History 2022 Paper I 50 marks 30 words Compulsory Identify

Q1

Identify the following places marked on the map supplied to you and write a short note of about 30 words on each of them in your Question-cum-Answer Booklet. Locational hints for each of the places marked on the map are given below seriatim: (i) Palaeolithic site, (ii) Mesolithic site with burials, (iii) Neolithic pit-dwelling, (iv) Early village settlement, (v) Neolithic site, (vi) Neolithic-Chalcolithic site, (vii) Harappan UNESCO site, (viii) Megalithic burial site, (ix) Place of Second Sangam, (x) Earliest Satavahana capital, (xi) Place of inscribed statue of Ashoka, (xii) First Gupta hoard of coins, (xiii) Hoard of metal sculptures, (xiv) Ancient port, (xv) Oldest Jesuit church, (xvi) Centre of Gandhara art, (xvii) Buddhist monastery, (xviii) Place of earliest Vishnu temple, (xix) Shiva and Buddhist temple complex, (xx) Earliest Chaitya Griha.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

आपको दिए गए मानचित्र पर अंकित निम्नलिखित स्थानों की पहचान कीजिए एवं अपनी प्रश्न-सह-उत्तर पुस्तिका में उनमें से प्रत्येक पर लगभग 30 शब्दों की संक्षिप्ट टिप्पणी लिखिए। मानचित्र पर अंकित प्रत्येक स्थान के लिए स्थान-निर्धारण संकेत क्रमानुसार नीचे दिए गए हैं: (i) पुरापाषाणकालीन स्थल, (ii) शवाधान-युक्त मध्यपाषाणकालीन स्थल, (iii) नवपाषाणकालीन गर्तीवास, (iv) प्रारंभिक ग्रामीण बस्ती, (v) नवपाषाणकालीन स्थल, (vi) नवपाषाणकालीन-ताम्रपाषाणकालीन स्थल, (vii) हड़प्पन युनेस्को स्थल, (viii) महापाषाणकालीन शवाधान स्थल, (ix) द्वितीय संगम का स्थल, (x) प्रारम्भिक सातवाहन राजधानी, (xi) अशोक का अभिलिखित प्रतिमा स्थल, (xii) प्रथम गुप्तकालीन मुद्रा-निधि, (xiii) धात्विक प्रतिमा-निधि, (xiv) प्राचीन बन्दरगाह, (xv) प्राचीनतम जेजुइट चर्च, (xvi) गान्धार कला-केंद्र, (xvii) बौद्ध विहार, (xviii) प्रारम्भिक विष्णु मन्दिर स्थल, (xix) शैव एवं बौद्ध मन्दिर संकुल, (xx) प्रारम्भिक चैत्य गृह।

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 History questions

Directive word: Identify

This question asks you to identify. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'Identify' demands precise geographical location with brief contextual significance for each of the 20 sites. Structure as serially numbered entries (i-xx) with site name, present-day location (state/country), and 25-30 word note highlighting period, key archaeological feature, and historical importance. No introduction or conclusion required; maximize accuracy within strict word limit.

Key points expected

Correct identification of Bhimbetka (i), Bagor (ii), Burzahom (iii), Mehrgarh (iv), Koldihwa (v), Chirand (vi), Rakhigarhi (vii), Brahmagiri (viii), Madurai/Kapadapuram (ix), Pratishthana/Paithan (x)
Correct identification of Kanaganahalli (xi), Bayana (xii), Brahmapuri (xiii), Arikamedu (xiv), St. Thomas Church Kochi (xv), Taxila (xvi), Nalanda (xvii), Bhitargaon (xviii), Ellora (xix), Bhaja (xx)
Chronological precision: Palaeolithic (Bhimbetka), Mesolithic (Bagor), Neolithic (Burzahom, Koldihwa), Chalcolithic (Chirand, Mehrgarh), Harappan (Rakhigarhi), Megalithic (Brahmagiri), Early Historic (Sangam, Satavahana), Maurya (Kanaganahalli), Gupta (Bayana), Medieval (Ellora, Nalanda)
Archaeological specificity: pit-dwellings at Burzahom, terracotta figurines at Mehrgarh, dockyard at Lothal alternative, UNESCO status of Rakhigarhi, Gandhara-Taxila connection, Chaitya-Griha architecture at Bhaja
Geographical spread awareness: Kashmir to Kerala, Gujarat to Bengal, including sites in Pakistan/Afghanistan (Taxila) reflecting cultural diffusion

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Chronology accuracy	25%	12.5	All 20 sites correctly placed in their precise archaeological/cultural period with accurate BCE/CE dating; clear distinction between overlapping phases (e.g., Neolithic-Chalcolithic at Chirand, Megalithic vs. Early Historic at Brahmagiri); correct sequencing of Sangam periods and Satavahana chronology	Majority sites correctly dated but some confusion between adjacent periods (e.g., Neolithic vs. Chalcolithic, Megalithic vs. Early Historic); broad period labels without specificity; minor errors in Gupta vs. post-Gupta dating	Frequent chronological errors (e.g., Harappan sites dated to Vedic period, Bhimbetka as Neolithic); complete confusion between Palaeolithic-Mesolithic-Neolithic sequence; anachronistic dating of Sangam or Satavahana sites
Source & evidence	20%	10	Each 30-word note packed with specific archaeological evidence: excavation director (e.g., H.D. Sankalia for Bagor), key artifacts (copper tools at Chirand, Northern Black Polished Ware at Arikamedu), inscription details (Kanaganahalli Ashoka statue with Brahmi label), numismatic evidence (gold dinars at Bayana)	Generic mentions of 'tools,' 'pottery,' 'coins' without specificity; some correct artifact associations but missing excavator names or key finds; correct UNESCO designation for Rakhigarhi but vague on why	No specific archaeological evidence cited; invented or confused artifacts (e.g., 'Harappan scripts at Mehrgarh'); incorrect association of evidence with sites (e.g., attributing Gandhara sculptures to Mathura)
Multi-perspective analysis	20%	10	Notes integrate multiple dimensions: technological (pit-dwelling architecture at Burzahom), economic (port function at Arikamedu, Indo-Roman trade), religious (Jesuit missionary activity at Kochi, Buddhist-Hindu syncretism at Ellora), political (Satavahana capital significance, Gupta imperial presence at Bayana)	Single-dimension notes focusing only on period/location; some awareness of trade or religion but not integrated; missed opportunity to connect sites (e.g., not noting Gandhara-Brahmapuri sculptural links)	Purely descriptive with no analytical layer; no connection between site type and broader historical process; failure to utilize the locational hint provided (e.g., ignoring 'burials' hint for Bagor)
Historiographic framing	20%	10	Awareness of scholarly debates: Wheeler vs. F.R. Allchin on Arikamedu as port; shifting identification of Second Sangam location (Madurai vs. Kapadapuram/Alagankulam); recognition of Rakhigarhi's elevation to UNESCO status (2014) and its significance for 'mature Harappan' vs. 'early Harappan' chronology	Standard textbook attributions without awareness of scholarly shifts; correct but unnuanced presentation of consensus views; no engagement with why certain sites became type-sites	Outdated or incorrect attributions (e.g., attributing all discoveries to British archaeologists only); no recognition of post-Independence archaeological contributions; confusion between sites with similar names
Conclusion & synthesis	15%	7.5	Implicit synthesis through consistent pattern in notes: demonstrating India's archaeological diversity from Palaeolithic to early medieval; subtle thematic grouping (e.g., burial practices across Bagor, Burzahom, Brahmagiri; religious architecture evolution from Bhaja to Ellora); regional balance in coverage	Disconnected serial entries with no thematic awareness; some accidental clustering but no deliberate pattern; missed opportunity to show spatial distribution understanding	Random order suggesting rote memorization without comprehension; concentration on familiar sites with blank entries for others; no geographical or chronological logic in presentation

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →