Chapter 27
Trade

27.1 Early Iron Age Contacts

Scholars writing on the Early Iron Age Balkans 1 often use the words “contacts” or “interactions” to explain similarities in the material culture in different regions, or rather to avoid explaining them, for which purpose the obscurity of these terms is suitable. Doing so is fully justified by the paucity and ambiguity of the evidence for exchange in this period. Thracian metalwork and pottery show undeniable relations with other communities in the Balkans, Asia Minor, and the Aegean (e.g., Stoyanov 1997, 74–82; Nikov 2000), but the direction and nature of these relations remain vague. The general impression is of craftsmen who communicate by exchanging know-how and design rather than by reproducing imported prototypes.

There are very few explicitly imported objects in the interior of Thrace before the late sixth century.² Examples of Greek metalwork found deep in the mainland may have resulted from “commercial contacts of the local dynasts” (Theodossiev 2000, 92), but their rare occurrence highlights other possibilities, such as diplomatic gifts or traveling craftsmen. A recent study of pottery from Koprivlen has put forward that the Middle Nestos valley “was integrated in the process of commercial exchange current in the Aegean region as early as the second half of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century” (Bozkova 2005, 89). The same questionable equation between pottery and trade is often employed in the debate about pre-colonial contacts of the Thracian littorals. Pottery technology also traveled, which is no less significant than the trade of manufactured pots. While the Aegean-looking designs of the metal ornaments may have been adopted through observation of prototypes, the adoption of new potting technology also requires knowledge, which implies the mobility of specialists.

There are various possible forms of mobility, apart from the previously mentioned model of the traveling craftsman. Transhumant populations migrating seasonally between the Rhodope Mountains and northern Greece is one of these alternatives (Baralis and Riapov 2007, 65). Pilgrimage is another option that would well explain the appearance of Thracian-looking bronze figurines at panhellenic sanctuaries (Karadzhinov 2011, 8). One can easily imagine reciprocal movements resulting from returning pilgrims or even foreigners attracted to Thracian sanctuaries, some of which were famous in the Greek world (Hdt. 7.111). This kind of religious tourism may have produced some of the rare, long-distance imports found in the Rhodope Mountains, or the Aeolian wares in the pre-Hellenic sanctuaries of Aegean Thrace (Ilieva 2007, 214–215). The paucity of archaeological data for trade in Early Iron Age Thrace actually has a positive side: it helps us to focus on the non-commercial aspects of interregional networks, which the overemphasized archaeological evidence for trade makes difficult for later periods.

27.2 Colonization and Trade

Two popular themes in studies of Greek colonization are the role of trade opportunities as a stimulus for colonization and the economic character of the newly founded settlements (for a review of the discussion, see Petropoulos 2005, 6–13). Recent writings present the colonization of Thrace in contrasting light: the Greeks who headed for the Black Sea are thought to have been driven away from their homelands by unfavorable political and demographic conditions (Tsetskhladze 2005, 229), while those who colonized the northern Aegean littoral are seen competing for the “Thracian eldorado” (Loukopoulou 2007). Without going to extremes, one can safely allow that the pursuit of overseas gain did exist, even more so in the case of Thrace, where colonization started generations later than in the western Mediterranean. From the early eighth to the mid-seventh century, Greeks had many opportunities to realize the advantages of seaborne trade, a fact seen in the significant increase in long-distance imports across the Mediterranean, as well as in the works of Homer and Hesiod (Osborne 1996, 41–42; Starr 2008, 426). Greeks were definitely aware of the commercial advantages of the places they chose to settle: pre-colonial contacts may not have produced a significant exchange of objects, but they did allow information to travel. The opinion that trade was not a priority in the initial stage, when colonists had to deal with the difficulties of survival, fails at one point: trade was an essential part of survival, since a secure level of self-sufficiency was unachievable before the establishment of a rural chora. Neither of the two extreme views – of either a fully agricultural or a fully mercantile character for the colonies – is easy to imagine.

In order to survive, the colonists needed agricultural produce and resources, the closest providers of which were the local people. In conformity with an often cited model, the early exchange between Greeks and Thracians is imagined as aristocratic gift exchange in which luxury goods are reciprocally given without being considered merchandise (Avram 1996, 248). This theoretical concept is hard to observe in practice, since the motives for exchange do not leave traces in the archaeological record. Frequent and bulky imports found in settlements are more likely to represent traded commodities than unique luxury items found in tombs, but this certainly is not a rule. It also requires a practical definition of “luxury,” which is itself a problem, since the social value of objects is relative – once a luxury, a commodity may lose its status as prestige marker if spread largely (Hodos 2006, 8–9). A Milesian table-amphora found in an elite burial mound near the town of Karnobat (Georgieva and Nikov 2010, 149, fig. 4), some 60 km from Apollonia, represents one of the earliest pieces of evidence for direct contact between Greeks and locals in Pontic Thrace. If taken alone, this find would rank as an example par excellence for aristocratic gift-exchange between colonists and locals. But some years after its discovery excavations at a nearby settlement revealed quantities of Archaic, East Greek sherds (Tzochev 2011), making it unlikely that this type of pottery was restricted to the elite. This case can serve not only as a reminder of how fragmented the evidence for the earliest exchange is, but also as a warning that this exchange may have been more practical than usually thought.

The boundaries between giving and trading in ancient societies could be blurry, and not only from a modern point of view. Both practices are closely related in the sense that exchange of gifts was an essential prerequisite for establishing commercial relations or initiating particular deals. Actions of diplomacy may naturally proceed to trade, or the former could be an integral part of the latter. One can dramatize the difference, but it seems more fruitful to focus on the outcome. With or without initial diplomacy, Greek colonization connected Thrace to a wide range of existing Mediterranean networks. Although this was not felt immediately, it brought decisive long-term consequences for Thracian societies and economies.

27.3 The Royal Economy

Few authors have attempted to produce a broader view of the Thracian economy. Literature on the subject is dominated by a theory developed by the Bulgarian Thracology School and referred to simply as the “royal economy” (Fol 1972, 124; 1990, 87–88; Fol et al. 2000, 134, 138, 139, 143; Tacheva 1987, 97ff.; 2002). The Thracologists’ model presents the economy of Odrysian and Hellenistic Thrace as a centralized monopoly in which the king is the ultimate owner of all means of production and initiator of all economic actions. Tribute extracted in kind from his Thracian subjects and in money from Greek neighbors formed the royal revenue, along with monopolized trade. The central authority took a leading role in foreign commerce, as the only possible mediator between the Thracian peasantry and Greek traders. The “royal economy” was exclusively rural: production and trade were not concentrated in urban settlements; in the interior of Thrace the latter took the form of royal residences. Surplus produce was gathered at locations near these residences and then shipped to coastal markets to be converted into cash. Internal trade was insignificant and non-monetized. Traders and craftsmen were not independent, but embedded within the royal economy.

The model described above presents an underdeveloped, socially embedded economy and is essentially primitivist, though at variance with its contemporary western neo-primitivism. To be properly understood, the “royal economy” should not be detached from the underlying concept of a twofold Thracian society and the political ideology of its time. In the early 1970s, when Moses Finley was writing The Ancient Economy, his colleagues east of the Iron Curtain were preoccupied with the struggle of classes in ancient society. Hence in Bulgarian historiography the Thracian economy was seen as a superstructure of a feudal-like society composed of a hereditary aristocracy and an oppressed peasantry, the first violently appropriating the produce of the latter. While the Finleyan economy suffered from fragmentation, social embeddedness, and the pursuit of self-sufficiency, the Thracologists’ economy remained primitive because the aristocracy appropriated all resources, thus impeding development (repeated until recently in Tacheva 2006, 179–180).

Although its ideological background was largely abandoned, the essence of the “royal economy” concept has rarely been confronted. Criticism of the twofold structure of Thracian society and the lack of urban production and trade (Popov 2002, 57) was followed by a somewhat simplistic attempt to reconcile this model with the growing body of incompatible data. Tacheva (2006, 180) suggested that the “royal economy” should be confined to the time before the establishment of Macedonian power in Thrace; after this shift of political power the Odrysian kings lost their ability to appropriate the peasantry’s surplus produce, the binary social model was disrupted by the emergence of a middle class of traders and craftsmen, and the economy became more market-oriented. Dimitrov (2011) chose a different approach in envisioning a developed market-based exchange within a unified and centralized Odrysian economy under total royal control – a coexistence of autonomous polis-type communities along with cities that were the absolute property of the king. For Dimitrov the Odrysian economy did not change in essence with the Macedonian conquest, but only became more centralized and monopolized.

At present the Thracian “royal economy” is far from a clear concept; it covers a wide range of understandings, often mixed in a contradictory way. On one end is a perspective suitable for primitive communities with emerging social-differentiation. It imagines a centralized redistributive system in which the local leaders appropriate the surplus products of the whole community for exchange with the outside world – an old-fashioned model applied to western and northern European societies that entered into contact with either Greek or Roman civilization (Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, 119–120). In studies of European prehistory, monopolization of foreign trade is explained as an ambition of leaders to restrict access to imported goods that served as prestige markers (Pydyn 1999, 17). The economies that formed the Odrysian kingdom probably went through this stage at a certain point in their development, but it is very unlikely that such a primitive structure had been retained for long. Applied in general to pre-Roman, or even to pre-Macedonian Thrace, the idea appears static, simplistic, and retrograde.

On the other end is the perspective of a dualistic economy, created through fertilizing a centralized, gift-centered “economy of the eastern type” with market-oriented, polis-type practices (Dimitrov 2011, 7). The product resembles a command economy of the type often discussed in relation to the empires of the Successors; in this sense the Odrysian kingdom has been portrayed as a forerunner of the Hellenistic monarchies. This second perspective is more adequate, but it draws on general models and is very shortsighted when it comes to the details. An “economy of the eastern type” is nonsense in view of the variety of economic practices and structures within the Achaemenid empire. The relations between royal authority, civic bodies, and private actors in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic economies are sophisticated, and modern scholarship has given up the idea of simplifying them into a tidy model. Macedonia before Philip II is an essential example of coexistence of royal and urban economies, but is also very complex and hardly heuristic.

The paucity of written evidence has impeded similar discussions about the Odrysian kingdom and created an environment for simplifications, which the constantly swelling archaeological evidence refuses to fit. Thinking of the Odrysian kingdom or Thrace under Macedonian rule as a single, unified economy is one of these simplifications. It hardly makes sense with the amalgamation of tribal and urban communities whose relations and degree of dependence on the central authority varied with the fluctuations of this authority’s strength. The flourishing of trade by no means indicates unification and centralization (pace Dimitrov 2011, 7, 11), as diversity and fragmentation do not impede, but stimulate exchange. The idea of monopolized trade is a second simplification. The monopoly characteristic of the Thracian “royal economy” is emphasized in all mentioned studies, but is either absolutized or not discussed in detail. Ancient economies employed a variety of monopoly-like practices, which are not in opposition to a market-oriented economy, but an essential part of it (Gabrielsen 2011). It is possible that the Odrysian kings endorsed general commercial policies, strategic partners, and the principal conditions of trade (IGBulg 5, 5557 ter; Chankowski and Domaradzka 1999, 248–249) – a practice that has its contemporary parallels elsewhere (e.g., in Macedonia: see Hatzopoulos 1996, app. 1). Direct royal participation in the economy is also likely: the Odrysian kings would probably have been the largest producers and exporters in key domains. This does not contradict parallel market exchanges ruled by demand and supply, however. That this type of exchange existed at least as early as the end of the fifth century is strongly suggested by the archaeological evidence summarized in the rest of this chapter. A third simplification is seeing the market-oriented economic practices and structures in Thrace exclusively as Greek. Such a view is encouraged both by the biased textual record and by archaeology, which recognizes as objects of trade only long-distance imports, remaining unaware of the exchange of locally produced commodities.

27.4 Marketplaces

The idea that Thracian cities were deprived of economic functions was largely abandoned after a number of urban sites produced explicit archaeological evidence for production and trade (cf. Popov 2002). The evidence for trade in most cases consists of coins and imported objects that confirm the existence of exchange and provide a taste of its dynamics and orientation on a broader scale, but hardly produce any idea of its organization. Few actual marketplaces are known and little attention has been paid to the instruments of trade.

Both Seuthopolis and Kabyle had agorai, where official decrees were exhibited in public (SEG 42.661). The agora of Seuthopolis is an open square in which only an altar and a statue base have survived. It has been argued that this agora was not a marketplace, but had exclusively political and religious functions (Chichikova 1983, 294) – an interpretation in the vein of the “royal economy” theory, as well as of the idealistic views of Xenophon (Cyr. 1.2.3) and Aristotle (Pol. 7.1331a24–36). The concentration of coin finds in the square and in its surrounding buildings (Figure 27.1), however, particularly of bronze coins destined for small transactions, indicates a retail marketplace. The agora of Kabyle has not yet been located,³ but the city certainly had an administratively regulated market: a third-century standard of measure for the sale of liquids⁴ marked Καβυλῆνων (“of the people of Kabyle”) suggests that a civic body controlled retail trade.

c27-fig-0001 — **Figure 27.1** Coin findspots in Seuthopolis. This area of ca. 5 ha, which was inhabited only for some 50 years, yielded over 1300 coins, mostly bronze change destined for everyday transactions.
Source: mapped by Chavdar Tzochev according to the coordinates published in Dimitrov 1984.

Although both Kabyle and Seuthopolis date to after the Macedonian conquest of Thrace, there is an indirect indication that urban marketplaces existed earlier. A lead weight marked with a relief astragalos – a standard Greek device for the weight of a stater – found in the fifth-century settlement at Krastevich (Figure 27.2) indicates the existence of a regulated marketplace in the heart of the Odrysian kingdom long before Kabyle’s foundation. The character of this settlement is not clear yet, as little has been published. But the presence of market instruments along with foreign coins and transport amphorae, combined with large warehouse-like buildings and the lack of any fortifications, promotes an idea that has nearly obsessed archaeologists working in Thrace during the last two decades.

c27-fig-0002 — **Figure 27.2** Lead weight from the site of Krastevich. The astragalos symbol marks a standard unit of one stater.
Photo by Chavdar Tzochev.

The idea that Greek trading-posts existed not only in coastal areas, but also in the deeper interior of Thrace, became popular after a sensational stone inscription was found in the upper Hebros valley in 1990. The inscription (IGBulg 5, 5557 ter), tentatively dated to the mid-fourth century, represents an edict or a contract that sets the rights of Greek traders resident in a settlement called Pistiros, as well as in other settlements called emporia. The main clauses in the document are meant to provide protection for the lives, property, and sovereignty of the Greeks, but the text is of particular interest because it offers insights into the organization of trade. The inscription tells us of a trade network operated by permanent Greek settlements and marketplaces, which existed in an area populated by Thracians. This network was not a venture of a single Greek polis, but was open to traders of different citizenship, who imported as well as exported goods to and from the coastal cities. The traders of one city, Maroneia, were privileged by being granted tax exemption. If the suggestion that the document was issued by an Odrysian authority is correct, then this authority did not participate directly in the exchange and did not protect its own interests in particular commodities; it only provided security for the Greeks, which one assumes was paid for by taxes on the traffic of goods.

Although the inscription is clear that Thracians and Greek traders coexisted for the sake of mutual interest, it is not so explicit on the location of the trade network it describes. This point has become the focus of a fierce debate. The majority of scholars accept that Pistiros and the emporia mentioned in the decree are to be found in the Hebros valley. The site of Adzhiyska Vodenitza, located several kilometers from the inscription’s findspot, is identified either with Pistiros (Velkov and Domaradzka 1996), or with one of the mentioned emporia (Chankowski 2010, 245). Hansen (2006, 14) stresses that this interpretation creates an unparalleled case in the ancient Greek world – an inland emporion not connected to a major waterway. The challenge becomes even larger, if one tries to imagine the multiple emporia from the inscription operating in the area. Such sites have been sought out at various locations with favorable setting and evidence for imports (Bouzek and Domaradzka 2002).

A completely different scenario exists, however. In accordance with the common Greek practice of recording official documents in multiple copies, one for each party concerned, the inscription from Vetren could conceivably be the copy for the Thracian side (Demetriou 2010, 90; for another instance of this practice in Thrace see SEG 42.661). In this case Pistiros, as well as the emporia, might be located elsewhere, with the most logical place being in Aegean Thrace. Indeed, a settlement named Pistyros existed not far from the Aegean coast, in the area facing Thasos (Hdt. 7.109–110). As Denise Demetriou (2010) showed, the text of the inscription does make sense in the context of a north Aegean trade network. But even so, the conclusions discussed above will remain valid, and the possibility of Greek trading posts in the Thracian plain will continue to be controversial.

This debate over the location of the Pistiros network has an archaeological dimension, which is strongly delineated by the aforementioned views on the inscription and generally confined to two options: the site of Adzhiyska Vodenitza is regarded either as a Greek emporion or as an Odrysian royal residence. In a search for clues, scholars have tried to make sense of the evidence for a Greek presence at the site, the quantity and variety of imports, and the data for agricultural activity in the surrounding area. All of these approaches produced valuable conclusions, but they ultimately met the same obstacle: we are dealing with data from only a small surviving sector of a single site and do not have a comparable dataset from other sites in the Thracian plain. Furthermore, we do not even know what a Greek trading-post in the interior of Thrace would look like in the archaeological record, nor do we have trustworthy examples of Thracian royal residences. Greek presence, trade activity, and the lack of a developed chora are conceivable in both cases.

In addition to permanent urban markets and emporia, another option has often been suggested, although it remains theoretical and is not based on substantial evidence. The idea of periodic rural markets emerged from another inscription found in the upper Hebros valley, near the village of Batkun (IGBulg 3.1, 1114), of early Hellenistic date, which records a festival (πανήγυρις) in honor of Apollo. This has been interpreted as an indication of a periodic fair (Velkov 1977, 173 n. 678; Domaradzki 1995, 24; 1998, 18), but the proposition remains tentative. As de Ligt (1993, 35–39) has rightly stated, the word πανήγυρις in the Greek sources is steadily used in the sense of religious festival and does not necessarily entail a concomitant market. Nevertheless, such gatherings of people were favorable environments for the development of commerce and the inscription is valuable for suggesting a line of research that deserves further exploration. Periodic rural markets are easy to imagine in ancient Thrace: such are typical for agrarian economies characterized by relatively low demand, underdeveloped infrastructure, and political instability (de Ligt 1993, 6–13 with a summary of previous scholarship). The wide range of possible characteristics for periodic markets provides various applicable solutions: on one end are markets with local significance, organized at short intervals in the vicinity of major settlements and facilitating the flow of rural produce from the hinterland to the urban milieu; on the other are low-frequency interregional markets, organized at a large distance from urban centers and specializing in high-value commodities. Even if the urbanization of ancient Thrace proves to have been underestimated, cyclically organized rural markets remain a plausible model to explain the integration of vast areas into networks that allow the flow of commodities. The archaeological identification of these markets remains a challenge, since they are unlikely to have left traces of substantial structures. Instead, one should look for concentrations of buried deposits resulting from short-term dwelling, trade, and consumption, which, taken as whole, span significant time-periods. Fields with such deposits are often excavated in Thrace, but are usually rashly interpreted as “pit sanctuaries” (see Chapter 11).

27.5 Monetization

Recent opinion describes Thrace as a “region with very limited monetary production of its own, where silver was treated rather as bullion than as coinage” (Kremydi 2011, 170). Ironically, Thrace has provided perhaps the most explicit cases of unminted silver treated as coinage – two silver jugs inscribed with the monetary equivalent of their weight in tetradrachms (Manov 2006). These objects demonstrate the degree to which the Thracians of the late fourth century were thinking of their wealth in terms of coined money.

This vessel-money has a centuries-long background. The earliest coinages produced in Thrace date to the late sixth century. Silver from the area of the lower reaches of the Axios, Strymon, and Nestos Rivers was minted by north Aegean cities, as well as local tribes. This coinage is remarkable for three reasons: the predominance of unusually heavy coins; the common design and iconography of the types; and the peculiar distribution pattern – almost complete absence in the area of production, contrasted with an abundance of finds, treasured as bullion metal, in the territory of the Achaemenid empire. Such peculiarities have stimulated a lengthy debate over the function of the coinages in question. Those who think that it served for tribute payments to the Persian king find strong support in: the distribution pattern; the heavy weight, which is unsuitable for market exchange; the chronology of the phenomenon, which generally coincides with Persian military presence in Thrace; and the shared iconography, which denotes a joint response to political events (Kraay 1976, 139). More recently, however, many scholars favor a commercial purpose for the Thraco-Macedonian coinage. Price (1987, 43–44) suggests that the metal itself was an object of large-scale interregional trade, stressing the sharp increase of coinages in the Aegean and the demand for silver in the Achaemenid empire and Magna Graecia. Hence the coinage was intended for export and not for use in the local economy, which was too primitive (Murray 1993, 239). Smith (1999) successfully challenges this theory when he argues that the north Aegean coinages are media for exchange and reflect the monetization of the local economy. Indeed, the two theories do not contradict each other; we know now that some of the Thraco-Macedonian coinages had developed systems of small denominations destined for marketplace transactions, along with the heavy coins that were internationally recognized and particularly profitable for export (Kroll 2011).

A process of monetization of the economies within the Odrysian kingdom is evident from the end of the fifth century on (see Chapter 18). The large number of hoards discovered in the Thracian plain and the abundance of single finds in settlements reflect intensive circulation, and suggest that already in the time of Kotys I (383–360/359) monetary transactions took precedence over payments in kind. Greek city-states certainly played a role in this transformation, being the main partner of and a gateway for Thracian foreign trade. Royal coinages designed after Greek models clearly demonstrate this symbiosis. The coins imitating Thasian silver issues, as well as the launch of royal bronze issues at the turn of the fifth and fourth century, denote the extensive demand for coined money that pervaded the Odrysian kingdom.

The Odrysian kings adopted fiduciary money nearly at the same time as their Macedonian neighbors and before most of the Greek poleis. Initially rare, bronze issues multiplied in the time of Kotys I and this trend continued after the subjugation of Thrace by Philip II. Psôma (2011, 150) is probably right in thinking that the royal bronzes were issued for the purpose of military finance, but this does not invalidate their commercial function: soldiers would hardly accept money that was not recognized in the marketplace (cf. [Arist.] Oec. 2.1350a). Imposition of monetary taxes is another possible stimulus for the increase of bronzes in circulation; it also stimulates producers to sell on the market. Diodorus (16. 71.2) informs us that Philip II had set tithes on the Thracians, leaving us to guess whether these were administratively imposed monetary taxes and whether they existed before Philip. In all cases the spread of bronze coinage is symptomatic of several parallel phenomena: developed small-scale trade; a preference for monetary instead of natural exchange; increased need for small payments from the central authority; and the existence of fiscal regulation. In these respects the Odrysian kingdom seems to have anticipated the royal economies of the Near East and Egypt, where a similar use of coined money reached significant levels only under the rule of the Successors (Aperghis 2004, 213–246; von Reden 2007, 29–78).

Deposits of cast or scrap silver – jewelry and coins cut in pieces – are not at all common in Thrace; these means of payment were never as popular there as they were in Mesopotamia or Egypt (cf. Kroll 2001). Instead, precious metals in the form of vessels seem to have been the preferred media for the transfer and storage of large sums, while silver and bronze coins covered the two lower levels of transactions. Such mixed monetary systems were neither limited to “barbarian” economies, nor should they be considered primitive (Kim and Kroll 2008, 65–67). Large non-monetary payments were suitable for high-level international commerce; it is not very believable, for example, that ship-building timber was paid for with the hemidrachms of Parion and Chersonesos popular in fourth-century Thrace (cf. Yourukova 1992, 79). Compared to monetary payments, those made in silverware are more difficult to track down, since silver vessels also circulated widely as gifts, tribute, and plunder, and often ended up in the melting pot, or in mixed deposits of obscure nature, such as the Rogozen treasure.

27.6 Commodities

Reviews of the commodities exported from Thrace usually list resources, foods, and processed products, such as timber, charcoal, live-stock, hides, grain, honey, and wax, among others, all of which are occasionally mentioned in ancient texts as found or produced in Thrace, but never explicitly proved to have been the object of organized trade. Thrace was not famous for a particular commodity in the way, for example, Egypt and the Bosporan kingdom were famous for their grain, Macedonia its timber, or Thasos, Chios, and Mende their wines; nor have Thracian exports been attested archaeologically. Explanations could be sought in the nature of these exports, which consist of mainly rural produce and raw materials. Most ended up in Greek coastal settlements without leaving a trace; what was reexported further had barely been labeled with its primary origin. There are, however, two major exceptions: the trades in silver and slaves.

The export of Thracian silver in the form of coins has already been mentioned. No matter what primary function we posit for these coins – bullion or medium of exchange – they were the earliest and most clearly attested interregional export from the hinterland of Thrace. It helps to imagine a similar export of gold that was mined in the same area (Hdt. 6.46–48, 7.112; Thuc. 4.105; Eur., Rh. 915; Strabo 7 fr. 33–34), but not minted as coin until the fourth century. The participation of Thracians in the extraction and trade of precious metals is a particularly interesting theme. It is certain that some of the mines on the mainland were under the control of local tribes (Hdt. 7.112; Xen., Не11. 5.2, 11–43), but it is unclear whether the Thracians themselves mined, extracted, and minted the silver. Scholars tend to see the Thracian side as rather passive (Loukopoulou 2007) or, in the best case, as having its silver struck in Greek mints, as part of a deal for access to the resource (Tacheva 2002, 267). But Thracian communities or powerful individuals who had both precious resources and access to international trade might have been interested in adopting the technologies of refining silver and striking coins.

Repeatedly mentioned in the ancient literary sources and well-attested in the epigraphic record, slaves were probably the sole, internationally recognized Thracian commodity in antiquity. Despite this, we cannot quantify this trade, nor can we say much about its organization. Most modern studies recognize the difficulties of dealing with ethnically derived names, which are the main source of information. We know, however, that: Athens imported substantial quantities of Thracian slaves (Velkov 1964); they were shipped through Greek cities both on the Aegean and the Black Sea coast (Avram 2007); this was fairly profitable business (Gavriljuk 2003, 79–80); and slaves were supplied through internal military conflicts (Xen., Anab. 7.3.48), but also through peaceful sale (Hdt. 5.6), probably as a response to short-term economic problems (Braund and Tsetskhladze 1989, 117–118).

While commodities imported into Thrace are no better attested in the sources, they are more visible archaeologically. From the seventh century until the Roman conquest, nearly all surviving identifiable imports originate from places in the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea; imports from central and western Europe, as well as the western Mediterranean, are negligible in quantity. Crafted ceramics and metal objects constituted only a tiny component of the exchange; some were not traded, and the rest represent only the visible tip of the iceberg of perishable goods. A great part of the bulk commodities was packed in ceramic containers, evidence of which is abundant in the Hebros and Tonzos valleys from the late fifth century on. During the early Hellenistic period amphorae are present at nearly all sites in the Thracian plain, which indicates that imported food and drink were accessible to most of society. The increase in imported goods goes hand in hand with the previously discussed monetization of the Thracian economies and both together denote a wider Thracian participation in market exchange.

The appearance of market-oriented demand in Thrace is a phenomenon that deserves a study of its own. The question whether consumption behavior triggered market behavior or vice versa resembles a circular cause-and-effect dilemma; in the Odrysian kingdom both the chicken and the egg emerged in the late fifth century. It is not necessary, though, to look for the earliest evidence in order to obtain an idea of how the process started. The custom of Thracian elites being buried with a Greek transport amphora along with a set of luxury items is traceable to the second century. Its practice in a period when the imported jars were omnipresent rubbish in Thracian settlements reflects a long since forgotten time when imported Greek wine was a luxury reserved for the few. The role of the elite’s ideology and taste as demand-creators in the population is only one side of the coin; on the other side is a process of societal transformation, related to the concentration of people in urban communities conducive to consumption behavior.

References

Aperghis, Makis. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Avram, Alexandru. 1996. “Modes de contacts entre grecs et gètes à Histria à l’époque archaïque.” In Sur les traces des argonautes, edited by Otar Lordkipanidzé and Pierre Lévêque, 241–251. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Avram, Alexandru. 2007. “Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the Roman Domination (6th–1st Centuries BC).” In The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), edited by Vincent Gabrielsen and John Lund, 239–251. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Baralis, Alexandre, and Atila Riapov. 2007. “Les Rhodopes occidentaux à la fin du bronze récent et durant l’âge du fer: essai de systématisation des données disponibles.” In Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini–Alexandroupolis, 18–23 October, 2005, edited by Athena Iakovidou, 57–71. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Bouzek, Jan, and Lidia Domaradzka 2002. “More than 300 Talents from the Emporia for Kersobleptes (With Reference to Demosthenes, Against Aristocrates 110).” In Thrace and the Aegean: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology, edited by Alexander Fol, 391–395. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Bozkova, Anelia. 2005. “A Pottery Group with Geometric Decoration from a Thracian Site at Koprivlen in Southwestern Bulgaria.” In The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours (BAR International Series 1350), edited by Jan Bouzek and Lidia Domaradzka, 85–90. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Braund, David C., and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. 1989. “The Export of Slaves from Colchis.” Classical Quarterly, 39: 114–125.
Chankowski, Véronique. 2010. “Pistiros et les Grecs de la côte nord-égéenne: problèmes d’interprétation.” In Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire, edited by Henri Trézini, 241–246. Paris: Errance.
Chankowski, Véronique, and Lydia Domaradzka. 1999. “Réédition de l’inscription de Pistiros et problèmes d’interprétation.” BCH, 123: 247–258.
Chichikova, Maria. 1983. “The Thracian City of Seuthopolis.” In Ancient Bulgaria: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, edited by A. G. Poulter, 289–303. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Demetriou, Denise. 2010. “Pistiros and the North Aegean Trade Network.” L’Antiquité Classique, 79: 77–93.
Dimitrov, Kamen. 1984. Antichnite moneti v Sevtopolis (Sevtopolis tom 2). Sofia: Bǔlgarska Akademiia na naukite.
Dimitrov, Kamen. 2011. “Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th–First Half of the 3rd Century BC).” Orpheus, 18: 5–24.
Domaradzki, Mechislav. 1995. Trako-grǔtski tǔrgovski otnosheniia (Emporion Pistiros I). Pazardzhik: Beloprint.
Domaradzki, Mechislav. 1998. “Emporion Pistiros: Trakiǐskata kultura v prehoda kǔm elinisticheskata epokha.” In Emporion Pistiros: Trakiǐskata kultura v prehoda kǔm elinisticheskata epokha, edited by Mechislav Domaradzki and Valentina Taneva, 13–64. Pazardzhik: Beloprint.
Fol, Aleksandǔr. 1972. Politicheska istoriia na trakite. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Fol, Aleksandǔr. 1990. Politika i kultura v drevna Trakiia. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Fol, Alexander, Kiril Jordanov, Kalin Porozhanov, and Valeria Fol. 2000. Ancient Thrace. Sofia: International Foundation Europa Antiqua.
Gabrielsen, Vincent. 2011. “Profitable Partnership: Monopolies, Traders, Kings, and Cities.” In The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC, edited by Zosia H. Archibald, John K. Davies, and Vincent Gabrielsen, 216–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gavriljuk, Nadežda A. 2003. “The Graeco-Scythian Slave-Trade in the 6th and 5th Centuries BC.” In The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A. N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Black Sea Studies 1), edited by P. G. Bilde, J. M. Højte, and V. F. Stolba, 75–85. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Georgieva, Rumiana, and Krasimir Nikov. 2010. “Ranni trako-elinski kontakti (po arkheologicheski danni ot Karnobatsko).” In Iugoiztochna Bǔlgariia prez II–I khiliadoletie pr. Khr., edited by R. Georgieva, T. Stoyanov, and D. Momchilov, 142–157. Varna: Zograf.
Getov, Liiudmil. 2006. ΚΑΒΥΛΗΝΩΝ i osnovaniiata za edna khipoteza.” In IV Mezhdunaroden simpozium za poselishten zhivot v Trakiia, edited by I. Iliev, 105–108. Iambol: Ia.
Hansen, Morgan Herman. 2006. “Emporion. A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Classical Periods.” In Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas I, edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, 1–39. Leiden: Brill.
Hatzopoulos, Miltiadis B. 1996. Macedonian Institutions Under the Kings: A Historical and Epigraphic Study. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Hodos, Tamar. 2006. Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. London and New York: Routledge.
Ilieva, Petia. 2007. “Thracian-Greek συμβíωσις on the Shore of the Aegean.” In Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini–Alexandroupolis, 18–23 October, 2005, edited by Athena Iakovidou, 212–223. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Karadzhinov, Ivaylo. 2011. “Miniature Axes with Zoomorphic Protomes from Greek Sanctuaries in the Light of Thracian-Greek Contacts in the 8th–6th Century B.C.” Archaeologia Bulgarica, 1: 1–12.
Khandzhiǐska, Veneta, and Ivaǐlo Lozanov. 2010. “Kabile prez elinisticheskata epokha (po danni ot poslednite arkheologicheski prouchvaniia).” In Iugoiztochna Bǔlgariia prez II–I khiliadoletie pr. Khr., edited by R. Georgieva, T. Stoyanov, and D. Momchilov, 247–270. Varna: Zograf.
Kim, Henry S., and John H. Kroll. 2008. “A Hoard of Archaic Coins of Colophon and Unminted Silver.” American Journal of Numismatics, Second Series, 20: 53–103.
Kraay, Colin M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London: Methuen.
Kremydi, Sophia. 2011. “Coinage and Finance.” In Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Macedon, edited by Robin J. Lane Fox, 159–178. Leiden: Brill.
Kroll, John H. 2001. “A Small Find of Silver Bullion from Egypt.” American Journal of Numismatics, Second Series, 13: 1–20.
Kroll, John H. 2011. “Minting for Export: Athens, Aegina, and Others.” In Nomisma: la circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique, edited by Thomas Faucher, Marie-Christine Marcellesi, and Olivier Picard, 27–38. Athens: École Française d’Athènes.
de Ligt, L. 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire. Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
Loukopoulou, Louisa D. 2007. “The Thracian Bone of Contention.” In Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini–Alexandroupolis, 18–23 October, 2005, edited by Athena Iakovidou, 339–343. Athens: National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Manov, Metodi. 2006. “Die Inschriften auf den Silbergefässen und dem Bronzehelm von Seuthes III aus dem Grabhügel Goljama Kosmatka.” Archaeologia Bulgarica, 3: 27–34.
Murray, Oswyn. 1993. Early Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nikov, Krassimir. 2000. “Birds’ Images on Early Iron Age Pottery from Southern Thrace.” In Technology, Style and Society: Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory (BAR International Series 854), edited by Lolita Nikolova, 303–308. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Osborne, Robin. 1996. “Pots, Trade and the Archaic Greek Economy.” Antiquity, 70: 31–44.
Petropoulos, Elias K. 2005. Hellenic Colonization in Euxeinos Pontos: Penetration, Early Establishment, and the Problem of the ‘Emporion’ Revised (BAR International Series 1394). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Popov, Khristo. 2002. Urbanizaciia vǔv vǔtreshnite raǐoni na Trakiia i Iliria. Sofia: Nous.
Price, Martin Jessop. 1987. “The Coinages of the North Aegean.” In Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires (BAR International Series 343), edited by Ian Carradice, 43–47. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Psôma, Sélènè. 2011. “La circulation monétaire et la thésaurisation en Thrace au Nord des Rhodopes.” In Nomisma: la circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique, edited by Thomas Faucher, Marie-Christine Marcellesi, and Olivier Picard, 143–168. Athens: École Française d’Athènes.
Pydyn, Andrzej. 1999. Exchange and Cultural Interactions: A Study of Long-Distance Trade and Cross-Cultural Contacts in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Central and Eastern Europe (BAR International Series 813). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Reden, Sitta von. 2007. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Michael N. 1999. The Mint of “Lete” and the Development of Coinage in the North Aegean. PhD Dissertation, Brown University.
Starr, C. G. 2008. “Economic and Social Conditions in the Greek World.” In The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., edited by John Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond, 417–441. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stoyanov, Totko. 1997. Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis (Sboryanovo I). Sofia: Sviat.
Tacheva, Margarita. 1987. Istoriia na bǔlgarskite zemi v drevnostta. Razvitie i raztsvet na robovladelskoto obshtestvo. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.
Tacheva, Margarita. 2002. Za trakiǐskata tsarska ikonomika prez V–IV vek. pr. Khr. spored t. nar. nadpis ot Pistiros. In Πιτύη: Izsledvaniia v chest na prof. Ivan Marazov, edited by R. Gicheva and K. Rabadzhiev, 264–271. Sofia: Anubis.
Tacheva, Margarita. 2006. Tsarete na drevna Trakiia. Kniga parva. Sofia: Agato.
Theodossiev, Nikola. 2000. North-Western Thrace from the Fifth to First Centuries BC (BAR International Series 859). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tsetskhladze, Gocha R. 2005. “Pontic Notes (Without Notes).” In The Culture of Thracians and Their Neighbours (BAR International Series 1350), edited by Jan Bouzek and Lidia Domaradzka, 229–230. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tzochev, Chavdar. 2011. “Archaic Amphora Import from Thracian Sites Around the Bay of Bourgas.” In PATABS II. Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea: Acts of the International Round-Table held in Kiten, Nessebar and Sredetz, September 26–30 2007, edited by Chavdar Tzochev, Totko Stoyanov, and Anelia Bozkova, 73–86. Sofia: National Institute of Archaeology and Museum.
Velkov, Velizar. 1964. “Zur Frage der Sklaverei auf der Balkanhalbinsel während der Antike.” Études Balkaniques (Sofia), 1: 125–138.
Velkov, Velizar. 1977. Cities in Thrace and Dacia in the Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert.
Velkov, Velizar, and Lidia Domaradzka. 1996. “Kotys I (383/2–359 B.C.) and Emporion Pistiros in Thrace.” In Pistiros I: Excavations and Studies, edited by Jan Bouzek, Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, and Zofia H. Archibald, 205–219. Prague: Karolinum.
Whitehouse, Ruth D., and John B. Wilkins. 1989. “Greeks and Natives in South-East Italy: Approaches to the Archaeological Evidence.” In Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, edited by Timothy C. Champion, 102–126. London: Unwin Hyman.
Yourukova, Ǐordanka. 1992. Monetite na trakiǐskite plemena i vladeteli. Sofia: Petǔr Beron.

Guide to Further Reading

Archibald, Zosia. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Provides well-illustrated overviews of many of the topics discussed here, including Early Iron Age contacts, the literature on which is otherwise dispersed.
Avram, Alexandru. 2007. “Some Thoughts about the Black Sea and the Slave Trade before the Roman Domination (6th–1st Centuries BC).” In The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6), edited by Vincent Gabrielsen and John Lund, 239–251. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Contains an update of epigraphic data for and valuable discussion of the Thracian slave trade.
Chankowski, Véronique, et al. 1999. “Dossier: nouvelles perspectives pour l’étude de l’inscription de Pistiros.” BCH, 123: 247–371. A collection of papers discussing many aspects of the debate over the Vetren inscription and emporion Pistiros.
Demetriou, Denise. 2010. “Pistiros and the North Aegean Trade Network.” L’Antiquité Classique, 79: 77–93. Recent summary of the debate about Pistiros and the Vetren inscription.
Dimitrov, Kamen. 2011. “Economic, Social and Political Structures on the Territory of the Odrysian Kingdom in Thrace (5th–First Half of the 3rd Century BC).” Orpheus, 18: 5–24. A general overview of the Odrysian economy, including discussion of the most controversial points.
Faucher, Thomas, Marie-Christine Marcellesi, and Olivier Picard, eds. 2011. Nomisma: la circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. More recent discussion of Archaic Thraco-Macedonian coinage.
Morris, Ian. 1999. “Foreword.” In The Ancient Economy (updated edition), edited by M. I. Finley, ix–xxxvi. Berkeley: University of California Press. An essential guide to Finley’s influential work and the study of ancient economic history in general.
Popov, Khristo. 2002. Urbanizaciia vǔv vǔtreshnite raǐoni na Trakiia i Iliria. Sofia: Nous. A comparative study of urbanization in Thrace and Illyria, with general overviews of the archaeological evidence for trade.
Scheidel, Walter, Ian Morris, and Richard Saller, eds. 2007. The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A recent attempt to summarize the state of knowledge about ancient Greek and Roman economic history.
Smith, Michael N. 1999. The Mint of “Lete” and the Development of Coinage in the North Aegean. PhD Dissertation, Brown University. A valuable discussion of Archaic Thraco-Macedonian coinage with comprehensive bibliography on the subject.
Tzochev, Chavdar. 2010. “Between the Black Sea and the Aegean: The Diffusion of Greek Trade-Amphorae in Southern Thrace.” In Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea. PATABS I (Varia Anatolica 21), edited by Dominique Kassab Tezgor and Nino Inaishvili, 97–101. Paris: De Boccard. Offers the most recent review of evidence for the distribution of transport amphorae in Thrace.
Velkov, Velizar. 1964. “Zur Frage der Sklaverei auf der Balkanhalbinsel während der Antike.” Études Balkaniques (Sofia), 1: 125–138. Essential reading on the Thracian slave trade.