Are we Indians actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race? Is there any proof of it?

Question

Today is day five of 'India’s Mysterious 5 Contest' where we feature the last unsolved, mysterious question of the contest.
The featured questions of the second - http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060821214129AAYhwu5
third - http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060822212841AAshCvW
and the fourth day http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060823205824AAMHjfl are still open to answering. So get those grey cells in action!

Also don't forget to answer today’s question. You might just walk away with a Sony Ericsson K300i Mobile phone up for grabs.

Winners will be contacted on their yahoo email ids, so keep checking. If you haven’t registered for this contest yet, register now! http://w11.in.yahoo.com/answers/main.php

Keep checking our blog for more on the contest and winners.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/y_answrs_team_in

Answer 1

There is no real evidence that the Indians are actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race - whether archeological, literary or linguistic - and no scholar working in the field, even those who still accept some outside origin for the Vedic people (the so-called Aryans), accepts the theory in its classical form of the violent invasion and destruction of the Harappan cities by the incoming Aryans.

The following 4 points will prove the above statement,

1. The main center of Harappan civilization is the newly
rediscovered Sarasvati river of Vedic fame. While the Indus river has about three dozen important Harappan sites, the Sarasvati has over five hundred. The drying up of the Sarasvati brought about the end of the Harappan civilization around 1900 BC. As the Vedas know of this river they cannot be later than the terminal point for the
river or different than the Harappans who flourished on its banks. Harappan culture should be renamed "the Sarasvati culture" and the Vedic culture must have been in India long before 2000 BC.

2. No evidence of any significant invading populations have been found in ancient India, nor have any destroyed cities or massacred peoples been unearthed. The so-called massacre of Mohenjodaro that Wheeler, an early excavator of the site claimed to find, has been found to be only a case of imagination gone wild. The sites were abandoned along with the ecological changes that resulted in the drying up of the Sarasvati.

3. So-called Aryan cultural traits like horses, iron, cattle-rearing or fire worship have been found to be either
indigenous developments (like iron) or to have existed in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites (like horses and fire worship). No special Aryan culture in ancient India can be differentiated apart from the indigenous culture.

4. A more critical reading of Vedic texts reveals that Harappan civilization, the largest of the ancient world, finds itself reflected in Vedic literature, the largest literature of the ancient world. Vedic literature was previously not related to any significant civilization but merely to "the destruction of Harappa." How the largest literature of the ancient world was produced by illiterate nomadic peoples as they destroyed one of the great civilizations of the ancient world is one of the absurdities that the Aryan invasion leads to, particularly when the urban literate Harappans are not given any literature of their own remaining.

Putting these points together we now see that the Vedas show the same development of culture, agriculture and arts and crafts as Harappan and pre-Harappan culture. Vedic culture is located in the same region as the Harappan, north India centered on the Sarasvati river. The abandonment of the invasion theory solves the literary riddle. Putting together Vedic literature, the largest of the ancient world, with the Harappan civilization, the largest of the ancient world, a picture emerges of ancient India as the largest civilization of the ancient world with the largest and best preserved literature, a far more logical view, and one that shows India as a consistent center from which civilization has spread over the last five thousand years.

Answer 2

dominated a different race because most of the people in power in the country were called sir. Yet this is the kind of thinking that was superimposed upon the history of India
The idea of Aryan and Dravidian races is the product of an unscientific, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of color. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south of India is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller.,...
In Sri lanka we all are the same race,..just think for a while if we are of two races & if north Indians are aryans & sinhalese are also aryans & tamils are dravidian race,..then there should be a big difference between sinhalese & tamils appearance,... think as an example chandrika is more simillar to north indian writhik roshan or to our own sri lankan arumuam thondaman. W

Answer 3

This was followed by the Vedic Civilization. The origin of the Indo-Aryans is under some dispute. Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred[citation needed]. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial.

Answer 4

There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller

Answer 5

The origin of the Indo-Aryans is under some dispute. Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred[citation needed]. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial.

Answer 6

The Indus Valley Civilization, one of the oldest in the world, dates back to 3300 BCE. This was followed by the Vedic Civilization. The origin of the Indo-Aryans is under some dispute. Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred[citation needed]. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial.

Answer 7

Most scholars today believe in some form of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, which proposes that the Aryans, a semi-nomadic people, possibly from Central Asia or northern Iran, migrated into the north-west regions of the Indian subcontinent between 2000 and 1500 BCE, although recent genetic evidence says the opposite occurred[citation needed]. The nature of this migration, the place of origin of the Aryans, and sometimes even the very existence of the Aryans as a separate people are hotly debated. The merger of the Vedic culture with the earlier Dravidian cultures (presumably of the descendants of the Indus Valley Civilization) apparently resulted in classical Indian culture, though the exact details of this process are controversial.

Answer 8

, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of color. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller

Answer 9

First of all I must tell you that the Aryans (from the Sanskrit term 'arya', meaning "noble" or "lord") were originally a group of nomadic tribes, who were part of a great migratory movement that spread in successive waves from Southern Russia and Turkmenistan during the 2d millennium BC and penetrated India, Iran and finally Europe throughout Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.

Later, in modern times, i.e. in the 19th century , they were named Indo-Europeans as from the Indo-European(Indo-Aryan) tribes derived almost all of languages in Europe (Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Rumanian, Gaelic, German, English, etc.) as well as those of India and Iran.
We need however point out that the term “Aryan" has been subject to racialist distortions, only in 19th and 20th century Western culture.

This usage tends to blur the Sanskrit meaning of 'noble' or 'elevated' with the idea of distinctive ancestral ethnicity marked by language distribution and then in this interpretation, the Aryan Race is both the highest representative of humanity and the purest descendent of the Proto-Indo-European population.

peoples of which countries today come from the Aryans are: the Italians, the Greeks, the French, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the English, the Irish, the Scots, the Germans, the Austrians, the Swiss, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Danes, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Russians, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Poles, the Croatians, the Slovenians, the Serbians, the Czechoslovaks, the Albanians, the Montenegrins. In short all the peoples of Europe except the Hungarians and the Finns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Evidence on the Indus Culture

The Indus Civilization - the ancient urban culture of north India in the third millenniem BC - has been interpreted as Dravidian or non-Aryan culture. Though this has never been proved, it has been taken by many people to be a fact. However, new archaelogiocal evidence shows that the so-called Indus culture was a Vedic culture, centered not on the Indus but on the banks of the Saraswati river of Vedic fame (the culture should be renamed not the Indus but the "Saraswati Culture"), and that its language was also related to Sanskrit. The ancient Saraswati dried up around 1900 BC. Hence the Vedic texts that speaks so eloquently of this river must predate this period.

The racial types found in the Indus civilization are now found to have been generally the same as those of north India today, and that there is no evidence of any significant intrusive population into India in the Indus or post-Indus era.

This new information tends to either dismiss the Aryan invasion thoery or to place it back at such an early point in history (before 3000 BC or even 6000 BC), that it has little bearing on what we know as the culture of India.

Answer 10

The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically bo th the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller

Answer 11

We Indians are actually descendants of both the Aryan and Dravidian race.

India is a land of two races - the lighter skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned Dravidians. The Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India whom the invading Aryans conquered
and dominated. From this came the additional idea that much of what we call Hindu culture was in fact Dravidian, and later borrowed by Aryans who, however, never gave the Dravidians proper credit for it. This idea has been used to turn the people of south India against the people of north India, as if the southerners were a different race.