This is board popular with software developers and the top comment on an article about a very interesting archaeological finding is a criticism of the quote of one of the archaeologists for being critical of a Eurocentric view in archaeology.

It is interesting how you consider that the researcher's opinion on the significance of his research and the relative difficulty of obtaining funding is something which should be omitted, whereas someone entirely unconnected with the expedition's dismissal of his comments as 'vapid moralising' is "worth discussing". Perhaps, where you come from, software developers' wide range of interests leads them greater authority than archaeologists on archaeology?

I will grant that (unlike the drive-by culture warring against "being overly PC", the BBC and climate change by other people demonstrating the breadth of their interests elsewhere in the thread) the OP does actually give us something relevant to discuss: the "lost city" in the Xinguano region still occupied by the descendants of the few survivors of contact with Europeans has been "discovered" multiple times during the 20 year period between Rostain's first study of the Upano region and his LiDar survey (Xinguano was covered the exactly same way; justlike the trope of changing agriculture-centric views comes up every time Göbekli Tepe or similarly early structures are discussed... without triggering HN). I guess you could stretch those recent discoveries to arguing that there's absolutely no research bias towards Europe and nobody ever conflated the Conquistadors' failure to find cities full of gold in the Amazon Basin with there being no ancient history to find, and it'd be relatively easy to defend the Meggers hypothesis about the unsuitability of the Amazon for major city building by insisting it wasn't Eurocentric, it was just wrong. But nobody seems interested in anything wider than getting angry at the idea Eurocentrism has ever been a thing...