Romans were such charming people

[lastman456]

They used nails. Simple reason, they were meant to be a method of punishment and be a show to others, not a work of art. They hack out a bit of wood from joining surfaces to make a joint similar to a 'dado' wood joint and then nail them together. Nailing is quicker as it doesn't require any drilling, but wood dowels do. Once the cross is in the area you want to hang someone, you tie them to the cross so they can't actually move out of the way (natural re-action is to try to move you arm outta the way when someone is nailing it to a piece of wood), then hammer the nails through their wrists between the carpal bones and the radius and ulna (fore-arm bones if you don't know) and through the feet. (Whether you remove the rope or not at this point is meaningly, unless you can't hammer straight)

They hammered nails through the feet because they can overlap nicely and you need the knees to be bent. This is because once they hang you up there to die, the stress on the rib-cage caused by the arms to be nailed up means you can't breathe. You would need to push up with your legs to take a breath in. That way if you were hanging on the cross you can just about breathe, so you would live alittle longer, and make the punishment worse. Romans were such charming people

[lastman456]

Using european illustrations as a guide to middle east practices is dicey. Jesus was likely not blonde or blue-eyed, as in many Vatican paintings.

 

As to the Romans, they used X type crosses to punish thiefs, and if you research a little harder you will find that Jesus was dilberately punished in the style of the thief. His wrist and ankles were likely pegged to the wood with Iron nails, because they were efficient, easily made, and reuseable. All of these things were used by the Romans to prolong the life of the punished and to make sure they suffered, and thieves were particularly ill recieved by Roman authorities.

 

Jesus was brought up on charges of sedition, punished as a political mal-content, and made to suffer the double indignity of being punished with the common thieves.

 

The authorities didn't take kindly to the locals talking about replacing them with a new form of government.