Though I cannot speak for Persian or Indian history, I can certainly state that Chinese history is replete with fine detail on topics as diverse as everyday social rituals and political intrigue.

The most influential work of Chinese historiography in antiquity, Sima Qian's The Records of the Grand Historian (太史公書) dedicates extensive space to fine biographical detail of influential figures from the Warring States and Spring and Autumn Period.

The fine details of political figures and battles during eras such as Three Kingdoms period were similarly well documented and even embelished for popular entertainment, most notably in the form of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (三国演义) over a thousand years afterwards.

I would hazard to say that any perceived lack of fine detail to Chinese history, at least in Western academia, is due to the reletively short period of significant contact and analysis, especially when compared to the body of works on Greco-Roman antiquity that have accumulated over the millennia.

This site gives some sources on the history of Indian paper technology.

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_tiwar_paper_frameset.htm

The gist of it is that Indians wrote on either thin pieces of bark or a paper made of coconut leaves that would be bound into a book. While this type of paper was more than enough to preserve records for the length of time necessary for every day life, it doesnt last for millennia like some other types of paper might. This was the type of writing sheet used for quite some time until the late medieval/early modern period.

I disagree. Many Asian countries including India, China, Japan etc have well preserved histories and records. A lot of them contain details of the minutest of things that people did in their daily lives. For instance, Ancient India's history has been compiled by not just Indians but by outsiders and fringe groups too and they tend to corroborate each other. As for preservation, South Asia has countless ancient artifacts that have been preserved and give us a detailed look into the lives of ancient people. But because people tend to have a Euro-centric view, they rarely discuss or even bother to look at the historical works compiled within the East. Colonialism played its part too. They innocently tend to assume that because they have never seen it, there is no detailed history for these regions and the people who once dwelled there.

While it doesn't directly answer your question, you might find this interesting: http://www.livius.org/sources/content/achaemenid-royal-inscriptions/

This is a collection of the royal inscriptions of the Achaemenid (first Persian) empire which to my knowledge constitute the vast majority of, if not all, contemporary Persian sources for the history of the empire. The other major source is Herodotus of Halicarnassus, with all his usual host of issues. As you can see, they are written in a highly stereotyped manner (usually beginning with a formulaic invocation of Ahura Mazda) and are extremely biased, since they concern themselves with the glorification of the king and his dynasty.

Ancient Iran ('Persia') does not appear to have been a particularly literary society, which is of course quite typical for tribal, nomadic societies. The Avesta, the holy scriptures of Zoroastrianism, were transmitted orally for probably over 1500 years, until a script was devised by the Sassanids in about the 5th century CE!

So, essentially, the sources we have were composed either by kings or by outside observers, which leads to a far, far less detailed account of daily life.

Does anyone know why Parthian and Sassanid sources are so sparse? Weren't the Sassanids somewhat settled?