Actually the opposite is true. YOU must be unfamiliar with the architecture and large projects in general if you
Think there’s more to it than well understood ancient technology.
The idea that it’s a mystery how the ancients built large projects like this and Easter island is simply modern chauvinism.
The error often consists more of unfounded amazement at ancient accomplishments (stones are heavy!) and projected ignorance (even with the advantages of widespread science and capital I don't know how to build pyramids, so a fortiori ancient Egyptians didn't know how to build pyramids) than true chauvinism (ancient ragheads cannot have been smart enough to know how to build pyramids nor wealthy enough to greenlight and finish them).
Many people simply don't have any grasp of how complex technology is and how quickly and easily it is lost when unneeded and possibly but rarely redeveloped when needed again.
Even in the face of the new evidence of structures miles below the pyramids, we have to have this debate?
Or the chamber that was “theorized” by crackpots, included into Assassins Creed based on said “crackpots”, and then revealed to actually exist by sonography?
I think it’s far more sycophantic to insist that the ancient Egyptians were “primitive” rather than “advanced” when it was built, but hey, I’m against the grain and thus a crackpot.
The idea that it’s a mystery how the ancients built large projects like this and Easter island is simply modern chauvinism.