With reference to the art and archaeological history of India, which one among the following was made earliest?

Gives a clear dated example of a major temple (Kailasanath at Ellora) assigned to the 8th century, illustrating that large-scale temple building occurred by that century.

A student could note that if monumental temples existed in the 8th century in peninsular India, they should compare the architectural features and regional dynastic chronologies on a map to estimate where and when Lingaraja fits.

Provides a precise date range (CE 700–728) for the Shore Temple at Mamallapuram, an early structural temple in southern India.

A student might map dated temple examples (like Mamallapuram) and then compare stylistic or inscriptional evidence from Bhubaneswar to narrow Lingaraja's date by regional parallels.

States that the rock-cut Kailashnatha at Ellora culminated in the eighth century, showing a broader pattern of temple-making reaching a high point by that century.

Use this trend (temple-building peak by 8th c.) plus a map of political centres to judge whether Lingaraja likely belongs to that earlier wave or to a later regional phase.

Gives dated examples of early temple forms (Durga, Mahabalipuram c. 6th century; Deogarh c. 5th century), demonstrating a long chronology of temple construction from 5th–8th centuries.

A student can place Lingaraja within this long sequence: if its style matches later developments, it may post-date these, otherwise it might be contemporary—so compare stylistic traits and regional timelines.

Records a dated temple town foundation (Aihole built in 634) and mentions many early medieval temples, indicating active temple construction in the 7th century.

A student could correlate the 7th-century activity at Aihole with eastern India timeline data (via maps and known regional dynasties) to help locate Lingaraja's likely century.

Notes that the Mauryan Empire produced notable stone sculpture and that Asokan inscriptions are archaeological markers associated with that period.

A student could check whether the Dhauli elephant is associated with Asokan inscriptions or Mauryan-style stone carving to support a 3rd century BCE date.

States that a distinct Gandhara school emerged in the 1st century CE and that regional artistic schools can be dated to particular centuries.

Compare stylistic features of the Dhauli elephant with Gandhara/Roman-influenced motifs to argue for a 1st century CE or later dating if similarities exist.

Describes the Gupta period (classically dated to c. 4th–6th centuries CE) as producing characteristic stone and rock-cut sculpture influential for later art.

If the Dhauli elephant shows 'Gupta' stylistic traits (proportions, drapery, facial treatment), a student could argue for a 4th–6th century CE date.

Gives an example of major rock-cut work (Ellora, Kailasanath) dated to the 8th century, illustrating that large rock-cut sculptures/monuments were produced in the Deccan in the 8th century.

Use geographic and stylistic comparison: if Dhauli’s carving techniques match later Deccan/Rashtrakuta-era rock-cut practices, an 8th-century attribution becomes plausible.

Explains that regional rock-cut temple traditions (Pallava, Deccan, Tamil Nadu) have distinctive chronologies and styles.

A student can eliminate or favour a date by checking whether Dhauli’s elephant aligns with northern (Mauryan/Gupta) versus southern (Pallava/Deccan) rock-cut conventions.

Says rock-cut temples were common in the Pallava period and cites Mamallapuram (Mahabalipuram) among structural/free-standing temple sites.

A student can combine this with standard dates for the Pallava dynasty (external reference) to narrow the likely century for Mahabalipuram's rock-cut monuments.

States Mahendravarman I introduced rock-cut temples in Pallava territory and cites his Mandagappattu inscription claiming an early rock-cut shrine.

A student could look up Mahendravarman I's reign dates (external fact) to estimate an earliest possible date/century for Pallava rock-cut activity at sites like Mahabalipuram.

Describes major south Indian rock-cut and monolithic temples (Ellora, Kailasanath) dated to the 8th century, showing that major rock-cut activity in peninsular India occurred in early medieval centuries.

A student might use this pattern—that significant south Indian rock-cut monuments cluster in early medieval centuries—to judge plausibility of a similar date-range for Mahabalipuram and then verify with Pallava dates.

Notes major rock-cut cave production (Ajanta, Udayagiri) associated with earlier 'Gupta' period artistic peaks, highlighting that rock-cut traditions span multiple historical periods and can be dated by stylistic and inscriptional evidence.

A student could use this methodological point to seek inscriptions or stylistic comparisons at Mahabalipuram and then compare to known dated examples to infer a century.

Gives an example of using inscriptions to date cave temples (a 9th century inscription at Sittannavasal), implying inscriptions are a key way to date rock-cut monuments in southern India.

A student could search for Pallava-period inscriptions at Mahabalipuram (external task) and use their dated content or ruler names to establish the century of creation.