It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As for the "how can they be sure it was a bracelet and not part of some other object?"... this has been a perennial kind of complaint by many critics of archaeology and their methodology. I don't doubt it was a bracelet; but that certainty is admittedly borne of the trust I have in scientific methods...
The notion of craftsmanship and specialization of skills becomes reinforced as likely ancient workshops and trade centers are found.
I would imagine a good test would be to engage some engineering/manufacturing group to request a bracelet (or ring) of obsidian be produced to the same specifications which appear to apply to this object. I suspect that you will be told - it cannot be done without a great deal of investment in the process; if at all.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Now think about it.... 10,000 years ago....
The last point in which Homo sapiens sapiens hit a dangerous low, coming close to extinction, was at year 70,000 BC during the Toba catastrophe. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign estimates human world population (Homo sapiens in Africa) between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding couples
Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Where is a real pic of the bracelet this is a 3D model?
Originally posted by alumnathe
Still looks like it is being assumed to be a bracelet (or something else we have a 21st century look-alike for). That goes with the logic of classic archaeology, where if you can't say outright what it is it must be 1) ornamental or 2) religious. The field of archaeology could make a huge step if it would just make official another category: 3) unknown. That would at least open conjecture to those who are more comfortable with things being unknown.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies here, at least insofar as realizing that what you attempt to explain will not remain explained when you're not looking in your own time. It's better to file these items as ornamental or religious because it is the first place future people will look for actual fundamental items that can solve future engineering problems.
In order to understand this object you need to read THE FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS by Graham Hancock.
My suggestion is that this 10,000 year old "bracelet" is probably not really an item of jewellery, but is more than likely some kind of industrial artifact passed down from a much earlier period of pre-history...
...lost because of the catastrophic crustal displacement which is believed to have occurred in around 15,000 BC. That most recent crustal displacement thrust the continent of North America out of the polar circle to where it is now, thus putting Siberia much nearer the arctic than it used to be. Naturally Antarctica used to be in the temperate zone, but is now at the south pole instead. Graham Hancock believes that Antartica is the original "Atlantis".
Originally posted by Astyanax
There is no mystery about this archaeological find. We know that Neolithic tribespeople had the technology to create these artefacts. We have many examples of such artefacts. We know how they were made. Why do we need to bring in tall tales of Atlantis and Lemuria? Is it only because some people find such things exciting?