As you requested:
http://alus.ipfw.indiana.edu/~jakwkp01/digging/submission.html
Title: REJECT!
A Rejected Smithsonian Submission
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 hypothesis 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 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 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
