I couldn't resist putting this out.  It is from the Smithsonian.  A very
interesting analysis and submittal.
 
Mike Polk
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
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