Anatolian and Indo-Aryan: some pointers on chronology

"...the Anatolian documents, present the following Indo-Aryan forms.
It will be observed that in several forms the Hurrian suffix --ni/nu
is appended. The forms are given below with their Sanskrit cognates
shown in parenthesis:
was~annas~aya 'of stadium (Skt vasanasya)
aratiyanni 'part of cart' (Skt rathya + Hurrian -ni)
asuwaninni 'stable-master' (Skt as'va-ni + Hurrian -ni)
babrunni 'red-brown' (Skt babhru + Hurrian -nu)
baritannu 'golden yellow' (Skt bharita + Hurrian 'nu)
pinkarannu 'red-yellow, pale' (Skt pingara, cf. pin~jara + pin:gala +
Hurrian -nu)
urukmannu 'jewel' (Skt rukma + Hurrian -nu)
zirannu 'quick' (Skt ji_ra + Hurrian nu)
makanni 'gift' (Skt magha + Hurrian -ni)
maryannu 'young warrior' (Skt marya + Hurrian -nu)
matunni 'wiseman' (cf. mati 'wisdom'; mata 'opinion')

Besides the following names are also of Indo-Aryan origin:
s~utarna (Skt sutaran.a or sutra_n.a)
Pars~as~atar (Skt pras'astra)
S`aus~s~attar (Skt sus'astra or saus'astra)
Artadama (Skt r.tadha_ma)
Tus~ratha (Skt tus.-ratha)
mativasa (Skt mati-Va_ja)
Artamna (Skt r.tamna)
Bardas~va (Skt Vr.dh-as'va)
Biryas~ura (Skt. vi_rya-s'u_ra or vi_rya-su_ra)
purus~a (Skt Purus.)
S~aimas~ura (Skt sima-su_ra or saimasu_ra)
S~atava_za (Skt s'atava_ja)

A linguistic analysis of all these Indo-Aryan borrowed forms in
Anatolian, as quoted above, depicts a language of the following
characteristics.
1. The language is conclusively Indo-Aryan. It is not Iranian nor
Indo-Iranian.
2. The following linguistic features reveal that the language belongs
to an early Middle Indo-Aryan stage or to a transitional stage
between Old Indo-Aryan and Middle Indo-Aryan.
Dissimilar plosives have been assimilated; e.g. satpa > satta...
Semivowels and liquids were not assimilated in conjuncts with the
plosives, semi-vowels or liquids like first MIA; e.g. vartana >
wartana; rathya >aratiya-, vi_rya > Birya-, Vardhas'va > Bardas'va
Nasals wree also not assimilated to plosives/nasals unlike first MIA
and like OIA...rukma > urukma-nnu; r.tamna > artamna
Anaptyxis was quite frequent; e.g Indra > Indara, smara > s~umara..

Therefore, a linguistic analysis of the borrowed Indo-Aryan forms,
attested in the Anatolian records, does not leave any doubt that the
forms are Indo-Aryan. There is no scope to think that they are
Iranian or Indo-Iranian...Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is comparable to
this language to a great extent...Middle Indo-Aryan stage of the
language has already started by 2000 BCE and Old Indo-Aryan belongs
to much earlier date. Thus the date of RV, therefore, goes much
beyond 2000 BCE."(pp. 9-10)