Karen Sullivan on fri 20 oct 00
The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in Newport,
VT named Scott Williams 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 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 you 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 closeline 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 ears 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
Phlogeny 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
Mike Gordon on sat 21 oct 00
What a funny story reminds me of Clayton Bailey out here in sunny
California, he lives in Port Costa east of San Francisco, he digs up
Kaolithic finds all the time and has his own museum. See his web site.
at www.claytonbailey.com Mike Gordon
eden@SOVER.NET on wed 8 nov 00
Hi Karen,
Thanks for this it is really a terrific read. But how do I file it?
Eleanora
At 10:55 AM 10/20/00 -0700, you wrote:
>The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in Newport,
>VT named Scott Williams 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 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 you 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 closeline 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 ears 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
>Phlogeny 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
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Eleanora Eden 802 869-2003
Paradise Hill
Bellows Falls, VT 05101 www.eleanoraeden.com
| |
|
