The India-Australia Connection

The genetic link between India and Australia is not conclusive. Most recent Genetics paper on the earlier mentioned links has found no recent links.

Also Dravidian and Veddoid are 2 different races. Some Veddoid have taken up Dravidian languages just as other Veddoid have taken up Indo-Aryan.

In Sri Lanka is the only distinct Vedda population and they speak a creole that is neither Dravidian nor Indo-Aryan; it shares more with Indo-Aryan but has a substratum that is distinct and different from Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. India does not have distinct Vedda populations as they have linguistically and culturally assimilated into the surrounding Dravidian,Indo-Aryan and Munda speaking populations.

I would certainly agree that a recent India-Australia link is not proven.

My argument was that those people we call Aborigines are new people. Supposedly they supplanted most of the original people. They are said to have come from India and Thailand 12-17,000 YBP. Any genetic relation that far back will not show up in genes.

Furthermore, Veddoids and other primitive types in India (yes, there are some in India, not just Sri Lanka) have skulls that plot Australoid next to Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines. If there is no connection, why do they have the same skulls? Tamils also have Australoid skulls showing the same connections.

There is a very ancient and primitive group in Nepal called the Nahali. The language was long thought to be an isolate and was recently thought to be extinct. However some speakers were found not long ago. More recent though highly controversial studies suggest that Nahali is an Indo-Pacific language related to the languages of New Guinea. I believe this connection is correct. If there is no connection between India and Australia, why the language connection?

Also, the Andaman Islanders are Australoids by skulls. So once again we have an Australian connection with the most primitive people of India by skulls. Some theories suggest that the Andaman languages, long considered isolates, are related to Indo-Pacific languages. Joseph Greenberg thought so. I am not sure how well that is backed up, but if it is true, once again, we see a connection between India and Australia.


Filed under Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, Dravidian, East Indians, India, Language Families, Linguistics, Melanesians, Negritos, Nepal, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Sri Lankans

7 responses to “The India-Australia Connection

  1. lal

    I don’t think Andamanese have australoid skull, but its Negriot/Negroid.
    They can no way be australoids.Genetic studies found they hailing from very ancient africans 50k years ago. If their genetic relation with african is true(as per those studies) then why the genetic relation between srilankan’s/australoids vs aussi-australoids can n’t be true?
    Also, very recent genetic studies saying earliest ameri-indians were melanesians. Australoids did travel here & there.

    And, finally, there’s no definite race called “dravidian” genetically.Genetic testing labs don’t use these terms in classification. You can identify a melanesians, papuan, negrito, negroid,mongoloid by genes but not a dravidian. Its more like a paradox/ethnic identity, rather than a racial-identity. Dravidians can be caucasoids in like Aishwariya rai or a pure tamil type australoid.
    Linguistically, Dravidian language is closer to sumerians/elamites, so some researchers suggest it too came to India from ancient Arab world.

    • Andamese are related to Negritos, pygmies on mainland Asia that weren’t negroid genetically and were closer to oceanic groups. The African connection was due to their ancientness.

      Event then, the African Group that lived during those times were Capoid, not Negroid.

    • pepperroncini

      The MidEast wasn’t Arab during the time of the Sumerians. Arabs came much later , and using Islam they forced their language on many non Arab peoples in the region.

    • Jose

      Dravidians are from L,M,N haplogroups but Indo Aryans are of R1a1 haplogroup. There was always intermingling of dravidians with Aryans in South India and in Kerala also with other races due to spice trade for centuries.

    • Husayn

      yes dravidians are a lank haired Canaanite type who are the original Mediterranean and Sumerian people who mixed with the Akkadians and Amorites(Imliq) the Akkadians and Amorites also mixed with a Canaanite people same as pure native americans who have their own language and culture Mongolians, Chinese, Japanese , Korean do not move like Arabs Arabs move like Native Americans listen to drum beat and see how the men beating drums move
      Central Asians , Mongolians, Koreans, Japanese and Chinese do not move like that

      or like this

      nimrod bin Arfakhshaad
      page16 of prophets and patriarchs it says Arfakhshaad also had a son, nimrod bin Arfakhshaad whose dwelling was in the vicinity of al hijr
      on page 18 of prophets and patriarchs it says Nimrod was son of cush bin canaan bin ham bin Noah . he was the Lord of babylon and of Abraham,the Friend of the Merciful
      one of the offspring of cush was nimrod the one who ruled tyrannically in babylon

      Draviidans are straight haired Canaanites

      the Blacks and Abbysinians come from Cush bin Ham

      Dravidians were in Crete as well

      Dravidians In Crete they were known by the name which the Greeks wrote as Termilai, in Asia Minor as ‘Trimmili’ or Trimalai (Sastri p60), and in India as Dramiza, Dravida, Dramila and finally Tamil. Their deity was “Mother-Earth” who gave them grain, vegetables and food. The ‘Mother Goddess’ cult belonged exclusively to Crete where it was known as Durgha (compare Trqqas mentioned in Lycian inscriptions in Asia Minor) as Uma or Parvati. (Sastri p61) They probably brought along with them to India this Mediterranean or Aegean Saivaism, Mother Goddess with her consort Siva. (by tamil scholar))

      The Mediterranean Peoples (Dravidians)
      (Extracts from ‘The Original Indians — An Enquiry’ by Dr. A. Desai)
      How the Mediterranean people came to be called Dravidians makes interesting story. The Pre-Hellenistic Lycians of Asi Minor, who where probably the Mediterranean stock called themselves Trimmili. Another tribe of this branch in the island of Crete was known by the name Dr(a)mil or Dr(a)miz. In ancient Sanskrit writings we find the terms Dramili and Dravidi, and then Dravida which referred to the southern portion of India.
      South India was known to the ancient Greek and Roman geographers as Damirica or Limurike. Periplus Maris Erithroei (Periplus of the Eritrean Sea) in the second or third century AD described the maritime route followed by Greek ships sailing to the South Indian ports: “Then follow Naoura and Tundis, the first marts of Limurike and after these Mouziris and Nelkunda, the seats of government.â€
      Dramila, Dravida and Damirica indicated the territory. Then it was applied to the people living in the territory and the language they spoke, in the local parlance Tamil and Tamil Nadu or Tamilakam.

      The Mediterraneans or Dravidians were associated with the ancient Sumerian civilizations of Mesopotamia and of Elam (southern Iran). Authors have pointed out ethnic, linguistic and cultural affinities between the Sumerians (Mesopotamians) and the Dravidians of South India, and concluded that both probably belonged to the same ethnic stock. HR Hall writes: “The ethnic type of the Sumerians, so strongly marked in their statues and relofs was as different from those of the races which surrounded them as was their language from those of the Semites, Aryans and others; they were decidedly Indian in type. The face-type of the average Indian today is no doubt much the same as that of the Dravidian race ancestors thousands of years ago…And it is to this Dravidian ethnic type of India that the ancient Sumerian bears most resemblance, so far as we can judge from his monuments. He was very like a Southern Hindu of the Deccan (who still speaks Dravidian languages). And it is by no means improbable that the Sumerians were an Indian tribe which passed, certainly by land, perhaps also by sea, through Persia to the valley of the Two Rivers.â€

  2. Kodfn

    So you think the Australian Aborigines are a new group? Who was before them in Australia? People like those in the Andaman Islands? Are Andaman Islanders part of the Veddoid race, rather an Australoid? And those low class people in Yemen, are they Australoid or Veddoid? I’m very confused about all this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s