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.

True but to be fair they're still fresh findings. And oldest as well, so comparison to other findings is pretty low.

> 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/S1563011008...

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.