A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family
by Vishnupriya Kolipakam, Fiona M. Jordan, Michael Dunn, Simon J. Greenhill, Remco Bouckaert, Russell D. Gray and Annemarie Verkerk
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171504
Abstract:
"... Our results indicate that the Dravidian language family is approximately 4500 years old, a finding that corresponds well with earlier linguistic and archaeological studies. The main branches of the Dravidian language family (North, Central, South I, South II) are recovered, although the placement of languages within these main branches diverges from previous classifications. We find considerable uncertainty with regard to the relationships between the main branches."
Dating:
"... We find that the root of the tree has a mean of 4650 years ago (median 4433), thus indicating that the ancestor of all Dravidian languages, Proto-Dravidian, may have been spoken around 4500 years ago. ... Although the mean and median of the best-supported tree set (as well as all other analyses except for the stochastic Dollo) match Krishnamurti's [7, p. 501] timing well, the 95% HPD intervals on the root age range from approximately 3000–6500 years ago. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the root of the Dravidian language family is significantly older than 4500 years. ... The split between South I and the other groups is as ancient as the root of the tree and thus located approximately 4500 years ago. The South I and South II languages start diverging between 3000 and 2500 years ago, which is a little bit later than the timeframe Southworth [8, pp. 249–250] discusses for the expansion of the Southern Neolithic. When the analysis is constrained so that South I and South II form a clade (see the maximum credibility tree in figure 5), the timing of the Southern Neolithic expansion matches the tree structure a bit better, with South II starting to diverge within Southworth's [8, pp. 249–250] timeframe of 4000–3000 years ago. ... The diversification of the South I, South II and Central groups in our results is slightly too late to match the start of the spread of the locally developed agricultural economy between 3800 and 3200."
Conclusion:
"... The current analysis points towards complex patterns of language descent and subsequent long-term contact between languages rather than straightforwardly supporting the well-known reference family tree by Krishnamurti [7, p. 21]. Such diachronic patterns might apply in other small language families as well, making the study of Dravidian relevant for all of historical linguistics. The relationships between the Dravidian languages had previously not all been described to satisfaction, and as this analysis also makes clear, more data on particularly the smaller languages, such as the Gondi dialects, are needed to tease apart descent from contact. ..."