|
| |
Prehistoric Barbie
Shannon writes: "I looked for this one on your site but couldn't find it! I got
this 'Chain Email' today that had been everywhere and I can't believe that
people I know keep passing it on! I've seen on a news show that this is a
total hoax."
It's most definitely a hoax, as reported in the Denver Post and elsewhere.
But it's among the more entertaining bits of hokum you'll ever read...
Here's the story behind this... There's this
tripped out guy who digs things out of his
back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the
Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with
scientific names, insisting that they are
actual archeological finds. The really weird
thing about these letters is that this guy
really exists and does this in his spare time!
Anyway... here's a letter from the Smithsonian
Institute after he sent them a Barbie doll
head.
----------
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 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 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
|
