Maybe true, maybe not.  But FUNNY anyway!
 
 
   Our Story Begins. . . .
 
   Ok, 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 wierd 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 from when he
   sent them a Barbie doll head.
 
   ~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~
 
   Paleoanthropology Division
   Smithsonian Institute
   207 Pennsylvania Avenia
   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 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