|
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "93211-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 that one of our staff, who has small children, believes
to be "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-homonids.
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
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 Newport 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 metal 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
Chief Curator-Antiquities
|
