Ethnicity of The Indus Valley Civilization - Page 5 - Historum

Kookaburra Jack · May 4th, 2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Imperial

What is the main reason behind this Aryan-Dravidian theory? Anyone tell them to me?

Good question.
I dont know.

Max Muller?
Max Müller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's an article from the archives:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news95_f.htm

Quote:

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995
From: fernando@guitar.com (FJ Holden)
Newsgroups: soc.culture
Subject: The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India

Shaheen · May 5th, 2012, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Imperial

Logic suggests that the IVC people were immigrants from the west, as humans moved for free lands east of the Mesopotamia. We are brown people remember? So it makes sense that we are related to the Middle Eastern races?

BTW, what makes makes South Indians, people of African or Australian descent?

What is the main reason behind this Aryan-Dravidian theory? Anyone tell them to me?

To be honest Imperial, one can differentiate between northerners and southerners though quite often it can be confusing. I remember back in my college days when i read on my class list there was a name "Anish Khokhar" and i thought "oh good a punjabi is here". But then when i saw him he looked totally South Indian and he explained to me that his mother was Tamil. I suppose with time the divide will become less.

Jinit · July 31st, 2012, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosi

Caucasian? Hardly. Some people in India are lighter skinned than others but that doesn't mean they have Caucasian phenotypes. The so-called Dravidians and Aryans are linguistic groups, not separate ethnicities. There is no such thing as a distinct 'Aryan' look or a distinct 'Dravidian' look. If you have been taught that it strikes me as some sort of propaganda. The IVC people must have been regular brown-skinned folks (with a slight variation in the colour gradient), is there anything to suggest otherwise?

Hi Rosi. I recently saw this thread while going through old threads. So sorry for the late reply. (besides I wasn't the memeber of forum at that

)

It is a common misnomer that the people of caucasoid race have to be fair skined. Infact the skin colour of caucasoid race varies greatly from pale , reddish white to the dark brown. It isn't the skin colour that defines the people into caucasoid group. The people are put into caucasoid groups based on other shared anthropological features (like pointed face , narrow nose etc.) and same goes for the australoid race too. Dravidian people are classified into australoid race not because of skin colour only but because of other anthropologica features like wavy, curly or frizzy black hair, long heads and broad, flat noses etc

As far as the India goes there isn't any biologically seperate Drawidian race from the aryan race. However it is certain that north Indians are more closer towards western eurasian/central asian people while south Indians are more closer to East asians.

**Rosi** · July 31st, 2012, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaheen

To be honest Imperial, one can differentiate between northerners and southerners though quite often it can be confusing. I remember back in my college days when i read on my class list there was a name "Anish Khokhar" and i thought "oh good a punjabi is here". But then when i saw him he looked totally South Indian and he explained to me that his mother was Tamil. I suppose with time the divide will become less.

Actually, you and the Imperial are both right. It's one of those crazy things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinit

Hi Rosi. I recently saw this thread while going through old threads. So sorry for the late reply. (besides I wasn't the memeber of forum at that

)

It is a common misnomer that the people of caucasoid race have to be fair skined. Infact the skin colour of caucasoid race varies greatly from pale , reddish white to the dark brown. It isn't the skin colour that defines the people into caucasoid group. The people are put into caucasoid groups based on other shared anthropological features (like pointed face , narrow nose etc.) and same goes for the australoid race too. Dravidian people are classified into australoid race not because of skin colour only but because of other anthropologica features like wavy, curly or frizzy black hair, long heads and broad, flat noses etc

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I have two Tamil friends, they are both Tam Brahms. One is from Mumbai and fits the above description of broad head, fizzy hair etc. (though her nose is tiny), the other is from Chennai and looks-wise might as well be from Italy. They are both true-blue south Indians though (i.e. no admixture from anywhere else). Based on my experience it's difficult for me to subscribe to the north-south divide as far as looks are concerned though culturally the two are poles apart.

Quote:

As far as the India goes there isn't any biologically seperate Drawidian race from the aryan race. However it is certain that north Indians are more closer towards western eurasian/central asian people while south Indians are more closer to East asians.

I concur. What about western Indians and north-eastern Indians?

Lazyman · July 31st, 2012, 03:33 AM

Roach had it simple, "Indian" :P .

**The Imperial** · July 31st, 2012, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaheen

To be honest Imperial, one can differentiate between northerners and southerners though quite often it can be confusing. I remember back in my college days when i read on my class list there was a name "Anish Khokhar" and i thought "oh good a punjabi is here". But then when i saw him he looked totally South Indian and he explained to me that his mother was Tamil. I suppose with time the divide will become less.

I think it's time to discard the British theory of Aryans and Dravidians.

India is such a complex and vast country, that the British theory that Northies vs Southies just doesnt fit the bill.

The Indian subcontinent, just like every other place on earth, has different ethnicities in different regions. And these ethnicities cannot be explained with a political map, but rather a geographical map.

And yes, a Punjabi looks different from a Tamil, and yes Tamil people are usually much darker than other people. But Malyalis, from the state next door, Kerala, are usually very fair. And this kerala-type people can be found extensively along the West coast(Kerala, Coorgies, Konkani etc). And people from Bihar, Jharkhand, Upper-Telangana, Vidharba(eastern most part of Maharastra) and Chattisgarh are mostly dark and short, but look distinct from the Tamil people. And thus the list goes on. So the ethnicities depend on the regions, and do not depend on this North-South divide.

I can easily guess a guy/gal's native region by his/her looks. But not always his state and language

**Rosi** · July 31st, 2012, 05:58 AM

^I think Biharis are among the best looking people in India but that's just veering off-topic.

Lazyman · July 31st, 2012, 06:19 AM

^Bihari Qaumi Movement Karachi approves .

**Rosi** · July 31st, 2012, 06:30 AM

^

Jinit · July 31st, 2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosi

Based on my experience it's difficult for me to subscribe to the north-south divide as far as looks are concerned though culturally the two are poles apart.

Because we aren't anthropologists and hence we can't accurately classify them into different classes. Beisdes the Aryans and drvidians in India admixed for a very long time (for 1000 of years) and hence you can't easily divide them into Aryans and Drvidians.

Quote:

What about western Indians and north-eastern Indians?

By genetic study The western Indians are even more cloesly associated the western eurasia than North Indians. Besides in case of Gujarati people they share some common genes with Iranian people which isn't seen in other Indian populations. It may be becuase of the trade realtion between two.

As for the North east Indians I don't have much idea.