Ancestoral South Indians were africans

infact they are considered the ancestors of south indians:

Ancestral South Indians were a postulated ancient people who are considered to be one of the two main populations that contributed to the genetic heritage of modern-day South Asian ethnic groups.[1][2] They are believed to have been genetically unique and not closely related to any other human populations in the world.[2] Of all modern-day Indians, only the Andamanese are believed to possess Ancestral South Indian lineage without admixture of any Ancestral North Indian genetic heritage.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_South_Indians

 

 

more info on them from this article: http://knol.google.com/k/the-little-...daman-islands#



A Negrito Tribe of tiny but fierce Pygmies , the Jarawa Tribe, of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean, provides an excellent example of what modern humans were like when they first emerged out of Africa. Genetic evidence hints at a Negrito presence on the Andaman Islands in India going back more than 30,000 years, and possibly reaching as far back as 60,000 years. It is thought that the surviving Negritos are a remnant population representing an early ( perhaps the earliest ) migration of modern Homo Sapiens out of Africa

The language that the Negritos of the Andaman Islands speak, is a part of the "Malay-Australoid" group of languages, which interestingly is related to the language of the large island of Madagascar, which is located off the east coast of Southern Africa. This shows that there was a linguistic connection to Africa as well as Southeast Asia, and the Australian Aborigines. Recent analysis of the DNA of the "Great Andamanese" (one of the other three tribes of Negritos on the Andaman Islands) shows that they are genetically very close to the "Bushmen' or "Pygmies" of South Africa. This shows that the Andaman Tribes came from the South of Africa and the island of Madagascar. The Negritos must have originally been the dominate stone culture of Southern Africa, until the "big people" from the North invaded and took over the land, pushing them out. Perhaps they turned to the sea as a source of food because they were unable to compete for food with the "big people", or because the land was too barren to support them. On the mainland of Southern Africa, they would have been absorbed, driven out, or killed by the "big people", or forced to live where there were no "big people" like the African Pygmies who survived... But those with boats could have populated Madagascar and been the dominant culture of Madagascar long after the mainland was over run by the "big people". Then when the "big people" did get boats and began to arrive in small groups, they would not have had the strength of numbers to drive out or kill the "little people", but instead were assimilated into the population, so that some of the language of the little people lives on in Madagascar, even to this day.

If the Negritos were the first, or one of the first, waves of modern man to migrate out of Africa, and assuming they did it in small boats... They would have been the dominate culture along the coasts and islands of Asia. This seems likely because their language is linked with many ancient languages of the area. They are probably ancestors of the dark skinned peoples of Southern India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, The East Indies, and even the Australian Aborigines. They were probably the dominate culture of many of these area, until once again, invaders from the north over ran and absorbed them, killed them, or pushed them off the mainland, and off the most desirable islands. But on some islands, the Negritos retreated to remote valleys, and mountain refuges, where they lingered on, out of sight of the "big people". And on some isolated remote islands ( like the Andaman Islands ) that were considered uninhabited , they continued to survive undisturbed.

 

 

The only relation b/w african's and the people you posted is in the skin tone and hair. I don't see features like wide noses(well they do sorta have wide noses but not as wide as africans do), big lips. considering the fact that these people were untouched for centuries, if they are related to africans they should show african features predominantly, however what does the genetics say by the way?  i also heard people reating them to australian aborginese. 

so is it safe to say that modern dravidian has a mixed austroloid/caucasioid ancestry ?

As a matter of fact, we are all former monkeys who evolved into "Africans", to put it simply. Humanoids were very close to apes, a few million years ago. There is no logical doubt about that. 

So we are not all...Africans! We are all evolved apes. 

- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.