Second, Tahta wrote:
>
> Finally, perhaps I may be excused from quoting myself: "The issue
> here is not of course to show that our culture is not entirely due
> to Mesopotamian man.... What is important is the forceful reminder
> that mathematics is not dependent on its written record." (D Tahta,
> About geometry, For the learning of mathematics, 1.1 (1980) 4 )
I would like to remember that that would be fine mathematical development,
independent of the Mesopotamian's works. But, there is an alternative
answer for this question. Van der Waerden's hypothesis about mathematics
origins postulates a common origin (neolithic - that, I think, would be
a better attribution for these stones) for the main mathematical currents
of antiquity: Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese and megalithic. The vector
for this neolithic current was the Indo-European. Indo-European people
inhabited Scotland, and made some megaliths there. It's possible that
the Celts (that spoke an Indo-European language) were their descendants.
Probably these stones are from Celtic origin. Then this could be a hint
that Van der Waerden may be right. Of, course, all this is conjectural,
we need better archaeological dates and better studies about the uses of
these stones.
Manoel de Campos Almeida
Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana
Rua Hermes Fontes, 1282
Curitiba - 80.440-070
Parana - Brasil
manoel@rla01.pucpr.br