Talk:Wheel

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)

Sadly is not that. This user has acknowledged to have a POV which was reflected on several pages and edits.

Gotitbro had no problem with the sources, had a problem with the sources pointing to an earlier Eastern European invention of the wheel, sources were kept(and misrepresented) to claim what this user wanted. Look at the edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheel&oldid=1248293132

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheel&oldid=1248311588

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheel&oldid=1248323450

All edits have in common that Eastern Europe info was deleted while the sources were preserved. Furthermore, Gotitbro misrepresented the sources, since this user reused the sources that suggested an early Eastern European invention to claim the contrary: an early Mesopotamian invention.

Before Gotitbro there were 3 POVs:

1. Wheel could have appeared first in Mesopotamia
2. Earliest wheels were found Eastern Europe
3. Multiple independent invention

Gotitbro deleted POV 2 and used its sources to keep and claim only POV 1 and 3

It looks like this user deletes content related to Eastern Europe(Balkans and Ukraine specifically), see Gotitbro's recent edits in other pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metallurgy&diff=prev&oldid=1248315375

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metallurgy&diff=prev&oldid=1248326917

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1248301824

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1248301824

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillia_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1248287086 Wikain (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Despite the reputable sources acknowledging Mesopotamia, all of them now point to Eastern Europe as being the origin of the wheel, due to archaeological finds and carbon dating, sorry, but no one can just throw aside actual evidence because it doesn't go with their POV. New evidence happens to come about, which is how science and new understandings work, and all recent evidence points to Eastern Europe, so it made no sense to actually remove it and should be added back. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper1945: Please see WP:UNDUE (the developments are very well listed as independent at these places in the same sources that have been cited here) and WP:RECENTISM (these recent claims are novel and there is no general acceptance among sources from where the wheel originated). Read your own sources. Early does not mean origin, cf. history of agriculture on how that might be presented (I think the same is the case with this article now).

There is no consensus among academia for this and we are not going to be airing selective POV.

Your claims that I have edited partially is unfounded when those edits were only an effort to reduce the POV and in certain cases outright fringe research that has been inserted by you in those articles. WP:ANI is that way but I doubt you would prevail there. Gotitbro (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I did read my own source, I don't need you to tell me to. You seem to be quite combatant when it comes to users presenting opposing evidence to your POV. Sorry, but the archaeological evidence back by dating of the artefacts points to Southeastern Europe as the origin of the wheel. If you actually have reliable academic sources beyond just saying so, then provide them instead of pushing biased editing onto other editors. You continue to remove edits regarding European history, and have done so across this page, metallurgy, Cucuteni, etc. Hilarious that you call Harald Haarmann and other actual academics fringe when they're well respected, thanks for the credentials checking. Reaper1945 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My POV? Please stop with these wild accusations.

I never once mentioned Harald Haarmann nor these claims as fringe, RECENTISM is different. Your edits imply a wide acceptance of these recent claims when there is none. There is a reason you were told to revisit these sources, all of which state that the wheel's origins in Mesopotamia could very well be different.

PS: Haarmann is also a linguist, not really relevant here. Gotitbro (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro "Thus, the present evidence for early wheeled transport does not support the traditional belief in the oriental invention of wheel and wagon . . . the late Tripolye culture (around 3700–3500 BC) in the steppe area north-west of the Pontic Sea is the most likely candidate for inventing wheeled-transport".

"Yet in recent decades carbon-dating evidence has lent support to a competing view: that the wheel emerged in Europe first. The earliest-known wheeled object is a clay model of a bull, mounted on four wheels, found in the Carpathian Mountains of western Ukraine and carbon-dated to 3950-3650 B.C.E., hundreds of years before any sign of wheeled vehicles in Mesopotamia."

"The earliest find of a prototype of the potter's wheel, dating to the middle of the 5th millennium, comes from the Danube civilization (Old Europe), from the area of the regional Trypillya culture (western Ukraine) (Videjko 2008: 16). This is the oldest known potter's wheel in the world. Several centuries later, another prototype of the potter's wheel, a pivoted working surface (called a "tournette" by archaeologists), makes its appearance in the context of Mesopotamian civilization (Nissen 1988: 46)."

Yes, the scientific evidence is clearly fringe and untrue, might as well throw the whole scientific method out the window since an editor called it fringe.

P.S. Haarmann is both a linguist and a cultural scientist. Reaper1945 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, read WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. And the misrepresentation of these sources is pretty balatant.

The Oxford Handbook notes exactly what I have ove:

"Thus, the present evidence for early wheeled transport does not support the traditional belief in the oriental invention of wheel and wagon. Full-size wheels and axles from cen- tral and eastern Europe clearly pre-date the earliest wheels from the Near East, and the indirect evidence (models, depictions) does not allow for a temporal gradient indicating diffusion ex oriente. Two alternative hypotheses remain. Innovation could have happened roughly simultaneously, but independently, in several regions (the polycentric model). This could explain the contemporaneous existence of different technical variants (two or four wheels, fixed or rotating axle)."

Mesopotamia is still the traditional view, Eastern Europe is a novel alt proposition which even if it is accepted likely did not influence Near Eastern developments.

Haarmaan likewise continues (though again not really WP:HISTRS):

"The question whether the Sumerians might have adopted the invention of the potter's wheel from the ancient Europeans as a result of idea diffusion or whether the tournette invented independently, remains as yet unanswered. Either alternative seems likely. Economic and cultural contacts existed between the Danube civilization and Mesopotamia. There is evidence from pictures painted on pottery that the ancient Furopeans knee of palm trees that grow south of the Caucasus."

Again exactly what has been stated above, your singleline POV is clearly does not follow the sources you cite. Gotitbro (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Hilarious at you still denying Eastern European origin of the wheel, you're citing WP:RECENTISM without even understanding what that means, using it to further scientific denial. Again, you try to cite one of the sources against me and it still supports what I said, oriental isn't supported anymore, and Tripolye is the most likely candidate, contrary to what you keep claiming, and despite your claim without any actual sources of mainstream Mesopotamia despite evidence hundreds of years before what has ever been found in the Near East, and casually don't even address the other two sources, ironic.

Ironically, your claiming that these "traditional view" is that the wheel originated in Mesopotamia actually has no verifiable evidence as noted by scholar Richard W. Bulliet who states that "insistence on the “inherent historical and technological probability” of Mesopotamia being the birthplace of the wheel has gained wide acceptance, even though no physical evidence confirming the theory has ever been found", and that "Then, starting in 2002, comprehensive comparisons of calibrated carbon-14 dates from the earliest Boleraz sites with dates from similar sites farther south began to show that the Boleraz culture took form no later than 3600 B.C.E., and thus was older than the cultures that supposedly had influenced it. Therefore it now seems that any Late Copper Age diffusion of cultural practices in eastern Europe, including the use of wheels, went from north to south, from Hungary to Greece, rather than vice versa. Piggott’s favored northward diffusion from Mesopotamia seems to be ruled out".

Where are these reliable sources that rule out Eastern Europe and still place Mesopotamia as the origin despite radiocarbon dating saying otherwise? Reaper1945 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop with your abrasive personal attacks. If you cannot fundamentally, positively engage with editors in a content dispute then collaborative enwiki editing is probably not what you should be doing. Start a WP:DR if you want, repeated personal attacks are going to lead to an WP:ANI report.

I cannot access Bulliet, but you again handwave what is in the quote here "has gained wide acceptance" ... "seems to be ruled out". Also a proof of an independent origin at one place does not mean it diffused to Mesopotamia as well (see the quotes above in the other sources that have been listed here).

We already have whatever you have listed here in the article, that you want it to be presented with a specific POV is not what the sources do nor are we going to. Gotitbro (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Positively engage is ironic, after you said I'm pushing a "singleline POV", continue to imply it without evidence, and then implying that I'm unable to clearly read the sources given by stating "Read your own sources" as a command, worthy of WP:ANI report. You are relying on outdated sources which are in contrary to the most up to date evidence regarding the dating of wheeled objects found in Eastern Europe, again, I don't understand how this is an issue, that's the scientific method. If you have sources that can be in parallel with the most up to date sources which is accepted by scholars, as there's four listed and all mention to a great degree how Southeastern Europe is the most likely birthplace of the wheel, then do so. But using WP:RECENTISM is not accurate whatsoever, what is "flimsy" about these scholarly sources cited? Nowhere does it state that scholarly sources are flimsy, this isn't citing news or a journal from an outlet. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You want a specially placed mention of a POV in the body which the sources do not do. I am reading the sources cited here itself not other 'outdated' sources, that you are failing to see what the quotes say is not a content issue (an ANI report over scrutinizing sources?, goodluck).

You appear to be hanging to regionalist POVs and I should warn you that won't do you any good and certainly doesn't for the encyclopedia.

You can start an WP:RfC further, but with what we have a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor is unlikely to be reached. Gotitbro (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Yes because you have this thread just where you want it despite being in disagreement with two editors. The same things you accuse me of for WP:ANI is exactly with what you did of accusing me of pushing my own POV strictly, good luck with that logic. I rely on reliable and scholary sources, which is actually good for an encyclopedia relies on, so that comment has no base in reasoning already. You've yet to provide any reliable sources to the contrary, and continue to go in a loop based off your own thinking instead of real evidence from a scholar, which has yet to be given outside of me having to provide everything. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

By all means continue to ignore the statements of "most likely candidate" and "recent evidence" regarding Southeastern Europe as the origin of the wheel and "ruled out" regarding Mesopotamia because of a lack of physical evidence. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You can continue to ignore what the sources actually say by selective quoting (that the independent origin at these places is just as likely). To change content that has stood for years you need to achieve broader consensus than local disputations (WP:STABLE), and need to put in the effort with RfCs and the like (WP:DRN).

But I doubt your WP:SYNTH edits are going to find anymore support elsewhere. That you have repeatedly inserted regionalist POV into multiple articles is not unnoticeable by other editors: earliest script, earliest civilization, earliest ancestors. Please stop, clinging on to preferred POVs and in certain cases outright fringe is not going to bode well. Gotitbro (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Overusing WP:FRINGE as this point instead of giving a valid argument. You pointed out an academic consensus about Mesopotamia being the origin of the wheel, yet have provided no actual academics sources, yet you could have in the original body of the page if such a "consensus" actually existed. Quit accusing me of ignoring what the sources say, they're right there, we can all see it, and as much as they acknowledge Mesopotamia to some degree or none at all, they all still point to Eastern Europe as the likely origin of the wheel, and point out how the wheel originating solely in Mesopotamia is now untenable due to recent evidence.

"The earliest original finds from Mesopotamia date back to the first half of the 3rd millennium, more than half a millennium later than the first finds from the Kuban region. Based on our current state of knowledge, it can be assumed that the technology of the wagon originated in the northern Pontic region of the Tripolye/Tripyllia and Maikop cultures and quickly spread from there to Central and Southern Europe and Mesopotamia." The idea of the wheel originating in Eastern Europe has existed for well over a decade due to evidence, acknowledged at least back in 2012 in Scientific American, "The earliest images of wheeled carts have been excavated in Poland and elsewhere in the Eurasian steppes, and this region is overtaking Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) as the wheel's most likely birthplace".

Accusing me of POV pushing because I cited the sources is just personal attacking at this point because the new academic consensus and evidence is in direct opposition to whatever it may be that you have an issue with. Calling it fringe when multiple sources by several academics who accept the most recent and reliable evidence is not WP:FRINGE. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between fringe and WP:POVPUSH that is to be made, it is the latter what I dispute based on what the sources state and what you want to present in the article i.e. a primacy of certain regions in the body.

Trawling for newer quotes by selective searching and handwaving the previous sources cited here itself (which just as well include multiple origins) is not how you impute scientific consensus. You are not going to convince other editors with this. Baumer notes that a singular origin is an assumption, and neither does the Scientific American state that this is anyhwere near a consensus view.

Pointing out POV is not a personal attack what constitutes that is directly attacking an editor, which you did multiple times. Gotitbro (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You accusing me of POV pushing is attacking me directly by implying that I'm being dishonest and biased with the adding of information and use of sources. You mention an academic consensus for Mesopotamia, yet have yet to provide an iota of a reliable source that would support it at the very least. WP:RECENTISM isn't valid, as these are scholarly works, and does not come from just one source, there's multiple by multiple academics, and dates back over a decade due to new evidence. Going around in circles if you can't provide a relatively up to date source regarding Mesopotamia and the wheels that would dispute an origin in Eastern Europe or lay claim to an origin in Mesopotamia. I've provided six at this point that all mention a likely Eastern European origin. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you fail to see what is quoted in the sources you yourself cite that again is not a content issue. RECENTISM is valid as is undue POV in light of the fact that you want a primacy of one view in the article (exactly what constitutes POVPUSH). There is no academic consensus for this [single origin dispersion], the sources clearly lay it out so.

If you believe that this discussion is going around in circles, I again urge you to start an RfC (see WP:RFC) or go ahead with a discussion at WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN to gain consensus for your recent additions. I don't believe we are going to be making further headway here for what you want to be inserted into the article (also see WP:ONUS). Gotitbro (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, you can quote me above where I explicitly stated that sources that mention Mesopotamia would be fine to include, if they're not outdated and can be provided for a change, nowhere did I say that only mentioning Eastern Europe was the only valid way. I have merely pointed out the overwhelming evidence that has emerged from over a decade ago pointing to Eastern Europe as the now likely origin of the wheel instead of Mesopotamia, which is further supported by having the oldest radiocarbon dated wheels. The traditional view of Mesopotamia as the single source of the wheel is clearly outdated and not supported by recent sources as previously mentioned, but having it mentioned alongside Europe as it was before is no issue. Again, using WP:ONUS as a reason to exclude the sources is being extremely dishonest to readers of the page when evidence says otherwise. Reaper1945 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The article as it stands already lists the findings in sequence, it does not as of now state any one place to be a single point of origin. The content that you want to be included in the article is already there in an NPOV manner. Gotitbro (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Of interest to wheel historians

See the following research article.

• Yashuv, Talia; Grosman, Leore (2024-11-13). "12,000-year-old spindle whorls and the innovation of wheeled rotational technologies". PLOS ONE. 19 (11): e0312007. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312007. ISSN 1932-6203.

Peaceray (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)