* Login   * Register
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:44 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:32 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:37 am
Posts: 556
Location: Some cheap motel somewhere
Quote:
Line on the left, one cross each: Bioarchaeology of Crucifixion
The Romans practiced crucifixion - literally, "fixed to a cross" - for nearly a millennium. Like death by guillotine in early modern times, crucifixion was a public act, but unlike the swift action of the guillotine, crucifixion involved a long and painful - hence, excruciating - death. So crucifixion was both a deterrent of further crimes and a humiliation of the dying person, who had to spend the last days of his life naked, in full view of any passersby, until he died of dehydration, asphyxiation, infection, or other causes. The Roman orator Cicero noted that "of all punishments, it is the most cruel and most terrifying" and Jewish historian Josephus called it "the most wretched of deaths."

Image Image

As a research topic, this would keep me up at night.

_________________
Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
(Bertolt Brecht)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline
Contributing Member

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:13 am
Posts: 85
That is rather interesting - that there is such little physical evidence of crucifixion except in what amounts to a semi-autonomous province.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:55 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 32743
It was practices all over the empire, dude. Crassus didn't decorate the Appian Way with Christmas trees.

_________________
With great power comes great risk of getting yourself killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:43 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:13 am
Posts: 85
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
It was practices all over the empire, dude. Crassus didn't decorate the Appian Way with Christmas trees.


Yet if the article is to be believed then all those other places have less physical evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:10 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 7722
Quote:
In the first century BC, during the revolt of Spartacus, there were reports of over 6,000 crosses with crucified victims on the road from Capua to Rome, and in the first century AD, Josephus reported that up to 500 Jews were crucified every day during the siege of Jerusalem (Holoubek & Holoubek 1995). The bioarchaeology of crucifixion is therefore a bit of a conundrum: it makes sense that finding evidence may be difficult because of the vagaries of taphonomy, but the sheer volume of people killed in this way over centuries should have given us more direct evidence of the practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:25 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 32743
Consider these bodies were not going to be properly buried in those days. Quite often, people used fire anyway. These were condemned men, often bandits, pirates, and gangsters. People didn't care what happened to them. They were just a mess to clear out of the way when some soldiers needed busy work.

If I were to look for evidence, I would look in places like where Judea stood. There most partisans were executed in this way. But those guys had family. The people didn't all despise them. They were more likely to get a proper Jewish burial, which means their bones would be rather well preserved as long as the tomb remains unmolested.

I wouldn't look in Italy, France, or Spain. Consider also there were enormous battles we read about, but we cannot locate. Surely some remains of Varrus' three legions remain buried. Yet nobody has found even though, after a brief search, I found only one good match for the battlefield (three hills enclosing a small pass, allowing an army to cross the line of hills and march south into a valley near a river, and in the Teuteburg forest). But I can't be the only person to notice that. People have likely been all over that spot looking for artifacts.

If you are to question the crucifixion accounts, then you might as well drop most of history. Because most of what we know comes from historical accounts, not artifacts and remains.


BTW: my guess is that it happened in Osnabrück county as people assumed, but the location is where a town named Krebsburg stands today. Coming from the north, he would see an opening between the hills, with a third hill facing him just beyond the southern opening of the pass. Varrus camps on the northern side of the pass. He sends a small force through the pass. They are pulled in by skirmishers. He commits increasingly more troops. Then the real army flanks him from those two hillsides on the right and left, with the main force marching down from that third hill. They are locked out from the northern opening. There is only one escape the SE. If you look at the water table, that area very clearly was a swamp. That is into where one of the eagles were allegedly thrown to save it from capture. A few men make it to the river and escape, just as was accounted. What was left of his troops still in camp likely left the way they came in haste. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Krebsburg ... y&t=p&z=13

_________________
With great power comes great risk of getting yourself killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:45 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:37 am
Posts: 556
Location: Some cheap motel somewhere
If you do a sort of Drake's Equation for all things that need to be in place for a crucifixion victim to be archaeologically identified and assign likely probabiliities, you'll see the chances are astronomically small. The main problems are ones of sampling and preservation.

Israel, Egypt, that area would be the best places to look simply because the preservation is so much better there.

Dr. S, the Varus battlefield has been identified with pretty high probability. I am sure we have discussed it here. It's Kalkriese. That's where my avatar is from. I don't know if it is where you predict, but it would be interesting to see what lines up.

_________________
Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
(Bertolt Brecht)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:51 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 7722
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
If you are to question the crucifixion accounts, then you might as well drop most of history. Because most of what we know comes from historical accounts, not artifacts and remains.
Hey, I'm a guy who considers the Bible to be the most reliable source of history we have, so I'm definitely not questioning crucifixion as a historical act. I do find it interesting how little of our historical knowledge we can back up with physical artifacts though. We often base our knowledge on a small number of writers, it would be nice if something like crucifixion which was reportedly quite common left a little more in the way of artifacts. This same thing likely does apply to a great deal of what we know about history.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:54 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 11085
Atanamis wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
If you are to question the crucifixion accounts, then you might as well drop most of history. Because most of what we know comes from historical accounts, not artifacts and remains.
Hey, I'm a guy who considers the Bible to be the most reliable source of history we have, so I'm definitely not questioning crucifixion as a historical act. I do find it interesting how little of our historical knowledge we can back up with physical artifacts though. We often base our knowledge on a small number of writers, it would be nice if something like crucifixion which was reportedly quite common left a little more in the way of artifacts. This same thing likely does apply to a great deal of what we know about history.



Discard the skeletal remains and the timber could be used for other purposes. No different when stone walls outlived their usefulness people took what they needed for other designs.

_________________
The term "magic" loses it's meaning once you know what's going on.

HJK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:04 pm 
Offline
The Boy Wonder
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 3720
Wood does not even have to be dead to crucify someone on it. Two branches sticking out to wrap ones arms around it and some rope for binding. Better yet just tie their hands up to the trunk of a tree. Seems like we would have little to no physical evidence after thousands of years. Organic material does not usually last very long and as already mentioned re purposing the materials is almost guaranteed as well.

I imagine Crassus had his men use pretty much anything available to tie up the slaves. One of the main reasons this was such a horrible way to go is the aspect of being exposed elements and not getting food or water. Breaking someones legs to encourage and aid suffocation or being stabbed is the humane way to end the crucifixion.

Image


I also think we have some evidence as well. It might just be a little more modern than you want.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fixion.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Archaeology of Crucifixion
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:09 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:37 am
Posts: 556
Location: Some cheap motel somewhere
Since we're on the topic here's something from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion). Apparently "In modern times, the medical profession has shown considerable interest in crucifixion." :huh:

They talk about three main hypotheses of how crucifixion kills you, but unfortunately ...
Quote:
...it is unknown which of these three widely stated hypotheses is correct, since crucifixion is not employed as a modern legal method of execution.

Science loses out again :( .

And there is a 22-entry bibliography for those so inclined.

_________________
Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
(Bertolt Brecht)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us