Consider the following pairs : (Historical place) (Well-known for) 1. Burzahom : Rock-cut shrines 2. Chandraketugarh : Terracotta art 3. Ganeshwar : Copper artefacts Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?

Direct description of Burzahom places it in the Neolithic period with pit-houses and stone tools, not in the later periods when rock-cut shrines are known to appear.

A student could note the chronological gap and check that most named rock-cut shrine complexes belong to much later historic periods, making it less likely for a Neolithic site like Burzahom to feature such shrines.

Defines rock-cut cave groups (Ajanta, Ellora, Bagh, Udayagiri) and associates them with distinctive later stylistic developments.

A student can compare the geographic and temporal centres of famous rock-cut shrines with Burzahom’s Neolithic Kashmir location to judge plausibility.

States that major rock-cut shrines (Ellora, Elephanta) belong to specific medieval dynasties (e.g., Rashtrakutas) and display complex monolithic workmanship.

A student could use this rule that sophisticated rock-cut shrines are products of later historic polities to infer that an Early/Neolithic site like Burzahom probably lacks such monuments.

Describes Kashmir’s karewa deposits and valley geology (lacustrine deposits rather than extensive exposed rock formations).

A student might combine this geological note with a map or geology reference to assess whether local rock suitable for large rock-cut shrines would commonly occur around Burzahom.

Lists Himalayan pilgrimage centres (e.g., Amarnath, Hazratbal) as important shrines in the region but treats them as pilgrimage sites rather than rock-cut cave shrines.

A student could use this to separate ‘shrine/pilgrimage centre’ types from ‘rock-cut cave’ types and then ask which category Burzahom fits historically and archaeologically.

Gives a concrete example: a terracotta sculpture from West Bengal (c. seventeenth century), showing terracotta production in that region.

A student who knows Chandraketugarh is in West Bengal could use this regional example to suspect Chandraketugarh might also be a terracotta-producing/archaeological site and then check site-specific sources or maps.

Describes terracotta figurines as important archaeological/artistic finds at ancient sites (Harappan), establishing terracotta as a common medium in Indian archaeological contexts.

Use the pattern that many archaeological sites yield terracotta art to plausibly consider Chandraketugarh (an archaeological site) might have terracotta remains and then verify site reports or regional surveys.

Notes terracotta models (e.g., plough) found at various archaeological sites, illustrating that terracotta was widely used for figurative and modelled objects across sites.

Combine this general rule with the fact that Chandraketugarh is an excavation/heritage site (if known) to hypothesize terracotta finds there and seek excavation reports or museum catalogues.

Mentions a terracotta cart as an archaeological artefact in a discussion of Harappan economy, reinforcing the prevalence of terracotta objects in Indian archaeology.

Apply this recurring pattern of terracotta artefacts at historic sites to consider Chandraketugarh as potentially yielding terracotta art, then check regional archaeological records or site descriptions.

Provides an example of terracotta sculpture used in temple architecture (Ahichchhatra), showing terracotta’s use beyond small figurines across Indian sites.

A student could note terracotta’s architectural/ornamental uses and, knowing Chandraketugarh is a historic settlement, look for evidence of terracotta architectural decoration there.