There's a difference between "relatively advanced civilizations" and "civilizations that significantly altered the Earth".

You could argue that, but I would be inclined to question how advanced a civilization was that didn't prosper enough to alter the environment. A civilization that is "advanced" should be fairly good at logistics, and that leads to a large population, which leads to a large environmental impact.

How in tune with nature or whatever people in a society are on an individual basis wouldn't affect the total impact if whatever they are doing works well enough that everything keeps growing. I'm kind of thinking of Jevon's paradox.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed about 4,500 years ago.

I was thinking more of China.