Reason why this story is doing circles again and trending high is because of a colossal, major screw-up, and no one picked up on it but a few readers yesterday.<p>The 8&#x2F;31 rawstory &quot;article&quot; originally claimed the carbon dating range was 568 - 545.  The 7&#x2F;22 University of Birmingham press release that the story is loosely based on stated &quot;568 - 645&quot;: the reporter copied the range wrong by 100 years and then researched and wrote rest of the article based on that.  They&#x27;ve since corrected the number (after it trended on reddit), but not altered the narrative to reflect the change.<p>So you have an entirely speculative article based off of incorrect facts and sensationalized on that premise, and no one bothered issuing a correction notice because it&#x27;s obviously sloppy, sloppy work and that&#x27;d be too much work or worse, embarrassing.  And now, all the lazy regurgitation of trending material from other news outlets is repeating the message whose very first paragraph was so horribly wrong.