Artifact style is still assessed primarily visually/descriptively, and much less morphologically/parametrically—by processing latent geometric peculiarities. This research aims to explore how the morphology of artifacts can be represented and quantitatively compared in order to validate their stylistic affiliation cost-efficiently. Since the term “style” herein refers to orders of classical architecture, (Roman) capitals of the oldest, Doric order, were chosen for such a validation-oriented assessment. The methodology included the following: (1) scaling capital 3D models to a uniform height to make the number of equidistant crosscuts invariant, (2) substituting contours thereof with circles (by retaining area values) to marginalize ornamentation factors, (3) determining stepwise dynamics of perimeter change across circles to ensure relative comparisons, (4) generating diagrammatic representatives by revolving dynamics-wise trendlines, and (5) comparing them quantitatively. To make the latter valid in a statistical sense, three groups of capitals were foreseen: Control (of indisputable Doric), 1st Experimental (of assumed Doric), and 2nd Experimental (of non-Doric, i.e., Ionic). Distances between the vertices of every compared representative (from defined groups) and their nearest neighbors on the reference (a representative obtained by “averaging” control ones) were computed. Distributions of such distances induced normal probabilities capable of “inferring” whether the analyzed capital could likely be a member of the assumed order.
Mitrović et al. (Tue,) studied this question.