Smithsonian Institute

Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled
"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
loath 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 moulded plastic.  Ancient hominid remains are
typically fossilised bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimetres, 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 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
Chief Curator- Antiquities