This lays to rest any Indian claims to being an Aryan people

[Creeping Death]

DNA confirms coastal trek to Australia (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/australian_aborigines_were_once_indians_study)
New genetic research in BMC Evolutionary Biology found telltale mutations in modern-day Indian populations that are exclusively shared by Aborigines. The new study indicates that Australian Aborigines initially arrived via south Asia.

Dr Raghavendra Rao worked with a team of researchers from the Anthropological Survey of India to sequence 966 complete mitochondrial DNA genomes from Indian 'relic populations'. He said, "Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother and so allows us to accurately trace ancestry. We found certain mutations in the DNA sequences of the Indian tribes we sampled that are specific to Australian Aborigines. This shared ancestry suggests that the Aborigine population migrated to Australia via the so-called 'Southern Route'."
Im sorry Feather or Dot ?? ....Im sorry thats insensitive
PC --> 7-11 or casino ;)

I could never accept the inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent being 'kin' as a number who have had the affrontery to claim. I believe all Indians were once Aboriginies and they migrated north, not south.

One such 'relic population':

Tribe shoots arrows at aid flight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4144405.stm.)
An Indian helicopter dropping food and water over the remote Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been attacked by tribesmen using bows and arrows.
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050104/050104_tribe_hlg_1p.hlarge.jpg

[Poltergeist]

This applies to Dravidians, not to all Indians.

[Tabiti]

Only Brahmins and other higher caste Northern Indians can claim they have Aryan roots.

[Absinthe]

Even ancient India was multiracial: Indoaryans, Dravidians, Negritos, plus some mongoloid tribes (sino-tibetan), etc.

To apply the findings of the above study in Indians in general is silly because there is no single Indian race :p

[Luern]

One such 'relic population':Tribe shoots arrows at aid flight
An Indian helicopter dropping food and water over the remote Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been attacked by tribesmen using bows and arrows.


Yet the bow and arrows are unknown to aboriginal Australians.

[Hrafn]

Even ancient India was multiracial: Indoaryans, Dravidians, Negritos, plus some mongoloid tribes (sino-tibetan), etc.

To apply the findings of the above study in Indians in general is silly because there is no single Indian race :p

I completely agree with this.:thumb001:

[Mortimer]

This applies to Dravidians, not to all Indians.

Not even to Dravidians. It applies only to some tribals.

[silver_surfer]

Not even to Dravidians. It applies only to some tribals.


Exactly, tribe in southern state of Tamil Nadu.

[Mortimer]

Exactly, tribe in southern state of Tamil Nadu.

only true aryans are indians

[GrebluBro]

only true aryans are indians
You mean it seriously??

There is no pure Aryan in India. There could be max 2% of Indians who could look almost like ancient Aryan invaders

I am a typical Indian and I can pass all over India except north-east (which I believe people living in that area are better off if they are on their own country).

I don't consider myself Aryan.
I don't look Dravidian either.

Almost all Indians got 50-95% gene similarities within themselves.

[Mortimer]

You mean it seriously??

There is no pure Aryan in India. There could be max 2% of Indians who could look almost like ancient Aryan invaders

I am a typical Indian and I can pass all over India except north-east (which I believe people living in that area are better off if they are on their own country).

I don't consider myself Aryan.
I don't look Dravidian either.

Almost all Indians got 50-95% gene similarities within themselves.

aryan doesnt mean blonde/blue eyed invader or a race. aryan refers to indian culture and indian ethnicity. people who are from india are indians, aryan occurs in vedas

A) as ethnic designation: "Aryavartha" (The abode of the Aryans) meaning the ones from india
B)as cultural and spiritual designation, a good person, who is well versed in indian culture and performs the rituals
C)someone of higher birth (but it has nothing to do with race or tribe) it means someone who is noble, a intelligent person, or someone who is born as good and intelligent man etc.

Also genetically indo-european invaders didnt changed much, their impact was very small. they just brought the language. and it is not certain if there was a invasion or a immigration etc.

[YeshAtid]

Most Indians are mixed

[Mortimer]

Most Indians are mixed

all people are mixed. aryan doesnt mean pure race. it means pure intentions. "someone who performs the rituals correctly eventhough he maybe of lower birth is the best of the aryan family" (vedas) if it were determined by race he couldnt be the best of the aryan family

[Prisoner Of Ice]

It looks like they actually came from australia direction not the other way around. Sundaland, I guess.

[GrebluBro]

aryan doesnt mean blonde/blue eyed invader or a race. aryan refers to indian culture and indian ethnicity. people who are from india are indians, aryan occurs in vedas

A) as ethnic designation: "Aryavartha" (The abode of the Aryans) meaning the ones from india
B)as cultural and spiritual designation, a good person, who is well versed in indian culture and performs the rituals
C)someone of higher birth (but it has nothing to do with race or tribe) it means someone who is noble, a intelligent person, or someone who is born as good and intelligent man etc.

Also genetically indo-european invaders didnt changed much, their impact was very small. they just brought the language. and it is not certain if there was a invasion or a immigration etc.


It is highly complicated and all I can say is Indians are mixed both genetically and linguistically (invaders' stuff and indigenous stuff highly mixed).

It is not justifiable to call such a mixed shit using only the term "Aryan or Indo-European",
terms like Aryan-Dravidian or something like that should be used.

[Mortimer]

It looks like they actually came from australia direction not the other way around. Sundaland, I guess.

what does it matter where they came from, humans settled first in india 50.000 years ago i think. the first humans in india were australoid but so were the first europeans. the first humans in europe were dark skinned with australoid or negroid like traits. 6.000 - 12.000 years ago at the same time when ANI rose in India the light skin and blue eyes in european arose. Europeans are mixed between Neolithic Europeans (Westasian) and Siberian like Proto-Europeans (Mesolithic) thats why North Europeans have Native American DNA and Haplogroups or traces thereof. All Humans are mixed between different genetic components.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

what does it matter where they came from, humans settled first in india 50.000 years ago i think. the first humans in india were australoid but so were the first europeans. the first humans in europe were dark skinned with australoid or negroid like traits. 6.000 - 12.000 years ago at the same time when ANI rose in India the light skin and blue eyes in european arose. Europeans are mixed between Neolithic Europeans (Westasian) and Siberian like Proto-Europeans (Mesolithic) thats why North Europeans have Native American DNA and Haplogroups or traces thereof. All Humans are mixed between different genetic components.

Humans have been in india over 100k years, maybe millions of years depending how you define humans.

[Mortimer]

It is highly complicated and all I can say is Indians are mixed both genetically and linguistically (invaders' stuff and indigenous stuff highly mixed).

It is not justifiable to call such a mixed shit using only the term "Aryan or Indo-European",
terms like Aryan-Dravidian or something like that should be used.

why do you call indians "shit" and "mixed shit", are you indian even? did someone fart in your brain? mixed is nothing bad, all humans are mixed. actually caucasoid is a mixture of neanderthal and cromagnon which got depigmented 12.000 years ago and got blue eyes. at the beginning the ancestor of haplogroup R found in Siberia was Native American, Aboriginal and Caucasian. Indo-European is a language family which is too broad. Indians are Indic Language Family and Dravidian and Austroasiatic etc. and what language families there are. You should get rid of european ideas my friend, that is ot healthy for you, calling your own people shit

[GrebluBro]

why do you call indians "shit" and "mixed shit", are you indian even? did someone fart in your brain? mixed is nothing bad, all humans are mixed. actually caucasoid is a mixture of neanderthal and cromagnon which got depigmented 12.000 years ago and got blue eyes. at the beginning the ancestor of haplogroup R found in Siberia was Native American, Aboriginal and Caucasian. Indo-European is a language family which is too broad. Indians are Indic Language Family and Dravidian and Austroasiatic etc. and what language families there are. You should get rid of european ideas my friend, that is ot healthy for you, calling your own people shit

I am an Indian and I didn't mean "shit" literally and I should have used the word "South-Asian mutt" or something.
It was just some kinda frustration that Indian people are proud of their invaders-ancestors but not indigenous ancestors.
In contrast, Latinos identify more with Indigenous and less with Europeans (who form majority of genes in Latinos though).

Just wondering Why this weird contrast??/

[Mortimer]

I am an Indian and I didn't mean "shit" literally and I should have used the word "South-Asian mutt" or something.
It was just some kinda frustration that Indian people are proud of their invaders-ancestors but not indigenous ancestors.
In contrast, Latinos identify more with Indigenous and less with Europeans (who form majority of genes in Latinos though).

Just wondering Why this weird contrast??/

1.in such deep history we cant know how the languages spread and if it was really a invasion or a migration or if it happened at all. we can just speculate
2.sanskrit is native to india and unique indo-european language which is native to india and nowhere else, and hindi, punjabi etc. too while spanish is not native to americas, indo-european is a very broad category and to associate old sanskrit speakers as "european invaders" like the spanish in latin america is very wrong. they were indians, there is no indication that they were europeans, the skelettal remains are identical subraces to those found today just that there was a language shift
3.why should indians not be proud of vedic civilisation it was not european, it was on indian soil and created by indians, and whole indian culture is heavily influenced by sanksrit and vedas, it is dominant element in indian culture. and it is not like spanish/american latino, because spanish is really native to europe but sanksrit and vedas are native to india.
4.of what should indians be proud then that there were pockets of weddoid hunter gathereres in the stone age 70.000 years ago?

[tamilgangster]

The first Europeans, were a seperate race of their own, there were never australoids in Europe or the Americans. The first Europeans were acestral North Eurasian type, which is also found among American Indians

The great coastal migration that linked Indians to Aborigines, is One of many migrations. All South Asians have some australoid in them, but there are no South Asians who are more than 50% australoid. Paniyar Tribals in Kerala are 45% australoid. The vast majority of Indians are between 15-30% australoid.