u/Certain_Basil7443

​ I am seeing a lot of posts and comments on this platform arguing that Vedic culture must have been a strictly urban and settled civilization to produce such profound philosophical texts. The underlying assumption is always the same: a pastoral or nomadic society is somehow too primitive to create or preserve something as sophisticated as the Vedas.

​In this post, I will discuss both sides of this debate, exposing why this rigid hierarchy of human development is historically inaccurate and why associating profound intellectual achievements exclusively with city dwellers is a deeply flawed premise.

They keep ignoring the increasingly complex picture of these societies that archaeology continues to uncover at places like Semiyarka. In the field of anthropology, this is what we call evolutionism where the society is divided into three basic stages of development from savagery through barbarism to civilization (thankfully this view has been discarded). This is where the nonsense originates that nomads were less 'civilized' than city dwellers, and therefore couldn't have been the ones responsible for composing the Vedas or having a 'higher philosophy.' The lifestyle of a group only affects their material, social, and political structure, not their intellectual capacity to produce something sophisticated.

> The “social will to sedentism” should not be taken for granted. Nor should the terms “pastoralist,” “agriculturalist,” “hunter,” or “forager,” at least in their essentialist meanings, be taken for granted. They are better understood as defining a spectrum of subsistence activities, not separate peoples, in the ancient Middle East. Kin groups and villages might have pastoralist, hunting, and cereal-growing segments as part of a unified economy. A family or village whose crops had failed might turn wholly or in part to herding; pastoralists who had lost their flocks might turn to planting. Whole areas during a drought or wetter period might radically shift their subsistence strategy. To treat those engaged in these different activities as essentially different peoples inhabiting different life worlds is again to read back the much later stigmatization of pastoralists by agrarian states to an era where it makes no sense. — Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott (2017)

In fact the recent research shows that pastoralists and hunter-gatherers had much easier life than early states as Scott says: "The early state, in fact, as we shall see, often failed to hold its population; it was exceptionally fragile epidemiologically, ecologically, and politically and prone to collapse or fragmentation."

So, the evidence of their semi-pastoralism is abundant, hiding in plain sight within the verses of the texts themselves:

They used to move in form of grāma ("trekking warrior band/train") with temporary camps instead of staying in one place permanently.

> When, indeed, the Bharatas will have crossed thee, the cow-seeking train, sent forth, urged on by Indra, then may your hastening course rush on swiftly ! This favour I beg of you who are worthy of worship. — RV 3.33.11

> Just as one knowing the country may urge on a train: yonder is a good road, along that we will march; yonder is a good ford, by that we will cross (the river); yonder is a good resting place, there we will camp. — JB 2.424

> And hence even now when a train of men have journeyed for a day and a night they take rest for a day and a night — ŚB 6.7.4.10

The scouts had a most important function, for there must have been hot competition between several trains for suitable resting places.

> Verily, just as in daily life, when the (next) resting place has not been secured, (people) are driven away time and again: 'you must not camp here, you must not camp here' -- thus they are driven away time and again from yonder world. — GB 2.1.8[150, 8]

> In accordance with this the two ends of a train join together. In accordance with this the two ends of a necklace join together. In accordance with this a snake lies taking its coils about it — JB 3,331[489,33] = JUB 1,35,7

RV 3.33.11 describes Bharatas as gavyán grāmaḥ ("a grāma looking out for cattle").

The RV 7.83.1 literally prays to Varuna and Indra to help Sudas and his allies on his quest to raid cattle (prācā́ gavyántaḥ) from his enemies during The Battle of 10 Kings.

The life of Vedic Aryans was based on yoga-kṣema who alternated between periods of movement (yóga- “yoking [the herds]”) and settlement (kṣéma).

> The mind of some people [is directed] towards exertion ( yoga), that of others towards rest (kṣema). Therefore, the traveling one ( yāyāvara) rules over the resting one (kṣemya) — TS 5.2.1.7

The ritual texts keep the imagery of the trekking warrior who is forever yoking his horses to set out again to lord it over the kṣemya, the stay-at-home sedentary people. In later texts, the pattern, then, seems to have been a yearly circuit of transhumance and raiding, starting from permanent agricultural settlements and returning there again for the agricultural operations of the monsoon crop.

> "In the last month of the cool season (śiśira-), i.e. in the month Phālguṇa, they set out on a digvijaya- or world conquest in an easterly direction; there they took hold of the barley harvest, fed their men and animals and returned to the west, immediately before the rainy season. Then, after the rainy season, they laboured in their own fields, and in the last month of the year they harvested the second crop." — TB 1,8,4

From TB 1,8,4,4 (on the draught-oxen given as dakṣiṇā):

> "He yokes the two ends of the year; it serves for the reaching of heaven."

Even the religious structure regarding the deities is based on such a cycle -

> The chariot-drivers call upon you in conflicts, in battles; they who stand fixed call upon you when establishing peaceful settlement; o Indra and Varuṇa, we call upon you, so easily invoked, you who govern both kinds of good [= that obtained through battle and that through peaceful settlement]. Indra and Varuṇa, when you two created all these beings of the world through your might, Mitra befriended Varuṇa through peaceful settlement; the other moves along with the Maruts…the powerful one. — RV 7.82.4–5

They pray to Mitra for protecting their peaceful and settled dwelling (kṣéma) after yoking the herds (yóga)

> At almost every mention in the Ṛgveda of contracts and alliances, the poets express the expectations that are connected with them. This is first and foremost peaceful, settled dwelling (kṣéma) safe from, and free of being beset by, enemies (cf. RV 2.4.3, 11.14, 7.82.5). Because this is the fundamental condition for prosperity, safety and integrity, these values are mentioned time and time again: ‘Who dwells upon the earth like a god, suckling all like a king, by whom a contract was concluded’ (RV 1.73.3), ‘[You Ṛbhus], cause the wealth to thrive, create possessions for us. Conclude a contract [with us, that ensures prosperity,] like those who want to settle [conclude a contract that guarantees peaceful dwelling]’ (RV 4.33.10). The establishment of contracts between mortals is primarily bound to the two liminal points of settled dwelling—at the beginning and the end of peaceful dwelling, or in other words: to the beginning of peace and the beginning of war. It is the critical point of the transition from yóga to kṣéma and vice versa that Mitra governs, makes controllable, alleviates. He is responsible for the transition brought about through contract and alliance in the kṣéma phase, and for the transition at its end. Mitra’s obligation—at least as far as the Ṛgveda shows—is first and foremost to provide for peaceful conditions. — The Religion of the Ṛgveda by Thomas Oberlies (2023)

There is no evidence of urban cities in Vedas. The only words (as per Manfred) that appear are armaká- (ruined cities, rubble) and púr (mound or rampart).

> púr- feminine. Wall of stones and clay/mud, entrenchment, palisade (Rigveda [púr, púram, purā́, pūrṣú among others] and later, Rau, pur passim; see furthermore Schneider, Somaraub 3,14, K. Mylius, EAZ 10 [1969] 33ff., 11 [1970] 70ff., ZPSK 31 [1978] 309f., Bur, Krat 21 [1976(77)] 72ff., KEWA II 327 Note *, W. Knobel, KZ 99 [1986] 236, J. Makkay, AcArchHung 38 [1986] 13ff.); mahā-pur-á- neuter. large wall/rampart (Kāṭhaka-Saṃhitā and later), pura- neuter. enclosure/surrounding wall, fortress, settlement (Manusmṛti and later; see AiGr II 1,113); puram-dará- masculine. destroyer of the walls/ramparts (mostly said of Indra; Rigveda and later [see AiGr II 1² Appendix 61]), pūr-bhíd- breaking the walls/ramparts (Indra; Rigveda). Middle Indic, Pali, Prakrit pura- neuter. fortress, settlement, among others (Turner 2195, 8278 [with references]; TuAdd 350). Indo-European *pl̥h₁- (see below), Lithuanian pilìs, Latvian pils castle, stronghold (= Vedic púr-, Schi, Wn 32), compare Greek πόλις feminine. castle, fortress (see the literature in Mh, LI 129). Indo-European *pl̥h₁- is primarily 'filling up, heaping up', related to PAR¹ [to fill]; Schi, Wn 32f. (with literature), J. Knobloch, Sprw 5 (1980) 196, 197 (see also M Casewitz, Ktema 8 [1983(86)] 81ff., G. Costa, SSL 27 [1987(88)] 151ff.). For Uralic (Altaic) comparative material see Schi, Wn 33 (with literature), Joki 359f., Katz, Habilschr 292. — Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischenb I-III. Band by Mayrhofer

Even the word for bricks (iṣṭakā) do not appear in RV and is first used in the rituals mentioned in AV and YV.

The words for irrigation systems and bricks in Indo-Iranian do not derive from any known Indo-European roots (possibly from BMAC) which means they encountered urban centers rather than establishing them natively (Lubotsky 2001).

For all intents and purposes, these chauvinists are more Eurocentric than those they accuse of being so. By equating intellectual capacity and preservation strictly with monumental architecture and static cities, they are unknowingly adopting a colonial lens.

David Hume has been an influential figure in Western philosophy, and his work spans the philosophy of science, mind, religion, and morality. His works have been directly influential in naturalising religion, the human mind, and behaviour. Ganeri and Adamson have suggested that Hume's scepticism about the self, and his empiricism more broadly, may carry traces of Buddhist and Indian thought that reached him indirectly through an older acquaintance at his Jesuit college with links to Buddhist missionaries in Tibet and Siam, through Malebranche and Bayle's partial knowledge of Chinese philosophy, and through François Bernier, who had lived among Indian philosophical circles and whose account of a Brahmin metaphor Hume later cites, if dismissively, in the Dialogues.

>Obviously these remarks do not suggest a deep knowledge of Indian intellectual history, but increasingly there were opportunities to learn more. Alison Gopnik has raised the intriguing possibility that David Hume may have been acquainted with Buddhist philosophy. When he was writing the first and most significant statement of his philosophy, the Treatise of Human Nature, Hume was in residence at the Jesuit academy La Flèche. Here he could have encountered a much older man named Charles Dolu, who had been on a trip to Siam in the 1680s. Dolu was in turn acquainted with Ippolito Desideri, who had done missionary work in Tibet. Both Desideri and Dolu were well informed about Buddhism, with Desideri even writing a treatise about what he called a “false and peculiar religion observed in Tibet.” Sounding a bit like al-Bı̄rūnı̄, he stated that people should know more about this religion in order to “contest” it, and highlighted what he called its “Pythagoreanism,” presumably meaning its commitment to reincarnation. Gopnik summarizes her findings better than we could: “in 1735 Hume, apparently rusticating in the peace of a small town in France, was only one remove away from the ideas of philosophers thousands of miles and a cultural gulf away in Siam and Tibet.” Perhaps, then, it is no coincidence that some of Hume’s proposals, including his empiricism and skepticism about the self, are strikingly reminiscent of Buddhism. To this we can add that Hume’s Treatise was most certainly influenced by Nicolas Malebranche and Pierre Bayle, who in turn knew something of Chinese philosophy. Malebranche even wrote a work in 1708 called Conversation between a Christian Philosopher and Chinese Philosopher, while Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary, published five years earlier, offers a description of “Chinese” philosophy that consists basically in a presentation of the Buddha’s life and thought. Again, a skeptical attitude toward the soul comes to the fore here, giving us another conduit for the Buddhist doctrine of no-self into European culture. Yet another source for Indian ideas was the well-traveled François Bernier, who had been to India and served as court physician for none other than the aforementioned Mughal prince Dārā Shikūh. Bernier tells of how he exchanged ideas with one of the court intellectuals who helped Dārā Shikūh translate the Upaniṣads. Writing from the Persian city of Shı̄rāzin 1667, Bernier said, “Do not be surprised if without knowledge of Sanskrit I am going to tell you many things taken from books in that language,” for he had benefitted from a three-year collaboration with this “paṇḍit.” The two had philosophical debates facilitated by Bernier’s own translations of Gassendi and Descartes into Persian. Again, we can forge a link to Hume here. Bernier made known the Indian metaphor comparing God to a spider who extends “filaments” out from itself and then withdraws them: in the same way the divine creation will ultimately be undone as all things collapse back into God. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume refers to this analogy and ascribes it to “brahmins.” He is, however, dismissive of the idea, saying that it is a “species of cosmogony, which appears to us ridiculous; because a spider is a little contemptible animal, whose operations we are never likely to take for a model of the whole universe.” — Classical Indian Philosophy: A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps by Jonardan Ganeri and Peter Adamson

British archaeologist Sir John Marshall, who first identified the seal 420 as proto-Shiva, relied on the broader, post-Vedic meaning of paśu as animal. He noted the figure is surrounded by wild creatures like an elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, and buffalo. Since then, this identification has become a received wisdom in the public discourse.

The term paśu means cattle or domestic animal in the Vedic corpus. Its semantic field is strictly limited to domesticated livestock, with cattle as the primary referent. It denotes movable property, the basis of pastoral wealth. This is confirmed by its etymology from the Proto-Indo-European root *peku- ("movable wealth"), its exact Avestan cognate pasu- meaning "cattle," and its usage in Vedic compounds like pasu-raksi ("protector of livestock"). So the epithet Paśupati given to Rudra can be broadly translated as "lord of cattle". This is further supported by AV 11.2.9 -

>catúr námo aṣṭakŕ̥tvo bhavā́ya dáśa kŕ̥tvaḥ paśupate námas te távemé páñca paśávo víbhaktā gā́vo áśvāḥ púruṣā ajāváyaḥ

>Four times ''catús'' homage, eight times, to Bhava; ten times, O lord of cattle, be homage to thee; thine are shared out these five creatures (''paçú'') - cows, horses, men, sheep and goats.

The hymn lists five creatures that are within the domain of Paśupati — cows, horses, men, sheep and goats which clearly establishes him as the protector of domestic livestock (paśu). This is completely opposite from the depiction of wild creatures like an elephant, tiger, rhinoceros, and buffalo in seal 420. The textual and linguistic evidence argues against the identification of Paśupati with the figure in seal 420.

Here are some more objections by Doris Srinivasan -

• On the trident headdress actually being a buffalo horn and branch motif:

>"The figure's ornate headdress reminded him of Śiva's later emblem, the trident."

>"The shape of the horns is nearly identical to those on seal No. 420... Indeed there can be little doubt that the headdresses on the "cake" and the seal are composed of the same elements... As such, the figure on seal No. 420 wears a mitre composed of the branch and horn motif."

>"In the Mesopotamian context, this type of mitre is emblematic of divinity."

• On the three faces actually being a bovine/buffalo face (bucranium):

>"He saw the figure's head as tricephalic and associated this feature with the later Hindu iconographic convention of multiple heads, especially as it appears in the iconography of Śiva Mahādeva." "A close look at the facial characteristics reveals that the long and rather rectangular face is marked by a set of unusual features... A double-line contour, suggestive of a pendulous fold of skin, extends from the eyes around the face... On either side of the face occur lateral projections consisting of a long pointed flap..."

>"Does the face on seal 420 also have a dewlap? It is indeed likely, as quite a number of other bovine features have been subtly integrated into the face."

>"Apparently, this type of mask depicts a humanized bucranium whose features compare very well with those on the face of seal 420. Both show the vanishing brow, the small lozenge-shaped eyes, the snout-like nose and the slight indication of a dewlap."

• On the yoga posture being generic to ancient divinity:

>"It may therefore be inferred that the 'yoga' posture is emblematic of divinity, just as the plant and horn mitre is emblematic of a fertility figure. There is however nothing in the posture or the headdress which may conclusively identify the figure as a proto-Śiva."

Some bring the evidence of dome-shaped stones as the evidence of Śiva lingas in IVC. The abstract, dome-shaped stones found in the Indus Valley are not early Śiva lingas. The earliest verified Śiva lingas, dating to the 2nd or 1st century BCE, were highly realistic and anatomically accurate, not abstract. Abstract lingas only became standard centuries later during the Gupta and post-Gupta periods. These early realistic lingas were exclusively found in the orthodox Brahmanical Āryāvarta region and were completely absent from the old Indus territories for over two millennia.

A lot of scholars and archaeologists have interpreted the seals of IVC completely differently with no consensus among them. All of them are speculating by the retrojecting the Vedic and post-Vedic practices onto the IVC without any substantial evidence.

Source -

• Unhinging Śiva from the Indus Civilization (Srinivasan 1984)

EDIT - I feel like people misunderstood my point here and perhaps I was not clear enough for which I apologise. I am not arguing that there is no cultural continuity between IVC and post-IVC but rather arguing against a common interpretation of archaeological evidence which I think is too ambiguous and untenable to label as the evidence of continuity (or a precursor) in the worship of Śiva. The Vedic culture was a product of acculturation between Steppe pastoralists and the Indus population.

DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s11407-025-09385-w

Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11407-025-09385-w

Author: Nathan Mcgovern