4 ms·

This article about the bracelet is from 2015. No updates since then, and it does not link to anything peer-reviewed. All in all I would take this with a huge gr

This article about the bracelet is from 2015. No updates since then, and it does not link to anything peer-reviewed. All in all I would take this with a huge grain of salt.

hprotagonist 9y ago
and quotes the daily mail. as far as i'm concerned that puts it immediately in "bigfoot discovered in noah's ark" territory until definitively shown otherwise.
- horus_the_cat 9y ago
  Daily Mail's holding company has a serious data operation in place though, maybe they're leaking their inside info, like where the ark of the covenant is warehoused, now that earth is totally fucked
c0nducktr 9y ago
A simple google search shows further updates... http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/ http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds... https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23559 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23559
- martey 9y ago
  Except the Siberian Times article also doesn't link to anything peer-reviewed, and the Nature paper is about bone identification, not bracelets or other artifacts. The only academic paper about the bracelet I could find is from 2008 and was submitted to the journal "Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia", whose editor-in-chief, Anatoly Derevyanko, is also the paper's primary author.
  - BuckRogers 9y ago
    True but to be fair they're still fresh findings. And oldest as well, so comparison to other findings is pretty low.
    - martey 9y ago
      > 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". [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008000378 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008...
      - BuckRogers 9y ago
        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.
mirimir 9y ago
There's an article in Pleistocene Coalition News from 2015.[0] But I note: "The Pleistocene Coalition is now into its sixth year of challenging mainstream scientific dogma. If you would like to join the coalition please write to the editors." So ... I find no peer-reviewed followup about the Denisovan bracelet. However, I do find an article in Current Biology about Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans.[1] The date estimate is about right: "[W]e estimate 44,000–54,000 years ago for Denisovan admixture." 0) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.1178&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695... 1) http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2930247-0 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816...
madaxe_again 9y ago
Indeed, it's poorly written (no morphological similarities to modern humans?? They were alive before they were extinct? Daily mail as source), and this scans more like the mystical bullshit you read in Russian media all the time (Jesus was Russian, all peoples are descended from the pure Slavic archetype, dinosaur spotted in Yekaterinburg, putin wrestles ten bears saving orphanage).

This article about the bracelet is from 2015. No updates since then, and it does not link to anything peer-reviewed. All in all I would take this with a huge grain of salt.

hprotagonist 9y ago

and quotes the daily mail. as far as i'm concerned that puts it immediately in "bigfoot discovered in noah's ark" territory until definitively shown otherwise.

horus_the_cat 9y ago
Daily Mail's holding company has a serious data operation in place though, maybe they're leaking their inside info, like where the ark of the covenant is warehoused, now that earth is totally fucked

c0nducktr 9y ago

A simple google search shows further updates... http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/ http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds... https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23559 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23559

martey 9y ago
Except the Siberian Times article also doesn't link to anything peer-reviewed, and the Nature paper is about bone identification, not bracelets or other artifacts. The only academic paper about the bracelet I could find is from 2008 and was submitted to the journal "Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia", whose editor-in-chief, Anatoly Derevyanko, is also the paper's primary author.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  True but to be fair they're still fresh findings. And oldest as well, so comparison to other findings is pretty low.
  - martey 9y ago
    > 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". [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008000378 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1563011008...
    - BuckRogers 9y ago
      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.

mirimir 9y ago

There's an article in Pleistocene Coalition News from 2015.[0] But I note: "The Pleistocene Coalition is now into its sixth year of challenging mainstream scientific dogma. If you would like to join the coalition please write to the editors." So ... I find no peer-reviewed followup about the Denisovan bracelet. However, I do find an article in Current Biology about Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans.[1] The date estimate is about right: "[W]e estimate 44,000–54,000 years ago for Denisovan admixture." 0) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.1178&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695... 1) http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2930247-0 http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816...

madaxe_again 9y ago

Indeed, it's poorly written (no morphological similarities to modern humans?? They were alive before they were extinct? Daily mail as source), and this scans more like the mystical bullshit you read in Russian media all the time (Jesus was Russian, all peoples are descended from the pure Slavic archetype, dinosaur spotted in Yekaterinburg, putin wrestles ten bears saving orphanage).