> I think there is a fundamental question here ..
> Can an advanced technology exist without advanced
> By advanced mathematics I mean "Post Enlightenment"..
There could have been a very advanced science without "advanced technology". There also could have been technology that we don't readily recognize as technology. It seems apparent that they didn't use modern science but there's no reason they didn't use another science that they themselves developed or was given to them by outsiders. There's no reason to presuppose that modern science is the only kind of science.
Math is a sort of "natural logic" that is imposed by definitions just as science is an observationally based means of learning that is derived from natrural phenomena. You ask if they might have had advanced tech without advanced math but we know neither their math nor their technology. All we have is a book of "magic".
I doubt their civilization was founded on magic and I know they didn't use religion or beliefs to build pyramids. So long as Egyptology maintains their belief that they lacked science and technology then we really know nothing about their science and technology.
There are far too many assumptions and many of them look to be on no foundation at all. So long as we look at the ancients through our beliefs and assume they understood their world exactly as we understand our world we'll stay right where we are. We'll have a teflon paradigm simply because the most basic assumptions are wrong. Ancient people were nothing like Egyptologists. They were even less like Egyptologists think they were.
I think this is all very apparent but people can't see it because they see what they expect. They forget that confirmation bias applies even to believers in paradigms. They can't see that the paradigm is incapable of making predictions which alone is sufficient to say it is flawed. They can't see the myriad facts cast aside as irrelevancies because they see only the few facts that support their own assumptions and beliefs.
Sure, it's possible that Egyptology is right but no math exists to compute just how unlikely it is. Perhaps this is why they won't do the scientific testing.