As a reasonably well read non-historian, I (an American in my early 30s) have the impression that our most extensive knowledge of ancient history (Bronze Age and earlier) comes from the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asian regions. From where we have identified our oldest permanent cities to the most powerful empires, it all seems to be happening here.
Is this a bias in what I've been likely to learn and there's actually a comparable amount of information on other regions? Because these were major centers of the Greek and Roman civilization modern western culture venerates? Because Abrahamic religions originated or spread quickly in this area?
Or have people just been here longer than most places considering prehistoric migration patterns (except, you know, Africa)? Do the dry conditions just preserve things better?
Or is it some of all of the above? Or none of it?
Edit - I tried searching answers to this on this sub, but was turning up tons of stuff not very related to the questions with terms like "Middle East", "Levant", and "Eastern Mediterranean", for obvious reasons. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
Let me start by noting I am not an expert at Asian history. I have a degree in ancient history that focussed on the classical Greeks and Romans.
However there are a number of things at play, some I learned in uni, some from further reading.
First is the preservation of written histories. To the extent that written history is preserved, it tends to be from dryer regions...this is why we have littler written evidence from Celtic Britain or the vikings, despite us knowing that they did indeed have a written language.
So as you move into wetter climes, we become more and more reliant on archaeological evidence which is not as capable at helping us understand thought and scope in history, and so narratives like we have from Greece, Rome or Egypt are much more difficult
With regards Greece and Rome dominance in terms of our history, written comes in, but so to does their cultures being fairly extant for centuries.
In many parts of the world temples were looted, palaces burned, etc on a very frequent basis. Kingdoms rose and fell, religions replaced consistently, barbarian (for want of a better phrase) sacking and pillaging, etc. This was true, I believe, for the areas you mentioned
Rome, by contrast, essentially has lasted pretty much indefinitely, and Greece to a slightly lesser extent (though the Minoans and mycaeneans, not so much).
There is also western bias. Greece and Rome have given us much of our philosophies, government styles and the like - so it's easy for us in the west to understand and relate to them in a way we don't understand ancient China for example.
So, as with much of history, and especially ancient history, the answer is: for a bunch of reasons