From zink@ses.com Thu Apr  4 09:37:35 1996
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:49:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Ken Zink <zink@ses.com>
To: humor@ses.com
Subject: A day late and a dekadrachm short (was: More for April 1 (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:40:06 -0500
From: Robert L. Barnett <r-lowe-b@ACY.DIGEX.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list NUMISM-L
     <NUMISM-L@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>
Subject: A day late and a dekadrachm short (was: More for April 1 (fwd)

>
>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
>
>   *****************************************************************
>   __________________________________________________________

>