Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!pesnta!scc!steiny
From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.celts
Subject: Re: europe vs the middle east in 2000 BC
Message-ID: <631@scc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 23:38:51 EST
Article-I.D.: scc.631
Posted: Wed Feb 12 23:38:51 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 06:28:35 EST
References: <1217@cvl.UUCP>
Organization: Don Steiny Software
Lines: 18

In article <1217@cvl.UUCP>, eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) writes:
> 
> How was it that a rather primitive people such as the celts could design
> and implement such a powerful astronomical "computer" as Stonehenge, when
> far to the east, much more advanced people, the Egyptians (who were well into
> their Middle Kingdom period) never developed anything comparable?  Of course,
> as far as architecture goes, the Great Pyramids, built > 1000 years earlier
> exceeded Stonehenge in engineering level.  Yet, those were simply glorified
> tombs, while Stonehenge was much more.  Anyone have any comments?
> 
	This is a good example of how the word "primitive" is misleading!
If you start with the premise one society is primitive and the
other advanced, you are going to run into logical problems.
On what basis, specifically, do you make such a judgement.  Were
the Olhone of California "primitive?"   They did not need to develop
technology beyond the technology they developed because  they had
everything they needed.   They had a social system and oral
tradition that was plenty "advanced".  Certainally their oral
tradition is far more "advanced" than ours.  

-- 
scc!steiny
Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 
109 Torrey Pine Terrace
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
(408) 425-0382