Tucked into the fascinating book Babylonia, the Gulf Region and the Indus: Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Contact in the Third and Early Second Millennia BC (Mesopotamian Civilizations, 2017) is a tidbit that brings to light what are possibly the only two ancient Meluhan names we know of – "Meluhha" being what most commentators think was the ancient Akkadian (Mesopotamian) name for the ancient Indus valley civilization that flourished at the same time. Before looking at some of the implications of this, let us look at the original text by two notable archaeologists, Drs. Steffen Laursen and Piotr Steinkeller (pp. 83-84, also in Studies on Indus Script Conference on Indus Script Mohenjo-daro 2020, p. 241):

--
Nanaza and Samar only known Indus/Meluhhan personal names

Of particular interest to the context of this proceeding of the Indus script are the probable Meluhhan personal name of two royal slaves that worked as "bezoar shepherds" at the royal animal park at Ur. The relevant text has recently been dealt in Laursen and Steinkeller (2017: 83-84) but is mentioned again here because it uniquely provides us with the proper names of two people from the Indus Valley Civilization. The tablet in which the Meluhhan slaves Nanaza and Samar are mentioned come from Urusagrig and is dated to Su-Suen year name 6 (2037-2029 BC). It reads: 1 sila3 i3-gis Na-na-za 1 sila3 Sab-ma-ar ½ sila3 A-li-a-hi dam-a-ni i3-ba lu2 Me-luh-haki-me a-ru-a lugal sipad adara 4-me'

"1 liter of sesame oil (for) Nanaza, 1 liter (of sesame oil for) Samar, (and) ½ liter (of sesame oil for) Ali-ahi, his wife; the oil allotment of the Meluhhans, royal donated slaves, the shepherds of bezoars" (Nisaba 15 371:1-7). (Laursen and Steinkeller
2017: 83).

The following comments on the text are cited from Laursen and Steinkeller 2017:

"There is no reason to doubt that the first of these two individuals, whose names are distinctly foreign, did come from Melubba (or some neighboring region). Importantly, these two personal names are the only evidence available that may pertain to the language of Meluhha. Although there is no way of telling how Nanaza and Samar had ended up in Babylonia, the fact that they were royal slaves suggests that they had been acquired by the crown somewhere in the Gulf, probably as part of the Ur III commercial activity in that region. Interestingly, the name of Samar's wife is Akkadian, indicating that she was a Babylonian native. Another remarkable fact about these individuals is that they took care of bezoars. Since the designation "bezoar shepherd" is completely unique, one cannot but suspect that Nanaza and Samar had been "recruited" owing to their familiarity with these exotic animals, which undoubtedly formed part of a royal animal park." (2017:83-43)
--

A "bezoar," incidentally, is a mountain goat (Image 1) of a kind that once flourished widely throughout West Asia including what is now western Iran and Balochistan (see Image 2 above for current habitat).

According to Wikipedia, "Samar is a Hindi male given name and means "war" from the Sanskrit Samara." The derivation of this term however seems to be from the 11th century, and it unclear whether the same meaning could be assigned to the term three thousand years earlier. "Nanaza" does not seem to have any clear subcontinental origins or relationships to modern names, and is more likely to be found in Africa today. What is clear though is that even if these wild goats were found widely in Akkadian territories, it was people from distant Meluhha who were chosen as the royal shepherds of the creatures, which suggests that they had some sort of recognized skills or were considered prestigious to employ as managers of these creatures.

A second interesting issue is that of slavery - we do not know of slavery in Indus cities (though some have made possible arguments around this for Indus prisoners of war). It was, however, common in Mesopotamia and elsewhere during the Bronze Age and after. Whether or not Samar and Nanaza were slaves gifted from some Indus ruler or entity we cannot presume of course; they may also have been made slaves by the Akkadians, and what exactly "royal slavery" involved then is also unclear. But one cannot rule out the questions that at least arise about the presence of slavery in during in ancient Indus areas during this period.

Until more evidence surfaces on the Indus script or more such inscriptions are deciphered from cuneiform records, this is all we have: tantalizing but far from definitive.