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 1956AD, 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 come 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
HARVEY ROWE
Chief Curator-Antiquities
Harvey
Rowe? | Ooohhh
| Zero
Gravity | ASA
| Barbie
