Ethnicity and Representation 363barbarous acts (see Figure 24.5); the viewer can distinguish divine retribution,neme-
sis, and divine punishment in the form of delusion and reckless sin,ate. The variety of
representations of theIlioupersisin drama and art suggests that this discourse of conflict
within the Hellenic character was part of its appeal (as seems to have been the case in
Sophokles’s plays: Anderson 1997: 174–6).
In visual art, from the famous Mykonos Pithos onward, there is a tendency to tell
the story through the combination and juxtaposition of scenes that, as in drama,
create complex internal correlations that extend beyond the particular myth (Robert
1881; Anderson 1997: 182–265). TheIlioupersisappeared in three wall paintings
(in Olympia, Delphi, and Athens), in the decorative programs of four–five temples
(in Athens, Argos, Akragas, and Epidauros), and, of course, on numerous mold-made
and painted vases. In Attic pottery, the theme appears before the Persian Wars (eight
examples inLIMC Ilioupersis), many of which seem to be responding to the sack of
Miletos (as in Figure 24.5; see Shapiro 2010); in the generation following the wars
(another nine examples); and then seems to stop almost completely (no examples from
the second half of the fifth century and only one from the fourth). It is also popular in
South Italian vase painting (Moret 1975).
A major theme of theIlioupersisin drama and art is the unresolved problem of revenge
as justice: the destruction of Troy is punishment for the Trojans’hybrisand gross viola-
tions ofxeniabut is itself an act of sacrilege (one in which, significantly, the Athenians had
no part). The placement of the scene on the north side of the Parthenon (Figure 24.4)
invites Athenians, their Ionian subject–allies, and all other visitors to witness the juxta-
posed destructions of the old Athena temple and the city of Troy, one laid deliberately
bare by the temple’s ruins (and maintaining the spirit of the Plataian Oath), and the oth-
ers represented in the metopes. While Pinney’s and Shapiro’s intriguing theses remind us
how theIlioupersiscomplicates thehybris–nemesiscycle, there are important differences
between these events. Troy’s destruction resulted in the collapse of a civilization, while
Athens’s sack linked it to its empire (referencing the destruction of Miletos, justifying
the Delian League) and signaled its rebirth.
The few classical-era Bousiris scenes anticipate the metopes’ heightened conscious-
ness of the horrors ofate. The movement away from physical to implied violence
in Figure 24.3 accompanies the shift from Heraklescommittinghuman sacrifice—an
act which could even directly reference theIlioupersis(Figure 24.2; see Walsh 2009:
72–104)—to Heraklesas human sacrifice. The moves downplay the Greek hero’s
revenge to emphasize foreign corruption. The Medizing representation of Bousiris and
framing of the scene as a Near Eastern processional might even allow it to reference
the Ionian revolt. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that dress and physiognomy
are always specific in the Bousiris myth on Attic vase painting; when they later become
internally contradictory, they undermine our reliance on visual cues to understand
ancient ethnicity.
Three final Athenian examples (see Figures 24.6, 24.7) will conclude the discussion of
ethnic Others, starting with a janiform kantharos of 510–480 (Gruen 2011, Figure 6)
and ending with the infamousEurymedon Vaseof 460 (Ivantchik 2006, Figure 16; Gruen
2011, Figure 2). The kantharos shows one variation on the physiognomic juxtaposition