|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 5, 2005 18:49:40 GMT -5
For some time the term dravidian was used to represent the australoid type...or mainly australoid type in India..distinguishing it from the Aryan type...but I have heard that cavalli sforza believes they were a caucasoid people..that migrated to india from the middle east...and mixed with the existing australoid population there to some degree...
There is even the sumerian/elamite/dravidian(indus valey civilization) conexion some people believe in...
Besides...hasn´t it been proved that the amount of aryan blood in india wasn´t enough to provide the mainly caucasoid look that many indians have? And that there isn´t a difference between the bodies found in the Indus Valley Civilization and those of modern Pakistan, both being caucasoid?
Of course...they could have been in a intermediate stadium between australoid and caucasoid..
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Nov 5, 2005 18:56:55 GMT -5
Does he say they're a Caucasoid people or just that they come from the Middle East? Because there's still non-Caucasian Australoids in south Arabia, believed to be the Aboriginal population.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 5, 2005 19:05:01 GMT -5
Indeed, I believe the original Dravidians came from outside of India and were Caucasoid. The aboriginal Veddoid/Negritoid populations spoke something else before adopting Dravidian and mixing with the Caucasian (Indid?) migrants who brought it to them. I believe these Caucasoid Dravidians were responsible for the Harappan civilization and I have a hunch it was the Aryans who pushed them deeper into the south of India, where they mixed with the aborigines.
I think Burushaski (sp?) might represent what was spoken in India before the Dravidian migration into the subcontinent. Other than that there isn't much trace of any other language preceding Dravidian or Indo-European. Even the Vedda (of whom the Veddoid type was named) speak an Indo-European language.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 5, 2005 19:08:35 GMT -5
The original Dravidians were Protomediterranoid Caucasoids. But soon after they arrived they mixed with locals (Weddoid, Melanid, Negritid = Indomelanid intermediary form was produced) and adapted to the climate of the region (Indid types).
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 5, 2005 19:09:43 GMT -5
The original Dravidians were Protomediterranoid Caucasoids. But soon after they arrived they mixed with locals (Weddoid, Melanid, Negritid = Indomelanid intermediary form was produced) and adapted to the climate of the region (Indid types). Wow, for once we are in total agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Edwin on Nov 5, 2005 19:38:48 GMT -5
Me three! Wow!
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 5, 2005 19:41:07 GMT -5
Fascinating...and what would those protomediterranids look in their unmixed type? Are there pure dravidians in existence? By pure I mean phenotipicaly...without australoid features...
|
|
|
Post by cocacola on Nov 5, 2005 19:44:44 GMT -5
Indeed, I believe the original Dravidians came from outside of India and were Caucasoid. The aboriginal Veddoid/Negritoid populations spoke something else before adopting Dravidian and mixing with the Caucasian (Indid?) migrants who brought it to them. I believe these Caucasoid Dravidians were responsible for the Harappan civilization and I have a hunch it was the Aryans who pushed them deeper into the south of India, where they mixed with the aborigines. I think Burushaski (sp?) might represent what was spoken in India before the Dravidian migration into the subcontinent. Other than that there isn't much trace of any other language preceding Dravidian or Indo-European. Even the Vedda (of whom the Veddoid type was named) speak an Indo-European language. I doubt it. Burushaski is only spoken by the people living in the remote north of the subcontinent.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 5, 2005 19:45:51 GMT -5
I just picked it because it's a language isolate. I'm sure there was a time when it was part of a greater prehistoric family as of yet undiscovered.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 5, 2005 19:52:08 GMT -5
Fascinating...and what would those protomediterranids look in their unmixed type? Are there pure dravidians in existence? By pure I mean phenotipicaly...without australoid features... They look mostly Indid, but closer to Eastmediterranids than the more deviating ones (Indid spectrum is wide, as you can imagine in such a wide area, not only because of admixture, but adaptation to the new environment as well).
|
|
Don
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Don on Nov 5, 2005 21:57:32 GMT -5
If I understand, the idea is "Caucassian" Dravidians mixed with locals to form a mixed race which was then followed by further mixture by "Caucassian" Indo-Europeans.
But it seems like that the current Indian population has too much Mtdna (M*) and Y-chromosomes (P*, F*, H) not found in Caucasian populations elsewhere for this to be true unless these were "light" mixes where the local populations (at least maternally) dominated the "Caucasian" ones.
|
|
|
Post by kir on Nov 5, 2005 23:26:19 GMT -5
But it seems like that the current Indian population has too much Mtdna (M*) and Y-chromosomes (P*, F*, H) not found in Caucasian populations elsewhere for this to be true unless these were "light" mixes where the local populations (at least maternally) dominated the "Caucasian" ones. West Eurasian mtDNA admixture in Indians is low (8%). This is comparable to Negroid admixture in Central Arabians. So let’s look at the Y-chromosomes. I see the same story over and over again. H, R1a, R2, L, J2 and C, regardless of caste rank. Understanding these six haplogroups is essential to understanding South Asian origin. H and C are highest in Indian tribes, while J2 seems to have come from the Middle East. R1a, R2 and L remain a mystery although R1a may be associated with an IE migration. And then there is the problem of U2i, which entered South Asia during the Palaeolithic. Given U2i independent status there’s a change that it has Y-chromosome equivalents, such as H and F.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 6, 2005 7:04:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kir on Nov 6, 2005 7:34:09 GMT -5
M predates the division of races, just like N and R, but in higher resolution, M has subgroups that are race/region specific. For South Asia that happens to be M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M18, M25, M31. tinypic.com/fd82oh.jpgHuman mtDNA hypervariable regions, HVR I and II, hint at deep common maternal founder and subsequent maternal gene flow in Indian population groups.S. Sharma et al. We have analysed the hypervariable regions (HVR I and II) of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in individuals from Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar (BI) and Punjab (PUNJ), belonging to the Indo-European linguistic group, and from South India (SI), that have their linguistic roots in Dravidian language. Our analysis revealed the presence of known and novel mutations in both hypervariable regions in the studied population groups. Median joining network analyses based on mtDNA showed extensive overlap in mtDNA lineages despite the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity. MDS plot analysis based on Fst distances suggested increased maternal genetic proximity for the studied population groups compared with other world populations. Mismatch distribution curves, respective neighbour joining trees and other statistical analyses showed that there were significant expansions. The study revealed an ancient common ancestry for the studied population groups, most probably through common founder female lineage(s), and also indicated that human migrations occurred (maybe across and within the Indian subcontinent) even after the initial phase of female migration to India.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 6, 2005 9:17:50 GMT -5
I see...so..Ibra...how do you explain the caucasoid look that so many Indians have if the caucasian blood represents such a diminute percentage? Parallel evolution?
Of course...I might be sucumbing to stereotypes and misinformation when I claim the caucasoidness of many Indians...
|
|