Early History and Archaeology of Kurukshetra and Ambala Division

Summary

This article opens the issue with a comprehensive survey of Kurukṣetra and the Ambala division from the perspectives of history and archaeology. The author begins with early literary references to the Kuru kingdom in the Mahābhārata and the Puranas, noting that Kurukṣetra was often divided into three regions: Kuru-rāṣṭra proper (between the Ganga and Yamunā rivers), Kurujāṅgala (roughly Rohtak, Hāfī, and Hissār) and Kurukṣetra proper with its centre at Thanesar, Kaithal and Karnāl. Classical texts also locate the region between the Sarasvatī and Dṛṣadvatī rivers, and the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka lists towns such as Khāṇḍava and Turghāna on its periphery. Using these sources as a framework, the author analyses archaeological discoveries made in recent decades. He emphasises the importance of the excavations at Harsha‑ka‑Tila (modern Kurukṣetra), which have yielded antiquities from the first millennium BCE to the Mughal period, including painted grey ware, Kushāṇa coins and medieval pottery. These finds suggest a continuous occupation of the site across several cultural phases. Other sites in the Ambala division are examined, including settlements along the Sarasvatī river that reveal stratigraphies spanning Vedic, Mauryan, Gupta and post‑Gupta layers. The article discusses the role of trade routes and pilgrimage in sustaining these settlements, citing inscriptions from nearby mounds and seals which record donations by rulers and merchants. The analysis demonstrates how textual references to Kurukṣetra as a sacred dharma‑kṣetra converge with archaeological evidence to reconstruct a regional history. The author also highlights the shifting political control of the region—from the Kuru dynasty to Mauryas, Yaudheyas, Kushāṇas and Gurjara‑Pratīhāras—traced through coin hoards and epigraphic data. These transitions reflect the strategic importance of Kurukṣetra as a hub on the Uttarāpatha trade network. Overall, the article argues that combining textual and material evidence enables a more nuanced understanding of the region’s continuity and change, challenging earlier views that privileged myth over archaeology.