Hera and the Sea. Decoding Dedications at the Samian Heraion

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1, 11–25 Hera and the Sea. Decoding Dedications at the Samian Heraion HannahL. Ringheim ABSTRACT The paper examines the Near Eastern and Greek dedications at the Sanctuary of Hera in Samos during the 8th to 6th centuries BC.Contextualising the types of dedications and their origins indicate the identity of the dedicators, and whether they were Samians, other Greeks or from the Near East. Much scholarship has been devoted to the Samian Heraion and this paper contributes to these discussions by tracing the socio -economic and political objectives of the dedicators and bringing different theories into asingle narrative. The paper presents aselection of votive dedications that embody broader exchanges: firstly as apolitical act between states; as adisplay of social power; the growing trade routes and role of sanctuary markets; and finally, the other modes of contact that emerged, such as mercenaries and pirates. Overall, the Samian Heraion played an essential role as atimely crossroads between the East and West, where the dedication practices shed light on the various groups of dedicators. KEYWORDS Samos; Egypt; dedications; seafarers; bronze; sanctuaries; trade; aristocracy; mercenaries. INTRODUCTION The Sanctuary of Hera at Samos bears some of the earliest traces of Greek ritual activity in the Iron Age. From the 10th c. BC onward, the continuity of cult activity is visible in the sequence of altars and temple structures, as well as from the milieu of votive offerings, which have been investigated in depth in past and recent scholarship (Jantzen 1972; Kyrieleis 2009). 1 In comparison to contemporaneous sanctuaries from the Ionian Islands and mainland Greece, the Samian Heraion surpassed these other centres with the unrivalled plethora of non -Greek votive dedications from neighbouring regions in the Near East, including Egypt, Cyprus, Phoenicia, North Syria, Urartu, Caucasus, and the Neo -Hittite Kingdoms (Kyrieleis 1993, 127). The sanctuary provides an ideal starting point for investigations into the renewed interactions between the Greek world and the Eastern Mediterranean, predominantly during the 8th to 6th c. BC.The discussion seeks to identify who were the dedicators of the Near Eastern votive offerings and how the Heraion came to acquire such an exceptional variety of dedications; could this be due to the Samian elite or seafarers travelling abroad on expeditions, who then brought back these dedications? On the other hand, could the dedications reflect foreign travellers visiting Samos and dedicating these objects to Hera? This paper presents asmall selection of published Near Eastern votive objects, with the aim to analyse the types 1 Selected recent scholarship on the excavations and finds from the Samian Heraion include Ebbinghaus 2006; Hölbl 2006; Kyrieleis 2016. See Baitinger 2011 for acomprehensive study of the Italic weapons at the Heraion, which are not discussed in this paper as the focus is on the Near Eastern votives. 12 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 and functions of the offerings that ultimately shed light on their significance and the identity of the dedicators. In light of the scholarship on various aspects of the dedications and their significance, this paper coalesces four key insights that define the dedicators: the political alliances, the socio -economic role of the elites in the Archaic Greek world, sanctuary markets, and other exchanges such as merchants, mercenaries and pirates. In addition to revealing the cross -cultural ritual practices that transcend Samos and the Eastern Mediterranean, the votives are further emblematic of an overarching development in networks and political exchange between Egypt, the Near East and Samos. THE SANCTUARY The first altar to Hera existed by the 10th c. BC in this context. It consisted of merely an altar and the defined temenos, i.e. the intangible boundaries of the sacred space, which was delineated by aLygos tree as the symbolic representation of Hera (Kyrieleis 1993, 87, 135; Walter 1976, 33). By the 8th c., the altar was in its third phase and was contemporary with the first monumental construction of the large temple to Hera (Walter 1976, 35). The first hundred -foot temple to Hera, the hekatompedos, typifies the developing monumental temple construction that was resonating throughout the Greek world by the 8th c. Two centuries later, the second dipteros temple, the Rhoikos, was constructed under the direction of the Samian tyrant Polykrates (Kienast 1998, 117–131). In addition to the temple phases, there were at least ten other structures found in the sanctuary complex; while the main function of the buildings remains uncertain, there was aclear association with Hera based on the votive offerings found in these contexts (Kyrieleis 1993, 132). Along the route of the Sacred Way, the 7 km road that led from the settlement to the sanctuary, the elaborate offerings to Hera were on display, with some smaller buildings lining the way, identified as treasuries (Mohr 2013, 40–41; Coldstream 1977, 327). Such apractice here is reminiscent of what is occurring simultaneously at the Greek mainland Panhellenic sanctuaries in Delphi and Olympia, where treasuries represent the socio -political and economic connections of the poleis to ritual and large -scale worship (Morgan 1990, 53, 125). If these structures are indeed treasuries, then it is suggestive of awealthy local elite, as well as likely non -Samian groups, that constructed the treasuries to protect and exhibit the dedications (further discussion below). Additionally, the excavations in 1983–1984 provided more insight into the types of offerings. Two wells, dating between 630–550 BC, were excavated in the northern area of the complex and the objects discovered, such as bronze offerings and ceramics, were refuse from the hekatompedos and the altar (Kyrieleis 1991, 129–131). The two wells were built into avein of underground water, covered by large storage vessels. This recurrent act of depositing sanctuary dedications into wells and pits is attested at other Greek sanctuaries as well, for instance at Olympia and the Athenian Acropolis (Morgan 1990, 53). Although Samos is not considered aPanhellenic sanctuary (Morgan 1990; Sourvinou- -Inwood 1993, 1–17), from the hekatompedos, the treasury -like structures, the Sacred Way and the two well deposits filled with dedications, this sanctuary was indeed asignificant landmark in the Aegean during its prime use. Various visitors frequented the sanctuary with adecisive objective to display wealth and piety to Hera for others to see, as well as asubliminal socio- -political message. Acloser glimpse into the imported dedications and the origins illuminates how such votives reveal the identity of the dedicators and the underlying reasons for bestowing non -Greek offerings. 13HANNAHL. RINGHEIM BRONZE STATUETTES OF EGYPTIAN ORIGIN Dedications of Egyptian origin encompass the largest repertoire of foreign offerings at the sanctuary (Bumke 2012, 13; Bianchi 1990, 72). Also known as Aegyptiaca, objects such as mirrors with inscriptions, papyrus capitals, umbels, scarabs, and amulets were disseminated widely across Greek sanctuaries in the 8th and 7th centuries (Bumke 2012, 12; Gunter 2009, 142; Hölbl 2000). Some of these objects, such as the scarabs and amulets, have been argued to indicate dedications to Hera by women and children due to their spheres of protection and fertility (Hölbl 2000, 137). Yet, what distinguished the Samian Heraion in particular from other contemporary sanctuaries was the exceptional number of imported bronzes, including images of Egyptian deities not previously seen outside of Egypt: of the 317 published bronzes found at the Samian Heraion, 133 of them originate from Egypt, dating to the 25th and 26th Dynasties (ca. 719–525 BC) (Gunter 2009, 143; Hölbl 2007, 451; Guralnick 1997, 130). The types of bronze depictions are exceptional for aGreek sanctuary. Some of the votives are representations of Egyptian deities, including in particular four bronze and ivory hollow cast statuettes of the goddess Mut, two depictions of the goddess Neith, adepiction of Bes, and another of Hathor (Guralnick 1997, 133; Jantzen 1972, 22–23). Furthermore, two bronze mirrors with dedicatory inscriptions to Mut are also found in the temple deposits; in comparison, asimilar Egyptian bronze mirror dedication comes from the Heraion in Perachora with parallels dating to the 25 th Dynasty in Egypt (Jantzen 1972, 31, pl. 33). This similarity suggests that the statuettes were not considered heirlooms, but rather contemporaneous in production and subsequently brought to Samos (Bianchi 1990, 74). Bronze statuettes were ubiquitous in Egypt, with production at anumber of local centres, and then taken to various temples as dedications (Vassilika 1997, 291–302); however, their unique presence at Samos suggests another use for the bronze statuettes in anew context overseas. The presence of the statuettes indicates anotable connection between the Samian Heraion and Egypt, and there is much evidence to point to this connection as aconsequence of Greek dedicators. For instance, in the contexts of Greek sanctuaries in Egypt, there is alack of evidence for Egyptians participating in Greek ritual practices in the 8th to 6th c. Even at centres of Greek ritual, such as at the five Greek sanctuaries at Naukratis in Egypt, Egyptian religious activity was kept separate in the southern precinct of Amun Ra (Villing– Thomas 2013, 82). There is virtually no evidence for Egyptian dedications taking place in the Greek sanctuaries, despite the proximity to Egyptian temples and likely settlements. Likewise, albeit there is aplethora of Greek ceramics at the Egyptian temple at Daphne (also known as Tel Dafana), their provenance within the Egyptian temple precinct evinces that the imports were restricted in use to the storage facilities (Leclère– Spencer 2014, 163; Weber 2014, 118). The Greek imports were not used as objects in the ritual activity itself. Therefore, if Egyptians brought the bronze statuettes to Samos as offerings to aGreek sanctuary, it would not be part of the same pattern found in Egypt. Looking then at Greek sanctuaries outside of Egypt, and specifically at the sanctuaries of Hera, there is apalpable connection between Hera and Egyptian deities that has been explained in depth in past scholarship (Weitz 2006, 135; Ebbinghaus 2006, 194–196; Baumbach 2004, 156; Brize 1990, 321). Evidently Greeks continued their ritual traditions while using Egyptian religious objects that were either acquired abroad or brought to Samos. It was acceptable for Greeks to dedicate statuettes of Near Eastern goddesses to Hera, especially in this case with Mut, Neith, and Hathor. Other contemporaneous sanctuaries of Greek goddesses in Ionia evince similar dedications of Aegyptiaca (mainly scarabs, faience, and amulets), such as the Artemision in Ephesos, the Sanctuary of Aphrodite in Miletus, the Sanctuary of Athena in 14 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 Erythrai, as well as the Heraions at Perachora, Naukratis, and Gravisca (Hölbl 2000, 116–117; Arrington 2016, 11–12; the earliest evidence for Aegyptiaca in Greece comes from burial contexts since the 10th c. at Lefkandi and Skyros, Cf. Lemos 2002). Certain bronze statuettes suggest another possibility about the identity of the dedicators. As posited by Helga Bumke, specific aspects of the Heraion statuettes and their contexts point to non -Greek ritual practices. In particular, the unexplained presence of at least 12 statuettes of male deities and two Egyptian priests differ from the patterns of female deity statuettes, suggesting an intriguing transition of Egyptian cult practices at the Heraion (Bumke 2012, 17–18; Jantzen 1972, 12–14, 23, 26). The juxtaposition of Egyptian priest statuettes alongside male deities in aritual context is conventional in Egyptian ritual offerings and differs from Greek practices. Therefore this presents acircumstance in which potentially Egyptians had dedicated these offerings. In total, what can the modern viewer take away from these multifaceted dedications: there is acomplex picture of dedicators, where certain Egyptian bronzes are indicative of Greek dedicators and in line with such dedication practices, including the many Ionian sanctuaries with Aegyptiaca and the Greek sanctuaries in Egypt. On the other hand, some objects, such as the male deities and priests, are enigmatic at the Sanctuary of Hera and likely point to rituals carried out by non -Greeks. If this is so, the possibility construes anovel perception of movement and trade, where Egyptians in turn were travelling to Samos as well and visited the Heraion for their own purposes. VOTIVE OBJECTS OF ASSYRIAN ORIGIN The Assyrian dedications at the Heraion provide aunique glimpse into Assyrian objects in new contexts. Throughout the height of the Assyrian Empire, between approximately the 10th to 8th c., material exchanges with the Greek world did not result in asignificant amounts of trade, and traces of Assyrian material remains in the Aegean are for the most part limited. Likewise, Greek objects and vases in particular did not reach Assyrian palaces in notable amounts within this time frame. This is asignificant point to clarify, as it drastically contrasts with dynamic trade between Greece and the Levant prior to the height of the Assyrian Empire, in the Early Iron Age, and then again after the empire’scollapse by the 7th and 6th c. To find bronze and ivory offerings from the Assyrian Empire at the Heraion is indeed an anomaly and implies an extent of exchange between the Assyrians and the Samians. The objects depict various deities or divine images. At least three of the Assyrian bronzes clearly denote adeity: there are three statuettes of afigure alongside adog, which symbolise the healing goddess Gula of Babylon, appropriated into Assyrian religion during the empire’sexpansion into Mesopotamia (Ornan 2014, 7; Ornan 2004, 14; Guralnick 1997, 134). Direct parallels for the iconography of Gula are found in ritual contexts in Mesopotamia, such as at Susa, Nippur and Isin (Guralnick 1997, 134). Similar to the Egyptian goddesses Mut, Neith, and Hathor, Gula would be asuitable goddess to dedicate to Hera and is in line with Greek ritual practices to Hera. As ahealing goddess with protective powers and an association with women and fertility, Gula encompasses similar domains to Hera and the Egyptian goddesses. Other statuettes do not portray Assyrian deities, but rather divine images of priests. For instance, one statuette depicts amale figure wearing ahorned headdress with outstretched arms, where both of these attributes are typically used to distinguish divine images in As - syrian wall iconography (Jantzen 1972, no. B165, pl. 69; Curtis 1994, 2–4). The outstretched arms with closed fists most likely held divine symbols, similar to those on wall reliefs at the palaces of Nimrud and Khorsabad (Curtis 1994, 6). Asecond bronze figure depicts abearded 15HANNAHL. RINGHEIM man with one arm raised and the other pointed downwards (Jantzen 1972, no. B1594, pl. 70). Athird Assyrian bronze figure is of aman adorned in an embroidered dress with asash, and with both arms raised (Jantzen 1972, no. BB7733, pl. 71). The divine, male statuettes are reminiscent at first of the Egyptian bronzes discussed above: they reveal male figures that are not deities and do not connect to the domains of Hera. In the case of the Egyptian types, this could directly relate to Egyptian ritual practices. However, the same practice is not typical for the Assyrian statuettes. Similar bronze divine figures are depicted on Assyrian wall reliefs as pieces of furniture, attached to thrones and tables. For instance, such furniture pieces in Assyria are shown on the wall reliefs at Til -Barsib, which date to the reign of King Tiglath -Pileser III (745–727 BC).2 Similarly, comparable ivory furniture pieces have been also found in the necropolis at Salamis in Cyprus, while Cyprus was under the Assyrian hegemony politically and economically (Karageorghis 1969, 82). The Assyrian dedications found in the Heraion, therefore, were perhaps originally used as decorative pieces of furniture in apalatial or funerary context, as evinced in wall reliefs and at Salamis. The furniture pieces then took on asecondary function when placed in anew context in Samos, as appropriate offerings for Hera. In this case, the divine statuettes resemble anon -Assyrian ritual custom in their final deposition at the Heraion, thus suggesting non -Assyrian dedicators. VOTIVE OBJECTS OF NORTH SYRIAN ORIGIN One particular dedication with origins from North Syria is noteworthy for its implications at the Heraion. Atrapezoidal bronze horse blinker used functionally as aprotection and decoration for the forehead of ahorse was dedicated to Hera (Jantzen 1972, no. B1123, pl. 52). The bronze relief on the blinker clearly indicates its origins: the relief portrays awinged sun with three naked females held up by afourth female, flanked by two lion heads. The fourth female holding up the other three is reminiscent of contemporary representations of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar (Kyrieleis 1993, 146). An identical parallel of the horse blinker and similar iconography of adeity flanked by two animals comes from the Sanctuary of Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria in Euboea (Charbonnet 1986, 140–144). Both of the horse blinkers from the Heraion and from the Apollo Daphnephoros have inscriptions that further clarify aspecific date and origin: ‘That which Hadad gave our lord Hazael from Unqi in the year that our lord crossed the river,’ referring to King Hazael of Damascus in the 9th c. (Bron– Lemaire 1989, 35–44). From the inscription, it is evident that the horse blinkers were acquired from the Levant and brought back as dedications in Greek sanctuaries approximately two centuries after their initial manufacture and use. By that point, these older objects would be considered heirlooms and may further point to the seafaring activities of the Ionians, as objects of plunder by seafarers, or even perhaps mercenaries (Hdt. II, 152). As aconsequence of exposure to such dedications, North Syrian bronze work and iconographic motifs began to permeate the local Samian workshops by the 7th c. For instance, an impressive crescent bronze sheet that is part of abreast piece for ahorse was also found at the temple (Kyrieleis 1991, 131, pl. XXX:3). This piece is decorated with mythological scenes, such as the battle between Herakles and Geryon, the three -bodied giant. The North Syrian iconographic details manifested in the type of horse harness, the palm tree motif in the background of the scene, and in the depiction of wild animals. Yet, the breast piece is afragment of local Samian production and also adedication in the Heraion. 2 Curtis 1994; 6. For Til -Barsib wall paintings showing throne decorations, see Thureau -Dangin 1936, pls. XLIX, LII. 16 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 VOTIVE OBJECTS OF CYPRIOT ORIGIN Cypriot terracotta imports encompass approximately one third of the early terracotta figurines at the sanctuary (Kyrieleis 1989, 52). Throughout the Early Iron Age, Cyprus played asubstantial role in the dissemination of ceramics and figurines across the Mediterranean, as an active trade hub between the Levant and the Greek world. The Greek imports that arrived to the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean as early as the 11th and 10th c. likely arrived via Cyprus, due to the strategic trading position and their active seafaring role (Sherratt– Sherratt 1993, 361). The island continued to have astrong mercantile position and the terracotta figurines at Samos attest to these exchanges. Cypriot figurines of deities dating to the 8th and 7th c. at the Heraion included male figures with hoods, wearing sleeved tunics and afringed himation draped over one shoulder, which are similar to other examples from Samos and Cyprus.3 At least four identical male heads were also discovered at the Heraion with typical Cypriot features, such as apainted beard, aprominent nose and tight camp around the head (Kyrieleis 1989, 53, no. T3796; Schmidt 1968, pl. 14). Direct comparisons of the figurines from Cyprus are evident at contemporary cult sites such as at Agia Irini, Meniko, and Limassol, to name afew. 4 Depictions of male worshippers grasping an animal in their arms for sacrifice is another frequent characteristics of Cypriot statuettes. An example of acalf -bearer from the Heraion exhibits preserved traces of polychromy, such as red lips, black hair, and red paint on the clothing (Kyrieleis 1989, 54). This sacrificial motif of the calf -bearer relates to exact parallels at Agia Irini and Meniko in Cyprus. Additionally, this motif illuminates the the types of predecessor for well -known Late Archaic sculptural dedications, such as of the calf -bearer on the Athenian Acropolis (Hurwit 1999, 102; Hutchinson– Boardman 1954, 220). From the Cypriot statuettes as dedications to Hera, it is clear that these were primarily ritual items for Cypriot cult; yet, at the Heraion they were appropriate dedications for the goddess, similar to the Egyptian, Assyrian, and North Syrian votives. Their similar deposition in sanctuaries on Cyprus and Samos could suggest either Samians or Cypriots dedicating the offerings, as the rituals with these particular figurines seem to transcend practices on both islands, further suggesting similar domains for female deities like Hera. As acentral point for exchanges between East and West, it is likely that as objects from the Eastern Mediterranean were brought to Samos, Cypriot ritual objects were also obtained while in transit. DISCUSSION: SANCTUARIES AND POLITICAL ALLIANCES The array of votive offerings at the Samian Heraion illuminates various spheres of exchanges between the island and its neighbours. First and foremost, the Near Eastern offerings represent the political alliances that manifested. In particular, Herodotus refers to the exchanges between the Samian tyrant Polykrates and the Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis of the 26th Dynasty. The Pharaoh Amasis allegedly gave agift of two life -size wooden statues of himself to the Samian Heraion: ‘[…] and to the goddess Hera in Samos two likenesses of himself, in wood, 3 Kyrieleis 1989, 53, fig. 1 shows alimestone statuette of ahooded male. For other similar Cypriot statuettes in the Heraion, see Schmidt 1968, nos. T274, T1095, T892, T2458, T210, pl. 12. An estimated 2000 terracotta statuettes have been recovered at Lindos in the Dodecanese and are parallels to those from the Heraion. 4 Tatton -Brown 1979, 86–95. Specifically, nos. 274–283. For more on descriptions of Cypriot characteristics of terracotta statuettes, see Tatton -Brown 1987, 50–52. See Karageorghis 1977 for comparisons at Meniko and Limasol in Cyprus. 17HANNAHL. RINGHEIM which until my own time stood behind the doors in the great temple […]’ (Hdt. II, 182). This ritual action points to Amasis’ allied relations with the Samian tyrant, Polykrates, and with the city -state of Samos. In turn, Polykrates could further strengthen his authority as tyrant with support from nearby neighbours. To create political and economic alliances, Egyptian pharaohs began to give gifts to Greek sanctuaries directly, as ameans of establishing the guest -friendship with neighbouring Greek leaders (Tsetskhladze 2010, 41–61).5 Notably, the sanctuaries that supposedly received similar gifts included the Heraion, as well as Didyma in Asia Minor and Cyrene in Libya. The strategic locations of these gifts demonstrate the periphery in which Egyptian pharaohs had communication with their neighbours, and especially with island populations. The Samian Heraion, and likely other sanctuaries in Eastern Greece and those on the coast of Libya and Egypt, began to act as political centres, used for negotiations with the Egyptians, and perhaps with other Near Eastern powers. Likewise, similar gift -giving alliances were formed between other poleis and sanctuaries on mainland Greece and foreign leaders: Pausanias tells us about dedications by the Etruscan king Arimnestos in Olympia (Paus. V, 12.5), while Herodotus elaborates on panhellenic dedications in Delphi by the Phrygian king Midas (Hdt. I, 14) and by the Lydian king Croesus (Hdt. I, 50–52). The motives behind such offerings varied; the Greek sources present the case that foreign kings chose to honour the Greek gods in hopes of receiving divine favour (Kaplan 2006, 151). However, there are certainly practical motivations behind these actions as well, for instance, to gain information about the city -states, such as to gain support or to reward certain poleis; to obtain soldiers and mercenaries (discussed below); and in the case of the Lydian monarchs in the late 6th c., to bolster claims of hegemony over various Greek cities (Kaplan 2006, 152). The offerings in the Samian Heraion, such as those by the Pharaoh Amasis, can be perceived in this light, as an objective within awider political manoeuvre. The act of giving to Greek sanctuaries presents an aspect of cross -cultural ritual, where evidently Greek sanctuaries were not limited to dedications only by Greeks and indeed it was acceptable for non -Greeks to dedicate offerings. Furthermore the broad domains of Hera evince that there was an exceptional affinity for Near Eastern dedicators. Although the historical sources tell us that foreign leaders gave offerings to the Samian Heraion, when looking at patterns of material evidence from Egypt and the Near East, there is aspecial connection with sanctuaries of Hera. The exhaustive amounts of Aegyptiaca from the contemporary Sanctuary of Hera at Perachora, the cups with Hera dipinti and imports at the Sanctuary of Hera at Naukratis, and the Aegyptiaca from the Heraion in Gravisca, point to the reception of these objects within the cult of Hera (Avramidou 2016, 49–65). Though in many cases with Aegyptiaca, they reflect offerings by Greeks. Nonetheless, some votives certainly point to Near -Eastern dedicators other than the Pharaoh, as is evident with aselection of the Egyptian bronze statuettes. This is not to say that the majority of Near Eastern dedications and Aegyptiaca indicate foreigners arriving to Samos. There are indeed some objects that, based on the change in the object’sfunction, point to Samians or travellers bringing objects back from abroad. For instance, some Assyrian statuettes mentioned earlier originally belonged to parts of lavish palatial furniture in Assyria and now attained anew social meaning in aGreek context as avotive (Appadurai 1986). In this case, it is unlikely that an Assyrian would dedicate apiece of furniture in aritual, as this was not customary in Assyrian religion. 5 Hdt. I, 14; I, 50–51; II, 159; II.182. Two Saite pharaohs sent gifts to the Apollo sanctuary at Didyma; the Pharaoh Ahmose sent apainted portrait of himself to Cyrene. 18 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 SANCTUARY MARKETS AND AN EMPORION In comparison to the plethora of Near Eastern objects, some local offerings from the Heraion are indicative of the mercantile role of the sanctuary. Two well deposits excavated at the site, dating between 630–590 BC, preserved anotable amount of wooden remains (Kyrieleis 1991, 129–131). From the preservation of the wood, approximately 200 carved pieces were discovered that had been used as votives for Hera. Of these 200, there were at least 40 depictions of little wooden boats that were carved in the shape of Greek ships well -known from vase iconography.6 The discovery of these boats presents aview of the type of wooden offerings that were not preserved at the Heraion, but would have been abundant. It also suggests that not only lavish or foreign gifts were appropriate for the deity. One can envision that an easily manufactured image in wood reflects the more common votives made at the Heraion, which could even infer implications of various social classes and access to the sanctuary. Other associations of Hera with boats have been found in the 8th and 7th c. in Greece. Sanctuaries to Hera at Tiryns and Perachora yielded terracotta figurines of Hera grasping alittle boat (Kyrieleis 1993, 143). Hera has also been associated with boats and seafaring in later literary sources, such as in Athenaeus’ reference to pirates attempting to steal the cult statue of Hera; as aresult of Hera’spower over seafaring, Hera stopped their ship and made them turn back (Ath. XV, 671–672). Likewise, Herodotus presents the obligation seafarers had to give offerings to Hera: ‘Atenth of their profits, amounting to six talents, they spent on the manufacture of abronze vessel […] this bowl, supporting upon three kneeling figures in bronze, eleven and ahalf feet high, they placed as an offering in the temple of Hera’ (Hdt. IV, 152). Here the Samian sailor, Kolaios, upon his return from avoyage to Egypt, arrived at Samos and dedicated atithe of his trading profits to Hera after asafe return. One envisages that this ritual obligation cultivated many dedications to the Heraion, especially the statuettes from Near Eastern cities. Overall there is indeed aritual connection between Hera, ship representations and seafaring; thus, the dedications of wooden boats would certainly be an appropriate offering for the Heraion, where seafaring was plentiful and within the sanctuary’sdomains of worship. With the repertoire of dedications and postulations of who the dedicators were, it is possible to place the Samian Heraion in the wider context of the Eastern Mediterranean. The votives appropriated from Near Eastern ritual contexts and the strong role that Samian seafarers played exemplify the expanding trade networks between Samos and the East, terming the sanctuary as an ἐμπόριον, a‘Port of Trade,’ i.e. aneutral frontier zone where mutual entities can meet and trade (Hdt. II, 178; Polanyi 1963, 30–32; Luke 2003; Krämer 2016, 88). Emporia developed across numerous Ionian sanctuaries between the 7th to 5th c. (Krämer 2016, 76); however, this paper focuses on asingle network that comes to light as aproduct of the burgeoning sanctuary markets. Specifically, aunique relationship materialised between the Samian sanctuary market and the sanctuary complex at Naukratis in Egypt. This particular network of exchange is best reflected in the Laconian Black -Figure pottery that is well attested at both the Sanctuaries of Hera in Samos and Naukratis, as well as from the sanctuaries of Demeter and Kore in Cyrene. The imported ceramics from Laconia in the Peloponnese were produced by at least five specific painters, predominantly between 575–530 BC.Based on the various iconographic themes and 6 Kyrieleis 1993, 141 and Kopcke 1967, 145 discussed the wooden offerings at length. For other wooden artefacts beside ship models, see Kyrieleis 1980. 19HANNAHL. RINGHEIM the function of the vases, such as open -shaped, cult -dining equipment, the Laconian vases were manufactured specifically for use at the two sanctuaries to Hera in Samos and Naukratis (Pipili 2006, 126; Pipili 1998, 84; Venit 1985, 392). Some of these iconographic themes, for instance, included depictions of the outdoor Heraia festival that would take place at the sanctuaries (Pipili 2000, 417). The context and movement of the vases at only these sanctuaries illuminate the prevalence of sanctuary markets in the Archaic period as main proponents of novel trade networks. It is also suggestive that this network between Samos and Naukratis was known and established, thus craftsmen from other areas in the Greek world, like Laconia, were able to capitalise on this connection. The established relationship between Samos and Naukratis is attested through the cult dining ceramics and from the fact that Samos was supposedly one of the founding Archaic city -states to establish Naukratis as aGreek sanctuary complex and trading port, according to Herodotus (Hdt. II, 176). SOCIAL ELITES Alongside seafaring, the Samian Heraion played akey role as aplatform for displays of power and competition amongst aristocrats and social elites, precipitating the use of monumental sculpture. Acolossal kouros was produced from local Samian marble and placed along the Sacred Way to the sanctuary (Kyrieleis 1993, 148–151, fig. 7.16). The life -size dedication typified characteristics of kouroi found at this time from other Greek sanctuaries: the round, almond -shaped eyes, the Archaic smile and the conventional Egyptianising posture. In the other contexts of kouroi statues, such as the numerous dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, the production centres on Paros and Naxos, and sanctuaries at Sounion and Delphi, they were used as displays of piety and wealth of the Archaic elite (Mohr 2013; Pedley 2007, 176–179). The socio -political use of these dedications disseminated to the Heraion to an extent as well. What is further enlightening on the cooperating and competing social elites are the numerous other bases discovered at the sanctuary that indicate clusters of sculptures once existed (Mohr 2013, 44). Their chronological connection with the different phases of the temple construction during the 6th century reveals certain decades when collective groups of elites together were funding life -size, monumental sculptures. One particular sculptural group is the family of Genelaos, set up along the Sacred Way depictiong areclining male, typical of the symposium style posture, with aseated figure (the mother), and two daughters (Baughan 2011, 19–53). In addition to the long platform of the familial dedication, other round platforms and column bases have been found without sculpture (Mohr 2013, 43–4). The placement of the majority of the sculptural bases is strategic along the Sacred Way, where there was anotable concentration of bases close to the main altar so the dedications were as visible as possible to the passing visitor (Mohr 2013, 48: the extant bases date to the mid–6thc.). These factors reveal that acommunity of social elites were actively participating in offerings at the Samian Heraion on asubstantial scale that surpasses those found on mainland Greece, such as at the Athenian Acropolis. The large -scale sanctuary functioned politically as away to build upon social classes within Samian communities (Kyrieleis 2016, 238: Kyrieleis further argues that other votive offerings, such as tripods, functioned in asimilar way of traditional elite display). The presence of the familial sculpture group, as well as the kouros, connects directly to the existence of the Samian aristocracy and expounds on the political and social realm of the Heraion. The elite used the sacred space as representation for their status and power in Samos. This display of power correlates with the wider historical image of aristocracy and tyranny on Samos, especially with the Samian tyrant Polykrates. The lavish Rhoikos temple itself attests to