Monday, 30 June 2025

Crucifixion




A Piece of the 'True Cross'. You can tell because of the Made in China sticker on the base.


Just a quick and morbid post from me. And what could be more morbid than the topic of crucifixion?

Crucifixion is a very nasty way to go. It is forever immortalised due to Jesus' death by this method, as meted out by Roman law. Few execution techniques match its cruelty and ingenuity. Off hand, I can think of three execution techniques that match or exceed crucifixion's unremitting horror, that is, 'Flaying', 'The Boats' and 'Impaling'. I've written about the latter two techniques in this very blog- search if you dare.

The Romans were not the first to use this mode of inflicting judicial death. The Persians were fond of this execution technique, and the Carthaginians were known to crucify their unsuccessful generals. And if you have ever read accounts of the first and second Punic wars, you will become aware that the Carthaginian overlords had goodly reason to be vastly displeased with their lacklustre war heroes, Hannibal excepted, of course. The Romans probably became aware of the practice through contact with the Carthaginians and began to adopt it as a form of killing miscreants. The practice's origins go back to the Bronze Age and the Assyrians, who were overly fond of this mode of execution. Pain and humiliation were not the only purpose of this gruesome method of execution. For the Romans, this display went deeper than mere physical torture. It was foremost a psychological display and a gruesome means of propaganda. Anyone witnessing a crucifixion would get the message: 'Fuck with the Romans and die horribly, horribly'. Crucifixion, as meted out by the Romans, was not for anyone. It was generally reserved for the most heinous crimes, and Roman citizens were exempt. But the exclusion of Roman citizens from this barbaric practice would not last. In the second century AD, the punishment was extended to Roman citizens, but was restricted to the very poor- ain't that the sad truth. Crucifixion was eventually outlawed by the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, as it was deemed too barbaric (no shit). Crucifixion was replaced by the relatively merciful hanging by the neck.

After Crassus defeated Sparticus in the Third Servile War, he had 6,000 of the slaves crucified along the Via Appia (73BC). A stark lesson to anyone thinking of taking up arms against Rome. The grisly spectacle did not end with death as the bodies were left to rot on the cross to be consumed by creatures from the wild - wretched scarecrows that laid bare testament to the brute atavistic power of Rome. 

Time for a Digression

In 75BC, a young Roman nobleman was on the way to Rhodes to further his rhetorical education. Whilst sailing, he was captured by pirates. At this time, piracy was rampant in the Mediterranean. Generally, the pirates seized the vessels' goods and enslaved all on board. However, Caesar (for it is he), as a Patrician, proved to be an exception. In such cases, a hefty ransom would be demanded. Once the ransom was received, the wealthy captive would be released. The pirates initially asked for 20 talents, not an inconsiderable sum. On hearing this, Caesar laughed and haughtily stated that a man of his station was worth at least 50 talents. The pirates readily/greedily agreed. Members of Caesar's entourage set off to various places in Asia to raise the money. Caesar was left with a friend and two attendants who joined him in captivity in the pirate's lair. During his stay, Caesar acted as if he were in the ascendant. The pirates were asked to be quiet when Caesar wanted to rest. He would regale his captives with his own Elegiac and Lambic poetry, and when their praise was scant, he would berate them and call them illiterate barbarians. Indeed, 'Pirate School' hardly taught such dainty fancies and was firmly concerned with issues such as epaulette cleaning and maintenance following all day parrot presence, how to screw on your wooden leg and how to vocalise, Aarrrrrrssse...... 

Caesar's demeanour was generally imperious (how appropriate) and overbearing. He would join in the piratical games and jokingly threaten the pirates with crucifixion when released. After 38 days, the money was raised, and Caesar and his companions were released true to the piratical code of honour. Caesar quickly raised a fleet at Miletus and left for the pirate den. He captured most of them and all their spoils, including his ransom money. He imprisoned the pirates at Pergamon and hurried off to see the governor of Asia, Marcus Junius, in order to seek permission to punish the pirates. However, crafty old Junius stated that he needed more time to review the case. Caesar was not a patient man, and after several rebuttals, he decided to act with celerity, a characteristic that would come to define him in his later years. He hurried back to Pergamon, and as promised, he ordered the pirates to be crucified. Apparently, Caesar had a sentimental streak as each pirate had his throat cut prior to crucifixion- thus, they were spared the prolonged agonies of the cross. Back to the gist/grist of the post......         

There were a variety of ways crucifixion could be conducted. The wooden cross setup, so beloved by Christians, was a favoured technique. Variants existed; sometimes, a single upright may have been used, and if the executioner was feeling lazy, a local tree would have served. There was variation in how the culprit was fastened to the cross. Jesus is depicted as having his hands secured by nails, whilst a single nail fastens both feet. Experiments with cadavers have shown that hands secured in such a way tend to tear through due to the 'dead weight'. And so it was reasoned that this was never a method, and victims were nailed through the wrists to prevent tear through from happening. And again, experimentation concluded that this was a stable and viable technique for securing hands. However, the recent discovery of an ossary in Israel has confounded this view as the bones clearly show that the bones within the box show clear evidence of nails through the palms. Thus, by placing the arms over the crossbeam and then placing nails through the hand, the support afforded by the overlapping arms would prevent the hand from ripping through. In addition, extra support could be provided by tying the arms to the beams. In fact, it is a rare event to find nails in the 'tomb' of a crucifixion victim. The nails used in this barbaric process were viewed as having magical healing properties and were sold on to merchants by the soldiers. The nails were often ground to make a mystical healing balm.   

Manner of Death

Crucifixion was an extremely unpleasant method of execution. The position of the body meant that whilst hanging free, a great deal of pressure was placed on the chest and diaphragm. This posture impeded breathing, and a breath could only be stolen by placing weight upon the hands and feet as a means to pull up the body to ease the restriction. Only then could the crucified individual draw breath. This move placed great pressure on the secured arms and feet, causing searing pain. This position, therefore, could not be maintained for long, and the body would soon slump. For the victim to breathe, this cycle would have to be repeated endlessly until exhaustion took over and the individual suffocated. Also, the inability to conclude the breath sequence led to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood, further provoking the agony. It is said that a strong man could last three days before succumbing. The torment engendered by this form of execution is unimaginable. The bible relates that Jesus died after a scant six hours. This is entirely plausible as Jesus had been scourged before crucifixion and was already ensanguinated and weak at the time he was fixed to the cross.    

Here endeth the lesson/lesion

Thursday, 19 June 2025

Darwin: Introduction


Alfred Russel Wallace sporting a beard you could lose a ferret in


I am a great proponent of evolutionary theory, which Charles Darwin expounded 166 years ago. Although there have been debates about trifling aspects of the theory, the solid bedrock of 'Natural Selection', resulting in the transformation of species over a vast span of time, remains. Until some other theory comes along best fitted to the data, Darwin's fundamental insight remains unsullied.  

I'm about to embark on a series of posts regarding Evolution Theory with a particular emphasis on its Natural History. This is an ambitious series. Darwin and his theory are often studied in isolation. Darwin's theory appears in biology books as accepted dogma, and the author moves on. Of course, science books teach science and often leave out the crucial historical steps leading up to a seminal discovery. However, Darwin did not live in an intellectual vacuum. Evolution was in the intellectual 'air' and ripe for discovery in the mid-19th century. All the pieces of the puzzle were present; however, it required the genius of Charles Darwin to put them together in beautiful accord. Intriguingly, his contemporary, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently developed the theory, although he quickly stated that Darwin's analysis was primary. Poor Wallace has been lost to history's wasteland; few remember him today. 

Darwin rushed ' On the Origin of Species' to print after he received a letter from a fellow naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace. At the time, Wallace was engaged in biological research in the jungles of Borneo. The letter was a shock, outlining evolutionary processes resulting from differential survival and reproduction due to natural selective forces. Darwin and Wallace's concepts were similar but differed in several crucial regards. While Wallace emphasised selection at the 'group' level, Darwin envisaged the 'individual' as the unit of selection. In addition, Wallace envisaged environmental factors as paramount in the selection process. Although Darwin acknowledged the importance of the environment as an evolutionary force, he also emphasised the importance of predation and intra-specific competition within the species. A final point of difference between the men concerns the importance of 'Sexual Selection'. Darwin correctly noted the critical importance of sexual selection or mate preference as a force for individual change. Darwin's conception of the theory, with its provision for additional complexities, has been shown to be fundamentally correct. 

Wallace's independent discovery spurred Darwin into a frenzy of writing. Secluded in his study, Darwin wrote his seminal work in just under nine months. He had planned a much larger tome with an exhaustive, and to his mind, a complete exposition of his theory, making it watertight. The 490 pages of the first edition were a compromise and left out much of his research. Regardless, the book became a best seller, and the first run of 1,250 copies was sold out on the first day, prompting a second run of a further 1,500 copies.     

As said, Evolutionary Theory was in the air in the mid-19th century. And as Darwin was about to discover, after the publication of 'Origin' in 1859, a number of individuals would come out of the woodwork to claim credit and primacy for developing the theory. This would cause Darwin great distress as he had to examine each claim for credibility and validity. Of course, he attracted his fair share of cranks and charlatans. However, in the deluge of mail Darwin received following the book's publication, there were credible scientists with something important to say. Apart from Wallace, however, none of the claims seriously threatened Darwin's fundamental insight. On a different note, Darwin received criticism for not citing innovative thinkers from the past who had the intellectual honesty to publish evolutionary ideas. This was fair criticism and acknowledged by Darwin. His omission was a consequence of the rushed nature of the work.

Wallace's letter forced Darwin to a rushed publication. Darwin was a meticulous researcher who sat on his theory for twenty years. Over the intervening years, Darwin's friends beseeched him to publish his results, but Darwin's painstaking nature prevented him from rushing into print.      

Darwin was arguably the greatest scientist of the 19th century. He unlocked the last great puzzle facing humanity. Before Darwin, theists' best argument for the omnipotent, omniscient supernatural deity was undoubtedly the answer to the perplexing question: How was it possible to produce the complexity of the natural world, that is, the elaborate intricacy of organic organisms, by natural means? Even the most basic bacterium is an immaculate web of biochemical majesty. How could this complexity come about by natural processes? The alternative: God did it. Thoughtful men acknowledged the obtuse absurdity of the problem. They knew that relying on the theist argument involving an invisible supernatural entity acting by means unknown, causing natural 'things' to come into existence, was intellectually unsatisfying. However, how could this degree of complexity observed in nature occur naturally? No wonder intelligent, educated folk relied on supernatural intervention. But here is the rub and the deadly dichotomy. Those same smart, educated folk were well aware that the theist explanation was no explanation at all and tantamount to superstitious magic and wand waving. Surely, there must be a naturalistic, fundamental explanation devoid of supernatural content.

Darwin's genius lay in the assemblage of the diverse puzzle pieces to provide a naturalistic and intellectually satisfying answer. And the answer turned out to be deceptively simple. It was so simple, in fact, that no one had thought of it before. Natural selection operating over aeons could modify the simple to the complex with remorseless, unrelentless force and potency. The irony: Darwin was not a trained biologist. In fact, his MA degree gained at Cambridge University was a prerequisite for entry into the clergy. Before his Cambridge education, he had spent two years at Edinburgh University, supposedly studying medicine. It is here that Darwin was exposed to a smattering of biological, chemical and geological training. However, given his shotgun approach to science and the curtailment of his clinical studies, Darwin never received a formal qualification in medicine or science.

The next post in this series will be an askew glance at the men who influenced Darwin, the men who provided the puzzle pieces. Darwin quickly remedied his error of citation in subsequent editions. Some of the men I mention were omitted from Darwin's survey. Their influence on theory was indirect due to their impact on later thinkers, and therefore, will be included for completeness. I suspect this work will require several posts, as there is much to cover. So, hold on and hang on to your hats. Tis is going to be a wild ride with a few hot gypsies thrown in, Hola!  

Friday, 13 June 2025

My Vintage Compound Bow

 
Fred Bear's 'Whitetail Hunter' Compound Bow Rendered in Sepia*

As my regular reader knows, I'm an avid archer and run a small online business selling bows and archery accessories with my son. I am compulsive, and if I become interested in a topic or pastime, I tend to become obsessed and absorbed, to my wife's horror. For instance, at last count, I own 33 bows of all types. Although most of my bows are traditional horse bows, English longbows and flat bows, I also own modern recurves and even compound bows. In fact, I own two modern compound bows. I admit that these types of bows are not my primary focus; however, I appreciate them for their efficient modern features and performance. That said, there is something atavistic and soothing to shoot a bow without sights, an arrow shelf and fancy embellishments. 

A couple of years ago, my son-in-law gave me a vintage compound bow made in the 1970s. The first compound bow was patented in 1966, so my bow represents a very early iteration. Indeed, my bow differs markedly from the compound bows on sale today. In the 70s, the technology was still in its infancy, and the modern variety has evolved significantly to become the masterful piece of engineering we see today.

Once I had the bow in my possession, I placed it on a bow rack in the barn and let it gather dust. Anyway, the other day, I decided to examine my serendipitous gift for some reason that remains inexplicable to me. I noticed that the bow sported the Bear name and Logo. The Bear company is a highly respected bow manufacturer founded by Fred Bear nearly a 100 years ago. After gently cleaning and waxing, I checked the bow for wear and damage. The mechanics of the bow are fine, and the limbs are without delamination or damage. The bow is in excellent condition, barring minor aesthetic demerits that are inconsequential to its operation. I placed a few arrows through the bow to judge its performance, especially compared to its modern counterpart. 

Due to the modern compound bow's short axle-to-axle design, grasping the string with the fingers is virtually impossible due to its acute angle when drawn. To mitigate this issue, the string is fitted with a D loop, allowing it to be drawn with a hand-held mechanical aid. My vintage bow has a longer axle-to-axle configuration and is designed to be drawn without a mechanical aid. The draw weight of the modern compound bow can be adjusted by moving the cables' position with respect to the cams, allowing multiple draw weights up to 70 lbs to be achieved. I estimate that the draw weight on my 'prototype' bow is about 35 lbs. Initially, I could not discern how the draw weight could be altered. However, after a thorough inspection, I observed two small free-moving wheels on either side of the riser. I suspect the draw weight can be increased by moving one of the cables onto the wheels- I see no other way of adjusting the bow.

Unlike the modern variety endowed with a myriad of bushings for the attachment of fancy sights, arrow rests, and accommodation for stabiliser rods, my bow is bereft of adornments. Again, compared to its more evolved kin, the bow is less complex regarding cable and cam configuration.   

The Shooting Experience: I was pleasantly surprised by the shooting experience. There was no hand shock, and the draw was smooth. Even without sights, the bow was reasonably accurate at 30 metres. Arrow speed is comparable to a fast modern recurve. Of course, the modern compound bow throws the arrow considerably faster, as expected.  Overall, a great shooting experience and I'm highly impressed with the build quality of the bow as it as stood the test of time and shoots just as well when it came out of the box about the time I was sporting long blond hair, platform boots, a cheese cloth shirt and flared jeans (may Woden forgive me).  

*Notus Bene: This image is a stock photo garnered from the netty. To be honest, I was too lazy to take a photo of the bow in my collection (big fat Arse).