[meteorite-list] Could "Archaeologist" be related to "StarchaserMeteorites"?

From: Erich Kern <efkern_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:16:52 -0700
Message-ID: <001701c81bd9$73b47a80$e7fcf604_at_TheBlackAdder>

Ok, the story behind this... There's this wacked out guy who digs things out of his backyard and
sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them with scientific names,
insisting that they are actual archeological finds. The really weird thing about these letters
is that this guy really exists! 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
Received on Wed 31 Oct 2007 12:16:52 PM PDT