"Technology" implies some sort of advancement, whereas primitive denies it. It's fair to point out it has more than a whiff of oxymoron about it in the natural reading.

But you might prefer "paradox"; an apparent contradiction. Like many other paradoxes, this paradox resolves itself once you learn more. But certainly at first there seems to be a contradiction in play, again, with the natural reading of the terms.

I think most definition of technology don't have "advancement" in it. It literally means the "science of craftmanship". So primitive technology is neither an oxymoron nor a paradox. Certainly, not a logical impossibility.

I was and am referring to the common understanding of the term, not a particular dictionary definition. If I say "envision an example of technology" and the first thing that leaps to your mind is a stone wheel, a club, or a campfire, rather than a syringe, computer, space ship, robot, car, or similar, fair enough, for you it's not oxymoronic/paradoxical, but I'd say that puts you in the minority.