M.A. IVANOV A & M.A. NAZAROV 236 V M 1811. A report on air stones Of ai~o- 55 Principles of Meteoritics. SEVERGIN, .' . the Museum of the lmpenal KRINov, E.L. 19 . ( d) State publishers ?f lithes preserved l~ 'Technological journal, Fesenkov, V.G. e... Moscow (lll Academy of s clences., Technical/Theoretical LIterature, VIII 129-132 (in Russian). N rth Meteorites and the Smithsonian Institution Russian). R ' Moscow Nauka, ' 1809 On a New Map of the 0 em KRINOV , E.L. 1981. Iro.n am. . STEHLIN; jA. d ecimen of native iron. Philoso- 2 Archipelago, an .sp .J' the Royal Society of ROY S. CLARKE, JR!, HOWARD PLOTKIN & TIMOTHY J. McCOY! Moscow, 192 (in Ru~:a~'F Chladny _ a founder phical TransactIOns OJ MASSALSKAYA, K.P. 19 . . ' 'M' 'tika 11 33-46 1 Department of Mineral Sciences, National Museum of Natural History, of scientific meteontlcS. eteon , , London LXIY, l774, 46l. Th 'r • A 1807 On Aerial Stones and el STOlKQVICH,.. .' f Kharkov Kharkov, 271 Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0119, USA (in Russian). M' I us Showers 01" Stones Origin. Umverslty 0 , 1M 1819 On tracu 0 'J 2Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 3K7 MUKHI~,.. h~ Air (Aeroli!hes). Imperial Foun~- (in Russian). . h in ~alling F~°alm 'Publisher St Petersburg, 207 (m o 1915. AstronomIc P enomena (e-mail: [email protected]) hng-HospJt ' SVI~TSK.Y, ~;st~rical Chronicles Considered from a Russian). A 2000 The meteorite collection of the usswn . "V' Bulletin of the Department NAZAROV, M.. . f Sciences In: ALEKSEEVA, Scientific. Pomt oJ lew. and Linguistics of the of RUSSian Language . 20 book 1 and 2. Abstract: Meteoritics at the Smithsonian Institution is intimately linked to the broader Russian Academy 0 ,I" the Ru~sian Academy of T I (ed) Museums OJ 62 Imperial Academy of S,c lences , growth of the science, and traces its roots through influential individuals and meteorites . . . . . W ld Moscow, 47 - . P tro ad 214 (in RUSSian). . from the late 18th century to the dawn of the 21st century. The Institution was founded Sciencpes ' Sf~~n6t1fi;rav~;s in Various provinces .of e gr , 0 1928 Similar features of meteonte S SVIATSKY, D.. . k'n 1908 and Great with an endowment from English mineralogist James Smithson, who collected meteorites. PALLAS, ..' 2 2 385-482. Impenal Early work included study of Smithson's meteorites by American mineralogist J. Lawrence the Russian State, Volume '(,' Russian the book phenomena at Tungus ~ I d . 17 117 - 119 Academy of Sciences Press m d F 'h) Ustyug III. XIII century . Mlrove ente, , Smith and acquisition of the iconic Tucson Ring meteorite. The collection was shaped by . h d' Gennan an rene . (in Russian), bI s geochemist F.W. Clarke and G.P. Merrill, its first meteorite curator, who figured in was al~0.1Ulb~~SO eT~; Origin of Meteorites. Halley V I 1941. Some thoughts on pro . em debate over Meteor Crater and was a US pioneer in meteorite petrology. Upon MeDill's PANETH, .' . P ess Oxford, 26. VERNADSKY , .. "k 1 3 22 (in RUSSian) . death in 1929, E.P. Henderson would lead the Smithsonian's efforts in meteoritics Lecture. The Clarendon .r th'e history of meteori- of meteoritics. Meleon!1 a, , - D W 1975 Sketches to . . 0 through a tumultuous period of more than 30 years. Collections growth was spurred by SEA~S, . . .rth I the science. Meteorltlcs, 1 , tics 1: the bl 0 scientific collaborations with S.H. Perry and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 2l5- 226. and a sometimes contentious relationship with H.H. Ninioger. Henderson played a key role in increasing meteorite research capabilities after the Second World War, placing the Smithsonian at the forefront of meteoritics. After 1969 involvement in the fall of the Allende and Murchison meteorites, lunar sample analyses, the recovery of the Old Woman meteorite and recovery of thousands of meteorites from Antarctica produced expo­ nential growth of the collection. The collection today serves as the touchstone by which samples returned by spacecraft are interpreted.

The Smithsonian Institution's meteorite collec­ matter through Chancery Court. In 1838 a tion traces its roots to England in the last fortune of more than $500 000 in gold, Smithson's decades of the ] 8th century, and to the Insti­ mineral collection (containing a suite of meteor­ tution's founder and first meteorite collector ites), some of his personal effecto;, his books, and James Smithson (c. 1765- 1829).1 The United over 200 manuscripts, letters and notes arrived States first learned of Smithson when the safely in Washington. Ne w-York American of 26 January 1830 rep­ Congress debated at length the nature of the rinted a story from The Times of London of 'Institution' to be fonned, and it was not until 10 December 1829. It reproduced Smithson's 1846 that the Smithsonian Institution was which was in probate court, and noted that will, created by an act of Congress. The distinguished under 'certain circumstances' his estate would physicist Joseph Henry (1797-1878) was come to the US. The 'certain circumstances' _ appointed its founding Secretary and assumed the death of Smithson's nephew without responsibility for creating a new type of organiz­ progeny - came to pass, and in 1835 the ation. The Smithsonian Institution Building (now British Government officially informed the US generally known to the public as the Castle) was of Smithson's death and of the strange, last­ constructed on a site that is now on the National resort provision of his will that had come into Mall, and was occupied by the mid 1850s. These lorce: 'I bequeath the whole of my property to early years were troubled for the Smithsonian the United States of America, to found in Institution due to competing interests, lack of WaShington, under the name of the Smithsonian established precedents and the advent of a InstitUtion, an establishment for the increase and brutal Civil War. As the war was winding diffusion of knowledge among men'. The US down in early 1865, the Smithsonian Building Congress accepted the bequest from this was severely damaged by fire. Smithson's unknown benefactor, and envoy Richard Rush mineral collection, his manuscripts and his per­ (1780 - 1859) was sent to London to see the sonal effects were lost. A rich and untapped

From: MCCALL, G.l.H., BOWDEN, A.l. & HOWARTH, R.J. (eds) 2006. The History of Meteoritics and Key Meteorite COllections: Fireballs. Falls and Find.~. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 256, 237-265. 0305-8719/06/$15.00 © The Geological Society of London 2006. R.S. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 239 238 information on Smithson and published it along . On 15 June 1~94, Vesuvius experienced one of discussion of falling stones had already bee resource of the Institution's founder, a man with extant published reports (Rhees 1879, Its l~gest eruptIons ever. Sir William Hamilton outdated in Italy, e.ven before it was taken u~~~ unknown in the US, was gone. 1880). Smithson's 27 scientific papers are publtshed an early report, and included in it a France, ~or. such IS the limited nature of our included as is an informative report by W.R. report of happenings 18 h later near Siena, a commulllcatIons. James Smithson the scientist Johnson' (1844), 'A memoir on the scientific small. town sItuated a little south of Florence S~thson was an ~ctive and respected partici­ character and researches of James Smithson, (Hanulton 1795, pp. 103- \05): James Smithson (Fig. I) was illegitimately born pant 10 the commuruty of scientists that laid the of a union of two illustrious English families, Esq., F.R.S.'. Johnson had full access to groundwork for modern meteoritics. He was per­ I must ?ere mention a very extraordinary circum­ and he was known as James Lewis Made until Smithson's Washington material before the fire, sonally acquainted with most of the scientists and his paper makes clear the historical richness stance Indeed, that happened near Sienna [sic] 1801.2 As a well-educated young man - MA portrayed by Urs~la Marvin in her study of of the Smithson deposit as it arrived from Great about 18.hours after the commencement of th~ 1786, Pembroke College, Oxford - he began his late eruptlO~ of Vesuvius .. . although that phae­ Er:nst F.F. Chladni and the origin of meteoritic lifelong pursuit of mineralogical and geologl~al Britain. ~01~enon, [SIC] ma~ have no relation to the erup­ sCIence (Marvin 1996, 2006). To be sure he knowledge and specimens. A talented blowpIpe Smithson's first recorded scientific adventure tIon. . . . In the ffildst of a most violent thunder­ ~as not a great innovator who passed o~ an was as a participant at age 19 .in the analyst, he appeared on the scientific scene w~ll­ stann, . abou~ a dozen stones of various weights l~portant scientific legacy to following gener­ with interests, skills, dedication, personal con­ known and, in part, rigorous Faups de Samt­ and dImensIOns fell to the feet of different allons, but he was a respected and well-kno nections and financial resources that enabled Fond trip to Scotland and the Isle of Staffa in people; the s.tones are a quality not found in any member of his scie~tific community. His ass:i~ 1784 (Geikie 1907). This was arranged by an part of the Slennese territory; .. . '. him to become a respected contributor to the ates wer~. the leadmg figures in science in the science of his era. His 10000 specimen mineral Oxford mentor, William Thomson (\760- conunumtIes where he resided: London Par· collection that arrived in Washington undoubt­ 1806)3 After leaving Oxford, Smithson spent a We. are inde.bted to the recent investigations of Flo. rence, Nap 1es an d several cities in Germany' IS, edly included among its suite of meteorit~ speci­ period in London where he was sponsored by SmIthson ~lOgrapher Heather P. Ewing 5 to It IS safe to s.ay that he knew, and was kno~ Henry Cavendish (\731-1810) among mens representatives of those partIcularly otherpr~ ­ learn of S~thson's reaction to these events and b~, the lea~ng w?rke:s in mineralogy and provocative European falls of the final years of minent savants, and had access to Cavendish s for per~l1lttIng a quotation from her draft mmeral cherrnstry, his pnrnary scientific interest manuscnpt: the 18th century and very early 19th century. personal laboratory and library. He attended ~s well as .in n:eteorite studies. His personal scien~ The loss of Smithson's archive and mmeral Royal Society meetings and was elect~d .a tttlc c.ontnbutlOn that is remembered today is his . :. Smi~son immediately rode over the Chianti collection brought home to Smithsonian Insti­ FellOW in April, 1787, one of the youngest mdl­ cherru~al study of the material then known as tution officials how little they understood of the viduals ever to receive this honour. It is clear that hills ~o SIena to see the fruits of the phenomenon for hlms~lf, according to a published account . .. calanune and tho~ght to be a single mineral. character and accomplishments of their benefac­ he was a highly respected young man dedicated He showed that It actually consisted of t to science generally, and particularly to mineral- of ~e SIena. meteor shower reads in parts like tor. Chief Clerk William J. Rhees (1830- 1907) a ~a.J.rytale, In the way it evokes Smithson's substa~ces, the minerals known today as he~~ searched Smithsonian Institution records for ogy and mineral analysis. ... . amval, u~derscoring at the same time how her­ morphlt~ an? smithsonite, the latter having been By late 1791 Smithson was hVlllg m Pans. On alded. Sll1:'thson wa<; among his scientific contem­ named m hIS honour (Smithson 1803). He also 1. January 1792, he wrote to his Lond?n frie~d poran.es l~ Italy: There was in this year also pubhs~ed on volcanic material from Mount Charles Greville (\749- 1809) expressmg satIs­ traveling. III Tuscany the illustrious Chemist, V~S~VluS sent to 6~m in London in 1796 by faction with the Paris winter, the early stages of !.L. Macle, [1. SmithsonJ whom I personally WIlham Thomson m Naples (Smithson 1813). the French Revolution and metaphorically com­ mtr~uced to Father Soldani.' ... Smithson pared the Revolution to the then e~pting ~?unt studied the stones t~at .had been brought together Vesuvius, a geological interest of his. AntIcIpat­ ~d penned a descnptIon of his findings 'to his The early Smithsonian Institntion ing spending the next winter in Italy, .Smithso.n fnend Mr. Cavendish' back in London to spread the word of this extraordinary happe~ing. The st?ry o~ the .Snti~hsonian Institution's early asked Greville for a letter of introductlOn to hIS years IS a nch histoncal feast in its own right uncle Sir William Hamilton (\730- 1803)4 The fall of the Siena meteorite was well and mu.ch too complex to summarize here: Hamiiton was British envoy to the Court of observed by Europeans from several countries Suffice !t to say, museum-type activities were Naples, and among his man~ intere~ts he was p~ of lt~ programme from the beginning. The an avid observer of the nelghbounng Mount and . served to convince many of them of the reality of meteorite falls. Unfortunately, the Napo­ SmJthsoman Institution took shape at a time Vesuvius. when ~ovemments sponsored around-the-world In the late spring of 1794 Smithson was resid­ l~omc ."'ar~ mterfered senously with the general ~sse?U~atIon of these observations, resulting in explo~~g expeditions, and the US was sending ing in Florence and, if he had not already become expedItIons ~d surveys into the American aware of meteorites, his attention was about to be ~~ slgmfic~nce of the Siena fall not being gener- .y recogruz.e~ .. In retrospect, however, it was West. CollectJon~ of natura! history, ethnological drawn to them in an exceedingly dramatic way. and ~chaeologlcal specImens gravitated to We surmise that at the time he was following this f~~ that IflJnated a period of transition from s~epnclsm about meteorite falls to the modern Washm~ton. The Smithsonian Institution could Vesuvius's activity through correspondence not aVOId the responsibility of accommodating ThVIew 0 f th· err acceptance. Ten years later with William Thomson, his fonner Oxford many of these collections. friend then living as an expatriate in Naples, 3 oms~n (1804) commented on this in footnote WhOf hIS paper. on meteorite metal, the paper ~n ~ut~oritative pictorial introduction to the some 200 kIn to the south. The volcano had InstitutIon. s early years, its people and its been experiencing an unusually active period e~ the Wldmanstatten pattern was first ~es~nbe~. In recalling Father Soldani's contri­ accumulatlllg collections is provided by Field for some months. Thomson had taken on t.he et al. (1993), and a brief history of the develop­ recording of Vesuvius's activity as a ~aJor B~h?n s m reporting the Siena fall, he refers to lot s report on the L' Aigle fall of 1803: me~t ~f rruneral sciences at the Smithsonian project and was collecting suites of specl~ens InStItutlOn by Mason (1975a). The 19th and Fig. 1. James Smithson (c. 1765 - 1829), from a to document the flows, and particularly the lflter- a large number of observations seemed to be ear~y 2?th century publications of the miniature portrait done from life in 1816 by H. Johns. actions of lava with the materials it contacted, ~nkno wn o~, new at the time of the discussion Snuths<:'Olan lnstitution and its several subunits Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution Archives, R.U. both natural and man-made. at Mr BOlt s report aroused in France ... The are a nch source of historical information, as 95, Box 21. METEORlTICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 240 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. 241 By 1853 Professor J. Lawrence Smith American A " are the extensive collections of the Smithsonian S . ssoclation for the Advancement of o~r collection. The 688 kg Ring and its compa­ (1818- 1883) was a distinguished public figure, cl~nc~ at. their. meeting at the Smithsonian Institution Archives. nIon, t~e ~87 kg Carleton piece, were both used instltutlon 1fi Apnl 1854 and published the next a Southerner, an innovative analytical chemist­ as a~vlls III t.he presidio of Tucson while it was year (Snuth 1855, 1856). Smith continued as a mineralogist and a well-known mineral collector MexI~an temtory. US troops entered the area at (Silliman 1886) (Fig. 2). He spent the year in frequent correspondent with Secretary He Early meteorite activities at the the ume of the Gadsden Purchase of 1853- Washington primarily for family reasons after over the years. Upon Smith's death his collect~ 1854, and US Anny Surgeon Dr B.J.D. Irwin Smithsonian Institution having resigned his position at the University went to Harvard University, and his wife found the Rmg .abandoned in Tucson. Irwin had end?wed the J. Lawrence Smith Fund at the As if in tribute to its founder, the first Smith­ of Virginia. At the time he had no documented fBrown Goode (Goode 1897, p. 305) set the butlOns to meteoritics. ab~ut ~~e scene by quoting from a report of the National whether his involvement with Smithson's Rmg and fo~nd that Baird knew of the specimen Institute, the organization that had responsibility meteorites awakened a new interest is not ~d ~anted H, and he made arrangements to have known. Whatever the stimulus, this was a for Smithson's effects before they were moved The Tucson, Arizona, Ring meteorite 11 shIpped to Washington (Buchwald 1975). The to the new Smithsonian Institution Building turning point in Smith's research and collecting story of the two Tucson specimens prior to the in 1857: 'Among the effects of the Late Mr interests. With the exception of the Civil War !he ~act th~t the Smithsonian Institution had Anglos mo~ing into Tucson, and the controversy Smithson is a cabinet which, so far as it has years, when he was isolated and disheartened ~ nhented ~m:thson's meteorites did not dissuade and confusIO~ that ~eveloped around moving by what was happening in the country, his It from burldmg ~ meteorite collection of its own. been examined, proves to consist of a choice the.m to ~ashmgton , IS treated in interesting his­ and beautiful collection of minerals... The research and collecting energies were devoted At least on~ major specimen, and possibly the tone detad by Willey (1987). The Ring arrived at cabinet also contains a valuable suite of largely to meteorites. The first of his many first . meteonte acquired by the Institution was the S~~SO?lan InstItutIOn in 1863, was placed meteoric stones, which appear to be suites of memoirs on meteorites was read before the o b~amed p~or to the 1865 fire. It is the T~cson, on .exhlb~t ~ed!ately8 and remained in the most of the important meteorites which have Arizona, ~ng .meteorite (Fig. 3), a specimen Sm~thsoruan b~Ild1Dg , with the exception of a that ever Slllce Its acquisition has been iconic of fallen in Europe during several centuries'. Sec ~ penod when It was exhibited at the 1876 retary Joseph Henry's Annual Report for 1853 (Henry 1854) mentions their examination: 'The laboratory of the Institution during the past year has been used by Professor J. Lawrence Smith in the examination of Amer~ ican minerals .... He also made a series of ana­ lyses of meteorites, among which were fourteen specimens belonging to the cabinet of James Smithson' . Secretary Henry's report that Smith made 'analyses' of 'fourteen specimens belonging to the cabinet of James Smithson' is a claim that has been quoted in the context of actual chemical analyses. This, however, may be something of an overstatement. Smith published frequently and in full detail, with 40 mineralogical publications to his credit at the time, but there is nothing in his subsequent first meteorite paper or the many fol­ lowing meteorite papers that can be related to Smithson's meteorites (Smith 1855). His empha­ sis was American minerals and American meteorites. Smith's 46 meteorite titles (Silliman 1886) contain only one non-American name, Victoria West, Cape Province, South Africa. And Smithson's meteorites were known to have been European falls. A reasonable surmise is that Smith examined Smithson's meteorites visu­ IJ ally, certified their legitimacy and reported his conclusions to Henry. Smithson's specimens :Fig.2. J. Lawrence Smith (1818- 1883), a mid-19th must have been small in order for such a large century mineralogist and chemist, analysed minerals and number to be accommodated in his compact meteorites at the Smithsonian Institution in the mid- specimen cabinet. They would not have been 18505. Later he became a serious meteorite collector and attractive prospects for Smith to analyse chemi~ competitor of the leading meteorite collector of the period, Professor Charles Upham Shepard. Smithsonian Fig.h 3. The Tu cson, Ari zona, Ring. meteorite dis la ed ' h . . .. cally, even if permission could have been p Otograph dates from 1867 S·lh·. .P y to t e SIDlthsoman InstItutIon building in 1863 Th· obtained to consume the required material. negative number SIA 84~ llO8. . rru soman negatIve number SIA 87 - 5252- 6. . IS R.S. CLARKE METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 242 ET AL. 243 Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, until acquisitions may be obtained from entries in status of .the two collections as of 1888 . moved into the new US National Museum Build­ the master mineral catalogue prior to 1885. ~resented m detail in Clarke's meteorite colle~~ ing across the Mall around 1910, where it Three meteorites were catalogued in 1870, non catalogue (Clarke 1889). By then the three listed in 1873, two in 1882 and nine in remains today. ~mlthsoma~ had an internationally representa­ 1884, for a total of 17 specimens representing tIve collectJOn of over 250 specimens mainly 13 different meteorites in 35 years of specimen ~mall but also containing several o'f major Port Olford meteorite hoax accumu1ation. These results clearly indicate unport~nce. It wa~ augmented by the Shepard A very different type of long-term involvement that prior to 1885 meteorites were valued when col~ectlO~ - . whIch officially came to the they came to the Smithsonian, but were not SmlthsoOlan m 1915 - of over 200 spe . with a problematic meteorite was initiated essen­ All' II' clmens tially simultaneously with J.L. Smith's work high-priority items. George P. Merrill (1854- m a It wa.s a meteorite collection compar~ on meteorites at the Institution. John Evans 1929) separated meteorites out of the mineral able to those m .oth~r major museums of the (1812- 1861), a contract explorer of the Oregon catalogue and entered them in a new meteorite day. Clarke, a SClentlst of international stature catalogue around 1900. Currently, 15 of these ~d the first Smithsonian curator with a . and Washington territories for the Department mte t' b ·Id· senous of Interior, collected geological specimens in early specimens are in the Smithsonian Insti­ res m Ul mg a meteorite collection t k Oregon in 1856. Three years later the Boston tution collection, although several are reduced meteorit. es a t th e S nuthsonian. Institution ' from00 chemist Charles T. Jackson (1805-1880) recog­ somewhat in size. cuno ~tatus to a serious exhibit and research nized a pallasite meteorite specimen among collectlOn within a few short years. samples Evans had sent him for analysis. Enter F.W. Clarke Upon inquiry, Evans told Jackson that he The Merrill years had removed the small specimen from a 20 ton Spencer Fullerton Baird's elevation to the Smithsonian's second Secretary in 1878 provided George Perkins Merrill" (1854- 1929) .. d mass in the mountains near Port Orford, and the S ·th . I . Jome the 'Port Orford meteorite saga' was initiated the Institution with its first leader dedicated to the . nu soman nstltution in 1881, and durin to unfold over 130 years of Smithsonian Insti­ development of the US National Museum hi~ .48-year tenure became a major figur~ tution history. A public campaign quickly devel­ (Henson 2004). He visualized a museum orga­ wlthm the Smithsonian and in US science gener­ oped to convince Congress to provide funding to nized along scientific-discipline lines and ally. Brought to Washington by Assistant Sec­ retrieve the meteorite and bring it to the staffed well beyond the small number of current ret~ C?eorge Brown Goode, he developed Smithsonian. Although this idea won surpris­ employees. Funds for new positions were not to rapl~l~ mto a multitalented scientist, museum ingly broad public support, the firing on Fort be had, so Baird devised a creative solution. He adlllimstrator. an~ writer. Menill was productive Sumter in early 1861, the resulting outbreak of appointed highly qualified individuals as Honor­ ~om the begmmng, and was appointed Curator Civil War and Evans' untimely death that year, ary Curators who assumed their responsibility III 1889 and Head Curator of Geology in 1896 with full authority and organizational support, ~ig . 4, .Frank Wigg.lesworth Clarke (1847- 1931), an made any such plan impossible (Burke 1986, mternatlOnal figure 10 cheou' 'try and' . a pOSItIOn he held until his death (Fig 5) Hi' but without pay. His choice for the Department . ., plOneenng early ye . . s p.202). geo.chenu.st, ,set ~e pattern for the development of the ars were under the influence of The story receded into the background, but of Minerals was Frank Wigglesworth Clarke Srruthsoruan s .nuner.al and meteorite collections in F.W. Clarke, and he would certainly have been was revived in the early 20th century in the (1847-1931); the relatively young but already the 1880s. Snuthsoman Institution Archives RU7080 keenly aware of the. Clarke- Shepard mineral Box 1, F21. ' popular press. The press stories led to hundreds wel1-known chemist recently recruited by the and ~eteonte acqUiSItIon activity, and of the of failed attempts to relocate the meteorite over US Geological Survey to the position of Chief deP?Slt of the Shepard meteorite and mineral col­ Caro Iina, and was mvolved. in phosphate mining the years, and reams of frustrating official corre­ Chemist (Fig. 4). Clarke was well known to the iecnons at the museum (Roe 1975) M t . and the development of mineral properties t di . e eonte spondence - especially at the Smithsonian after Smithsonian through its publication of three of sues attracted his attention early and . Shepard's father, Professor Charles 1929 - when it obtained from the Boston his papers on the physical constants of chemical Upha~ 1888 - the year of the Clarke ;"eteOri:~ Shepard (I804- 1886), was an early and distin­ Society of Natural History the small pallasite substances in the 1870s. During his decade of catalogue .- the first three of his approximatel US nuneralogist, and mineral and specimen that Jackson had called to scientific involvement with the meteorite collection the gUlshe~ 80 met~onte papers were published. y meteonte collector. Dr Shepard Ir shared hi attention, which became known in the literature Smithsonian Institution published his revised ~emll. arrived during the period that the interest in minerals and meteorites as the 'Port Orford' meteorite. The historical and enlarged version of The Constants of ~ather's an~ SmIthsoruan was dealing with the man research of Plotkin (1993) and technical work Nature (Clarke 1888). Shortly thereafter he pub­ y the. 1880~ was building his own met~orite boxcu.r-Ioads of material that had arrived i~ collecti.on WIth his father's and Clarke's help of Buchwald & Clarke (1993) have demonstrated lished his remarkably insightful paper, 'The rela­ ~ashmgto~. following the close of the Centen­ tive abundance of the chemical elements' (Clarke FolloWlllg Shepard Sr's death in 1886 hi . that Evans' discovery story was a hoax, and his dep 't d th S ' s son mal ExpOSItIOn. of 1876 in Philadelphl'a . S peCl-. 'Port Orford' meteorite was actually a small 1892), the paper that set the stage for his classic . OSI e e hepards' joint meteorite collec mens were b emg proc.essed from storage into individual from the lmilac, Chile, meteorite, The Data of Geochemistry that went through hon w~t~ the Smithsonian for public exhibit i~ the then-new US NatIOnal Museum Building re~ogmtIon of his father's contributions to which he probably acquired while passing five editions over 40 years (Clarke 1959). (now known as the Arts and Industries Build' ) through Panama on his return from Oregon to Clarke served the Institution in this honorary pos­ ~~lence. It. wa~ reported to be the largest meteor­ !hlS was a difficult period l2 of insufficient ~~Jt. ition from 1883 to 1931, while simultaneously 10 the C?J1ntry at the time. Clarke Washington, DC. w~r~ollec~on madequate facilities, and frequent administrativ~ becoming a leading international figure in the of b ~ J;'lth Shepard to continue the growth and personnel changes. development of chemical science and, in particU­ tio 0 hr e Shepard and the Smithsonian coHec­ L~cking s~p~ort to continue his innovative Early growth of the collection lar, geochemistry. M n tough an active exchange programme In studies of bUlldlllg stones in the 1890s Me '11 The first several decades of meteorite collecting When Clarke arrived he was already a corre­ Ih:ii of 1888 Shepard wrote to Clarke saying foc~sed on meteorites and various aspectsmof at the Smithsonian Institution were haphazard, spondent of Dr c.u. Shepard, Jr (1842- 1915), 1 th t wa~ his l~tention to donate the collection t?elr stu~y. Meteorites were a major preoccupa­ and surviving records include embarrassing an agricultural chemist who operated a commer­ to the SnuthsoOlan Institution and that a clause tIOn for hIS :em~ining 35 years, and the collection at effect had been written into his will. The lapses. An impression of early meteorite cial analytical laboratory in Charleston, South ° grew steadIly m both numbers and quality of METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN R.S. CLARKE ET AL. 245 244 time that the Canyon Diablo meteorites and taken a stronger stand. This did not help his Stuart Perry (1879-1957) was editor and pub­ business efforts to retrieve the large buried th err. proXl·ffil·ty to an unknown crater.' structure lisher of the Adrian Daily Telegram - an Adrian, had just been brought to public attentl~n. mass of Ni - Fe, but it did establish Merrill as a Michigan, newspaper - and an active meteorite Merrill had only published three me~eo~te lifelong authority on the crater and its meteorites collector and correspondent of Merrill's by late (see McCall 2006a). descnptIons,.. b u t he was a respected. , SCIentIst't 1927. The two men developed a friendly assocIate. d WI·th. the Smithsoman. s . meteon e While Merrill was building the meteorite relationship, and in a letter of 21 May 1928," collection, he was also active in disseminating collection His views would be of mterest, as Perry explained why he was collecting meteor­ Gilbert consIdered. . meteoflte. ..,lorm ation of the infonnation about the science of meteoritics _ ites. He was not collecting for frivolous reasons crater as one possibility. . particularly the relatively new discipline of petrol­ but to provide a good collection of meteorites G·lbert's thoughts about the crater were dls­ ogy. Smithsonian Secretary Joseph Henry had to the University of Michigan, his Alma Mater cuss~d in many lectures in th~ late 1890s a~d earlier recognized the lack of ready access for to which he felt deeply indebted. A year later 1 1900s and his conclUSIOn appeared 10 most US workers to European literature and on \0 May 1929,]6 just 3 months before Merrill's e~~ in his' famous 'The origin of hypotheses Merrill faced this same problem. A number of death, he wrote stating a modification of his p. .' paper (Gilbert 1896). He concluded that important late 19th century meteorite papers - par­ intentions: 'One of the things I wanted to say to Meteor Crater was fonned by a volcamca~ly ticularly those that were well illustrated - were you, and which I felt sure you would be glad to induced steam explosion and not by meteor:te published in very limited numbers. In contrast, hear, is that I am going to give some of my . t nd the matter was never further dIS­ Merrill's many papers, particularly during the meteorites to the Museum. This does not conflict Impac, a G·lb rt' ·m publicly. Such was 1 e s early period, were published in the two most cussed b Y hI ·th· th with my original intention ... But in as much as stature and influence, particularly WIlDe readily available US sources, the American the University of Michigan has made no special USGS at the time, that a pall was cast over Journal of Science and Smithsonian Institution effort in their study ... Specimens of outstanding crater studies for a number of decades. . I publications. The Smithsonian Institution publi­ importance - more particularly undescribed A few years after Gilbert's paper, D::rue cations, in particular, offered an opportunity for meteorites - would better go to Washington'. Moreau Barringer (1860- 1929) obtamed a generous use of photographs, and Merrill Merrill must have been pleased with the rater and he and co-worker was among the first US meteorite workers to use contro I 0 f the C '.. . promise, and he certainly would have been B C Tilghman published theIr studIes supportmg photographs to illustrate and introduce meteorite delighted by how it worked out many years later. . ~eteorite origin for the structure (Barnnger petrography to his readers. This trend culminated ~905· Tilghman 1905). Merrill noted that sud­ at the end of his career with the technical publi­ Fig 5 George Perkins Merrill (1854- 1929) in an d nl' an issue that had concerned few was cation, Composition and Strncture of Meteorites The final act undat~d photograph from about the time he became b~o~ht to public attention and generated . l~ (Merrill 1930), and his book for the general Merrill was on museum business in Europe Head Curator of Geology in 1897. ~~ng many reader The Story of Meteorites (Merrill 1929). accomplishments in geology and sClentlfic . . reat deal of interest. In May of 1907 Mem during the summer of 1926 and received a g d to Meteor Crater for detailed fieldwork Another aspect of Merrill's career that was to administration, he became a leading meteonte auth~nty returne . d d welcome letter from Director Alexander and presided over the healthy growth ,of the. meteon~ of his own that he pubhshed, by the stan ~ s have great importance for the development of the Wetmore (1886- 1978). It appeared almost collection for more than 30 years. Smltbsoruan negatlve of the day, in a lavish;l~ illustrated r~vlew meteorite collection was his interactions with certain that the Frederick A. Canfield (1849- number SIA 91 ~ 7251. (Merrill 1908). While wntmg the paper 10 the Harvey H. Nininger and Stuart H. Perry. Both 1926) ntineral collection and a generous endow­ fall of 1907 Merrill wrote to GIlbert about poss­ of these men will be introduced in more detail ment to maintain it were conting to the Museum. ·ble modes of its fonnation. In his respo~se later, but mention should be made here of their Menill responded in a revealing letter from Paris specimens... Representative material from .vir- 1 ' . th t . t meteonte early contacts with Merrill. 17 tually every important fall or find c.ame mto Gilbert expressed the view a a glan . on 14 August 1926: ' ... while agreeably sur­ might have been causative: 14 'It was.kind of you H.H. Nininger (1887 - 1986) was a settled prisedjt was not a 'bolt from the blue'. We _ the Smithsonian collection. The Tassm (1902) to tell me the recent developments I? regard to biology professor at McPherson College, Foshag, Shannon and I - had often discussed documents the growth SlOce the cataI ogue . , (1916) Coon Butte [Meteor Crater). The e~lde.nce that Kansas, in 1923 when he happened on a paper our chances with Mr Canfield ... The deciding Clarke (1889) catalogue. Later Memll s Tilghman and you have gathered mcll1~ed me on meteorites (Miller 1923). This was startling factor in the case was however, the high charac­ Handbook and Descriptive Catalo~ue of the toward the meteorite hypothesIs, and news to him that changed his life. He promptly ter of the work we have been turning out for Meteorite Collections in th~ Unrted. States strong Iy . . . What I share your interest In the questl~n. became a serious meteorite collector, and soon some years past. Foshag & Shannon 18 have National Museum continues 10 ~hat vem and became of the meteorite? .. .'. Memll under­ a dealer and meteorite scientist. Nininger's really 'put us on the map' .. and if we can notes that the Shepard coll~ctlOn has been stood that Gilbert's position was less firm. than early meteorite activities are documented in once get good donations started our way I shall given to the Smithsonian. ThIs catalo~ue ~so Smithsonian archives in the form of correspon­ has an illustrated discussion of the claSSIficatIOn it had appeared in 1896. Unfortunately, GIlbe~ look for a continuance .. Now ... if we can never expressed these views pubbcly, ~n dence and transactions conducted with MeDill but get the Roebling collection we will be on of meteorites. . h Merrill felt duty-bound not to speak for :,. prior to the latter's death in 1929. Nininger top of the world. I shall feel that my 40 yrs of Much earlier Merrill had an expeneI1:ce t ~t The best he could do was to suggest rat er found meteorite specimens but lacked the museum work have resulted in something must have been fonnative in dev~lop1O.g his facili ties to section them. Merrill provided this . t· the full breadth of meteonte SCIence. clearly that Gilbert's views were reaIlYl~~1s worth the while. You can, of course, not picture mteres m . G I . t service with a promptness that could not be US Geological Survey (USGS) Chief eo OgiS , tirm than they had appeared (Mernll . ' the condition of affairs when r began as . 488). The staunch believers of the ~ogma~~ matched today, and with surprising generosity. Dr Hawes assistant in the summer of 1880, but Grove Karl Gilbert (1843 - 1918); mvlted hi~ to The Smithsonian obtained parts of the sectioned .. h t we now know as Meteor Crater, p f 1896 took no notice and contmued. I can, and I confess that I had begun feeling VISIt w a . hi· ti view 0 . f aUon meteorites for the collection, and Nininger Ari ona while he was conductmg s Inves - dismiss the possibility of meteonte onn Th that matters here have not gone altogether to 13 obtained small pieces of meteorite that were gatiZon there in November 1891. Enclos~d for decades (see also McCall 2006a)(: ate~ my liking'. The Canfield collection did come to Smithsonian obtained important Meteor ~ M. available for trade or sale. In these lean times the Smithsonian and was followed shortly by with the invitation was a copy ofW.D. Jo~nson,s . through these efforts, but . this service was of real importance to the devel­ re ort on the crater that he had made. at GIlbert s specimens . ·n had not the magnificent Washington A. Roebling collec­ Barringer was disappomted that Mem opment of Nininger's career in meteoritics. tion with a comparable endowment. It is the requestp (D·aVIS 1926·, Hoyt 1987). This was at the 246 R.S. CLARKE ET AL.

Roebling Endowment, as discussed later, that Geology in charge of the economic geology col­ came to play an important role in the develop· lections. With Menill's passing, responsibility ment of the meteorite collection. for the mineral collection fell to William Merrill had achieved the highest recognition F. Foshag (1894-1956), the Curator of the from his peers, with election to the National Division of Mineralogy and Petrology. One of Academy of Sciences in 1922 and the award of Foshag's main duties was to organize the that organization's 1. Lawrence Smith Medal recently-acquired Canfield and Roebling for his work on meteorites that same year. He mineral collections, and oversee their supporting died suddenly while on vacation in Maine in endowments. Henderson helped in this endea­ 1929, while he was still Head Curator of the vour, but his interest soon turned to the meteorite Department of Geology. Merrill left a powerful collection - probably because Merrill had earlier legacy to meteorite science and to geological staked out meteorites as his personal purview and sciences in general at the Smithsonian Insti­ ornithologist Alexander Wetmore, the Director tution. By the time of Merrill's death in 1929, of the Mu seum, was now showing an active the modem museum structure had been formed interest in them as well. and taken effect. We function today using COD­ temporary versions of the patterns Clarke, Merrill and colleagues established in the late Henderson and Nininger 19th and early 20th century. Shortly following Henderson's appointment, he found himself involved in dealings with Harvey H. Nininger (Fig. 6), who had recently given up his position as a biology teacher at McPherson The Henderson era College in Kansas, and launched himself on a Edward Porter Henderson (1898-1992) began career as the world's first full-time, self­ his long and distinguished career at the US employed meteoriticist. As this was clearly a National Museum in 1929, shortly after Merrill's risky undertaking in the Depression years, death. His initial appointment was Assistant Nininger naturally worried if there would be Curator in the Division of Physical and Chemical adequate support for himself and his family.

Fig. 6. This photograph of Harvey Nininger (1887 -1986) cutting a large meteorite with a band saw was taken some time after 1934, at the Colorado (now Denver) Museum of Natural History, where he held a staff position. Using this as a base of operations, he established the Nininger Laboratory, which became The American Meteorite Laboratory in 1937. Nininger had a long - and at times uneven - association with the Meteoritical Society, which he and Frederick Leonard founded in 1933. In 1967 he was awarded the Society's Leonard Medal. Photograph courtesy of Dr Carleton Moore. Arizona State University. R.S. CLARKE IT AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 246 247 Roeblin Endowment, as discussed later, that Geology in charge of the eeon,ornie geology ~?l . A chance meeting with Wetmore, in Santa Fe meteoritical dealings. In a move that exemplified lections. With Menill's passmg, respons~bl.lity in May 1932, provided Nininger with a golden came tog play an important f?le in the develop- his willingness and ability to take initiative for the mineral collection fell to WIlliam opportunity to advance hi s cause, and he seized ment of the meteorite collectJ~n. . . (even, as we shall see, sometimes at the risk of F. Foshag (1894-1956), the Curator of the Merrill had achieved the. hIghest reco~ItJon it. He informed Wetmore that he had definite overstepping his authority), he took the bull by Division of Mineralogy and Petrology. ,One of information about four western meteorite falls, from his peers, with .elecllon to the NatlOnal the horns and, in September 1934, invited Foshag's main duties was to orgamze 1 but lacked the necessary money to obtain them. Academy of Sciences 10 1922 and the award o{ ~e Nininger to discuss meteorite pricing directly that organization's J. Lawrence SmIth Meda recently-acquired Canfield and, Roeb ~ng If Wetmore was willing to provide him with with him. mineral collections, and oversee ~elr s~pportmg $1000, he would be able to secure them, and for his work on meteorites th~t sa~e ye~. ~e By late 1937 Foshag had become deeply endowments. Henderson helped m thIS end~a­ would divide the specimens equally with him. died suddenly while on vacallon In MaIne m involved with the mineral collection and related our but his interest soon turned to the meteor~te 1929 hile he was still Head Curator of the Wetmore's interest was piqued, and on his fieldwork. Although he found time to carry out - probably Merrill earher Depa'rt;;;ent of Geology. Merrill left a powerful ~oll~ction bec~use ha~ return to Washington he carefully discussed a few petrographic studies of meteorites, he staked out meteorites as hIS personal purVl~W and this proposition with Foshag and Ray legacy to meteorite science an~ to ~eologIc~1 was experiencing increaslllg difficulty in ornithologist Alexander Wetmore~ the Dlrec~or S. Bassler (1878-1961), the Head Curator of . 'In general at the Smlthsoman Insu- keeping up with the Smithsonian's day-to-day sCiences . , . 1929 of the Museum, was now showmg an acttve Geology. As a result, on 28 June 1932, an tution. By the time of Mernl1 s death III , meteorite commitments. At the same time, it the modern museum structure had been. formed interest in them as well. arrangement was worked out whereby the was clear that Henderson was showing a strong and taken effect. We function today USIng con­ Smithsonian Institution agreed to pay Nininger interest in meteorites, and was playing an $800 for 3 months of summer fieldwork. temporary versions of the patterns Clarke, Henderson and Nininger increased role in dealings with Nininger. And Merrill and colleagues established in the late Although Wetmore was used to, and comforta­ so Nininger's first letter of 1938 to Foshag was Shortly following he ble with, the idea of the Smithsonian receiving 19th and early 20th century. Hend~rson's. appoi~tment, given to Henderson for official reply. This found himself involved 10 deallOgs With !larvey specimens from collectors, using the Roebling marked a new course, and from this point on H. Nininger (Fig. 6), who had recently given up Endowment to actively sponsor outside field Henderson took over the management of his position as a biology teacher at .McPherson searchers was a completely different kind of Smithsonian Institution meteorite correspon­ College in Kansas, and launched hu?self on a The Henderson era arrangement. For this reason, he felt a need to dence (Fig. 7). In several letters that year, er as the world's first full-tIme, self­ Edward Porter Henderson (1898-1992) began proceed cautiously. In a confidential letter to Henderson complained to Nininger that his meteoriticist. As this clearly a Henderson, who happened to be collecting min ­ his long and distinguished career at the . U,S ~:~IOyed wa~ prices were too high, and that the specimens he . k ndertaking in the DepresslOn years, erals out west at the time, he asked him to National Museum in 1929, shortly after Memll s ns y u . . . Id b was providing were ordinary weathered meteor­ d th His initial appointment was AssIs~ant Nininger naturally worned If the~e wo?- e check out Nininger. Henderson called on Ninin­ ites of no great scientific interest. adequate support for himself and hIS famIly. ger in September in Denver, where he had C~at~r in the Division of Physical and ChemIcal But there were larger issues at stake as well, set up a base of operations at the Colorado which Henderson did not shy away from. For (now Denver) Museum of Natural History. This meeting, along with a brief meteorite hunt they took together in the Utah mountains, afforded an excellent opportunity for them to get to know each other. Within a short time, Nininger and Henderson began a lively exchange of personal letters _ Henderson found meteorites interesting and enjoyed discussing them, and Nininger viewed Henderson as his best hope for Smithsonian contact at the working level. But the official cor­ respondence with Nininger was handled through Foshag and Wetmore. Wetmore worked out an informal agreement whereby the Smithsonian agreed to purchase about $2000 worth of meteorites each year from Nininger from the Roebling Fund, so long as he could furnish meteorites needed for the col1ection at prices comparable to those charged by other dealers. Over the next 2 years Henderson developed a noticeably increased interest in meteorites; by Fig. 7. The meteorite in this 1938 photograph, which appears to be a weathered ordinary chondrite. has so far 1934 he had become a charter member of the eluded positive identification. Edward Henderson SOCiety for Research on Meteorites (the pre­ (1898- 1992) played a major role in growing the e CUrsor of the Meteoritical Society), had pub­ Smithsonian's meteorite collection, and travelled . . ttin alarg e meteorite with a band saw was t~en s?m Fig. 6. This photograph of Harvey Nlrunger (1887 - 1986) cUturaf Histo ,where he held a staff position. Usmg thls.as lished an article on two iron meteorites from throughout the US, Europe, the Philippines, the fonner time after 1934, at the Colorado (now Den~e~) Museum of Na hi h be~me The American Meteorite Laboratory .m New Mexico, had helped out in the curation of Soviet Union and Australia hunting for specimens and a base of operations, he established the Nmmger Laborat~~, w .~ the Meteoritical Society, which he and Fredenck meteorites under Foshag's direction, and had arranging purchases and exchanges. During his tenure as 1937. Nininger had a long - and at times uneve~ dt~SS~~~~~;';~eonard Medal. Photograph courtesy of Dr Carleton been observing from the sidelines how Foshag Curator, he essentially doubled the size of the collection Leonard founded in 1933. In 1967 he was awar e e from about 550 to over 1000 distinct meteorites. Moore, Arizona State University. and Wetmore were handling the Smithsonian's Smithsonian negative number 95-1082. 248 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN example, he pointed out to Nininger that in pur­ Teetering on the edge of collapse, the chasing meteorites from him, the Smithsonian Ni ninger- Smithsonian relationship soon totally was perhaps not acting in its own best interests: disintegrated over events surrounding the recov­ 'You are a collector and as one, are a competi­ ery of the Goose Lake, California, meteorite. The story of this meteorite involves charges and tor of ours' ,19 Although Henderson was willing to tum somewhat of a blind eye to this because countercharges, and is complex; only the main he realized that Nininger and his family were details will be given here. In March 1939 the living a precarious hand-ta-mouth existence, Smithsonian learned from the US Forest he did not want concern for Nininger's external Service that the previous October three deer circumstances to override sound acquisition hunters had discovered a 1167 kg iron meteorite on government land in the Modoc National policy. In memoranda addressed to Wetmore in April Forest in NE California. The Museum informed and July 1938, Henderson raised additional one of the finders, Clarence Schmidt, that the matters that were fundamental to Smithsonian Forest Service had authorized the Smithsonian policy. He pointed out that the Smithsonian to take ownership of the meteorite, and that he meteorite collection was now large enough that and the other finders would be given a suitable it should be looking towards obtaining unusual finder's fee. and outstanding specimens, not the ordinary Nininger heard about the meteorite in April, specimens Nininger had been offering, and and harboured hopes that it might be on a towards obtaining major masses of meteorites parcel of private land in the National Forest in order to ensure future trade advantage. Fur ~ owned by a lumber company. He quickly paid thennore, newly fallen meteorites would be pre­ a visit to Schmidt in Oakland at the end of the ferable to the weathered ones Nininger was month. Telling him he was a Smithsonian Insti­ providing, which were often too weathered for tution 'Field Agent on Call' he asked to be shown the meteorite's location. Schmidt, who satisfactory study. Perhaps most crucial of all, Henderson ques­ was expecting an as-yet unspecified Smithsonian g. 9. With his strong technical background Stuart representative to call, saw no reason to refuse this ~g .. ~ . Miss Barbara ROrig, the Secretary for the :i tioned if it was really consistent with the DIVISion of Mineralogy and Petrology and Ed d en;; (I879~1957) was able to utilize metall~graphic Roebling bequest to spend major amounts of its request, and agreed to it. Nininger didn't waste a Henderson with the Goose Lak ' . ,:"ar met ods that were well known in industry but h· h second's time. They set out immediately for the late 1950 In '. e ll!eteonte on display in were largely by meteoriticist". His use 07 a Ie income ~ earmarked expressly for the purpose s. collaboratlOn WIth Stuart Pe ~gnored :ccurate VerSl?n of the iron ~ nickel phase diagram 1~0;~ of maintaining the mineralogical collections - Alturas, their hopping-off point some 400 miles ~:n!:~~n. made a special study of the large c:ities in to purchase meteorites (in some years, a quarter away, driving straight through the night to get I flte. The results of their joint work part f e~a~7~~rss:~;nd~~~ ~! ~?s~l~~~ ~:ztee~ °off thmeteorites .that to a third of its income was being used for this there. After the meteorite was relocated, a b d· ., e meteontes' survey determined that it was, in fact, located pareO( 0 Ies. ~s line of research dramaticall end). And was it legitimate to use this bequest ~g;~~~~~~~~eI:~~i::~:;;:~,:r:;~e~it;:;e~~~~~,~lY the honzons of meteoritics, and la Wi en . erson & Perry 19:;8). The Goose Lake meteorite e.nl~ged e~ to hire an outside field worker to look for on federal land - by a margin of less than a role in the birth of the new I a th l11S ~nu.sual ~d emgmatic cavities, remains a ' sl~Ificant tlel~ r meteorites? These questions obviously opened quarter of a mile! - and the Smithsonian initiated sCiences. Smithsonian negative number 95~olO~;.netary exhibit. Smithsonian negative Wetmore's eyes, for he immediately changed plans to retrieve it (Fig. 8). :~~:r 9~tlh~~~an course and wrote to Nininger saying that When Schmidt informed Henderson and Roebling Funds would no longer be available Wetmore of Nininger's misrepresentation of (fall of 17 February 1930). In the transaction cor­ to support fieldwork. Henderson folJowed this himself as a Smithsonian field agent, they were furious. When Wetmore refused to reimburse ~t~e~;n$~~~~pecimens from.8l meteorites for a respon~ence, Perry expressed the hope that the with a letter in which he suggested that it might rno . h - a very consIderable amount of ~et~onte would be adequately described scienti- not be in the Smithsonian's best interest to con­ Nininger for the survey he had carried out, the ney 10 t ose Depression days. ca and requested that the meteorite be tinue to buy a set dollar amount of meteorites supposed insult was too much for him to bear, ~, and he wrote blistering letters on 12 May 1939 appraI~ed for tax purposes. from him each year, and that it would henceforth Henderson and Perry only buy those specimens it considered both to both Henderson and Weunore. In his letter Havmg. Perry become a benefactor rather than At tho .. al . a competItor w~s most welcome, because the desirable and priced within its range. to Wetmore, he wrote: 'I feel compelled to say IS cntIc Juncture in the Sffi1·th . , that much as I should like to go ahead on mete .t soman s Museum at that tIme was still following M ·Il' Nininger feared that Henderson's raising of ning ~n e programme, it fortunately was begin~ the arrangement we formerly made I consider of writing to local postmasters these issues might jeopardize his chances for Stuart ~re;p bene.fits from a different Source - ~~pr~acr :~n i~ it best to simply release you of any th ar 0 a new meteorite fall or find and aski future sales to the Smithsonian, and he indig­ with Pe~ eITY (FJg.9). The Museum's dealings 1 into the matter on' its beha7; nantly wrote him threatening to 'henceforth obligation ... '.1 'th N· .Y offer a stnking contrast to its dealings Al~~utoh lo~k cease to show any special favors to the U.S. This effectively terminated the Smithsonian's WJ mmger. M . g. this approach had worked well for 0 1932 agreement with Nininger. Wetmore H e~Il, It. was pro~ing far less successful for Museum' .1 In point of fact, however, Roebling tha~~ far back as 1927 Perry infonned Menill shared Henderson's sincere concern for the P:rn erso.n, th.e ~rruthsonian was finding that monies continued to be used to purchase in hise to donate some of the meteorites mf~nd~d ry,. WIth hIS lllstant access to ticker~ta occasional meteorites from Nininger, simply well-being of Nininger and his family, and in lar! co ectlOn to the Smithsonian - particu­ and hIS. connections with newspaper re because there were few other sources. But more his letter accepting Nininger's 'release' he orfe~~ im ~ those he felt were either of outstandin and edItors, was routinely beating it th thought and justification went into their pur­ reminded him that 'I am certain that the ~o amount we have paid you in [past years] comes cot:e:-~~e or n~t ~epre~ented in the Museu~ punch,. and Perry had already purchased e chase; the Smithsonian Institution's acquisition until 1935 hIS mtentlOns were not realized a to a number of thousands of dollars' .22 In fact, ~ut meteo~te before the Museum had even h d policy had taken a clear and highly constructive spe . ,owever, when he donated a large about It Fo h h d ear between 1932 and 1939, Nininger sold the Cimen of the Par Id of ., sag. an led the curatorial aspects tum for the better. agou , Arkansas, meteorite Perry s donatIOns and accessioned them into 250 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 251 """1'T""Ir---, the Smithsonian collection, and Henderson are still at the heart of the Smithsonian collection provided the cutting and polishing services and (Fig. 10). carried out the chemical analyses of them. Within a short time, Perry started correspond· Sale of Nininger meteorite collection iog with Henderson on the meteorites he was donating to the Smithsonian Institution. This During the period between 1957 and 1965, led to a working relationship between them that several major interconnected-events took place developed into a collaboration on various that essentially laid the foundation for the research projects in the late 1930s - especially future direction of meteoritics at the Smithsonian involving the metallography of meteoritic irons. Institution. Perry died in 1957, following As a result, Perry was appointed an Honorary Foshag's death the previous year. In the Associate in Mineralogy at the Museum in autumn of 1957, Nininger came to the realization April 1940, a position he held until his death. that . the expenses of running his American Perry and Henderson published a total of 16 col­ Meteorite Museum in Sedona, Arizona, were laborative papers, and came to develop a close greater than the income realized from admission personal relationship.23 charges and the sale of specimens and books. Even though Perry had no formal training as Now 70 yeass old, he turned his thoughts a scientist, the technical education he received towards retirement but was concerned about his at the University of Michigan helped him to family's continuing financial well-being. After quickly develop considerable skill in his investi­ years of putting out feelers about the possible gations. With Henderson's encouragement and sale of his meteorite collection, he now decided help, he began to assemble a large collection that the time had finally come to do so. of photomicrographs of iron meteorites for Close to 20 years had passed since the events publication. Perry had highly talented graduate surrounding the Goose Lake meteorite episode students at the University of Michigan prepare and the ensuing break with the Smithsonian, the metallographic sections and take the but Henderson had kept in contact with him photomicrographs, and he camed on an exten­ throughout the entire period, even purchasing meteorites from him from time to time. And Fig. 10. The three larg' . sive correspondence with Henderson about . . e Irons III the foreground of this late 1940 various chemical and metallographic issues. despite obvious tensions and feelings of suspi­ ~cuss, ~elodw, came to playa pivotal role in the legal case inv~f~oto::aph are Drum Mountains, Utah (which, as we Although there was some serious soul-searching cion and mistrust on both sides, Nininger had zona, an Owens Valley California Th .. vmg e Old Woman meteorite)· Can on D· hI as to the appropriateness of publishing Perry's sought Henderson's advice on various financial Kentuc.ky, pallasitc. On the back wall a·lar;er:~:o~/~~n :J~~~~s case immediately behind them i; the ~ount ~er~~n book at that time in view of the priorities matters on several occasions. He often asked meteonte falls and finds. Smithsonian negative number 3~287_~.tes shows the locations of all of the nation's know~ brought about by the onset of the Second Henderson about the advisability of breaking World Was, The Metallography of Meteoric up his collection and selling it piecemeal, but Iron was published by the Smithsonian Insti­ Henderson consistently urged him not to do so. rea~zed the importance of the advances being Nininger had always claimed that he considered rna e and wanted the Smithsonian to be in the :::~Uer (1908-2003), University of California' tution in 1944 (Perry 1944).24 In 1945 Perry omas Nolan (1901 - 1992) US Geol . ' was awarded the National Academy of Scien­ the Smithsonian as the logical place for his col­ i?~:f~nt of these exciting new developments. lection to end up, and, now that he was finally Survey; and W.F. Libby (1908- I 990) A~~lcal ces's J. Lawrence Smith Medal for meteoritic est way he could support this research Energy Commission. ' IDlC going to sell it, Henderson wanted to insure was to generously supply the meteoritic material research (Henderson was later awarded this But before the Smithsonian submitted th that it did, in fact, go there. necessary fo~ these studies. In sharp contrast to medal in 1970). posal t.o the NSF, it received some very tro~bf:::­ Perry always regarded the Smithsonian with Nininger's asking price was $200000. :ost meteonte ,collection curators of his day news In Masch 1958: Gavin de Beer (l899! Henderson felt that the price, although high, Ae -. along WIth Brian Mason, then at great affection, and donated what he considered th~ 1972), Drrector of the British Museum t was fair and reasonable, but fearing that it was tr mencan Museum of Natural History - devoted S ·th· .. ' wro e to 1 to be his most important meteorites - totalling nu soman InstJ.tutIOn Secretary Leonard Cann' 2s more than the Smithsonian could manage he memen1°us energy to providing scarce speci­ I 192 specimens - to it. Although iron meteor­ chael (1898 - 1973) that Nininger had offered turned to the National Science Foundation rom. the. Smithsonian's col1ection to hI; ites were his main interest and constituted the w~ns Museum roughly half of each faU represented . (NSF) for funding. Before submitting a formal in rthy outSIde mvestigators (Henderson jok- majority of his donations, one of the stones hlscoUectron for $144 000. As hefeltthe tw . rn .he donated - the Lafayette, Indiana meteorite - proposal, he decided to seek letters of support gly referred to his desk as the 'GI'ft Pa k i Desk'). cage tutIons sho~ld not bid against one anoth~~ns~l~ turned out to be not only one of the most exqui­ from eminent scientists outside the Museum. The scientists he turned to were using meteor­ asked Canruchael to infonn him of the statu's f sitely-oriented meteorites of the Smithsonian let;;;: o~st of sc~entists who provided strong the Snuthsoruan negotiations. 0 collection, but also one of its most valuable - itic material from the Smithsonian collection in reads l"k support f~r the Smithsonian'S proposal Hen~e.rson had realized that there might b it is a martian nakhlite. Building on the solid cutting-edge research. In the years following of th 1 e a ~o s ~o' of the scientific elite the Second World War, advances in fields co~petItlOn from the British Museum A e; base established by Merril1's earlier accomplish­ 1994 e day, rncludmg: Alfred Nier (1912- earher he had learned from Max Hey' (19b5 - ments in meteorite research and acquisition, a1lied to meteoritics - such as atomic physics, ), Unrverslty of Minnesota' Fred Who I ( 1906- 2004) S· . ' Ipp e 1984), the Keeper of Minerals there, that Perry's collaborative research with Henderson X-ray crystallography and spectroscopy, and Vato. ' mnhsolllan Astrophysical Obser- ~mmger . had trIed to interest the British and his generous donations served to signifi­ chemical thermodynamics - transformed that ' ry, Harold Urey (1893 - 1981) University of Ch luseum 10 purc~asing his collection. But a cantly advance the Smithsonian's meteorite pro­ science completely. Although Henderson's train­ !Cago' .'' Harry H ess ( 1906- 1969) , Princeton UnIVersIty' H . ' te egram from Nminger on 2 April 1958 ut gramme. Within a short time, iron meteorites ing did not allow him to fully-understand the Can .' amson Brown (1917- 1986) nature of this new research, he intuitivelY I OnlIa Institute of Technology; Edward He.nderson's fears t,o rest: 'Would be great in; i­ moved to a position of centre-stage, and they ratIOn to see collectIOn go to National Museum:It METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN RS. CLARKE ET AL. 253 252 fear that the ASU collection, which had been pur­ proposal would have the SAO take over a role the University of Kentucky, the Carnegie Insti­ is primarily a collection of North American falls chased through federal funds and was to be tha~ had. traditionally been served by the t~te of Technology and the University of Califor ­ and should remain in U.S ... ,26 On 16 April the supervised by a committee of meteorite and SmIthsoman Institution's NMNH, which had ma, ,La Jolla). Collectively, they would pay the Smithsonian proposal was fonnally submitted to museum experts, might well become better out­ b~ome a separate administrative entity in 1957 lion s share of. the meteorite and would receIve. the NSF. fitted than the Smithsonian to handle meteorites: :v en the US National Museum was divided generous portions for their research but th By the end of May Henderson infonned 'Thus, it will become the second national collec­ mto the NMNH and the Museum of Histo NMNf! would accession it as p~ of it~ Nininger that, although he had not received offi­ tion and take the lead from us' .28 This was a very and Technology. This led to serious straiZ" collectJOn. cial notification from the NSF yet, he was very between the two branches of the S'th . serious concern, one that the Museum could not ove th . , . ffil SOlllan ,As i.t was .imperative to get samples to research­ optimistic that approval of the Smithsonian pro­ r _e acqUIsItJon and control of meteorites ignore. ers 9-Ulckly 10 order for them to perform isoto ic posal would be forthcoming in early June, and Throughout the last half of 1960 and all 'of stu~es, Henderson didn't hold matters up by fol- that funds would be available some time after 1.961 HI enderson campaigned vigorously and lowmg standard Museum procedures' '1 ha . July. But to his profound disappointment, he ttre 1ess y on behalf of the NMNH '!.t' ltd 11th . vevlO­ National Museum of Natural History th ' wn ng to ~ e a _ e rules of the Museum concerning the received a letter from Nininger on 17 June ~ same group of scientists, among others dispatch of material .. . I am now in the DOG (NMNH) and the Smithsonian informing him that he had accepted the British w om he had ~arlier written for support in hi~ HOUSE,30 Within a week the Director of the Museum's offer on the 'vertical split' they Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) effort ~o acqUIre the Nininger collection of NMNH, Albert C. Smith (1906- 1999), issued had requested, and that no further sales would At the same time that the National Museum of meteontes. They strongly supported the NMNH Henderson a stem memorandum outlining his now be contemplated?7 It was a dark day for Natural History (NMNH) was facing this threat a~ ~e p~oper collecting agency, repository and breach of procedure. Copies of the memorandum Henderson and Smithsonian officialdom, who from the west, it also began to face one from the dIstnbutJon centre for meteorites. Edward wer~ sent to several senior Smithsonian Institution felt betrayed. The initial Smithsonian response north, from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Obser­ Anders of the University of Chicago typified OffiCIalS, and one was placed in Henderson's was one of overreaction. Led by A. Remington vatory (SAO). The SAO had moved from the~ sentJments: 'I have always felt that the personnel file. Kellogg (1892- 1969), Acting Director of the Washington to the grounds of the Harvard Obser­ NatIOnal Museu~ is the most appropriate reposi­ G. Arthur Cooper (1902- 2000), Head Curator Museum, various ways of stopping the exporta­ vatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1955; and torr for ~et~ontes, not only because it is a of the Department of Geology, quickly and tion of the material to England were explored. Fred L. Whipple was appointed as its first CnatJonal InstItution ' but also b ecause t h e forcefully came to Henderson's defence. In a Henderson had been suspicious of the Cambridge Director. Under his direction, the urator, Ed He~derson, has been extremely gen­ memor~ndum to Bradley, he argued that as the Smithsonian's overreaction from the start and SAO quickly became a major centre for solar ero~~fi and senSIble in distributing meteorites to ~eteonte had not yet been officially accessioned realized that Nininger had cut what he considered system research, and large-scale interdisciplinary qua I ed. re~earchers'.z9 Clearly, Henderson's It was not gov.ernment property when Henderso~ his best deaL He therefore accepted this, and now projects were begun on several fronts. Researchers ~utstand.mg ~ob of curating the national collec­ sent out speCImens. Under these circumstances turned his efforts towards the possibility of trained in fields other than astronomy were tIOn. an~ hIS. generous policy of providin he had not breached Museum rules, and the mem­ acquiring the remainder of his collection (the hired to cany out these projects, including ~utsIde, mves~gators with meteoritic materia1' orandum should be withdrawn from his personnel sale to the British Museum was for less than physicist Edward Fireman (1922- 1990), ballistics or theIr studies ~ad won the NMNH man re~ord. ~ooper went on to praise Henderson, and one-third of the original collection). Receiving researcher John Rinehart, geologist Ursula Marvin loy~ l and strong fnends. A memorandum fro~ VOIced hIS absolute. confidence in. him'. '1 h ave not assurance from the NSF that the Smithsonian's and geochemist John A. Wood. With strong inter­ ASSistant Secretary James Bradley (1910- met anyone III the Smithsonian who is so whole­ original proposal could be reactivated, in Decem­ ests in upper atmosphere, solar system and comet 1984) and Kellogg in December 1961 settled heartedly devoted to its interests as Mr ber 1959 he wrote to the scientists he had written studies, Whipple increasingly began to focus his the JurIsdIctIOnal dispute in favour of Henderson Hen~erson. I think that much of the great value to earlier, and asked them if they would send him research on meteors and meteorites. Fireman and the NMNH. of this collection and its large size is due to his a new letter endorsing such a plan. Henderson established a laboratory in 1956 to measure cos­ efforts and frequent personal sacrifices It was anxious to succeed, because he had learned mogenic isoto~s, and to determine exposure Expanding meteoritics at the NMNH seems to me, therefore, that we must get tog~ther that Nininger had approached Arizona State Uni­ ages measuring 39 Ar to 37 Ar ratios. Whipple felt an~ find a way by which we can more adequatel versity (ASU) about purchasing the remainder of a need for larger amounts of meteoritic material, By now top Smithsonian administrators had aSSIst Mr. Henderson in his good work' .31 y his collection. especially newly fallen meteorites, for Fireman's been f~rced to come to the realization that the Bra.dley regretted the 'misunderstanding' sur­ Nininger apparently wanted his remaining studies of cosmic-ray exposure ages. meteonte program~e at the NMNH had to be roundmg . Smith's memorandum, and pled ed coDection to stay in the west, so it would be Whipple was comfortable with, and had great strengthened conSIderably if it was to com­ Cooper hIS full co-operation, but did not wfth­ near Meteor Crater, and was annoyed with success in writing, grant proposals for big pro­ ~~e successfully with the new programme at dr?W the memorandum. But it did serve to the Smithsonian' S clumsy attempt to block the jects involving large sums of money, and U and Whipple's programme at the SAO drIve ~ome the point that the Smithsonian's export of his sale to the British Museum. As a quickly drew up a proposal for 'Photographic and b.ecome a world-class centre. Events sur~ meteonte programme was facing severe pro­ result, he offered it to ASU for a price 'many Observation of Meteorites-in-ft.ight and Their ~ound.lllg. H~nderson' s efforts in the retrieval blem~, and ways had to be found to strengthen thousands of dollars less' than he offered it to Subsequent Recovery' and sent it to Secretary , n~distnbutJOn of a meteorite that fell in Texas both It an~ Henderson's role as Curator. There the Smithsonian. But as ASU could not afford Carmichael for approval. Carmichael, who In ay 1961 forcefully drove this point home can be little doubt that this consideration the purchase outright it, too, sought acquisition strongly wished to support his recently appointed H ~n 30 May 1961 an 18 Ib meteorite fell 'in played a key role in his decision (with Kellog ) funding from the NSF. While this negotiation SAO Director and his Cambridge set-up, quickly h ar eton, Texas, and was recovered within a few months later favouring the NMNH' .g was taking place, in the spring of 1960 Nininger signed-off on it and forwarded it on. i ours . . As was his usual custom, Henderson dispute with the SAO. m Its let it be known that he was thinking of taking his The majority of the funds Whipple sought was a~mediatel~ travelled to the fall site to try to It. was one thing for Cooper to help out in a collection to Europe to try to sen it there. for the establishment of the Prairie Network - a w ange for Its purthase. Because the landowner partIcular matter such as this, but there was still Whether this was purely a bluff or not, the NSF network of meteor cameras that would automati­ d anted more money for a finder's fee than Hen­ ~e larger, problem of how the current situation feared that the remainder of his collection cally and continuously photograph the night sky h:rs~~ thought the Smithsonian could supply, m m~teontes could be strengthened. A possible might also end up leaving the country, and q over a large area of the midwest US. But as it was tur lckly made an arrangement with five insti­ solutIOn was s~g?~sted by George Switzer, quickly granted ASU its request. projected that this photographic patrol would N ~?ns to help in its purchase (the Brookhaven Curator of the DIVISIon of Mineralogy and Pet­ In explaining the history of these events to lead to the recovery of meteorites, Whipple'S a tOnal Laboratory, the University of Chicago, rology, who suggested dividing the Department Secretary Cannichael, Henderson expressed a 254 R.5. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 255 of Geology into a Department of Palaeontology When Henderson discussed his proposal with Rogers Henderson Meteorite Fund has been pro­ Smithsonian administrators, Bradley ~uggested felt in meteoritics into the 21st century. Perhaps and a differently structured DePru:~~nt of viding modest support for meteorite acquisitions the most significant event of the year and the Geology, which would include a DIvlslon of that the 'proper man' to run the mlcropro~e and related activities in recent years, with a (i.e. a first-rate research scientist) should ?e m one with the greatest long-term impact was the Meteorites. hi larger yearly income becoming available in the least recognized at the time. On 21 December The idea appealled greatly to Cooper. In s place before submitting it. He further saId he near future. 1969, a group of Japanese glaciologists discov­ Annual Report for 1960- 1961, he c1atmed that was willing to upgrade a currently vacant pos­ ition to a level that would attract such a person. ered nine meteorites in Antarctica (see Kojima such a division would not only be an ~ffect1ve 2006). ay to hire sorely needed palaeobotamsts, but Henderson was one step ahead of Bradley h~re; Meteoritics since 1969 :ould also be a way to increase the level of as early as February 1962 he had been carrymg By the end of the 1960s, the Smithsonian had support for the mineralogists, who n~eded m~re on correspondence with Kurt Fre~kss?n achieved a leadership position in the field of The Allende meteorite (1926-2001), of the University of Callforma, money for equipment. And ~e. ~as qUIck to p~mt meteoritics, with a strong combination of person­ The fall of the Allende meteorite in February of out that the creation of a DIVISIOn of Meteontes La Jolla, about the possibility of him conu~g to nel and equipment, facilitated by NASA funding 1969 led to a profound growth of the meteorite would strengthen that program~e, and would the Smithsonian to establish an electro~ TmC~O­ for the soon-to-be-return of lunar samples. Brian collection and had far-reaching implications for be an effective way of preventmg A~U from probe laboratory at the NMNH. Thinking bIg, Mason was probably the most prominent the direction of research at the Smithsonian. ·ng a second national collection that Henderson hoped that he might be able .to al.so beco nu S.h. meteoriticist at the NMNH among a group that Mason and Clarke travelled to Mexico within might eventually eclipse that of the mIt soman. get Klaus Keil, who was then at the Umvers?ty included: Kurt Fredriksson, who was largely days of the shower (Clarke to Cooper proposed the idea to Bradley .. As of California, San. Diego ?oing collaborative et al. 1971a) responsible for the electron microprobe; Roy recover material, and additional searches by Assistant Secretary, Bradley was responsl?le microprobe work With Frednksson. . S. Clarke, Jr, who soon succeed Edward Clarke and Jack Hyde of the Smithsonian Astro­ for the administrative, fiscal and legal pla!,nmg With Secretary Carmichael's blessII~g, the Henderson as Curator of the meteorite collection; physical Observatory's Prairie Network Meteo­ for the Smithsonian, and worked on key Issues completed proposal, 'Studies of Con~t1tuents, Eugene Jarosewich, who achieved prominence in rite Recovery Project took place over the for Secretary Carmichael. Although he often Compositions, and Texture~ of Meteonte,s, and the chemical analyses of meteorities; and Robert course of the next year (Fig. 11). In total, 1830 operated behind the scenes, it is clear t~at m a Their Bearing on Theoretical Problems, was Fudaii, an experimental petrologist who would individual stones were acquired by the Smithso­ very real sense he was ~e power behmd ~e submitted to NASA on 20 June 1963. The pro­ playa role in the Smithsonian's involvement in nian through a combination of fieldwork and pur­ throne. He quickly lent hIS support .to Cooper. s posal included requests for funds over a 3 year Antarctic meteorites. The growth of the collection chases funded by a NASA grant. From this single reorganization proposal, and took It un~er ~llS period for three new scientists, two more itself was impressive up to this point. Having event in early 1969, the Smithsonian acquired wing. On 15 October 1963 the reorgallizatIon technicians, an electron microprobe and the grown from a handful of meteorites in the 1880s nearly half as many individual specimens as plan officially went into effect, and the former acquisition of meteorites. . to 767 distinct meteorites in 1948 (Henderson One year later, on 9 June 1964, the Snuthso­ had been acquired in the previous century of Department of Geology was divided int~ two 1949), the collection stood at more than 1000 collecting. ents: a Department of Milleral nian received word from NASA that Its requested 33 new d ep artm . D· .. f distinct meteorites by 1969. Much of this While Clarke generously allocated material Sciences (which contamed the new IVI~lOn 0 grant had been approved (NsG-688). Funds for growth occurred late in the 196Os, with acqui­ to 37 researchers in 13 countries around the Meteorites) and a Department of PalaeoblOlo~y. the first year enabled Frednksson and a tech­ sition of the extensive mineral and meteorite world, the significance of this meteorite was Bradley's efforts to strengthen the meteor~te nician to come to the NMNH that August, the collection of the late Nobel-laureate Carl Bosch not lost on the staff of the Division of Meteorites. programme did not end here. In 1963, wh!le microprobe to be purchased, and ne.w s~~ to and the transfer of an extensive, and largely­ Allende sample USNM 3529, a 35 kg specimen, Henderson was in AustralIa domg fieldw~rk be added. Chemist Eugene Jarosewlch JOI~ed orphaned, meteorite collection of the University received special attention. Shortly after the with Mason, Bradley worked closely. ~ltb the meteorite group that Novemb~r. Bnan of Minnesota. As of 1 January 1969, 3470 acces­ fall, Jarosewich powdered 4 kg to prepare the Cooper and Roy S. Clarke, Jr to help facllltate Mason, who had carried out fieldwor~ m Austra­ sions had been made to the collection, probably 'Allende Meteorite Reference Sample'. This the Smithsonian's purchase of the ~ur lia with Henderson collecting meteontes ~d tek­ representing 4000- 5000 individual specimens. sample has been analysed by hundreds of labora­ R. Allen meteorite collection through an add~tI?n tites in 1963 and 1964 (as well as later, In 19~{ The year 1969 was truly a remarkable one in tories around the world (Jarosewich et al. 1987) to the National Aeronautics and Space Admmls­ and 1967), joined the NMNH m March 1965 .. the history of meteoritics. The landing of and remains the only geochemical standard pre­ tration (NASA) grant NsG: 71 :60. Clarke had Henderson, who had advanced ~o Curator:m­ Apollo lJ on the Moon that year marked a pared from a bulk meteorite sample. It remains joined the Smithsonian InS~ItUllon. as a che~st Charge of the Smithsonian meteonte colleCTIon, turning point for all of planetary sciences. For . 1957 but did not get senously mvolved wlth officially retired on the last day of 1965, but one of our most requested samples into the 21 st the first time, extraterrestrial materials arrived century. One of the most striking features of programme until 5 years By stayed on as a Research Associ~te and ~o~~nued ~e met~orite lat~r. not by random chance, but as the result of Allende was the presence of centimetre-sized, then he had met Nininger and Peter MII~~an to maintain an active presence 10 the DIVISIon of exploration of another world. There is no ques­ white calcium-aluminium inclusions (CAIs; (1906-1990), the President of the Meteonllcal Meteorites until the mid-1980s. Although he was tion that this pivotal event shaped the Division McCall 2006b). These CAls had gained signifi­ Society, and had attended his fi~st Society innovative in his approach to collectI~~ growth, of Meteorites, but it was only one of several cant attention for mineralogies suggestive of meeting; within a short time m.eteontes became his 58 published papers on meteor:tl~s were events that occurred in 1969 that would even­ high-temperature condensates and the presence his main research area and paSSIOn. . mainly devoted to matters of descnptIon and tually reshape the future of meteoritics at the of isotopic anomalies. Mason took advantage of Bradley also worked closely with Henderson m classification, and, like those of many. oth~~ Smithsonian Institution. The first significant the crushing of 4 kg of Allende by removing his efforts to put together a proposal for a much investigators of his day, were wor~anlIke l~ event was the faIl of thousands of stones from A grant. As early as October 1962 nature. Following a period of declmmg hea nearly two dozen large CAls, which were miner­ Iarger NAS f 'M ·t the Allende meteorite on 8 February 1969, in alogically and geochemically characterized. Henderson had prepared a draft 0 a e~~on e and incapacity, he died on 12 September 1992. Mexico. On 20 July of that year, humans first Apart from the insights gained into CAl for­ Research Proposal' for sorely ~eeded additlonai In many ways he was a businessman at heart, stepped onto the surface of another world, our staff and equipment - especIally an electron and decided long before he retired t? endo~ mation in the early solar nebula, this work pro­ Moon. On 28 September another huge shower vided a well-characterized set of CAls used by microprobe. He felt that without one,. the the Smithsonian's meteorite collecllon. HI of stones fell at Murchison, Victoria, Australia. researchers for decades to come. One of these NMNH ran the danger of simply becoIIllng. a programme evol ved over the years, ~d c~e an Together, Allende and Murchison came to rede­ researchers was Glenn MacPherson, then a post­ service centre for the distribution of Its matenal to also include his wife's estate. The StnlthsoOi fine Our view of the early solar system. The doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, who to outside scientists for their researches. Institution's Edward P. Henderson and Rebecca changes resulting from their fall continue to be studied the petrology of calcium-aluminium METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 257 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. 256 Hooker Hall of Geology, Gems and Minerals (Eg. 13). Its display included spectacular lunar samples With text and artwork illustrating the geologicaJ history of th~ ~oon, and the original lu?ar globe, now hung III Its proper orientation WIth the craters of the far side sculpted onto it~ once barren surface and the locations of the lunar landings prominently marked.

The Murchison meteorite While the fall of Allende and the lunar landings ~roduced rather ImmedIate changes in the collec­ Fig. 12. Thin section photograph of ALH A8l 005 th first . • e tIOn and r~search of the Smithsonian, the events metwnte recognized to have originated on the of the spnng and autumn of 1969 would only Moon: The field of view is 1.5 mm in width. Photograph by Bnan Mason. mfluence the collection much later and, in many .cases, were superseded by other events occumng between 1970 and 1976. As an example; the. fall of Murchison (September 28, carbonaceous chondrites and tektites. Indeed the 1969, Ylctona, Australia) was, in many ways, 1965-era exhibit contained a lunar globe wi'th a t~e antlt~esis of the lunar samples, having sig­ ?lank far side, owing to the lack of any spacecraft ~Ificant unpact on our collections, but relatively Fig. 11. Curator Brian Mason (centre), Gunther ('Skip') Schwartz of the Prairie Network's Lincoln, Nebraska, field un~ges. ~he first lunar rocks displayed at the little on our research or exhibits. NASA grant station (left) and Charles Tugas of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (right) with a large mass of the Allende Smlthsollian were at the National Air and NGR 09-015-001(6313) provided the funds for meteorite that Mason had just found in a nearby field, February 1969. Photograph by Roy Clarke. Sl?ace Museum when it opened in 1976 with its p~rchase of nearly 200 individual stones from stIll-popular lunar touchstone. Lunar rocks were thiS s.hower of. CM2 carbonaceous chondrite not added to the displays of the NMNH - and mate~al. M~rchison contained racemic mixtures and Fredriksson all became actively involved in inclusions. The influence of Allende continued, then With httl~ distinct focus on the history of o~ ~nuno aCids and aliphatic hydrocarbons, pro­ the study of lunar samples, and published exten­ long after its fall, when MacPherson was hired the Moon den~ed from their study - until the vldlll~ th.e first persuasive evidence that these sively on the subject from 1969 through to about in 1984 to fill the curatorial slot vacated by late 1970s. ThIS changed dramatically in 1996 were mdlgenous to meteoritic materials. Work 1975. Mason & Melson's (1970) book The Lunar Mason's retirement, placing the Smithsonian at with the opening of the Janet Annenberg over the next 20 years by others has identified Rocks was the first pubUshed scientific treatise on the forefront of a research discipline not even the geology of the Apollo 11 samples. At the envisioned in 1969. Smithsonian's Astrophysical Observatory, John Wood observed fragments of feldspar that he Lunar samples deduced must have originated in the lunar high­ lands, requiring a global magma ocean early in Although the landing of Apollo 11 on 20 July the history of the Moon. This intense period of 1969, revolutionized planetary science, its study of lunar samples was particularly relevant impact on meteoritics at the Smithsonian was in 1982, when Mason described the Antarctic felt in subtle ways. It was, of course, the prep­ meteorite ALH A81005 (Fig. 12) as containing aration for the lunar landings that brought both clasts that 'resemble the anorthositic clasts NASA-funded personnel and equipment to the described from lunar rocks'?4 From his earlier Museum beginning in 1965 and set the stage work on lunar samples, Mason knew this was for its involvement in a wide range of research the first lunar meteorite, but presented his find­ topics. The lunar rocks were, however, returned ings in a typicall y understated manner so as not to NASA's Manned Space Flight Center (now to undercut the considerable research that Johnson Space Flight Center) in Houston, would be forthcoming. illtimately, the work on Texas, where they remain curated to this day. lunar meteorites opened the door to the recog­ Thus, the addition of 381.7 kg of lunar samples by the six Apollo missions to the inventory nition of meteorites from Mars. The most striking change for the Division of of US Government-controlled extraterrestrial Meteorites at the Smithsonian from the return material did not add to the collections of the of lunar samples did not reach fruition until the Smithsonian. late 1990s. The geology hall 'Our Restless The lunar rocks did, however, greatly influ­ Earth' had opened in 1965, containing relativelY ~ig. 13. Staff of the Division of Meteorites at the 1997 . f h ence the research directions of those in the nght: Curator Emeritus Roy Clarke, Postdoctoral Fellow °l~~l:r~ ~ ~ eC~al1 ?f Geol~gy. Gems and Mine:als. Left to little information about the Moon. At that time, Division of Meteorites and, importantly, our Glenn MacPherson, Research Associate Bevan French C . s, effilst. Ementus Eugene Jarosewlch, Curator the composition of the Moon was largely Mason, Postdoctoral Fellow Sara Russell and Cu at T'. olMIectclon Mpanager Elizabeth Scott, Curator Emeritus Brian exhibits. Mason, William G. Melson (appointed r or 1m c oy. hotograph by Chip Clark. unknown and it was likened to both primitive as Head of the Division of Petrology in 1964) METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 258 R.S. CLARKE IT AL. 259 Interior and the Smithsonian Institution to more than 70 individual amino acid~ and red~­ collecting has been recounted elsewhere, most fined our thinking about early organtc synthesls prevent the removal of the Old Woman meteorite recently in a book by the US Antarctic Search from California. In its ruling, the US Court of (see review by Cronin et al. 1989). At the start for Meteorites (ANSMET) founder William Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affinned a ruling of of the 21st century, with the renewed mterest III Cassidy (Cassidy 2003). However, the role that astrobiology and the origin of life on Earth and the US District Court for the Central District the ANSMET programme would ultimately Mars, Murchison remains one of our most valu­ of California, which held that the Department play in the growth of the Museum's meteorite of the Interior acted properly in transferring the able and requested samples. collection has never been recounted. Old Woman meteorite to the Institution under The ANSMET programme began rather mod­ the powers of the Antiquities Act. Ownership estly in 1976 with the trio of Cassidy, Edward The Lost City meteorite of the Old Woman was transferred to the Olsen (Curator of Meteorites at the Field On 3 January 1970, the Smithsonian Astrophysi­ Museum in 1976. It was removed from the Old Museum) and Keizo Yanai (of the Japanese Woman Mountains by the Marine Corps in cal Observatory's Prairie Network recor~ed t~e National Institute of Polar Research) recovering fall of the Lost City, Oklahoma, meteonte. S,X 1977 and spent a year on display in California. 11 meteorites. These meteorites were curated The meteori te first arri ved in Washington, DC days after its fall, the first stone - a 9.8 ~g com­ by Olsen at the Field Museum and pieces distrib­ in 1978 and, after continued debate among inter­ plete individual - was recovered and, III total, Fig. 14. Artist's rendering of the Old Woman meteorite uted in an ad hoc fashion to the research commu~ four fragments with a total mass of 17 kg were as it occurred when found. Sketch by Marcie Dunn for ested scientists, the first large cut was completed nity. Despite the modest numbers for this joint in May 1980, revealing a complex internal struc­ recovered (Clarke et al. 1971b). While Lost the Smithsonian Institution. US - Japanese team, it was clear that this was City was remarkable in being the only meteonte ture transitional from a coarse octahedrite to a literally the tip of the iceberg and that large hexahedrite containing phosphide. The main recovered by the Prairie Network and, .at the numbers of meteorites from the cleanest environ­ time only the second meteorite for which an meteorite in question was Forest City and the mass was ultimately returned on loan to the ment on Earth were soon to be recovered in orbi{ could be calculated, it is most notewo~y court held that the meteorite properly belong t.o BLM's Desert Resource Information Center in Antarctica. An ad hoc committee was convened Barstow, California. from our vantage point for the co~operatIon the landowner Goddard. In 1967 this very speCl­ on 11 November 1977 in Washington, DC. The In the end, there was a certain irony when the exhibited by NASA, the Smithsonian's Astro­ men would be acquired by the .SITIlthsoman meeting included representatives of NSF (Mort physical Observatory and NMNH. Desplte the as part of the transfer of the .~n.iversity of internal structure was finally revealed. Ten years Turner), the field party (William Cassidy), the infighting between these orgamzatIons around Minnesota collection. The acqUlsitlon of the earlier, Clarke, who was at the apex of the Old Smithsonian (Brian Mason of the Natural 1960, Lost City proved to be a model .of Goose Lake meteorite by the S~thsonia~ from Woman controversy, had begun a collaboration History Museum and Ursula Marvin of the Astro ~ with Joseph I. Goldstein, then at Goddard co-operation between. these agencIes, ~lth US Forest Service land was conSIstent WIth ~e physical Observatory), NASA (Don Bogard of NASA providing fundmg, the Astrophyslcal earlier case. Thus, there was little legal questIOn Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, the Johnson Space Center and Bevan French of and an expert on iron meteorites. Their collabor­ Observatory operating the Pr~e N etwo~k, ~d that the Old Woman meteorite, which was found NASA Headquarters) and the scientific comrnu~ the NMNH distributing matenal .to SCIentists on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Man­ ation ultimately led Clarke to earn a PhD with nity (including Jim Papike). This meeting pro­ Goldstein as his advisor on the subject of phos~ and serving as the ultimate re~osIto.ry for the agement (BLM), was the property of the US duced 'A plan for the collection, processing, meteorite. As we discuss later m this chapter, government. . phide growth and its influence on the formation and distribution of the US portion of the Antarc­ of coarse-structured iron meteorites (Clarke & this model of interagency co-operation would Despite the clear ownership of the federal gov­ tic meteorites collected during 1977- 1978' .35 Goldstein 1978). Clarke received his degree serve us well in later years. ernment, the meteorite was contested by ~e However, much of the groundwork for this finders under a mining claim. Again, a meteonte from George Washington University in May of system of interagency co-operation (which ulti­ within the Smithsonian's collection proved 1976, only a few months before the first, small mately was formalized as the three~agency The Old Woman meteorite pivotal in the case .of Old Woman. In 1944 sample of Old Woman reached the Smithsonian. agreement between NASA, the NSF and the While the acquisition of Old Woman remains a In February 1976 two prospectors found a3 ton Japanese~Americans mterned m the Utah des~rt Smithsonian Institution) and the distribution of point of contention between meteorite hunters iron meteorite in the Old Woman MountalI~s of on federal lands discovered the Drum .M0untams samples was laid before the meeting. Brian California (Fig. 14). A piece was first exammed meteorite, which was ultimately acqmred ~y the and the federal government, Old Woman Mason (pers. comm. 2004) recounted a conversa­ by the Museum in the late summer of 1976, USNM. On 31 October 1944 the Asslstant served to reinforce the notion that meteorites tion with Mort Turner expressing the opinion that found on public property rightfully belong to beginning a 4 year odyssey that would become Secretary of the Department of the Intenor meteorites collected by US field expeditions the people of the United States and should be among the most controv~rsial i~ the modem era responded to an inquiry ~y. Hend~rson concern­ should properly become US government prop­ of meteoritics at the SITIlthsoman. The story of ing the applicability of mmrng claIms to mete~r~ available for research and exhibition through erty. Mason also volunteered his services in the the Smithsonian Institution. the Old Woman meteorite has achieved so~e­ ites. The Department of Interior reiterated Its classification of meteorites. The three~agency thing of a legendary status among meteonte position that if meteorites have a market v~lue agreement also calls for the Smithsonian hunters and collectors (see Norton 1994) and only for the reason that. ~ey are m~t~ontes, Antarctic meteorites to serve as the ultimate repository of the the complete story is beyond the s.cope of this they are not subject to IDlmng laws, ClUng the meteorites - a provision that would not be paper. At its core, however, the Issue of the case of South Dakota Mining Company. v. In most respects, the events of the last days of fully implemented for more than 15 years. 1969 came to shape meteoritics at the Smithso~ Old Woman meteorite was a legal test ~)Ver the McDonald (30 L.D. 357) in which a nnmng With nearly 30 years of hindsight, the formali­ nian more than any other single event in the pre­ ownership of meteorites, much of the hIst~ry of claim was denied because the value of the land zation of the three-agency agreement was which came from meteorites already held m the resulted solely from the presence of a ca,:em, vious 35 years. The initial discovery of Antarctic probably responsible for the long-teon success collections of the Smithsonian. As recounted by not because of the presence of a commerCIally meteorites in 1969 (Kojima 2006, 295-6) was of the Antarctic Meteorite Programme. The Schmitt (2002), the precedent that the land profitable mining deposit. followed by extensive programmes sponsored relationship has grown into one of mutual trust by the governments of Japan, the United States owner, rather than the finder, IS the proper The final ruling in the Old Woman .case was a and respect among the agencies, and each is owner of meteorites found on that land was consolidated ruling in a series of motIOns by ~he (in collaboration with the Japanese initially), spurred by the other two to honour the tenns of o established by the case of Goddard v. Winchell State of California and the San Bemardm Europe (which sponsored EUROMET), Italy the original agreement. The spirit of mutual before the Iowa Supreme Court in 1892. The County Museum against the Department of and China. The history of Antarctic meteorite co-operation had not, however, always been the 260 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 261 1400 , ------K rule. Cassidy (2003) recalled his initial desire to awaiting classification. Mason saw a need for a particular aspect proved to be, perhaps, the fonn a curation centre for AntarctIc met~ontes at II) 1200 quicker technique to separate and classify the most contentious point of the Antarctic meteorite the University of Pittsburgh .and descnbed the oE 1000 myriad of equilibrated ordinary chondrites. In programme. A tense relationship between NASA intrusion of three leviathans III the forI? o~ the ~ 1987 he returned to one that he had successfully and the Smithsonian had existed since even ultimate three-agency agreement. In hmdsl~ht, ~ 800 applied in the 1950s and early 1960s - oil before the recovery of Antarctic meteorites, Cassidy agreed that the arrangement ~or cu~atIo.n .8 600 inunersion. The rapid determination of the com­ with an early NASA curator (Duke 1976) and collection by NASA and the Smithsoman IS E 400 position of a few olivine grains from each suggesting that a centralized facility for the cura­ probably the best possible arra~g~me,nt. :i meteorite became then, and remains, the tion of all meteorites under the NASA model From the Smithsonian InStItUtIO~ s perspec- 200 method by which 80-90% of all US Antarctic might be appropriate. During later years, the meteorites are classified. tive, the spirit of mutual c?-operatIon be~ween 0 %.-~=-~_~_-l-~ __~ __~~ Smithsonian would be accused by a NASA the field parties led by CaSSIdy and t~~ SIl?Jthso- 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 Mason counts among his most significant curator of doing 'cardboard-box curation'. nian was strengthened by ~e partICIpatIOn of Year thrills in those years of classifying meteorites From its vantage point, the Museum viewed III the identification of ALH A81005 as lunar several Smithsonian staff the fiel? eff~rts NASA as obstructionist in permanently releasing over the years. Ursula Marvin of the Smlths~mIan Fig. 15. Number of samples recovered by the Antarctic (despite the cautious language he employed in 34 Antarctic meteorites to be accessioned by the Astrophysical Observatory, w~o played a pIvotal Search for Meteorites from 1976 to 1977 through the the Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter ). This led Smithsonian into the USNM collection. role in both the initial fonnatIon and long-term 2004-2005 season. The cyclicaJ variation from 1989 meteoriticists to suspect that a number of other Tension was heightened by the administrative management of the programn:e ove.r the n~~t reflects the choice of recovery sites and the abundance of meteorites, including several from the Antarctic, structure of the ANSMET Programme, which meteorites recoverable at individual sites. The three decades was the first SlTIlthsoman partlCI­ were of martian origin. Interestingly, Mason created the Meteorite Working Group to pant in 1978-'1979 and returned in 1981-:-1982, programme experienced significant growth b~tween played less of a role in these discoveries. Arch 1984 and 1989. In response to this grow~h, Bnan Mason oversee operations. This group included perma­ joined by Robert Fudali of the Dlvl.slOn of Reid of the University of Houston classified nent representatives of the member agencies Meteorites and a long-time. aSSOCiate of introduced the use of refractive index o11s f~r EET A 79001 - from which the first defillitive classification of equilibrated ordinary chond~ltes. Recent and rotating members from the academic com­ Cassidy. Subsequently, Fudall. (1983 - 1984, evidence for martian gases was found - and growth has been spurred by additional ~undmg fro~ munity. In many cases, the greatest resistance 1987 - 1988), meteorite collectIOn managers NASA to expand the collection of martian meteontes. Glenn MacPherson classified the meteorites col­ to meteorite transfers came from the academic Twyla Thomas (1985 - 1986) and LInda lected in 1984-1985, including the now famous community, who viewed NASA as more respon­ Welzenbach (2002-2003), and postdoctoral ALH 84001. Mason never travelled to Antarctica si ve to their needs. Mason, who had completed a ?escription ?f a fellows Sara Russell (1996-1997) and Can as part of the field team. He was scheduled to go The resolution to this difference of opinion Corrigan (2004 - 2005) served on the ANSMET run-of-the-mill ordinary chondnte and provided in 1977- 1978, but an illness in the family pre­ carne in 1983, when the Smithsonian opened its field parties. It is interestIng to note that as .the the description to Marvin. M~son volunteered vented his participation. Although he retired his services during the fonnatlve stages of the Museum Support Center in Suitland, Maryland programme evolved, the number of ~eteon~es from the Smithsonian in 1984, he continued in (Fig. 16). This state-of-the-art collections facility recovered changed dramatically. Starllng WIth programme and it would be hard to have found his role classifying meteorites for another 12 a more peIiect individual to undertak~ th~ ~hal­ is centred on four pods (football-field-sized 11 meteorites in 1976, ANSMET averaged years. In 1996, on the heels of the retirements buildings approximately 50 feet high) connected approximately 200 meteorites per year from lenge of classi.fying. thousands of mdiVl?Ual by Fredriksson in 1992, Clarke in 1993 and by a corridor of offices and laboratories. Shortly 1976 to 1984, before ramping-up to an average meteorites. Dunng his tenure at the Amencan Fudali in 1996, the Division of Meteorites hired Museum of Natural History in New York, and after its opening, planning began on building of nearly 600 meteorites from 1985 to 2001 Timothy McCoy, in large part because of his what became essentially a duplicate of the dry (Fig. 15). This average is remarkable gIven the subsequently at the Smithsonian, Mason h~d experience and interest in classification and examined virtualJy every ty~e of ~eteonte nitrogen storage facility for Antarctic meteorites cancellation of the 1989 field season due to ~OgIS­ research on Antarctic meteorites. Ironically, at Johnson Space Center in Houston and the new tical problems, and the intentional exploratIOn of known, pioneered the use of ':l1lne.ralo.gIcal ~ata McCoy, who would assume responsibility for Museum storage facility opened in the fall of areas with greater and lesser numbers of meteor­ in the classification of meteontes m his seffil~al the curation of the collection and classification 1986. The first sigllificant transfer (126 speci­ ites to average out the curatorial workload from 1963 paper (Mason 1963) and, when facedwlth of all Antarctic meteorites a few years later, an unusual Antarctic meteonte, could qU1~kly mens) of Antarctic meteorites to the Smithsonian year to year. Very recently, NA~A has sup­ was one of Klaus Keil's graduate students. occurred in 1987. Even after its completion, the plemented NSF funding: to proVIde a. larger recall other similar meteorites he had examm.ed While Mason did the lion's share of the classi­ during his career. During his long tenure WIth number of meteorites permanently transferred field-effort designed to l~crea.se the YIeld of fication, Clarke and Jarosewich were intimately to the Smithsonian remained at a trickle for the martian meteorites, resultIng III field ~easons the ANSMET programme, Mason would go on involved with the programme over a number of to classify more than 10000 individual meteor­ next 5 years. Regular, annual transfers from approaching approximately 1000 meteont~s p~r years. At the outset, NASA's Johnson Space Johnson Space Center to the Museum began in year. It is, of course, too early to tell If thIS ites, including a consider~~le numbe~ of Center recognized it lacked the equipment and 1992 and the flow of meteorites increased new growth is a long-term phenomenon. None­ Japanese meteorites during a VISIt to the NatIonal expertise to curate iron meteorites and that task tremendously in 1998. At that point, the Meteor­ theless, the growth posed significant cha~lenges Institute of Polar Research in .1982. Many of fell solely to Clarke. During his 25-year involve­ ite Processing Laboratory at Johnson Space for classifying this vast bounty of meteontes. these descriptions were c~mpiled by Mason, " ment in Antarctic irons, he recognized that nearly Center was essentially full and the subsequent While the collection effort wa.s shared. by along with co-editors Marvrn an~ MacPherson, two-thirds were unusual in structure or compo­ influx of newly-recovered meteorites necessi­ ny the classification of Antarctic meteontes in five catalogs which were p~bllshed ~e~een sition, probably a result of sampling of unusual 1977 and 1987 in the Smithsontan Contrlbutwns tated the transfer of large numbers of specimens ::s, ~t least for the first 20 ye~s.' largely ~he types by the very small irons (Clarke 1986). to the Smithsonian Institution. By the end of responsibility of a single .indivldual, Bnan to the Earth Sciences Series. . Jarosewich incorporated Antarctic meteorites In the earliest days of the programme; a thm 2004, more than 11 300 individual specimens Mason. In her oraJ history WIth Maso~, Urs~la into his long-standing programme of bulk chemi­ had been transferred to the Museum. When Marvin (2002) recalls an early meetIng WIth section was prepared of every meteonte and cal analyses of meteorites, producing both data coupled with the chips and thin sections used meteorite petrologist Klaus Kell, III w~lch Kell microprobe work conducted. As the numbers and homogenized powders that may be used for for the initial classification, Antarctic meteorites expressed dismay at who would classI~ these of meteorites ramped up between 1984. and decades to corne. 1988, it became cle.ar that this lab.ono~~ now represent more than 80% of named meteor­ vast numbers of stones, noting that ~elther he The final obligation of the Smithsonian in the ites in the Smithsonian collection and more than nor his students would be interested III such a time-consuming techmque was producmg. s AMSMET Programme was serving as the long­ 70% of all specimens. These percentages alone task. The task had already been taken up by unacceptably large backlog of meteonte tenn curatorial facility for specimens. This demonstrate the spectacular impact of the 262 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 263

12See 'An historical account of the Department of The authors are grateful to the Edward P. and Rebecca Geology in the U.S. National Museum', G.P. Rogers Henderson Fund for supporting this research. We Merrill (c. 1929) manuscript in the SIA, accession thank: the staff of the Smithsonian Institution Archives and 98- 012. Libraries, particularly P. Henson, W. Cox, E. Alers and !3G.K. Gilbert's letter of invitation of 15 October L. Overstreet. Discussions with H.P. Ewing, U. Marvin 1891, SIA RU7177. Box 2. and B. Mason contributed significantly to our understand­ 14G.K. Gilbert's letter of 8 November 1907 discussing ing of the history of the Smithsonian in general and its involvement in meteoritics specifically. C. Moore possible meteorite fonnation of Meteor Crater, SIA RU7006, Box 41. kindly provided figures of and helpful discussion about H.H. Nininger. "S.H. Perry 10 Merrill, 21 May 1928, SIA RU777I, Box 20. "S.H. Perry to Merrill, 10 May 1929, SIA RU7006, Box 41. References 17G.p. Merrill to A. Wetmore, 14 August 1926, SlA RU7006, Box 41. BARRINGER, D.M. 1905. Coon Mountain and Its Crater. Proceedings oj the Academy oj Natural 18William A. Foshag (1894-1956) joined the staff Sciences oj Philadelphia, 57, 861 - 886. as a mineralogist in 1919, and carried out BUCHWALD, V. 1975. Handbook oj Iron Meteorites, 3 important work on meteorites in the late 1930s and vols. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. early 1940s. Earl V. Shannon was a mineralogist­ BUCHWALD, V.F. & CLARKE, RS., JR. 1993. A mystery chemist. solved; the Port Orford meteorite is an Imilac speci­ 19E. Henderson to H. Nininger, 12 March 1938, SIA, men. In; CLARKE, RS., JR (ed.) The Port Orford, RU 268, Box 7. Oregon, Meteorite Mystery. Smithsonian Contri­ Fi . 16. Meteorite collection manager Linda Welzenhach working in ~e. dry ~trogen storage cabinets at the Mus.eu:" butions to the Earth Sciences, 31, 25-43. Su~port Center in Suitland. Maryland, in, 2002. Meteorites are stored wlthm stamless steel pans that are arranged wIthm 2f1i. Nininger to E. Henderson, 13 July 1938, SIA, RU 268, Box 7. BURKE, J.G. 1986. Cosmic Debris: Meteorites in each of the cabinets. Photograph by Chip Clark. 21H. Nininger to A. Wetmore, 12 May 1939, SIA, RU History. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 305. BURLEIGH, N. 2003. The Stranger and the Statesman. 2His father was Hugh Smithson (1715 - 1786), first 22A. Wetmore to H. Nininger, 1 June 1939, StA, Acc. Antarctic Meteorite Programme on the NMNH's William Morrow- Harper Collins, New York. Duke of Northumberland, and his mother Elizabeth 151638. meteorite collection. CASSIDY, W.A. 2003. Meteorites, lee, and Antarctica. Hungerford Keate Macie (1732- 1800). 23For a listing of their papers see Mason & Clarke 1994. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3Waterston (1965) and Torrens (2004b). 24For more on the signjficance of Perry's findings, CLARKE, F.W. 1888. The Constants oj Nature. Part The future 4A copy of Smithson's letter to Greville from the see Burke (1986) and forthcoming paper by Plotkin I. Specific GraVity for Solids and Liquids. New British Library, Greville Papers Add. 41100, & edition, revised and enlarged. Smithsonian Miscel­ The meteorite collection continues as a focal Clarke 'Stuart H. Perry's Contributions to numbers 82 is in the Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Meteoritics 1927-1957'. laneous Collections, 659. point for the research and outreach efforts of Archives (SIA) RU7000, Box 1, folder lO. 25 A listing of the meteorites that Perry donated to the CLARKE, F.W. 1889. The Meteorite Collection of the the current staff and Antarctic meteorites domi­ 5H.P. Ewing is completing the first comprehensive Smithsonian can be gleaned from Perry (19.55). u.S. National Museum: A Catalogue of Meteorites nate the landscape of the collection. Much as it biography of Smithson, with anticipated publication 26H. Nininger to E. Henderson, 2 April 1958, SIA, RU Represented November 1, 1886. Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885- 86, part 2, was in early 1969, the current staff, augmented by Bloomsbury, London, in the spring of 2007 .. 192, Box 658. Acc. 219370. 255-265. by a steady stream of NASA-funded postdoctoral (With addenda to 20 October 1888.) 6A packing list dated 22 November 1796 covenng 27H. Nininger to E. Henderson, 17 June 1958, SIA, CLARKE, F.W. 1892. The relative abundance of the fellows, is actively involved in r~search ~repar­ specimens Thomson sent to Smithson in ~o~don RU268, Box 7. ing for the return of extraterrestrIal matenals by chemical elements. Bulletin of the Philosophical survives in SIA RU 7000 box 2, f. 2. Item 7 IS Vltro­ 28E. Henderson to L. Carmichael, 24 January 1961, Society oj Washington, 11, 131-142. spacecraft, although this time the targets are lated tartar from the cone of Vesuvius as described in SIA, RU 155, Box 13. comets, asteroids and Mars. McCoy was the CLARKE, F.W. 1959. The Data of Geochemistry, 5th Smithson's paper. Heather Ewing has read much of 29E. Anders to H. Urey, 10 November 1961, SIA, RU edn. U.S Geological Survey Bulletin, 770, 841. first USNM scientist to serve on a spacecraft William Thomson's correspondence and has auth­ 268, Box. I. For more on the jUrisdictional dispute First edn, published as Bulletin, 330 (1908). team with his role on the Near-Earth Asteroid enticated the hand. CLARKE , R.S., JR. 1986. Antarctic iron meteorites: an (NEA) Rendezvous mission to asteroid 433 between the National Museum of Natural History 7A woodcut of the Chemical Laboratory c. 1856 is and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory see unexpectedly high proportion of falls of unusual Eros. MacPherson is deeply involved with plan­ reproduced as fig. 32 in Field et al. (1993). Plotkin (1997). interest. In; ANNEXSTAD, lO., SCHULTZ, L. & ning for Mars sample re~s. There .is eve:y WANKE, H., (eds) International Workshop on Ant­ Smithsonian Institution negative numbers 43804-E. 3~. Henderson to H. Suess, 16 June 1961 and reason to believe that meteonte collectIOns WIll 8 Ring c. 1863-1865 may be seen in Field et al. arctic Meteorites. Lunar Planetary Institute Tech­ The 3, E. Henderson to J. Arnold, 22 June 1961 . nical Report, 86-01, 28 - 29. become increasingly important as the benchmark (1993, fig. 69). It is the centre of interest in fig. 117, G. A. Cooper toJ. Bradley, 9 August 1961, SIA, Acc. CLARKE, RS., JR & GOLDSTEIN, J.1. 1978. Schreiher­ to which all new returned samples are compared. c. 1871. Both photographs are from a private collection. 236677. 32 site Growth and Its Influence on the Metallography 9Baird,s letter of 3 December 1883 appointing Clarke For more on Henderson's and Mason's joint of Coarse-structured Iron Meteorites. Smithsonian as Honourary Curator, SIA RU7080, folder 2. Australian field work, see Plotkin (1999). Contributions to the Earth Sciences, 21, 1-80. Notes IORelated Clarke-Shepard correspondence is in SIA "For a I··Istmg 0 f the Smithsonian's meteorite collec- CLARKE, R.S., JR, JAROSEWICH, E., MASO N, B., ISee Torrens (2004a). A recent retelling of the RU7283 and in Smithsonian Institution accession 34tion as of 1973, see Mason (1975b). NELEN, J., Gomez, M. & HYDE lR. 1971a. The Macie-James Smithson story placing it in the records. . B. Mason, Antarctic Meteorite Newsletter, 66, 3 Allende, Mexico, Meteorite Shower. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, S. social and scientific setting of the day is The Stran­ IlBiographical material on Merrill may be found 10 (1983). 35 . CLARKE, RS., JR, JAROSEWICH, E. & NELEN, J. ger and the Statesman, by Nina Burleigh (2003). the following: Farrington (1930), Schuchert (1930, UnSlgned Introduction, Antarctic Meteorite Newslet­ 1971b. The Lost City, Oklahoma, meteorite: An 1931), and Lindgren (1935). ''', I, no. I, 1-3 (1978). Its treatment of Smithson's science is faulty. introduction to its laboratory investigation and I METEORITICS AT THE SMITHSONIAN 264 R.S. CLARKE ET AL. 265 and Key Meteorite Collections: Fireballs, Falls MERRILL, ~.P. 1930. Composition and Structure oj SILLlM~N, B. 1886. Memoir of John Lawrence Smith. comparisons with Pribram and Ucera. Journal of Meteomes. US National Museum Bulletin, 149. Geophysical Resesearch, 76, 4135 - 4143. and Finds. Geological Society, London, Special NatlOn.aI Academy of Sciences Biographical Publications, 256, 291 - 303. MILLER, A.M. 1923. Meteorites. The Scientific Memom', II, 217- 248. CRONIN, 1.R., PIZZARELLO, S. & CRUIKSHANK, D.P. Monthly, 17, (November), 435-448. 1989. Organic matter in carbonaceous chondrites, LINDGREN, W. 1935. Biographical memoir of George SMI':H, J.L. 1855. Memoir.o? meteorites - a descrip­ Perkins Merrill, 1854-1929. Biographical NORTON, O:R. 1994. Rocks from Space. Mountain non of fi.ve new meteonc Irons, with some theoreti­ planetary satellites, asteroids and comets. In: Press, MlssOlIia, MT. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, cal co?sldera?ons on the origin of meteorites based KERRIDGE. J.F. & MATTHEWS, M.S. (eds) Meteor­ PERRY, S.H. The Metallography of Meteoric 27,33- 53. 19~ . on theIr phYSical and chemical character. American ites and the Early Solar System. University of Iron. US NatIOnal Museum Bulletin, 184. MARVIN, U.B. 1996. Ernst Florens Friedrich Chladni Journal of Science, 19, 153- 163,322- 342 Arionza Press, Tucson, AZ, 819 - 857. PERRY, S.H. 19.55. M.et~orite Collection oj Stuart (1756- 1827) and the origins of modern meteorite SMITH,. J.L. 1856. Lecture on Meteoric 'Stone DAVIS, W.M. 1926. Biographical memoir of Grove H. Perry, Adrian, MIchIgan. Privately printed 1- 23 research. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 31 , Snuthsonian Institution Annual RefXlrt for Karl Gilbert 1843- 1918. Biographical Memoirs PLOTKIN, .H. 1993. John Evans and the Port 'Orford 185;' 151 - 174. a reprint of the of the National Academy of Sciences, 21, 1- 303. 545 - 588. meteonte hoax. In: CLARKE, RS., JR. (ed) Es~ntially America~ MARVIN, U.B. 2002. Oral histories in meteoritics and Journal of SCIence, 19, 153 and 19, 322 (1855) DUKE, M. 1976. Application of lunar curatorial experi­ The. Olford. Oregon, Meteorite Myste';. planetary science: V. Brian Mason. Meteoritics Por~ papers. ence to meteoritic samples. Meteoritics, 11. Snuthsoruan Contributions to the Earth Sciences 277-278. and Planetary Science, 37, 835- B45. 31, 1-24. ' SMITH~ON, J ..1803. A chemical analysis of calamines. MARVIN, U.B. 2006. Meteorites in history: an over­ FARRINGTON, a.c. 1930. Tribute to George Perkins PLOTKIN, ~: 1997. The Henderson network vs. Phllosophlcal Transactions of the Royal Society view from the Renaissance to the 20th centuries. (London), Merrill. Bulletin of the Geological Society of the . Prrur.,e ,network: The dispute between the 93, 12 - 28. In: MCCALL, GJ.H., BOWDEN , AJ. & HOWARTH, America, 41, 27 - 29. S~thson~an s National Museum and the SMITHSO~, J. 18~3. On a saline substance from Mount RJ. (eds) A History of Meteoritics and Key Meteor­ FIELD, c.R., STAMM, RE. & EWING, H.P 1993. The Smlthsoru~n.. Astrophysical Observatory over Ves~vlUs. Phtlosophical Transactions of the Royal Castle: An Illustrated History of the Smithsonian ite Collections: Fireballs, Falls and Finds. Geo­ the acqulSltlOn and control of meteorites Society (London), 103, 256-262. Building. Smithsonian Institution Press, logical Society, London, Special Publications, 196?- 1970. Journal of the Royal Astronomical TASSIN, ~. 1902. pe~criptive Catalogue of the Washington, DC. 256,15-71. Sonety of Canada, 91, 32-38. Meteonte CollectIOn In the United States National GEIKIE, SIR A. 1907. A Journey Through England and MASON, B. 1963 Olivine composition in chondrites. PLOTKIN, . . H. 1999. The Australian Meteorite Museum to .January J, 1902. Report of the United Scotland to the Hebrides in 1784 by B. Paujas de Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 27, 1011 - Expedl~on of 1963: Edward P. Henderson's Sta~es N.atlOnal. M,oseum for 1900, 671-698, St. Fond. Revised edition of the English translation, 1023. unpublIshed recollections. Part I. Meteorite 5 Snuthsoruan InsntutlOn, Washington. edited, with notes and a memorial to the Author, MASON, B. 1975a. Mineral sciences in the (I), 16- 20; Part II. Meteorite, 5, (2), 24- 27.' , TILGHMAN, ~.c. 1905. Coon Mountain and Its Crater. Volumes I & II. Hugh Hopkins, Glasgow. Smithsonian Institution. In: SWITZER, G.S. (ed.) RHEE S~ W.J. 187? The SCientific Writings of James Proceedmg of the Academy of Natural Sciences of GILBERT, G.K. 1896. The origin of hypotheses, illus­ Mineral Sciences Investigations 1972- 1973. Smithson. Srruthsonian Miscellaneous Collections Philadelphia, 57, 861 - 886. trated by the discussion of a topographic problem. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, 327,1 - 159. ' THOMSO ~ , O. (W~.) .1804. Essai sur Ie fer mal1t~able Science, 3,1 - 13. 14,1- 10. RH EES~ W.J .. 1880: James Smithson and his Bequest. tr~u:e ~n Slbene par Ie Professeur Pallas. GOODE, G.B. 1897. The Smithsonian Institution i846- MASON, B. 1975b. List of Meteorites in the National Srruthsornan Miscellaneous Collections, 330, 1- 68. Btbltotheque Britannique, 27,135- ]54,209- 229. 1896: The History of it~· First Half Century. The Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian insti· ROE, A. 1975. The C.U. Shepard mineral collection TORRENS, H.S. 2004a. Smithson [jonnerly MacieJ Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. tution. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth and the two Drs. Shepard. Mineralogical Record James Lewis (1764- 1829). In: Dictionary oj HAMILTON, W. 1795. An account of the late eruption Sciences, 14, 71 - 83. 6,253- 257. ' tv.ational Biography, Volume 51. Oxford Univer­ of Mount Vesuvius. Philosophical Transactions, MASON, B. & CLARKE, R.S., JR. 1994. Memorial of SCH MITT, D . .2002. The law of ownership and control sity Press, Oxford, 400- 403. 85,73- 116. Edward P. Henderson. American Mineralogist, of meteontes. Meteoritics and Planetary Science TORRENS, H.S. 2004b. Thomson, William HENDERSON, E.P. 1949. American Meteorites and 79, 579-580. 37, (Supp!.), B5- B II. ' (b.ap. 1760- 1806). In: Dictionary of National the National Collection. Smithsonian Institution MASON, B. & MELSON, W.G. 1970. The Lunar Rocks. SCHUCHERT, C. 1930. George Perkins Merrill BIOgraphy, Volume 54. Oxford University Press Report for 1948. The Smithsonian institution, Wiley-lntemational, New York. (J ~54 - J929). Report of the Smithsonian lnsti­ Oxford, 562- 563. ' , Washington, DC, 257- 268. MCCALL, GJ.H. 2006a. Chondrules and calcium­ tu n~n . for 1930, Part 1. The Smithsonian WATERSTON, C.D. 1965. William Thomson (1761 - HENDERSON, E. & PERRY, S.H. 1958. Studies of seven aluminium-rich inclusions (CAls). In: MCCALL, Instltunon, Washington, DC, 617 - 634. 18~6) a forgotten benefactor. University of siderites. Proceeding.l· of the United States National OJ.H., BOWDEN, AJ. & HOWARTH, RJ. (eds) A SC HUC H~ RT, C. 1931. Memorial of George Perkins W Edmburgh Journal, 22, autumn, 122- 134. Museum, 107, 339- 403. History of Meteoritics and Key Meteorite Collec­ Mem~l. Bulletin of the Geological Society 01 IUE:, R:R 1987. The Tuscon Meteorites. HENSON , P.M. 2004. A national science and a national tions: Fireballs, Falls and Finds. Geological Amenca, 42, 95- 122. Smlthsoman Institution Press, Washington, DC. museum. Proceedings of the California of Society, London, Special Publications, 256, 345- Sciences, 55, (Supp!. 1),34-57. 361. HENRY, J. 1854. Report of the Secretary. Ninth Annual MCCALL, OJ.H. 2006b. Meteorite cratering: Hooke, Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Gilbert, Barringer and beyond. 1n: MCCALL, Institution for 1853. Smithsonian Institution, OJ.H., BOWDEN, AJ. & HOWARTH, RJ. (eds) A Washington. History of Meteoritics and Key Meteorite Collec· HOYT, W.O. 1987. Coon Mountain Controversies: tions: Fireballs, Falls and Finds. Geological Meteor Crater and the Development of Impact Society, London, Special Publications, 256, 443- Theory. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 469. JAROSEWICH, E., CLARKE, R.S., JR & BARROWS, J.N. MERRILL, G.P. 1908. The Meteor Crater of Canyon (eds). 1987. The Allende Meteorite Reference Diablo, Arizona; Its History, Origin, and Associ­ Sample. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth ated Meteoric Irons. Smithsonian MiscellaneouS Sciences, 27. Collections, 50, 461 - 498. JOHNSON, W.R 1844. A memoir on the scientific char­ MERRILL, G.P. 1916. Handbook and Descriptive acter and researches of James Smithson, Esq., Catalogue of the Meteorite Collections in the F.R.S. Reprinted in Rhees (1879), The Scientific United States National Museum. US National Writing of James Smithson. Smithsonian Miscella­ Museum Bulletin, 94. neous Collections, 123- 141. MERRILL, G.P. 1929. Minerals from Earlh and Sky. KOJIMA, H. 2006. The history of Japanese Antarctic Part l. The Story of Meteorite.I·. Smithsonian Insti· meteorites. 1n: MCCALL, GJ.H., BOWDEN, AJ. & HOWARTH, R.J. (eds) A History of Meteoritics tution Science Series, 3.