Quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
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 bones.
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
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 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's Phylogenic 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 SearsCraftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities | 
