What are Indians classified as?

I meant Indians from South Asia.

I've always thought of Indians as Austroloids, or a different group from caucasoids. Do you know why they are considered caucasoid?

Hey Bhai, glad to hear you still remember me.   I started college this year, and I've been so busy that I haven't had time to post here at all.    Read the articles sometimes though, glad to see AE seems to have recovered from when we lost the old forum a while back.

  Yes, Gorkhali.

  Good to see you around, Pal

Cywr is right Indians have been in India longer then Aryan or Mongolian invasion and migration, infact Peoples from PMG Austrlia etc Are Originally from India, we can find peoplke there at more thenn 50,000 BP, India has other ethnicities and has ties with other cultures and influenced and been influenced by others, I class Inians as being them Indians

It was the Jewel of the British Empire and has its own culture seprate from others in the world which is great.

But in Ethnicity it is more African, and Aryan with Mongolian

Well, I am Dravidian so according to certain sources I found on the internet, Dravidians are a combination of Caucasian and Australasian. So basically we are a hybrid race. I'm not sure about how it works for Northindians though.

ok here is something I wish to share, I believe Indians should be classed as africans, and their own ethnicity as they were there before Aryan migration.

When did humans first left africa, which way did they go?

For many years experts have believed (assumed) these early migration headed through what is now Egypt across the Sinai and into the middle east.

New Evidence suggests they might have taken a more southerly route, along the Arabian penisula into India, Indonesia and Australia.

A report in the issue of Science magazine raises the possiblity of coastal migration, the study is based on comparisons of mitochondrial DNA in various native populations.

The form found in the mitochondria (energy producing portion of cells) is inherited from the mother. By studying differences in mitochondrial DNA, we can estimate how long back has one group of people diverged from another/

A team lead by Vincent Macaulay from the university of Glasgow, proposes a single dispersal from Africa along the coastal route to India then Australia. A later off shoot led to the settlement of the Middle East then Europe.

Researchers studying the mitochondrial DNA of the Orang Asli (an Aboriginal population found in Malaysia), found that these people branched off from other asian lineages at around 60,000 years ago, soon after their ancestors left Africa.

by comparing the Orang DNA with other groups from India, Australia and elsewhere, the researchers concluded that a relatively rapid coastal dispersal occured at around 65,000 BP around the Indian Ocean and into Australia.

Cambridge University's Peter Forster and Shuichi Matsumura (who were not part of the team) hoped the paper would inspire further research (without public or private interest there will be a lack of funding). They estimated that early populations could have supported the idea of population spread which occured along the coast.

If the original africans had moved into the middle east and north they why was europe settled thousands of years later? And well after Australia was setted.

In europe, Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans only between 40,000 and 30,000 BP where as in Indians around 60,000 BP and Australias as early as 46,000 BP

BP= Before Present

This is what I base my opinion on