Smithsonian Letter...

The Loony Bin ( loonies@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk )
Sat, 25 May 1996 12:31:35 +0100


Hiya Loonies...

Here's a rather strange letter from the Smithsonian...

Wishes & Dreams...

- ANDREA
        xx

************<andrea@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk>************
******************<ajc6@ukc.ac.uk>*******************
***                                               ***
***                THE LOONY BIN                  ***
***          loonies@bloodaxe.demon.co.uk         ***
***                                               ***
******************Internet Goddess*******************
*********************ANDROMEDA***********************

  ------- Forwarded foolishness follows -------

THIS IS AN ACTUAL LETTER FROM THE ARCHIVES OF THE SMITHSONIAN. 
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.
     
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities