In 1960, B. B. Lal — who would later become director of the Archaeological Survey of India — was excavating the levels of the Kalibangan site in Rajasthan, on the banks of the ancient Sarasvatī. What he discovered there is considerable, and still debated today: rectangular brick structures containing ash, charcoal, and sometimes animal bones, interpreted as fire sacrifice altars.
The same discovery would be made at Lothal in Gujarat. In The Civilization of the 7 Rivers, I note it: “Altars with one or more hearths were discovered at Lothal and Kalibangan by B. B. Lal.”
But this is precisely where caution is required. For while these structures resemble the altars of the Vedic sacrifice, several fundamental questions remain open — and the principal one is this: the Vedic sacrifice took place outside the cities, in open spaces. So what are these structures doing inside?
What was found at Kalibangan
Kalibangan is one of the most important sites of the 7 Rivers civilization in India. Its name means “black bracelets” in Hindi — a reference to the many terracotta bracelets found in the excavations. The site has been occupied since approximately 3500 BCE, from the pre-Harappan phase, and reached its urban peak during the mature phase, between 2600 and 1900 BCE.
The excavations revealed the usual organization of cities in this civilization: an elevated “citadel” and a lower city, grid streets, standardized bricks, a drainage system. But Kalibangan presents particularities that make it uniquely important.
In the elevated part of the site — the “citadel” — B. B. Lal discovered several structures interpreted as altars. These are brick platforms approximately one metre high, on which were circular or rectangular pits containing ash, charcoal and animal bones — horse, cattle, sheep. Some of these pits also contained carbonized bamboo stalks and red-coloured earth.
Next to these structures, terracotta cylinders were found — interpreted by B. B. Lal as cultic utensils related to the fire sacrifice.
The same configuration was found at Lothal — reinforcing the hypothesis of a practice common to the entire civilization.
B. B. Lal’s interpretation: Vedic altars
B. B. Lal proposed a direct interpretation of these structures: they are yajnakunda — the sacrificial pits of the Vedic sacrifice. And this discovery, according to him, proves the cultural continuity between the 7 Rivers civilization and the Vedic tradition.
This interpretation rests on several correspondences:
The shape of the pits — circular or rectangular — corresponds to the forms prescribed in the Brāhmaṇas and Śrautasūtras for the different types of sacrificial fires. The Gārhapatya — the householder’s fire — was circular. The Āhavanīya — the fire toward which one offered — was square or rectangular.
The presence of animal bones — consistent with descriptions of sacrificed animals in Vedic texts.
The grouped arrangement — several pits together — corresponding to the structure of the Vedic sacrifice which uses several fires simultaneously.
For B. B. Lal, these structures are the material proof that the fire sacrifice as the Rig Veda describes it was practised in the 7 Rivers civilization. It is one of the most important archaeological proofs of continuity between this civilization and Vedism.
The fundamental question: but why inside?
This is where the essential clarification I flag in this article must be taken seriously.
In the introduction to my translation of the Rig Veda, I describe this precisely: the Vedic sacrifice took place outside, in open spaces. Picture a ceremony with priests reciting hymns before three or more fires — this is an outdoor scene, not inside a building.
The public Vedic sacrifice — the Agnistoma and its variants — was organized in a delimited open space outside the city, called the vedi — a sacrificial area prepared with Kusha grass, delimited by stakes, oriented according to precise directions. This is a temporary institution, built for one sacrifice and abandoned afterwards. Not a permanent brick structure.
And yet the structures at Kalibangan are in brick. Permanent. Inside the “citadel.”
This paradox has several possible explanations, none definitively established.
Alternative hypotheses
First hypothesis: domestic or collective hearths. These structures could be collective cooking hearths — communal kitchens in the citadel. The presence of animal bones would then be the trace of meat-eating, not sacrifice. This hypothesis is supported by some archaeologists who consider that B. B. Lal over-interpreted the structures by projecting his knowledge of Vedic texts onto ambiguous data.
Second hypothesis: domestic ritual fires. In the introduction to my translation, I distinguish two types of sacrifices: the public sacrifice, which took place outdoors, and the private sacrifice — the ancestral puja — practised in the home, with a fire and a spoonful of clarified butter. If these structures are in the “citadel,” they could correspond to collective but indoor rituals — a hybrid form between the private and public sacrifice.
Third hypothesis: the climatic exception. This is the one I formulate cautiously in the title — perhaps in the event of flooding, exceptionally violent monsoon, or other exceptional circumstances, the sacrifices that normally took place outdoors were exceptionally practised indoors, in permanent structures provided for these occasions. This is not impossible — but it is not documented.
Fourth hypothesis: an early form of sacrifice. It is possible that the sacrificial practices of the mature phase of the 7 Rivers civilization (2600-1900 BCE) are not strictly identical to those described in the Rig Veda, whose hymns were probably finalized after the decline of this civilization. The urban form of sacrifice — inside the citadel, in permanent structures — could be an earlier or parallel practice, distinct from the open-air sacrifice that came to dominate the textual tradition.
What the experts say
B. B. Lal’s discovery was welcomed enthusiastically by those who support continuity between the 7 Rivers civilization and Vedism — and with scepticism by those who prefer to maintain a clear separation between the two.
Kenoyer, in his work, is cautious: he recognizes that these structures could be related to ritual activities, but prefers not to pronounce too firmly on their precise nature without more contextual data.
Possehl, in his analyses of the Indus civilization, notes that the presence of these structures is significant but their interpretation remains open — they could be fire altars, or something functionally different that formally resembles them.
What Kalibangan says, despite the debate
Even accounting for all these reservations, the structures at Kalibangan and Lothal are important. They show that in the 7 Rivers civilization, fire occupied a central place in communal practices — whether ritual or culinary. They show a collective organization of fire-related activities in the most “official” part of the cities. And they show that animals were offered or consumed in these contexts.
These are clues to spiritual or communal practices related to fire — practices that resemble what the Rig Veda describes, even if the perfect identity between the two has not yet been established with certainty.
The cultural continuity between the 7 Rivers civilization and the Vedic tradition is documented by many other arguments — the yoga seals of Mohenjo-Daro, metrological standardization, the absence of Ego glorification, funerary practices. The structures of Kalibangan fit within this ensemble of converging clues — with the caution that any single clue, taken in isolation, deserves.
