[1910] in Humor
Smithsonian...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aaron Quetzal Rogers)
Sat Feb 22 18:07:01 1997
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 18:04:26 -0500
To: humor@MIT.EDU
From: Aaron Quetzal Rogers <bigbird@MIT.EDU>
>In a message dated 97-01-29 02:57:47 EST,
>
><< The TRUE story behind the following letter:
>
> Some flake digs things out of his back yard and sends the
> stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling the items with
> scientific names and insisting that the things are actual archeological
> finds.
>
> This guy really exists and does this in his spare time!
>
> Here's a letter from the Smithsonian Institute concerning his latest
> submission, recently posted to the net by a junior associate at the
> Institute.
>
> 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" your 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 institute, 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 it's 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 your 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
> Institute, 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 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
>
>
>
>
