You have an issue with calling it an Indian civilization yet you use the term Dravidian which literally means Southern Indian. That's an interesting position to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people
And I didn't say these people were Dravidian, I said they might be the pre-cursors to the Dravidian people - which is also probably doubtful. I guess I should have said 'People who would now be called Dravidian' ?
uh, what? care to elaborate?
Sure, the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is too simplistic but nevertheless, there is a clear dicotomy.
N.B. Ancestral South Indian and Ancestral North Indian are testing used in genetic studies to sidestep the use of loaded/controversial terms like Aryan and Dravidian.
My personal take, for what it's worth, there was no mass scale migration and North and South Indians are the same people. However, there was a lot on influx/migrations/invasions in North from rest of Asia and farther, which led to genetic mixing and the deviations that we see.
No, that's a common misconception. The majority of people with Dravidian heritage now live in Southern India but there's no "literal" meaning where Dravidian means Southern India. There's ample archaeological and linguistic evidence that Dravidian populations and languages were endemic as far north as what is now geographically Iran.
Except for the literal Sanskrit meaning of Dravida which refers to Southern India.
No, it doesn't refer to any geographical location. I urge you to go check your Sanskrit dictionary. http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=dr%C4%81vi%E1%B8%8Da