A second phylogeny puts the same family at roughly six thousand years

Assembled from 23 blocks · 1 evidence · 15 related

1. Story
2. Zhang and colleagues published a phylogenetic analysis of Sino-Tibetan in the same year, likewise locating the origin in northern China but obtaining a root age of the order of six thousand years before present, roughly a millennium younger than the other study. The two results agree on geography and disagree on chronology by an interval longer than most of recorded history, on the same family, using nominally similar methods and different datasets and calibrations. The disagreement is recorded here as it stands rather than adjudicated.
3. Knowledge
4. Bayesian phylogenetic dating of language families
5. Sino-Tibetan
6. A second phylogeny puts the same family at roughly six thousand years
7. Connections
8. A dated phylogeny puts Sino-Tibetan at roughly seven thousand years
9. Sino-Tibetan
10. Bayesian phylogenetic dating of language families
11. The comparative method
12. A dated phylogeny puts Sino-Tibetan at roughly seven thousand years
13. A second phylogeny puts the same family at roughly six thousand years
14. The comparative method
15. Glottochronology
16. A language tree is tested against a settlement chronology
17. A Bayesian phylogeny dates Indo-European to the Anatolian Neolithic
18. Phylogeography puts the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia
19. A hybrid model is proposed for the Indo-European origin
20. A dated phylogeny puts Sino-Tibetan at roughly seven thousand years
21. A second phylogeny puts the same family at roughly six thousand years
22. Evidence
23. Supports the reported Sino-Tibetan root age of the order of six thousand years before present, roughly a millennium younger than the companion study of the same year, on the same family. V55 verification basis: this session had no access to any source — WebFetch was egress-blocked for every host attempted and the WebSearch budget was exhausted before authoring — so the cited work was not retrieved, and no page, volume or figure quoted from it was re-checked. The age is given as an order of magnitude; volume from standing knowledge, page range omitted rather than guessed.