Sculptures from Ancient Greece have long been studied for their significant role in the history of world culture, attracting attention from historians, art theorists, anthropologists, and culturologists.
Researchers at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted a study on the evolution of the artistic image in Ancient Greek sculpture across various historical periods. Anthropologist Goncharova Natalia and art historian Anton Belikov employed classic anthropometric methods to analyze cultural objects from these periods.
Cultural artifacts such as portraits and sculptures of the human face contain both anthropological information and, to a large extent, reflections of the cultural processes occurring during their respective time periods. To explore this, the researchers used specialized apparatuses that allowed for the typology and classification of human images.
In their study, Greek Face: Anthropological Analysis of Ancient Greek Sculpture, the authors examined archaic and classical sculptures of Ancient Greece as their primary subjects. They applied anthropological methods to identify recurring patterns in the construction of sculptural forms over successive historical periods.
The article’s central hypothesis is that Greek sculptures represented real-life anthropological types. According to the authors, features such as the structure of the periorbital area and the horizontal profile of the face are consistently reflected in sculptures of Ancient Greece. The persistence of these features across time and space indicates the influence of the actual anthropological environment on sculptural representations from the 6th to 5th centuries BC.
Ancient Greece’s sculptures from the archaic to the classical period
The archaic style of the 6th century BC laid the groundwork for the development of the classical style in sculptures from Ancient Greece. Composite portraits have been created using Adobe Photoshop by emulation methods, highlighting clear differences across historical periods. These differences arise not only from changes in artistic technique but also from variations in anthropological content. Examining the evolution of the artistic image from the early Archaic to the High Classical period reveals a significant transformation in sculptural representation.
Assuming the anthropological type remains stable, such differences may suggest either that the notion of continuity in anthropological types is inaccurate or that Greek sculpture does not directly reflect reality. This leads to the question of what, then, these sculptures even reflect. It is reasonable to assume that, alongside their connection to real-life anthropological forms, Greek sculptures also mirror the cultural processes of their respective periods. Ancient Greek art was largely based on the concept of mimesis, or emulation, which, unlike later Roman art, was not a simple copying of nature.
In creating an image, a Greek master always followed canons—widely accepted proportional systems. Research shows that Greek visual artistry developed between two extremes. The first extreme emphasizes the closest possible reproduction of the visible form, ultimately implying the use of a direct model. The second extreme focuses on the emulation of an ideal essence—unchanging and perfect—expressed through numerical or proportional canons.
Beyond these methods of emulation, it is important to consider the broader process of artistic creation. The final product reflects the artistic consciousness and perception characteristic of its historical period. This is conveyed through the selection of the most relevant and meaningful features of the subject, which the master chooses to emphasize in the piece.
Perception and stereotypes
The sculptor may have a personal style, but it is essential that the viewer be able to recognize the message conveyed in pieces of work. A sculpture and its real-life prototype are separated by the artist’s individuality, which is shaped by the broader system of cognitive and perceptual stereotypes. The development of these structures determines the characteristic features of the human image for a given historical period.
The introduction of canons marked a turning point between the Archaic and Classical periods in Greek art. During the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods, several canons emerged, but the most significant is the earliest and most famous—Polykleitos’ Canon—named after the sculptor who perfected formulas of beauty, mastering symmetry, balance, and the calm that characterizes Classical sculpture.
The renowned Ancient Greek sculptor is believed to have developed an instructional text based on Pythagorean geometric calculations. This text compiled proportions of the human body in relation to height and other body parts. Polykleitos created the famous statue of Doryphoros to illustrate these calculations. The use of such proportional systems aimed to unify representations and produce idealized human images.
The creation of composite portraits made certain “ideal” images, characteristic of each historical period, evident. The clear differences between composite portraits of Archaic and Classical sculptures suggest that these variations can be analyzed not only visually but also using formal, statistical methods.
Materials and methods used for the study on sculptures of Ancient Greece
Photographs of alabaster sculptures from the collection of the Munich Museum of Ancient Greek sculpture replicas, as well as photographs of Archaic sculptures published by Gisela M. Richter (1942), served as the study’s base material. A total of 177 photographic images in frontal view and 60 in profile were used.
The photographs were grouped according to conventional art-historical classifications:
- High Archaic (570–525 BC)
- Mature Archaic (525–490 BC)
- Severe Style (480–430 BC)
- High Classic (450–400 BC)
- Late Classic (400–335 BC)
- Hellenistic Art (325–30 BC)
- Palmyra funeral portraits (II–III AD)
Six groups of photographs were analyzed: “Archaic I” (corresponding to the High Archaic period), “Archaic II” (Mature Archaic), “Severe Style,” “High Classic,” “Late Classic,” “Hellenistic,” and “Palmyra Portrait.” Because the images differed in size, the only viable reference method was the comparison of proportional indices. Two indices were calculated for the study: the index of face heights and that of correlations of face widths.
The researchers also compared the degree of eyeball protrusion and inclination angle of the orbits in sculptures from various historical periods. These characteristics are described in anthropological literature as differentiating features between Caucasian and Mongoloid groups. Greater orbital openness in Mongoloid types manifests as lower values of external hollows and a vertical profile that is less pronounced than in Caucasians.
The resulting indices and values became the main characteristics of the examined faces and were later used for statistical analysis. The analysis of the sculptures followed the same principles as conventional anthropological studies. Standard statistical procedures were applied to determine differences between faces from various historical periods.
Results and discussion
Analysis of variance was used to identify characteristics that reliably distinguish between the groups. Among these characteristics were the angle of the palpebral fissures, or “eye slits,” the ratio of face heights, the ratio of face widths, and lip thickness. The results reveal clear differences in these features between the Archaic, High Classic, and Late Classic groups of sculptures from Ancient Greece.
Only three samples from the “Archaic II” group fell within the range typical of Classical sculptures. As expected, the “Severe Style” group occupies an intermediate position between the two ends of the spectrum. Eye placement in the Palmyra funeral portraits tends to resemble the Greek Classical period although the correlation between face heights drifts toward the proportions characteristic of Archaic sculptures.
Examination of the pooled sample allowed observation of the main artistic trends in depicting the human face across these historical periods. First, it is notable that Classical sculptures show a denser clustering in the diagram compared with Archaic sculptures. This low variability in face proportions among Classical sculptures is primarily due to strict conventions in representing the human face, which resulted in greater unification of form.
A second noteworthy observation is the presence of two contrasting trends in the development of Ancient Greek sculptural form. During the transition from Archaic to Classical sculpture, a shift in proportions occurs alongside a decrease in variability: the face becomes more triangular, the lower level of the face rises (especially in Severe Style examples), lips thicken, and the eyes acquire a characteristic “weeping” expression due to the distinct inclination of the palpebral fissures.
However, deviations from this trend also occur. Some Hellenistic sculptures, and particularly Palmyra funeral portraits, return to the proportional system characteristic of Archaic sculptures. In these examples, the face becomes more rectangular, lips are thinner, and the lower face level decreases. Regarding the palpebral fissures, the Palmyra sample includes both types of frontal eye placement. Some faces have a higher outer eye corner compared with the inner corner, while others show the opposite arrangement.
Special focus on certain facial characteristics in the sculptures of Ancient Greece
The researchers noted that the study focused particularly on the placement of the palpebral fissures, as this feature has become one of the most reliable markers for distinguishing different periods in sculptures from Ancient Greece. In anthropological classifications, the position of the eyes is also emphasized because the inclination of the palpebral fissures correlates with the horizontal profile of the face: the smaller the angle of the horizontal profile, especially at the orbit level, the more likely that the outer corner of the eye is positioned lower than the inner corner.
The two academics paid special attention to the eyes, which are critical to defining the artistic expression of the sculpted image. The transition from the Archaic to the Classical periods was accompanied by a shift in the relative placement of the outer and inner corners of the eyes. It is also evident that Greek sculptures from different historical periods exhibit variations in the structure of the cheekbone area.
Archaic sculptures are characterized by slightly more pronounced forward convexity of the cheekbones, creating the impression of a somewhat flat face. Additionally, in Archaic sculptures, the eyeball protrudes forward relative to the plane of the face. Ancient artists conveyed this feature effectively by depicting a subtle swelling in the area of the upper eyelid. The angle of the vertical profile of the orbit in profile images can reliably differentiate sculptures from various periods.
Transformation of characteristics across various periods
In Classical sculpture, the angle of orbital inclination shifts to greater values, meaning the cheekbones protrude far less. The flatter appearance of the face contrasts with Archaic sculptures in which more pronounced cheekbones result in a forward projection. Data shows that the vertical profile of the orbit in Archaic sculptures is associated with swelling of the upper eyelid, whereas the greater vertical orbital angles in Classical sculpture correlate with its absence. It is important to note that the eye area could occasionally deviate from canonical proportions.
A distinctive feature of Archaic sculpture is that the eye region reflects shifts in the anthropological image of the population. Archaic works surprisingly recreate certain features typical of the Asian racial type: high, rounded orbits with arched eyebrows, smaller external hollows (an open orbital form), and swelling of the upper eyelid. These traits are characteristic of the Archaic type, and the differences between Archaic and Classical types are statistically significant.
These “Asian” features in the facial structure of the Ancient Greek population do not appear realistic. This suggests that the non-Greek traits in Archaic faces may reflect anthropological characteristics of a pre-Greek population in the region, which persisted for a considerable period after the Hellenization of Greece and Asia Minor.
Ancient writers also noted these traits. Polemon (c. 314–270 BC) described Ionic Greeks: “…their men are rather tall with broad shoulders, handsome, well-built and rather fair-skinned. Their hair is not quite fair, relatively soft and slightly wavy. Their faces are broad with high cheekbones, thin lips and straight nose. Their eyes are bright and full of fire.” This ancient “verbal portrait” closely mirrors the features depicted in Archaic sculptures.
Conclusion
Anthropological methods can effectively identify typological peculiarities in sculptures from Ancient Greece across various historical periods. These differences are largely manifested in the inclination of palpebral fissures, the proportions of face heights and widths, and the relative thickness of the lips. Variability in face proportions is greater in Archaic sculptures than in Classical ones, largely due to the introduction and widespread use of Polykleitos’ proportional canon. The observed differences are therefore more likely a result of proportional systems than of changes in the anthropological environment.
Combining data analysis with the historical study of this ancient art allows researchers to distinguish features that adhere to canonical proportions from those that fall outside the canon. The degree of convexity in the eye region and the vertical profile of the orbits appear not to be included in the proportional canon, likely due to the complexity of formalization. Variations in these features across periods can be tentatively explained by both the influence of the anthropological environment and shifts in artistic taste. These characteristics are interrelated and also display moderate correlations with their respective historical periods.
The stability of these features across a broad geographical area and over an extended period suggests that the artistic image was strongly influenced by the anthropological environment of the time. Changes observed at the turn of the 6th–5th centuries BC likely reflect shifts in the anthropological type that occurred much earlier, which were realized in art only at a later stage.
Despite being attributed to different historical periods and regions, the full range of these sculptures is integrated within the Greco-Roman artistic tradition. The identified tendencies and patterns reflect the broader cultural development of one of history’s greatest civilizations, which laid the foundations for modern European artistic tradition.