principles of his approach were not fully explored.^43 In particular, Fol did
not explain how it came about that kings acquired unassailable power,
and how this was exercised in practice, when such evidence as we do
have about the political history of the Odrysians points rather to a
fluctuating control over specific geographical areas and little explicit
information about the scope of royal authority. Xenophon is not an
altogether objective guide to Odrysian regional power—as a mercenary
he and the surviving Cyreans in the employ of the prince Seuthes, for just
over a month during the winter of 400bc(Xen.Anab. 7.1.5, 2.36), needed
to keep their distance from native Thracians against whom they were
fighting—but Xenophon nevertheless observes how an unnamed Odry-
sian officer from the central administration joined the local paradynast,
Medosades, when it seemed that the behaviour of Seuthes and the Greek
mercenaries was becoming ambiguous, and the rights of local people
were not being upheld. Xenophon’s unwitting testimony appears to
contradict the idea that absolute power was exercised by Thracian
kings; Medosades and other high-ranking officers owned land of their
own. Xenophon was promised various pieces of land, including the town
of Bisanthe, in return for services to Seuthes.^44
Margarita Tacheva, who adopted the essential principles of the‘Asian
mode of production’in her analysis of Thracian society and economy,
was prepared to recognize that there was evidence in Thrace during the
second half of thefirst millenniumbcof the early signs of class structure,
but she was critical of those historians who wanted to see in Thrace the
emergence of a‘pre-polis’orpolis-type society.^45 Tacheva took the view
that territorial powers, including the kingdom of the Odrysians, were
characterized by royal ownership of land and royal control over the
means of production, which entailed the redistribution of commodities
amongst the king’s subjects. The coastal communities, in her interpret-
ation, were socially and economically distinct from the Thracian popu-
lation of the interior, because the former recognized private ownership
of property and market exchange, using coinage. There was, in her view,
a‘dialogue’between Greek coastal communities and the Thracians,
(^43) Fol 1965; 1972, 73–5; 1975, 77–83; Tacheva 1997, 96–149, with discussion.
(^44) Xen.Anab. 7.1.5, 2.10, 2.23–25, 7.15–16: Medosades; 7.2.32, 4.21, 5.1: other high-
ranking Odrysians; Seuthes’promises of land, including the town of Bisanthe, to Xenophon:
7.2.38, 5.8, cf. on Bisanthe, Thuc. 2.61; Hdt. 7.137; Nep.Alcib. 7.4; Plut.Alc. 36.3; Stronk
1995, 140 and 45 fig. 9.
Tacheva 1997, 96–144, esp. 97; at 101 she discusses Xen.Anab.7.7.29–32 as potential
evidence of early class structure.
212 Regionalism and regional economies