A gravesite for Miriam would rock a few boats. That would be Mary. Her presumed bodily assumption would be disproved and a key tenet of Mariology would have to be discarded. This, to me, would be a good thing, since the veneration of Mary has veered into excess and error. Others would fight it tooth and nail.
Miriam (Mary) is a very common name. Even within the Gospels there were many Marys (Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Celophas, etc)... The sensationalism of the title notwithstanding, the article is a big nothing. Besides the reference to Miriam, it tries to also imply that the graves contain the bones of "Yehoshua bar Yoseph” (I presume this is supposed to be Jesus - son of Joseph)... and “Yehuda bar Yeshua (Jesus)". As stated by many others - if the grave of Jesus, or his bones, were available, they would have been placarded to put down this 'outrageous' claim that Jesus is the Christ who died (according to Scriptures), and was buried, and rose again (according to Scriptures). When Peter boldly proclaimed the Risen Saviour on that Pentecost day in Jerusalem (Acts 2), there was no response from the authorities. No grave, no bones to show...
So someone found some graves making references to some very common names at that time - OK. Extrapolating further is a waste of time and energy.
Mary’s tomb is in Turkey near where the Apostle John lived. You can visit it to this day. The Assumption of Mary is a fairly late Roman idea.