The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s3.117

c10.s3.117

The Dioscuri then on Eucratides' coins in all probability typify Antiochus and himself, naturally with reference to the two Seleucid realms that were to be; and this in turn may explain a hitherto unexplained coin-type. Antiochus' successor, the Seleucid Demetrius I, struck coins on which the *pilei* (caps) of the Dioscuri were enthroned, each cap on a separate throne.⁵ It may be uncertain whether *cult* of a throne in itself was or was not known to Greeks,⁶ but the question cannot bear on this coin-type, for if it has anything to do with *cult* the cult could only be that of the Dioscuri, seeing that their symbols appear on the thrones.⁷ But this in turn seems impossible, for no connection of the Dioscuri with thrones seems known elsewhere, either in numismatics or in art;¹ such a type as the Dioscuri enthroned does not exist. I suggest therefore that the two thrones typify the two Seleucid realms. It is probable that for some time after the death of Antiochus IV the Seleucid kings continued, though as a dead fiction, to claim suzerainty over the realm ruled by the descendants of Eucratides in the East; no other reason is apparent for the Seleucid Demetrius II wearing on one of his coin-issues the elephant-scalp of Alexander.² This is theory, not proof; but it will explain an unexplained coin-type.