372 S. Rebecca Martin
work as only Greek art and thence to deny theSlipper-Slapperas an absolute measure of
Hellenization.
The value of theSlipper-Slapperto the discussion of ethnicity is its veryaporiasor,
here, paradoxes. It highlights how ancient representations may be legitimately read in
contradictory ways, thus leaving irreconcilable what the statue meant to say and what it
means. TheSlipper-Slappermay be a statement about cultural fluidity despite ethnic dif-
ferences by emphasizing the relationships between and similarities of Hellenic Aphrodite
and Phoenician gods. Or, it may be making an ethnic claim by stating a shared common
past—that AphroditeisAstarte—with divergent implications. TheSlipper-Slapperworks
within and against a series of expectations of sameness and difference.
Representation and ethnicity have overlapping theoretical concerns. From represen-
tation comes an important lesson: if even the original model is subjective, pressure is
put on the tendency to privilege connoisseurship and empiricism—to let the sources
speak for themselves—and to focus debate on refining inconsistencies (see Siapkas 2003:
287–92). However closely we read them, the sources cannot speak for themselves to tell
us the truth of the past. The study of representation is not a way back to or affirmation of
the model. Rather, its goal is to generate and interrogate possible relationships between
models and images. The exercise of studying the past has limitations; theSlipper-Slapper
becomes increasingly incoherent even as we deepen our understanding of what it may
represent. In this way, ethnicity, too, is not about discovery and isolation of objective
models (i.e., true ethnicities). Ethnicity’s value as a fluid theory is that it deepens our
understanding of the basic question of “who”—who is represented by an image, text, or
built environment—with the potential to challenge monolithic, normative identities.
REFERENCESAnderson, Michael J. 1997.The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bahrani, Zainab. 1996. “The Hellenization of Ishtar: Nudity, Fetishism, and the Production of
Cultural Differentiation in Ancient Art.”Oxford Art Journal, 19.2: 3–16.
Beazley, J. D. 1963.Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bentley, R. Alexander and Herbert D. G. Maschner. 2008. “Introduction: On Archaeological
Theories.” In R. Alexander Bentley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippindale,
eds.,Handbook of Archaeological Theories, 1–10. Lanham and New York: Altamira Press.
Bentley, R. Alexander, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippindale, eds. 2008.Hand-
book of Archaeological Theories. Lanham and New York: Altamira Press.
Boardman, John. 1982. “Herakles, Theseus, and Amazons.” In Donna Kurtz and Brian Sparkes,
eds.,The Eye of Greece: Studies in the Art of Athens, 1–28, pls. 1–6. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Boardman, John. 1985.Athenian Red Figure Vases, The Archaic Period: A Handbook.NewYork:
Thames and Hudson.
Bonfante, Larissa. 1989. “Nudity as a Costume in Ancient Art.”American Journal of Archaeology,
93: 543–70.
Brommer, Frank. 1967.Die Metopen des Parthenon. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Bruneau, Philippe and Jean Ducat. 1983.Guide de Délos, 3rd edn. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard.
Burkert, W. 1992.The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the
Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.