If so it is being depicted, as usual, incorrectly. Crucifixtion wounds should be on the wrists and ankles. Nails through the hands and feet would never hold the body's weight up.
Couldn't someone be be kept in place with other means, like tied to the cross for example and the nails be there for more of a "decoration" so to speak?
They could be, but I am pretty sure the Romans wouldn't have bothered. Nailing through the wrists above the carpus bones and through the tarsus bones of the ankle would be more than sufficient to hold the body up. The ropes would be entirely unnecessary.
They could be, but I am pretty sure the Romans wouldn't have bothered. Nailing through the wrists above the carpus bones and through the tarsus bones of the ankle would be more than sufficient to hold the body up. The ropes would be entirely unnecessary.
I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but crucifixions in Japan and East Asia in general were usually done by tying the person up, rather than nailing.
