The work of archaeologists is absolutely not in proportion to the amount of surviving documents. Most of my digs have been in places and periods with few to no written records, for example.
As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics (particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.
That wasn't the claim. You should read the reply chain but the point isn't about archaeology but our interpretation of civilization outside Rome and Greece. You wanted to know why these civilizations get that share of work...the reason why is that their thought was more relevant to us (again, most Europeans believed in Aristotelian science until humanism). And, again, these civilizations were more African than European...it is nothing to do with racism (which was the implication).
That wasn't the claim. I will explain, although you would do just as well to go back and read what I said more closely...again. The point is: many people who are perceived to be part of the European tradition (i.e. Rome/Greece) are not Europeans. So when someone says: Europe has got a disproportionate share of work, these regions are ignored, their civilizations are ignored...this is wrong. Most of these civilizations were mutli-culutural/multi-national, and included Africa (the other big contributor would be the Middle East). Again, attempting to read the current political view onto the past. And the point about Augustine is that he was African, the point about academics who say things like: we are too Euro-centric is that they define Europe in a way that makes no historical sense (unsurprisingly, as they are usually arguing about things in the present, not anything related to history...the concept of Europe itself is not something with a clear historical meaning).
It seems like there might be a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Quoting myself:
> ..the 3 classical areas of Rome, Greece, and Egypt have gotten a very disproportionate share of work...
Greece and Rome (in the sense of the empire) are literally the "classic" in so-called classical archaeology [1]. Egypt is included because it's comparable for this particular case and there's a pretty substantial overlap with "core" classical archaeology.
Again, I've written nothing about whether these areas encompass parts of Africa nor whether they were wholly European. I also haven't implicated racism as the reason for that disproportionate amount of study. The things you're criticizing aren't my views and trying to put words into my mouth isn't appreciated.
As for the comment about Europeans, I was talking about modern academics (particularly of the early through late 20th century). The leading archaeologists of that period primarily came from European and American traditions. I have no idea what Augustine has to do with 20th century academia. Please feel free to enlighten me if there's a connection though.