A reappraisal of the Indo-European migration from Iran starting from the new linguistic paper of Heggarty

Nine years ago I proposed a west Iranian homeland (in the Zagros mountains) for Indo-Europeans (see here). After that, there were genetic studies that discovered a Caucasus Hunter Gatherers component that spread to the steppe and a similar Iranian Neolithic component (in the Zagros) that spread to the east, and when it was discovered that this component was present in Bronze Age Anatolia without steppe ancestry, the South of Caucasus homeland has received new support. Now, also in linguistics, there is a trend in that direction, and a new, big stone has been thrown in the pool of Indo-European studies:

Paul Heggarty et al. , Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages.Science381,eabg0818(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.abg0818

It is a linguistic study based on lexical evolution, comparing the vocabulary of 161 Indo-European languages, and connecting the results with geography and genetics. The map above shows the general reconstruction: Proto-Indo-European started to split around 8100 years ago, south of Caucasus, in the region of origin of Caucasus Hunter Gatherers/Iran Neolithic ancestry. As they write: "This CHG/Iranian component is found first south of the Caucasus, including in the north to northeastern arc of the Fertile Crescent, among early farmers on the flanks of the Zagros Mountains in western Iran. The same CHG/Iranian ancestry component also admixes heavily (by ~5000 yr B.P.) into the region where languages of the Anatolian branch are first documented. CHG/Iranian is the dominant ancestry in ancient Armenia and Iran, in BMAC, and in most present-day populations who speak languages of the Iranic branch. It is also a major ancestry component among speakers of the Indic branch, particularly in regions furthest from the Dravidian-speaking (i.e., non–Indo-European) south of India. Thus, it is the CHG/Iranian ancestry component that most strongly connects the past populations who potentially spoke the branches of Indo-European in Europe and south (and east) of the Caucasus. [...] we propose a hybrid hypothesis in which Indo-European languages spread out of an initial homeland south of the Caucasus, in the northern Fertile Crescent. Only one major branch spread northward onto the steppe and then across much of Europe."

This major branch would be the NW Indo-European group, already known in Indo-European studies, including Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, but without Tocharian that is usually included in the group. Archaeologically and genetically, it seems that all this group is originally connected with the Corded Ware culture, from which derived also the central European Bell Beaker people. The separation of this big branch is here dated 6981 BP (5645‒8395), around the time of the arrival of CHG in the steppe according to ancient DNA studies.  

Albanian, Armenian and Greek instead are placed apart (and not with a SE group with Indo-Iranic as proposed by some), and separated around 6135 BP (4540‒7882). So, as shown in the map, they would have migrated through Anatolia to the Balkans without passing by the steppe. This is denied by the paper of Lazaridis, "The genetic history of the Southern Arc" that proposed instead that Greeks and Armenians came from Yamnaya expansions, bringing steppe ancestry to Greece and Armenia during the Bronze Age. This view is also consistent with the kind of R1b Y DNA lineages (L23) that is shared by ancient Greeks and Armenians in the 2nd millennium BCE, connected with Yamnaya.  

Moreover, the separation of Anatolian is dated 6932 BP (5403‒8613), which means that Greeks moved to Anatolia later than Anatolians, and it is not clear how this could happen and why they did not settle somewhere in Anatolia and did not push Anatolians towards Greece. One can observe that in Greece there are some famous Anatolian-like toponyms like Parnassos. But I have to cite here from a work of Tardivo and Kitselis: "the mountain name Παρνασσός has a Luwian equivalent Parnassa, which is believed to be derived from the Luwian root parna ‘house’, a word that lacks secure cognates outside Anatolia. Comparable material is found nearby in the Mediterranean region like the Egyptian pr “house” and Hurrian pur(u)li “house”."

Anyway, this can be explained as the substrate of Anatolian migrants with a CHG ancestry who arrived in Greece already at the beginning of the Bronze Age.

About Indo-Iranic, their separation is dated 6981 BP like the NW branch, as if they departed at the same time. The separation of Indic, instead, is dated 5520 BP (4535‒6796), as if they reached South Asia much later, as is suggested by the map indeed. I appreciate very much that they accept a route directly through Iran rather than through the steppes, but I find the movement towards India too slow.

Now, although dates of known historical language changes correspond quite well to the dates of this study based on lexical comparison, I have many doubts on the validity of these prehistoric dates, but let us see if there is some correspondence with what we know from archaeology.

The initial division of Indo-Europeans is so described: "Our hybrid hypothesis posits that out of this homeland south of the Caucasus, from ~8120 yr B.P., PIE began to diverge as early migrations split it into multiple early branches." Now, 8120 BP means 6170 BCE. It is an interesting period, because it is associated with a dramatic climatic change, the so-called 8.2-kiloyear event. This event, apparently starting from the Atlantic, "like the Younger Dryas and 9.2ka BP event, was marked by abrupt cooling and aridity across much of the world" (Matthews and Nashli 2022). According to an article by Flohr et al. of 2015 ("Evidence of resilience to past climate change in Southwest Asia: Early farming communities and the 9.2 and 8.2 ka events"), "The so-called 8.2 ka event was one of the most pronounced and abrupt Holocene cold and arid events. [...] Sharp decreases in air temperature of up to 4°C are also evident in many other high-resolution proxy records from the circum-Atlantic and Mediterranean basin. [...] It appears that wetness increased north of 42° latitude, while aridity increased south of this. For the Eastern Mediterranean, a reduction in precipitation of around 17% has been calculated. The event is well-dated to have taken place between 8250 and 8000 cal BP and to have lasted around 160 years." About the consequences, Matthews and Nashli write: "it has been suggested that the Neolithic movement into the Zagros foothills and Fars may have been stimulated by this century-long episode. [...] across the plains of central and northern Iran there is as yet no convincing sign of local precursors to the well-adapted Neolithic farmers and herders who spread into the region from c. 6000 BC, bringing their domesticated herds and grains with them. Where did they come from? The likeliest hypothesis for the time-being is that they moved into central and northern Iran from the west, steadily advancing across the Zagros ranges and foothills from areas where farming had already been practiced for up to 2000 years. Why did they move? To what extent their movement was stimulated by climatic adversity attendant upon the 8.2 ka BP event remains unclear, but there appears to be an at least approximate contemporaneity. [...] As to the dispersal of Neolithic lifeways eastwards from Iran into Turkmenistan and beyond, the many material culture connections between the Neolithic sites of north-eastern Iran and those of southern Turkmenistan across the Kopet Dagh, such as Monjukli Depe, are highly suggestive. The first point to make is that, yet again, the appearance of the earliest Jeitun culture sites in Turkmenistan appears to coincide with the 8.2 ka BP event (Harris 2010: 233; see also Düring 2011: 124–125 for possible impact of the 8.2 ka BP event on agricultural expansion across Turkey). The presence of domesticated sheep by 6000 BC at Obishir V in southern Kyrgyzstan suggests a relatively rapid spread of Neolithic herding practices eastwards from southern Turkmenistan across challenging terrain. Secondly, there is no evidence for local development of the Neolithic in Turkmenistan or beyond. David Harris summarises the Neolithic of southern Turkmenistan thus: 

The general uniformity of the material culture of the Jeitun-Culture settlements, especially their mudbrick architecture and chaff-tempered pottery, supports the inference that they were initially founded as sedentary settlements by migrants seeking new land to occupy with their crops and livestock. (Harris 2010: 233) 

Finally, Harris concludes that the dispersal of Neolithic settlers, with their herds and plants, towards Turkmenistan took place across the northern reaches of Iran, an “inviting corridor” leading from the Zagros to the Kopet Dagh."

So, possibly before 6000 BCE the sudden cold and aridity pushed people down from the north-central Zagros towards the Caspian region and beyond, to Turkmenistan, areas where we later find the cradle of the Iranic world. A Neolithic presence in the Caspian region was already around 7000 BCE in Sang-e Chakhmaq West, but it was much more limited, and did not reach Central Asia. Interestingly, also in Baluchistan we have a new kind of Neolithic dated from 6000 BCE by Jarrige (although Ceccarelli and Petrie give a date of c.5470-4700 BCE from the deposits of Period IIA), in Mehrgarh Period II: "Pottery appeared in Period II; it is vegetal-tempered, comparable to the Neolithic pottery found in Iran including at the site of Tepe Yahya and in the Daulatabad Plain. Some Period II vessels display applied decorations, a feature observable on vegetal-tempered vessels from Tal-i Iblis. Jean-François Jarrige, however, has compared these decorations more specifically with those from Umm Dabaghiyah in northern Iraq. Additionally, the technique used to create this pottery, namely sequential slab construction, has also been identified on Neolithic vessels from Iran as well as at Umm Dabaghiyah." (Mutin and Garazhian 2021) Jarrige (2008: 150) made also another comparison with Umm Dabaghiyah about Period II: "The impressive plans of compartmented buildings of Period IIA can be compared with buildings with similar plans from Mesopotamian sites such as Tell el Oueili or Umm Dabaghiyah at the end of the 7th millennium BC. It is probably not a mere chance if one notices the occurrence at Umm Dabaghiyah and at Mehrgarh, Period IIA, of some potsherds not only built according to the same sequential slab construction but also bearing similar applied designs." 

Now, a connection of Umm Dabaghiyah in North Mesopotamia with Mehrgarh in Baluchistan seems quite unlikely at first sight. But there are also connections with an important site southwest of the Urmia lake, Hajji Firuz Tepe in Iranian Azerbaijan, as Matthews and Nashli report: "Concerning the origin of the first settlers at Hajji Firuz, on the basis of the pottery Voigt (1983: 166) argues for connections across the northern Zagros to the west into Upper Mesopotamia, with sites such as Telul eth-Thalathat, Sotto and Umm Dabaghiyah." Voigt (see here, p.166) spoke of a single tradition of manufacture and decoration of ceramics in Hajji Firuz and early Hassuna, which means Umm Dabaghiyah. She proposed that the area (Ushnu-Solduz valley south of Lake Urmia) was settled by cultivators and herders coming from the west, where they were in contact with early Hassuna groups or with their ancestors, and found a continuity of contacts in the later period. She also wrote (p.168) of a chain of sites from Hassuna-Samarra in central Mesopotamia to Tepe Sarab in Mahidasht, to Tepe Sialk in the central Iranian plateau. To extend the chain up to Mehrgarh, we can add what Fagan (1996: 437) has written: "At Mehrgarh, continuity and change is marked with the introduction of soft ware, Buff Ware or Chaff Tempered Pottery in period Mehrgarh IIA. This ceramic seems to have broad similarities on the Iranian plateau (e.g., Yahya period vii-v, Tepe Sialk, Belt & Hotu Caves) perhaps far west in the Zagros (Jarmo)".  We can also add a direct parallel by Vandiver (1987: 18) between the ceramic of Hajji Firuz and Mehrgarh: "At Hajji Firuz about twenty sherds with negative basket impressions in the base have delaminated from an outer surface layer which has a positive but less distinct basket impression. At Mehrgarh, J.-F. Jarrige has reported about five similar sherds, in addition to some with basket straw still embedded in the wall." And Ceccarelli-Petrie (2020: 4): "what is referred to as Burj Basket-Marked ware was among the earliest ceramics identified in the archaeological record of South Asia. For this technique, potters used baskets as a mould, and vessels were often coated with a clay slip to hide basket impressions. This combination of techniques also seems to have been quite widespread from the Near East to South Asia, as suggested by evidence from Abu Hureyra (Syria), Ali Kosh and Hajji Firuz Tepe (Iran)." About Ali Kosh at the southwestern border of Central Zagros (dated from 7500 to 6500 BCE), Jarrige (2008: 151-152) noticed other affinities already from Period I, that he dates from before 7000 BCE (while Petrie from 6000 BCE): "the full setting of farming economy at Mehrgarh displays evident similarities with what had been noticed in the case of the early Neolithic settlements in the hilly regions forming the eastern border of Mesopotamia. The circular houses of the earliest Neolithic villages have not been found at Mehrgarh. But quadrangular houses built with about 60 cm long narrow bricks with a herringbone pattern of impressions of thumbs to provide a keying for the mud-mortar, have been uncovered at several aceramic Neolithic sites in the Zagros, such as Ganj Dareh or Ali Kosh in the Deh Luran region of Iran, where, like at Mehrgarh, traces of red paint have also been noticed on the walls. Circular fire-pits filled with burnt pebbles are also associated to all these early settlements. The lithic industries also show evident parallels [...] polished-stone axes begin occurring at several sites of the Deh Luran area, such as Ali Kosh, only in the later phases of the aceramic Neolithic along with an increasing number of stone vessels. It is the same at Mehrgarh where the polished stone axes in black diorite are found only in the upper levels of Period I, mostly as gravegoods. [...] the few graves exposed at Ali Kosh show skeletons with positions rather similar to those of Mehrgarh. Among the gravegoods one notices ornaments made of seashells and semi-precious stones such as turquoise, a few beads in copper. Baskets coated with bitumen and oblong-shaped cakes of red-ochre strengthen the parallels."

 

The subsequent innovations appearing both in sites between Mesopotamia and central Zagros and in Mehrgarh suggest a repeated contact between these distant regions, as if it followed an established route. In Sotto, a site near Umm Dabaghiyah, there is also the earliest finding of lapis lazuli in Mesopotamia, which would confirm exchanges with Central Asia (see here). But then, do we have just a chain of cultural exchanges from Mesopotamia to Baluchistan, or also a movement of people? And did this movement start from Mesopotamia? In a passage about the site of Yanik Tepe (northeast of Lake Urmia) Matthews and Nashli write: "Objects include many alabaster bowl and bracelet fragments, comparable to those from Neolithic sites of the Zagros, and bone and obsidian tools using obsidian from south Caucasian and north Iranian sources. A small stone figurine takes the form of a human head with clear representation of artificial cranial elongation (Figure 5.45), also a key trait of the Zagros Neolithic. Chaff-tempered pottery, occasionally painted, compares well to Neolithic ceramics from Hajji Firuz to the southwest of Lake Urmia. The alabaster bracelets and evidence for cranial elongation suggest a Zagros origin for the Neolithic settlers of the Lake Urmia basin rather than a development from local hunter–gatherer communities, until now conspicuous by their absence from the archaeological record." 

So, did people of Lake Urmia in Late Neolithic come from the central Zagros or from Mesopotamia?

Ajorloo (2008: 114) observes that there are two Pottery Neolithic sites, Ahrendjān and Qara Tepe to the northwest of Lake Urmia, earlier than Hajji Firuz: "According to the field data it is possible to prove that the Hajji Firuz is not the first stage in the formation process of the early villages in Azerbaijan. Therefore it seems the hypothesis of the migrant people of the Hassuna sphere to the west bank of the Urmia Lake can not explain the Neolithization process in the region." And in a later paper (Ajorloo 2016: 157): "while Ahrendjān-Qara Tepe wares stand in a range attested to the Proto-Hassuna horizon, c. 6700-6200 BC, the radiocarbon dates put Hājji Firūz not earlier than c. 6000 BC, and, moreover, there are some remarkable resemblances between the Ahrendjān-Qara Tepe ceramic assemblage and Sarāb, Gūrān II, Abdul Hosein II and even Jarmo II which fall within a range of c. 7000-6500 BC. Such a chronology is also roughly in accordance with the retreat of Lake Urmia and the emergence of a transhumance way of life in the Central Zagros. Consequently, in general terms, it is reasonable to propose a relative dating for Ahrendjān-Qara Tepe as c. 6500-6000 BC." But if the Urmia basin was settled by transhumant herders from the central Zagros, this does not exclude that also people from Mesopotamia arrived, probably agriculturists, especially in Hajji Firuz, where the connections with Hassuna culture are particularly strong: "In addition to incised decoration, like the Hassuna pottery, the pottery tradition of Hājji Firūz includes husking trays, pithoi and wide-mouth wares; such types being related to agricultural activities. On the contrary, in the Ahrendjān-Qara Tepe tradition they had been using forms appropriate to dairy products like spouted vessels, collared jars and narrow mouth vessels. The husking tray is recognized as one of the indicators for the Late Neolithic period in northern Mesopotamia and the Hassunan/Samarran horizon but as yet no husking tray has been recorded from the Ahrendjān-Qara Tepe tradition and the well-known Neolithic sites in the Zagros, for example Jarmo II, Gūrān II, Abdul Hosein II, Sarāb and Ganj Dareh A-D" (Ajorloo 2016: 153).

Today luckily we have a genetic study of Hajji Firuz around 6000 BCE or slightly later, that has revealed that the ancestry of the people was double: 53% Anatolia Neolithic, 47% Ganj Dareh Neolithic (Narasimhan 2019, supplement, p.196). So, the answer to our question seems to be that the people of Hajji Firuz came from both directions. Not only, we also have the Y DNA haplogroups: two of them are J2b, a haplogroup that was found also in Tepe Abdul Hosein around 8000 BCE, in central Zagros Neolithic, with a pure Iran Neolithic autosomal ancestry. This means that J2b was part of Iran Neolithic people of central Zagros, and interestingly it is quite frequent in Albanians, Greeks, and South Asians. J2b2 was found also in three Mycenaean samples (Mygdalia) and in several Balkanic samples of the Bronze Age, probably belonging to proto-Illyrians (see here). 

About the autosomal ancestry, the study of Broushaki on the three samples from Abdul Hosein and one from Wezmeh Cave (a later site in central Zagros) found out that "Zoroastrians are the most genetically similar to all four Neolithic Iranians, followed by other modern Iranians (Fars), Balochi (SE-Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan), Brahui (Pakistan and Afghanistan), Kalash (Pakistan) and Georgians". Most of these peoples are Indo-Iranian speakers, Dravidian Brahuis are genetically very similar to Baluchis, and Georgians are geographically close and have special connections with Indo-European.

Moreover, according to Ajorloo (2016: 153), among all central Zagros sites, Abdul Hosein II shows more similarities in term of shapes and forms of the ceramics with Ahrendjān and Qara Tepe near Lake Urmia: we can suppose that some people from this village went to the north in search of pastures and their descendants settled also in Hajji Firuz. 

On the maternal side, one of the two men with J2b from Hajji Firuz Tepe had mtDNA K1a3, and K1a has been found not only in Barcın in Northwestern Anatolia Neolithic, but also in two Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites in Mesopotamia, Boncuklu Tarla near Mardin and Çayönü (where also specifically K1a3 is present), and also in Proto-Neolithic Shanidar, on the Iraqi side of the Zagros. These Mesopotamian and Zagros sites have a significant amount of Central Zagros Neolithic ancestry, and Çayönü has also revealed a female outlier with more of that ancestry and also with artificial cranial deformation, a feature (caused by head bandage) well known in central Zagros (Ganj Dareh, Abdul Hosein), in Shanidar Cave, Ali Kosh, and also, as we have seen, in the figurines of Yanik Tepe in the Urmia region. The Çayönü male with K1a3 mtDNA has J2a1a as Y DNA, which connects him with Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and Iran Mesolithic: J2a has been found in Kotias Klde in Georgia (8th mill. BCE), in Hotu Cave south of Caspian Sea (dated 9100-8600 BCE) and in Neolithic Tepe Guran in central Zagros (6700 BCE). Moreover, J2a1a, besides later Anatolian samples (including Phrygian Gordion), was also in Armenia Neolithic (Aknashen and Masis Blur), in Mycenaean Greece, in Tepe Hissar (3640-3518 calBCE), in Geoksyur in Turkmenistan (3365-3097 calBCE), in Shahr-i Sokhta (2600-2500 BCE), and in the Urmia region in the Late Bronze/Iron age (Dinkha and Hasanlu Tepe). And J2a1h was the important Indus_Periphery_West individual from Shahr-i Sokhta (and another Indus Periphery sample there is J2a), but also a local individual from the same site, one of Tepe Hissar (3641-3519 calBCE), and some later individuals from Swat and Central Asia. J2a1h is also especially frequent among Zoroastrians in Iran (15.4% in Tehran and 17.6% in Yazd, and also 17% of Persians from Yazd, as shown by Grugni 2012, where it is called J2a3h, while J2a3*-Page55=J2a1* is even 23% in Zoroastrians from Tehran).

Thus, J2a1 has a good connection with Indo-Iranians, Greeks, Phrygians and Anatolians, very conservative Indo-European branches for many morphological and phonetical aspects, and not sharing the special vocabulary characteristic of the NW Indo-European branch. And clearly this haplogroup starts from south of the Caucasus. 

The Indus_Periphery_West individual from Shahr-i Sokhta, dated 3100-3000 BCE, is important because it was analyzed in the paper of Shinde et al. (2019: 4): "To obtain insight into the origin of the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline, we co-modeled the highest-coverage individual from the IVC Cline, Indus_Periphery_West (who also happens to have one of the highest proportions of Iranian-related ancestry) with other ancient individuals from across the Iranian plateau representing early hunter-gatherer and food-producing groups: a ⁓10,000 BCE individual from Belt Cave in the Alborsz Mountains, a pool of ⁓8000 BCE early goat herders from Ganj Dareh in the Zagros Mountains, a pool of ⁓6000 BCE farmers from Hajji Firuz in the Zagros Mountains, and a pool of ⁓4000 BCE farmers from Tepe Hissar in Central Iran. [...] The only consistently fitting models specified that the Iranian-related lineage contributing to the IVC Cline split from the Iranian-related lineages sampled from ancient genomes of the Iranian plateau before the latter separated from each other [...] The Belt Cave individual dates to ⁓10,000 BCE, definitively before the advent of farming anywhere in Iran, which implies that the split leading to the Iranian-related component in the IVC Cline predates the advent of farming there as well. Even if we do not consider the results from the low-coverage Belt Cave individual, our analysis shows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the IVC Cline individuals split before the date of the ⁓8000 BCE Ganj Dareh individuals, who lived in the Zagros mountains of the Iranian plateau before crop farming began there around ⁓7000–6000 BCE. Thus, the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline descends from a different group of hunter-gatherers from the ancestors of the earliest known farmers or herders in the western Iranian plateau." 

What they say here about Ganj Dareh is not correct, because the Neolithic people of all levels (8200-7600 BCE) there used domesticated cereals: "Regarding plant exploitation, the people of Ganj Dareh utilised domesticated two-row hulled barley (Hordeum distichum) in increasing amounts through levels E to A" (Matthews and Nashli 2022: 69). But also the analysis and the conclusions were contested by another paper, by Maier et al. (2023: 50): "The combined Indus Periphery group we analyzed included seven individuals from Shahr-i-Sokhta and three individuals from Gonur (three individuals were removed from the Narasimhan et al., 2019 dataset due to potential contamination with modern human DNA and low coverage). We removed one individual from the Ganj Dareh Neolithic group as potentially contaminated, and one second- or third-degree relative was removed from the Anatolia Neolithic group [...] A model ‘Indus Periphery = Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI)’ was strongly rejected for the Indus Periphery group of 10 individuals [...] and a model that was shown to be fitting for all Indus Periphery individuals modeled one by one by Narasimhan et al. (Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI) + West Siberian hunter–gatherers (WSHG)) was rejected for the grouped individuals [...] In contrast, a model ‘Indus Periphery = Ganj Dareh Neolithic + Onge (ASI) + WSHG + Anatolia Neolithic’ was not rejected [...] and produced plausible admixture proportions for all four sources that are confidently above zero: 53.2 ± 5.3%, 28.7 ± 2.1%, 10.5 ± 1.3%, and 7.7 ± 2.9%, respectively" 

This means that an Anatolia Neolithic component, clearly present in Hajji Firuz, Tepe Hissar and other post-6000 BCE Iranian sites, should be recognized also in Indus Periphery individuals, and so a migration from western Iran is not rejected. They also add (p.51): "we show four graphs with four admixture events that model the Indus Periphery group as a mixture of three or four sources, with a significant fraction of its ancestry derived from the Hajji Firuz Neolithic or Tepe Hissar Chalcolithic lineages including both Iranian and Anatolian ancestries. [...] a key historical conclusion of the study (that the predominant genetic component in the Indus Periphery lineage diverged from the Iranian clade prior to the date of the Ganj Dareh Neolithic group at ca. 10 kya and thus prior to the arrival of West Asian crops and Anatolian genetics in Iran) depends on the parsimony assumption, but the preference for three admixture events instead of four is hard to justify based on archaeological or other arguments. [...] the inconsistency reflects the fact that the deeply diverging WSHG-related ancestry (Narasimhan et  al., 2019) present in the IVC (Indus Valley Civilization genetic grouping, which is the same group as Indus Periphery) at a level of ca. 10% was not taken into account explicitly" 

See here for the 4 graphs. Here are two examples:

As we see, it is possible that Indus Periphery received admixture from an ancestry close to Tepe Hissar, or from an ancestry related to Hajji Firuz and another Iranian source parallel to Ganj Dareh. Many possibilities are there, but considering Y DNA, the fact that J2a1h is found also earlier in Tepe Hissar can be a hint of a connection. It can be also significant that according to the skeletal studies of Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy, Harappans had the closest affinities with Tepe Hissar period III. 

An interesting detail about the Indus Periphery West individual is that in his burial "Salvatori et al. note that a distinctive pottery type among the grave goods belongs to a distinctive cluster of graves at Shahr-i-Sokhta that is “possibly local or northeast oriented (Kandahar area)”" (Narasimhan 2019, supplement, p.115). Maybe this individual was from the region of Kandahar, where there was Mundigak, a site that was possibly founded by people coming from Baluchistan according to Jarrige (1993: 26):

"Work conducted at Mehrgarh has clearly shown that the cultural assemblage of the preurban phases of Mundigak (period IV) is closely linked to Baluchistan. The foundation of Mundigak can even be interpreted as the settling of people from Baluchistan who were probably aware of the importance of such a location for the control of the nearby mineral resources. The remains from period I at Mundigak fit almost perfectly the cultural assemblage of period III at Mehrgarh, dated to the end of the fifth and the very beginning of the fourth millennium b.c." 

 

That region, Greek Arachosia, had the Avestan Harahvaiti river, a name that corresponds to Sanskrit Sarasvati and has no other parallels in Iranic. We can suppose that people from Mundigak were Indo-Aryan speakers with an Indus Periphery genetic profile. About Mehrgarh III, the Chalcolithic phase, it has many developments compared with the Neolithic phase, but it is considered in continuity for architecture, ceramic technology, subsistence, although Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy noticed a great difference in the people of this phase compared to Period I, with close affinity with Iranian Tepe Hissar and Near Eastern skeletons, while Period I has affinity with later Inamgaon in Maharashtra, which suggests a type closer to South Indians. They placed the change thus between 6000 and 4500 BCE, but there is no analysis of Period II. In aceramic Period I there were already some elements from Iran/Mesopotamia, including kinds of wheat a probably also domesticated barley, although wild barley was also present. But we have seen that pottery and architecture of Period II had special connections with western cultural phenomena. Maybe, the initial aceramic Neolithic was mainly due to cultural contact, with local evolutions like zebu domestication, but in the course of time Iranian immigrants became dominant, especially after the 8.2 ka event. They colonized Baluchistan, bringing proto-Indo-Iranian language, during the 6th millennium BCE, progressively spreading to the east into South Asia, but also going to the west in Arachosia around 4000 BCE. Narasimhan et al. (2019: 11) suggest that the migration to South Asia is not later than 6000 BCE: "although our analysis supports the idea that eastward spread of Anatolian farmer–related ancestry was associated with the spread of farming to the Iranian plateau and Turan, our results do not support large-scale eastward movements of ancestry from western Asia into South Asia after ~6000 BCE (the time after which all ancient individuals from Iran in our data have substantial Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, in contrast to South Asians who have very little)" 

On the other hand, they place the admixture with Andamanese-like ancestry creating the Indus Periphery cline "by ~5400 to 3700 BCE", which is in the range of Period II-III of Mehrgarh in the chronology of Petrie. According to Heggarty, the separation of Indic from Indo-Iranic can be placed in 5520 BP (4535‒6796), that is, around 3570 BCE, with a large range starting from 4846 BCE. We can place the real development of Indo-Aryan after the assimilation of South Asian non-Indo-European people, with special features like retroflexion. The developments of Iranic can be due instead to the "Anatolian" influence, that possibly caused the loss of aspiration and spirantization.

But was there a memory in Iranic tradition of this migration? Avestan Vendidad 2 says (in the translation of Darmesteter):

5. And the fair Yima replied unto me, O Zarathushtra, saying: 'Yes! I will make thy world increase, I will make thy world grow. Yes! I will nourish, and rule, and watch over thy world. There shall be, while I am king, neither cold wind not hot wind, neither disease nor death.' 6. Then I, Ahura Mazda, brought two implements unto him: a golden seal and a poniard inlaid with gold. Behold, here Yima bears the royal sway! 8. Thus, under the sway of Yima, three hundred winters passed away, and the earth was replenished with flocks and herds, with men and dogs and birds and with red blazing fires, and there was room no more for flocks, herds, and men. 9. Then I warned the fair Yima, saying: 'O fair Yima, son of Vivanghat, the earth has become full of flocks and herds, of men and dogs and birds and of red blazing fires, and there is room no more for flocks, herds, and men.' 10. Then Yima stepped forward, in light, southwards, on the way of the sun, and (afterwards) he pressed the earth with the golden seal, and bored it with the poniard, speaking thus: 'O Spenta Armaiti, kindly open asunder and stretch thyself afar, to bear flocks and herds and men.' 11. And Yima made the earth grow larger by one-third than it was before, and there came flocks and herds and men, at their will and wish, as many as he wished. 12. Thus, under the sway of Yima, six hundred winters passed away, and the earth was replenished with flocks and herds, with men and dogs and birds and with red blazing fires, and there was room no more for flocks, herds, and men. 13. And I warned the fair Yima, saying: 'O fair Yima, son of Vivanghat, the earth has become full of flocks and herds, of men and dogs and birds and of red blazing fires, and there is room no more for flocks, herds, and men.' 14. Then Yima stepped forward, in light, southwards, on the way of the sun, and (afterwards) he pressed the earth with the golden seal, and bored it with the poniard, speaking thus: 'O Spenta Armaiti, kindly) open asunder and stretch thyself afar, to bear flocks and herds and men.' 15. And Yima made the earth grow larger by two-thirds than it was before, and there came flocks and herds and men, at their will and wish, as many as he wished. 16. Thus, under the sway of Yima, nine hundred winters passed away10, and the earth was replenished with flocks and herds, with men and dogs and birds and with red blazing fires, and there was room no more for flocks, herds, and men. 20. The Maker, Ahura Mazda, called together a meeting of the celestial Yazatas in the Airyana Vaejo of high renown, by the Vanguhi Daitya. The fair Yima, the good shepherd, called together a meeting of the best of the mortals, in the Airyana Vaejo of high renown, by the Vanguhi Daitya. 21. To that meeting came Ahura Mazda, in the Airyana Vaejo of high renown, by the Vanguhi Daitya; he came together with the celestial Yazatas. To that meeting came the fair Yima, the good shepherd, in the Airyana Vaejo of high renown, by the Vanguhi Daitya; he came together with the best of the mortals. 22. And Ahura Mazda spake unto Yima, saying: 'O fair Yima, son of Vivanghat! Upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall bring the fierce, deadly frost; upon the material world the evil winters are about to fall, that shall make snow-flakes fall thick, even an aredvi deep on the highest tops of mountains. 23. And the beasts that live in the wilderness, and those that live on the tops of the mountains, and those that live in the bosom of the dale shall take shelter in underground abodes." And then, he had to create the Vara, a sort of underground garden where the best humans and animals and plants were preserved from the winter. Is this a memory of a special cold period like the 8.2 ka event? And where was really Airyanam Vaejo? Maybe we should reevaluate the identification of Bundahishn, that placed it "bordering Azerbaijan", and Darmesteter's identification of the river Daitya with the Araxes. Maybe we should think of the region around the Urmia lake, that has been a refuge also during the Bronze Age, when great part of Iranian sites were abandoned. And maybe we should include the central Zagros, the cradle of Iranian Neolithic, with its caves like Shanidar and Wezmeh. If there was a movement in the late Neolithic from there to the East Iranian and Central Asian Avestan homeland, did they completely forget their origin?  Giacomo Benedetti, Impruneta, 17/8/2023

  

 

B. Ajorloo (2008) The neolithization process in Azerbaijan: An introduction to review, Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Madrid, April 3-8 2006, Centro Superior de Estudios sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto, Madrid.

B. Ajorloo (2016) The Early Pottery Neolithic Tradition of the Salmās Plain in Azerbaijan, Northwestern Iranian Plateau, in "The Neolithic of the Iranian Plateau Recent Research" edited by Kourosh Roustaei & Marjan Mashkour, Ex Oriente, Berlin.

Alessandro Ceccarelli and Cameron Petrie (2020) Cultural Evolutionary Paradigms and Technological Transformations from the Neolithic up to the Indus Urban Period in South Asia, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.51404.

B.M. Fagan (1996) The Oxford Companion of Archaeology, Oxford University Press, New York.

Jean-François Jarrige (1993) The Early Architectural Traditions of Greater Indus as Seen from Mehrgarh, Baluchistan, Studies in the History of Art , 1993, Vol. 31, Symposium Papers XV: Urban Form and Meaning in South Asia: The Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times, pp. 25-33.

Jean-François Jarrige (2008) Mehrgarh Neolithic, Pragdhara 18.

Robert Maier et al. (2023) On the limits of fitting complex models of population history to genetic data,  https://elifesciences.org/articles/85492.

Roger Matthews and Hassan Fazeli Nashli (2022) The Archaeology of Iran from the Palaeolithic to the Achaemenid Empire, Routledge, London and New York. 

Benjamin Mutin, Omran Garazhian (2021) Migrations, transfers, exchanges, convergences? Assessing similarities and differences among the earliest farmers between the Daulatabad and Kachi Plains (Southern Iran and Pakistan) Marc Lebeau. Identity, Diversity & Contacts. Proceedings of the International Congress The East 1, Brepols, pp.113-136, 2021, Identity, Diversity & Contacts. Proceedings of the International Congress The East 1, 978-2-503-58949-7. ffhal-03856097.

Narasimhan et al. (2019) The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia, Science 365.

Shinde et al. (2019) An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers, Cell, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.048 

Were the Mitanni Aryans really Indo-Aryans?

Mitanni (or Mittani) is a famous kingdom of the 15th-14th century BCE in northern Mesopotamia, famous especially because of the evident 'Aryan' (Indo-Iranian) nature of the names of its kings and deities. 

The most common theory is that they were more precisely Indo-Aryans, and it is repeated everywhere, although Kammenhüber maintained that the language is still Indo-Iranian and Diakonoff has proposed instead a connection with Dardo-Nuristani people. Mayrhofer himself in his article Indo-Iranisches Sprachgut aus Alalah said that the words used, except aika (see below) are not specific of Indic but are common Indo-Iranian. He remarked that even when they are not attested in Iranic, since the Old Iranian documents are limited, the 'only Indic' character of the word cannot be proved e silentio.
This alleged Indo-Aryan identity has been used to date the Ṛgveda, suggesting that it must be dated at the age of Mitanni or after it, since the Mitanni Indo-Aryan appears as more archaic than the Ṛgvedic language itself. So, let us see what the arguments of this identification are.

The most repeated reasons of the Indo-Aryan identity are s- instead of Iranic h- and aika- for 'one' (in aikawartanna, 'one turn' of the horse) instead of Iranic *aiwa- attested in Avestan and Old Persian. Now, Iranic h- from s- seems to be a late phenomenon, as Mayrhofer has shown from borrowings into Elamite, it is not earlier than the 8th/7th century BC (see here), at least in Western Iran. The change is attested in the Avesta, the date of which is not sure, but it can be after 1000 BCE (in any case it should not go beyond 1300 BCE), and the region is Central Asia, quite far from Mitanni. Old Persian is closer but is attested from the 6th century BCE. About Median we do not know much, but it is interesting that the capital of the Median empire, Ecbatana in Greek, Hagmatāna- in Old Persian, can be referred as Sagbat/Sagbita in Assyrian texts (see here). Also the theonym Assara Mazaš (for Ahura Mazdā) in an Assyrian list of gods, dated 8th/7th century BC, has revealed a Median form with sibilant (see here). On the other hand, among the names from Nuzi we have Artaḫuma, which can be compared with a name in Elamite document, ir-da-u-ma, interpreted by Hinz 1975 as *ṛtā-humā 'through the right Order lucky', and he cites other names in Elamite or Akkadian starting with uma-, like u-ma-a’-pi-ri-a, interpreted as *humāfrya 'Phoenix-dear?' (because the Humā bird in Persian mythology is a sort of phoenix, associated with good fortune). The Persian term humā is derived from Middle Persian humāy and seems to be related with Avestan humāyā 'beneficial; blessed'. So, maybe Artaḫuma means 'blessed through Truth' and reveals a form with aspirated sibilant. It can be due to a different dialect, like Old Persian.    

As to aika-, it is curiously ignored how also in many Iranic languages there are terms for 'one' derived from that root (see here), for instance Middle Persian ēk, Zaza e:k (see here). Nuristani languages, besides Ashkun ach and a Waigali variant ēk, have forms of ev/ew, therefore the Nuristani connection does not seem so strong.
Also interesting is a remark from Raulwing's article on Kikkuli's treatise on horse training:

HERZFELD describes that in 1929, Riza Schah Pahlavi held horse races near the Afghan border of 3, 5 and maximum 9 rounds of 1.4 km (nearly a mile); as HERZFELD enthusiastically points out, “exactly as in Kikkuli’s and Haosravah’s times, and the horses were not tired at all”. 

So, it seems that in Iran the tradition of an odd number of rounds for horses until nine, as in Kikkuli's description, was still alive in the 20th century.

Of course, another strong argument for the Indo-Aryan identity is the mention of 'Vedic' gods in the treaty between the Hittite king Suppiluliuma and the Mitanni king Šattiwaza (here a translation): Mitra, Varuṇa, Indra and Nāsatya.  Let us see how is the reading of the cuneiform texts in the two versions of the treaty, one for Mitanni and one for the Hittites (from Fournet 2010):

DINGIR.MEŠMi-it-ra-aš-ši-il DINGIR.MEŠA-ru-na-aš-ši-il DINGIRIn-da-
ra DINGIR.MEŠNa-ša-at-ti-ya-an-na

DINGIR.MEŠMi-it-ra-aš-ši-il/-el DINGIR.MEŠÚ-ru-wa-na-aš-ši-il
DINGIRIn-tar DINGIR.MEŠNa-ša-a[t-ti-ya-a]n-na 

So, the name Mitra is clear, Indra is rather Indar, and Nāsatya is Našattiya with short a. These are minor differences but we cannot speak of exact identity with the Vedic forms. And all these three deities are present also in the Avesta: Mithra is one of the main yazata or worshipped deities, Indra and Nåŋhaiθiia had become important daēuuas ('pagan' gods, therefore demons), mentioned in the Vīdēvdād/Vendidad (see here). Also Mayrhofer, in the aforementioned article, spoke of 'gods of the Vedic and pre-Zoroastrian pantheon'.
We can also notice that before Mitra there is here the Sumerian sign DINGIR.MEŠ for a plurality of gods. The suffix -ššil according to the hypothesis of Fournet is a dual (as in Vedic mitrāvaruṇau), but there is no confirmation of this, and we would expect the same also for the Nāsatyas who are typically a divine couple. Diakonoff observes that -šši- is the morpheme for abstract words (e.g. šarrašši 'kingship'), and -l for the plural. He translates 'the mitraic gods' (belonging to sphere of the god of light). According to Giorgieri, the suffix -šše/i- indicates also concrete objects and nomina actionis (when added to verbal roots).
If we consider that mithra- in Avestan means "a contract, promise, agreement, friendship, commitment", and the god Mitra is clearly connected with agreements both in the Iranian world and in the Vedas, maybe we have to do here with the 'gods of agreements', which would be fine for a treaty. They can also be the spies of Mitra mentioned in the Mihr Yašt of the Avesta (see here).

And what about Aruna or Uruwana? Also these have the sign of plural gods, and the form is clearly not the same as Vedic Varuṇa: the identification has been done only because it is after Mitra, with whom Varuṇa is typically associated in the Ṛgveda. It is interesting that in Hittite texts, aruna- is the sea, and is often listed among treaty witnesses and conceived as a male deity in myths of Hurrian origin (see here). So, maybe the same deity (in the plural 'the gods of the sea(s)') is invoked here as witness? Or maybe it was confused with the Hittite Aruna for that reason. Now, also the Indian Varuṇa in post-Vedic tradition is the god of the sea, but this is not his main role in the Ṛgveda, and it would be strange to put it besides Mitra as such. Hittite aruna- has no clear etymology, but the Hittite etymological dictionary compares Vedic arṇa 'wave, flood, stream', arṇava 'wave, flood, foaming sea', arṇas 'wave, flood, stream, sea, ocean'. The Indo-European root should be *ar-, expressing motion (of waves).

In order to understand more, let us consider the equivalent (in the other list) Uruwana, which is quite different. Diakonoff denied the identification with Varuṇa and proposed to read Avestan urwa(n) 'soul', 'soul of the dead', so that Uruwanaššil would be 'gods of the sphere of the souls of the dead'.
Fournet, instead, sees in Uruwana a Hurrian version (since initial r- was not admitted in Hurrian) of *Ruwana < *(s)rouaHno, meaning 'the one in charge of flowing waters'. And Varuṇa, being the creator of the water-blocking Vṛtra, would be a metathesis of an older *Ruwana. This etymology is not convincing, but we can notice a parallel phenomenon in Hurrian urukmannu, a metallic part of the shield, if it really comes from rukma-, that in Vedic indicates a golden or silver plate (from the root ruc- 'to shine'). 
Now, in Avestan addition of u- is regular before ru- and rw- (see here), like av. uruuata 'rule, order, prescription' from *rwata, which is a metathesis of *wrata, since we can compare skr. vrata 'rule, religious vow'. In Avestan there is also uruuaiti 'verbal promise, treaty'.

In Greek we have ρητός (<*wrētos) 'stated, covenanted, agreed', Cypriot ϝρήτᾱ 'agreement, treaty, law, pronunciation', Elean ϝράτρα 'verbal agreement, covenant'.
The concept of vrata is strictly connected with Varuṇa in the Ṛgveda. Jamison and Brereton, in their recent translation of the hymns, even state that his name is related to vratá “commandment” and therefore is the god of commandments. But if the root of vrata is that of speaking and declaring (cf. here), the root of Varuṇa is rather the same as the Sanskrit verb vṛ- 'to cover, screen, veil, conceal, hide, surround, obstruct; to ward off, check, keep back, prevent, hinder, restrain'. One could connect this root with the fact that the Vedic Varuṇa is the god who by his snares (pāśa) punishes and restrains those who transgress his commandments. But another interpretation is that he is the covering or all-encompassing Sky itself, a supreme celestial deity that observes everything, especially the deeds of men.
There are good parallels in Vedic varūtṛ 'one who wards off or protects, protector, defender, guardian deity', and Greek erymai 'to keep off, protect, save'. Varuṇa was the guardian of the cosmic order, called ṛta ('truth'). 
We can do another comparison with Avestan urvant 'seizing' (said of a bird), from the participle *wr-ant- according to Bartholomae: the original root can be different (PIE *wal), but the phonetic evolution would be the same. 
So, maybe the root *wṛ- had given a variant form *wrana that became *rwana and then Urwana. By the way, it is interesting that both *wrana and Urwana are close to Greek ouranos, the name of the sky and of the heavenly god that has not a clear etymology. 
Thus Uruwanaššil can refer to the 'gods who are guardians of verbal agreements or sacred commandments', or to the spies of Varuṇa that are often mentioned in the Ṛgveda.

But let us proceed with the numerous Indo-Iranian names that we find in Mitanni and in the Near East, among the rulers of various cities of Mesopotamia and Palestine, and the charioteers called in Hurrian maryanni. First of all, I would like to cite a name present in a list of names from Nuzi that is not cited in the list given by O' Callaghan in Aram Naharaim. It is given in the forms a-ri-ia, a-a-ri-ia, a-ri-i-ia. There are at least 11 persons with this name, two of them are charioteers. In Alalah, there are 24 a-ri-ia; one of them is also called a-ri-ia-an. Another is a maryanni with chariot, and another is brother of Irteya, a clearly Aryan name (see below).
The name clearly corresponds to Sanskrit ārya, Pāli ariya, Avestan airiia, Old Persian ariya. In Iranic use, it indicates the Iranic people itself, according to Herodotus 7.62 also the Medes were originally called Arioi. In India it was more a social and ethical term, 'noble, freeman' (see this post). We cannot say what was the meaning in Nuzi, but we can suppose that it meant 'member of the Aryan nobility'. A name A-ri-ia is found also among the Median city-lords in Assyrian sources (see here).
Now, I would like to remark some features of Indo-Iranian words in these names that are not Indic but rather closer to Iranic:

Arta-: many Mitanni Aryan names start with Arta- 'Truth', for instance Artatāma, Artaššumara, Artamanya, Artamna. Now, arta- 'truth', is typical of Old Persian and Parthian names, and it was found also in Median (see here). Arta-mna (ar˗ta˗am˗na) ‘thinking of truth’ coincides with the Iranian name attested in Diodorus Siculus as Ἀρτάμνης (Artamnes), son of Smerdis in the Cappadocian lineage, and an Elamite correspondence can be irdamana (see Hinz 1975, p.213).

In Vedic, the form is Ṛta-, that does not give a single name in the Vedas: we find only the patronymic Ārtabhāga in BĀU 3.2.1.13 and matronymic ārtabhāgīputra in BĀU 6.5.2.

Moreover, there is a Mitanni name Artaya/Arteya (frequent in Nuzi and present in Alalah), that recalls the old name of the Persians, Artaioi, according to Herodotus 7.61. According to Hesychius, instead, artaioi means 'heroes' among the Persians. Parallels in Elamite documents are Irdaya, Irteya (Hinz 1975). The same form Irteya is very frequent in proper names from Alalah.

-aššura: in some names, we find this element, e.g. Be-ta-aš-šu-ra, Bi-ri-aš-šu-ra, Kal-ma-aš-šu-ra, Ša-i-ma-aš-šu-ra, Šú-na-aš-šú-ra (king of Kizzuwatna). The Assyrian national deity Aššur does not have the final -a, and is normally at the beginning of names. Moreover, Bi-ri-aš-šu-ra is clearly a Mitanni Aryan name (<*Priyāsura), and we have already seen that Assara is used in an Assyrian list of gods before Mazaš, showing a similar form with double sibilant.
However, it is possible that *asura here is not the god, but has the basic meaning of 'lord' applied to human beings, attested also in the Avesta. Bi-ri-aš-šu-ra, for instance, might mean 'dear lord'. The name Ša-i-ma-aš-šu-ra (variant Ša-mi-aš-šu-ra) from Nuzi is interesting, because the first element *šaima- can be compared with the Old Persian *çaima- 'superiority' found in the Elamite U-še-ma, interpreted as *hu-çēma- 'having a splendid superiority' (Tavernier 2007). The Indic form is śreman. So, Ša-i-ma-aš-šu-ra can be interpreted as 'lord of/with distinction'. O'Callaghan observes that he was owner of a horse, and he was father of *Biriazana, a clearly Aryan name that apparently has the word zana, the Avestan, Old Persian and Median equivalent of Sanskrit jana 'person, race, people' (priyajana in Sanskrit means 'dear person').

-atti: Biryatti (bi˗ri˗at˗ti, bi˗ri˗a˗at˗ti), corresponding to Indic priyātithi 'loving guests, hospitable'. The Avestan form is asti, and Mayrhofer reconstructs the Indo-Iranian form as *atHthi. The addition of -i- instead of the laryngeal or schwa between two consonants is typical of Indic, but here there is no trace, as in the other numerous compounds with this element found in Mitanni Aryan names (Aššuratti, Deuwatti, Indaratti, Mittaratti, etc.). It is interesting that the form is also not the same as in Avestan, but rather like the original Indo-Iranian, without aspiration.

Bard-, Birid-: Bartašwa (Nuzi), Biridašwa (Yanuamma) are two names that can be variant of the same one, that has been compared with Sanskrit Bṛhadaśva, meaning 'having high horses'. But bṛhad (from *bhṛǵh-ant) is very different from Birid-. On the other hand, in Avestan we have barǝz-, bǝrǝz(i)- 'high', and in Old Persian the name Bardiya, written B-r-di-i-y-, Bìr-ti-ia in an Elamite document (Tavernier, p.14) comparable with Biridiya found in Megiddo. In the Old Iranian names attested in non-Iranian texts (see here) we have a reconstructed element bṛdi-, including *Brdi-aspa-, "having a tall horse" (Elamite Bir-ti-is-ba, Middle Persian Burjasp).

-mašda: a name is bi-ir-ya-ma-aš-da, interpreted as corresponding to the Vedic Priyamedha (from *Priyamazdha). But we can see that the form mašda is closer to Avestan and Old Persian mazda 'wisdom'. Names with frya- (<*priya-) are common in Iranic, written pi-ri-ia in Babylonian sources (see here). In Khotanese, an Eastern Iranic language, we have even a form with voiced plosive, bria. It is also remarkable that, as noted by E. Hopkins, compounds with priya- are known in the Ṛgveda only in books VIII, I, IX and X, that are the latest ones: we can suspect an Iranic influence (cf. Talageri 2008, The Rigveda and the Avesta. The final evidence, pp.175-183).

mišta-: Mayrhofer connected mištannu 'bounty' with Vedic mīḍhá- “booty, price for fight”, but Avestan mižda, Middle Persian mizd 'wage, price' are closer.

-myašda: a name from the Amarna letters, zi-ir-dam-ia-aš-da, has been interpreted as zṛda-myazda 'one who makes an offering of the heart' (O'Callaghan). This form is very Iranic, in Avestan heart is zǝrǝd-, in Parthian zyrd (in Indic hṛd-). We can compare from the already cited list of Iranic names (Tavernier 2007): "*Zṛdiyavauš (Median) 'with a good heart'. Babylonian: Si-ri-di-a-muš."  Hinz 1975 cites an Assyrian zi-ir-di-ak-ka.
The sound z in Akkadian cuneiform should be an affricate, while Iranic z is a voiced sibilant, but it is also considered a voiced sound (see here), therefore quite close. On the other hand, Babylonian s is considered a voiceless affricate. We can also wonder if we have to do here with a form with voiceless palatal, comparable with the Indo-European root *ḱrd-.  
There is also a curiously similar name *Irdamiasda, written in Elamite Ir-da-mi-ia-is-da, that has been interpreted as *Ṛta-myazda- "ritual banquet". In fact, Avestan miiazda is a sacred offering of food. In the Ṛgveda we have the form miyedha with the same meaning.

panza-: in the list of the number of rounds with the horses, we have pa-an-za-wa-ar-ta-an-na, clearly corresponding to Indo-Iranian pañca 'five'. If z is really a voiced sound, it is interesting that in many Iranic languages the form of the number five has also a voiced affricate or fricative: Persian panj, Parthian panǰ, Bactrian panzo, Pashto pinźë, Kurdish penj.

-šumara: Artaššumara (ar˗ta˗aš˗šu˗ma˗ra) is usually interpreted as *r̥ta˗smara˗ ‘remembering truth’, but not only this name is not attested, human names with -smara are not found in Sanskrit. In Iranic there is a root *hmar-, Av. (š)mar- ‘to remember, recall’, also with sibilant, as in paiti-šmar-, in Middle Persian ōšmār- 'to account, reckon', Khotanese ṣumār-,'to count', Sogdian šm’r ‘to think, consider’, New Persian šumurdan/šumr- 'to count, reckon, consider'. So, not only there is the root but also with preservation of sibilant and followed by -u- vowel in some cases. Tavernier 2007, besides titles of officers 'counting' something (like *dāti-(h)māra-, 'road counter', attested in Elamite in one case as da-at-ti-iš-ma-raš), cites two names with -(h)mara: *Ar(u)vasta(h)mara- and *Zara(h)mara. 

š(u)var-: there is a Palestinian prince named Šu-wa-ar-da-ta. Mayrhofer read it *Suvar-dāta and wrote, in KEWA, that it can be Indo-Aryan. However, in Sanskrit there is no attested name S(u)vardāta. Tavernier (p.215) reports instead a long list of Babylonian and Elamite forms of Iranic *(H)uvar-data-, "given by the Sun god". In fact, *h(u)var- is an Iranic word for the Sun (found e.g. in Avestan huuarə and Middle Persian xwar), corresponding to Sanskrit s(u)var- 'sun, sunshine, light, lustre, heaven', although sūrya is more specific (also for the Sun god) and more common already in the Ṛgveda, and in Mahābhārata we have the name sūryadatta. On the other hand, the name  šu˗ri˗a˗at˗ti strongly suggests *suHri̯a˗atthi˗‘having the Sun god as his guest’, with a form that is more typical for Indic than Iranic, however we have the usual -atti and Mayrhofer himself recognized the existence of *hūrya in Iranic, attested in Sogdian xwyr.

-ta(h)ma: the famous Mitanni king's name Artatama is written in the Amarna letters ar-ta-ta-a-ma(š) (see here). It has been interpreted through -dhāman as in the Vedic ṛtadhāman 'whose abode is truth or divine law', an epithet of Agni found twice in the late Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā. As a name it is used in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa for the 13th Manu. So, it is difficult to consider it as an ancient Indo-Iranian name, I would propose another interpretation, through an Old Persian *Artata(h)ma 'brave through Truth'. A corresponding Median name *Ṛtataxma is attested in the Elamite form Ir-da-tak-ma and similar. Moreover, many names with Old Persian tahma- are written tam-ma- in Elamite cuneiform.

-tarna: Kosyan has found in a cuneiform Hittite text datable to the kingdom of Suppiluliuma and related to the eastern kingdom of Išuwa, the name U-it-tar-na-, identifiable with the Iranian Vidarna, written mi-tar-na in Elamite. Kosyan quotes the translation 'support, security' by R. Kent and 'der auseinander reißt' ('that tears into pieces') by W. Hinz, from *wi-dṛna, participle from dar- 'to support' or dar- 'to tear apart'. The case is interesting not only because it suggests the existence of an Iranic name in the Hurrian kingdom of Išuwa, which had relations with Mitanni, but also because it is suitable to a comparison with the names of the Mitanni kings Šuttarna and Parattarna. Šuttarna was connected with a hypothetical skr. *sudharaṇa 'supporting well', but we see that the Iranic form that we find in Vidarna is closer. In Avestan we also have darǝna 'fortress, residence'.

wašanna: in Kikkuli's treatise, we find wa-ša-an-na-ša-ia translated "of the training area (for chariots)' and interpreted as coming from Indo-Iranian *waźhanasya. In Indic, this root *waǵh- becomes vah-, in Avestan vaz-, giving vaza- 'driving', vazō-raθa 'driving a chariot', vāza- 'draft animal'. There is also an Avestan name važāspa 'having draft horses', and the noun vāša- 'vehicle', but this must come from *wart-, according to the typical Avestan change rt>š that is not proper to Mitanni Aryan, considering the terms with -wartanna. As observed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995: 466): "It is interesting that several of the attested Mitannian Aryan words are semantically closer to their Iranian cognates than to the Indic ones: e.g. wasanna and Sogd. -wzn; -wartanna and Oss. aewwaerdyn." P.468: "Ossetic also preserves the ancient horse-breeding term aewwaerdyn 'horse training' (cf. above on the Mitannian Aryan cognate -wartanna)." P.627: "Mitannian Aryan wasanna 'racecourse', Sogd. 'nxr-wzn 'circle of the zodiac; path of stars' [...]"

Yama: Yama and Yamiuta 'helped by Yama?' (dynast of Guddashuna) are names attested in the Amarna letters, a Yamibanda 'servant or follower of Yama?' was prince of Taanach. In Alalah we have one Yaman (Ia-ma-an). A name Yama(ka) is found also in the cuneiform documents of the Achaemenid period. About Yamibanda, bandaka in Old Persian means 'vassal, follower', in modern Persian banda means servant, and among the Iranic names, we have *Bagabanda 'who serves or supports Baga', written Ba-ka-ban-da in Elamite. The form Yami- might derive from a reduction of the last vowel (the opposite of Avestan Yima, cf. also Persian Jam, Jamshīd), while a feminine Yamī like the Vedic sister of Yama seems unlikely. A cult of Yama as god is not only in India as king of the dead, but also among the Kalash (in the past also the Nuristanis), for whom Imra/Imro (Yama-rāja) is the creator god.

Yašdata: this is the name of a prince from Palestine, written ia-aš-da-ta in Amarna letters. O'Callaghan cites an intepretation from Avestan *yaza-dāta 'given by the sacrifice', but this is not attested. However, a comparable name is found among the Iranic names, written Ia-iš-da-da, interpreted by Hinz and Koch as an Old Persian *yazdāta, and by Tavernier as an extension with the suffix -āta from yašta 'consecrated', a name apparently attested in various forms in Elamite documents. Another similar word is Avestan yaoždāta 'purified', although the first element comes from *yauš 'health, vital force', so we would expect rather *yaušdata.

-zana: among Nuzi names, there is Aššuzana that has been derived from Indo-Iranian *ašwa-canas, that has no attestation in Indic, while there is an Iranic Aspačanā (nom.) 'delighting in horses', attested in Elamite document as Aš-ba-za-na.

Zitra/iyara: this name of a prince in Syria was interpreted by Mironov as Iranian ciθra-yāra, ‘one who owns multifarious crop’, but another interpretation is possible, with parallels in attested Iranian names: ‘born in an excellent year’, from yār ‘year’, a term that has Germanic but not Indian parallels. Tavernier 2007, p.218 and p.363) reconstructs *(H)uyāra- ‘born in a good year’ (Elamite U-ia-ra) and *Xvayāra (Eastern Iranian) ‘idem’ (Elamite Ku-ia-raš). As for ciθra ‘splendid, excellent’, very common in Iranian names, it is rendered in Elamite as Zi-ut-ra (Tavernier 2007,pp.157-158).

Besides the names, there are also the epithets for horses from Nuzi pinkara-nnu and paritta-nnu, that have been compared with Vedic piṅgala 'reddish-brown, tawny, yellow' and palita 'grey': it is interesting that in both cases instead of Indic l we have an r, which is the rule in Old Iranian languages.
Finally, we can also remark that there is no trace of Indo-Aryan aspirated consonants in Mitanni Aryan words, although a way of writing it in cuneiform script could be that found, for instance, in the Hittite name Tudḫaliya.

Thus, we can see that not only many elements have a form closer to Old Persian, Median or Avestan, but also parallels in the Old Persian names attested in cuneiform documents. Forms like bard/birid- and -tama suggest affinity with Old Persian, while others like zird- with Median, Parthian and Avestan. We can suppose that at least two different dialects were present among the Mitanni Aryans, possibly a stage of Persian and Median, being Medes and Persians the most ancient Iranic peoples mentioned in Assyrian sources from the 9th century BC and acting in Western Iran in historical times. However, it is also possible that the people of Mitanni became the Matieni or Matiani mentioned by Herodotus and other ancient historians, placed close to lake Urmia, called 'lacus Matianus' in Latin, in Northwest Iran. The name could be a simple metathesis of the ancient form Maitani or Maiteni found in Nuzi, and we can suppose that the Mitanni Aryans came from that region (where the important site of Hasanlu was found) and a part of them always remained there, also after the end of the Mitanni kingdom. As Diakonoff says (see here): "The term Mittanne, older Maitene, is the name of the dynasty; the country itself was called Hanigalbat. The dynastic name is perhaps connected with Herodotus' Matieni, a tribe living somewhere in the neighbourhood of Lake Urmiyah—a likely place for the origin of the dynasty, and as a place of contacts between Hurrians and Indo-Iranians." In this case, they would be a particular Aryan tribe speaking an archaic dialect with specific affinities with other Iranian languages.

 
Giacomo Benedetti

24/5/2017 (with later additions)

Bibliography:

Hinz, W. 1975. Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Mayrhofer, M. 1965. “Zur kritischen Sichtung vorderasiatisch-arischer Personennamen” Indogermanische Forschungen 70, pp.146-163.

Mayrhofer, M. 1989. “Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen: Uriranisch.” In R. Schmitt (ed.) Compendium linguarum iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

O’Callaghan, R.T. e P.E. Dumont. 1948. Aram Naharaim: A Contribution to the History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Second Millennium B.C. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.

Tavernier, J. 2007. Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. 

The term 'Aryan' and its Semitic cognates

The term 'Aryan' had a strange history. Derived from the Sanskrit ārya 'noble, member of the three higher classes', Avestan airya, Old Persian ariya 'member of the Iranian people', it was identified by European scholars during the 19th century with all the Indo-Europeans, and ethnocentric racial theories (De Gobineau, etc., see here) identified the term, suggesting nobility and superiority, with an idea of a Nordic superior race, although historical Germanic people did not identify themselves with a term like 'Arya'. I have already spoken about this topic in a previous post, but now I come back to it because I would like to share with you an interesting, even astonishing, connection.
A connection with the alleged antithesis of the Aryans, the Semites.

In the wiktionary entry about arya, after various other etymologies of the word, a last theory is mentioned: "Oswald Szemerényi has suggested[1][7] that *arya- is a loanword from an Ugaritic word meaning "kinsmen", from Proto-Afro-Asiatic *ħər ‎(“free, noble”)"

Actually, the Ugaritic word noted by Szemerényi is ’ary 'kinsman', from a different root (*ʔar-), but if we see the meaning of the terms derived from the Afro-Asiatic root proposed above, one is surprised by their close similarity with the meanings of the Indo-European terms. 

From A. Bomhard's Afrasian Comparative Vocabulary (2014):

Proto-Afrasian *ħar- ‘(vb.) to be superior, to be higher in status or rank, to be above or over; (n.) nobleman, master, chief, superior; (adj.) free-born, noble’:

Semitic: Proto-Semitic *ħar-ar- ‘to be free-born, to be or become free, to set free’, *ħar(r)-/*ħur(r)- ‘noble, free-born’ > Hebrew ḥōr ‘noble’; Arabic ḥurr ‘noble, free-born; free, independent’, ḥarra ‘to liberate, to free, to set free, to release, to emancipate’, ḥurrīya ‘freedom, liberty, independence, unrestraint, license’; Aramaic ḥərar ‘to be or become free’; Ugaritic ḥrr ‘free’; Sabaean ḥrr ‘freemen, free-born men’; Geez / Ethiopic ḥarāwi ‘free-born, nobleman’, ḥarāwənnā ‘freedom’, ḥarənnat ‘freedom’; Tigrinya ḥara ‘free’, ḥarənnät ‘freedom’; Tigre ḥara ‘free; freedom’; Amharic hurr ‘free’; Gurage hurru bālä ‘to become free, to set free’. 

Egyptian ḥry ‘chief, master, overseer, superior’, ḥr ‘on, upon, over’, ḥrw ‘upper part, top’; Coptic hi- [xi-] (< *ḥaryaw) ‘on, in, at’, hray [xrai] ‘upper part’.

Omotic: North Omotic: Yemsa / Janjero herašo ‘chief, ruler’, herašo ‘chieftainship, rule’. 

We can see how the concept of freedom is often equivalent with that of nobility in these cognates, and Hebrew ḥōr 'noble' is also translated 'free man' (see here), but the Hebrew term ḥērūt 'freedom' comes from Aramaic/Syriac ḥēr 'free' (see here). In Arabic ḥurr means 'free' (opposed to ‛abd 'slave') but also 'noble, good'. For instance, ḥurr al-kalām refers to a speech of high literary quality, not to 'free speech'. The feminine ḥurrah may simply mean 'lady' and ḥurr 'gentleman'. As F. Rosenthal observes (here): "This usage of ḥurr had its origin in the general human inclination to ascribe all bad qualities to the slave and his miserable lot, and all good qualities to those who were legally free men."

This picture strongly reminds the Indian concept of ārya. Also in the Indian use, the connotation of ārya as freeman is clear. In the Ṛgveda, ārya is opposed to dāsa, that means 'slave, servant', in other Vedic texts to the śūdra, one who belongs to the low class of labourers, those who must serve the three higher classes. In the Arthaśāstra, a treatise on law and politics, the chapter on slaves clearly contrasts the position of ārya with that of slave (dāsa). And the Vedic term arya with initial short a means 'master, lord'. The Pāli (Middle Indian) derived term ayya means 'gentleman, lord, master'.
The connotation of freedom could also better explain the Buddhist use of Pāli ariya, Sanskrit ārya, for a person on the path to spiritual liberation.

In the Iranian context, Avestan airya is opposed to other populations like tuirya, while in Achaemenid inscriptions, we find pārsa:pārsahyā: puça: ariya: ariyaciça, “a Persian, son of a Persian, Arya, of Arya origin.” In the compound ariya-ciça, where in ciça (Avestan čiθra) 'seed, origin, lineage', we recognize a concept typical of a tribal and aristocratic culture. But in the Dēnkard we find also a social connotation: ērīh ut dahyupatīh “nobility and lordship,” contrasts with arg ut bār hač škōhišn, “labor and burdens from poverty.” (see here).

Out of the Indo-Iranian world, we can compare an Irish term that has been derived from the same root as ārya, that is aire, so defined in an Irish dictionary:

"In Laws used to describe every freeman, 'commoner' as well as noble, who possesses an independent legal status. Occasionally, however, aire is used in the more restricted sense of 'noble' (as oppd. to 'commoner'), which is its usual meaning in the literature"

"In more general sense noble, chief..."

The term is derived from Proto-Celtic *aryos, found in Gaulish names with a first element Ario- like Ariomanus. There is also a dubious Runic arjostez interpreted as 'most distinguished' (see here), that would show that the root was present also in Germanic.
In Greek, aristos is the famous term for 'noble' in the social sense, being a superlative with the meaning of 'best, most excellent'. In Greek there is also a prefix ari- used to intensify an adjective, possibly connected with aristos according to Chantraine.
In Hittite, we find arawa, arawanni 'free', in Lycian arawa 'free' matching in the Greek version  of the same text apeleutheroi 'freedmen' (see here). Forms apparently comparable with the Semitic terms, although with the loss of the initial pharyngeal consonant, that is apparently preserved in Hittite in other comparisons of Afro-Asiatic roots starting with the same sound given by Bomhard (who connects arawa with a root *her- and/or *hor- ‘to escape, to flee, to run away’, with a different laryngeal consonant, see here). In Hittite there is also the verb arai 'rise; raise', inf. arauwanzi, in Luwian ari(ya) is interpreted as 'raise', and a stem *ariyatt- as 'elevation, mountain' (see here). There is also the Hittite adjective aru 'high', the verb arriya 'rouse, stir, awaken; be awake', and ar- 'to stand, remain standing, stand up, stand upright'.
In Armenian the imperative ari means 'stand up!', in the verb yaṙnem 'to rise, to arise, to get up, to rise or stand up, to rise again' (see this entry).
The Indo-European root of the Hittite and Armenian verbs according to Rix is *h1rei 'to rise' ("sich erheben"), but for the Armenian verb he proposed also *h3er- 'to start moving (forward)' ("sich in (Fort-) Bewegung setzen"), giving also Sanskrit iyarti 'to raise', Greek or-nymi 'to stir up, make to arise, awaken, arouse' and Latin orior, oriri 'to rise, originate'. In Wiktionary, the meaning of this root is "to move, to stir; to rise, to spring" and it gives as derived term also Greek oros 'mountain', following the theory of Frisk and Chantraine. So, a connection with upward movement and height seems clear.

The idea of movement and rising, if it was present also in the Afro-Asiatic *ħar-, could explain the idea of freedom, although we have seen that also in Arabic the main connotation originally was rather nobility, and in Egyptian apparently there is no trace of the idea of freedom, rather 'to be above'. On the other hand, the social concept of members of the higher community and freedom are often exchanged: it happened to 'frank', whose name comes from the name of the javelin, but indicated the members of the conquering people of the Franks and finally meant 'free', or to the Latin adjective liberalis (coming from liber 'free'), that indicated the theoretical disciplines studied by free men or the generous behaviour of the noble. Also Persian āzād 'free' comes from a word meaning 'born (into the clan), noble'.

I suspect that also the name Hurri of the Hurrians comes from the same root as Semitic *ħar(r)-/*ħur(r)-, indicating the people of the free or noble ones like the Āryas, and the fact that they had an aristocracy with Indo-Iranian names and deities in the Mitanni kingdom can be a sign of their affinity with that cultural world. There is also an interesting study by Fournet and Bomhard about affinities between Hurrian and Indo-European languages, suggesting, in their view, a common ancestor.
In Elamite, the Iranians are called Harriya, with an initial laryngeal sound. On the other hand, in the Elamite dictionary (in German) we find ari as equivalent of Akkadian rugbu 'loft, room on roof, upper storey', that can be related with the same root in the sense of 'to be above'.

Then, the similarity of form and use of the Afro-Asiatic root *ħar/ħur- and IE *Har-ya/o- (with the adjectival suffix -ya/yo-) suggest that these concepts of nobility and freedom developed in a common cultural frame of a society where slavery and social stratification were evolving: this was possible with the Neolithic revolution, that with agriculture required hard labour and produced a surplus that allowed to maintain slaves, and was also associated with conflicts and trade that made possible the acquisition of slaves. The Semitic and the Indo-European cultural worlds appear thus to be parallel developments of the Neolithic of the Fertile Crescent: in this cultural 'tree', the Indo-Iranian branch (differently from the other Indo-Europeans) chose to name itself with the adjective or name connected with that root. As if they did not admit that members of their own people could be slaves (and normally slaves were foreigners), and/or because they believed to be especially noble in their behaviour or lineage.

Thus, the social concept evident in the Semitic, Irish, and also Indian use became ethnic, especially in Iranians, who still use it in the name itself of Iran, while in India it can be used to distinguish speakers of Indo-Aryan languages from Dravidian, Munda and Tibeto-Burman speakers, thus being more linguistic than ethnic, besides the traditional association of ārya with the higher castes and ethical behaviour. 

All this has nothing to do, fortunately, with the disastrous and artificial concept of a Nordic 'Aryan race'. It is time to deepen the ancient relation of the Semites with the 'Aryans', evident in many other terms: the results can question some stereotypical oppositions that may still be present in our received picture of humanity and its history.