The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball
in Newport, RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his
backyard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian
Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that
they are actual archaeological finds. This guy really exists and
does this in his spare time!
Anyway...here's the actual response from the Smithsonian
Institution. Bear this in mind next time you think you are
challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in
writing.
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
"93211-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 that one of our staff, who has small
children, believes to be "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-homonids.
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 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 Newport 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 metal in a structural matrix that makes
the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently
discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-cm Sears
Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.
Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Chief Curator-Antiquities
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|