Evidence from modern polygamous societies supports Aristotle’s claims about the number of women rather than the boasts of Menander’s comic hero (Sanders 1984: 14, Scheidel 2009: 269). It is also true however that in such societies it is believed that having one wife is equivalent to having none (Clignet 1970: 30). Menander’s text makes it clear that social status among the Getae was a direct function of the number of marriages performed. The unmarried, or those with few wives, found themselves in a lower social position, in the category of the “wretched, without bride”. Or, in other words, marriage seems to have been a necessary condition for successful integration into society, an avenue for building and manipulating one’s social position. Herodotus’ account of the Thracians living in Lake Prasiades is in a similar vein. For each woman the man brought three stakes for his stilt house, ‘and they have many,’ Herodotus specifies, apparently alluding to the fact that by the number of stakes each demonstrated his prosperity.

Plato informs us that the Thracians used their women for all kinds of activities similarly to slaves (Plat. Leg. 805de). This is another example of the established correlation between polygyny, the marriage ransom, and public recognition of the economic value of women’s labour (Goody 1973: 13, 52; 1973a; Bohannan 1969: 109: “Polygyny is most tenacious in a society in which economic rights in women can both be acquired and have some meaning). The Greek historian of Roman times, Arian, directly links polygyny to the desire for numerous offspring. He probably owes to the Ionian mythographers, from whom he often drew his information, the explanation that the Thracian custom of marrying multiple wives was motivated by their desire to have more children and was left to them by the mythical king Doloncus, to whom many children were born by many wives (Arrian. FGrHist. 156, F. 62 (= Eustath. Dion. Per. 322). The image of the Thracian lord-polygynist is also present in a tragedy by Euripides (Eur. Andr. 215-219).

A drawback of all this information is its general nature. We owe the only concrete evidence for the existence of polygyny among the Thracians to Xenophon’s venture into Thrace as commander of an army of Greek mercenaries in the service of the ambitious local Odrysian dynast Seuthes. At this time Seuthes had at least one wife, to whom his guests usually presented gifts (Xen. Anab. 7. 3. 27). In negotiating with the Greek general, he promised him his daughter for a wife, along with a seaside fortress, and expressed his willingness in turn to marry Xenophon’s daughter, if he had one, by buying her according to Thracian custom (Xen. Anab. 7. 2. 38). Xenophon’s narrative is a direct testimony to the relationship between power, the formation of (repeated) marriage alliances and the distribution of property among the Odrysae. For his part, the general was sure that, with the help of the mercenaries, Seuthes would gain lands, many horses and men, and many beautiful women who would come to him and bring him gifts themselves (Xen Anab. 7. 3. 30-32), which is entirely consistent with an imperialist motivation, a precondition for despotic polygyny (Scheidel 2009). Owing to these passages, we may assume that polygamy was a reality among the Odrysians at least by 400 BC. Not much later, a Thracian tribe demanded from the Spartan Agesilaus 100 talents in silver and as many women to let his troops pass through their territory (Plut. Apophth. Lac. 211c, 11-14), a demand that is entirely consistent with the constant demand for women in the context of polygamy. The accumulation of wives and the exercise of strict control over them and the children they produce is a way of accumulating surplus, prestige and political authority. Because control over wives and children means, in effect, control over other men. The manipulation and monopolisation of marital alliances exacerbates social differences. Keeping widows within the dead man’s lineage illustrates the artificial maintenance of asymmetry between men and free women, the preservation of a husband’s marital rights even after his death, and the prevention of other men from acquiring wives. And it is not surprising that among some Thracians there were men, called ktistai, who lived without wives and were considered sacred (Strab. 7. 3. 3). The allocation of special religious functions for those vowing asceticism and celibacy is an additional mechanism for increasing the number of free women: men who cannot or refuse to marry are given a special social status at the expense of actually limiting their access to sources of wealth and influence.

The sources clearly attest to the social limits of polygyny, its increased intensity in the upper strata of society, and the prestige of large numbers of wives as a mark of status and prosperity. In addition to prestige, sex and one’s own reproductive success also justified the establishment of the harems of which Aristotle speaks and to which Xenophon probably alludes.

The symbolic character of polygyny in the upper strata of society is visible. The ruler had to be polygynous both to secure the political partnerships he needed and to demonstrate and consolidate his unchallenged position at the top. Similar political motives predetermined polygyny in the Macedonian royal house. There are close parallels with Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries (and also in the classical era), where polygyny appeared as a positive strategy in the accumulation of political influence and power (Hammond 1956: 3, n. 12, Humphreys 1977-1978: 99, Vernat 1973: 68-69).

The accounts of ancient authors have captured various aspects of polygyny in Thrace. They reveal polygamy as “a common cultural characteristic of pre-industrial stratification with a close correlation between the status of a man and the number of his wives” (Sanders 1984: 14). The economic and political conditionality of multitudinous marriages, a key factor in the web of political-economic alliances in which the political economy of a pre-industrial society operates, is evident. The motivations for the preference for this marriage model are similar to those found in studies of polygynous societies: the direct role of women in the production process, the recognition of the high economic value of their labor in the home and on the farm, their reproductive potential, and, in the upper strata of society, imperialist motivations, political reasons, sex, and the prestige of multiple harems (Goody 1973a).

It is difficult to expect indisputable evidence of polygyny from archaeology, although in some cases researchers are convinced that they are facing just such a polygamous situation, as at the Tonkova Mound in the Kazanlak Valley (Китов 1994: 57).

Although it was the most desirable marriage model in Thracian societies, as it is incidentally in human history in general (Scheidel 2009:262), most marriage unions were monogamous. In practice, in stratified and despotic Thracian societies, there was “ecologically imposed monogamy ” (EIM), while polygyny was restricted to the upper strata of society, reserved for the rich, the powerful, and older men. EIM “manifested itself in an environment where polygamy was permissible in principle, but some men could not secure more than one wife or family. Globally, this has been the predominant form of marriage or cohabitation” (Scheidel 2009a: 282). For “it is not polygamy that needs to be explained, but its absence, i.e. monogamy; the former is commonplace, the latter rare” (Goody 1973a: 189).