I'm sure there are reasons for not explaining why I'm wrong but I question if this could have been the movement of antiques (such that the wreck is much newer than the cargo) or dumped overboard for some reason. All I see is they found really old clay pots.

Agreed.

It's like the next step after the ship of Theseus.

1. If you replace 100% of the wood, is it the same ship?

2. If there is no wood at all left, is it a ship at all?

This isn't a shipwreck. It's the site of a shipwreck. It's where a wreck used to be.

They also found stone anchors. So you could say it’s a shipwreck where nothing is left but the anchors.

If the anchors were gone too, I would agree with you—some piece of the original ship (not just the cargo) must remain to consider it a shipwreck.

It says they carried spares. Who's to say they weren't carrying 4, came across rough seas, tossed everything non essential overboard, and carried on their merry way?

My point is that there are other reasonable explanations for why that stuff was there and it seems odd to consider 0 of them or consider but not explain why they were invalidated by the experts.