I read it differently. For context, I am not triggered by people pointing out that every culture has its own biases and myopias, and just like a fish in water, sometimes they are unaware. Honestly, this seems like one of few absolute truths in the world: perspective is always incomplete.

Here's how I read it:

The quotes are from two archaeologist/anthropologists who specialize in the Amazon and ancient Amazonian culture. They are extremely familiar with the general level of knowledge of their audience regarding their specialties.

> "This is older than any other site we know in the Amazon. We have a Eurocentric view of civilisation, but this shows we have to change our idea about what is culture and civilisation," says Prof Stephen Rostain, director of investigation at the National Centre for Scientific Research in France, who led the research.

> "It changes the way we see Amazonian cultures. Most people picture small groups, probably naked, living in huts and clearing land - this shows ancient people lived in complicated urban societies," says co-author Antoine Dorison.

The use of "we" is the polite way of saying "most people who will be reading this article".

It's not moralizing. It's pointing out that what most readers learned in school a few decades ago (and still believe) is incomplete, and we keep learning new extents of its incompleteness -- and the missing parts of the story make everything much more interesting.

They are excited by this and want to share. This paper is a pretty big deal, and they should be excited. I'd love to know as much about Amazonian civilizations, architectures, societies, etc as I do Aztec, Maya, and Inca.