Talk:Wheel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial text

The wheel is often viewed as the quintessential invention, and was most likely invented in all ancient civilizations, although not always used.

How true is this? From what I know, wheels as means of transportation were invented around the middle east around 4000 BC and spread outward from there. The concept is neither as obvious as one might think, nor as useful (eg without roads slider bars do a better job moving heavy things around).

---

Where is the evidence of South American wheels?

There are wheeled things we suppose to be TOYS - wheeled dogs in Mexican contexts, wheeled Llamas in Incan. The usual reason given for the failure ot use them on carts is that usable roads would have been too hard to build or too uncommon, which I for one buy for the Andes but not for Central Mexico. --MichaelTinkler

---

Also - I've added a bit about how wheels transform forces, and I think that when one talks about a wheel as a simple machine it is that that one is referring to, not the transformation between linear and rotary motion (which is really a special case of a friction gear when you think about it). Should this maybe be changed?

Yes it should! Apart from being gobbledygook it should be on a page called Wheel and Axle. I'm about to try and make this change. hope it works.

---

Aw, come ON people! Someone must have something to say of the history of the wheel! I had an exceedingly short go, but that was deemed inappropriate even though i framed it rather diffusely. A more fact filled history must be out there somewhere. Or are we inventing the wheel again? :-) --Anders Törlind

I'm all for history and don't object to the circa 4000 BC part at all for 'earliest commonly recognized,' and then let other cultures invent it for themselves in a dependent clause. --MichaelTinkler

---

I got rid of the "third-most-important invention after language and fire clause," because language was never "invented" by humans. --Alex S 04:27, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Language not an invention? Are theories inventions? Are World Views inventions? Is a metaphor an invention? An analogy? What would you call them then? So far as I am concerned a metaphor or analogy is clearly an invention. Aren't they clearly based on the invention of language? -- Geo Swan 02:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Am I the only one that finds is strange that the only external links are to bacteria pages? (valid though that may be) Seems very unbalanced. The whole notion is a bit dodgy, the wheel in question is more like a cog which I suppose is type of wheel but... Also, did bacteria really invent the wheel, that's like saying an animal invented the brain, bacteria may have evolved the cog wheel but not invented it. I'd really like to take the whole reference out, it's cute but not appropriate --Bob Palin 02:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

"Recent" (april 2002) excavations in the Ljubljana (which lies in Slovenia) marsh have brought up a wheel with an axle that is dated somewhere around 3250-3150 a.Chr.n (=BC). --Matija Šuklje, 16 Oct 2004

---

I'm going to make some changes again based on my view that the page should be about the wheel as an aid to transport, and that other (different) things called wheels should be kept separate to avoid confusion.

Also I will change (my own) explanation of how the wheel works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbowley (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree in that it may be likely that many ancient civilisations would used implements like wheels around the same general period but documented evidence may say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.231.50 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice of intention to overhaul

I find this description of the wheel to be very lacking. The writer seems to think that dry equations actually impart a real knowledge of what is happening mechanically. Far from it. Also, the history section was much better about a year ago. I'm planning a total rewrite. If anyone has much to say for this version, please speak up in the next few days. JDG 05:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

JDG, I agree with you that the article could use a good overhaul. One thing which comes to mind for inclusion, is a counter to the view commonly expressed or implied that societies which lacked significant use of technology associated with the wheel are thereby deficient in some regard, and that the possession of wheel-based technologies necessarily confers some crucial advantage over those without it. Many (primarily non-academic) references overplay this distinction.

As an efficient transport technology, the wheel requires not only the axle and vehicle chassis, but a suitable domesticated draught animal for propulsion, not to mention suitable terrain. Such animals were completely lacking in the pre-Columbian Americas, pre-colonised Australia, etc., and failure to explore this technology further should hardly be surprising. Even so, many impressive civilisations and edifaces were constructed without its substantive aid, such as the Egyptian pyramids, Mayan, Aztec, Zapotec and Inca cities, Great Zimbabwe, the Easter Island statues, etc etc.

A case could be made that applications of the technology, such as for chariots in warfare, provided an advantage to the possessors (eg, Hittites v. Egyptians). However, whilst undeniably a substantial and largely beneficial technology, the extent to which it has aided the development of those who employed it will need to be mapped out with some care. --cjllw | TALK 02:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Authentication for The Iranian wheel picture

In reply to Dab's objection that the spoked Iranian wheel dated in the 2nd Millenium BCE may not be authentic, to his request, I visited National Museum of Iran, and took the 3 pictures below.

The wheel in display at the Museum

Zooming in on the Label

The Label of the wheel.

The curator of the museum verified that the spoked wheel's date had been determined by Carbon dating among other techniques, and that it had been excavated in Susa. The wooden parts of course were added for display. But the rest is made of an alloy of Copper and Tin.--Zereshk 14:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, I asked because you had labelled the wheel "2000 BC". Now of course you realize that "late 2nd millennium" means "just before 1000 BC", i.e. almost 1000 years younger. That date is completely unproblematic and I accept it without batting an eyelid. It isn't even particularly early, chariots were around in Mesopotamia since 1600 BC or so. But thanks for checking + taking the picture! dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always happy to verify. Can you please see to it that Wheel Iran.jpg is updated? It's still displying the old picture I put up.--Zereshk 15:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it's a cache issue. It will appear. But why did you overwrite the old image? This one will have to be cropped. Where did you get the one without background? Incidentially, I am surprised that were wheels with metal rim in 1000 BC. But surely, parts of the wood must be preserved (otherwise, how would they have Carbon dated it?) Maybe just the central spokes are replacement, and the rim is the original wood? dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hey, and if they let you walk around with your camera in the museum like that, I am sure you can do a whole lot of other GFDL'd images of notable artefacts for Wikipedia, hint hint, ;o) dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Is it too late to visit there again and snap some more photos? I hope not. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are allowed at close range, provided no flashes are used. I'll visit the museum again on my next trip to Iran. I'll see if I can get special permission to visit their non-exhibit collection (as I have done before).--Zereshk 10:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some linguistic evidence

JP Mallory writes:

Tomas Gamkrelidze and Vyachislav Ivanov, interestingly enough, have noted that one of our words associated with wheeled vehicles, Proto-Indo-European *k^wek^wlo bears striking similarity to the words for vehicles in Sumerian gigir, Semitic *galgal, and Kartvelian *grgar. With the putative origin of wheeled vehicles set variously in the Pontic-Caspian, Transcaucasia or to Sumer, we may be witnessing the original word for a wheeled vehicle in four different language families. Furthermore, as the Proto-Indo-European form is built on an Indo-European verbal root *k^wel—'to turn, to twist', it is unlikely that the Indo-Europeans borrowed their word from one of the other languages. This need not, of course, indicate that Indo-Europeans invented wheeled vehicles, but it might suggest that they were in some for of contact relation with those Near Eastern languages in the fourth millennium B.C. —James P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, Thames and Hudson, 1989, p. 163.

The Sumerian GalGal could also derive from Indo European Gala, Gal, Gla,... which means "throat, voice" (for example: seaGUL, Golos(Glas), Glagolica (Slavic), Gala (Sanskrit), Celt, Ghaul,... which meant "speakers" (birds). Tell me 1 reason WHY should ALL words and ALL cultural elements "derive from Semitic" nonsense? Because Bible says so? Oldest wheel (yet) was discovered in Europe (Slovenia); is is at least 1000 years older than any wheel in Sumeria or middle east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.118.168 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We are not so much speaking of the invention of the wheel as we are of wheeled vehicles. Toys supporting very little weight are one thing; a practical vehicle that can support its own weight as well as cargo is something entirely different. --FourthAve 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cart vs wagon

Any discussion of wheeled vehicles has to carefully distinguish between carts (one axle, two wheels) and wagons (two axles, four wheels). The distinction is recorded in the Proto-Indo-European language, and descends into all branches of the language family. American English has mucked things up by terming automobiles and railway carriages (either passenger or freight) as 'cars'; 'car' originally referred to a cart-like vehicle, and in artistic contexts (painting, sculpture), often a chariot. --FourthAve 10:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one large wheel made from wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.33.135 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology

I think you should be more consistent at updating articles of some of the more important inventions in our history.I realy hope someone will sort things right. Oldest wooden wheel was found in Europe! http://slonews.sta.si/index.php?id=677&s=29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.165.43 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be evidence that wheeled vehicles were invented in Europe first, and just maybe, in Northern Europe:

• The GrN dates and the Flintbek age seem to suggest that wheeled vehicles were invented in Europe together with the ard, ox-team and yoke, not in the Near East. But the data are still scarce and the BR III DIC-dates raise interesting questions. (For complete article see: The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. Antiquity 73, 1999:778-790) [1]
• See also the picture of the spectacular pot excavated at Bronocice, Poland, which shows apparently the very first depiction of a wheeled vehicle (here, a wagon) anywhere.

I find this as shocking as I imagine you are. --FourthAve 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The origin of the wheel should be traced back to a more primitive form, such as a rolling log supporting a heavy movong object or platform. Another possibility is a round stone used as a primitive ball bearing supporting an object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.117.210 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Axles

D.Q. Adams and JP Mallory do the article "Axle" in EIEC. They note there were two types of axles. The more common was a fixed axle where the wheel rotated on it; this is found in Mesopotamia, the Pontic-Caspian steppe, NE Europe. The second type had the axle rotate with the wheel; this attested in Switzerland and southern Germany, and seems to have once been more widespread, to have been replaced by the first type.

The most "abundant evidence" for early wheeled vehicles is from the steppe at the foot of the Caucasus; see Kura-Araxes culture and the Maykop culture, both of which most likely had Indo-European speaking components.--FourthAve 15:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read in academic works that the earliest spoked wheel was found in the Netherlands. The most likely origin for the wheel was developed from rollers fitted on sleighs to cross the tundra and steppe in Ukraine and under the now flooded Black Sea. What really supports the invention of the wheel is the expansion of people from the Ukraine to Ireland (Celts) and the northern borders of China (Tocharians et al). A similar expansion moved south (Arians vis. White skinned) and the only realistic explanation is that these people had both the wheel and possibly wheat or other grain cultivation. It created a need to expand to prevent over population. This is a theme that Middle Eastern writers have alluded to from ancient times up to the last movement the Turks. There is considerable evidence of advanced cultures in the Ukraine and Caucuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.29.65 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Symbol

We may need Wheel (symbol) for those winged wheels and chakras. Weren't wheels taboo in Tibet before the Maoist invasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.143.131 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

reason for not using wheels

from above

Where is the evidence of South American wheels?

There are wheeled things we suppose to be TOYS - wheeled dogs in Mexican contexts, wheeled Llamas in Incan. The usual reason given for the failure ot use them on carts is that usable roads would have been too hard to build or too uncommon, which I for one buy for the Andes but not for Central Mexico. --MichaelTinkler

you all so need a central empire of some sort to pay and mantane for the roads,it wasn't the case in central mexico at the time 1 to use wheels you need a flat surface(rare to existe by it self) in generaly a road 2 a central empire is needed to bealt them and maintain them 3 the empire must have sufichient resources and technology to build them(the incas didn't have buldosers on ther mountens,the romans at my nolge did not buld roads on mountens)

so in general at historic times it was easyer to not use wheels.

that good unaf?do somebody wants to add this whith corect english --Ruber chiken 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It could be that roads are needed for wheeled carriages, but to build roads wheeled carriages must exist otherwise the roads are not so useful, and walk paths are enough. Central America have wet rain forests and I beleive it is not so easy to build roads there good enough for carriages. --BIL (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

=> It does not follow that wheels weren't developed by indigenous Americans because they had no draft animals. When I push my grocery cart around at Safeway, I don't have a horse or ox or elephant or dog to pull it either. Pedestrian utility devices were doubtless used before vehicles in those cultures where the wheel took root, but Native Americans did not embrace their use. Nor did they adopt the potter's wheel, using clay coil fabrication to this very day. They must have had a reason.User:LarryPerkins1 — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bronocice pot - Waza z Bronocic

www.neolit.prv.pl

The vase from Bronocice - a ceramic pot with incised carts, discovered in 1974 during the archaeological excavation of a large Neolothic settlement in Bronicice by the Nidzica River, ca. 50 km to north east of Krakow (the Pinczow, Land District). The excavations were carried out between 1974 and 1980 by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and the State University of New York at Buffalo (USA). The ornament on the pot shows a symbolic depiction of trees, fields, roads and a river. The most important component of the decoration are five rudimentary representations of a four-wheeled cart. The pot from Bronocice has been dated by a physical chemistry method (radiocarbon dating) to 3520 B.C. It is the oldest representation of a cart (or a wheeled vehicle) in the world.

The Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Kraków Branch, ul. Slawkowska 17, phone +48(12) 4222905,

www.archeo.pan.krakow.pl

Actually, another source says:

The excavators accept an age range spanning these results, about 3500-3350 BCE.

The article should be corrected accordingly. Devijvers (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

spherial wheels

Wha tabout these? They have no entry, no matter how small in this article... Why? They are a special variation seen in some furniture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.78.110 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European

It's been some time since I cracked a linguistics text book, so I could be wrong on this. Proto-Indo-European was never actually spoken by any culture. It is a theoretical language which has been contructed by linguistic typologists and historians by looking at groups of modern languages and then imagining what the common origin of them might have been. To say that the word 'wheel' (or any modern word) derives from it is inaccurate. This statement should probably be revised --Paul Cnudde

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.176.55.40 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Merging "Wheel and axle" and "Wheel", discuss.

I do not believe these two articles should be merged as they discuss two totally different things that use the same word.

Wheel and axle: The simple machine of a a wheel and an axle turning (at this stage it is unimportant which is making which turn) which leads to another connected wheel and axle to also turn.

Wheel: The wheel as we know it used for motion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GBobly (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistency

"History of the wheel and axle" says first The wheel reached India and Pakistan with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BC then The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BC. Which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

"The wheel was invented in 44 b.c. by Ruben Rehr a well known American from Accent, Alabama." I don't think this is true. o_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.66.92 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Africa

ha! so it didn't appear in Africa until colonialism! not even the egyptians had it --89.181.17.93 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptians had chariots. Admittedly I don't know whether nor when they invented it by themselves or adopted it from others. --217.233.202.164 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Diagram out of place?

The wheel on a ramp diagram at the top of the article seems out of place. It is somewhat related to the article, but such an important position should be occupied by a simple picture of a wheel -- shouldn't it? ThreeE 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there should be a picture of a simple wheel at the top of the article.

I removed the diagram you refer to for that reason, and because it does not explain the function of a wheel. The diagram showed why a round object rolls downhill, it did not explain why a wheel is useful for transporting things along the surface of the planet which is the major function of the wheel.

I have added this explanation because the author of the picture has reverted it back in, and it may become a point of contention if the author continues to do so. Jimbowley 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may well become a point of contention.. We may have an image at the top of the article as you suggest, but then we should move the diagram to the section on Mechanics of wheels. It may seem trivial that the diagram explains why wheels ar so facinating. Bear in mind that many scholars may not quite comprehend why wheels tend to rotate spontaneously..We also need a gallery for a variety of different wheels. That is why I did not delete your cartwheel..but shifted it down instead..Gregorydavid 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gregorydavid, I appreciate you not reverting. Wheels do not tend to rotate spontaneously. Things such as wheels and eggs and footballs do tend to roll downhill but that is not anything to do with being wheel-like it is to do with being roundish and to do with gravity.Jimbowley 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I beg to differ, we all know wheels tend to rotate spontaneously, given the correct conditions.. why the need for brakes and the hand brake? On sloping surfaces gravity alone creates the impetus for wheels to rotate spontaneously, while an external impetus is required in other situations. The eccentricity of the force bearing on the axle, with the point of contact with the sloping surface creates a moment that is not counteracted by any forces excepting the rolling resistance on the surface and any rolling resistance at the axle.. the same reason why stones with virtual axles roll downhill as you pointed out..Gregorydavid 20:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a different understanding of what spontaneously means, and yours is wrong. Regards Jimbowley 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain, do you mean spontaneously like in Spontaneous combustion, ie without an external ignition source, or external force in the case of the wheel? Gregorydavid 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This definition matches my own understanding/use of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous "Spontaneous means a self-generated event, typically requiring no outside influence or help."

So saying that something (eg gravity) causes a spontaneous action makes no sense at all. Regards, Jimbowley 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Most spontaneous events depend on the correct conditions to be present for them to occur. The fact that gravity is not visible may account for the misconception that objects appear to move spontaneoulsly under the influence of gravity. The diagram together with its caption indicates why roundish objects including wheels tend to roll down sloping surfaces. Is the analysis so trivial that it is not deserving of being included in an article which many editors, including yourself have been grappling with for years?Gregorydavid 13:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your imagined readership exists (people who want to know why things roll downhill). But if they do exist, this article is not the place to cater to them.Jimbowley 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin of wheels

There is conflicting text in the history section. Origin of wheels says "The wheel reached India and Pakistan with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BCE", only lines later to state "The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BCE". ??? so which one is it? Twthmoses 07:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is actually more conflicting text. On one hand it is claimed that potters wheels were probably the earliest of wheels and on the other hand that driven wheels only developed sometime later. Surely all potters wheels are, per definition, driven? Gregorydavid 09:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found an authoritative reference for the origin of the wheel : written in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond ( 1997 ). In the last page of chapter 10, entitled Big spaces, big axes, he writes that the wheel appeared around 3000 B.C. in the Near East, and the invention was spread to a large part of Eurasia within a few centuries, while the same invention, independently born in Mexico, never reached the Andes. Please, check the original quotation, since I have translated from my Italian translated edition of Diamond's book. Carlodn6 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The invention of the wheel should distinguish between two stages: firstly the invention of the tournette, or slow potters wheel, which occurred in Mesopotamia in the 5th millenium BC. But wheels as applied to vehicles were developed much later, usually dated as between 4000 and 3500 BC. It is a common misconception, as popularized in innumerable cartoons, that the first wheel were made of stone.

• • • • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.46.211 (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the ancient Hindu scriptures - "Ramayana", wheels chariots and horses existed and prevalent during the "Treta Yuga" about a million year (1,000,000) ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.231.12 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What this article 'should' be about

I think this article should be only about those things that we put on vehicles (and some other objects) to allow them to roll along. This is what people think of when the wheel is talked about as the quintessential invention. It is this improvement in the transport of goods and people that aided the spread of civilization and trade.

Other things that happen to be called wheels should not be on this page if they operate on different principles and serve other purposes.

My intention is to move the article in the above direction. What do you think? Jimbowley 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No comments? OK to summarise what I am trying to do: I aim to modify the pages wheel wheel and axle simple machine to make it clear that a wheel on an axle on a cart is not a wheel and axle in the simple machine sense.

This task is made more difficult because wheel and axle is not well defined and there are many wrong or poor examples in teaching materials on the web. But I will try.Jimbowley 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that this article starts with an example of what a wheel can be used for, rather than what a wheel is. Also, the example given is not general - i.e. a wheel can be used to transport light devices as well as heavy ones. and heavy is a relative term! I suggest that the introduction should be re-ordered to first describe what a wheel is, then to describe its potential applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.162.227 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Most appropriate introduction picture?

It would be nice to avoid the constant implemetation of users personal favorite wheel pictures at the head of the article.

I think:

1) Given that the wheel is often thought of as the quintessential invention the main picture should be suitably antique.
2) It should also not obscure the basic function, which is that it turns on an axle, or the axle turns in the vehicle.

A picture of a modern driven wheel, eg on a bicycle or train or car, does not meet the above criteria.

Thoughts please? Jimbowley 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we plug new sections on talk pages in at the top?Gregorydavid 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a protocol. It just seemed the sensible place to put it as it was discussing the first thing on the page.

While you are here, perhaps you could give a reason why you replaced the picture of the cart with a (rather poor) picture of a tricycle? Jimbowley 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I thought the picture of the cart did not compare well with the one I replaced it with because the back of the cart is dragging on the ground and the horse is missing. On the other hand the ticycle is properly balanced and shows the mechanism which applies the moment to the rear wheels. It is not really my favourite picture. Maybe an animated picture of a wheel would be better.Gregorydavid 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Expert(s) needed

This article is in need of an expert and some serious fact checking. I slapped the expert tag on the history section, but as a read though the whole article everything needs trimming, facts checking, expanding, etc. It is with some sadness I must note, that such a fundamental issue in the history of mankind is in such a bad shape on wiki.Twthmoses (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

- I don't believe you'll find an 'expert' as the true invention of wheel and axel is lost to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.161.240 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As a fictional weapon

Two games, Mega Man X2 and Mega Man X7 have weapons based on wheels, should we mention them?82.3.49.212 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit far fetched.--MiG82au (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Viṣṇu has the sudarśana cakra. Perhaps it's not so far fetched to add a section on the discus, the wheel as a weapon.--2604:2E89:B579:0:446A:9DE2:E031:DC2 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wheels in nature and life

As far as I know, there are no implementations of the wheel in living forms. Wheel seems to be a unique man made invention. andrewvecsey@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.43.17 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You won't see larger animals growing wheels. In a lot of environments, wheels are impractical (humans have to go to a lot of trouble to create roads, railways etc. for our artificial wheels). I suspect it's also not very compatible with normal biology - it would be hard to provide a wheel with a blood supply etc (if it's just a dead lump that doesn't need nutrition, it's hard to repair wear and tear), and driving the wheel is problematic. However, wheels do show up quite often at a microscopic level, in bacterial flagellae - see this NewScientist discussion (which also notes that tumbleweeds use a 'wheel' approach to propagation). --GenericBob (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory dates for wheel reaching India

The History section begins:

As per the ancient Hindu scriptures - "Ramayana", wheels chariots and horses existed and prevalent during the "Treta Yuga" about a million year ago.

The wheel most likely originated in ancient Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC. The wheel reached ancient India with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BC[citation needed]. Near the northern side of the Caucasus several graves were found, in which since 3700 BC people had been buried on wagons or carts (both types). The earliest depiction of what may be a wheeled vehicle (here a wagon—four wheels, two axles), is on the Bronocice pot, a ca. 3500 BC clay pot excavated in southern Poland.[4]

The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BC...

Well, did the wheel reach India in the 3rd or 4th millenium? Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollers

I think that the use of logs as rollers for moving heaving objects should be mentioned in the history section, but I don't know enough to put it in authoritatively. Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a little experimental archeology demonstrates very quickly that under normal circumstances trying to move a heavy load using rollers simply doesn't work. The rollers sink and the force necessary to rotate them is generally greater than the torque from friction can develop. On a very firm surface (such as a paved road) the rollers rotate, but even then if they are simply hewn from available timber and not carefully shaped they still don't work.

AIUI all experiments demonstrate that when moving a heavy load some sort of lubricated slide is much more effective - always assuming that there is no access to water borne transportation.

The crucial misunderstanding is that it is not the wheel which is the important development, but that of the axle. Many of the ancient drawings would seem to be not of rollers, but of thin greased slides on supporting logs.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stones have been used as ball bearings in sluices made of wood. A heavy object was rolled on the ball bearinga.

The concept of the rolling log and/or ball bearing could have given rise to the concept of a primitive wheel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.117.210 (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wheel example

The example for adding 4 wheels is incorrect. It doesn't matter that the sliding distance is reduced. The work is computed over the distance that the force is applied. If you push a cart 10m, then you have applied a force over 10m, regardless of whether the cart has wheels or not.

So, the computation should be: 981 x 0.1 x 10 = 981 joules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.26.11 (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The example looks at the frictional surface force. Looking at the primary driving force is also valid, but needs another step. The driving force would not be 981N, I'll leave it to you to work out what it is, and do the final sum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.140.46 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier dates for the spoked wheel

{{editsemiprotected}} In fall of 2008, the German magazine Spiegel featured a cave painting in which a person is very clearly shown to be riding in a chariot featuring spoked wheels. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-37708-4.html The byline for this photo states that it is a cave painting from 7,000 years ago, taken in the Libyan desert. If this information is in fact correct, it is visible evidence that the spoked wheel existed long before the earliest dates/ pictures mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

I am not allowed to edit this article, so I would like to request that a more qualified person please examine this evidence to determine whether adjustments should be made.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cognates (talk • contribs)

 Not done Needs a stronger, more reliable source IMO. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 08:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It certainly *looks* like a picture of a spoked wheel, but it could also be (e.g.) a solid wheel with decorative patterning, or banding for reinforcement. And the caption is somewhat ambiguous - while it looks like it's saying that this painting is 7,000 years old, it could be read somewhat differently. ("Here's a cave painting. Some cave paintings are as old as 7,000 years.") Things like this are horribly easy to misinterpret without a solid background in the field in question (which is where secondary sources come in). --GenericBob (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to say this:

Please correct it! You should definitely include that the oldest wheel IN THE WORLD was found in 2002 in Slovenia: http://www.angelfire.com/country/veneti/AmerDomoOldestWheel.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.193.35 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This wheel is dated "second half of the fourth millennium BC" i.e. 3000-3500 BC. Also "similar wheels of approximately the same age have to date been found only in Switzerland and in south-western Germany" (Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe, Ed by Francesco Menotti, 2004, pp. 77-78) 129.93.13.60 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cucuteni-Trypillian cow-on-wheels, 3950-3650 BC

Cucuteni-Trypillian cow-on-wheels, 3950-3650 BC http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.185.185 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that for this model, no scientific literature exists that could prove the find location or chronology. Its all a fancy guess or even a fake. Thus it should be removed.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:7C23:2EE5:3189:CA98 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The Wheel on America

The article provides no information of the usage (or lack of) by precolumbine civilizations in the american continent. I think a note about this should be included somewhere.

~Didn't Americans invent the wheel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.102.181 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Smithsonian aricle

Here's the article in the Smithsonian

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Salute-to-the-Wheel.html

A Salute to the Wheel

Always cited as the hallmark of man’s innovation, here is the real story behind the wheel – from its origins to its reinvention

By Megan Gambino

Smithsonian.com, June 18, 2009

This entry should be revised. "a wheeled vehicle can only be used when harnessed to a draft animal" is clearly wrong. The Greeks used wheelbarrows. That whole paragraph seems to be more of an essay- and WP:OR-type of writing, which is not Wikipedia style.

I don't know why this entry should be limited to the wheel as transportation. As the Smithsonian article says, the potter's wheel predates the use of the wheel for transportation, and the water wheel was a significant source of power. The wheel had symbolic meaning and the Wheel of Fortune, rotam fortuna, was very important to Chaucer and throughout the middle ages. --Nbauman (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Earliest wheel evidence

The history section now says this:

Near the northern side of the Caucasus several graves were found, in which since 3700 BC people had been buried on wagons and carts.

Also, it's completely unsourced and should removed. I know there are no reliable sources that will confirm any of this, the oldest validated evidence for the wheel used for transportation dates from 3,400 BC with inconclusive evidence dating from 3,600 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Please see Holm (2019, referenced in the article) for the newest scientific data.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:7C23:2EE5:3189:CA98 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wheels troughout history.JPG

The image used to illustrate uses "DC" for a dating system. What does that mean? Shouldn't it be changed to AD or CE? Slac speak up! 06:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

there are other issues with this image. It's based on a sound idea, but it is a bad idea to include the caption within the image because any change to the caption means the entire image needs to be re-uploaded. It would be better to have the individual drawings as separate images so they can be transcluded and annotated as part of the editing process. --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

wheels in Neolithic Europe

re this, it is true that you won't find 4th millennium BC wheels in Scandinavia, or Germany, or Britain, but the wheel had certainly reached the Balkans (Vinca, Cucuteni) by the mid 4th millennium. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition: The sentence "The Ljubljana Marshes Wooden Wheel, the world's oldest known wooden wheel, dating from 4101 ± 118 cal.BC (by CalPal from 5,250 ± 100 BP) as part of Globular Amphora Culture, was discovered by Slovenian archeologists in 2002.[3]" appears mistaken because of the date, which would be a sensation. If the writer means "b2k" instead of BP, which in combination with the scatter suggests a C14 date, he should SIMPLY give the date calBC, or whatever s/he really means or knows for sure. Meanwhile I delete my calibration. 195.4.79.177 (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wheel and chaiots were invented in middle east not poland.

How could you extrapolate a chaiot form that polish motif, I can bring "depictions of chariots" much mch older from göbekli tepe, çatal höyük, ubaid, jamdat nasser.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Wazazbronocic.GIF

For example the 7000 years libyan depiction of chariot is far more convincing than that of Poland.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-37708-4.html

There was no such early indo-europeans nor Semites in poland as 3500 bc nor in mesopotamia before 2800 bc.

So the oldest cart,chariot is the mesopotamian one.

Please correct this article.

Thank you for your attention

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Humanbyrace, you have been active on Wikipedia for close to two years. I think you could be expected to have a grasp of WP:RS and WP:V by now. Your link to a Spiegel online photo gallery is not a reference. The Bronocice pot claim is referenced to Anthony (2007), p. 67. If you have a reference contradicting Anthony (2007), bring it forward, but the burden is on you to present proper citation. We only report what our references say, we do not report the "truth". If you can show us a 7,000 year old image of a chariot, please be our guest. Or perhaps you should contact Nature immediately and be a famous discoverer. The petroglyphs in your Spiegel link are probably less than 4,000 years old. This was just a journalist compiling some clip-art. But feel free to prove me wrong by citing an actual scholarly reference. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bornoncie pot does NOT look like a wheel whence I've read that first real physical remains of wheel were found in Syria-Iraq

Humanbyrace (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Piggott in his book The Earliest Wheeled Transport (1983) provides fairly compelling evidence that wheeled vehicles originated in Poland among the TRB (Funnel Beaker) people. Just to put this into context, Anatolia may have had the world's most technologically advanced culture circa 7500 BC. However, by 7000 BC the center of gravity had begun to diffuse. By 5500 BC the East Balkans had the world's most advanced technology. By 4000 BC center of gravity had shifted again to NE Romania, by 3500 BC to Kiev, and by 3000 back around to Mesopotamia.

The TRB people were the successors to the earlier LBK culture which, circa 5500 BC, was the first neolithic culture in the region of Poland/Belarus. According to Piggott, the oldest inconclusive evidence for the existence of wheeled vehicles is a cave painting of what appears to be a wagon, associated with the TRB culture and dated 4000 BC +- 500 years. The next oldest evidence comes from clay models of wagons, pulled by miniature oxen attached with yokes and yoke-poles. (The wheels even have naves.) Several of the clay models have been found, also from TRB sites, often from contexts that provided over 100 independent radiocarbon dates at different levels. The dates at about 3500 - 3300 BC.

Continuing with Piggott' story, the oldest actual remains of a wheeled vehicle is from a lake bed in Switzerland dated 3050 BC +- 50 years. Two bog sites, one in Denmark, the other in The Netherlands, are tied for second place at 2950BC +- 50.

Then there's the famous Sumerian bas relief of what appears to be a sled or, more likely, a chariot. No radiocarbon date available, it was initially dated 2700 BC +- 500. Then older find began turning up in Europe, at which point someone started changing the date on the Sumerian bas relief, presumably on the grounds that "everyone knows the Sumerians invented the wheel."

Chapter One of The Earliest Wheeled Transport is about the definition of "wheel." Piggott explains how, in the broadest sense, the fire-drill could be considered a type of "wheel" in that it makes use of the principle of rotary motion. He acknowledges that the potter's wheel is definitely a type of wheel, and certainly older than any wheeled vehicles. However, he says that people before about the first millennium BC weren't really accustomed to thinking of engineering in terms of general principles. The example he sites is the water wells of the Indus Valley civilization, which operate on the same principle as the arch (i.e., wedge-shaped stones forming a circle). However, the Indus Valley civilization never developed the arch, even though they were already making use of the underlying principle. Similarly, potter's wheels didn't automatically translate into wheeled vehicles or vice versa. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical Angle Formula

Could we show how this is derived? If not on the actual page could somebody show me here? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.16.99 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mechanics and function

I find this section almost unintelligible to illustrate my point, item 1 in the first list includes two terms, "normal force" and "sliding interface". I'm guessing normal force is either some term specific to mechanics or indicates a force acting perpendicular to the surface the wheel is rolling on. I've no idea what sliding interface is, the road?

Item 2 in the same list just doesn't make any sense at all, "sliding distance" that one leaves me absolutely clueless.

I've no objection to the use of specialized terms because I appreciate the difficulty in describing even simple mechanisms but they should be defined or referenced in some manner.

Wheels work for two reasons, they transfer the momentum of the object being moved so it acts about the axle. They reduce friction through two means, reducing surface contact and transferring the load of the object to a discreet area that can be easily lubricated i.e. the axle.

I am working on a complete re-write of the section, including free-body diagrams, and example calculations for two different friction values at the bearing. An approximation in the current calculation produces an error of only 3% in this example, but as bearing friction and bearing diameter increase the error increases quite badly. Jimbowley (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Common examples

"Common examples are... and the rollers on an aircraft flap mechanism." is a terrible example. To the vast majority of people it is an obscure example, not to mention that the vast majority of aircraft in the world have simpler flaps that do not deploy by rolling along flap tracks. I would like to change it to "wheels on a bicycle".--MiG82au (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Earliest wheel

Turkish archeologists report of a discovery of the oldest wheel, 7500 years old.[2][3] I don't know how credible is the claim. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Until an article published in an academic journal is cited, the claim should be regarded as spurious, because many "findings" there are fake. Stone can't be carbon dated... --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Please see Holm (2019, referenced in the main article, for more details).2A02:8108:9640:AC3:7C23:2EE5:3189:CA98 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semiotics article

Can someone please fix that empty space... move the photos below the paragraph... because scrolling down with paragraphs and then coming through an empty space is an annoyance. user:Nusent 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.78.220 (talk)

The empty space is caused by the images on the right of the article. One possible solution is to move those side images into a gallery. Another (possibly more reasonable) solution is to delete all but the most important images. Kind regards, 115.188.235.152 (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Extent of use in Australia and New Guinea

What is the evidence of pre-colonial use of the wheel in Australia or New Guinea?CountMacula (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

History

I cancelled the note that the Ljubljana wheel connected with the Globular Amphorae Culture. Neither is that noted in the adduced article, nor did that culture reach so far to the south. Correct would be the Early Baden Culture. HJJHolm (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WW I heavy artillery wheels

An example of the WW I heavy artillery wheels on this Cannone da 149/35 A.

An example of the WW I heavy artillery wheels on the famous "Big Bertha" gun.

I think there should be some mention of these. They had large links over the wheel, like a chain, but the links were flat panels that really maximized gound contact. This could be in the same section as modern snow chains. Those kind of wheels were also used on some mine clearing wehicles during WW II. An example is the "Alkett Minenraumer" (or possibly Minenräumer). Pictures here. GMRE (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think these should be covered in this article. I don't know for sure, but I would bet much that the all-terrain-plates are just add-ons to the wheel itself, and that they were taken down for transport on good roads. So we're not looking at some special kind of wheel at all. German WP has its own article about them: de:Radgürtel (i.e. "wheel-belt"). If not in its own article, it seems to me more fitting that this could be added to Caterpillar tracks. I don't understand your point about "modern snow chains", there's nothing about them in the article at the moment, and rightly so in my opinion.

(As for "Minenraumer": You're absolutely right: there definitely is no such thing in German military history. It must be "Minenräumer".)

--BjKa (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A late reply, but I just saw this and figured out that the English version is the dreadnaught wheel, and this could be a good addition as a later chapter of that story, if GMRE wants to add it there. And perhaps a link that that from this article would be good.

Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even know that there was an article for them. Of course they should be mentioned in this article. GMRE (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting the cart before the horse?

The article says this:

Nubians from after about 400 BC used wheels for spinning pottery and as water wheels.[9] It is thought that Nubian waterwheels may have been ox-driven[10] It is also known that Nubians used horse-driven chariots imported from Egypt.[11]

It would seem illogical to have a horse drive a chariot. Shouldn't it be "human-driven"? Actually, I think I'll just change it to "horse-drawn". Dynasteria (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Western hemisphere?

In the history section, I have substituted "the Americas" for "the Western hemisphere". Technically the western hemisphere includes part of Britain, which certainly had horses and wheels in the Bronze Age.Darorcilmir (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061018073035/http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE432.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE432.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Linchpin

No mention is made of the Linchpin. I suggest it should be - but I don't have the "courage" to enter it! --Osborne 19:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant Question

hey is this editing thing working?? new here BluishGreenishBlurryface (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

BluishGreenishBlurryface, yes it is. Do you have a comment about the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, Nope, I was just checking. Thanks!BluishGreenishBlurryface (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(Wow. Three days of editing from that user resulting in an indefinite block. I hope that's a record.) --BjKa (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental question about wheel and axle

I am questioning the functioning of any load carrying wheel so-called wheel before the invention of the metal axle, which would have prevented wood-rubbing-wood friction and a resulting fire. As important as this question is, none of the axle, wheel or axle and wheel articles mentions it.Phmoreno (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The invention of axle grease would also have prevented wood-on-wood friction. It would be interesting to see sources on how early wheel builders chose their materials to minimize the risk of ignition. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This question is important because if metal axle or bushings were required, then you wouldn't have had a wheel without metal. For certain the wheel without a metal axle or bushing would have been of very limited usefulness, axle grease or not. Also, metal tools would have been required to build anything but the crudest wheel.Phmoreno (talk)

Who says that "metal axle or bushings were required"? Also, skilled work can be done with hand tools, whether metal or knapped stone.

I'm familiar enough with the history of technology to know that there was little skilled woodworking until metal tools were developed, especially iron and steel tools, because they were cheaper and therefore more widespread. All one has to do to understand what it was like when people only had stone tools is to read the accounts the Spanish explorers regarding the native Americans. See: Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca's account for example.Phmoreno (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If this question does expose a deficit in the article, how would you propose to remedy it? Just plain Bill (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted this here hoping someone would know the answer. If no one does I will try to get in touch with a museum.Phmoreno (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so it is about the timeline of metalworking wrt. woodworking, not so much about the "resulting fire." Got it. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Both questions remain in my mind. Someone familiar enough with a chariot axle should be able to shed light on the problem.Phmoreno (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I found the answer to the axle question here: [4]

According to Bela Sandor, professor emeritus of engineering physics at University of Wisconsin at Madison:

King Tut chariots appear to be the first mechanical systems which combine kinematics, dynamics and lubrication principles. "The bearings are built exploiting the modern principle of a hard material against a soft material, and by applying animal fat between the surfaces. The grease reduces friction and increases running duration," said Rovetta When set in motion, immediately after initial start-up, the friction between the wood of the bearing, the grease and the wood of the wheel pivot heat the grease.King Tut chariots appear to be the first mechanical systems which combine kinematics, dynamics and lubrication principles. "The bearings are built exploiting the modern principle of a hard material against a soft material, and by applying animal fat between the surfaces. The grease reduces friction and increases running duration," said Rovetta When set in motion, immediately after initial start-up, the friction between the wood of the bearing, the grease and the wood of the wheel pivot heat the grease.

Phmoreno (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What does "The Wheel" actually mean?

Several of the problems discussed in earlier sections of this talkpage in my opinion stem from the fact that when the general talk is about "The Wheel", its invention and its cultural impact, then from an engineering standpoint, this is actually just a convenient shorthand to talk about the invention of the axle and bearing. I can't think of any "Wheel" in the sense which the article tries to cover, which exists without the additional parts of an axle and a bearing(*) - while some wooden round disk that rolls is obviously not much of an invention in itself. My point being that "The Wheel" often does not really mean the technical part called "wheel" at all, but the complete assembly which is needed to make a cart/wagon/chariot possible. Maybe the article should reflect this situation better and distinguish between the invention of the axle and bearing on one side, and the progress made on the wheel itself (spokes, etc.) on the other.
(* OK, some casters may have balls and no definite axle, but this concept makes the properties of the bearing even more important, and clearly has no cultural impact on the "History of The Wheel".)
--BjKa (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the lede, or an early section, needs to clarify those different meanings of the term and what the article is about. The article could then either be bifurcated into one about the rolling transport application device, and one that talks about wheels more generally. Part of the problem is that there's a wheel and axle article that is also confused in the same way, being primarily about achieving mechanical advantage(simple machine) through the use of inputs and outputs at different radii, whereas the rolling transportation application also requires a wheel and axle. There are several possible ways to structure the articles, including also Bearing which is also a little confused, focusing primarily on rolling element bearings and underemphasizing the plain bearing.

Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

I would like to add a citation needed to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel. In what appears to be the 10th paragraph of the History section, this statement appears: It is thought that the primary obstacle to large-scale development of the wheel in the Americas was the absence of domesticated large animals which could be used to pull wheeled carriages.[citation needed]

A good source for this is the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, p. 237. ISBN 978-0-393-31788-8. Thanks in advance for your help! Nm47867 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also because there were no iron tools or iron axles.Phmoreno (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

removing comma

I noticed an unnecessary comma. "either by way of gravity, or by the application". The comma before the conjunction and on gravity is rendered useless. Fawxplus (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083344/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/ to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106032919/http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jrobinson/files/the_wheel_in_africa_february_2012.pdf to http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jrobinson/files/the_wheel_in_africa_february_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

maybe it should be listed somewhere how important its invention was

the wheel is in use today in many devices. its historical significance is undoubtful. it stabds out as one of the most important inventions of all time. maybe something should be written about that.84.212.111.156 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Necessity is the mother of invention. They used a sleighs firstly but with rainy global warming invented wheeled wagons.

They 'harvested first reeds for thatched sheds'. Pooling reds is hard task whiteout proper tools but on ice one can do it easily with wooden stick (cut by beavers?), stroking close to ice surface. Next turom turzyca, which also can be similarly harvested on ice, for for luring in winter animals in wooden fences. Such wooden ponds constructed first tribes in north America so this technology is +15ky old. Then domestication and sleighs (firs long before dog sleighs) with strong animals, then wheels because what for wheels without domesticated pullers in a harness. Imo Hars harness first. (tb) There is even folk song about this "aha! Hary żyją mied z turówką piją, z góry spoglądają ... 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Era

Per MOS:ERA, I harmonized all of the BC/BCE references to BCE and added hard spaces (along with a few other copy edits while I was there). While this ended up changing most of them from BC to BCE, I chose BCE because the article used almost exclusively BCE until a couple of weeks ago when another anon inconsistently changed most of them without discussion (diff), which runs counter to MOS:ERA, and left several instances of BCE still in the article. 2607:F2C0:EB78:3:D8A7:EFCA:E4E:23A7 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Harappans

I have removed dubious claims that implied that the Harappans had spoked wheels. See, for example, this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I expected much more history and for it to be better subsectioned

I expected to read about the proto-Indoeuropean use of the spoked wheel and chariot as well as it's widespread use in both ancient Indian epics as well as ancient Indian history. The spoked wheel was hugely important in ancient India. Well traveled thoroughfares commonly had groves dug in from the high amounts of wheel traffic. Viṣṇu is said to have used a wheel as a weapon. The entire article is lacking and apparently has been for several years. Lastly, spoked-wheel aside, it's perhaps important to relate how important the wheel was to civilization aside from transportation. A class-based society forms after someone has storage containers. Those who stored seeds (and alcohol) in clay pots could not only survive through the rough times, but this also led to commerce. People who stored things could them sell them to those who couldn't (thus we buy things from a "store"). Once the potters wheel came to an area, pottery could be produced much faster—making them cheaper and more common. This would have increased the number of people who could store and plan for the long term, ultimately lowing the gap between classes. The wheel was also hugely important for making containers for brewing alcohol. One strongly supported theory for why people started settling down and growing massive fields of food is because of our desire for alcohol. That's a lot to unpack and I also left out details for brevity, but all that to say that a ton of work needs to be done on the history.--2604:2E89:B579:0:446A:9DE2:E031:DC2 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

False information about disk wheel

The upper photo has misleading text, and should instead read A modern wheel made of a solid piece of wood. The motive is a modern log wagon from [File:Log Wagon Harrietville Vic.jpg – Wikimedia Commons Harrietville, Victoria]].

The paragraph:

Early wheels were simple wooden disks with a hole for the axle. Some of the earliest wheels were made from horizontal slices of tree trunks. Because of the uneven structure of wood, a wheel made from a horizontal slice of a tree trunk will tend to be inferior to one made from rounded pieces of longitudinal boards.

Awaiting a full rewriting of the historical part, should be shortened to:

Early wheels were simple wooden disks with a hole for the axle made from rounded pieces of longitudinal boards.

Havre2020 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Halaf wheels ??

"The Halaf culture of 6500–5100 BCE is sometimes credited with the earliest depiction of a wheeled vehicle, but this is doubtful as there is no evidence of Halafians using either wheeled vehicles or even pottery wheels." - It remains unclear whether G. Childe is cited for the critisized part or the criticism itself.HJJHolm (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)