So people in present-day Austria are time-travelers?
It's clearly not talking about present day Austrians as it's 2700 years ago, and as Austria is a new country, and its name as a region only dates back c. 1000 years, it's clearly not talking about Austrians from 5000 years ago, as there weren't any, but it is talking about people from the region currently known as Austria.
I wonder if it's a language difference between English and American.
"Julius Caesar ruled over territory in present-day Italy, Tunisia, Spain, Turkey, (...etc)" is a perfectly normal sentence.
1) ruled is in past tense
2) "over territory in" establishing geographical context
The title starts with "People in present-day Austria" (implies the people there now) then switches to past tense and adds 2700 years ago.
No, I don't think it implies this. That would just be "people in Austria"; or if you want to make the presentness explicit, "people in Austria now".
> then switches to past tense
It's not a switch. "People in present-day Austria" doesn't have any tense (there are no verbs).
Honestly, I don't care what you think. It confused me. What more do you want from me?
I find that interesting.
Describing places, times, and people is difficult over long intervals. Both titles are reasonable efforts under constraints, and there is far more interesting content in the article to discuss: saline preservation, copralytic analysis, genetic sequencing, the discovery and persistence of fermantation, and more.
In Comments ... Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
The phrase "present day Austria" is commonly understood to mean exactly that.
I see nothing wrong with the title. Surely the ambiguity caused by the possibility that Austrians might be using their time machines to eat ancient cheese didn't cause you too much confusion?