There’s this nutball who digs things out of his back yard and
sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling
them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual
archeological finds. Here’s a letter from the Smithsonian
Institute from when he sent them a Barbie doll head.
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 it’s 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-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 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
he 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.” I 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 Sears
Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
Thursday, July 14th, 2005