Three reasons; The first is headline hyperbole. Journalists use cliche and overstatemnts. The second reason is "duplicate" reporting. An important find is mad

Three reasons; The first is headline hyperbole. Journalists use cliche and overstatemnts. The second reason is "duplicate" reporting. An important find is made. First impressions are reported. Then experts give some early, off hand opinions. Measurements and such trickle in. The first papers are published. People comment on papers. Older evidence is re-examined. Other papers are published. So.. the same "revision" is reported multiple times. Third, is yes. Human history is being re-written constantly atm. Paleo genetic evidence is adding knowledge. Dating is contantly improving. New sites are being discovered. We have recently gotten strong evidence for the existence of 3-4 new named archaics, contemporary to sapiens: denisova, naledi, luzonensis & floriensis. Some of these are very subject to "reason 2." But basically, yes. Evidence is mounting fast and theories are adapting fast too. Human paleontology is killing it!