Is it homage or just shameless appropriation when you use work by someone relatively obscure to create your own cultural products without credit? The title of the strip, and much of the dialogue, implies that the head is an ancient artifact, much like an Olmec head. If it's an ancient artifact its position and location are merely incidental details introduced by Griffith, rather than integral elements of the original work. In fact, treating the object as a simple ancient artifact effectively deletes Moe from the equation ... readers are more likely to think of links to poems like "Ozymandias" than to think a contemporary artist was involved in any way. There's even a spot where he could have mentioned her, and instead it says "Tip: Jennifer Mai," whatever that means.

Okay, I'm kind of kidding/exaggerating, but I'm a little sensitive about stuff like this ever since I caught a pharmaceutical company blatantly ripping off Andy Goldsworthy in a national ad campaign. Plus I think "Zippy" is wicked overrated, and almost never funny.

Also: 14th century? Huh?

I don't much get that ending, either. I'm betting that the soggy punchline frustrates more readers than the ambiguous nature of the art object in the panel.

Growing up in Kansas City, the KC Star had an annual write-in contest to see which comic strips people loved and which should get the boot. My family consistently and vehemently voted Zippy out. He never got booted. Its a sore subject.