I think a lot of these kinds of articles let the phrase "rewrite history" do a LOT of heavy lifting. It sounds almost as if it will change our entire narrative of a place or time, when in reality it will likely add or nuance our understanding of a particular place or time... in a way most laypeople won't really find that compelling. I agree with your wariness, especially since there is simply not that much known about the find as yet, to say nothing of the implications of said find re: our understanding of Etruscan and Roman history, archaeology, art history, etc.

I won't go too far in depth with an answer because there just isn't that much information that has been made public about this find, so it is hard/impossible to comment to a great degree. What I gather about the find is this:

• 24 bronze statues were found in San Casciano dei Bagni, in modern Tuscany, Italy
• the context is some sort of sacred site that involved springs and baths, dating to the 3rd c. BC to the 5th c. AD
• the statues themselves date to the 2nd c. BC to 1st c. AD
• the closing of this shrine/bath complex involved the statues being immersed in the water and sealed over, which is what has protected them until today
• the statues represent humans and deities, males and females
  • but, while I have seen various articles give names or identities to these statues ('ephebe', Hygeia, Apollo, etc), I am not sure what these identifications are based on - they could be early assumptions given to journalists to add more color to their stories, or there may be inscriptions or attributes with the statues that make their identifications secure, but I have not seen that information detailed anywhere

I am skeptical of the 'rewriting history' aspect because the dates of the statues - 2nd c. BC to 1st c. AD - is not entirely a controversial time in central Italy. Rome's expansion through Etruria and other Etruscan-held territories was either over by this point, or would be settled by the end of the Social Wars (80 BC). There is no controversy over this, nor any dispute that after the Romans took political control of lands and settlements, that they often allowed local customs, religions, and languages to continue on - the change was that these people became politically and economically part of the Roman state. Studying this period, then, is one where we look at how that political change affected different places given their local histories, time of contact, disputes, diplomacy, etc with Rome, and so on - it is really about the nuances of how Roman control was or was not accepted, but no one will tell you that the Etruscans stopped speaking and writing the Etruscan language, or that their gods were outlawed, etc. So when I first heard about this find, I was a bit 'meh' about this idea of rewriting history - it will tell us more about what we already know, really, but where the real contribution will come is in the addition of much-wanted detail.

Here's what I mean by that statement. We're told that, in addition to these statues, there were also found 'thousands of coins' and an 'incredible quantity' of Etruscan inscriptions. The latter is particularly important, not because the inscriptions exist - again, we know Etruscan was still spoken at this point - but that we now have them to read. We are able to translate Etruscan, but the corpus of inscriptions is frustratingly small, and when we have a minimal amount of text we struggle to see the broader patterns of what was once a vibrant and complete language (this is true of Greek prehistoric scripts such as Linear A and B, of Etruscan, of Italic languages from throughout the peninsula such as Oscan, etc). So to add more to our general knowledge of Etruscan - its vocabulary, its grammar, its evolution into this later period of its usage - will be greatly significant. However, if said significance is felt much outside of ancient linguistics and Italic archaeology will depend upon what these inscriptions say. Most of the Etruscan inscriptions we already have are dedications (often involving some part of the formula from Xpersonalname to Ydeityname) or proprietary inscriptions (the tomb of Xpersonalname). What we lack is narrative prose which gives us more complex grammar, cases beyond those for direct/indirect object and instrumentals, etc. Will these 'new' inscriptions largely be repeats of the formulae we already know, or broaden our understanding of Etruscan? Stay tuned!

One thing I have seen reported on Twitter - and by a source I do not personally know, so I take this with a grain of salt - is a reference to a previously-unknown Etruscan deity by the name of Havens. If this is true it would be phenomenal - but, again, how much more might we know of this deity based on this find? Will it just be the name, or more of their identity, sphere of power, etc? This also remains to be seen.

So, in sum: this find really is sensational and scholars are legitimately excited (I probably didn't give that impression in my write-up, but in my own circles it's certainly true!). However, the headlines you're referencing are largely to drive clicks, and this is a brand-new find so scholarship needs some time to study what sounds like a huge quantity of material and process what it appears to mean. Will it rewrite what we know about Roman-Etruscan relations in the 2nd c. BC - 1st c. AD? Probably not, since we know relations were not friendly, but were not extinction-level events for the Etruscans either. However, this find will add detail, nuance, and possibly a more engaging narrative for this particular part of Italy than we had previously. And will it make for one incredible museum exhibition one day? Without question. I wish I could buy my tickets right now!