A number of different arguments have here been combined. First is
the status of Pistiros, which, along with Beos, Apros, Sauthaba, and
Ergiske, is negatively assessed in terms of political autonomy. The author
does not explain why the Odrysian kingdom was‘incapable’of giving
birth to autonomous communities, whilst the kingdom of Macedonia
evidently was. The argument is based on assumptions that have not been
fully articulated and the notion seems rather to rely on the kinds of
cultural polarities that have aroused strong criticism from Rollinger and
others (as we will see in the section that follows). The arguments that
have dominated the discourse on‘thepolis’are recognizable once more.
Irrespective of where it was located in spatial terms, Pistiros qualifies as a
polisin terms of the criteria defined by the Copenhagen Centre.^58 As to
the other locations, the likeliest explanation of their appearance on
silverware is as an indication of the mustering points for tribute or
payment collection from coastal communities, who were not subjects
of the Odrysians.^59 The inscriptions do not provide any evidence for or
against the type of community that these represented. Judging by the
ways in which places like Ganos (ateichosin Xen.Anab. 7.5.8; achōrion
in Aesch. 3.82), Ergiske (achōrionin Dem. 7.37; 18.27), and Apros
(apolisin TheopomposFGrHF160) are described in contemporary
Greek sources, whether partial and opinionated or not, this was a het-
erodox group of places, selected for organizational convenience, perhaps.
Assumptions about the monopolizing nature of Odrysian power are
not confined to those scholars who retain the ideological foundations of a
Marxian dichotomy between‘Asiatic’and‘classical’state structures.
Thucydides’ analysis of Odrysian revenues has been interpreted by
François Salviat in a way that shows full accord with such assumptions.
The‘oligarchie clanique’of the Odrysians relied onemporiato supply
rich Thracians with wine, in exchange for cereals, cattle, and slaves.^60 We
can observe, in Salviat’s understanding of the Odrysian economy, a
similar social divide to that presented in the work of Fol, Tacheva, and
others. Nor is it dissimilar to common scholarly attitudes regarding
Macedonian social relations, as we have seen. This brief survey of the
(^58) Inventory, no. 656.
(^59) Archibald 1998, 121fig. 4.4;Inventory, 913, listed as‘Pre-Hellenistic Settlements not
Attested asPoleis’; Loukopoulou 2008, 148–53, drawing attention to thepatrios phoros
claimed by the Odrysian kings.
(^60) ‘Lesemporoi, devenus par domiciliationemporitai, apportent argent monnayé, vins
dont les Thraces riches usent parfois sans discrétion, produits de luxe; ils emportent
céréales, du bétail, et aussi des esclaves. Lesemporiasont un facteur essential de la prospér-
ité économique du royaume. Aussi le pouvoir odryse promet-il franchises et stabilité’
(Salviat 1999, 273).
216 Regionalism and regional economies