Аннотация:Ancient sculpture is one of the best examined subjects in the world culture so it can be used for the verification of some hypothesis in anthropology and art history. The applying of anthropological methods to analyze art objects creates a new methodology and reveals tendencies in the evolution of the image.
The essential distinctions between the archaic and classical images in spite of the paradigm of the anthropological type stability lead to the search the reasons of such considerable differences. The purpose of this study is to detach the anthropological content from its ideal content determined mostly by the canon of proportions.
Author's photos of ancient sculptures and the archaic sculptures photography by Gisela Richter are used. Such characteristics as the height and width proportions of faces, size and disposition of the eyes, lips and nose were subjected to statistical analysis.
The anthropological methods denote the typological features of different periods. The differences between the archaic and classic sculptures appear in the inclination of the eyes, the face proportions, the lips thickness. The variability of the facial proportions by archaic period is higher due to the lack of the canon. The differences between the facial proportions of two periods are the result of the proportional schemes evolution.
The study allows us to mark out the characteristics of the image related to the proportions regulated by the canon from the really anthropological features such as a structure of the periorbital area and facial horizontal profile. The stability of the reproduction of these features through time and space suggest the influence on the images of the real anthropological environment. The change of the image in the VI-V cc. BC presumably reflects the change of the anthropological type which took place in the remote past. In art this change became apparent later.
The study of the faces of the sculptures reveals the proportional similarity of the Palmyra funerary sculpture and the Greek archaic images. With that the structure of the periorbital area of these two groups differ which can probably be explained by the differences between the anthropological types of the population.