Editing Sino-Tibetan languages (section)

===Homeland===
There has been a range of proposals for the Sino–Tibetan [[urheimat]], reflecting the uncertainty about the classification of the family and its time depth.{{sfnp|Handel|2008|p=423}} Three major hypotheses for the place and time of Sino–Tibetan unity have been presented:{{sfnp|Zhang|Yan|Pan|Jin|2019|p=112}}
* The most commonly cited hypothesis associates the family with the Neolithic [[Yangshao culture]] (7000–5000 years BP) of the [[Yellow River]] basin, with an expansion driven by [[millet]] agriculture.<ref>Archaeological evidence for initial migration of Neolithic Proto Sino-Tibetan speakers from Yellow River valley to Tibetan Plateau. Li Liua,, Jian Chen, Jiajing Wang, Yanan Zhao, and Xingcan Chen. Edited by Melinda Zeder, Smithsonian Institution, Frederick, MD; received July 12, 2022; accepted October 22, 2022. PNAS. https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2212006119</ref> This scenario is associated with a proposed primary split between [[Varieties of Chinese|Sinitic]] in the east and the [[Tibeto-Burman languages|Tibeto–Burman languages]], often assigned to the [[Majiayao culture]] (5300–4000 years BP) in the upper reaches of the Yellow River on the northeast edge of the [[Tibetan plateau]].{{sfnp|Zhang|Yan|Pan|Jin|2019|p=112}} For example, [[James Matisoff]] proposes a split around 6000 years BP, with Chinese-speakers settling along the Yellow River and other groups migrating south down the [[Yangtze]], [[Mekong]], [[Salween River|Salween]] and [[Brahmaputra River|Brahmaputra]] rivers.{{sfnp|Matisoff|1991|pp=470–471}}
* [[George van Driem]] proposes a Sino–Tibetan homeland in the [[Sichuan Basin]] before 9000 years BP, with an associated taxonomy reflecting various outward migrations over time, first into northeast India, and later north (the predecessors of Chinese and Tibetic) and south (Karen and Lolo–Burmese).{{sfnp|van Driem|2005|pp=91–95}}
* [[Roger Blench]] argues that agriculture cannot be reconstructed for Proto–Sino–Tibetan.{{sfnp|Blench|2009}} Blench and Mark Post have proposed that the earliest speakers of Sino–Tibetan were not farmers but highly diverse foragers in the eastern foothills of the [[Himalayas]] in [[Northeast India]], the area of greatest diversity, around 9000 years BP.{{sfnp|Blench|Post|2014|p=89}} They then envisage a series of migrations over the following millennia, with Sinitic representing one of the groups that migrated into China.{{sfnp|Blench|Post|2014|pp=90, 92}}
Zhang et al. (2019) performed a computational phylogenetic analysis of 109 Sino–Tibetan languages to suggest a Sino–Tibetan homeland in northern China near the Yellow River basin. The study further suggests that there was an initial major split between the Sinitic and Tibeto–Burman languages approximately 4,200 to 7,800 years ago (with an average of 5,900 years ago), associated with the Yangshao and/or Majiayao cultures.{{sfnp|Zhang|Yan|Pan|Jin|2019|p=112}} Sagart et al. (2019) performed another phylogenetic analysis based on different data and methods to arrive at the same conclusions to the homeland and divergence model but proposed an earlier root age of approximately 7,200 years ago, associating its origin with millet farmers of the late [[Cishan culture]] and early Yangshao culture.{{sfnp|Sagart|Jacques|Lai|Ryder|2019|pp=10319–10320}} Both of these studies have been criticized by Orlandi (2021) for their reliance on lexical items, which are not seen as robust indicators of language ancestry.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last=Orlandi |first=Georg |date=2021 |title=Once again on the history and validity of the Sino-Tibetan bifurcate model |url=https://jolr.ru/index.php?article=310 |journal=[[Journal of Language Relationship]] |volume=19 |issue=3–4 |pages=263–292}}</ref>
{| align = center
|{{Multiple image
| image1 = The origin and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language family.png
| caption1 = Hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to Sagart et al. (2019){{sfnp|Sagart|Jacques|Lai|Ryder|2019|pp=10319–10320}}
| image2 = Homeland and dispersal of the Sino-Tibetan languages (2).svg
| caption2 = Hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to van Driem (2005){{sfnp|van Driem|2005|pp=94–97}}
| image3 = Homeland and dispersal of the Sino-Tibetan languages.svg
| caption3 = Hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to Blench (2009){{sfnp|Blench|2009|p=14}}<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Blench|first1=Roger|last2=Post|first2=Mark|date=2010|title=NE Indian languages and NE Indian languages and the origin of Sino the origin of Sino-Tibetan|url=https://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Sino-Tibetan/Blench%20ICSTLL42%20Chiang%20Mai%20paper.pdf |access-date=2021-10-28|website=rogerblench.info|page=20}}</ref>
| alt1 = Map of the hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to Sagart et al. (2019)
| alt2 = Map of the hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to van Driem (2005)
| alt3 = Map of the hypothesised homeland and dispersal according to Blench (2009)
| width1 = 280
| width2 = 294
| width3 = 294
}}
|}