The Kerala Story:
by Dr. Zacharias Thundy, Northern Michigan University


DRAVIDIANS
There is general agreement among ethnologists that the Dravidian population is a branch of the Mediterranean race, or at least a closely allied one. while the Mediterranean race is White, the Dravidians are much darker, ranging from the dark Greek and Italian complexion to black. There is also a wide range of difference in the shape of the skull, the color and texture of the hair, the color of the eyes, and the shape of the nose. These deviations can be explained with a probable interbreeding between the Dravidians and Mundas, as it is still taking place in the Chotanagpur region between the Dravidian Oraons and the neighboring Mundas.
The Dravidians entered India before the Aryans, before 2000 B.C., after passing through Mesopotamia, Iran, and Baluchistan where the Brahuis, a Dravidian race, still live. On grounds of cultural affinities such as inheritance through women, snake cults, organization of society, and structure of temples, some historians connect the Dravidians with the Elamites and Mesopotamians. The evidence of Indian skulls from the Indus Valley indicates that the Mediter-ranean stock became established in north India before the Harappab Civilisation came into existence around 2000 B.C.

Granted that the Dravidians were,originally Mediterraneans and that they passed through Mesopotamia, Iran, and Baluchistan, exactly from which Mediter-ranean region did they come?

Of particular significance is archeologist B. B. Lal's contention that the Dravidians probably came from Nubia, Upper Egypt. This theory would give them among other things their Mediterranean features and dark complexion. Lal writes: "At Timos the Indian team dug up several megalithic sites of ancient Nubians which bear an uncanny resemblance to the cemeteries of early Dravidians which are found all over Western India from Kathiawar to Cape Comorin. The intriguing similarity extends from the subterranean structure found near them. Even the earthenware ring-stands used by the Dravidians and Nubians to hold pots were identical." According to Lal, the Nubian megaliths date from around 1000 B.C.

The linguistic studies of scholars like S. K. Chatterji have discovered many cognate words in ancient Egyptian and Nubian languages and Tamil. Fur-ther, the new findings on the Indus heiroglyphics by M. V. N. Krishna Rao, Fateh Singn, H. S. Parpola, K. A. Parpola, S. J. Koskenniemi, and Yu. Knorozov claim to have deciphered the script in terms of Proto-Dravidian and thus confirm the findings of the venerable Indian historian Father Heras that the Harappan people spoke a Dravidian language in the third millennium B.C.

They are simply nonsense terms that serve political function.

Including:

* cover up the fact of the heterogeneous nature of Europes native population.

* allow Europeans to claim ethnic affinity with ancient civilisation, virtually all of which is non European; including African, Indus Valley, Chinese and Mesopotamian.

* disinfranchise indigenious peoples from their own heritage, including Egypto-Nubian, Dravidian, Polynesian and others.

As for the Dravidians: It goes without saying that they are descendant from African peoples. Everyone is. Dravidians are Black (meaning dark skinned) Asians. However Dravidians did not found Nile Valley Civilisation nor did Nile Valley Africans found Indus Valley civilisation. They are simply two different ancient civilisations -
and niether one of them is "white", "european", "nostratic", "mediterranian", "caucasian", or any other such nonsense.

The earliest ancestors of the Egyptians arise from the Sahara and also the early cultures of the Nile Valley. Dravidians don't have ritualistic circumcision,ancestor devotion, nor divine kingship.

The scolar B.B. Lal is just parroting old theories that said the C-group Nubians were non-Africans and running with them. Analysis from A-group and C-group remains show that C-group are not non-African people but are a continuation of earlu A-Group who themselves are the desendants of Khartoum Mesolithic people. Khartoum Mesolithic people have distinctive cultural features like filing of the teeth found amungst the modern southern Sudanese and not amungst the Nubians. The author also can't explain why early wavy-lined pottery found in Khartoum Mesolithic is absent in India or Mesopotamia.

quote:

---

But couldn't it be possible that the Dravidians are related but went on to start
the Indus civilization before Egypt emerged?

---

quote:

---

The first people of India are blacks and that's documented.

---

You should heed Ausar's post in terms of what this guy is obviously driving at, because I think you misunderstand his motives and his reasoning.

quote:

---

My point isn't that the
Dravidians started Kemet but could be related to Kushites and Kemetians of an
earlier period like Afro-Americans and West
Africans but due to history now have similar
but some distinct differences?

---

I guess I am agreeing with you on this obvious point (yes, Indus Valley founders were Black), but I am puzzled because that has little to do with Dr. Zacharias and BB Lal's Aryanist musings, which you posted, and which are riddled with falsehood.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amwa:
"Dravidians don't have ritualistic circumcision,ancestor devotion, nor divine kingship"

Are you sure about that?...Do you have material to prove it?..You can't dismiss
stuff just out of hand...Do you have info
about Indus Valley Civilization?..It seems
you're being defensive due to the "Asian"
origin of Kemet promoted by some misguided
scholars.

---

lol. The burden of proof is on you. And you haven't really presented any. If you have proof that Dravidian civilisation is based upon devine monarchy (are you referring to dharma?), and ritual circumcision then, simply present it.

What you have presented so far is one article that was badly flawed, based on outdated (and racist) anthropological concepts, and largely devoid of substance.

You were expecting applause?

quote:

---

If this is a discussion,then the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a
statement and Ausar dismissed any connection
without proof.[/B]

---

quote:

---

I will repeat you are wrong.It's not only on the me but the person who refutes without any info also.

---

No, you evidently do not understand the basis of logical discourse which helps explain why you are easily fooled by the likes of B.B. Lal.

If you say that Kemetians are descendant from Martians, and others dismiss your view as insubstantiate (ie - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE), the burden of proof is on you. No need to present counter evidence when none was provided to begin with.

If you contend that Dravidian is an Egypto Nubian civilisation, but refuse to present evidence then we are entirely correct in dismissing your view.

You can keep repeating that we are wrong to dismiss your view. That may satisify you, but it will not persuade. To persuade the burden is on you to produce evidence. Short of that....you are just wasting your time.

quote:

---

Amwa:
"...(the Indus and Kemetian civilizations ) Is there any relationship between these two civilizations?..There is a theory that ancient Kemites are related to Dravidians and blacks who first populated India."

---

"...(the Greek and Roman civilizations) Is there any relationship between these two civilizations?..There is a theory that ancient Greeks are related to Romans and whites who first populated Italy."
----------

There are some new researches and information regarding the earlier period of human civilization, during the phase of Black political and cultural hegemony, including the early civilizations of Asia. Here's a good starter reference:

quote:

---

African Presence in Early Asia
by Ivan Van Sertima (Editor)
List Price: $27.95 - Paperback - Transaction Pub; (June 1995)

Book Description
The story of the African presence in early Asia is as fascinating as it is obscure. It covers a period of more than 500,000 years beginning with the first Homo erectus migrations out of Africa. Both Peking and Java Man were only regional varieties of these early Africoid hominids. The story continues with the first modern human populations (Homo sapiens), the Diminutive Blacks, who traveled and sojourned from one corner of Asia to the other, beginning perhaps 90,000 years ago. The Diminutive Blacks were followed by others of slightly larger bodily proportions and further distinguished by straight to wavy hair textures. Variously called Austrics, Austro-Asiatics, Mons, Mundas, Kolarians, and Veddas, these people were probably at their zenith 25,000 years ago, and are still prevalent in large numbers throughout Asia. Blacks were also the first in the development of Asia’s early civilizations. The hard factual evidence has borne this out in case after case. Although the story of the black presence in early Asia is obscure, its documentation is by no means new, and the works of Drusilla D. Houston, Joel A. Rogers, and most recently, John G. Jackson, Can be singled out for broadening our awareness of the subject and providing a solid foundation from which we can move forward. - Runoko Rashidi

---

Can anyone suggests some other relevant texts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Can anyone suggests some other relevant texts?

---

Anwa, B.B. Lal sites evidence that is not very convincing,for many cultures have devotions to snakes and beliefs much like the Dravidian people,but I would never connect them together. Cultural Anthropologist agree that some symbolism is rather universal and shared by many different cultural spectums. No where any genetic evidence has ever been found,nor skeletal evidence from remains in pre-dyanstic Egyptian sites that match Dravidians and Egyptians or Nubians. The author is playing off the fact that C-Group Nubians was found by old scholars like Resiner to be distinct from Africans,so he considers them Dravidians.

Another mistake people often make is the term ''Aethiopies'' used by Greeks to describe some Asiatic populations like Elamites, Dravidians,and even some Mesopotamian populations. The Greco-roman authors described them as Aethiopies because they had dark skin but even Herodotus pointed out that unlike the African Ethiopies[i.e. Nubians and others] the Asiatic Aethiopies had straight hair. Other legends were invented by Greeks such as the Didorus Siclus saying Amenhotep colonized India,and other such areas.

The only reason why Aboriginals, Papua New Guineans,and even Austric people[people like Veddoids,Negritos,and Dravidians] look very Africa is because of their ancient migration out of Africa. Aboriginals and others were amung the first to migrate out of Africa,so ofcourse they look the way as they do. Trying to connect Dravidians to Africans is as silly as trying to connect Khoisans to Chinese. I can even show you mean modern day Western and Central Africans who have eliptical eye folds and even pocess Khoisan Mtdna. Did you know also that early northern Africa also had Khoisan remains?

Covert, the new book by Drusilla Dunjee has a bibliogrphy. The books has been updated.

The only legitmate African pressence in Asia in ancient times was in Palestine,Yemen,and even parts of Jordan. All these areas have had African pressences. Yemen has had an African pressence since probabaly the Neolithic and modern Southern Yemani people are hard to distinguish from Eastern Africans.

Some evidence also exist that the modern ''black Russians'' that live around modern Azerbaijan are connected to soliders sent out by Sesotris[Senworset I]. These populations were moved by the Russian goverment and relocated much like the Czechians.

quote:

---

where any genetic evidence has ever been found

---

Indeed Kemetic civilisation is usually associated with haplotypes such as E3a, E3b M35 and M2, whereas Dravidian is usually associated with H M69. They simply aren't the same peoples and that is obvious.

I think the politics of India have to be better understood, in order to grasp the many theories about the Dravidians.

some aspects of this include....

* Europeans theorized that a superior race of Aryan invaders brought civilisation to Black Dravidians.

* India's native caste system has a built in color bias that reinforced European racial theories.

* Some South Indian's have counter theorized that Dravidian Blacks are the true indigenous Indians, and Northern "white" Indians are invaders who destroyed or otherwise perverted Black Asian civilisation.

* Some Northern Indian types have countered with the idea that all Indians are biologically related, and therefore there was no Aryan invasion, and nothern "white" Indians are just as Native as darker types. They misguidedly embrace the European race anthropology system (a caste system in its own right) and argue that all Indians are forms of "caucasian" (Medit Race).

* some pro Aryanist Indians argue that South Asians are not "real" Asians but rather inferior African types. At this point it becomes useful to argue that Dravidians are kind of "negro" race, and therefore African and not Asian.

Of course there is some truth in all of these suggestions. So for example, South and North Indians...who have been intermixing for 1000's of years must have biological affinity with each other. At the same time, there are some ways in which darker Indians have more affinity with Africans whereas lighter ones have more affinities with Europeans.

I think the most progressive Indian scholars have realized that nothing good can come from attempting to apply flawed Eurocentric race concepts to India. These concepts are pseudo scientific and have a history of disastrous socio-political ramifications (the holocaust, the slave trade, apartheid etc.) in [wst] cultures, why in the name of Shiva would Indians want to emulate them?
Indians do not need to be qualified by their Africaness or Europeaness.....they are simply, Indians.

The first people of India were negritos and Veddoids,and also tribal people that live in many areas in northern India. Amungst the oldest people of India are the Munda people. The tribal people in India are distinct from both the Dravidians in the south and Indians in the north. These people look much like the dancing girl found in Harappa or the Indus Valley.

Dravidians don't just live in Southern India but many live in Northern India also. Not all people in Southern India are dark either,and not all people in northern India are light.

In Sri Lanka you have the Tamils and the Sinhalese,who claim to desend from Vedic Aryans. Neither one of these populations can be diserned physically. So much mixing has actually occured between these two. On the same Island you have remnants of Negrito and Veddoid people.

It's very weird to me that Dravidians would want to claim any other culture when they have an impressive culture with a traditions of written literature. Tamils have their own culture,so I don't understand why they would want to claim others. Not to mention that typically Dravidians are much smarter than Northern Indians. Most Dravidian immigrants to America are high paid doctors;while their ighter northern counterpart is typically grocery store owners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

The only reason why Aboriginals, Papua New Guineans,and even Austric people[people like Veddoids,Negritos,and Dravidians] look very Africa is because of their ancient migration out of Africa. Aboriginals and others were amung the first to migrate out of Africa,so ofcourse they look the way as they do. Trying to connect Dravidians to Africans is as silly as trying to connect Khoisans to Chinese. I can even show you mean modern day Western and Central Africans who have eliptical eye folds and even pocess Khoisan Mtdna. Did you know also that early northern Africa also had Khoisan remains?

---

The original inhabitants of Arabia, then, according to Sir Henry Keith, one of the world's greatest living anthropologists, who has made a study of Arab skeletal remains, ancient and modern, were not the familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people. A protonegroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt, by environmental and other evolutionary process, became in parts transformed, giving rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.

Betram Thomas, The Arabs(Garden City: Doubleday, 1937) 339.

Based on the bulk of the evidence, this seems to make a lot of sense. I would imagine that early people settled new areas more easily by close-to-shore ocean navigation (as opposed to overland) -- and this "protonegroid belt" seems to correspond to a route that follows the edges of the Indian Ocean, from Africa all the way through Malaysia.

Close-to-shore ocean navigation would've not only been easy, but might've provided travelers with a fairly rich food supply along the way.

Just a little uninformed theorizing here.

...Okay, little more: With regard to the hair textures of early peoples, kinky hair is probably as much an Ice Age adaptation as blue eyes and blonde hair. As ocean levels dipped, and a drier climate prevailed in Africa, kinky hair became an adaptation for temperature regulation on the plains, to avoid heat stroke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunstorm2004:
[b]The original inhabitants of Arabia, then, according to Sir Henry Keith, one of the world's greatest living anthropologists, who has made a study of Arab skeletal remains, ancient and modern, were not the familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people. A protonegroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt, by environmental and other evolutionary process, became in parts transformed, giving rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.

Based on the bulk of the evidence, this seems to make a lot of sense. I would imagine that early people settled new areas more easily by close-to-shore ocean navigation (as opposed to overland) -- and this "protonegroid belt" seems to correspond to a route that follows the edges of the Indian Ocean, from Africa all the way through Malaysia.

Close-to-shore ocean navigation would've not only been easy, but might've provided travelers with a fairly rich food supply along the way.

Just a little uninformed theorizing here.

...Okay, little more: With regard to the hair textures of early peoples, kinky hair is probably as much an Ice Age adaptation as blue eyes and blonde hair. As ocean levels dipped, and a drier climate prevailed in Africa, kinky hair became an adaptation for temperature regulation on the plains, to avoid heat stroke.

The earliest hair textures of all men was probably more along the lines of Aboriginal Australians. Again, just an idea. Carry on...[/B]

---