>>40739606 (OP)This is primarily an architecture-driven conspiracy theory. It goes like this- generally speaking, it was economically sensible to build with large blocks of stone... megaliths... large-stone. Part of that was because in the early bronze age, cutting tools and tech revolved around pulverizing work, which permits "softer" items to "cut" the "harder" stones. At this point, the grunt work to move large stones outpaced the cutting work.
As time went on, the mines and smiths made better bronze/copper/brass/iron tools such that embedded cutting agents like carborundum could be used to make cheap quick cuts in stone, gaining access to unused areas in existing quarries.
They also got good at using the acid runoff from mines to build very good agglomerated stone products, similar to concrete and geopolymer. It is essentially dissolving different kinds of sand and gravel together in an acid mix to more or less dissolve it into a mass, then eventually oxidize into a stone-like mass.
The thing is, the stone sizes kept getting smaller, until today, we have mostly hand-sized bricks, concrete, cinderblocks, some engineered stone, and that's about it. It isn't economically reasonable to make a ameritard strip mall out of the best limestone in the area so that the sun tan shop can be beside a smoke shop with megalithic stone buildings.
The "Tartaria" time was the last time in history where it was economically sensible to build with stone so much. The processes had been so refined and efficient that they could bang up a cathedral in about 5 years, compared to 50 years or more back in the middle ages.
As population sizes grew, building lifespans shortened commensurate with the overall lowering of per capita prosperity.
As the old greeks used to say, there first was an age of gold, then bronze, then steel. Gold the best of the good times, bronze the last of the good times, and steel the end times. That's where we are, that's all.