This doesn’t sound dazzling, even to experts.
Article titles like this always get my hopes up for “we have to change all the textbooks”, but it almost never happens.
It’s hard to be impressed by “here’s a necklace that changes nothing”.
As a mathematician, there are plenty of my discoveries in my field that are once in a lifetime and dazzling (to specialists) that would be meaningless to the average mathematics undergraduate student, much less changing textbooks.
> Is there an example in mathematics of a once in a lifetime dazzling discovery that doesn’t change anything?
That doesn't change anything? No, probably not.
But that doesn't change undergraduate textbooks? I'd imagine it's harder to find a once-in-a-lifetime, dazzling mathematical discovery that does change them. (RSA encryption, maybe, although that was famously at least twice in a lifetime, RSA being re-discoverers of classified work.) I think of Fermat's last theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem#Wiles'... ) and the bounded-gaps results on primes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_gap#Upper_bounds ), both of which will surely be mentioned in new editions of good textbooks, but neither of which is likely to change the actual mathematical content of those textbooks.
And these are just the ‘popular’ ones! For a long list of others, one can look at Fields-Medal work. In my own area, there is the recent proof of the fundamental lemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_lemma_(Langlands_p... ), which is unlikely to be suitable even to be stated in any but the most advanced textbooks.
Historians love old shit. I married one of them. This is just how experts respond to niche topics.
Artifact interpretation is always so tendentious. Lots of people wear necklaces with a cross pendant today. They are mostly not trying to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.