050 - A Letter from the Smithsonian Institute 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 its 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 canine (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 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
I'm
told this is a true item, but haven't confirmed it. Still...it IS pretty funny.
[The
story behind this...Apparently, there is a nutball who digs things
out his back yard and sends his "discoveries" to the Smithsonian Institute,
labeling them with scientific names and insisting they are actual archeological
finds. The bizarre truth is this guy really exists and does this in
his spare time! Anyway, what follows is a letter from the Smithsonian
Institute in response to his submission of a recently discovered
specimen.]
==========================================
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce
wildly inaccurate results.
Curator, Antiquities