> True but to be fair they're still fresh findings.
Your "fresh finding" was found nine years ago - this is even explicitly stated in the 2015 Siberian Times article.
All of the citations for the paper describing the "bracelet" [1] are for uncontroversial findings (that Denisovans existed, that they interbred with Neanderthals, etc.) - none of them make any reference to the supposed "bracelet".
I figured someone who has no idea what they were talking about would say that. They're fresh but I'm not going to teach as to all the reasons why, as it's clear you don't do much with science, research or archaeology. Good luck.
Your "fresh finding" was found nine years ago - this is even explicitly stated in the 2015 Siberian Times article.
All of the citations for the paper describing the "bracelet" [1] are for uncontroversial findings (that Denisovans existed, that they interbred with Neanderthals, etc.) - none of them make any reference to the supposed "bracelet".
[1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008...