Meteorites in Georgia

Meteorites 1 n Georgia

/

""

E. P.. HENDERSON, Associate Curator U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. and
A. S. FURCRON, Georgia Geological Survey

Department of Mines, Mining & Geology

19 Hunter Street, S.W. 1966

Atlanta, Georgia

Meteorites 1n Georgia*

E. P. Henderson, Associate Curator U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. and
A. S. Furcron, Georgia Geological Survey

Reprinted from "Georgia Mineral Newsletter" Vol. IX, No. 4, Winter 1956.

Part 1. Nature and Value of Meteorites**
Introduction
A meteorite before entering our atmosphere has been for a very long time a non-luminous small solid object in space. It is interesting to speculate about where they were made and the mechanics by which they were made. Studies made on those that fall to earth show us that there is considerable similarity in their compositions and structures.
Occasionally one of these dark objects makes a spectacular display when it collides with our atmosphere to give us a fireball or sho~ting star. They enter our atmosphere at various speeds but always traveling very fast. They either explode, pass on through the atmosphere and vanish, or fall to the earth. Since the objects that strike the earth are different from our terrestrial rocks, it is possible to recognize them.
One of the chief purposes of this article is to encourage others to look for meteorites because they are important scientific specimens, and to cause the public to respect these important scientific specimens, which should be given or sold to institutions where meteorites are preserved and studied.
Meteorites are too important to be distributed in small lots in many different places. Those that are scattered in small collections are often neglected when investigations are being made, because the specimens are not accessible at the moment they are needed. Meteorites that are retained in private hands frequently become lost, or their historical records lost.
Investigators from many different sciences such as astronomy, chemistry, geology, metallurgy and physics, are turning their attention to the study of meteorites. These studies give us background knowledge about conditions which existed at the time meteorites were made, changes that have occurred since that time, and the relative abundance of elements outside our earth.
Although meteorites come to us from space they resemble the material which possibly occurs in the earth's interior. Thus the study of meteorites provides us with fundamental information about both this world and other planets.
Early peoples became interested in the spectacular displays made by falling meteorites, and in the objects that fell. Try to imagine what primitive man thought when suddenly he saw a brilliant meteorite flash through the sky. Those near enough to hear the noise a falling meteorite can make would be so scared that such an event would be retold by them for the rest of their lives.
Although there are legendary records about some old meteorite falls, as well as commemorative medals, sketches, etc., there are few specimens preserved that fell before 1500 A. D. At one time people looked upon heavenly bodies as the abodes of their Gods. During the centuries just before and after the birth of Christ it became the custom in certain lands to make commemorative medals about the fall of a meteorite.
The temples in which the celestial bodies were worshiped possibly contained some specimens that they believed fell; however, there is no proof that such specimens existed. Prob-
*Published by permission of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
**A second installment of this article will describe the falls reported from Georgia.

ably most of those samples were not meteorites. People then may have mistaken rocks for meteorites just as they do today. Nowadays the majority who try to recover the object they saw falling, select a terrestrial rock or some artificial product for the meteorite. Perhaps early peoples averaged no better in their recovery of true meteorites.
Anyone collecting meteorites appreciates the need of encouraging others to se.arch for them. Thus it is desirable to have interested friends all over the country who will assist in getting these specimens. Anything as scientifically rare as
The Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana Meteorite
This 600 gram stony meteorite was found near Lafayette, Indiana before 1931 .. Its date of fall is unknown but it is a recent fall. The scaled drawzng on page 128 shows the dimensions of a cross section through this stone.
The dome-shaped forward face is covered with a black shiny crust about 0.1 millimeter thick. About the center of this face is the stagnation point where the least ablation took place. Many ridges radiate from this point and sweep down the sides to the edge. The ridges are glass, made from the fusion of the surface material of the meteorite. The ridges make a slight spiral as they extend down the side and the direction of these ridges indicates the meteorite was rotating on an axis passing through the stagnation point and perpendicular to the forward face. The rotation, however, was slow in comparison with the forward velocity of the meteorite.
The rear side is comparatively flat and covered with a fused crust about I millimeter thick. The glassy crust from the front side barely laps over onto the rear face. A narrow zone around the outside edge of this face contains a spattering of glassy blebs. This material was pushed off the front face by the air stream and was splashed on the rear face by the turbulent air in the wake of the falling meteorite.
The color of the crust on the back of most meteorites is different than the color of the crust on the forward side. Usually it shows a trace of brown. No appreciable degree of orientation exists in the fusion crust on the rear surface except towards the edges, where some of the dark blebs of glass have a limited degree of alignment in short rows.
Numerous small rounded cavities exist in the crust on the rear face and suggest that gas escaped as the fused material solidified. Air probably gets mixed into the molten glass on the front because the hot moving air that pushes the molten material along is so tightly pressed against the front surface that it mechanically mixes air into . the molten material. The crust accumulates on the rear face either by direct melting or spattering of fused material from the forward side. The molten material that is spattered onto the rear looses zts air bubbles because immediately behind the meteorite there is an area of low pressure.
Both the Cabin Creek and the Lafayette meteorite entered our atmosphere at high velocities. They lost material by vaporization and ablation, also projecting pieces are possibly mechanically torn off. Thus, the mass is being sculptured in flight and reduced to a streamlined and rounded object. Once the object assumes a stabilized position it will continue in that position until it either breaks apart or strikes the earth.
Within a few seconds after entering our atmosphere meteorites loose their high velocity and reach a point where their surface is being cooled rather than heated. Most meteorites, and probably all the small ones, strike the earth with so little force that almost no damage is done to the meteorite.
Meteoritic iron is relatively soft and may be easily scarred by a light blow of a hammer. Yet many large iron meteorites show no detectable damage traceable to impact with the ground. Some meteorites are composed of poorly-bonded aggregates of minerals, and although when recovered they show fractures, impact with the ground failed to shatter them.

Reprinted 1966

126

Front Face.

Rear Face. The Lafayette Indiana Meteorite

a meteorite should not be mistreated or find its wav into household cabinets where miscellaneous things are retained only for a while. Meteorites in private collections often get misplaced or discarded after the death of the owner.
Investigators in most natural history sciences can go into the field to collect the specimens they need, but the growth of a meteorite collection depends upon the interest of others. To stimulate more interest in these objects most museums will purchase meteorites. We want to encourage more people

to assist in this work by showing them how to recognize a meteorite.
Distribution and Times of Meteorite Falls Between 1800 and 1950
A meteorite may fall any place and at any time. There is no reason why anyplace would be a preferred target, yet the present information on the distribution of observed falls shows
some areas have been hit more frequently than others. Me-

127

teorite statistics are far from satisfactory because the nature of the terrain sometimes makes it difficult to observe meeorite falls, and all people are not equally interested in reporting the recovery of a witnessed fall. Most of our information about falls and finds comes from areas within the northern hemisphere. There, from November to March, the hours between sundown and sunrise are cool, thus for most of the years between 1800 and 1950 fewer people were in a position to observe meteorite falls. Now that many trained observers are stationed at airfields and, airplanes are flying throughout the night, our meteoritic records should improve.

A

A scaled drawing of the cross section through the Lafayette Indiana meteorite from A-B.

More meteorites are recovered from certain areas because of ( 1) the nature of the terrain, (2) the population density, (3) people have been encouraged to look for meteorites. To illustrate the known distribution of meteorites, three areas within our country were selected, each with approximately the same number of square miles and the meteorites reported from each area as well as the number of witnessed falls of meteorites within the area, are given.

Table 1

The number of known meteorites and the observed meteoritic falls from three areas in the United States.

Area in Square Miles
Area 1
Tennessee ---------------------- 44,022 North Carolina -------------- 52,426 Mississippi ---------------------- 46,865 Alabama ------------------------ 51,998 Georgia -------------------------- 59,265 South Carolina -------------- 30,989

Known Meteorites
22 30
3 14 19 6

Number of Witnessed
Falls
3 9 2 6 3 2

285,565

94

25

Area 2

Kentucky ---------------- 40,598

21

3

Virginia -------------------------- 42,627

11

3

West Virginia ---------------- 24,170

2

0

Maryland ---------------------- 12,327

4

2

Indiana -------------------------- 56,147

10

2

Ohio

------------------ 41,047

10

2

Pennsylvania ------------------ 45,126

8

3

Delaware ------------------------ 2,370

0

0

New Jersey -------------------- 8,224

1

1

272,636

67

16

Area 3

Kansas ---------------------------- 82,158

72

6

Missouri ------------------------ 69,420

15

5

Nebraska ------------------------ 77,520

31

1

Iowa ------------------------------ 56,147

5

4

285,245

q3

16

Although the above districts have essc.ntially the same area, there is considerable variation in the number of meteorites reported from each. The total of the known meteorites are 94, 67 and 123 while the observed falls for the same areas are 25, 16 and 16 respectively. These figures give some information about the distribution of meteorites within our country but a different set of values would be obtained if areas of corresponding size were selected from other parts of our country. Still greater differences would occur if one of the areas selected was from Asia, South America or Africa for obvious reasons.
An inspection of the listings of the dates on which meteorites fell shows that something unusual happened in Alabama, not only once but twice. The event most readers recall is the meteorite which fell November 30, 1954 at Sylacauga, Alabama. This one made_ history when it crashed through the roof of a house, bounced off some furniture and struck Mrs. Ann Elizabeth Hodges who was resting on a couch. Although Mrs. Hodges was not hit directly she became famous in a way few want to gain fame, because she was the first person known to have been hit by a meteorite falling from space. The Sylacauga fall made the kind
B of news that gets world-wide circulation and is an event that will be retold many times.
The other unusual event which happened in Alabama concerns two meteorites which fell in 1868. Neither one by itself was unusual, but it so happened that 8 days after a 40z pound stone fell at Danville, Morgan County, on November 27, (J. L. Smith, 1870) a second meteorite fell at Frankfort, Franklin County, on December 5th (G. F. Brush, 1869). The second one fell within fifty miles of the first, and weighed
1% pounds. Probably it is only a coincidence for witnessed
falls to occur within so few miles of each other and within such a short time. Apparently this is the only case on record where two witnessed meteorites came so close to hitting the same spot.
Another interesting relationship between the time and place of fall took place in Russia. The meteorite which fell in the woods near Tunguska, Siberia, June 30, 1908 at 12:16 A.M., is one of the major meteoritic events of recent times. We can be thankful that such things do not happen often. But another four-pound meteorite fell within six hours and fifty-four minutes of the Tunguska fall at Kagarlyk, 2,750 miles away.
The timing of these Russian and Alabama falls prompted a further inquiry into meteoritic falls to learn (1) the number of witness~d falls, (2) number of falls occurring on the same day, (3) the number that were seen within each month.
Our survey includes 627 witnessed meteoritic falls, and in all but 24 cases the data seem definite enough to be assigned to a particular day. The falls for which the data are somewhat indefinite are recorded in a separate column.
Table 2 lists the total witnessed falls for each month for a period of 150 years, and also the falls for which the year is probably correct but the month in which the fall occurred is not well established.
Farrington, (1915) reported 331 witnessed meteoritic fails between 1800 and 190P Leonard, (1941) reported 582 witnessed falls between 1790 and 1940. The survey just completed shows 627 witnessed falls between 1800 and 1950.
The survey of witnessed meteoritic falls, here reported, does
*The figure at the end of Farrington's table incorrectly gives a total of 350.

128

not always agree with that of Leonard's of 1941. The difference can only be resolved by checking the original data. Hey's catalogue (1953) was the source of the information for this survey. Those in which the month and day were not reported are here called indefinite, but Leonard, reporting witnessed falls by the year, included such falls in his count. However, there are other differences between the two surveys which can not be explaine!i in this way. The extent of the differences is shown by the fact that 48 of the 139 years covered in the two surveys are not in agreement.
Our survey shows that no meteoritic falls were reported in 1800, 1802, 1809, 1816, 1831, 1832 and 1888. In 1930 and 1933 there were 13 and 12 falls reported respectively. The next largest number was reported in 1868 when 11 falls were seen.
The difference between our survey and those of Farrington or Leonard does not materially change the relative distribution of-monthly falls. Probably the number of falls reported in our survey between 1800 and 1935 are less likely to change than the years since 1935, because often a lag occurs between the observation and the time the information is published. It is doubtful if more witnessed falls will be reported for the years 1800 to 1935.

Table 2

Witnessed meteorite falls from 1800 through 1950. Reported by the month and the year in which the fall occurred.

<=:
!:l

t > .<:...i..

l>i
~ ~

<;i:;:

i < ~

;~:;:

z ~
.;.:.J..

>
...:1
.~....

d < ~

~ <ll

,..;
0 0

0 z

d
~ ~

r.:.:
~
.z~....

;:. ~ 0,...

li :~ ~= : ~:=;-~~=:=~t:f=:::~: :~~:: _-: :~[:~; ~-:: :1

11880067 -_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1L_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_--1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-12
1808 ------------------------------------------.l-.......L ..................------------------L____________________________________ l________3
11881009 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--,_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-30

~~J8118121 ----. ----= -----~---~----= ----=----o---.-.-~-.1=.=--2---.--7--.---=--=---c------=--=--o---.--7---..-~--1o...=----=---1---~----1---~---~--------~---=----=.1=....-.----------'----'---'------.4.3

11881134

-------------------------------------------------1-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1-_L_-________________________________1_________________1____________________________________

2
_3

1815 ________________________ l__ ___________________________________________________________________________ _J ______________________________________ 2

1816 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0 11881178 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_--1--_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_L__._____________________________31

11881290 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L---------------1--_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-21 11882212 -..------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_21_______________-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -1--_-_-__-_-_-_-_--1-_-_-_-_-_--_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1--__--__--__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1--_-_-_-_-__-_-_.15 11882234 -__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1-_--_-_-_-_-_-__--1-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_--1-_-_--_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_L__._._._._._-31 1825 ________________________1____________________________________________________________________1________________________________________________2 11882276 -----_-_-_-_-_-__-__-_-___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-11._._._._._._._._.________________________________________1______________________________________1_____________________________________________________________________________32

1828 ----------------------------------------------------------------L----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 11882390 -_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-2-1_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L___._._._.._._11._._._._._-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-43

1831.......----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
18')2 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
lll33 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.l----------------------------1
1834 ----------------------------------------------------------------L----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 11883365 -_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-L---_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__._._._._._.__L___._._._._._..L.._..._._.__._._._._._._._._._._._..1.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.__._._._._._._._._..42 11883378 -_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--L--_---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__--L---_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-2L._..._._._._._1_____________________________________J______________________________________________________________________________34

111888434190 --_--_-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_1-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--L------_----_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_L-_-__-_-__-__-__-__-__-1L--_-__-_-__-__-__-__-__-_L-_-_-__-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-___-__-_-_1-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__ 331 111888444234 -__-___-__-__-___-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_-l_-__-__-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-___-_-1_-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-_-___1J_______________________________________________________21____________________________1____.__.._______________________________________________2__-_--_--_--_--_--_--_---1-----_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_1_1__--_--_--_--_--_--_--_-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--436 1845 ______________ !__ ________________________________________________________ 1__ __________________________________________________________________ 2

11884467 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-1---__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L___-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-32 1848 ________________________ 1____________________________1 _________________ L_ _____________________________________________ 1__________________4

1849 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L----------------------------------1 1850 ----------------------------------------------------------------L----------------------------------------------1--------------------------- 2 1851 -------------- -----------------------------1----------------------------------------------- -------- _________1____________________________ 2 1852 ______________1_________ ------ ----------------------------------------------------------1 ________ 1__________________ 1_________________ 4
1853 ------------------------1........2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 1854 ------------------------------------------------------ -------- -----------------------------1-----------------------------------------------1 11885565 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_2__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_2__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-11-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1-------------------------------------------------------25 1857 ------------------------1........1........2..________________________________________________________2_________________ 1__________________7
11885589 --------------------------------------------------------------------1---.-.-.-.-..-.-.--1--..--_-__-_-_-_-11-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-11____________________________________________________________________________2______________________________________44 1860 ------------------------1 ........1..................1........1........1__________________________________________________________1________5 1861 -----------------------------------~------------2........1........________________________________ ---------------------------------------3

:i <......

,..; >

0 0

0 z

111888666324 --_--_-_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--_-_--_--_--_--_-_-!_-__-__-_-__-__-__-__-__-_-_!_-__-__-_-__-___-__-__-__-_-1_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__--!!__--__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-2_-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-___-__-__-___-__L____.__.__.__.__.__.__L________.__.__.__.__.__._.2_._._.-_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-___362 1865 ______________1__________________ 1__________________ !____________________________3________ 1________________________________________________7

11886667

-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_1__._._._.._._._._

2........2______________________________________ 1__________________!__________________
1__ ______ !__ ____________________________________________________________________________

3 7

1868 ---- __________ 1........ 1........1..................1........1________ 1__________________ 1........ 1........1........2........1 .....11 11887609 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-J2_-_-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__2______________________________________J__________________J__________________1__________________1_____________________________________________________________________________36

1871 1872

------------------------------------------------------1 ------------------------------------------------------1

........ .......

11..-.-.-.-.-.-.--1--.-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-!-__

_-_-____-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-____--________L________________1________________34

1873 ------------------------------------------------------ -------- 2____________________________2 -------------------------------------1 ______ 4 11887745 -_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--.-!--_-_-_-__-_-_---2--_-_-_-__-_-_-_--1--_-_-_-_-_-_-___2__________________________________________________________L________________L___________________________________!_________________________________________________________63

1876 ________________________ 1 ________________ 1 --------------- 2__________________________________________________________ L_______________ 5

1877 --------------2 -------------------------------------L..... 1...--------------------------------------------2 --------------------------6

11887798

-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-2--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-11-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_1___._._._.._._._.__1__._._._._._._.._11____________________________________

1 __________________
1___ _______________

11_______________

5 7

1sso _______________________.J ____________________________ L _________________________________________________________________2________________..4

1881 __________________________________ 1____________________________ L______________________________________________ 1__________________2.._ ____ _3

1882 ________________________ 1________1________________________________________________ 2________________________________________________________ __4

1883 ______________ 1........1...___________________________________________________________________________ 1______________________________________ 3

1884 --- ____________________ 1........1......... ---------1----------------------------------------------------------------------------3 11888856 -__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__--1--.-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--1--.-..-.--------L---------2-----------------------------------------------------------L--------------1--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-1--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__L__-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--.-.-.-.-..-.-.-63 1887 ______________2____________________________ !______________________________________ 1_______ 2 -----------------------------------------------6
11888889 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-!-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1---.-..-.-.-.-.--2---..-.--__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-50 1890 --------------------- 1 -----------------1 ........1....... 3 ...... 1..._________________________________________________________________7 11889912 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-----------------1---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1--__-_-_-_-_-_-_-1---__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_1_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__32
11889934 -_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_1_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ 11.............. 21__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--1--.-..--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_1__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__._.44

11889956 ------------------------------------------------2--..-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-2-L__-_-_-_-_-_-_2__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L__-_-_-_-_-_43 1897 ------------------------------------------------------1 ........1................. 3........1........1____________________________1..._____7 11889989 -__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_--JL__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-L---_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-L---_--_-_-_-_-__-_-_2__-_-_-__-_--J-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-L--_L_._.._._._._._._.__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-L---_--_-_-_-_--54

11990010 -__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-L--_---_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-____-_-_-_-_-_1__._.._._._._._._21._._._._._._._._2__._._._._._._._.__1__.._._._._._.__._._._._._._._._._._..1.................J........_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.__._._._._.._._64

1902 --------------------------------------------------------------1 ........ 1 .......1........1........__________2__________________ 1....... 6 1903 .............. L.----------------------- 1.................. 2........1............................1......--------------------------6 11990054 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-1-_-_-,--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_21...............11_____________________________________________________..__1___-_-_-_-_-_-_-1--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-11_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__55
11990067 ---------------------L--.--.-.-.-.-.-L---.--_-_-_-_-_1___-_-__-________-__-_-_-__1J......._._._._._1___________________________________________________________L___________________________________2L_..._._._._._1__._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._..65

1908 ------- ------------------ .....1....... 1----------------- 2 -----------------------------------------------1........1...______________ 6
11990190 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_ 2-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__-_-_L__-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__1!._._._._.__._._._._._._._._._._._._.2-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.1.-.-.-.-....1.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-1--.-.-.-.-.-.-..27
1911 ------- ---- 1.................... --------------------------- 2 -------- ---------------- L_ _____________________________________________4 1912 -. ----- .----------------------------1--------------1........1........1.... ------------------------------------------------------4 1913 ______________ !...________________________ 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
}~!! ::::::: ~::::::::::.::::::::~::::::: ~::::::::~:::::-~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::.~::::::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::i

Table 3 Meteorites which fell between 1800~1950 according
to the month in which the fall occurred.
42 ..... 39--- -34 62------69 ...... 71 ...... 58 ______ 55--- ..56 ..... 42 ......37..... 38 ... 24 ... 627 1 Exclusive of the indefinite.

129

....... '-"'
0

Front of Cabin Creek.

Cabin Creek Arkansas Meteorite.

Rear of Cabin Creek.

Table 4
The years between I 800-I 950 in which five or more meteorites were seen to fall. The number represents those with acceptable data, the number enclosed by ( ) are witnessed falls for which the month and day are not well established.

Year

Number

1822 ----------..-- 5 1843 .................... 6

1855 ----------------- 5 1857 .................... 7

1860 ------------- 5 (1) 1863 .................... 6

1865 ------------------ 7

1866

------ 7

1868 .................. 11 (1)

1869 --------- 6

1875 ----------- 6

1876

.......... 5

1877 -------- 6 1878 .................. 5 (1)

1879

--- 7 (1)

1886

6 (1)

1887 ---------- 6

1889 ------------------ 5

Year

Number

1890 .................... 7

1'897 .................... 7 (1)

1899 .................... 5 (1) 1900 .................... 6
~~~ ::::::::::::::::::: ~ (1)

1904 ................... 5

1905 .................... 5

1906 .................... 6

1907 .................... 5

1908 .................. 6

1910

...... 7 (1)

1914 ------ 6

1916 ------------------ 9

1917

------------- 6

1918 ............. .... 6

1919 ................... 5 1920 .................. 6

Year

Number

1921 .................... 8

1924 .................... 9

1925 .................... 8 (1)

1926 .................... 5

1927 ----- ............. 7 (1)

1928 ................. 6

1929 .................... 5 (1)

1930 .................... 13

1932

---------- 7

1933 .................... 12

1934 ................... 8

1935

..... 8

1936

5

1938 ............... 10

1939

------- 8

1944 .................... 6

1949 .............. ---- 6 (1)

Five or more witnessed falls occurred in 53 of the 150 years covered in Table 2. But 62 percent of these 53 years are within the last fifty years. This could mean two things; ( 1) meteorites are falling more frequently; or (2) the population is larger and the public is taking more interest in meteorites, thus the records are more complete. The second possibility is more logical.
In some years an unusually large number of witnessed falls

are reported. The years with the greatest number are 1930, 1933 and 1868 when 13, 12 and 11 falls respectively, were reported. In 1938, 10 were seen to fall and 9 were witnessed in both 1916 and 1924.
From January 1, 1930 to December 31, 1939 there were 72 observed falls, including one for which the month is not definitely known. This is the maximum number of witnessed falls for any 10 year period between 1800 and 1950. However, 44 of the 72, or 61 percent of the falls occurred between January 1930 and December 31, 1934, during the "Depression" when many people worked outside.
Witnessed falls are reported for every year since 1888. In only seven of the 150 years were no witnessed falls reported. With the exception of 1888 the years when no falls were reported all are in the early part of the 19th century, when little attention was given to meteorites. Thus, it seems that we can expect a few observed falls each year. The average for the 150 years is 4 falls per year.
On some days two meteorite falls have occurred. These cases are listed in Table 5. Falls, which occur on the same day, may or may not be related to each other. This point has not been fully investigated. The two English falls of 1806 are doubtful, as no samples were preserved. The Korean falls of 1930 apparently represent two names assigned to the same meteorite.

The Cabin Creek, Arkansas Meteorite

Table 5

The forward face of the I07 lb. iron which fell March I886 near Cabin Creek, Johnson Co. Arkansas. The wide but shallow depressions are called thumbmarks and are a common feature of meteorites. This

Meteorites which fell between I 800 and I 950 within about a day of each other.

front face i's covered with a black fused crust of variable thickness.
On the rims around these depressions the crust is thinner than it is within the depressions. The silvery gray color of the nickel iron often

Y8~tR ?-;AY ~?:TH ~~~~~3,!!JE

1806 17 May

Basingstoke

~~gY..~JRY
England

TYPE OF
1V!~Er?!~~:;d
None recovered

shows through the crust along rims and the center of the front face

(Both are doubtful meteorites as no specimens were preserved)

on iron meteorites.

1865 25 August Shergotty

The r_ear face differs in many ways from ~he front. It is ~o~ered ~~g~ g ~:;;~st *~~;~~ka

India
~~~f!a

Sherghottite
~~~~~~t~ecovered

by a fuszon crust but the texture of the crust zs dzfferent than zt zs on 1908 30 June

Kagarlyk

Russia

Chondrite

~~-the forward face. The_fuseci_cr'IJ,St_ IJ/t~nacumulates aLthe edge_o(_1925_28 ___August__ Lanzenkirchen Austria

Chondrite

the rear face of the meteorite The depressions in the aft side gen- 1925 28 August Ellemeet

erally are wz.der and shallower than those on the front surface, but

1927 1927

27 28

August Sopot August Aha

Holland Rumania Japan

Rhodite Chondrite Stone

these deeper cavities here shown may be related to inclusions in the 1930

meteorite which were more easily ablated than the metal.

1930

The shape of this meteorite shows that it held a fixed position 1933 during flight. Possibly it tumbled for a while after it entered the 1933

17 March Gyokukei

Korea

Chondrite

17 8 8

( PofMz~:>!-;rc,ht twoZsm_~daomo~~

:~preserK;o;_zr~ega

St~ne
~neu~eteUzte) d"t

A~gust Re;;eve Kh~tor R~s5~s a, O~~h:d~i~e

atmosphere and before it attained a stabilized position.

The rear surface of many meteorites is flat and on this side the thumbmarks, crust and delicate structures are distinctly different from those on the forward side. Perhaps many meteorites have a flat surface when they enter our atmosphere but the feature may represent fractures from a break or explosion in our atmosphere. Again flat surfaces could be a fracture made in the primordial body, from whence these smaller objects came.
The temperature of the front face of a meteorite probably is considerably higher than that of the aft face during its fall through the air. As the heat softens the surface, metal is swept off the front side. The delicate hair-like lines we can see in the fused crust show the direction of the air flow.
Since there is less ablation from the rear face of an orientated meteorite, heat may penetrate the iron deeper here than it does on the forward face. The greatest loss of material takes place on the front side and ablation may remove iron too fast for heat to penetrate very far. However, the rear face has a thicker accumulation of crust than the front and this may serve as an insulating blanket or thermal barrier against the penetration of heat into the metal. Possibly if it were not for the formation of the thin layer of oxide on the front surface of an iron falling through out atmosphere, even more metal would be lost.
The few deep cavities on the rear face of this iron could have formed shortly after the meteorite entered our atmosphere and before the mass attained a stabilized position.
-The Cabin Creek meteorite is displayed in the K. K. Naturhistori-
schen Hofmuseums, Vienna, Austria.
Magnification about '01 natural size

According to the records, almost as many iron meteorites are known as stony ones but most of the iron are discoveries. Witnessed falls are predominantly stones, while most of the iron meteorites have been discovered after they fell. Thus one can assume there must be hundreds of unrecognized stony meteorites on or near the surface of the earth. A much higher percentage of the metallic meteorites is recovered because they are easier to recognize.
Out of the 627 falls witnessed between 1800 and 1950 only 27 are irons. The limited number of irons that have been observed to fall becomes more interesting when one notes that Hey (1953) shows that 683 meteorites out of a total of nearly 1700 known meteorites were seen to fall.
Of th~ observed falls the ratio is about 25 stones to 1 iron. Hey (1953) reports about 550 known iron meteorites, of which possibly 10 percent may be paired with another iron. If 25 stones fell for each iron there should be from 10 to 12 thousand stony meteorites, but Hey lists only 810, of which an appreciable percentage may be paired falls. Evidence indicates that there should be quantities of stony meteorites awaiting discovery, especially in arid climates where conditions for their preservation are better. The fact that about 800 stony

131

meteorites are known whereas possibly there should be 10 thousand, presents a challenge to the discoverer.
The statement is frequently made in discussions that there is no relationship between meteorite falls and the reoccurring meteor showers, the Perseides in August or the Leonids in November.
What Meteorites Look Like
Only the features of the common types of meteorites can be discussed here. If the specimen seen to fall or suspected of being a meteorite, does not conform to these features, and is not similar to the local rocks, have it investigated by someone who knows meteorites.
Most meteorites are comparatively small, irregular rounded objects. Some are essentially stony, others are made entirely of metal and a few contain a considerable proportion of both stone and metal. Meteorites are never abundant any place, and since they are different from the rocks of this earth they can be recognized. It is desirable to have any unusual specimen examined regardless of whether or not it is suspected of being a meteorite.
A freshly fallen meteorite usually is covered with a thin black crust, because most meteorites contain iron and only a trace of iron is needed to darken the fused crust. After a meteorite falls it begins to react with oxygen and water and the fusion crust slowly turns brown. Usually as soon as a brown color is conspicuous in the crust, rusty areas occur around any metallic inclusions near the outside of the meteorite.
The fusion crust on an iron meteorite is more firmly attached than the crust on a stony meteorite. The crust on newly fallen irons is black but it also slowly turns brown. Often an old rusty iron is fresh and unaltered only a fraction of an inch below its surface. The alteration products more or less insulate it against further alteration. Metallic iron is dense, impervious and generally alters slowly. Some irons are difficult to preserve and those containing chlorides will usually alter rapidly, especially if stored in a humid atmosphere. The final alteration product of meteoritic iron is strong magnetic. Occasionally an iron alters in such a way that the secondary products retain much of the original structure of the meteorite.
An examination of the flight crust sometimes shows how the meteorite was orientated during its fall. A meteorite is moving so fast when it enters our atmosphere that it develops a high temperature on the front by colliding with the air. Furthermore, the hot air accumulates since the meteorite is moving faster than the air can escape. Air is pushed along the sides of the body and this flow of hot air melts and ablates material from the surface. Although some molten material sticks on the surface most of it is pushed along by the air.
As the velocity of a meteorite is reduced by friction with the air, its surface temperature decreases and finally a point is reached where the molten material freezes. When this happens the ripples in the fused material are preserved. The direction of these delicate lines or "flight markings" indicates the orientation of the object.
The high temperature and mechanical ablation on the front of the meteorite reduces its size by melting, and while protruding irregularities, especially on the edges may be torn off. Some of the internal fractures which extend to the front face, may fail and the object will appear to explode. It fre-

quently happens that meteorites break in the air and several pieces fall. Thousands of individuals have been known to fall in a meteoritic shower. When a meteorite makes a spectacular display it is common for several masses to fall. Probably all the pieces will not be recovered, and there is no way of knowing what proportion of the total fall is recovered.
The falling meteorite is losing weight and entering denser atmosphere, and soon a point is passed where the ratio between weight and area of exposed surface cause the velocity of the meteorite to decrease rapidly. Now the surface is being cooled rather than heated. Thus, a small meteorite is not hot when it strikes the earth. Also there is not enough energy released in the collision of the meteorite with the earth to develop any appreciable heat.
From the above discussion it is evident that a meteorite cannot have a thick glassy coat on its surface. Thus no meteorite will resemble a furnace slag.
Sometimes the color of the unaltered fusion crust on a stony meteorite will be white because the meteorite contains very little iron. The Cumberland Falls, Kentucky (G. P. Merrill, 1920) and the Pena Blanca Springs, Texas (J. T. Lonsdale, 1947) are such meteorites. The Bishopville, S. Carolina (C. U. Shepard, 1848) has a very unusual crust and in places its minerals fused to a clear glass. However, this clear colorless glass is best seen when the surface is examined under a binocular microscope.
Thus color of the fusion crust is not a dependable criterion to use in identifying a meteorite. If one only looked for specimens with dark colored crusts he would fail to detect some of the rarer, highly prized varieties.
There is not much variation in the appearance of the flight crusts of freshly fallen irons. Some of the melted material from the front face may get spattered onto the aft side but not every meteorite is orientated as it falls, so some do not show this feature. Now and then some of the molten material is forced into cracks, but the injected material rarely penetrates far.
Narrow dark glassy veins are common in stony meteorites and often can be seen in areas where the crust is broken off. These veins were in place before the meteorite entered our atmosphere. Although veins filled with fused material occur around the outside of some of the iron meteorites, these cannot be seen until a polished surface is examined with a lens.
A few surface features are somewhat peculiar to meteorites.
August
I .
i "
November
Figure 1. Witnessed meteoritic falls between 1800-1950 according to the date on which the fall occurred.

132

Possibly the most common is the wide, shallow depression surface that was quite different from the average altered iron

called "Thumbmarks", because of their resemblance to an meteorite.

impression made by a thumb. These are more numerous in irons but also occur in stones. Occasionally some auger-like holes occur in iron meteorites.

Some altered stony meteorites spall more or less parallel to the shape of the specimen. Occasionally an iron of the hexahedrite or coarse octahedrite** type, with large grains, will

The interior of most llleteorites show little evidence of hav- separate along the grain boundaries as they weather, hence

ing been reheated since they originally cooled. Evidence indi- their weathered surface may be irregular. Thus the surface

cates that they cooled millions of years before entering our of an altered meteorite may be very different from a newly

atmosphere. Some, however, do appear to have been reheated. fallen meteorite. The shape of a meteorite is a useful feature

The delicate markings in the fused crust, the nature of the but it is not an entirely reliable criterion for identification.

depressions, and the shape of the main mass are useful guides Although the object entering our atmospher.e may be quite

in identifying most meteorites. However, it is necessary to irregular, the mass soon orientates itself in the air into a

study the nature and composition of the interior of some speci- stabile position. A few meteorites have a conical form

mens, particularly the altered irons, to be certain they are which we assume resulted from a fixed position during their

meteoritic.

flight. Probably the best known of the conical meteorites is

Most meteorites are dense, heavy objects. When your curiosity is aroused about a specimen, compare its weight with a

the largest iron from this country, the Willamette, Oregon meteorite (H. A. Ward 1904) .

rock of almost equal size. If it proves to be heavy carry the investigation further. However, there are a few meteorites

How to Identify a Metorite

that are not excessively heavy. Speaking as one who has examined thousands of supposed meteorites, it would eliminate much unnecessary work if people would apply this simple test to the specimens they think may be meteorites.

If you think a specimen is a meteorite take a few minutes to look at the surrounding rocks. Note their surfaces, break off the corners of some to expose a fresh area, and examine the fresh surface critically. Compare the features of the sur-

A type of stony meteorite which has a low density is the black; rather crumbly stones containing considerable carbon, carbonaceous chondrites.* The lowest density one author (EPH) ever found on any piece from a stony meteorite was a small portion of the Murray, Kentucky stone (J. R. Horn, 1953). This fragment, which may not be typical of the entire

rounding rocks with those of the unknown specimen. Remember that meteorites are never abundant at any one place. Compare the weight of the unknown, or a piece broken from it, with a piece of rock of the same size. If the unknown is not heavy for its size, and is similar to many of the local rocks it probably is not a meteorite.

meteorite, has a density of 2.86. Such a density is less than that of many of the common terrestrial rocks, so obviously

If the specimen is a stone) look for these features:

such a meteorite would not be recognized by its excessive weight.

(1) The presence of fused crust on the surface. (2) Small metallic inclusions which may be detected by a

~~~---- -~-------

Shapes of Meteorites

magnet, or by rubbing the fingers over a fresh break, in which

- - -~---~--------------~~~ease-the-metallic--inclusions-will-feel jagged.-

---

There is considerable variation in the shapes of meteorites, yet there are a few general features. Usually a freshly-fallen meteorite is an irregularly-rounded object and looks like it was sculptured in a blast of hot air. On weathering they lose this appearance. A surprising number of meteorites have rather flat sides. These flat surfaces generally are the rear face but this side is not flat like a break along bedding planes in a shale. Meteorites are not bedded materials so the flat sides represent fractures or cleavage breaks.

(3) Metallic inclusions enclosing round silicate bodies. (4) Small rounded silicate bodies or chondrules. (5) Thin black veins within the specimen.
If the specimen is metallic) look for these features: (1) Is the object magnetic? All iron meteorites are strongly
magnetic.

Thus meteorites with flat sides may be fragments of a larger body which separated along a fracture during its flight in our atmosphere. Also fractures might have formed when the meteorite was in its primordial body. One type of iron, the hexahedrite1 has a good cleavage, and in some cases will have a rather flat surface. The Boguslavko, (E. L. Krinov) 1946 obviously separated in flight along its cleavage, because two fragments of it were found which fit together.

(2) Is the iron malleable? The magnetic terrestrial minerals are brittle but meteoritic iron is malleable.
(3) Remove the surface film from a small spot and note the color of the metal. Meteoritic iron is gray, similar to the color of a five cent coin.
(4) Tap the object with something; metallic meteorites give a different sound than rock.

Generally the newly made surfaces which occur when meteorites break in flight are covered with a fusion crust. But in some cases these newly made surfaces are not as uniformly or as heavily ~r_usted over as the rest of the meteorite. The fact that the new surface is partly covered with a fused crust shows the meteorite failed or exploded while traveling very fast.
H exahedrites have a tendency to separate along the cleavage directions as they alter. Thus such an iron after long exposure may have a jagged surface. The Smithonia, Georgia, iron (S. K. Roy and R. W. Wyant, 1950) when found had a

(5) Is the specimen particularly heavy for its size?
*Chondrites are stony meteorites in which chondrules or rounded grains (spherules) are present. Carbonaceous varieties contain quantities of carbon. 1Iron meteorites usually show intergrowths of kamacite and taenite, two nickel-iron alloys. Hexahedrites, however, consist of only one alloy, kamacite, and etched polished surfaces will show prominent striae, called Neumann lines.
**Octahedrites contain kamacite- and taenite and their etched surfaces exhibit an octahedral pattern which also is called a Widmanstatten pattern.

133

What to Do if You Find a Meteorite
The U.S. National Museum, Washington 25, D. C. will be glad to examine and report on specimens believed to be meteorites, or if the discovery is made in Georgia, the Department of Mines, Mining and Geology, 19 Hunter Street, S. W., Atlanta 3, Ga., will also examine and advise the sender about the samples.

These unstable meteorites are difficult to preserve and present problems to the collectors.
(4) Unusual Features. If a meteorite has some unusual features such as, flight markings, interesting inclusions, numerous cavities, or is a witnessed fall the bids are umally increased to reward the finder for the additional features or information.

If the suspected meteorite is small, send it to either institution. If it is large, remove a small piece and have a preliminary test made on that portion. If the sample tested proves to be a meteorite and is important, very likely an offer will be made to purchase the main mass.

(5) Witr1:essed Falls and First Finds. Collectors usually show a decrded preference for witnessed falls, specially important new falls. The first piece discovered generally brings a higher price than samples of the same fall found years later. As more material is found it usually follows that the meteorite is more widely distributed in collections, hence the

Those who find a meteorite are urged to see that it is price decreases. Alm pieces discovered many years after the not damaged. Please apply no reagents to it. Newly fallen first sample was found may be badly weathered. Thus from meteorites should be kept as free from terrestrial contamina- several points of view it is less desirable.

tion as possible. It may be necessary to remove a small piece for a preliminary test, but do not scar the sample unnecessarily. Many meteorites have been so badly damaged that
much of their value was lost.

Sometimes the one who sells a meteorite later discovers that meteorites occasionally bring several dollars a pound. If the seller got less for his specimen he may think that he did not get full value: That party may not realize the time, effort

A meteorite contains nothing that can be recovered and sold for a profit. Meteorites are scientific specimens and their only value is in the information they contain. They may tell us something about the history of another world, about

and money that IS spent on a meteorite after it is purchased. To cut, polish and etch slices, to photograph, study and describe th~ meteo_rite costs money, so naturally the prepared and studied specimens are worth more per pound.

the interior of our own world, the relative abundance of the An i~on meteorite is a difficult object to cut and polish.

elements, etc. but they have no intrinsic value. To evaluate Expensive saws are needed and other equipment is required

a meteorite one usually considers it's importance to science as to po!ish the slices. The cost of the equipment and the opera-

well as the collection to which it may be added. The policy tors time should be considered in estimating cutting costs.

at the U. S. National Museum is to estimate the value of the meteorite by considering several factors, hence this institution has no fixed price for meteorites.

Considerable guantity of a m:teorite is lost in the cutting.
Although the thickness of the shce may be only % inch, the
channel made by the band saw will measure about Ys inch.

Most collectors of meteorites arrive at the value of a speci- So percentage-wise there is considerable loss which must be

men by considering the following factors:

reckoned with in estimating costs.

(1) Size. Some meteorites are so large that it is impracticable to move them from where they fell, and some are so small that it is impracticable to divide them. Therefore, size is one of the most important factors. The Hobo, Southwest
Africa (L. J. Spencer, 1930), the Mbosi, Tanganika (D. R.
Granthan and .F. Oats, 1931) and the Bacuberito, Mexico (H. A. Ward, 1902) are such heavy specimens that they lie where they fell. Their estimated weights are 60, 25, and 27
tons respectively.
A meteorite weighing between 100 and 200 lbs. usually can be moved, is large enough to be sliced without detracting from the importance of the specimen, can be conveniently handled in the laboratory when studied, and slices may be cut from it without expensive mechanical equipment.

Today many people have a hobby of cutting rocks and these folks could cut a stony meteorite but few persons are equipp:d to_ secti_on an iron meteorite. If the finder of a stony meteonte gives It to a person who has no experience with meteorites it may be sliced in such a way that considerable of its value is lost. The form and external features of the meteorite may be worth preservation, thus sections cut in an undesirable direction through a meteorite may seriously detract from its value.
It is unlikely that the curator of a large collection will purchase a meteorite if the price is unreasonable. He realizes that someday perhaps another meteorite will be found with almos~ thes~ same features so it is better to refuse to pay excessive pnces and use that money to buy other specimens.

It is important to cut slices from a meteorite because these can be studied and some may be exchanged for slices of meteorites not represented in the collection. But a small and unusual meteorite should not be sliced; hence it increases the prestige of a collection because it can never become widely
distributed.
(2) Type. ,This has been partly discussed under size, so it is only necessary to mention this feature because it is well known that unusual specimens are worth ,more than common ones. If a small meteorite belongs to one of the common types and is without special features it has little value. But

REFERENCES CITED

Bush, G. F. (1869) On a Meteoritic Stone which feU December 5

1868 in Franklin County, Alabama. Amer. Journ. Sci. (2) 48:

pp. 240-44.

.

Farrington, 0. C. (1915) Meteorites. Book published by author.

Granthan, D. R. and Oats, F. (1931) The Mbosi Meteorite Iron

Tanganyika Territory. Mining Mag. 22, pp. 487-93.

'

Hey, M. H. ( 1953) Catalogue of Meteorites. Trustees of the British

Museum (Natural History).



Horan, J. R. (1953) The Murray, Gal!oway Co. Kentucky Aerolite

Meteoritics No. I, pp. 114-115.

'

'

Krinov, E. L. ( 1946) On the number of pieces of the meteorite

Boguslavka. Acad. Science USSR 3, pp. 59-61.

Leonard, F. C. (1941) Statistical Studies of the Meteorite Fal!s of

the World; Their Time Distribution. Pop. Astron. 49, pp. 551-60.

Lonsdale, J. T. (1947) The Pena Blanca Springs Meteorite, Brewster

S:ounty, Texas. Amer. Mm. 32, pp. 354-64.

Merr11!, G. P. (1920) The Cumberland Falls, Whitley County Ken-

~'7~~~5.Meteorite. Proc. U. S. Nat. Museum. 57, No. 2306, pp.

if it is an unusual type, the value may be considerable.

Roy, S. K. and Wyant, R. W. (1950) The Smithsonia Meteorite

Field Museum Nat. History. Ser. 7, No. 9, pp. 129-34.

'

(3) Degree of Preservation. This is something that is more important to the buyer than the seller. All meteorites are not equally stable; thus collectors usually offer less for one which will disintegrate than they will offer for one that is stable.
134

Shepard, C. U. (1849) Report on Meteorites. Amer. Journ. Sci., (2) 6, pp. 411-417.

Smith, J. L. (1870) An Account of a Fall of Meteoric Stones near
9 3 ~~ngg~g ~1a. with an Analysis of the same. Amer. Jour. Sci. (2)

Spence!, L. J. (1930) Meteoric Irons from South-West Africa. Nat. History Mag. 2, pp. 240-46.

Ward, H. A. (1902) Bacuberito or the Great Meteorite of Sinaloa

Mexico, Proc. Rochester Acad. Sci., 4, pp. 67"74..

'

Ward, .H. A. (1904) Willamette Meteorite. Proc. Rochester Acad. Sc1., 4 pp. 137-48.

Meteorites in Georgia

Part 2: Description of Falls
by
Edward P. Henderson Associate Curator
Division of Mineralogy and Petrology
U.S. National Museum
and
A. S. Furcron Chief Geologist Georgia Geological Survey

Reprinted from "Georgia Mineral Newsletter" Vol. X, No. 4, Winter 1957

INTRODUCTION
Although only 21 meteorites are known from Georgia, these few display a sufficient variety_ ?f ty~es and mode of discovery to give those who are famihar with them an excellent background in meteorites.
The first witnessed meteorite fall in our country happened in 1807 and the first fall to be observed in Georgia occurred in 1829'. In the following table there are listed the five first witnessed falls in America but since the Caswell, North Carolina, stone was lost, the Forsyth meteorite is the fourth

If true, it was wet with sea water and buried in unconsolidated sediments. In such an environment it would be encrusted with an alteration film, then blanketed with fine sediments. Also, the meteorite would have been protected by a deficiency of oxygen. Such a spot might be ideal for the preservation of a meteorite. .
When these sediments were elevated above sea water level, the chemical nature of their environment changed. Erosion eventually brought the meteorite into the zone of oxidation where ground waters near the surface usually are acid. Passibly an iron, buried for scores of years within the zone of

witnessed fall in our country.

oxidation, could look as old as one that fell when the Miocene

Table 1: The First Witnessed Meteoritic falls in the United States. sediments, in which the Sardis iron was found, were accumu-

~aeNs~A~lMl E

STATE

YEAR MONTH DATE WEIGHT lating.

~~~3:c~i~:lina i~n fa~

14 150 k

The importance of the Sardis iron is based not only upon

30 L3t\<gs. the possibility that it fell in Miocene times, about 20 million

Nobleboro Maine

1823 Aug.

_ 7_~ to 3 kgs:___ye~rsa.go, ]:m_t_i:>c:cau~~i_t_is_the_largest meteorite thus far_iound____

-----Nanjemoy ---Maryland- -- - -1825- --Teo~--10 7.5 kgs. in any of the southeastern states.

Forsyth

Georgia

1829 May

8 16 kgs.

Two of the meteorites listed from Georgia, Aragon and Elberton, may be known by other names. ~wo ne~ly ~is-

.

.

"k

h h

h

OccasiOnally a meteonte stn es our eart wit enoug

force to make an iii~pact crater but usually meteorites are. so

retarded in their fall that they neither seriously deface them-

covered irons are reported here for the first time, Twm City selves nor penetrate the ground very far. Only limited

and Pulaski County. If the Aragon and Elberton meteorites are omitted from
the Georgia falls, as it appears they should be, there are only 14 irons, 4 stony and one intermediate type, the Pitts. met:or-

amounts of meteorites have been found within the large meteorite craters. There is no evidence to suggest that the Sardis iron rebounded from any nearby depression and tumbled to the place where it was found.

ite. Four of .these meteorites, the Forsyth, Lumpkm, Pitts, The Georgia meteorites are discussed alphabeticallyand in

and Thomson are witnessed falls.

hasAthGuesofr~ariabmeeentefooruinted.mRigehatsobneabolnye

of the oldest good evidence

falls that indicates

that the Sardis iron fell in a former geologic period; however,

this cannot be proven beyond all doubts. Whenever an ex-

tensively weathered meteorite is discovered close to _th_e sur-

face of the earth it is assumed to be an old fall, but It IS not,

necessarily, as old as the beds in which it was buried.

an accompanying table the known weights and the counties in which they either fell or were discovered and the coordinates of their general localities are given. A map gives the geographical distribution of the Geo~gia meteorit~s and e~ch fall is indicated by the number which appears m the first column of the table also in the heading to each chapter. Since the Argon ( 1) and Elberton (5) are assumed to be known by other names these numbers do not appear on the map.

w

Likewise a met ith no apparent

eaolrtietreatwiointhiswaesllsudme~fidnetdo

fbl:igaht~momaprakriantgivaenldy

recent fall. Any meteorite that remams buned m the grou;nd

for many years, in our southeastern states, undergoes consid-

crable alteration. The rate of weathering more or less de-

Pends upon the chemical as Well as the g-round in

and physi.ca1 nature which It IS buned .

o f

t h e

meteontc

Perhaps, the~ Sardis iron fell in Miocene times when _the

sediments, from which it was recovered, were accumulatmg.

Note: This article is published with permission of the Secret':'ry of the Smithsonian Institution. Part 1 of this study was published m the Georgia Mineral Newsletter, Vol. IX, No. 4, Winter 195~, pp. 126135. A glossary of terms is included at the end of the art1cle.

Each separate chapter contains a table listing most of the collections where specimens of these meteorites are available for examination and all reproducablc pictures of these meteorites that are available are here republished.

Thus far, all of the discovered witnessed meteorite falls in

Georg~-ia. have occurred in the ribrthwestern part of the shtatef. The Pitts meteorite is the only one that was found sout o

the thirty-second parallel, which enters the west side of Geor-

~oaiardin

the southtrn to a point a

portion of few miles

Sttwart County and south of Savannah.

runs The

eastPitts

meteorite, however, fell just a few miles south of the thirty-

second parallel.

Reprinted 1966

113

No meteorite has been found to the cast or south of a diagonal line originating at Pitts, in Wilcox County, extending in a northeasterly direction to Twin City, Emanuel County, then, to the northeastern part of Jenkins County where the Sardis iron was found.
Meteorites are conspicuously absent from most of the Coastal Plain and in the southeastern part of the state; probably because this section is sparsely populated and much of it is pine woods. With 19 meteorite discoveries within the part of the state outlined above one would expect there should be almost as many undiscovered meteorites in the sections of Georgia from which no finds have been reported.
It is regrettable that those who discover meteorites do not have more respect for value because many meteorites suffer abuse from their finders-in fact some of the Georgia meteorites were deliberately broken up. When this happens a large percentage of the sample is often lost before it is studied. Almost 25 percent of the Georgia meteorites were mutilated before they were studied, and the whereabouts of significant portions of other falls seem to have been lost.
Four of the meteorites from Georgia were discovered by plowmen. Since modern agricultural implements no longer require the farmer to trudge behind the plow, in intimate contact with the soil, fewer meteorites will be located in this manner.
Georgia, unlike most of our states has four iron meteorites to every stony meteorite and if one neglects witnessed falls the statistics become even more interesting. Fourteen irons were discovered while only one stony meteorite was found.
The abundance of the different types of iron meteorites, based essentially upon chemistry, is given in the following table:
Table 2: Types of Iron Meteorites in Georgia
Octahedrites

Hexahedrite
3 Cedartown 7 Holland's Store 8 Locust Grove 17 Smithonia

Coarse
2 Canton ll Paulding Co. \4 Pulaski Co. 16 Sardis ~1 Union Co.

Medium

Fine

4 Dalton

\5 Putnam

9 Losttown

'8 Social Circle

Ataxite ~0 Twin City

When the distribution of these types of iron meteorites is studied (see attached map) many of these localities are not far apart and possibly some of these irons should be regarded
as paired falls. The four stony meteorites, Forsyth (6), Lumpkin (10),
Pickens County (12) and the Thomson (19) are chondrites. The Pitts ( 13) is classified as an intermediate type.

Table 3: Georgia meteorites.

Name

Weight

County Latitude

1 Aragon
2 Canton 3 Cedartown 4 Dalton

5 grams 7 kilograms 11 kilograms 59 kilograms

Polk Cherokee Polk Whitfield

34 1' 34 12' 34 0' 34 57'

5 Elberton

Elbert

6 Forsyth

16 kilograms Monroe 33 0'

7 Holland's Store 12 kilograms Chattooga 34 21'

8 Locust Grove 11 kilograms Henry

33 20'

9 Losttown

3 kilograms Cherokee 34 10'

10 Lumpkin

357 grams

Stewart 32 3'

11 Paulding County 725 grams

34 0'

12 Pickens County 400 grams

34 30'

13 Pitts

3.7 kilograms Wilcox 31 55'

14 Pulaski County 116 grams

32 15'

15 Putnam County 32.5 kilograms

33 20'

16 Sardis

800 kilograms Jenkins 32 57'

17 Smithonia 18 Social Circle

70 kilograms Oglethorpe 34 0' 99 kilograms Walton 33o 40'

19 Thomson

234 grams

McDuffie 33 25'

20 Twin City

Emanuel 32 35'

21 Union County

7 kilo~rams

34 52'

Longitude
85 3' 84 30' 85 16' 84 52'
83 55' 85 23' 84 8' 84 30' 84 59' 84 50' 84 30' 83 36' 83 30' 83 20' 81 52' 83 11' 83 44' 82 29' 82 01' 83 55'

Note: Although meteorites are conventionally located by latitude

and longitude for the benefit of those who are not familiar with local geography, in many cases those coordinates merely locate the town near which the object was found and not the actual discovery point which may be miles removed from that locality.

Descriptions of the meteorites from Georgia 1. Aragon, Polk County

All that is known about the Aragon meteorite is an entry in Farrington's 1916 catalog of the collection in the Field Museum of Natural History. It was discovered in 1898 and consists of two oxidized fragments weighing five grams. Apparently, the Chicago Museum neither acquired more of this iron nor related their fragments to another meteorite.
Farrington, 1916, classified the Aragon meteorite as a nickel-poor-ataxite. Possibly, the samples he had were a portion of the Cedartown meteorite, which also came from Polk County, and was an oxidized iron when discovered in 1898. Although 'Farrington classified it as a nickel-poor-ataxite and the Cedartown is a hexahedrite, this difference does rrot pre-. elude them from being pieces off the same iron. If the Aragon fragments were obtained from the outside zone of the Cedartown iron the structures could be similar to a nickel-poorataxite.
The metal around the outside of some hexahedrites lacks both the Neumann lines and the orderly structure of hexahedrites. This is because the metal near the surface of some hexahedrites has undergone some thermal changes which give these zones a similar structure to the nickel-poor-ataxites. Only the sections which cut deep enough into the meteorite to get the metal from below the granulated zone will show the true nature of that meteorite. When the first section was cut from the Smithonia, Georgia, meteorite it was classified as a nickel-poor-ataxite but subsequent sections that were made through this meteorite showed well developed Neumann lines. (See section 17 which deals with the Smithonia meteorite).

2. Canton, Cherokee County

This iron, according to Howell and Stokes, 1895, is a coarse

octahedrite. It was found in 1894 a few hundred yards from

the Clarkson gold mine, which then was about five miles

southwest of Canton.

This 15.5 pound iron was partly exposed when discovered

by a plowman who was breaking new ground. Unfortunately,

this meteorite was badly abused by its finders; sometimes

those who are fortunate enough to discover a meteorite subject

the specimen to heat tests, cut them apart, drill holes into

them and beat on them with hammers until their surfaces are

badly battered. Such treatment destroys important physical

features and makes the meteorite less valuable. The Canton

iron not only was mutilated but about half of its mass was lost

because today only 8.5 of the original 15 pounds can be

accounted for.

Two octahedrites are known from Cherokee County, the

Canton and the Losttown irons. The etched patterns of the

Losttown iron (shown in Section 9 of this study), is not

identical with the Canton iron, however, neither iron has

been studied in detail. The only specimens we have compared

are those in the U. S. National Museum. The Cantc;m iron

contains less plessite than the Losttown but the width of the

kamacite lamellae in the two meteorites are similar. The

average for the Canton iron is 1.18 millimeters and the aver-

age for the Losttown measures 1.1 millimeters. However, the

widths of the kamacite depends upon the direction the cut

goes through the structures so these comparisons are not of

much importance.

The chemical analysis of the Canton iron, as reported by

Howell and Stokes:

Fe

Ni

Co

Cu

p

s

C

Anaz,,st

91.96 6.70 0.50 0.03 0.11 0.01 Trace Stokes

114

35

as

s4

DI~~RIBUTION

35

OF

GEORGIA METEORITES,

KEYED TO TABLE 3

SCAL.E IN MIL.ES

10

0

10

20

33
---
32
31

\ '
'

'

,.. UPSON

I

'

-, Aoiiis' L--..,.___ ...--\<.,_,_

-; ,



\ ,..---: <., (

f.------1-/ ~. ~f---..1

,. \ ,/ '-

;..--

.. ,

,.<' WILKINSON )

BIBB '-,_...-- \

' \ i
;

\
I \
,.1.,

/-i

J

-~Oe'\ ..............

/
SCREVEH

I HKIHY /

t. --\..... I TALBOT '\~"~-.

'



(CRAw CRo \

)

'

/TWIGGs\

\

.,.......... r- "'---1.

Jo.HHsOH '- ..) EMA.twet. \

I 1

0-.\..._, \ _,..-v----... , \ i)

{''\ I

'-., /

\

I TAYLOR-..\

..

AU REt-IS~

~-

I

..

..;.....,

----- ~~__,. -:-_:,::._ 'i . r r:r.. / \ ' ,/ --1 -/-'--t\ ),. I '-. \

--:. ____ _j

(

,../PEACH?

j

\ /'

r

t~?I" ---BULLOCH'\

MUSCOGEE ;r.._.r...,_J""--.-

\.., ../

~MARION\ -~- HOUSTOH\_.....---B~ecnev\ I .

I ~-'""'

i '

/'"''1.
]'n~__ -~f/ MA ON

7 /---- S ~ HATTAHOOCH-ElE1f1~-.--~SGHIL.'-Eii..Y.. t-,.~-

rj \

,.... ..........\

-~
1

, /.. ........_

'-......

.,./

:;-----...

.tANOLE (_

'r.,..,

t

.,,

' TREUTLEN "

)

\

I '-""'""_~{PUL. ~-:f:~O-~:!'_":__, ~ '1

I;~-<'..

/ / "
<DODGE\

..( f

_L_ __ 000-LY

-~

-

-

SKI'-.-/' --.\,

-

-

_

_\_ (

_ --//

I



____-_-: --\ - - - ..

\ GOMERY / TOOMBS

\

1
(.;r ____
EVA::;......_,

1

-...(eFF.IHGHAM )
\
--------~~-i-.,-~---~-/~_

> \ ! \ ' ~

TEWART ) /, ~----j "-...(

I ---j SUMTER

\

! \.....____ )'." \ F

i ,

,

i .

'
r'Wii:Cox

-

-,~'

-?'WHEELER\

)'Y.
/ \_

~

I .

I

'\_.----BRYAN) /
'v/ CHATHAM

r I tc:.: I

j 0) \

/ ELFAiii',

\ I

i

TA THALL 7

.

'

~

32

- {._,_.____L,__J -1 V QUIT ANI RAHOOL.PH JTERRELL.[_---CEE---

!

'-, /

j

\(

''-, /.1-J.:-~-~--..._ /
r .... IJEFF oAVIsl APPLING--"'\.'-.

~~o;;;;;

(

(

LI~'EiiTY \_
('

~\.:.. R -. ~~

L \ --.... l

r - 1-- .. - - -.,. , e;,-. T'

1.

i ____r---c-aeHHtLL-\.,_"

(,-

--..!

_t-~~ WORTH\ TURNER

~---/!

~, l

'\...

r~ ~r-\

'-"
0

,~ J ~""-.. _/ ~n \L--~-(:Ai_~--1~--OQdG1HERTY"_)1-

;_--.._, .---.Jr IRWIN

--r

-

--

-
.r

L------- ,_



f COFFEE BACON -.......,

l j I ""- .. MCINTOSH

v :t

i

' rt -E-A-R-~:Y; l~,

'
'

i

-

-

-

-

-

.

-

- -.... _ . . h BAKER

L

-

-

-\-'-~

-

.

-

-

-

-,r !'
r--;::1-LLE~R-l-.1

}./ ,r MITCHELL
/
-

i J
I

' ,/,./J

i ' ' r _j

,i j TIFT ,.,__

"1

'\ -

\:/

! \. ' r J

\ --...----~~,....J

r
J

BERRIEN\~---

I ./ ) -----~--~--r'(

' \AT

COL.QUJTT

' '":-.._

\

,LI __

'-J--. .../''.._

WAREL,__l PIERCE )

1
INsOH'\----11

S
\

1 ~

~-,)'

'

\

\,

('-

~/.\
~
-----._ >GLYNN-
BRANTLEY 7
(

f p
I~I'>..

!<OOK ")

.

I

'----._,.

;

; .J
.

' )
(

r__

.l)-Ir:r



-----
CLINCH

"

-
\

LAMIE

L....., I

"rJ

"C..A,__M-.D..._EN-(~:":'_~

31

8 5

8 4

81
H. A. Sprmkl~, Capt., AfJS, Ret.

Map showing distribution of meteorites m Georg-ia.

115

CANTON

A

A. Many of the kamacite lamellae in the Canton iron have no taenite bands along their edges and are not as sharply defined as the kamacite lamellae usually are in most irons. Possibly, this meteorite, after the kamacite had formed, was reheated and quickly cooled. Natural size.
B. A narrow taenite band and an elongated dark plessite band separate the kamacite in the central part from the kamacite areas to the left and right side. The kamacite in the central part of this picture and in the lamella to the left has a similar orientation but the alinement of the acicular grains in the area to the right is different. The acicular habit possibly means quick cooling during the transformation temperatures. lOOx
The kamacite in the accompanying illustrations of this meteorite displays a well developed acicular structure, which signifies rapid cooling in the temperature range where the kamacite transformed. The kamacite in many meteorites is a homogeneous crystalline material containing one or more sets of Neumann lines which are enclosed by a thin band of taenite. However, the kamacite in the Canton iron is different. Thus, this iron has a history different from the meteorites with normal kamacite lamellae.
Troilite in these illustrations is also surrounded by acicular kamacite which extends to the edges of the sulfide body. Usually, troilite is enclosed by narrow zones of swathing kamacite which chemically and physically is different from the kamacite in the matrix. There is no swathing kamacite around the troilite in the accompanying picture. The numerous small black inclusions dispersed through the sulfide' probably are carbon.
The Widmanstatten structures in the Canton iron indicate that it probably was cooling slowly when the kamacite lamellae formed. Possibly, at first, the taenite bands enclosed the kamacite, swathing kamacite occurred around the troilite, and the carbon may have been segregated at the edge of the troilite or concentrated within them. We assume these conditions existed because they apparently explain the structures commonly found in most iron meteorites.

B

The internal structures in the illustrations of the Canton iron show that its early history probably was similar to that which we have outlined, but possibly the Canton iron was reheated. The temperature to which it was raised is not known because it could either be a high temperature for a short duration or a comparatively low temperature for a long period of time. The last condition seems to be the most reasonable assumption. The acicular structure in the kamacite indicates the reheating was followed by rapid cooling.

According to Vogel, 1945, if troilite is heated above 980 C. it shows a granular structure. It is possible to assume that the scattering of the carbon through this troilite represents granulation. The structure shown in the Canton iron was not made during its flight through our atmosphere, and it is not the structure that forms when a meteorite is heated by man.

Samples of the Canton meteorite are deposited in the following collections:

U. S. National Museum

416 grams

American Museum of Natural History 36 grams

Chicago Museum of Natural History 268 grams

Mineralogical Museum, Harvard University

122 grams

British Museum (natural history) 329 grams

Yale University

82 grams

Washington, D. C. New York, N. Y. Chicago, Illinois
Cambridge, Mass. London, England New Haven, Conn.

References
Howell, E. E. and Stokes, H. N. 1895 On two new meteorites: The Cherokee Meteorite, the El Capitan Meteorite. Amer. Journal Sci., v. 50, 251-54.
Vogel, R. 1945 Uber Troilite, Chemie der Erde, v. 15, 4th part. 371-387.

116

CANTON

c

D

C. Two kamacite lamellae separated by a light colored band, which shallow depressions called thumbmarks on their surfaces but

~~although-similar-to-kamacite bands at the sides, contains small clear --if such depressions were present on the Cedartown-iron-tlrey~~~-

taenite bodies which are normal to the edges of the central area. The

d

structure directly below the dark plessite at the top of the central zone were remove by corrosion. So considerable metal may have

is intermediate between that of kamacite and of a typical plessite area. been lost by weathering.

These acicular kamacite lamellae do not have taenite bands at their A significant feature about this specimen is the system of

edges. 1OOx.

fractures. The accompanying picture shows a crack that is

D. The acicular kamacite extends to the border of the troilite. This troilite lacks the usual band of swathing kamacite around it. The dark inclusions within the troilite are presumed to be carbon. SOx

about 7 millimeters wide on one face, extending for several
centimeters beyond the open crack. Two smaller fractures are present on the opposite face of this iron and all lie more or

less at right angles to each other. Since, the Cedartown iron

3. Cedartown, Polk County

is a hexahedrite, and such meteorites may separate along their

This hexahedrite was known before 1898 and was a rusty mass when found in a newly plowed field between Cedartown and Cave Springs in Polk County. It came into the possession of S. W. McCallie, State Geologist of Georgia about 1898. McCallie must have had some notes about its history but his records were destroyed when his house burned.
The McCallie residence, in Atlanta, was a frame building and the meteorite was in a room on the second floor at the time of the fire. This eight room building, which had no basement, burned to the ground within an hour and the meteorite was later recovered from the ashes. Since the specimen measured 9 by 11 inches and weighed 25;12 pounds, it could not have escaped from being surrounded with con-

cubical directions, these features may be parallel to the cleavage directions in the meteorite.
However, these cracks could have formed when this piece was torn from some larger mass or, when it separated from its parent body. But there are at least two other possibilities. Meteorites do separate in flight. Also several of the weathered hexahedrites show a tendency to separate along cleavage directions and coarse octahedrites separate along their grain boundaries so these fractures in the Cedartown could be due to weathering.
Some of the hydrated iron oxide from the large crack has a layered structure similar to the alteration products on the surfaces of some of the extensively weathered irons.

siderable heat. It is interesting to note that the heating neither The Cedartown specimen is not more than 8 centimeters

destroyed the Neumann lines nor any of the characteristic thick, so, if the larger fracture was extended very far, this

features of the hexahedrite.

iron would separate into two rather similarly shaped pieces.

The shape of the Cedartown specimen resembles a slab A fracture, similar but much larger, occurs in the Bacubirito

torn from a larger object. All its existing surfaces are the iron from Mexico, a model of which is displayed in the U. S.

products of corrosion and no trace of any of the original flight National Museum. If the fracture in that iron was extended

surface could be found. Iron meteorites usually have broad it would have separated the Bacubirito iron into similar

117

shaped masses. However, the last named meteorite is a fine octahedrite so its fractures could not be due to a ckavagr weakness.
Perry, 1946, in discussing the metallography of the Cedartown iron called attention to some of the unusual features in the accompanying pictures. His comments about the structures shown in the picture of lower magnification are,"... two systems of parallel but irregular bands crossing the surface, their directions differing by about 15 degrees. This appearance is due to elongated grains of more or less uniform width, suggesting the columnar pattern of grains produced by certain heat treatments in artificial irons. These grains tend to group themselves in irregular bands which are conspicuous to the eye on an etched surface because their sheen is oriented differently from that of the adjoining grains."

Composition of the Cedartown, Georgia Meteorite.

Fe Ni Co

P

S

Cr Analyst

1 94.02 5.48 0.22 0.30 0.04 0.02 Henderson

2

5.48 0.53

Goldberg and others

3 93.63 5.48 0.53 0.30 0.04 0.03 Calculated analysis

Sinn' analysis number 1 was publislwd, Goldberg and others, 1951, found hexahedrites usually contained about 0.50 percent nickel so their value was taken as correct. From analysis number 1 and 2 the calculated composition of this meteorite is given in analysis 3.

Specimens of the Cedartown iron are in the following collections:

U. S. National Museum

10,500 grams Washington, D. C.

American Museum of Nat'! History 270 grams New York, N.Y.

Harvard University

248 grams Cambridge, Mass.

Chicago Museum of Nat'! History

215 grams Chicago, Ill.

University of Michigan

I 02 grams Ann Arbor, Mich.

Referenc<:>s
Goldberg, E., Uchiyama, A. and Brown, I-I., 1951. The distribution of nickel, cobalt, gallium, palladium and gold in iron meteorites.,
Geochemica et Cosmochernica Acta, 2, 1-25.
Perry, S. H., 1946, The Cedartown, Georgia Meteorite, Smithsonian Misc. Coli., v. I 04, 1-3.

CEDARTOWN

All the features that formed during the flight of the Cedartown iron have been removed by weathering. The open fracture extends part way through the iron, however, the fractur<:> can be traced much farther than the open crack. If the crack wen' extended it would separate this 3" slab into two similarly shap<:>d mass<:>s. About actual size.
118

A

B

Photomicrographs of the Cedartown iron

County, Georgia. In 1879 this locality was about 14 miles

A. The Neumann lines run diagonally from the upper left to the northeas_t of Dalton.. This iron was found while plowing and

lower right. The dark bands, which are essential!y parallel to each was buned about 6 mches below the surface ?f the ground.

other and almost at right angles to. the Ne:'mann lmes, are due to an This specimen which is now in the U. S. NatiOnal Museum ~- arrangement-oLcarbon and phosphlde__partlcles.___Mag._about_lOx. __-----appatenflyaoes ncfCex-ude-iron--chloride-a.n-d is stable~-~~ - - - -

B. The kamacitic groundmass has a granular structure and e~ch grain has one or more sets of ~euma_nn li_nes. The dark rhabd1tes

. ..
G. F. Kuntz, 1887, m wnt~ng abo~t th~ Clev~land, Tennes-

which extend across the kamac1te grams, he parallel to one set of see iron sugo-ested that it mwht be 1dent1cal w1th the Dalton Neum_ann_ lines_. The square outline represents a cross section of a me~eorite be"'cause Cleveland~ Tennessee, is about 28 miles

rhabdJte mcluswns. Mag. lOOx.

north of Dalton, Georgia. The Cleveland meteorite came

4. Dalton, Whitfield County

]. L. Smith, 1877, first mentioned the Dalton m~teori~e

aVnidennBar,ezAuins~aria1.88T0,h

described a sample he en W. E. Hidden, 1881,

had rece1ved m described an iron

found about 30 miles northeast of Dalton near the Tennessee

and North Carolina state lines.

This last named iron was assumed to be terrestrial iron until George B. Little, State Geologist of Georgi:', recognized its real nature and procured it for the Museum m Atlanta.

According to Hidden, 1881, this specimen weighed 13 pounds when found. However, on the way to Atlanta so~c thing happened to it, because Dr. Little found the meteonte only weighed 9% pounds when it arrived.

According to Hidden this rusty meteorite was oblong an? had many jagged points on its surface.. Furthermore, _1t showed a tendency for droplets of iron chlonde to form or: 1ts. surface. Thus, this specimen is somewhat unstable as 1ron chloride attacks meteoritic iron rapidly.

Shepard, 1883, described an iron weighing 117. pounds which was found on the Francis M. Anderson farm m 1879, on lot 109, in the lOth district, and 3rd s.ection of Whitfield

from near the Tennessee and Georgia state lines. However,

G. P. Merrill, 1916, compared sections of the three samples,

(Dalton, described by Shepard, the Dalton describe? bX Hid-

den am,

and on

the the

Cglreovuenladns d~fdesstcrruibc teudr

b e

y Kuntz), and and .et_ching

sa1d, . . . I peculiarities,

convinced that the irons represent two d1stmct falls and would

suggest that the Hidden iron be known as first d~scribed,

under the name Whitfield County and that descnbed by

Shepard as Dalton. They will be so listed in future in the

U. S. National Museum Catalogue."

The catalog of the U. S. National Muse~m collection published by Merrill in 1916 appeared before this fact was known. It was not discovered until this manuscript was prepared that the records at the U. S. National Museum had never been changed. The larger of the two D:>lton samples (Shepard's) is in the collection at the U. S. NatiOnal Museum.

Merrill, 1916, published an analysis of the _Dalton iro~ by

Whitfield and tions made by

tNhiicsha~ol-sr.eesHwoiwthevtehre,

nickel we do

and not

uon determmaknow which of

the Dalton specimens were sampled for these analyses.

Fe

Ni

Co

s

p

Cu

Analyst

1 91.46 7.57 0.55 0.025 0.095 0.016 Whitfield

2 91.02 7.38

Nichols

119

Specimens of the Dalton 1ron are m the following collections:

U. S. National Museum

51,831 grams

Harvard University

439 grams

Chicago Museum of Natural History 92 grams

American Museum of Natural History 76 grams

Academy of Natural Sciences

63 grams

Yale University

42 grams

1American Meteorite Museum

35 grams

Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum

2,924 grams

British Museum (Natural History) 264 grams

Museum d'Histoire Naturelle

89 grams

Museum des Konigreiches Bohmen 36 gram

University of Bonn

21 grams

University of Strasbourg

16 grams

Washington, D. C. Cambridge, Mass. Chicago, Illinois New York, N.Y. Philadelphia, Pa. New Haven, Conn. Sedona, Arizona Vienna, Austria London, England Paris, France Prague, Czech. Bonn, Germany Strasbourg, France

'Amherst College, at came from Amherst

one time had a 35 gram but if that is not the case

sampl there

e

1 IS

possibly this specimen a 35 gram sample at

Amherst College.

References
Brezina, A., 1880 Vorlaufiger Bericht uber neue order wenig bekannte Meteoriten. Sitzber, Akad. Math. Naturw. Kl. Wien v. 82, 348-52.
Farrington, 0. C., 1915, Meteorites of North America. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., v. 13, 155.
Hidden, W. E., 1881, On the Whitfield County, Georgia Meteoric Iron. Amer. Journ. Sci., v. 21, 286-287.
Kuntz, G. F., 1887, East Tennessee (?) Meteorite. Amer. Journ. Sci., v. 34, 473-4.
Merrill, G. P., 1916, (a) Notes on the Whitfield County, Georgia Meteoric Irons. with new analyses. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 51, 447-449.
Merrill, G. P., 1916, (b) Handbook and Descriptive Catalogue of the Meteorite Collection in the U. S. National Museum, U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 94.
Shepard, C. U., 1883, On Meteoric Iron from near Dalton, Whitfield County, Georgia. Amer. Journ. Sci., (3) v. 26, 336-338.
Smith, J. L., 1877, Two New Meteoric Irons. Amer. Journal. Sci., (3) v. 14, 246.

DALTON

Dalton (Hidden)

Although both of these Dalton sections are medium octahedrites there are some conspicuous differences between these irons. The kamacite lamellae in Hidden's sample are wider and the bands are wavy, while the lamellae in Shepard's sample are narrow and have straighter sides. Hidden's sample contains more and larger plessite areas than Shepard's. Also, the plessite is darker and some areas contain delicate kamacite and taenite lamellae. No detectable troilite inclusions were noticed in Hidden's sample but three small masses occur in Shepard's sample. Alteration has penetrated both slices. About natural size.
5. Elberton, Elbert County
The Elberton meteorite was first listed in S. H. Perry's 1947 catalog and then in Hey's 1953 catalog. There is no historical information available about this iron. Apparently, someone sent this piece of meteoritic iron to Perry hoping he would purchase it and Perry recorded it under the name of the post office from which it was sent.
The Elberton and the Smithonia appear to be the same as the town of Elberton is close to where the Smithonia iron was found and was the post office address of Mr. Corbett Simmons, who found the Smithonia meteorite.
In December 1941, Mr. Simmons sent a specimen of the Smithonia iron to the U.S. National Museum for examination but he sold the iron to the Chicago Museum of Natural History about a year later. When S. K. Roy and R. K. Wyant, 1950, described this meteorite they said, "... The Smithonia meteorite was secured by purchase from Mr. Corbett Simmons, of Elberton, Georgia. Negotiations for the purchase

Dalton (Shepard)
began in November 1941 but no settlement was arrived at until September 1952. During the interval Mr. Simmons apparently corresponded with others interested in the meteorite."
The evidence that the Elberton iron is a fragment of the Smithonia meteorite is convincing enough to justify dropping the Elberton name from meteoritic lists.
References Hey, Max H., 1953. Catalogue of Meteorites. Perry, Stuart H., 1947, Meteorite Collection of Stuart H. Perry.
6. Forsyth, Monroe County
This stone, a veined chondrite, fell on May 8, 1829, at 3:30p.m. E.S.T., and was the first witnessed meteorite to fall in Georgia.
Silliman, 1830, reported, ".... a small black cloud appeared south of Forsyth from which two distinct explosions were heard, following in immediate succession, succeeded by a tremendous rumbling or whizzing noise passing through the air, which lasted from the first account for two to five minutes. This extraordinary noise was on the same evening accounted for by Mr. Sparks and Captain Postain, who happened to be

120

HOLLAND'S STORE

A

B

A. Because of the fine parallel markings, Neumann lines, and the chemical composition the Holland's Store meteorite is classified as

7. Holland's Store, Chattooga County

----- hexah:drite...The__bllt_ck. I"Q.d-:lik~..in.<:lu_sie>n,_ at_the__lower__k.ft:L!Ilay__l:l.e~~This_2] pQundiron which belongs to thehexahedrite_group_ __

rhabdite. 100x.

was found in March of 1887. According to Kuntz 1887, it fell

B. Another area in Holland's Store :hows the invasion of alteration

h h

products and the granular structure. On the basis of this picture this into t e ands of some people who were interested in develop-

iron could be incorrectly classified as a nickel-poor-ataxite because ing iron mines and was broken up. Pieces were given to a

of the lack of Neumann lines. 50x.

blacksmith to be made into horseshoes, nails, et cetera. Kuntz

further says, " .... the cleavage is in some parts very marked

near some Negroes working in a field, one mile south of this and the two cleavage angles measured were 120. In breaking

place, who discovered a large stone descending through the up the iron four cleavage pieces were obtained, one of the

air, weighing, as was afterwards ascertained, 36 pounds. The surfaces being two centimeters square and the other three

stone was, in the course of the evening or very early next centimeters square each, which was very smooth and bright."

morning recovered from the spot where it fell. It penetrated The structure of this iron is shown in the attached illustra-

the earth 2.5 feet."

tion. The Neumann lines can be seen extending almost to

Although 36 pounds of this meteorite were recovered, most the edge of the specimen where they disappear. Since this

of it was lost. There is no reliable scientific data on this structure was observed on a 117 gram sample, it is impossible

meteorite today and its partial analysis is of no value. The to tell just where the pieces came from the main mass. The

only sample of this stone that was available to the authors zone in which Neumann lines are missing may be near the

weighed only 9 grams.

surface where the metal could have been thermally heated in

Specimens of the Forsyth meteorite are in the following flight. Such zones are rather common in hexahedrites.

collections:
Yale University American Museum of Nat'! History Chicago Museum of Nat'! History U. S. National Museum Harvard University Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum British Museum (Natural History) Hungarian National Museum Friedrick-Wilhelms University

132 grams 95 grams 87 grams 9 grams 70 grams 88 grams 72 grams 21 grams 19 grams

New Haven, Conn. New York, N. W. Chicago, Ill. Washington, D. C. Cambridge, Mass. Vienna, Austria London, England Budapest, Hungary Berlin, Germany

References Silliman, B., 1830. Georgia Meteor and Aerolite. Amer. Journ. Sci.
(1) vol. 18, pp. 388-399. White, George, 1849. Statistics of the State of Georgia, Savannah.
W. Thomes Williams, pp. 428-429.

Cohen, 1906, published the following analysis of this iron:

Fe

Ni

Co

Cr

S

P

Analyst

93.06 5.35 1.00 0.23 0.08 0.31 Zaubitzer

Specimens of the Holland's Store meteorite are in the fol-

lowing collections:

American Museum of Natural History
Chicago Museum of Natural History
University of Michigan U. S. National Museum Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum Yale University Hungarian National Museum

228 grams 376 grams 117 grams 17 grams 888 grams 126 grams
64 grams

New York, New York Chicago, Illinois Ann Arbor, Michigan Washington, D. C. Vienna, Austria New Haven, Conn. Budapest, Hungary

121

LOCUST GROVE

A

B

A. The interface of a large dendritic inclusion (above) and a zone of acicular structures (middle area). The former apparently consists of dendrites of an Fe-FeaC aggregate (gray), surrounded by Fe-P-C eutectic (clear white) known in artificial irons as steadite, (Fe, FeaP, FeaC), all in a mottled nearly black matrix having the appearance of an iron-graphite eutectic in artificial irons. The acicular portion is a form of Fe-FeaC Widmanstatten structure. With light etching no structure is shown in the adjacent kamacite below. Picral 30 sec. 40x.
B. Part of the dendritic area shown in A. It resembles a structure in a high phosphorous cast iron. The rounded or elongated gray bodies are the Fe-FeaC aggregate referred to above. The perfectly clear matrix surrounding them is steadite. The dark mottled areas are apparently iron-graphite eutectic. Picral 30 sec. 45x.

Museum des Konigreiches Bohemen
Freiderich-Wilhelm University University of Bonn Museum d'Histoire Naturelle University of Roma Academy of Sciences

47 grams 51 grams 40 grams 30 grams 27 grams 12 grams

Prague, Czechoslovakia Berlin, Germany Bonn, Germany Paris, France Rome, Italy Moscow, U. S. S. R.

References
Cohen, E., 1905. Classification und Nomenclatur; Kornige bis dichtc Eisen: Hexaedrite; Oktaedrite mit feinsten und feine Lamellen. Meteoriten-kunde, Heft 3.
Kuntz, G. F., 1887. On some American meteorites, The Chattooga County, Georgia, Meteorite. Amer. Journ. Sci. (3), vol. 34, pp. 471-472.

8. Locust Grove, Henry County

This 22 pound iron was found July 29, 1857, in Henry County, near Locust Grove but remained in private collections until 1895. Cohen, 1897, described it but reported it as a

North Carolina meteorite, however, he corrected the mistake

in 1905.

1

Cohen, 1897, reports the meteorite as shaped like a jaw-

bone. Its surface shows a thin coating of rust and patches of

fusion crust. He classified it as a nickel-poor-ataxite, de-

scribed some of the unusual structures, and published the fol-

lowing a~alysis which is consistent for meteorites of this

group.

Fe

Ni

Co

c

p

Cl

Analyst

94.30

5.57

0.64

0.02

0.18

O.Ql

Sjostrom

Perry, 1944, critically examined this iron, classified it as a nickel-poor-ataxite and discussed its iron-carbon structures. The photomicrographs of this iron are reproduced and Perry's comments about the structures are given in the accompanying explanations.

Perry found only two examples of unquestionable ironcarbon structures in meteorites and both were nickle-poorataxites. The origin of this structure is not fully understood but probably it represents strong reheating of an iron having Ni-Fe ratios near those of the hexahedrites and one which contained inclusions of cohenite. The reheating was followed presumably by relatively rapid cooling.

The above described condition possibly could exist near the surface of a hexahedrite as it falls through our atmosphere because there is a narrow zone that is heated and cooled quickly. The changes introduced, as an iron meteorite passes close to the sun, probably would produce different structures in an iron. Such a meteorite, one would think, would get a uniform structure if it were a comparatively small body. As it approached perihelion it would receive increasing amounts of heat, then as it receded it would slowly cool.
The structure in the other samples of the Locust Grove meteorite need to be examined critically to see if they are similar to those Perry found as his study was made on a small sample which someone could have heat-treated.

122

LOCUST GROVE

c

D

C. The area shown in B, but with an additional etching of 3 minutes with neutral sodium picrate. The clear areas shown in B are now -----black, indicating that they are an Fe-Fe:JC aggregate.- The unchanged dark mottled areas (black with white flecks), indicate they are a phosphorus free aggregate of nickel-iron and graphite. 45x.
D. A portion of the area shown in B and C, unetched. The component that is visible unetched is that of the mottled black areas in figure B, showing a gray color suggesting the appearance of graphite in artificial iron. The large clear area corresponds with the other components in B, the gray dendrites are the clear phosphide eutectic surrounding them; being wholly metallic these show no structure without etching.

Specimens of the Locust Grove meteorite are in the following collections:

Yale University

2,011 grams

American Museum of Nat'! History 697 grams

Chicago Museum of Nat'! History 597 grams

American Meteorite Museum

212 grams

U. S. National Museum

163 grams

University of Michigan

142 grams

Harvard University

93 grams

Amherst College

47 grams

University of Bonn

958 grams

British Museum (Natural History) 571 grams

Freiderick-Wilhelm University

65 grams

N aturhistorischen Hofmuseum

54 grams

New Haven, Conn. New York, N. Y. Chicago, Ill. Sedona, Ariz. Washington, D. C. Ann Arbor, Mich Cambridge, Mass. Amherst, Mass. Bonn, Germany London, England Berlin, Germany Vienna, Austria

References
Cohen, E., 1891. Uber ein neuer meteoreisen von Locust Grove, Henry County, Nord-Carolina. Sitzber, Berlin Akad., pp. 76-81.
Cohen, E., 1905. Meteoritenkunde, Heft 3, pp. 44-77. Perry, S. H., 1944. Metallography of Meteoric Iron. U.S. Nat. Mus.
Bull. 184.

9. Losttown, Cherokee County
This iron, a medium octahedrite, was found, according to Shepard, 1869, on Michael Sullivan's farm located about 2.5

miles southwest of Losttown, April 1868. The locality given does not appear on maps or postal guides but there is a creek--~-~

by that name in Cherokee County. The meteorite, when

found, weighed 6 pounds 10 ounces and resembled a human

foot.

Brezina, 1895, said that the kamacite plates varied from 0.4

to 0.6 millimeters, the lamellae partly grouped, partly isolated,

always puffy. He further stated that schreibersite was abund-

ant and irregularly distributed.

It is difficult to reconcile Brezina's description of this

meteorite and the accompanying picture of the specimen in

the U. S. National Museum. The kamacite lamellae in the

specimen shown are wavy but these bands are almost twice

as wide as Brezina reports. Also schreibersite is far from being

abundant, however, this specimen is small and may not repre-

sent the average structure for this iron.

Specimens of the Losttown meteorite are in the following

collections:

Amherst College

3,050 grams

American Museum of Nat'! History 926 grams

U. S. National Museum

99 grams

American Meteorite Museum

89 grams

Harvard University

13 grams

Yale University

3 grams

Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum

34 grams

British Museum (Natural History)

7 grams

Hungarian National Museum

22 grams

Vatican

3 grams

University of Strasbourg

2 grams

Amherst, Mass. New York, N.Y. Washington, D. C. Sedona, Ariz. Cambridge, Mass. New Haven, Conn. Vienna, Austria London, England Budapest, Hungary Vatican City, Italy Strasbourg, France

References

Brezina, A., 1895. Die Meteoritensammlung des k. k. naturhistorischen Hofmuseums am 1 Mai, 1895, pp. 279.
Shepard, C. U., 1868. A new locality of meteoric iron in Georgia. Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 257-258.

123

LOSTTOWN

I

M.

l l 1 The Losttown meteorite, a medium octahedritc, contains numerous plessite areas. The kamacite lamellae are wavy
' and enclosed with well defined taenite bands. The average thickness of 10 kamacitP bands is 1.1 millimeters.

,_ _ _j

Mag. 4.5x.

124

10. Lumpkin, Stewart County

The chemical analysis, Watson published, is compared with

This stony meteorite, a hypersthene chondrite, weighed 12;4 ounces. It fell October 6, 1869 on land owned by Captain Elbridge Barlow which then was located about twelve miles southwest of Lumpkin. It was picked up a few moments after it struck. Willet, 1870, quotes Captain Barlow as saying,

the analysis of the Canton, Georgia, meteorite.

Fe

Ni

Co

P

S

~~~~~~g

93.26 91.96

6.34 6. 70

0.50 0.50

0.23 0.11

none 0.01

Analyst
Thornton Stokes

.Watson, assisted by Merrill, compared the Paulding iron

" .... while standing in the open yard, the sky being bright with the Canton, Georgia, meteorite and two irons from

and clear, he heard first a succession of about three explo- Tennessee, the Cleveland and Cooperstown. Their conclu-

sions, followed by a deep roaring for several seconds, and sion was, " . . . In neither case, was the resemblance close, then by a rushing or whizzing sound of something rushing ~mt only very general and so far as the comparison has value

with great speed through the air nearby. The sound ceased It must be concluded that the Paulding County iron is difsuddenly. The noise continued from first to last about half ~erent from ~ny yet found in Georgia and adjoining states a minute. Two Negroes were working near by the well in the m the collectwn of the U. S. National Museum."

same yard, about sixty yards from where };fr. Barlow stood. Watson, 1913, said he had obtained the meteorite 12 years

They heard the noise and supposed it to be the falling in before. This statement indicates that the specimen was

of the plank well curbing, banging from side to side in its either in the University of Virginia collections, or it was in

descent, and so spoke of it to one another before the meteorite Watson's personal collection. Recent communications with

fell. While they were speaking thus about the noise, the Professor W. A. Nelson, of the University of Virginia indimeteorite fell and struck the ground about 20 steps from cate that the Paulding sample is not on deposit in' their them, in full sight knocking up the dirt. They called Captain collections.

Barlow and showed him the spot. It was upon very hard trodden ground in the clean open yard. The earth was freshly loosened up very fine in a circle of about 18 inches in diameter, and upon scraping the loose dirt away with the hands

Specimens of the Paulding County meteorite are in the following collections:
American Museum of Natural History, 100 grams, New York, New York;

the stone was found about 10 inches below the surface. From Chicago Museum of Natural History, 312 grams Chicago,

the direction in which the ground was crushed in it must Illinois.

' '

have come from the northwest and at an angle of about 30.

REFERENCES

The stone when picked up was covered with black shell ... Watson, T. L., 1913. A Meteoric iron from Paulding County Georgia.

The stone still has a strong odor. He does not remember that

Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. 36, pp. 165-168.

'

'

it had any noticeable heat." Willet's account mentions that

the sound of this fall was heard over considerable area and
cites an instance of noise being heard 18 miles away.
J. L. Smith, 1870, said that this meteorite contained about
7 percent Ni-Fe and the metal contained about 12 percent nickel. Also, that troilite made up about 6.10 percent of the

12. Pickens County . This 400 gram stone, _chondrite, was ~ound about 1908 in ~Ickens Coun~y accordmg _to McCalhe, 191~, whc: says, when this ~as found It was rough~y cubical with the

meteorite and that silicates, (pyroxene, olivine and feldspars) appearar:ce of bemg part of a larger piece. In color and ~~- about- 86.9-percent.--The descriptions-oLthis stone_ are_noL--te){tur~_ _l!__C:!os~l;r_.rese_m_l:>l~s _]:)asal:, the __ dark_ col?r being~~
sufficiently complete to identify it. Since the samples in the blotched here ~n.d t~ere by browm~h-red sp?ts which seeJ?collections are small, it is unlikely that a comprehensive study ~o be du~ to oxidizatwr: of the contame~ p_articles c:f metallic

of this meteorite will be made.

Iron. With the exceptiOn of the metallic Iron, which occurs

A d"
cc?r mgt

t W"ll t 0M I e'

1870 U . 'a

~pteC1mMen

f th L k" t Ge urr:p Ibn stone

was h ave

g1ven b een

o unab

leetrocevren"fny11vfetrhs"iISy,sampa1eeonIS,

preesoerrgv1ead,

.

u

we

in irregular masses a fourth of an inch or less in diameter and which makes up something like 10 percent of the entire lmenasss." none of the other mm era1s can be made out without a

Specimens of the Lumpkin stone are in the following col-

lectwns:

Mineralogical Museum, Harvard

53 grams

U. S. National Museum

29 grams

American Museum of Natural History 24 grams

Chicago Museum of Natural History 3 grams

Cambridge, Mass. Washington, D. C. New York, N. Y. Chicago, IlL

Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum

25 grams Vienna, Austria

British Museum (Natural History) 17 grams London, England

Hungarian National Museum University of Bonn

5 grams Budapest, Hungary 1 gram Bonn, Germany

Recently, Furcron found a reference in a letter he received
from R. L. Hunter of Fairmount, Georgia, February 16, 1949, which stated, " . . . On March 4, 1911, Clark Thomson gave Mr. A. B. Park a small piece of a stone which was turned over to me and wh"ICh the State Geolog1st, McCallie, identified as a meteorite. This stone was picked up on Land Lot No. 88, 23rd District, 2nd Section of Pickens County, at a little store named Talmadge. It is about 6 miles east of
Fairmount, Georgia."

References
Smith, J. L., 1870. Fall of a meteorite in Stewart County, Georgia.
Amer. Journ. Sci. (2), vol. 50, pp. 339-341, p. 293.
Willet, J. E., 1870. Account of the fall of a meteoric stone in Stewart
County, Georgia. Amer. J ourn. Sci. ( 2), vol. 50, pp. 335-338.
11. Paulding County
This meteorite, a coarse octahedrite, was described by Thomas Leonard Watson, 1913, and is said to have been found in the extreme northern corner of Paulding County, Georgia. When found it was a deeply weathered, rough, irregular object, with considerable limonite on its surface. Its weight was given as 725 grams in 1912 but, today, only about 400 grams of it are known.

Analysis of the Pickens County, Georgia, Stone.

Si02
AbO" Fe203 FeO MgO GaO Na20 K20 H20

37.06 5.83
10.69 9.63
24.00 0.55 0.92 0.02

Ti02 p
s
CnOa MnO Fe Ni
Co

0.09 0.31 1.57. 0.40 0.40 8.22
1.23 0.11

McCallie published the above analysis made by Edgar Everhart and wrote that the Pickens County stone is similar to Long Island, Kansas; Bluff, Texas; Shelburne, Ontario, and Bjurbole, Finland.
The four analyses which McCallie listed agree with Pickens

125

County in the Si02 and MgO percentages, however, there are differences to which McCallie apparently attached no significance. The authors, who probably have more analyses of meteorites available for comparison than McCallie had, found 39 analyses of stony meteorites, exclusive of those McCallie mentioned, which averag-ed for Si02 and MgO, 37.66 and 24.08 percent respectively.
The above similarity of meteorites may be of some interest, since the meteorites selected were chosen because of similarity of the determinations on two elements and without regard to the geographic distribution or the mineralogical or physical similarities of the meteorites. Thus, it may be that Si02 and MgO contents of one type of stony meteorites averages about 37.5 percent and 24 percent respectively. Certainly all of these analyses are not equally good, however several of the recent analyses included were made by some of the best analysts. The average of 39 determinations should give a figure that is approximately correct for both Si02 and MgO.
The only known specimen of this stone is in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, and weighs 380 grams.
REFERENCES
Furcron, A. S. Personal communications. McCallie, S. W., 1909. The Pickens County Meteorite. Science V.,
val. 30, pp. 772-773.

13. Pitts, Wilcox County

The Pitts meteorite which fell on April 20, 1921 about

9: 00 A.M., is usually listed as an iron with silicate inclusions.

However, because of the nature of the metallic portions and

the abundance of silicates in the specimen in the U. S. Na-

tional Museum, it seems appropriate to classify this as a meso-

siderite. But in so doing, mesosiderite implies a meteorite

intermediate between the irons and the stones and is not

descriptive of the silicate inclusions in this specimen.

McCallie, 1922, described the fall by saying, ". . . at the

time of the fall no clouds were in view and the sun was

shining brightly. It was seen as far north as Sunny Side, in

Henry County, 36 miles south of Atlanta, and as far south

as Moultrie in Colquitt County. In addition to the above

towns that ap.pear to mark the north and south limits of its

visibility, it was also seen at Camilla, Albany, Seville, Cor-

dele, Hawkinsville, Perry, Macon and Alma. It was, no

doubt, plainly visible over an area of several thousand square

miles and could have been distinctly seen by fully a quarter

of a million people had they been looking in the proper

direction."

McCallie, in the Cordele Dispatch and Daily Sentinel,

May 10, 1921 reported, ". . . Dense smoke in the wake of

the flaming fire ball was referred to by the Albany and Moul-

trie witnesses as a luminuous trail following the flaming ball.

Colonel Dorris who was in the vicinity of Pitts speaks of the

smoke as a zigzag trail lingering for several minutes and

assuming various shapes."

_

"The first sound heard was compared to that of thunder

and to many it was the first warning that an unusual occur-

rence was taking place in the sky above. At Cordele, 15

miles west of Pitts the sounds resembled that of a heavy

explosion distinctly heard by several people in the street.

In the country 4 miles east of Cordele, two terrific explosions

were noted, louder than thunder which so terrified the farm

hands that they ran frightened to their homes."

"At Hawkinsville, it was thought that an airplane had ex-

ploded over the city. In the immediate vicinity of Pitts, the

sounds were described as several loud explosions causing the

earth to tremble, followed in quick succession by a number

of lesser explosions". In the magazine section of the Atlanta Constitution of
May 1921, there appeared a feature article by McCallie about this meteorite. Also a picture of all four specimens of the Pitts meteorite. That picture is the only one we found showing all the Pitts specimens but unfortunately the details of that picture are not good.
Surely there must be prints someplace and possibly the negative is still available. Unfortunately, the surface features of the other specimens seem to have been overlooked because there is no mention of any particular features they display.
On April 23, 1939, the same paper carried a note, "Georgia Star Sold". This release was made when the Pitts iron was sold to S. H. Perry of Adrian, Michigan, because some local people felt that with this sale the Pitts meteorite might become buried in a private collection. This sale proved a fortunate thing because Perry saw the importance of this specimen and presented it to the U. S. National Museum for preservation.
The Pitts meteorite apparently broke in the air because four individual pieces were found. One piece hit the earth about 75 feet from Nancy, Brinson's house and was recovered within a few minutes. Although it penetrated the ground about 16 inches it was not hot when found. Piece number two fell about 700 feet southwest of the Brinson house. This one, containing stony inclusions, weighed 42 ounces and penetrated the ground about 8 inches. This piece nearly made history because it fell .so near a boy that it splattered him with flying dirt.
Piece number three fell 4,000 feet southwest of the second specimen and within 100 feet of where a man and a boy were working in King's field. This one buried itself in the ground about seven inches and was said to be warm when recovered.
Piece number four fell unobserved on a public road 5,000 feet southwest of sample number one and weighed less than two ounces. Since four pieces were found, probably, others fell, this area may be worthy of additional prospecting.
The distribution of the four masses, as given by McCallie, are shown in the accompanying line drawing.
4
Pitts o
Location of Pitts falls according to McCallie, 1-Nancy Brinson's House; 2-Jim Harden's House; 3-King's field; 4-Fourth specimen.

126

The prominent projections on the meteorite, shown in the The only specimen that the authors have examined is

following pictures, are essentially made of metal. Thus, its shown in the accompanying illustration. We believe this

shape must have been determined by the distribution of the specimen tumbled during its fall, because it has no preferred

metallic inclusions in the original mass. The silicate-troilite orientation. One side of this meteorite, see pictures, resem-

inclusions which occur in the low places indicate that type bles a metallic meteorite but the opposite side creates a dif-

of material was lost faster during the flight than the metallic ferent impression. The color of the Ni-'Fe alloy is visible

material.

on most of the metallic ridges but most of the metallic part

If the main mass entering our atmosphere was very irregu- is covered with a film of oxide. The material at the bottom

lar or if sizeable pieces were attached to the main mass by a of many of the depressions is silicate-troilite.

connecting bridge of silicate-troilite material, we suspect this last named material could easily fail. Therefore, if the mass entering our atmosphere was very irregular, numerous pieces surely were broken off during its flight and each time a large chunk was lost, the main mass would re-adjust its position in the air. When the reorientation took place possibly the trajectory was changed and this to an observer could make the meteorite appear to be falling in a zig-zag manner.

All descriptions of this meteorite were made years after it was found, so, possibly, the lack of fusion crust on the metallic ridges is due to the handling this sample has received. Each time it was picked up some ridge contacted the hand. Also, these ridges form the points, on which the sample will rest when that side becomes the base. It is doubtful if the Pitts meteorite was handled enough since it has been in the U. S. National Museum's Collection to wear the oxide film

Near the edge of this meteorite a small hole occurs in a away and certainly it was not excessively handled while in

crater-like depression and the metallic rim surrounding the Perry's collection. However, it has been handled many times

hole curls into the opening. The markings in this rim are since it fell in 1921.

shown in some of the accompanying pictures.
The parallel striations above the hole are normal to the edge of the meteorite. These possibly were made when the layer of deformed metal was pushed into the hole or immediately afterwards. The metal to the left of the hole as well as below and slightly to the right, also contains parallel markings which lie at an angle to the striations above the hole. The striations at the top definitely originated in flight and possibly the markings at the left and below the hole. However, these last named structures may be scratches that were made when this meteorite struck the ground.
We believe the hole formed during the flight because of

The face directly opposite the one illustrated, is rough and has more troilite-silicate areas than the side shown. Numerous rounded projections of Ni-Fe alloy extend above the level of that surface and we assume these were shaped during the flight. The troilite and silicate areas usually are covered with a dark fused crust.
The density of the Pitts sample, pictured in this study, is 6.27 which means that considerable quantities of silicates and troilite are present because the density of an iron meteorite is nearly 8 and stony meteorites, essentially free from metallic inclusions, have densities of about 3.5.

the following reasons: ( 1) It is located near the rim where McCallie's analyses are not given because these appear to

the mass is thin, (2) the cut at the right in one of the pic- have been made upon poorly prepared samples, however,

tures exposed a silicate-troilite inclusion which extends al- McCallie quotes Merrill as having examined the silicates

most through the metal.

and reported olivine, diopside and plagioclase as being pres-

~~- ,btthe top of_one of_the__ac<:;_o_II1pan_yil1giJi~tur(:sthere are_ ent. A re-examination of the silicates confirms the presence

two masses of metal, separated by a trough like depression. -of olivine;-plagiocla:se bunhe -mineral assumed to be diopside----

A layer at the lower edge of this trough and just above a proved to be one of the hypersthene series. The only analysis

sizeable metallic mass, looks as if it flowed over the metal of this iron known to the writers is a recent one for nickel

immediately beneath it. Actually, this thin layer is the and cobalt, made by Raymond W. Stonner, Brookhaven Na-

remnant of a troilite-silicate inclusion.

tional Laboratory. He reports the nickel values to be 11.39

A portion from this thin layer was crushed and found to contain no magnetic particles. The grains easily dissolved in dilute hydrochloric acid and gave off hydrogen sulfide

and 11.45 per cent, and for cobalt he obtained 0.63 and 0.65 percent. It is possible that these analyses would be helpful if someone finds another specimen which might belong to

gas but some dark flocculent residue remained, thus, we as- this fall.

sumed that this material is troilite. Tests showed the acid The Pitts meteorite illustrates a serious defect in the way

soluble portion contained no nickel and the flocculent par- scientific specimens are cared for. The documentation of

ticles, which were later dissolved, also contained no nickel. this fall is better than most of the witnessed meteorite falls

At the top of one of the pictures there are two large metallic masses which have rounded ridges down the front side. These ridges coincide with the limits of the semi-circular feature in the metallic mass in the central area of this face.

and for a while the Pitts meteorite received considerable local attention but today only three specimens could be located in collections. The writers would appreciate being advised about any of the other specimens of this fall.

The rounded edges in these two metallic bodies surely were made in flight and since the ridges, the trough-like depression and the semi-circular features appear to be related, we assume all these features were made during the fall.

Specimens of the Pitts meteorite are in the following collections:
U. S. National Museum, 1,198 grams, Washington, D. C.

The edges of the two metallic bodies shown at the top of this illustration curl over onto the silicate-troilite areas which

American Museum of Natural History, 46 grams, New York, New York.

undercut the metallic masses. Most of the silicate-troilite Academy of Sciences, 4 grams, Moscow, U. S. S. R.

areas are covered with a dark colored fusion product.

The surface of this meteorite is obviously complex. Perry, 1944, observed that the fragments of the Pitts fall had furrowed and sculptured surfaces. He also noticed the freshly fractured surfaces and assumed that a sizeable mass, after partly completing its flight in the air, broke apart.

REFERENCES
McCallie, S. W., 1922. The Pitts Meteorite. The Amer. Journ. of Sci., Vol. 3, pp. 211-215.
Perry, S. H., 1944. The Metallography of Meteoritic Iron. U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 184, p. 93.

127

PITTS

'(_,

0 L.

L

2
~-N'N> ~l -~ ., .$...

.. :.~,

4

.L ..... , ....

5
.. .__i

CM.

0

2.

4

5 CM

Opposite sides of the Pitts meteorite. The metallic areas, which stand out in relief, show the usual sculpturing of iron meteorites. Shallow irregular depressions in the metallic phase are separated by rounded ridges. The rough areas consist of silicate minerals and troilite.
128

PITTS

The upper picture shows a hole through the Pitts meteorite. The portion that is out of focus is where the focal length of the lens is less than the distance between the rim on the meteorite and the hole. The markings and the rim of overhanging metal around the hole are discussed in the text. The lower picture shows the same holt> from the opposite side. The upper picture is 8X and the lower one 3X.

14. Pulaski County
In the fall of 1955, Mr. John Peterson of Hapeville, Georgia, brought to the Department of Mines, Mining and Geology in Atlanta, Georgia, a 116 gram piece of metal he found in a pasture in Pulaski County. Its metallic nature indicated that it was a meteorite thus Furcron referred it to the U. S. National Museum to be compared with some of the other iron meteorites from Georgia.
All the authors know about this new find is given here. We assume the sample came from the place designated by the finder and that the absence of further information means that no additional samples have been found. Since two years have passed and nothing more has been iearned about this discovery we are releasing this information in hopes that someone will search this area for specimens of this meteorite.

Although the sample Mr. Peterson found was small and partly altered he consented to having one of its faces polished for study. The average width of the kamacite lamellae on this surface was 1.3 millimeters, thus, this iron is tentatively classified as a coarse octahedrite. A few small cohenite inclusions are present. There was not enough material to properly compare this discovery with the other iron meteorites but the nearest known iron to where this new fall was discovered is the Sardis iron. The two localities are about 100 miles apart.
The coordinates of the point of discovery of the Pulaski County iron are approximately 32 15' N. and 83 30' W. and those of the Sardis iron are 32 57' N. and 81 52' W. The Sardis iron is also a coarse octahedrite and contains no cohenite, however possibly cohenite is present as it is a common mineral in coarse octahedrites. The kamacite bands in

129

PUTNAM COUNTY

The fine octahedral pattern of this iron extends throughout the entire specimen. Numerous plessite areas are present but the most conspicuous feature is the almost parallel arrangement of the large irregular kamacite areas. Around these there are wide taenite bands. These large kamacite areas formed at a different time than did the fine kamacite lamellae in the matrix. The fractures which extend across this iron follow the kamacitic lamellae.

the Pulaski County and the Sardis are different so we consider these two meteorites are different.
Mr. Peterson who was asked to look for more specimens has not reported any new discoveries. The sample, identified as the Pulaski County meteorite, was returned to him.
15. Putnam County
This 72 pound iron, a fine octahedrite, was found in 1839 but it was several years before it was recognized as a meteorite. When an attempt was made to raise the sample they found it was unusually heavy, hence the finders were curious

about its compos1t10n. The sample was carried to a blacksmith for testing and because the smith had such difficulty in breaking it, the object was set aside where it remained for several years.
According to J. E. Willet and C. U. Shepard, 1854, it
weighed 60 pounds when finally presented to Mercer University, Macon, Georgia.1 They further stated, "... in shape it represents a rude triangular pyramid with its base and edges rounded and its faces exposing many knobs and
lA recent communication from Mercer University, Macon, Georgia, reports that the whereabouts of this meteorite is unknown.

130

depressions." The polished and etched surface of the specimen in the U. S. National Museum Collections shows a fine octahedrite structure.
The fine octahedral pattern is interrupted with irregularly shaped, elongated kamacite bodies which are enclosed by broad taenite bands. Similar conspicuous coarse kamacite areas occur in octahedrites and are not fully understood. These features are unrelated to the fine octahedral pattern which surrounds them. The coarse areas possibly transformed at a higher temperature than the narrow kamacite lamellae in the groundmass.
Features such as described above occur in other meteorites such as the: Edmonton, Kentucky; Iron Creek, Alberta, Canada; Ivanpah, California and others.
Thin taenite bands surround the fine kamacite lamellae and thicker taenite bands encompass the larger irregular kamacite bodies. There is more plessite in this iron than is evident at first glance because the colors of both the kamacite and plessite are nearly the same.
The illustrated specimen is nearly an inch thick. The fractures which almost cross the etched face follow the octahedral pattern as do the cracks near the edge of this slice. The main fracture extends through this thick slice but the others do not. How these cracks were made is a matter of some interest. Since the etched structures on the opposite sides of the main fracture show no off-setting, the fracture probably is not a primary feature. These could have formed when the meteorite struck the ground or they could represent weathering but more likely these were made by the smith, who tried to break the specimen.
Cohen, 1905, published the following analysis of the Putnam County iron:

Fe Ni Co Cu Cr S P 90.28 7.89 0. 79 0.07 0.17 0.25 0.11

Analysts Baauer and Berger

The plowman who snagged his plow, was curious about what

was there, as he had visions of someday locating buried treas-

ure. He hoped that the object which caught his plow would

bring him luck. After considerable digging he satisfied him-

self that nothing of value was hidden either around or be-

neath the mass. Realizing it was heavy, he dug a deep hole

under it and buried the object so his plow would not hit it.

A small piece that was broken off was later identified as

an iron meteorite, so the main mass had to be re-excavated.

This meteorite was partly discussed in the introduction, and

what was said there will not be repeated here. Although its

date of fall is unknown, everybody agrees that the Sardis iron

is an old fall.

When the specimen arrived at the U. S. National Museum

it measured 33 by 28 by 12 inches, but its shape and dimen-

sions are not important because its form had been modified by

weathering. The specimen, including the material attached

to it, weighed 1, 760 pounds and did not look like a meteorite,

(see illustration). The object shown in the illustration is

altered meteorite, enclosed in sandy material. The grains of

sand are bonded together and onto the meteorite with sec-

ondary brown iron and nickel oxides.

Although this iron was found near some of the elliptical

bays which have by some been called meteorite scars, Hen-

derson and Cooke, 1942, do not believe there is any relation-

ship between the meteorite and these bays.

A sizeable piece of altered meteorite was found when the

main mass was excavated and the unaltered metallic iron

within it is shown in an accompanying illustration. The

etched pattern of the iron is that of a coarse octahedrite and

a chemical analysis, made upon a portion of the metal re-

moved from this piece, is as follows:

Fe

Ni

Co

P

s

Analyst

92.08 6.69 0.47 0.24 trace

Henderson

Specimens of the Putnam meteorite are in the following This meteorite decomposes quickly. Although the iron

collections:
~~-l:J:--Sc-National Museum-Harvard University American Meteorite Museum

- -- 2,712 grams- - Washington, D. C.
2,311 grams Cambridge, Mass. 1,387 grams Sedona, Arizona

was bright when the picture was made, within three months _ it had oxidized to a pile of unconsolidated brow_n__iLQU_Qxide.~~
Buddhue, 1944 and 1957, published the following analyses of the alteration products.

Yale University

397 grams

Chicago Museum of Natural History 54 grams

American Museum of Natural History 37 grams

Boston Society of Natural History (not given)

Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum

136 grams

British Museum (Natural History) 112 grams

Academy of Sciences

28 grams

Museum d'Histoire Naturelle

26 grams

Museo de Madrid

41 grams

University of Strasbourg

22 grams

University of Bonn

4 grams

Hungarian National Museum

21 grams

Vatican

1 gram

REFERENCES

New Haven, Conn. Chicago, Illinois New York, N. Y. Boston, Mass. Vienna, Austria London, England Moscow, U.S.S.R. Paris, France Madrid, Spain Strasbourg, France Bonn, Germany Budapest, Hungary Vatican City, Italy

The composition of the alti"Tation products of the Sardis

meteorite.

(1944)

2 (1957)

FeO

16.75

18.30

Fe203 NiO CoO H20H20 CaO

58.67 4.63 0.70 2.86
7.96 0.30

64.40 5.60 0.76 3.13 8.70

Cr203

0.02

P205

1.28

SOs

0.89

Insol.

4.68

Cohen, E., 1905. Classification und Nomenclatur; Kornige bis dicht

Pt.

0.30 oz/ton

Eisen; Hexaedrite; oktaedrite mit feinsten und feine Lamellen; Meteoriten Kunde. Heft 3, pp. 343-345.
Willet, J. E., and Shepard, C. U., 1854. Description of meteoric iron
from Putnam County, Georgia. Amer. Journ. Sci. ( 2), vol. 17,
pp. 331-332.

Buddhue had these comments on analysis one, "... The Sardis oxide contained also some chlorine and the determination of platinum metals in it was made on a sample containing a considerable proportion of metal. It should be noted

16. Sardis, Jenkins County

that, since the Sardis oxide was formed largely since its excavation, it is very rich in FeO . . .".

The Sardis iron was found in Jenkins County but was named after. the nearest town, Sardis, which is in Burke County. This altered iron might be one of the oldest meteorites, having fallen in Miocene times, however, this cannot be proven. This rusty old meteorite was discovered in 1940 by a farmer plowing a field which had been continuously under cultivation for more than fifty years.
Those who had farmed this field for scores of years could not recall a depression or a crater where the iron was found.

Buddhue's comments on analysis two, "... One apparently solid piece weighing about five pounds completely disintegrated in the museum in about three months time. Analyses . . . . refers to the resulting "fresh oxide." An abundance of large particles of metal were removed, but some minute particles may have escaped and could account for the unusually large amount of FeO. The rapid oxidization suggest lawrencite but this mineral was not mentioned in the original description nor was the metal analyzed for

131

SARDIS
A
I3 A. This sample measures 33 x 28 x 16 inches high and does not even resemble a meteorite. As its alteration products diffused through the surrounding sand precipitation occurrt>d and bonded the grains to the meteorite. Possibly, the surface fractures represent some volumt> adjustment that occurred as the enclosed meteorite altered. B. The coarse kamacite grains are separated by fractures which are partly filled with oxide. The clark area at the left is a side of the meteorite that is below the plain or the polished fact>. This specimen decomposed to unconsolidated rust within 6 or 8 weeks after this surface was prepared. Natural size.
132

SMITHONIA

A photograph of the second section cut from the Smithonia iron, taken at oblique illumination to show the Neumann lines. Since Neumann lines were not noticed in the first cut, this iron was described as a nickel-poor-ataxite. In places where the Neumann lines disappear before the edge of the section is reached we assume that externally

applied heat obliterated these lines. Although the meteorite was badly weathered when found, apparently not much metal was lost from this area because the widths of the places that are free from Neumann lines are about the same as the thermally altered zones found around other iron meteorites. Natural size.

chlorine. However, good positive tests for chlorine and nickel

17. Smithonia, Oglethorpe County

--~

0wfeorexl"odeb.tazi.naerd~~litne

awadsisati1lsloedr;owtead.te r

Tehxt e

ract Iof a ana ysls,

as~meaxlpleblcutbmedlp'-----a5Tohu"1'sCfw9e4a0tohyeCreod-m1 erottn-Smimeitreiooinist.e,Tiai- choemx:ashpeodnndeteri,Cwe-awsitfho. utnhd e~~-

-

shows wou ld

nhoavse1g1"mf tfhlceanotldchoxa1n"dgee

hmadmbcekeenl

caonnatIeynzet db.,u t

1t

pro

a

Y

HU"1.sSto. rNy,atMw rn.asl1Mmumsoenusmsaa1"ndd1tthweaCs hf"o1ucangdo aMbouusteu1m5 mof1rNesafturorma 1

There is a possibility that this iron fell into the ocean and Athens in Oglethorpe County, Georgia.

if true it was wet with sea water. But there is another possible The iron was purchased by the Chicago Museum and de-

source for the chlorides. The material analyzed came from the mass shown in the accompanying illustration and was cut in the laboratories of the U. S. National Museum on a saw where the abrasive was washed onto the cutting band with tap water. The Washington city water contains chlorides -and since the cutting rate of the band saw is slow this speci-

scribed by Roy and Wyant, 1950. The specimen, when found, had already separated along some of its cleavages, thus, it had an unusual appearance for an iron meteorite. It weighed 154 pounds when received at the Chicago Museum but a substantial amount had been lost by weathering.
Chemically, the Smithonia iron agrees with the other hexa-

men could pick up considerable quantities of chlorides. This hedrites and the analysis is as follows:

meteorite contained numerous fractures and had a porous oxide coating, thus, an appreciable amount of the chlorides in the alteration products might have been introduced dur-

Fe 93.43

Ni 5.58

Co 0.68

P 0.20

s
0.10

Analyst Wyant

ing the cutting operation.

When this meteorite was described, its structure was exam-

The exact size of the Sardis meteorite will never be known but it was a large iron and apparently the largest so far found in the southeastern states. The main mass of this meteorite is in the U. S. National Museum.

ined on a section from near the surface. As that piece had none of the orderly arrangement of hexahedrites, Roy and Wyant, 1950, concluded it was a nickel-poor-ataxite. However, when the section, here illustrated, was received in exchange by the U. S. National Museum, it was polished and

the inner portion displayed Neumann lines. This meteorite

REFERENCES

should be listed as a hexahedrite rather than a nickel-poorataxite.

Buddhue, J. D., 1944. The Formation of Meteoritic Iron oxide. Pop.

The main mass is in the Chicago Museum of Natural His-

Ast., vol. 52, pp. 346-354.

tory. Five hundred seventy-four grams are in the U. S.

~~~-, 1957. The Oxidation and Weathering of Meteorites. National Museum, Washington, D. C.

University of New Mexico Publication in Meteoritics, No. 3,

pp. 122-123.

REFERENCES

Henderson, E. P. and Cooke, C. W., 1942. The Sardis (Georgia) Roy, S. K. and Wyant, R. W., 1950. The Smithonia meteorite. Geol.

Meteorite. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 92, pp. 141-150.

Series, Field Museum of Nat. Hist., vol. 7, pp. 129-134.

133

18. Social Circle, Walton County
This 219 pound iron deserves more recognition than it has received, because it is uniformly granulated throughout. Some iron meteorites display a degree of granulation but we seldom know that the modified structure extends through the entire iron. This iron apparently was reheated since it originally cooled and before it entered our atmosphere. Many irons, when sectioned, show evidence of secondary reheating near their surfaces. The uniform granulation, shown in the accompanying illustration, indicates that it was not reheated above a comparatively low temperature.
The Social Circle iron was recognized in 1926 on the W. B. Spearman's plantation in Walton County, Georgia. It had been in the possession of the family for several years before the state geologist of Georgia, S. W. McCallie, acquired and described it.
This iron, when discovered, had the appearance of an old fall. Its surface had weathered to a point that all of the flight crust had vanished. Although it is impossible to estimate when this iron fell, it may not be an old fall because this meteorite happens to be one that alters rather rapidly.
The Georgia Department of Mines, Mining and Geology, kindly loaned the meteorite to the U. S. National Museum several years ago where it was cut and examined by Henderson and Perry, 1951. The iron was cut in half, essentially parallel to its long dimension. Next, several slices were taken from one of the halves at right angles to the direction of the first cut. By etching these different surfaces it was determined that the 219 pound iron was uniformly granulated.
Everhart's analysis did not conform to the view of Perry and Henderson regarding the relationship of the etched structure. The percentage of nickel reported from this iron was not agreed upon so a re-analysis was made.

knowledge about thermal penetration during flight is far from being satisfactory, existing evidence shows that the only changes made are those limited to a zone of a few millimeters at the surface of the meteorite.
The usual heating a meteorite receives in forges, burning buildings, or in fireplaces does not materially alter its internal structure. Although man could heat treat an iron meteorite and produce these changes, it requires more equipment than is available to the average man, so we believe the thermal changes noted in this meteorite were made outside our atmosphere.
The reheating of this iron occurred after these kamacitr bands formed. Although the iron could have been heated to a very high temperature for a limited interval, it is more logical to assume that it was heated to a comparativdy low trmperature for a longer period of time.
Recently, a sample of the Glorieta, New Mexico, iron was heated in the laboratories of the U. S. National Museum for 25 hours at 750 C. During the treatment no appreciable changes occurred in the structure that could be detected by the unaided eye. A well defined kamacite lamellae remained and the kamacite was not granulated. Molecular migration at 750 C. is sluggish and 25 hours of heating at this temperature was not enough to produce features such as one sees in the heat treated zones around some of the iron meteorites.
The Glorieta iron contains 11.79 percent Ni while the Social Circle iron has only 7.44 percent Ni. There is a large difference in the nickel content of these two meteorites. Thus, the Glorieta which contains the most Ni should be more sensitive to changes at lower temperatures than the iron in the Social Circle meteorite.

Composition of the Social Circle Meteorite

Fe

Ni

Co

Cu

Sn

p

Analyst

1. 94.07 5.02 0.35 trace 0.09 0.09 Everhart

2. 91.83' 7.44 0.38 n.d. n.d. trace Henderson

3. 92.06' 7.44 0.50'

Henderson

The Fe, Ni, and Co values in analysis number three are consistent with analyses of other octahedrites which have simiilar structures. The kamacite bands in this iron have an average width of between 0.3 and 0.5 millimeters and are separated by well defined taenite lamellae. Other than a few small troilite and schreibersite bodies no noteworthy inclusions were seen in this iron. If this meteorite is classified by its widths of kamacite bands it is a granulated fine octahedrite.
The granulation shown in the accompanying illustration indicates that the reheating was limited to the lower temperatures needed to produce structural changes in iron meteorites. However, it is impossible to establish when, where, or what the temperature was to which this iron was raised. All nickeliron diagrams show the solubility of nickel in iron decreases as the temperature is raised. So, in the reheating of a meteorite the first changes occur in the kamacite. In this case the kamacite lamellae are granulated but the taenite lamellae, separating the kamacite bands, are unchanged. Kamacite granulates before taenite disappears because its ability to retain nickel in solution decreases much more rapidly than taenite as the temperature is raised.
Because of the size of the Social Circle iron its thermal alteration occurred outside the atmosphere and not in the seconds required to fall through the air. Although our present

'Since the re-analysis of the Sardis iron was made, others have found that the cobalt in iron meteorites averages about 0.50 percent, thus, this amount is taken in plact of the 0.38 percent reported in the re-analysis. Using 0.50 and 7.44 for cobalt and nickel respectively iron was determined by difference.

SOCIAL CIRCLE
This is the appearance of the Social Circle meteorite when it was picked up by State Geologist S. W. McCallie May 1926. The notch represents iron removed by a colored man who used 11 hack saw blades. McCallie's original analysis of nickel was made from this removed section.
The taenite lamellae in the Social Circle (see illustration) are well defined and continuous throughout the specimen. If the temperature was sustained very long, the taenite lamellae probably would not be as well defined as they are. The habit of the taenite in this meteorite is rather good evidence that the temperature to which this iron was reheated was a moderate one.
Dr. Charles P. Olivier 1 states that some astroids have orbits that take them inside the orbits of Venus and one or two of them inside the orbit of Mercury. Thus, many meteorites may have these same orbits, and possibly the Social Circle iron had an elliptical orbit with a perihelion distance near enough to the sun to be reheated.
1Personal communications.

134

SOCIAL CIRCLE A

B

A. A section through the Social Circle iron showing a uniform structure. If a straight edge is slid over this picture, parallel to the structure, the entire area has the same crystallographic orientation. Small rounded troilite inclusions are present but the irregular dark areas near the edge represent secondary iron oxide weathering. All the original flight surface is gone, so, only a guess can be made about the orientation during its fall. Possibly the upper side was the forward

face, however, this assumption is based upon the shape of this cross section. 44 per cent reduction.
B. The thin ridges, separating the granulated narrow bands, are taenite. The granulated portion, kamacite, probably once had a homogeneous crystalline structure but during reheating the meteorite received, this granulated texture developed. If the temperature attained during that reheating was high the taenite bands would have disappeared.

135

THOMSON

A

B

A. A typical black fusion crust on a freshly fallen stony meteorite. Natural size.
B. A polished surface showing a gray interior containing thin black glassy veins, also a large black glassy area. Numerous small metallic inclusions of both nickel-iron and iron sulfide (troilite) occur in the gray groundmass. The same inclusions are found in the large black body. Note the sharp contact between the fused crust and the gray interior.

Specimens of the Social Circle meteorite are in the following

collections:

U. S. National Museum Georgia State Capitol Museum

1,377 grams Washington, D. C. Main Mass Atlanta, Ga.

REFERENCES
Henderson, E. P. and Perry, S. H., 1951. A Restudy of the Social Circle, Georgia, Meteorite. Amer. Min., val. 36, pp. 603-608.
McCallie, S. W., 1927. Notes on the Social Circle Meteorite. Amer. Journ. Sci. (5), val. 13, p. 360.

19. Thomson, McDuffie County
This 234 gram stony meteorite, a chondrite, was acquired by the U.S. National Museum in 1909 from George H. Plant of Macon, Georgia. Little is known about its early history because it had been in private hands for many years before Mr. Plant obtained the specimen.
The Thomson meteorite was described by G. P. Merrill, 1909 who refers to a letter from the finder, B. F. Wilson to I. C. Plant of November 26, 1888, which stated, " .... The stone sent you was picked up by the undersigned on October 15th, four miles south of Thomson. It fell within thirty yards of where the writer was at work." Merrill continues, "... Mr. Wilson was picking cotton at the time, and his first impression was that someone had thrown a huge stone at his head. He then noticed where the meteorite fell, some thirty steps away. It was buried some six or eight inches in the earth and he dug it up with a spade. Only one stone fell."
This small stone at the end of its trajectory was falling so slowly that it made no sound. Possibly sounds were heard elsewhere as the meteorite streaked through the sky. Several meteorites have fallen very close to observers without any sounds being made to alert a person that such an important event was about to happen.

Although our examination of this specimen was made after the polished face shown in the accompanying picture was made, it is possible to establish how the stone was orientated at the end of its high velocity flight. Around the edges of the face that is covered with the fusion crust (see illustration) there are some delicate flight features which show that this was the rear face.
Where the crust is missing on the polished face, the gray interior of the stone can be seen and the circular outline of some chondrules. Merrill reported that the two chief constituents are enstatite and olivine. One can easily recognize troilite and nickel iron in this enstatite.
Some of the numerous narrow, black veins which occur within this meteorite can be seen in the illustration showing the polished surface. A few of these veins are also visible where the flight crust is missing. Similar black veins in other stony meteorites have been investigated and they seem to have about the same chemical composition as the groundmass in which they occur. These veins consist of black, glassy material which possibly represents the fusion of material similar to the enclosing groundmass. Although these are called veins, there is a distinction between these and a vein in terrestrial rocks. Usually a geologist thinks of a vein as having a different chemical composition than the rock enclosing it, but veins in stony meteorites are essentially the same as the enclosing groundmass.
The large black band in the accompanying illustration contains inclusions of troilite and nickel-iron. Actually, these minerals are about as abundant in the black band as they are within the gray portion of the meteorite. The wide, black band of glassy material, and the smaller veins we believed existed before the stone entered our atmosphere. We suspect these veins were fractures through which some molten material flowed. This could not take place during the time this object was a small mass traveling in space or during the interval it passed through our atmosphere. These must have occurred when this meteorite was a part of the parent body in which it was made, because the mechanics of making these veins is inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen while a meteorite is in flight.
These small veins could not be filled with glassy material unless the enclosing gray material was also quite hot. Also,

136

the glassy material must have been hot enough to flow easily The numerous internal fractures, which prevented us from

through small cracks. If the matrix was cooler than the getting a cross section, may have been opened in the beating

molten material, the latter would not pent>trate far into this iron received. However, the alteration products which

narrow openings.

form between the grains of some iron meteorites might exert

The thickness of the black fusion crust can be seen around enough force to separate the mass. At least many of the

the edges of the polished face. Usually the crust is thin on weathered coarse granular meteorites have veins of oxide be-

the front face but it may thicken at the contact of the front tween the grains and often open cracks separate these grains.

and rear faces.

Unfortunately, the manner in which the Twin City iron

The only specimen of the Thomson meteorite is the 234 gram specimen in the U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.
REFERENCE
Merrill, G. P., 1909. A Heretofore Undescribed Stony Meteorite from Thomson, McDuffie County. Smith. Misc., vol. V, pp. 473-476.

was found made it impossible for the authors to get detailed information about the following: ( 1) Was the iron completely buried in the soil or was it partly exposed? (2) Do additional pieces exist? (3) Soil samples from around the meteorite collected to determine the nickel profile would be not dependable in this sand.
A preliminary chemical analysis shows that this iron con-

20. Twin City, Emanuel County

tains 29.91 percent Ni and 0.51 percent Co1 . The sulphur and phosphorus content of the acid soluble portion is 0.046

This altered nickel-rich ataxite was found by JoeL. Drake and 0.34 percent respectively. About 2 percent of this mete-

while working for the Emanuel County Highway Department orite is insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid and most of the

in 1955 and was recognized as a meteorite by Furcron and residue is a phosphide. Chemically this iron is similar to the

Henderson. The meteorite was found eight miles due east Lime Creek, Alabama, meteorite which according to Knaub-

of Twin City and the intersection of U. S. 80 and Georgia er's analysis (Cohen 1905) contained 31.06 percent Ni.

123. It was picked up in front of the home of Ben Robert The Lime Creek iron, like the Twin City specimen, was

Gay on the west side of the county road, 1.2 miles west of badly altered when discovered near Clairbourne, Monroe

the Bulloch County line, and 1.75 miles airline S 59 E of County, Alabama, 1834. According to Jackson, 1838, it was

St. Paul's Church. Mr. Drake, at the time, was scraping the found on the surface of the ground, had an irregular triangu-

road and the object was found loose in front of the scraper. lar shape, with dimensions of about 10 inches long by 5 or 6

Thus, it is possible that it had been pushed northwestward inches in thickness and "was too heavy for one man to carry

to the discovery point for as much as 50 yards. At this place conveniently." Jackson's description seems to describe the

the country is quite sandy and the fields on both sides of the Twin City iron almost as well as it does the Lime Creek

road are about at road level. Circumstances connected with meteorite.

its discovery would indicate that it could not have been buried Both are small and extensively weathered irons, chemically

more than a few feet at most and that it fell in sand.

similar and distinctly unique from all the known meteorites

Mr. Drake took the specimen home and a small sample in the Southeast. Although the two localities, from whence of it was later sent to the Georgia Geological Survey by his these irons came, are approximately 300 miles apart, the

son Billy. At the time of its discovery it was thought that it similarity between these irons raises the old question, e. g.,

might represent a variety of rare metal, possibly gold. Thus should the Lime Creek, Alabama, and the Twin City, Georgia,

the meteorite was beaten considerably with a hammer and _specimens be regarded as paired falls?

inasmuch as this specimen was considerably weathered, a good

Because of these unusual high nickel percentages one- is--~-~

deal of damage was done.

tempted to claim the two irons have a common origin. Cer-

The total weight of the specimen which was purchased from Billy Drake was 11 pounds, 3 ounces, but the appearance of the specimen would indicate that a piece had dropped off or come off, possibly when it was beaten, which might amount to as much as a third of the present weight. Also, a small fragment weighing 60.25 grams was later purchased from a little girl and is now in the collection of Hugh Howard of Atlanta.
The specimen, received in Washington, had little loose oxide attached to it but it was badly fractured. In places, some freshly broken surfaces indicated that some pieces were missing. Although we do not know how much was lost, we are told that the specimen received represents the bulk of what was found.
The Twin City iron when sectioned in the U. S. National Museum's laboratory was found to consist of large grains interlocked with one another because of their irregularities. Since many of the grains were separated by open fractures it was impossible to get a complete cross section through this iron. The polished surfaces of these pieces quickly tarnished during the humid weather, indicating that the alteration products which covered the iron at the time it was found could have formed within a few years.

tainly it would be a coincidence if these irons fell at different times and struck the earth within such a short distance of each other. Although such a thing could happen we prefer to assume that these two irons fell almost simultaneously.
The Lime Creek meteorite f~ll long enough before 1834 for it to become weathered. When it fell is anyone's guess but for convenience we have assumed that 25 to 30 years is enough time for the Lime Creek iron to acquire the amount of alteration it had at the time it was found. This pushes its fall back to about 1800.
Mention was earlier made about the alteration products that formed quickly on the Twin City meteorite when it was polished in the laboratory. This makes one wonder if it fell as long ago as 1800. However, iron meteorites that are exposed in nature seem to alter slower than the specimens that are stored indoors. Some irons, unless special precautions are taken alter faster after they are placed in a building than they do when they are unprotected in the field. One possible reason for this is the iron chlorides which form on the meteorite that is stored inside remain in contact with the iron and continue to attack the metal. Much of the iron chloride that forms on a meteorite that is out of doors is washed off by rain water.
Some of the samples of terrestrial iron in the U. S. National

Nothing about this meteorite suggests it is a recent fall Museum which proved difficult to preserve within the Mu-

but some indirect evidence indicates that it possibly fell about 150 years ago; If true, the alteration products that were found on this iron must have inhibited further decomposition.

seum became relatively stable when exposed in an open court
!These figures were confirmed by Dr. Harrison Brown and his associates at California Institute 0 of Technology.

137

TWIN CITY A

B

A. Polished surface showing two interlocking grains. This is but a

portion of the cross section of this iron. Some precipitation occurred

along the grain boundaries.

Natural size, nita! etching.

B. The altered surface of the Twin City meteorite. All the original flight markings have be('n lost. About natural size.

138

TWIN CITY

,,

The lines extending from the lower right diagonally towards the upper left apparently are slip bands. Movement has occurred along these because the delicate lines which cross the heavy lines are curved. The diagonal black vein, through the center is filled with secondary oxide

and represents an old fracture. The small angular inclusion in the

upper right corner is schreibersite and the dark spots surrounding this

body may be phosphide particles.

4 percent picral acidified-

30 seconds-20x.

139

i'
\ A

TWIN CITY

{

/

; p ; '

/

I'

,,,, ... f

\ ' \-

\,'
, \

\

~

' ., '< '~

.\ )
--::;---... I

/ I \
,"i
,\ \ ~~

r

"

\ \

\ .

i!: \

...

/

t>

..

,.,...' >,'

'

I

I

{

-,,"'-

I
\
;I

B

v.' }
\
\

c

D

A. The rhabdite inclusions are partly rounded and since they usually have sharply defined sides it suggests that this iron was reheated and these inclusions began to dissolve in the matrix. 4 percent picral acidified with HCL-30 sec.--lOOx.

B. Oxidized needles of kamacite which are neither deformed or

broken by any of the movement that took place within the iron. The

finely divided dark bodies which make up the broken lines suggest

some distortion occurred in the matrix. The kamacite needles intersect

at approximately 60.

Unetched-100x.

C. Oxidized kamacite spindles produce a skeleton-like Widmanstatten pattern. Iron oxide fills a fracture extending across the entire area of the field but no appreciable displacement occurred along this fracture. 4 per cent picral acidified-30 sec.-100x.

D. Oxidized kamacite needles intersecting each other at approximate-

Specimens of the Union County iron are reported in the

following collections:

Amherst College

2,225 grams

American Meteorite Museum

343 grams

U. S. National Museum

118 grams

Yale University

216 grams

American Museum of Nat'l History 59 grams

Chicago Museum of Nat'l History

67 grams

Harvard University

35 grams

Universite de Strasbourg

141 grams

British Museum (Natural History) 98 grams

Museum d'Histoire N aturelle

72 grams

Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum

16 grams

Hungarian National Museum

4 grams

Amherst, Mass. Sedona, Ariz.
Washington, D. c.
New Haven, Conn. New York, N.Y. Chicago, Ill. Cambridge, Mass. Strasbourg, France London, England
Paris, France Vienna, Austria Budapest, Hungary

ly 60 at an angular phosphide inclusion. Some of the light colored

portions within these kamacite spindles may be phosphide inclusions.

The largest kamacite lamellae are slightly displaced at the fracture

which is filled with iron oxide.

2 percent nital-15 sec.-500 x.

REFERENCES
Brezina, A., 1885. Die Meteoritensammulung desk. k. Mineralogischen Hofcabinetes in Wien am 1 Mai 1885, pp. 217, 234.
Meunier, S., 1893. Recision des fers Meteoriques de la collection du

Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, p. 288.

Shepard, C. U., 1854. New Localities of Meteoritic iron. Amer. Jour.

yard. Also, some meteorites which fell many years ago and

Sci. (2) vol. 17, p. 325-330.

seemed stable when found, decomposed at a rapid rate when placed inside.
The photomicrographs made by C. R. Simco, Battelle Memorial Institute, show numerous kamacite spindles arranged

GLOSSARY OF SCIENTIFIC TERMS
The technical terms used in this discussion are defined in this glossary and the numbers, which follow the definitions, refer to the following sources where additional information may be found if it is

in a trigonal pattern in a taenite matrix. This structure, in needed.

some respects, is similar to what Perry, 1944, found for the Lime Creek iron. In two of the accompanying pictures, a series of parallel lines are shown within the meteorite. Although these are not fully understood they resemble Neumann lines that are common in kamacitic iron. The analysis of the

1. Any standard textbook on mineralogy. 2. Meteorites, 0. C. Farington, 1915, privately published. 3. The Metallography of Meteoritic Iron, S. H. Perry, 1945, U. S.
National Museum Bull. 184.

Acicular

.Needle like crystals.

Twin City meteorite indicates that its matrix is essentially Ataxite ... taenite and most pictures of taenite show that it is free from Neumann lines.

. Iron meteorites after being etched that do not show an orderly arrangement of their structures. Nickel-poor-ataxites, iron meteorites with ataxitic structures which contain less than 6 percent Ni.

Although the rounded phosphide bodies in one of the accompanying pictures suggests that this meteorite at sometime was reheated, this reheating if it occurred, must have happened before the Neumann lines were formed, because Neu-

Nickel-rich-ataxites, iron meteorites with ataxitic structures which contain considerable more Ni than most other iron meteorites. The lower and upper Ni percentages of this group are not sharply defined but usually there is more than 10 percent and less

mann lines in kamacite are quickly obliterated by reheating
---and there is-noreasoritosuspect thaCNel1m-anrilines-intaenite--c~b.~cii;-:
would be any more resistant to heat.

than 30 percent of Ni in these iron meteorites.
An iron carbide, Fe3C which usually occurs as small irregular inclusions within the kamacite la-

The main mass of the Twin City iron is in the collections of the Department of Mines, Mining and Geology, at Atlanta

mellae and is essentially found in the coarse octahedrites. (3)

and one slice is in the U.S. National Museum in Washington, Chondrite D. C. A 60.25 gram sample is in the private collection of Hugh Howard, Atlanta, Georgia.

... A stony meteorite containing small rounded silicate inclusions called chondrules. These usually consist of enstatite, hypersthene, olivine, feldspars and some glass and have peculiar internal structures.

Sometimes the individual chondrules are easily

21. Union County

separated but usually are firmly bonded together. Their outside surface is rough. Chondrules, if pres-

Although there are samples of the Union County, Georgia, meteorite in many different collections, there is little definite information recorded about its history or composition.

ent, usually can be recognized once the interior of the stone is exposed. They are conspicuous on polished surfaces or in thin sections. Terrestrial rocks do not contain chondrules. ( 2)

Shepard, 1854, described a small piece he received weighing 1 pound 7% ounces, which came from an iron weighing about 15 pounds, from Union County, Georgia. He said, " .... It appears to have formed a portion of a somewhat tabular mass about 2 inches in thickness. It was coated on three sides with a thin scaly covering of brownish-black peroxide of iron." The other two sides present the appearance of fresh fracture. He observed that the iron did not give a Widmanstatten structure when etched.
This meteorite is a coarse octahedrite with large irregular areas of kamacite and without appreciable plessite. There are many coarse octahedrites which have structures like those which occur in the Union meteorite.
Brezina, 1885 and Meunier, 1893, both called attention to the resemblance of this iron with the one from Nelson County, Kentucky. There is no reliable analysis of the Union County meteorite.

Diopside Eutectic
Feldspars

. A common mineral in meteorites and terrestrial rocks. Chemically, it is a calcium magnesium silicate and a member of the pyroxene group of minerals.
. This is best explained by an example. Silver melts at 962 C. and copper at 1084 C. but an alloy made of 72 percent silver and 28 percent copper melts at 778 o C. Thus, certain proportions of copper lowers the melting point below the normal melting point of silver. The lowest fusion point of such an alloy is the eutectic temperature, the structure of the product that forms at the eutectic temperature has a eutectic structure.
A common mineral" in meteorites and terrestrial rocks. Chemically, the feldspars are silicates of sodium, potassium and calcium. Meteoritic feldspars usually are members of the sodium-calcium series, plagioclase feldspars. The most abundant meteoritic feldspar is near the calcium end of the plagioclase series. ( 1 ) ( 2)

141

Hexahedrites ..... Iron meteorites which are composed almost entirely of kamacite; usually, contain about 5.5 percent Ni and have one or more sets of Neumann lines. Hexahedrites often show cubical cleavage. (2) (3)

Kamacite . .

An essential constitutent in most iron meteorites. This Ni-Fe compound, alpha iron, occurs as a lamella in the octahedrites and as the main constituent in hexahedrites. Kamacite, usually, is enclosed with narrow bands of taenite. (2) (3)

Lamella ......... This is a band or elongated plate, lath-like body.

Lawrencite

.. Ferrous chloride, which forms as drops on the surface of meteorites. This material causes rapid disintegration of many irons and some stony meteorites.

Mesosiderite ..... This term is used in its true etymological sense and here it denotes a group intermediate between the irons arid the stony meteorites and is not descriptive of the silicate minerals that are present.

Neumann lines .

Fine lines which appear on most of the etched surfaces of kamacitic iron. Neumann lines were made when some stress was applied to the metal and are parallel to any pair of faces of a tetragonal trisoctahedron, (trapezohedron) thus several sets of Neu-
mann lines may be present. ( 2) (3)

Transformation ... As iron and nickel alloys cool they separate into two components, kamacite, a low nickel alloy, and taenite, a high nickel alloy. The composition of these components depend upon the temperature at which they separate. Kamacite and taenite have different crystal structures, so when these alloys cool they pass from <!me phase to another; the change is called a transformation. ( 3)

Troilite .......... A sulfide of iron and a familiar mineral in all meteorites. Large masses of troilite occur in the iron meteorites. Troilite has a bronze yellow color, is often darkened by carbon, has a hardness of 4 and is easily attacked by acids. (2) ( 3)

Widmanstatten pattern ........ Some meteorites when etched show a pattern of kamacite lamellae intersecting in such a way that the lamellae are parallel to a face of an octahedron. This was first observed by Avois von Widmanstatten of Vienna while studying the Hraschine mete-
orite. (2) (3)

Zaratite

. ..... A hydrous nickel carbonate, a green secondary mineral found on some weathered meteorites and oxidized nickel bearing rocks.

Octahedrites

.. When the etched surface of an iron meteorite shows a net work of kamacite lamellae, so arranged, that their directions make a trigonal pattern which is parallel to the face of an actahedron, it is called an octahedrite. Irons which have octahedral habits are said to have a Widmanstatten pattern. The octahedrites usually contain between 6 and 12 per-
cent of Ni. (2) (3)

Olivine . .

. .. A common yellowish green mineral which crystallizes in the orthorhombic system and, chemically, is a magnesium iron silicate. Olivine occurs in both terrestrial rocks and in many meteorites. ( 1) ( 2)

Plagioclase

. See feldspars.

Plessite

.... A structural component in octahedrites consisting of a. mixture of kamacite and taenite. Often a piessite area will have delicate structures similar to the Widmanstatten pattern. Plessite fills the space between the octahedral network of kamacite lamellae.
(2) (3)

Pyroxene ........ An important group of rock forming minerals m both terrestrial and meteoritic stones. ( 1)

Schreibersite ..... An iron, nickel cobalt phosphide. A common mineral in iron meteorites which has not been found in terrestrial rocks. Usually occurs as an irregular inclusion, has a tin white color, is brittle, resistant to etching reagents and is strongly magnetic. ( 2)
(3)

Steadite ......... A product which is rejected from a solution of cast iron at a eutectic point. It consists of iron carbide, Fe~C, iron phosphide, FeoP and grains of ferrite,
pure iron. (3)

Swathing kamacite

...... A lamella of kamacite which surrounds inclusions in iron meteorites, usually showing no relationship to the other kamacite lamellae and conforming to the shape of the surrounded inclusion. Swathing kamacite is chemically different from the kamacite in the matrix of the meteorite. (3)

Taenite .......... A nickel rich alloy most frequently seen at the edge of a kamacite lamellae. Has a white color, is resistant to etching reagents and contains no Neumann lines. Taenite rar~ly is a homogeneous compound and where the taenite lamellae are widest, usually some dark taenite is enclosed. The Ni content of taenite varies possibly between 15 and 50
percent. (2) (3)

142