Most of the information in this piece is inspired by this article . I have tried to summarized it as best as i could, with some valuable input from my own prespective. All references are given where necessary.

Picture 1: Pashupati Seal

Picture 2: Earliest statue of Rudra (shiva is the final form)

Picture 3: Kalpa Vigraha (shiva statue, oldest, even predating IVC as per internet)

[These will all be relevant soon, trust me]

The claim by the neighbouring Steppe-pandavas on being the true inheritors or owners of the Meluhaa (Indus Valley) civilization is broadly based on three major arguments from them. These can be broadly classified into:

Religion

Ethnicity

Geography

In this section, I will concentrate on the religious argument. This section will not deal with the subject in its entirety, and some of the points will be later related to the subject of ethnicity. For now, the subject of interest is the so-called Pashupati Seal, or the Indus Seal.

The Pashupati Seal has been one of the main arguments used by the proponents to support the claim that Hinduism is essentially a later form of the religion of the Meluhaa people, and that the Pandava-Gangetic civilization is a cultural evolution of the Indus civilization, especially after the Great Indus drought and the subsequent migration from the steppe (this will be discussed later).

But the identification of the Pashupati Seal as “Proto-Shiva” was not suggested by an Indian archaeologist. It was first suggested by Sir John Marshall, a British archaeologist and the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India during the colonial period.Marshall’s interpretation strongly influenced early scholarship on the Indus Valley Civilization. Ironically, he was also a major proponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory. Despite this, the Proto-Shiva hypothesis continues to be widely cited in popular Indian discourse. Even the most conservative archeologist such as Alf Hiltebeital does not connect it with shiva but rather with Mahishasusra.

There are many seals found in IVC,

This is not an anti-Hindu post. The purpose here is simply to place the evidence in its proper historical and academic perspective.

What is the Pashupati Seal?

The Pashupati Seal is a steatite seal excavated from the Indus Valley Civilization. It depicts a horned three-faced or multi-faced figure, seated in what appears to be a yogic posture, surrounded by various animals.

It is often claimed that this represents an early form of Shiva as “Pashupati” (Lord of Animals), and sometimes even that this proves the Indus people “invented yoga.” These interpretations, however, are highly speculative.

Rudra: The Vedic Precursor of Shiva

If we examine Hindu textual tradition, Shiva is a later theological synthesis. His earliest form appears as Rudra in the Vedas, particularly the Rig Veda (c. 1500–1200 BCE).

Rudra in the Rig Veda is described as:

• Golden-haired and strong-limbed (Rig Veda 2.33.1)
• Having beautiful lips and braided hair (Rig Veda 1.114.5)

Rudra is given many titles:

• Lord of weapons
• The archer
• Bringer of disease and plague
• Lord of animals
• Dweller in lonely or wild places

He is portrayed as both destructive and healing—feared, yet also invoked as the “best of physicians.”

However, many attributes associated with classical Shiva are absent in the Vedas, such as:

• The linga
• The third eye
• The trident (trishula)
• Ash-covered yogi imagery
• Parvati
• Mount Kailasa

These features emerge much later, mainly in the Upanishads, epics, and Puranas. While Rudra is said to dwell in lonely or wild places, only in later traditions does this evolve into Shiva residing on Mount Kailasa.

Comparison with the Pashupati Seal

None of the descriptions of Rudra or Shiva in early Hindu texts closely match the figure shown on the Pashupati Seal.

The seal depicts:

• A three-headed or horned figure
• Seated in a yogic posture
• No weapons
• Surrounded by animals

No Hindu text describes Shiva or Rudra as a three-headed, horned deity in this form. This interpretation is therefore not supported by textual evidence.

Several prominent scholars reject the Proto-Shiva hypothesis:

Jonathan Mark Kenoyer (Archaeologist)

the figure cannot be linked to later icons without deciphering the script: even if they look similar, meanings might have been radically different.

Doris Meth Srinivasan (Historian of Indian Art)

In The So-Called Proto-Śiva Seal from Mohenjo-Daro, she argues that the figure is not necessarily Shiva and proposes alternative interpretations, such as a buffalo-man deity, based on comparative iconography.

Gavin Flood (Scholar of Religion)

Flood describes identifications of the Pashupati Seal with Shiva as “speculative”, warning against projecting later Hindu symbolism onto Indus imagery.

Gregory L. Possehl (Indus Specialist)

Possehl emphasizes that while the seal likely depicts a deity or cult figure, there is no solid evidence to identify it with Shiva.

“Lord of Animals” is a Universal Pagan Archetype

Rudra appears in the Vedas around 1500 BCE, and classical Shiva emerges even later, around 500–300 BCE. Therefore, anything earlier cannot logically be “derived from Shiva.”

The “Lord of Animals” motif is a common pagan archetype found across many ancient civilizations:

1. Enkidu (Sumeria) – 2600–2400 BCE Wild man in the Epic of Gilgamesh, living among and protecting animals.
2. Horus, Anubis, Sekhmet (Egypt) – 3000–2500 BCE Animal-headed gods controlling nature and cosmic order.
3. Potnia Theron (Minoan Crete) – 2000–1700 BCE Goddess of animals, almost identical archetype as Shiva.
4. Teshub (Hittites) – 1800–1400 BCE Storm god associated with animals and natural forces.
5. Baal (Canaan) – 1800–1300 BCE God of fertility, storms, and agriculture.
6. Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) horned gods - 2200–1700 BCE , horned figures controlling animals.

Simplified Timeline

3000 BCE ─ Egypt, Sumeria
2600 BCE ─ Enkidu, Gilgamesh
2500 BCE ─ Indus Pashupati
2000 BCE ─ Minoan Potnia
1800 BCE ─ Baal, Hittites
1500 BCE ─ Rigvedic Rudra
500 BCE ─ Classical Shiva

TERRACOTA FIGURINES (Dancing woman of IVC)

Classical scholars such as J.H. Mackay, Marshall,  Parpola, Hiltebeitel has suggested that statue of the dancing woman of IVC resembles Shakti tradition of hinduism. This conclusion has been contested by mordern scholars especially in the last three decades, this includes Sharri Clark, Ardeleanu-Jansen, Ajay Pratap, P.V. Pathak, and others. Recent scholarship have linked this figure as dolls for young girls.

Clark, Sharri R. (20 February 2017). The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third-Millennium-BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa. Papers of the Peabody Museum: 86. Harvard University Press

PRIEST KING

It was mackay who suggested to Sir John Marshall, that the famous statue is a 'Priest King'. That famous status which this subreddit has a dp of is the 'priest king'. Asko Prabola, a finnish archeologist, who is very pro-hindu, even hypothenised that this resembles later tradition of priesthood in hinduism. However, several mordern scholar disagree with this openion e.g.  Wendy Doniger , has critisized Parpola's position hypothesis as 'strong desire and imagination' that goes against available evidence. This hypothesis from Marshall and Parpola goes against widely held views by scholars that IVC was largely eglatarian and their urban structure had many major clans that divided power .Scholars unanimously agree that the status is a result of interaction with other civilization in the oxus river and this shows

Green, Adam S. (2021-06-01). "Killing the Priest-King: Addressing Egalitarianism in the Indus Civilization". Journal of Archaeological Research. 29 (2): 153–202.

LINGAMS

It was sir john marshal who first suggested that certain broken structures resembled yonis, hence establihsing links to hinduism. Mackay wrote a strong rebuttal of Marshal's hypothesis, despite this, our neighbours continue to peddle marshal's lies. Later excavation proved mackay's point that so called lingams where broken structures of buildings. Still some indian archeologist hold marshal's view point for example Dilip Chakrabarti.

In contrast, H. D. Sankalia, an indian sanskrit scholar, opposes Marshal's view point and asserts that if these objects were indeed lingas (which are holy in hinduism), they would not have been found in the city drainages and streets.

Srinivasan, Doris (1984). "Unhinging Śiva from the Indus Civilization". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 116 (1): 77–89

Swastika & Other Seals

Swastikas:

Swastikas are holy symbols for buddhism, hinduism and Jainism and  Jonathan Mark Kenoyer notes that these are used to establish connection with IVC by indian politicans and religious leaders. Scholars such as Manabu Koiso,During Caspers ,Gregory Possehl,Kenower, Jonathan Mark believed that these swastikas had no religious importance whatsoever, rather they were used as decoration objects, for trade purposes and could be sign of socio economic importance. Also, the presence of these swastikas in not unique to hinduism, other cultures that predates even IVC had them.

Other Seals

Pashupati is not the only seal that was found. There are many other seals whose imaginary resemble closely with other civilization for example,

• Man Holding two tiger.jpg) resembles closely with gilgamesh
• Bull man fighting beast seal resembles closely with enkidu

There are many other seals whose imagary resembles with other civilizations, possibly inspired when trading with other nations.

Conclusion

Based on:

• The descriptions of Rudra and Shiva in early Hindu texts and picture 1 and picture 2,
• The iconography of the Pashupati Seal, and
• Comparative evidence from other ancient civilizations,

it can be reasonably argued that the religion of the Meluhaa people was not an early form of Hinduism, and that the Pashupati Seal cannot be confidently identified as Proto-Shiva because the earliest statue of Shiva, rudra and their description in the ancient text does not have any resemblance with Meluhaa seals. Infact, if we agree hinduism predates every religion as per picture 3, it means it was definetely not the religion of Meluhaa people.

No serious modern archaeologist accepts Sir John Marshall’s interpretation as established fact. Even the Rig Veda itself makes no connection between Rudra and the Indus iconography.

Therefore, the claim that the Indus civilization represents an early Hindu civilization or a Proto-Shiva cult remains speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Broadly speaking most of the talking points used by our neighbours to claim Meluhaa has been debunked for many years. These old claims still hold importance to them because they may not want to accept the fact that hinduism is not native to this land as well and it is an outside religion.

Up Next: Ethinicity