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 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 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 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 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.
