|
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC
20078
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled
" '211-D', layer seven, next to the clothesline, post Hominid skull."
We have given this specimen 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 feel that there are a number of physical attributes
of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its 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 that of a common domesticated canine (dog) than it is of
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 upon.
- Clams don't have teeth.
t 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
this Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what
you might happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered
in your backyard.
Additionally, we eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital,
which you proposed within your last letter. Several of us on the
staff 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" which make 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
|
