 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Letter from the Smithsonian
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D,
layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have
given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to
inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive
proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years
ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of
a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children,
believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have
given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you
may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior
work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.
However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of
the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:
-
The material is molded plastic.
Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
-
The cranial capacity of the
specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold
of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
- The dentition pattern evident
on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated
dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams"
you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding
is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted
in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh
rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us
say that:
-
The specimen looks like
the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
- Clams don't have teeth.
-
The specimen looks like
the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
It is with feelings tinged
with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon
dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's
normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy
in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no
Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely
to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request
that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department
with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus
spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously
for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted
down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't
really sound like it might be Latin.
However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen
to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless,
yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate
here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a
special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have
previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates
daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have
discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's
capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing
the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing
you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation
of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent
juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive
appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
Author: Attributed
to Harvey Rowe
Received: December 1995