Consider the following information : 1. Archaeological Site: Chandraketugarh, State: Odisha, Description: Trading Port town 2. Archaeological Site: Inamgaon, State: Maharashtra, Description: Chalcolithic site 3. Archaeological Site: Mangadu, State: Kerala, Description: Megalithic site 4. Archaeological Site: Salihundam, State: Andhra Pradesh, Description: Rock-cut cave shrines In which of the above rows is the given information correctly matched ?

Describes the geographic concentration of Harappan archaeological sites (mostly between the Indus and Saraswati basins), giving a rule about where major ancient sites are commonly located.

A student could use this geographic rule plus a map to judge whether Chandraketugarh (if thought to be a Harappan/ancient urban site) lies inside the indicated basin area or outside (e.g., Odisha).

Gives examples of archaeological sites and their states/regions (Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh) illustrating that classical ancient sites are tied to particular river basins and regions.

Use the pattern that sites are often reported with their state/region to check whether Chandraketugarh is typically listed with Odisha or another state on maps or site registers.

Notes that archaeological surveys and discoveries are regionally specific (e.g., Kutch, Punjab, Haryana, Kalibangan, Lothal, Rakhigarhi, Dholavira), highlighting how site-distribution patterns are used to classify and locate sites.

A student could look for which regional survey or excavation lists include Chandraketugarh to see if it clusters with sites in eastern states like Odisha or with sites in another region.

Provides examples of named archaeological sites tied explicitly to southern states (Arikamedu, Kodumanal, Alangulam), showing the common practice of pairing site names with their state.

Apply the same practice: check authoritative lists or textbooks to see which state is routinely paired with the name Chandraketugarh (helpful to confirm or refute an Odisha location).

Mentions Odisha in a list of heritage/biodiversity sites, demonstrating that Odisha is a recognized location for named heritage sites (so presence of archaeological/heritage sites in Odisha is plausible).

Combine this with a map or site catalogue to determine whether Chandraketugarh specifically appears among Odisha's listed heritage/archaeological sites.

Shows long‑distance and maritime trade in Indian sites and that southern/coastal locations played key roles in overseas contacts.

A student could check Chandraketugarh's location relative to ancient maritime routes or coastlines on a map to see if it lay on likely sea trade corridors.

States the Periplus is a reliable first‑century source on ports and that archaeological findings confirm Periplus information about Indian ports.

Look for mentions of Chandraketugarh (or nearby toponyms) in Periplus translations or seek archaeological finds at Chandraketugarh that match Periplus descriptions.

Lists several excavated ancient sites explicitly identified as 'ports' (e.g., Arikamedu), showing that archaeological contexts can indicate port function.

Compare the material culture and structural features reported from Chandraketugarh with those typical of archaeological 'ports' (harbour installations, imported goods).

Gives an example where inland bead‑making sites supplied stones to coastal ports, illustrating a pattern of hinterland–port economic links.

Investigate whether Chandraketugarh shows production or trade goods that could link it to maritime exchange networks (e.g., beads, semi‑precious stones, craft goods).

Describes organized maritime trader groups and lists export items and active port towns, indicating identifiable archaeological signatures of maritime trade.

Search for evidence at Chandraketugarh of traded commodities or foreign trader presence (coinage, exotic goods, guild references) that match known maritime trade patterns.

Describes diagnostic features of Chalcolithic sites in southern India (presence of copper/bronze tools, black-on-red ware, agriculture and animal rearing).

A student could check published finds from Inamgaon (pottery type, metal tools, evidence of agriculture) against these traits to judge if it fits a Chalcolithic profile.

States that some Chalcolithic cultures are temporally correlated with Early Vedic period and marks the Chalcolithic as a distinct archaeological phase.

A student could compare chronological dates or cultural associations reported for Inamgaon with dates/associations typical of Chalcolithic phases to see if they match.

Notes material markers found in later prehistoric contexts in southern India (e.g., black and red ware, iron objects, burial types) indicating how ceramic and burial evidence is used to assign sites to cultural phases.

A student could look for reports of similar ceramic types or burial practices at Inamgaon to infer whether it aligns with Chalcolithic or a different phase.

Describes regional Neolithic signatures (ash mounds, habitation evidence) showing that different prehistoric phases have distinct regional material markers.

A student could use a map and site reports to see whether Inamgaon's material assemblage resembles Neolithic ash-mound traditions or the Chalcolithic traits outlined above, helping to distinguish phases.

Lists types of excavated ancient sites (ports, towns, Buddhist sites) and demonstrates that excavation reports and site typologies are the source of assigning cultural labels.

A student could seek the excavation report or typological description of Inamgaon (settlement vs. burial assemblage) and compare it with known Chalcolithic site types to infer relevance.

Shows example of an archaeological site (Paiyampalli) explicitly located in Tirupathu/Tamil Nadu, illustrating that many named prehistoric sites are tied to specific South Indian districts.

A student could check whether Mangadu is similarly tied in sources to a Tamil Nadu district on a map, which would argue against it being in Kerala.

Lists several excavated ancient sites (Arikamedu, Kodumanal, etc.) as located in Tamil Nadu and neighbouring southern regions, suggesting a concentration of named archaeological sites in Tamil Nadu.

Compare Mangadu’s reported archaeological attributions or nearby named sites — if those match Tamil Nadu clusters, Mangadu is less likely to be in Kerala.

Defines 'The Malabar coast' as present-day Kerala, establishing a clear geographic label for Kerala distinct from Tamil Nadu.

Use this geographic distinction on a map: if Mangadu is on the Malabar coast it would be in Kerala; if it lies inland or in districts matching Tamil Nadu examples, it would not.

Enumerates Neolithic sites predominantly in Andhra, Karnataka and the north-western part of Tamil Nadu, showing that many South Indian prehistoric sites are specifically located in Tamil Nadu rather than Kerala.

A student could locate Mangadu relative to the listed regional patterns – if Mangadu aligns with the Tamil Nadu cluster pattern, that suggests it may not be in Kerala.

Notes mesolithic/coastal archaeological sites in specific Tamil Nadu locations (e.g., Teri sites in Thoothukudy district), illustrating that coastal prehistoric sites have state-specific attributions.

Map Mangadu’s coordinates or nearest coastal reference; if its nearest named coastal region corresponds to Tamil Nadu examples, that would be evidence against a Kerala location.

Gives a clear definition and typical features of megaliths in Tamil Nadu (circular tombs using big stone slabs; urn burials; black-ware associated with burial sites).

A student could check whether Mangadu has these features (stone‑slab tombs, urn burials, black/burnished burial wares) to judge if it fits the megalithic pattern.

Provides an example (Paiyampalli) of a recognised megalithic site with specific evidence: ASI excavation, black and red ware pottery, and numerous urn burials dated by radiocarbon.

Compare published excavation reports or inventories for Mangadu to see if similar finds (urn burials, black/red ware, radiocarbon dates) are reported.

Mentions the category 'megalithic burial sites of the early historic period' alongside named archaeological sites in Tamil Nadu, indicating that certain sites are classified under this category.

Look for lists or gazetteers (ASI/state archaeology) to see whether Mangadu is listed among Tamil Nadu's megalithic burial sites.

Shows that identifying and discussing 'Megalithic Iron Age Sites discovered in Tamil Nadu' is an explicit historical topic — i.e., there is a defined set of sites scholars treat together.

Use that topic as a checklist: check standard surveys or syllabus lists of 'Megalithic Iron Age Sites in Tamil Nadu' to see if Mangadu appears.

Notes that black-on-red/black ware pottery and metal tools occur at Chalcolithic/Megalithic contexts in southern India — pottery types can be diagnostic of such sites.

Investigate whether similar pottery or metal-tool assemblages have been reported from Mangadu to infer megalithic affiliation.

States that Buddhist sites with stupas and chaityas are located in Andhra (examples: Amaravati, Nagarjunakonda), showing Andhra has notable Buddhist archaeological sites.

A student could note that Salihundam, if a Buddhist site, plausibly fits the pattern of important Buddhist sites occurring in Andhra and then check a map or site list for Salihundam's coordinates or district.

Lists archaeological/microlithic coastal and regional sites in Andhra (e.g., Vishakapatnam, Sankanakallu), indicating Andhra contains diverse archaeological sites across eco-zones.

Use this pattern to suspect Salihundam might be among Andhra's coastal/hill archaeological sites and verify by locating Salihundam on a map of Andhra Pradesh.

Names specific Neolithic/ash-mound sites in Andhra (Utnur, Palvoy), demonstrating that the state is home to multiple named prehistoric sites.

Given Andhra frequently appears in lists of named archaeological sites, a student could look for Salihundam in compilations or maps of Andhra's archaeological locations.

Notes important river-valley archaeological sites and Upper Palaeolithic sites in Andhra (Kurnool caves, Godavari/Krishna valleys), showing the state is a locus for archaeological finds tied to major rivers.

If Salihundam is associated with a river or valley, a student could check whether that river/valley lies in Andhra to assess the likelihood it is in the state.