The typology of Ptolemaic royal sculpture has served as a theme of research for a number of scholars who have managed to achieve impressive results:two fundamental works must be mentioned.The earlier is Bildnisse der ...The typology of Ptolemaic royal sculpture has served as a theme of research for a number of scholars who have managed to achieve impressive results:two fundamental works must be mentioned.The earlier is Bildnisse der Ptolemaer by H.Kyrieleis,which established a convincing correspondence between the well-attributed images of the Ptolemaic kings on their coins and their mostly uninscribed sculpted images.'The history of the research reveals that although the corpus of Ptolemaic sculpture gradually expanded,due to new finds and new publications,challenges to specific attributions proposed by Kyrieleis often proved to be a failure?A later work deserving a special mention is Portraits of the Ptolemies by P.E.Stanwick,which proposed a well-founded scheme for the evolution of the Ptolemaic royal sculpture dividing it into nine groups(Groups A-E,G making a chronological sequence,Groups F,H-J uncertain and miscellaneous)'Quite expectedly,a problematic issue is the ultimate motive and final result of shifting from one such group to another:a grouping of objects is largely a formal task,and a scholar performing it is unlikely to concentrate simultaneously on the variety of political,ideological,and religious factors that could lie behind the emergence of the groups indicated.The present article aims to offer a tentative explanation for the shift in the style of Ptolemaic sculpture that took place at the cusp of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC,i.e.,the transition between Stanwick's "Group A"and "Group B."展开更多
基金sponsored by the Russian Science Foundation,project no.19-18-00369,The Classical Orient:culture,world-view,tradition of research in Russia(based on the monuments in the collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts and archive sources)."。
文摘The typology of Ptolemaic royal sculpture has served as a theme of research for a number of scholars who have managed to achieve impressive results:two fundamental works must be mentioned.The earlier is Bildnisse der Ptolemaer by H.Kyrieleis,which established a convincing correspondence between the well-attributed images of the Ptolemaic kings on their coins and their mostly uninscribed sculpted images.'The history of the research reveals that although the corpus of Ptolemaic sculpture gradually expanded,due to new finds and new publications,challenges to specific attributions proposed by Kyrieleis often proved to be a failure?A later work deserving a special mention is Portraits of the Ptolemies by P.E.Stanwick,which proposed a well-founded scheme for the evolution of the Ptolemaic royal sculpture dividing it into nine groups(Groups A-E,G making a chronological sequence,Groups F,H-J uncertain and miscellaneous)'Quite expectedly,a problematic issue is the ultimate motive and final result of shifting from one such group to another:a grouping of objects is largely a formal task,and a scholar performing it is unlikely to concentrate simultaneously on the variety of political,ideological,and religious factors that could lie behind the emergence of the groups indicated.The present article aims to offer a tentative explanation for the shift in the style of Ptolemaic sculpture that took place at the cusp of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC,i.e.,the transition between Stanwick's "Group A"and "Group B."
