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

the people of Mongoloid descent remained undisturbed in the Himalayan region and the highlands of the northeast. Their affinity with the southeast Asian world is remarkable and is reflected in the motifs used in the crafts. Though the Mongoloid people influenced the racial pattern of tribes in the eastern provinces of Orissa and Bihar, by and large, they stayed within central India.

http://www.goindiago.com/culture/people.htm - http://www.goindiago.com/culture/people.htm  

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

• Punjabi (in the state of Punjab),
  
• Gujrati (in Gujrat),
  
• Rajasthani (in Rajasthan),
  
• Bihari (in Bihar),
  
• Bengali (in West Bengal and Bangladesh),
  
• Hindi (Uttar Pradesh),
  
• Marathi (in Maharashtra) etc,

• Tamil (in the state of Tamil Nadu)
• Malayalam (in Kerala)
• Telugu (in Andhra Pradesh), and
• Kannada (in Karnatika)

I agree with Jazz in this, due to current arcaheological research there was a shift via coastal first, I never said one was more african then another. I personally do not believe in the African theory or hypothesis. This is a theory with not enough supporting evidence.

Another factor that disaproves africa is The bones found of a hominod species dating at 8 million years 1 million more then the Leaky's finding of their bones, this was discovered in November last year and I look foward hungrily at their results and research.

But I have loved this topic alot and found it very interesting

Not all Indians.  For the most part, it will be the northern (Indo-Aryan) group.  The Caucasian link derives from the Aryan Migration Theory (all Indo-Europeans are Caucasian, or Caucasoid) into North India.  The Dravidian south is excluded from this.

Hi Jazz sorry to interrupt.This is not the current political map of India.About 5 years ago 3 new states were formed.Uttaranchal{carved out of Uttar Pradesh},Chattisgarh{Madhya Pradesh} n Jharkhand{Bihar}.

I never said anything about neanderthals at all, Fact is modern humans came from Homo Erectus and there is mutliple theories as to how we appeared, oldest dated Human is at 195,000 years ago, fact is only the female Gene is said to come from africa, again that is not enough evidence to state we all come from africa, for all we know they could have migrated there and since the oldest bones found is there we are under the assumption we originated there.

The fact is archaeologists have fallen into a trap, they search in Africa, why? because some of the first bones are found there, but also hominod species have been found outside of africa which evolved differently, this shows that there is a strong possibility early human species evolved outside of africa.

Again as you noted a single group of Homo-Sapien sapiens, this does not actually contend that all homo-Sapien sapiens came from africa, only a single group, until more archaeology is done, and a result of the 8 million year old bones in Russia are released we will not truely know.

If this is the case then it shows hominod species evolving out of Africa, the evolutionary theory again I will state is just that a thoery, with not enough solid evidence to support it. The problem with DNA and genetic testing is, you have to test every person in the world and every country in the world.

You said case of different species mixing is totally disregarded, this my friend is not true, we know that several human species mixed, the fact that Homo-Erectus is our ancestor showed he contributed to Homo-Sapiens sapien.

there are 3 major theories of human evolution, adaptive raditation, recobination of genes (interbreeding/mixing) and the last I always forget

this is a misnomer. one would be hard-pressed to find any indian, north or south, who is of pure "dravidian" blood. for the most part, while the northern indians seems to have more caucasiodal characteristics, years of in-nation breeding has yielded an india more or less the same in genetic make-up.

plus, there exist no "dravidian" south today. once again, it would be pretty hard to prove otherwise. the only way really to differentiate a dravidian south from a caucasian north is by language. and even that, due to religion mainly (word usage and such), is becoming a finer and finer line. so many words are shared between dravidian languages and the northern IE languages, indians for the most part don't care to differentiate them.

if you are asking for the genetic make-up of indians, say, 6000 years ago, i would agree. there probably were differences. but today, save skin color, those same differences don't exist.

(Of all sampled DNA of the World not a single one has been fond that doesn't  fit the fact of being descendant of the pseudo-Eve and the pseudo-Adam. Both archaeological and genetic dispersion studies are totally coincident with the out-of-Africa theory.) Uhmm who research are you basing this on? No not all archeologisits agree with the out of africa theory and all are open to new work and additon, central asia and the middle east have not had much research done due to the Cold war, War, governments etc etc

So this whole put up or shut up response of your sorry I think you should look into it, your obviously a drone and not open to new ideas, no no I mean that the fact that even archaeologisit agere there is not enough evidence you still contend we all agree... I am an archaeologist like my Friend Aryan Khadem and he and I both share similar ideas and theories.

So my response to you is, no there is not enough evidence to support the out of Africa, yes there is strong factors to maybe but not solid and conclusive at all.

And yes you do need to test every Human stats does not work and can be manipulated to suit the agenda......

Thanks for pointing it out as a Theory, just because it is more widely accepted does not mean I have to believe in it or agree with it.

But you can believe we came from Africa and I will believe central Asia and Middle East

There are only a couple of pure races on this planet one being the aboriginals.There was a very good programme about race on the bbc called "who do you think you are" where by using dna testing they trace you family.