|
|
FIND.HTM
______________
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 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
Chief Curator-Antiquities
Press Backspace to return