exclusively in coins, namely Saratokos, whose bronze issues follow the
minor bronze of Thasos.^18
Visible, demonstrable connections between Thracians of the interior
and Abdera emerge in the reign of Rhoimetalces I. Coins of the Sapaian
royal house are plentiful at Abdera, in contrast to Odrysian issues,
notably those of Rhoimetalces I (10bc–ad12). The gradual closure of
second-centurybccivic mints, including those of Thasos, Maroneia, the
Macedonian districts, and the Successor kings, meant that liquidity
problems could arise. Augustus was a patron of Rhoimetalces I and
coins struck in his name in effect operated as proxy Roman issues.
Abdera and Maroneia did not strike under Augustus. The variety of
denominations enabled both large and small transactions.^19
There is no particular reason to think that there was a change in the
economic relations (or the boundary conditions) between Abdera and its
neighbours. The paradigm of cultural isolation, with the Abderitans
facing off hostile natives, simply does not account for the realities, not
just of survival, but of real economic success. It seems more likely that the
Abderitans had to pay for commodities with coin, in return for com-
modities by weight. The beauty and quality of their issues gave the
Abderitans a valuable asset in the wider context of the Aegean as well
as Thrace, but one that hadfirst to be acquired with some other asset,
whether cultural or material.^20 Maronitan bronze coins have been found
to contain a comparatively high proportion of lead to copper. There are
examples of coins from centres of exchange in the Thracian interior,
imitating a variety of civic issues, including those of the Thracian Cher-
sonese and the Thasian‘satyr and nymph’types of archaic form, which
have a copper core covered with a thin layer of silver foil. Coin hoards do
not usually contain these kinds of counterfeit or imitation issues.^21
Maroneia may have used a higher proportion of lead in its copper-
based coins to counteract the effects of metal dilution. The wide circula-
tion of these coins, which were not quite what their face value suggested,
indicates that the‘boundary conditions’ of exchange were flexible
(^18) Chryssanthaki-Nagle 2007; Picard (2006, 278) wants Saratokos to be an independent
ruler; cf. Peter 1997, 99–104.
(^19) Chryssanthaki-Nagle 2007.
(^20) Nymphodoros of Abdera, brother-in-law of King Sitalkes: Thuc. 2.29.1; 4; 67;
Hdt.7.137.
(^21) Psoma in Psoma et al. 2008, on the Maronitan issues; Taneva 2005, 29 (imitations of
the Thracian Chersonese); Ivanova 2005, 43–5 (scientific analysis of‘satyr and nymph’
types from Adjiyska Vodenitsa); cf. Picard in Grandjean and Salviat 2000, 305; cf. also
Picard 2006, 467:‘Les découvertes de Pistiros laissent penser qu’une partie au moins de ces
pièces fut frappée sur ce site’.
The lure of the northern Aegean 257