Western Iranians vs. Eastern Iranians

I myself find the initial post quite interesting because it resonates with a theory I used to like (a couple of decades ago actually). This is my personal belief only.

I used to believe that the original European people evolved from migrations as old as 30,000 plus years ago. And that Indo european languages spread out from Turkey 8000 years ago and was spoken by the European people, some of whom settled in the Khazakhstan and Russian steppes before 3000 BC. They had light hair and eyes (blond and blue eyed ). 

By 1800 BC the Sintashta and Arakaim cultures of Western Steppes were advanced in copper metallurgy, had adopted horse rearing from the Mongols and invented both horse chariots and bow fighting techniques. 

With these advantages they invaded and settled in Mesopotamia and formed the Mitanni and Kassites rulers (and I used to believe even Hykso rule of Egypt and into the Indus valley Civilization of Pakistan) and ruled for 500 years before they declined and were replaced. That they were a minority in these areas and were a ruling class only.

After decline they migrated east to Iran and Punjab where their bretheren lived. And made small settlements. From where they were again disposessed by the Medes from Central Asia - an invasion by another group of different Indo European people (continously pushed out of the steppes by the Mongols). So they went and joined the last of the early proto Indo European people who were in Pakistan.

So the original Mitanni/early Indo Iranians spoke in proto indo European, worshipped Indra and Devas and migrated east. They were light skinned but unlikely to be blond or blue eyed because of local mixing (in mesopotamia and IVC) and came from a well developed ruler class of 500 years standing  (and not pastoral agriculturists from the Steppes). Their priest class were advanced in their hymns and methods of worship. But they had preserved many of their early steppe ways which became more pronounced as they joined their bretheren and regressed to a more pastoral life. As they migrated east, they reached Punjab where they settled with the earlier Rig Vedic people. Further Indo Iranian migrations from more pastoral communities from Central Asia also probably ocurred between 1200 BC to 800 BC into Punjab, some of whom had similar beliefs but others had different beliefs.

And that the Rig Veda Samhita was collected from the compilation of not one but multiple Indo Iranian migrants and derived mostly from the more ancient hymns from periods much before compilation, accounting for the more archaic language.

These I used to believe was (the romantic !) history of the Rig Vedic people. 

In other words, the Aryan migration theory into India with the added bit that the ruling classes of well developed Mitanni Kassite rulers were also among those migrating - explaining the more advanced features seen in the Rig Vedic people than what you would expect from mere steppe tribals. It would also explain their desire to preserve their heritage - like the Parsis who came later.

Although most scholarship of Kassites and Hyksos are against them being even Indo Iranian nowadays (when I was reading earlier, they were considered Indo Iranian), I would still like to imagine that the Rig Veda is mostly the Mitanni hymns mixed with the hymns of those who migrated to Pakistan in the 1800 BC period.

Regardless of whether the above is true or not, I have no doubt about some things.

1. Rig Vedic people are derived from migration of people from the Sintashta/Petrovka/Arkaim cultures - either directly to Punjab in 1800 BC or via Mesopotamia and Iran as described above.

2. History has shown repeatedly that the steppe people of earlier Indo European origin or later mongol origin have dominated the development of Asia from 1800 BC to the modern age. Why exclude the Rig Vedic people from this long list?

3. That they innovated and assimilated but were always energetic - a prerequisite for the people described in the Rig Veda. 

Regarding the Zorashtrian Persians - they themselves later were displaced from Iran and migrated to India and formed the Parsis - who despite their small numbers and minority religion, dominate the cultural and business life of India to this day - preserved their religion and way of life and preserved the Avesta for the British to decipher.

Why not the same with the Rig Veda and Mittanni?

There was ONLY Turkic R1a1 and R1b with subclades!

Moreover, sumer to Arkaim came ANNUALLY(!) without arranging long-term dwellings. Sumerian submitted huge spaces from the Mesopotamic cities to Ural in searches and copper production. Exactly so is and in culture of Vinka=vincha in Europe. And there Sumerian found copper and founded the settlements.

Although Hurrian, the ruling elite were Indo Aryan. 

The Roman Mithraism is supposed to be derived from the Indo Aryan Mitra as well as the Persian Mithra but happened much later in history around 2nd century BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitra

But, madam, I know beyond doubt that more than a half of inhabitants of Tehran are ethnic Turkic peoples. However, and all governors in the ancient time, except Sasanids, too were Turkic peoples. I consider that article in Wikipedia is a usual POLITICAL LIE. In Tehran there can not be 34 % of inhabitants with h/g I in any way. According to historical chronicles absolutely precisely it is known that the Swedish tribe RUSь sold slaves  and finno-ugrishs to Mesopotamia and in Transcaucasia. It was continuous within 4 centuries process of delivery of slaves carriers to h/g I. These slaves couldn't disappear in a flash))))

I apologize you: I thought that you are the woman. According to your answer: The considerable part of everything SETLEMENT the population of Mesopotamia is descendants SUMERIAN WOMEN, with sumerian = Turkic language! After migration of a considerable part Sumerian in the territory of Europe, Black Sea Coast, North Kaspy, the Volga region, the Carpathians, on the territory of Siberia and the Far East, in Mesopotamia there was  part of sumer, women, children, old men, priests of temples, priests castes etc. Modern Turks are  akkadization Sumerian which women kept sumerian language. Certainly, akkadian language influenced Turkish language, but insignificant. Just the same AZERBAIJANI language! It is Sumerian language of Mothers of sumer, in ancient time won by Semite akkadians. Therefore at Azerbaijanians a significant amount of h/g J at men is combined with Turk=sumerian language of their mothers.) )) When I wrote about Turkic peoples of Tehran I meant not only Azerbaijanians! I meant Torkomans and Kashkais! It still thus that I didn't consider the Iranian Turkic peoples, living much thousands years on coast of the Tiger! 

The Kievan Rus during the reign of Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Red outline shows Rus territory at Sviatoslav's coronation in c. 962; orange denotes his conquests 962-972. Byzantine territory in purple; probable sites of Khazar successor states in blue.