Talk:Wheel

You have to write iran beside middle east

You have to write Iran beside middle east 77.137.67.140 (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not understandable. Please give your full suggestion. Thank You.HJJHolm (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

History section has unscientific and dubious information regarding the Origin of the Wheel

Is there a reason why the History section has the sentence claiming that the Sumerian origin is dubious and it's actually an Indian invention? This is unscientific and just plain incorrect. The Indus civilization did not even exist or enter written history during the period that the archeological evidence tells us the Sumerians had invented a wheel. Between 500-1000 years before any Indian civilization existed.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to suggest an Indian origin, predating the Mesopotamian origin, at all.

Further, the sources cited there do not in any way support this "Indian origin" story at all. I read through them one by one:

• 'Economic Growth' by David Weil discusses economic growth. It cites Mesopotamia has a region where the wheel was invented.
• 'The Wheel: Inventions and Reinventions' by Richard W. Bulliet explicitly claims a Mesopotamian origin. Specifically, Sumer. It even later describes some Greek sources which seem to suggest that the wheel was actually passed from the Mesopotamians to the Indians.
• Man and Wound in the Ancient World by Richard A. Gabriel also cites a Mesopotamian origin. Sumerian specifically. It describes introduction of new technologies including for warfare. India is described as a much younger civilization (thousands of years difference).

Ultimately, the Indian origin narrative is dubious, ahistorical and unscientific. The peer reviewed research and archaeological evidence tells us that the origin is Mesopotamian. It's irrelevant whether the Indian civilization invented it independently (there's very little evidence to support this) as it should be stated that the Mesopotamians invented it first.

I have provided 7 of hundreds of scientific and academic papers on this topic, below:

• "Wheels and Axles in Ancient Mesopotamia: Part 1" by E. Ascalone and A. Lazaro from the journal Antiquity, Volume 77, Issue 296, December 2003.
• "The Invention and Diffusion of the Wheel: Evidence and Interpretations" by D. W. Anthony from the journal Archaeology, Volume 55, Number 4, July/August 2002.
• The Origin and Spread of the Wheel in Prehistoric Eurasia" by D. W. Anthony from the journal Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume 26, 1997.
• "The Earliest Wheels: History, Evolution, Adaptation, and Distribution" by P. R. Biagi from the book The Wheel: Inventions and Reinventions, edited by R. Heitzmann and S. Stoddart, Berg Publishers, 2002.
• "The Wheel and Axle Concept in Ancient Mesopotamia" by I. Finkel from the journal Iraq, Volume 56, 1994.
• "The Wheel in China" by E. C. Bridgman from the journal Technology and Culture, Volume 1, Number 4, 1960. This article provides an overview of the archaeological evidence for the development of the wheel in China, including the evidence for its introduction from neighboring regions.
• "New Insights into the Wheel and Axle in the Ancient Near East" by B. Poulsen and E. Rova from the journal Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 83, Issue 1, March 2020.

This should be changed immediately.

OnceAndDone (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please regard this by far newer and up-to-date source: * The Earliest Wheel Finds, their Archeology and Indo-European Terminology in Time and Space, and Early Migrations around the Caucasus. by Holm, Hans J. J. G HJJHolm. (2019). With six mostly coloured pictures and graphs, and a table of 130 oldest wheel finds with their miniatur pictures. 309 References (of which 28 in Cyrillic). [Series Minor No. 43]. Budapest: ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPÍTVÁNY. ISBN 978-615-5766-30-5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Hans J. J. G. Holm. I added your username to your comment (I checked the page edit history) to add context to your post. Given that you did not sign off and given that you are anonymously citing your own literature in this article. Just so there's no confusion as to any potential bias here. What is the claim you are making exactly? Provide excerpts and a scientific dialogue, please. Just to be clear, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the Mesopotamians obtained the wheel from the Indians, nor that the Indians invented it before them. I cited a 2020 peer-reviewed work (more recent than your book) to demonstrate this. What is claimed in the article is palpably fallacious. Looking forward to hearing from you. - OnceAndDone (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think he was advertising his book.

On researchgate there is a map showing the date ranges, types and qualities of cart wheel evidence from said book. They cluster around Europe and the Middle east. Only showing up much later in the Indus region. A useful starting point for debate.

Sadly, the information and names behind each find are hidden within his book. Making independent assessment harder.

I'd buy it if it were in stock since it interests me.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-Chronological-geographical-and-typological-distribution-of-wheel-finds-Hans_fig1_338801525 Idolatrous (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with OnceAndDone and have edited the article accordingly. Ikuzaf (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adevroy501 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lee3629, Nadpnw, Agupta703.

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Early wheel

A wheel fastened to its axle with a manufactured nut might suggest early wheels, but plainly is not itself "early." The wheel shown is on a timber wagon in Australia and therefore (assuming it was made there) postdates 1788. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:F5CC:16FA:59B7:5882 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

@Wikain: This revert is unexplained and untenable. There is no consensus among sources for a single location from where the wheel originated (likely because it did not originate at any one place). The Eastern European origin is noted in the sources but not as the sole place from which later developments follow nor is given undue placement within these sources which list it among others such as Mesopotamia. You also restored non-RS blogs and magazines which should not be used. Gotitbro (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You said we were both POVing, but sources note both, that the earliest archaeological evidence is in one place and also that it may have originated in several places. You deleted the first thing while keeping the later. I redacted and kept both POVs. Did you even read my edit?

Also the sources are the same you used for your claims. Wikain (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Giving prominence to places based on datings of archaeological finds when the text notes that this isn't definitive is POV. Mesopotamia is listed in virtually all 3PARTY sources (encyclopedias et. al.), Eastern Europe was also only recently inserted into this article. To imply that suddenly consensus has changed among scholars, by unduly placing the archaeological finds at the top, due to a few recent sources would be violative of WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Gotitbro (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

-"placing the archaeological finds at the top"

Well usually physical evidence is placed usually first in wikipedia and elsewhere, followed by speculations and theories. I kept both POVs you deleted one, that's worse than placing a POV first followed by a "however" and the other POV. I don't care where the archaeological evidence is in the paragraph as long as is not removed, which you did.

Also the "blog post" is a by PhD in archaeology. Wikain (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no enwiki policy for physical evidence as such, intro paras are supposed to be that - introductory. The Mesopotamian devolopments are usually cited to be independent of other developments, so I am not sure why is it being unduly promoted when the rest of the section already goes in detail about the archaeological details in different locations later.

And FWIW, the purported Eastern European origins were added only some time ago by a now blocked editor, including the claim that the Mesopotamian origins are only listed in older sources, which is false as most recent encyclopedias and technological historical sources still do.

And blogs are not-RS not matter who has written them (PhDs are barely acceptable regardless unless specifically notable), neither is the Aramco magazine a historical RS [which by the way notes that the EE theory is very novel and opposed to the traditional Mesopotamian one].

Also read WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE on why your placements are unacceptable. Gotitbro (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh I get it now. You should have started there, like you should have done in metallurgy. You wanted to remove redundancy, that's fine. Wikain (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Harald Haarmann is a respectable source regarding archeology, the only real issue here is that he published in a blog site and that has caused tension, otherwise he is valid as a source regarding the wheel. Reaper1945 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)