|
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:
1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains
are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9
cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the
earliest identified proto-hominids.
3. 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:
A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog
has chewed on.
B. Clams don't have teeth.
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 its 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 |
