What are Indians classified as?

Waerden, Bartel L. van der: The Conjunction of 3102 B.C., Centaurus 24 (1980), pp.117-131, wherein he deals with the issue of "conjunction" - all planets coming together on 17th / 18th February 3102 BCE and observed by man.

 

Kindly go through and discuss.

According the Puranas (The Oldest Hostorical Narratives), after the Mahabharat War (The Great War), in which many ancient nations participated, the nations and the respective people were scattered, dispersed and settled in different directions.

If racially interpreted, how would be the position after "miscege

What exactly is trolling Omar ? What all is included in it's definition? I find many other examples of trolling which seem to not have been noticed.

We Indians are not caucasoid or european. The AIT is a colonial fallacy which has been proved wrong.

Many Indians "wannabe" Caucasoids, but most are no closer in molecular DNA to Europeans than they are to Chinese.

Voice of the Ancestors

I have heard that the latest theory is that Indians were the first mass migration out of africa. This tribe went over the Arabian Peninsula and then down to the subcontinent where it multiplied massively and established deep roots. Now from this point on the migratory stream continued from India into south and north -east asia. The northerners met up and joined with another migration going further north now known as mongoloids and also crossed into Norther America over the Aleutian islands which were walkable back then 15,000 years ago. The southerners became the southeast asians, polynesians malays and austroloids.

There were a couple of other migrations out of africa too, one of them mixed with the remnants of the "desi" migrations in the Iranian Plateu and formed the begining of the Caucasus Asian aka Cauc-asian aka europids. The Europids moved northwest into Europe.

Now there were also obviously tribes that moved BACK further into africa. These would be the Africans.



According to this figure southern indians are austroloids, or polynesian types perhaps. I wonder what DNA testing would produce. Really extensive testing that is, not the handfuls of samples they have taken so far.

Note also that these arrows represent migratory journeys, between these paths obviously interbreeding and hybredization has also taken place. And I believe there should also be some reverse arrows representing back migration too which appear to be missing.

Eventually it proves that there are no major diferences in the north & south of Indian subcontinent.

But of what evidence is so far available, majority of it points to an out of Africa origin, hence the reason it is by far the most widely accepted theory.

Ehm? 

How can you diferentiate genetically an Iranian from an Arab? Genetic diferentiation happened mostly in Prehistory and both Arabs and Iranians had the genes that have now (more or less) before they were assimlated into either ethnicity.

Are we talking of Prehistory (out-of-Africa, most of gene distribution) or are we talking of recent history (assimilation into this or that ethnicity). I think that you are considered Arab or Iranian because of the language you speak or the affinity you feel, not because you have this or that gene - as the vast majority of people hasn't attempted to trace their genetic genealogical tree.

I know I'm Basque (with this or that mixture) but I've never tried to justify that using genetics. It's a question of where you live, what language you speak, how you feel integrated, where are your roots. I feel 100% Basque and my brother feels Spaniard instead. National or ethnic adscription is mostly a mental state.