I hope you’ve been enjoying some good summer R&R, or at least been up to something productive and beneficial; unlike this fellow in South Carolina who received the following letter from the Smithsonian Institute, Paleoanthropology Division: Dear Sir, thank you for your latest submission, 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 presense 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 give 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 this 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 approx. 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest idenfified 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 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, and b) Clams don’t have teeth. Sadly, we must deny your request to assingn your specimen the scentifice 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 specific name you selected was hyphenated, and didn’t really sound like it might be Latin. 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, 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 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 T-rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive apprearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe – Curator, Antiquites. Be careful to not misinterpret the people and events you’ll be uncovering this month. As the author of the New Testament letter to the Hebrews famously says, you never know when you might just be “entertaining angels unaware.” Dig it?
Pastor Mark