Ethnicity and Representation 357Greek art may be explicitly engaged in this discussion: much of what is represented is
mimetic in the “naturalistic” sense and comprehensible only through denotation or con-
vention. The frequent use of anthropomorphic symbol and allegory is revealing (Smith
2011), as is our difficulty in agreeing on what is represented by works such as the Riace
Warriors or theDoryphoros; the extent to which Attic portraits of Themistokles or Perikles
differ conceptually from the Eponymous heroes; or how to understand the full spectrum
of mimesis, from verisimilitude to the production of types and copies (we must remember
also the most elusive genre, painting, which in the later classical era made illusionism one
of the most important measures oftechne; PlinyHN35.67–72). While it is impossible to
resolve here how Greek art approaches representation, it is nonetheless important to note
that even a highly naturalistic image may have various relationships with its models—or
no relationship at all.
Ethnicity is a still more elusive theory (Siapkas 2003, esp. 14). The key element to
articulating ethnicity, however fluid its conception, is the expression of a common past.
The tricky part of that open-ended definition is determining how broad or narrow a
common past may be, what it means to share biological and social kinship, and how or
how much ethnicity relies on the idea of a common land (Jones 1997; McInerney 1999,
especially 8–39; Malkin 2001; Hall 2002, especially 9–10; cf. Siapkas 2003: 198–206).
To begin to understand the expression of ethnicity through representation, I will offer a
very brief discussion of three related issues: ethnic subjects; ethnicity’s relationship with
style and iconography; and the roles representation plays in ethnocultural contact.
Ethnic Others: What Does Ethnicity Look Like?
An Attic red-figure plate signed by Epiktetos in 520–500BCshows a foreign archer, one
usually identified as a Skythian (see Figure 24.1; also, Beazley 1963: 78, 93; Ivantchik
2006). Already, in the late sixth century, the long-lapelled cap and patterned costume of
the Skythian were generalized as an “Oriental” dress, sometimes extended to Amazons,
occasionally also to Trojan Paris (common in the later fifth century and ubiquitous in
the fourth), and soon would be extended to a variety of other characters (Raeck 1981;
LIMC“Amazones,” “Alexandros”; see also, on Amazons: Von Bothmer 1957; Board-
man 1982; cf. Euphronios’s krater of 510–500BCshowing Amazons dressed as hoplites
and in patterned trousers, Arezzo, Museo Civico 1465; Woodford 1993, Figure 79=
LIMC“Amazones” no. 64; Paris: Castriota 1992: 106; cf. Hekabe’s speech to Helen in
the Trojan Women 981–997). The plate is a typical product of the late Archaic painter
Epiktetos, its isolated, active figure in the tondo revealed slowly as wine or, here, food was
consumed. The lithe, youthful archer in his patterned costume belongs to the hedonistic
and transformative context of the symposion that Epiktetos favored (Boardman 1985:
passimand, especially, 62, Figure 128; cf. Beazley 1963: 139–41). The archer is the kind
of image that comes to mind as a representation of ethnicity: the stereotyping of Others
by Greek, especially Athenian, artists.
Beth Cohen’s edited volumeNot the Classical Ideal (2000) made a significant
contribution to the understanding of Otherness in the visual vocabulary of Athenians.
The essay by Margaret Miller on “External Others” (413–42) is most relevant. Miller
explored the comic story of Herakles and Bousiris: Herakles goes to Egypt, and the