I once did a work course in Oklahoma, and as part of the safety stuff they were talking about tornadoes, and they showed a by county map of where the most tornadoes struck. Now they said that why should two adjacent counties, have perhaps a 100% difference in the number of tornadoes, and why should more tornadoes always strike the most populous counties?
The point was that they don't. But in order to report a tornado, someone needs to see it, and it's a similar phenomenon here. Why is it when they accidentally find an archaeological site during construction, it's near other built up areas? Simply because that's where they build stuff. Near other buildings, and near infrastructure. I sort of see what you're saying, but it seems like the most sensible way of doing this is to go after the 'low hanging fruit' near established centers. While it may be slightly biased since they're not looking at every square mile on the continent equally, it still helps fill in the blanks.
The point was that they don't. But in order to report a tornado, someone needs to see it, and it's a similar phenomenon here. Why is it when they accidentally find an archaeological site during construction, it's near other built up areas? Simply because that's where they build stuff. Near other buildings, and near infrastructure. I sort of see what you're saying, but it seems like the most sensible way of doing this is to go after the 'low hanging fruit' near established centers. While it may be slightly biased since they're not looking at every square mile on the continent equally, it still helps fill in the blanks.